Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels, 89416-89461 [2024-25070]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89416-89461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25070]



[[Page 89415]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 218

November 12, 2024

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 745





Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-
Abatement Clearance Levels; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 89416]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231; FRL-8524-02-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK91


Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead 
Post-Abatement Clearance Levels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: As part of EPA's high-priority efforts to reduce childhood 
lead exposure, and in accordance with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit 2021 opinion, EPA is finalizing its proposal to lower the 
dust-lead hazard standards to any reportable level as analyzed by a 
laboratory recognized by EPA's National Lead Laboratory Accreditation 
Program (NLLAP). EPA's lead-based paint (LBP) regulations do not compel 
property owners or occupants to evaluate their property for LBP hazards 
or to take control actions, but if a LBP activity such as an abatement 
is performed, then EPA's regulations set requirements for doing so. EPA 
is also finalizing changes to lower the post-abatement dust-lead 
clearance levels to 5 micrograms per square foot ([micro]g/ft\2\), 40 
[micro]g/ft\2\, and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and 
troughs respectively, the current levels in New York City. Due to 
feedback from public comments, EPA is also finalizing changes to the 
nomenclature to adopt the terms dust-lead reportable levels (DLRL) and 
dust-lead action levels (DLAL). Given the decoupling of the action 
levels from the reportable levels, EPA is finalizing revisions to the 
definition of abatement so that the recommendation for action based on 
dust-lead applies when dust-lead loadings are at or above the action 
levels, rather than the hazard standards, as has been the case 
historically. The dust-lead hazard standards will be described as DLRL 
moving forward (i.e., after publication of this final rule) and the 
dust-lead clearance levels will be described as DLAL. Additionally, EPA 
is finalizing several other amendments, including revising the 
definition of target housing to conform with the statute.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 13, 2025. The incorporation 
by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of January 13, 2025.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231, is available online 
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additional information about dockets 
generally, along with instructions for visiting the docket in-person, 
is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information: Claire Brisse, Existing Chemicals Risk 
Management Division (7404M), 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].
    For general information on lead: The National Lead Information 
Center, 422 South Clinton Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620; telephone 
number: (800) 424-LEAD [5323]; online form: https://www.epa.gov/lead/forms/lead-hotline-national-lead-information-center.
    For general information on TSCA: The TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: [email protected].
    For hearing- or speech-impaired assistance: Persons may reach the 
telephone numbers for the contacts through TTY by calling the toll-free 
Federal Communications Commission's Telecommunications Relay Service at 
711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you conduct 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 or 
renovations in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226; or if you own, manage, 
and/or conduct abatement, 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 impacted by 
this rule if you administer the LBP activities program in States, 
territories, or Tribes that are authorized by EPA to operate their own 
lead abatement programs (40 CFR part 745, subpart Q) (see Unit V.A. for 
more information). You may also be affected by this action if you 
operate a laboratory that is recognized by EPA's National Lead 
Laboratory Accreditation Program in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90, 
745.223, 745.227, and 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. You may also be affected by this action if 
you are a resident of target housing, even if you would not be subject 
to the requirements of this action. Due to the change in the definition 
of ``target housing,'' you may also be affected if you are a firm or 
individual who must be certified to perform renovations in target 
housing or child-occupied facilities (COFs) in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 745, subpart E.
    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. 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, and property 
owners, as well as those property owners that receive assistance 
through Federal housing programs).
     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) (e.g., those 
laboratories that analyze dust wipe samples for lead).
     Federal agencies that own residential property (NAICS 
codes 92511, 92811).
    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the regulations

[[Page 89417]]

or contact the technical information person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    EPA is finalizing this rule under the authority of sections 401, 
402, 403, 404, and 406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 
U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as amended 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) 
and section 237(c) of Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, 131 Stat. 789), as well as 
sections 1004 and 1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4851b, 4852d), as amended 
by section 237(b) of Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017.
    TSCA section 403 (15 U.S.C. 2683) mandates EPA to identify LBP 
hazards for purposes of administering Title X and TSCA Title IV. Under 
TSCA section 401, LBP hazards 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)) and lead-contaminated dust is 
defined 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)). EPA has referred to the dust-lead 
portion of the LBP hazards as the dust-lead hazard standards. As 
explained in Unit IV.A. of this final rule, going forward EPA is also 
describing these as the dust-lead reportable levels in order to better 
connote their purpose under the revisions. In this document, EPA has 
endeavored to use the term dust-lead hazard standards or DLHS to 
describe the standards in place prior to this final rule and the term 
dust-lead reportable levels or DLRL to describe the standards in place 
going forward.
    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 has referred to 
the dust-lead level to be achieved after the post-abatement clearance 
activities as the dust-lead clearance levels. As explained in Unit 
IV.A. of this final rule, going forward EPA is also describing these as 
the dust-lead action levels in order to better connote their purpose 
under the revisions. In this document, EPA has endeavored to use the 
term dust-lead clearance level or DLCL to describe the standards in 
place prior to this final rule and the term dust-lead action levels or 
DLAL to describe the standards in place going forward.
    EPA's statutory authority for setting the hazard standards is laid 
out differently in Title X and TSCA Title IV than its authority for 
regulating clearance activities. In contrast to the grant of authority 
for setting hazard standards, EPA is directed, in promulgating the LBP 
activities regulations (including the DLAL), to ``tak[e] into account 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety'' (15 U.S.C. 2682(a)(1)).
    Pertaining to the other amendments presented in Unit IV.G. of this 
preamble, TSCA section 406 (15 U.S.C. 2686) requires EPA, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) and with the Secretary of the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ``publish, and from time to time 
revise, a lead hazard information pamphlet to be used in connection 
with this subchapter and section 4852d of title 42.'' TSCA section 406 
(15 U.S.C. 2686) also requires EPA's regulations to require any person 
performing for compensation a renovation of target housing to provide 
the pamphlet to the owner and occupant prior to commencing the 
renovation. Additionally, section 1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4852d) 
mandates that the Lead Warning Statement to be provided in contracts 
for the purchase or sale of target housing include, among other 
language, the following text: ``. . . The seller of any interest in 
residential real property is required to provide the buyer with any 
information on lead-based paint hazards from risk assessments or 
inspections in the seller's possession and notify the buyer of any 
known lead-based paint hazards.'' TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681(17)) 
and section 1004 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4851b), as amended by section 
237(b) and (c) of Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, 131 Stat. 789), define target 
housing as ``any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for 
the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling 
(unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is 
expected to reside in such housing) . . .'' In this context, ``housing 
for the elderly'' refers to retirement communities or similar types of 
housing reserved for households composed of one or more persons 62 
years of age or more at the time of initial occupancy (40 CFR 745.103). 
Note that HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) caveats its definition of 
``housing for the elderly'' at 24 CFR 35.110 to rely on an age other 
than 62 years ``if recognized as elderly by a specific Federal housing 
assistance program.''

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    In 2019, EPA promulgated a final rule to lower the DLHS to 10 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills (the 2019 
Final Rule) (Ref. 2). In 2021, EPA promulgated a final rule to lower 
the DLCL to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills (the 2021 Final Rule) (Ref. 3). The 2019 Final Rule and the 2021 
Final Rule continued a long-standing practice of setting the same 
levels for the DLHS and the DLCL and basing those levels in part on 
consideration of factors such as laboratory capacity and capabilities. 
On August 1, 2023, EPA proposed revisions in keeping with an opinion 
issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Court) 
in 2021 (described in Unit I.D.) that instructed EPA to consider only 
health factors when setting the DLHS (described as DLRL moving forward) 
and that EPA must continue to consider non-health factors (e.g., 
laboratory capabilities/capacity, and achievability after an abatement) 
when setting the DLCL (described as DLAL moving forward). Note that due 
to feedback from public comments, EPA is finalizing the previously 
mentioned changes to the nomenclature, from DLHS to dust-lead 
reportable level and from DLCL to dust-lead action level (see Unit 
IV.A., for more discussion on this terminology change).
    EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to the DLRL from 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, as established 
in the 2019 Final Rule, to any reportable level of dust-lead analyzed 
by a NLLAP-recognized laboratory. The DLRL is not a static level set by 
EPA but rather the numerically reportable level as analyzed by a NLLAP-
recognized laboratory. The approach represents a shift in the LBP 
activities program to a more inclusive DLRL, which will identify dust-
lead hazards in the context of TSCA Title IV as any reportable level of 
dust-lead in target housing and child-occupied facilities and will not 
distinguish based on health risks posed. Additional discussion on DLRL 
can be found in Unit IV.B.
    Additionally, EPA is finalizing a reduction of 50% or more in the 
values set by the 2021 Final Rule to the proposed alternative DLAL, 
from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for dust-lead for floors,

[[Page 89418]]

from 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ dust-lead for window sills and 
from 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ dust-lead for window troughs. 
The reportable level for floors and window sills will not be the same 
as the action level for floors and window sills (i.e., the standards 
will be decoupled), acknowledging the different statutory direction 
that Congress provided EPA with respect to each. As a result, EPA is 
also finalizing the proposed amendment to the LBP activities 
regulations' definition of abatement to be any measure or set of 
measures designed to eliminate LBP hazards, in the case of dust-lead 
hazards, to a level below the final DLAL; thus modifying the trigger so 
that the recommendation for action applies when dust-lead loadings are 
at or above the dust-lead action levels, rather than the hazard 
standards (described as dust-lead reportable levels moving forward), as 
has been the case historically. Note that EPA's LBP regulations do not 
automatically compel property owners or occupants to evaluate their 
property for LBP hazards or to take control actions, but if a LBP 
activity such as an abatement is performed, then EPA's regulations set 
requirements that must be met while doing so. EPA is also finalizing a 
requirement to include an additional statement in the final abatement 
reports that States that LBP hazards (particularly dust-lead hazards) 
remain after an abatement if post-abatement testing has found that 
reportable levels remain below the action levels. See Unit IV.E., and 
Unit IV.F. for additional information on these programmatic changes.
    EPA is also finalizing several other amendments to 40 CFR part 745, 
subparts E (Residential Property Renovation), F (Disclosure of Known 
Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease of 
Residential Property), and L (Lead-Based Paint Activities), including: 
conforming changes to the definition of ``target housing;'' conforming 
the age requirements throughout the LBP regulations to under six years 
old; requiring that application payments, applications, and notices be 
submitted electronically; updating the Disclosure Rule warning 
statement (Ref. 4); correcting an incorrect reference to the lead-
hazard control pamphlet; deleting obsolete regulatory text where 
language is out of date or no longer applicable; and adding 
incorporations by reference of two voluntary consensus standards 
already included in a relevant definition.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    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. 5 and 6). Because of this, reducing childhood lead exposure is a 
priority for both EPA and the Federal government. 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 (Federal Lead Action Plan) 
(Ref. 7) 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 Federal Lead Action Plan is helping 
Federal agencies to work strategically and collaboratively to reduce 
exposure to lead and improve children's health. On October 27, 2022, 
EPA released the Strategy to Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in 
U.S. Communities (EPA Lead Strategy). The EPA Lead Strategy lays out 
Agency and governmentwide approaches to strengthen public health 
protections, address legacy lead contamination for communities with the 
greatest exposures and promote environmental justice. It describes how 
the Agency will utilize the full suite of EPA authorities, expertise, 
and resources to continue to reduce lead exposure. This final rule, 
which revises the DLRL and the DLAL, among other regulatory changes, is 
an action that EPA committed to undertake in the EPA Lead Strategy 
(Ref. 8).
    In 2019, EPA re-evaluated the DLHS (described as DLRL moving 
forward) (Ref. 2). 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\ for floors and window sills, respectively. However, public 
health advocates filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit seeking judicial review of the 2019 Final Rule as 
insufficiently protective. On May 14, 2021, the Court issued its 
opinion on the 2019 Final Rule. The Court held that ``the 2019 Rule 
lowers the lead hazard level but not to a level sufficient to protect 
health as Congress has directed, because the EPA has looked to factors 
in addition to health.'' A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 997 
F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2021). The remedy the Court granted was a 
remand without vacatur of the lowered standard, and the Court 
instructed EPA to consider only health factors when setting the DLHS 
(Ref. 9). The 2023 Proposed Rule was issued to reconsider the DLHS and 
DLCL in light of the 2021 Court Opinion, which directed EPA to 
``reconsider the DLHS . . . [and] the dust-lead clearance levels . . . 
in the same proceeding'' and affirmed that EPA must consider non-health 
factors when setting the DLCL (described as DLAL moving forward). A 
Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 995. This 2021 Court Opinion led EPA to 
undertake a major shift from its approach in the 2019 and 2021 final 
rules to the LBP activities program because the Court found that EPA 
did not have the authority, when setting the DLHS, to consider non-
health factors. Consistent with the 2021 Court Opinion and based on the 
Agency's careful review of the public comments received on the 
proposal, EPA is finalizing the DLRL in this rulemaking as proposed, 
based on only health considerations, as well as finalizing the proposed 
alternative DLAL, based on a variety of factors. See Unit IV. for more 
information on the final revisions to the DLRL and DLAL.

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

    EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis (EA), which is available in 
the docket, of the potential incremental impacts associated with this 
rulemaking (Ref. 10). The analysis focused specifically on the subset 
of target housing and child-occupied facilities affected by this rule. 
Although the DLHS and DLCL do not compel specific actions under the LBP 
Activities Rule to address identified LBP hazards, the DLHS and DLCL 
are directly cross-referenced in certain requirements mandated by HUD 
in the housing subject to HUD's LSHR. As such, the analysis estimates 
incremental costs and benefits for two categories of events: (1) where 
dust-wipe testing occurs to comply with HUD's Lead-Safe Housing Rule; 
and (2) where dust wipe testing occurs in response to blood lead 
testing that detects a blood lead level (BLL) above State or Federal 
action levels. The following is a brief outline of the estimated 
incremental impacts of this rulemaking.
1. Benefits
    This rule will result in reduced exposure to lead, yielding 
benefits to residents of pre-1978 housing from avoided adverse health 
effects. Using a 2% discount rate, the annualized benefits of improved 
cognitive function in children (quantified using the effect of avoided 
IQ decreases on lifetime earnings) are estimated to be $831 million to 
$3.1 billion per year; the

[[Page 89419]]

annualized benefits of reduced cases of attention deficit hyperactivity 
disorder (ADHD) in children are estimated to be $129 million to $274 
million per year; and the annualized benefits of reduced cases of 
cardiovascular mortality in adults are estimated to be $614 million to 
$6.9 billion per year. The total annualized quantified benefits for all 
health endpoints are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $10.3 
billion per year. EPA also analyzed the effect of mothers' exposures to 
lead on the risk of low birthweight in their infants, but the analysis 
found that the resulting changes in infant birthweight could not be 
monetized using EPA's cost-of-illness approach. Nevertheless, the 
increases in birth weights from this rule, however small, may still 
reduce initial birth-related costs and hospitalization costs incurred 
by mothers.
    These benefits calculations are sensitive to the range in the 
estimated number of lead hazard reduction events triggered by children 
with tested BLLs above State action thresholds or the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) blood lead reference value (BLRV) 
of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter ([micro]g/dL). The wide range is driven 
largely by uncertainty about the BLLs at which action might be taken, 
since in many States the action level is currently higher than the 
Federal blood lead reference value. The benefit estimates are also 
sensitive to the concentration response function used to estimate the 
number of reduced cases of premature cardiovascular mortality in 
adults, and the assumed rate of soil and dust ingestion by adults. EPA 
undertook a rigorous process to identify concentration response 
functions to quantify benefits. This included reviewing all available 
studies which could be used to develop quantitative relationships 
between changes in lead exposure and/or changes in blood lead levels 
and changes in health endpoints. EPA evaluated the studies for quality 
and potential biases. EPA then developed a separate report for each 
health endpoint. In addition to the quality review findings, each 
report provides quantitative estimates, based on the identified 
functions, of potential changes in the health endpoint and was reviewed 
by EPA experts and/or externally peer reviewed. For the analysis of 
this final rule EPA has relied on concentration response functions for 
four quantified health endpoints that have been extensively reviewed by 
the agency and in the case of reductions in IQ losses, low birth weight 
and cardiovascular disease premature mortality, externally peer 
reviewed. Also, the approach used for IQ has been used in multiple 
prior rulemakings and undergone SAB review. EPA will consider updates 
to the benefits estimation methodologies and peer review as appropriate 
and as new information becomes available in the future.
    Additionally, there may be benefits that are unquantified. These 
additional benefits might include avoided adverse health effects, 
including reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty, and decreased 
kidney function in children, cancer, and impacts on reproductive 
function and outcomes in adults.
2. Costs
    This rule is estimated to result in quantified costs of $207 
million to $348 million per year. These costs are expected to accrue to 
landlords, owners and operators of child-occupied facilities, 
residential remodelers, and abatement firms. Real estate agents and 
brokers may incur negligible costs related to the target housing 
definition amendment. The cost calculations are highly sensitive to the 
range in the estimated number of lead hazard reduction events triggered 
by children with higher BLLs. In the events affected by this rule, 
incremental costs can be incurred for specialized cleaning used to 
reduce dust-lead loadings (i.e., quantity of lead per unit of surface 
area) to below the action levels. In some instances, floors will also 
be sealed, overlaid, or replaced, or window sills will be sealed or 
repainted. Additional costs may result from the retesting of dust-lead 
levels. Additional potential impacts to HUD programs and their 
beneficiaries are discussed in Unit V.
3. Small Entity Impacts
    This rule will directly impact approximately 18,000 small 
businesses of which 85% to 86% have cost impacts less than 1% of 
revenues, 12% to 13% have impacts between 1% and 3%, and 2% have 
impacts greater than 3% of revenues. These small entities include 
landlords, owners and operators of child-occupied facilities, 
residential remodelers, abatement firms, and real estate agents and 
brokers.
4. Environmental Justice
    EPA is finalizing this rulemaking under TSCA Title IV, as explained 
in Unit I.B. This rule would address lead exposure, as discussed 
throughout this preamble. EPA prepared an Economic Analysis for this 
rulemaking that assessed whether there are disproportionate effects to 
communities from lead exposure. EPA identified an existing concern: 
children living in communities with environmental justice concerns have 
significantly higher BLLs than other children (Ref. 11). This rule 
addresses health concerns for all affected communities, including those 
identified with environmental justice concerns. As identified in EPA's 
Economic Analysis, the rule is expected to affect housing units 
receiving Federal assistance under HUD's LSHR and housing units with a 
child with a BLL above the Federal BLRV, or above a State, or local 
blood lead action level. Because, in general, only lower income 
households are eligible to receive Federal housing assistance, the 
occupants of housing subject to the LSHR (and thus benefitting from the 
regulation) are considered an overburdened community. Additional 
details on any identified disproportionate impacts to communities with 
environmental justice concerns are contained in Unit IX.J. of this 
preamble and Section 8.6 of the Economic Analysis.
5. Children's Environmental Health
    Consistent with Executive Order 13045, EPA evaluated the health and 
safety effects of this action on children. Children are 
disproportionately impacted by lead exposure. Children can have greater 
exposures than adults because they crawl on floors and often put their 
hands and other objects (that can have lead from dust on them) into 
their mouths and are more susceptible than adults to adverse health 
effects associated with lead exposure due to their rapid anatomical 
growth and physiological differences in lead uptake and metabolism. 
This rule protects children from these disproportionate environmental 
health risks.
    This action is also subject to EPA's Policy on Children's Health 
(https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-policy-and-plan) because 
the rule has considerations for human health and early life exposures. 
Accordingly, EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety 
effects of dust-lead exposure on children. The results of this 
evaluation are contained in the EA and the Technical Support Document 
(TSD), where the health impacts of lead exposure on children are 
discussed more fully (Refs. 10 and 12). The documents referenced in 
this unit are available in the public docket for this action.
    A primary purpose of this rule is to reduce exposure to dust-lead 
hazards in target housing where children reside and in child-occupied 
facilities. EPA's analysis indicates that there will be approximately 
178,000 to 326,000 children under age six per year affected

[[Page 89420]]

by the rule, and 83,000 to 158,000 children between the ages of six and 
fifteen per year (Ref. 10). Using a 2% discount rate, the total 
annualized quantified benefits for children's health endpoints 
(improved cognitive function and reduced cases of ADHD) are estimated 
to range from $960 million to $3.4 billion per year.
6. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments
    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications 
because of the potential effects on certain public housing authorities. 
These compliance costs result from application of EPA's standards in 
HUD's LSHR. While some HUD funding for LBP projects exists, the Federal 
government may not provide the funds necessary to pay the entirety of 
the costs. As described in Section 8.8 of the EA (Ref. 10), the costs 
to public housing authorities that include State, local, and Tribal 
governments--estimated at $27 million per year--cover additional lead 
hazard reduction activities, cleaning, and dust-lead testing to ensure 
that public housing units are in compliance with the LSHR. State and 
local governments may provide additional funding to pay for some of 
these costs. EPA also estimates annual compliance costs of 
approximately $850,000 per year to public school districts that operate 
a child-occupied facility built before 1978. Additionally, States that 
have authorized LBP activities programs must demonstrate that they meet 
any new requirements imposed by this rulemaking and are at least as 
protective as the levels at 40 CFR 745.65 and 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 DLRL 
and DLAL they can relinquish their authorization. In the absence of a 
State authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. EPA 
provides a federalism summary impact statement, which is found in Unit 
IX.E.
    This action contains a Federal mandate under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, that may result in expenditures 
of $183 million or more in 2023 dollars ($100 million or more in 1995 
dollars, adjusted for inflation) for State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement as required under 
section 202 of UMRA, which is summarized in Unit IX.D. and included in 
the public docket (Ref. 13). This action is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that exceed the inflation-adjusted cost significance 
threshold or uniquely affect small governments.
    This action will not have substantial direct effects (as specified 
in Executive Order 13175) on one or more federally recognized Indian 
Tribes. This action neither creates an obligation for Tribes to 
administer LBP activities programs nor alters EPA's authority to 
administer these programs.
    Additionally, this rule would not have any significant or unique 
effects on small governments. See Unit IX. for more information on the 
executive orders.

II. Background

A. Health Effects of Lead

    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. 5, 6, 14). Ingestion of lead-contaminated dust is a major 
contributor to BLLs in children, particularly to those who reside in 
homes built prior to 1978 (Refs. 13 and 15). Throughout early 
childhood, floor dust contamination is a source of lead exposure with 
the potential to affect children's BLLs (Ref. 16). Infants, toddlers, 
and other young children are more highly exposed to lead through dust 
on floors and other surfaces at home and in child care facilities than 
older children and adults because they crawl on floors and often put 
their hands and other objects that can have lead from dust on them into 
their mouths. This is the main pathway of exposure to lead for young 
children (Ref. 5).
    Lead exposure in young children can cause neurocognitive 
decrements, such as reduction in intelligence as measured by IQ. 
Depending on the exposure and other factors, the effect may persist 
into adolescence and adulthood (Refs. 5, 6 and 16). In children, lead 
exposure can also cause adverse developmental, neurobehavioral, 
hematological, and immunological effects (Refs. 5, 6, and 14). In 
adults, lead exposure can cause adverse cardiovascular, hematological, 
renal, neurocognitive, psychopathological, immunological, and 
reproductive effects (Refs. 5, 6, and 14). Lead is also classified as 
``reasonably anticipated'' to be a human carcinogen by the National 
Toxicology Program (NTP) (Ref. 17) and EPA has concluded that lead 
exposure has a ``likely causal'' relationship with carcinogenesis (Ref. 
5). In addition to the risk of harmful effects posed to the mother, 
lead can be transferred to the fetus during pregnancy with increased 
risk of adverse effects on the developing fetus (Refs. 5 and 14). Given 
young children's disproportionate exposure to dust-lead in target 
housing, this rulemaking principally considers their exposure and 
associated adverse health effects, although dust-lead exposure and 
adverse health effects in adolescents and adults are also considered 
when estimating the rule's benefits (Ref. 10).
    Currently available scientific information informs EPA's 
understanding of the relationships between exposures to dust-lead, 
BLLs, and adverse human health effects. These relationships are 
summarized in the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Lead, 
finalized in January 2024 (known as the 2024 Lead ISA) (Ref. 5), and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Toxicological Profile for Lead, which was released by the Department of 
Health and Human Services in August 2020 (``ATSDR Tox Profile for 
Lead'') (Ref. 6). The 2024 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. 5). The 2024 
Lead ISA, as well as NIEHS' 2012 NTP monograph on lead, summarize the 
scientific evidence regarding potential health effects associated with 
low-level lead exposure and also note uncertainties in the data (Refs. 
5 and 14). Based on the epidemiological studies and the evidence 
available, EPA stated in the 2024 ISA that blood-lead-associated 
effects on children's cognition as measured by IQ were observed in 
groups of children with mean BLLs as low as 2 [micro]g/dL, and further 
that that ``the collective body of epidemiologic studies provides no 
evidence of a threshold for cognitive effects in children across the 
range of BLLs examined.'' This body of evidence includes studies which 
found effects on children's cognition in some groups of children with 
prenatal and early childhood blood lead or concurrent blood lead in the 
range of <1 to 10 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 5).
    For further information regarding lead and its health effects, see 
the TSD for this rulemaking and the 2024 ISA for lead (Refs. 5 and 12).

B. Federal Actions To Reduce Lead Exposures

    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''), codified primarily at 42

[[Page 89421]]

U.S.C. 4822 and 4851 et seq. (Ref. 1), was a Federal response to the 
national crisis of childhood lead exposure and assigned 
responsibilities to Federal agencies with the overall goal of 
developing a ``national strategy to build the infrastructure necessary 
to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously 
as possible'' (42 U.S.C. 4851(a)(1)). Subtitle B of Title X (106 Stat. 
3912 through 3924), addressing lead exposure reduction, added Title IV 
to TSCA (codified at 15 U.S.C. 2681 et seq.) (Ref. 18).
    Since the establishment of Title X, EPA and HUD have promulgated 
both joint and separate regulatory actions in an effort to eliminate 
LBP hazards. Those actions include requirements for disclosure of known 
LBP or any known LBP hazards (Ref. 4), training and certification 
requirements for contractors performing LBP activities (Ref. 19), the 
establishment in 2001 of standards that identify lead-based paint 
hazards and post-abatement clearance levels (i.e., the DLHS and DLCL) 
(in the rule entitled, ``Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead,'' 
see 66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001 (FRL-6763-5), also known as the 2001 
LBP Hazards Rule) (Refs. 2, 3 and 20), regulations covering renovation 
or remodeling activities (Refs. 21, 22 and 23), provisions for 
interested States, territories, and Tribes to apply for and receive 
authorization to administer their own LBP Activities and renovation, 
repair and painting (RRP) programs, and requirements to control LBP and 
LBP hazards in federally assisted target housing (Ref. 24). Additional 
description of and background on Federal actions to reduce lead 
exposure can be found in the 2021 Final Rule (Ref. 3).
    In addition, the Federal Lead Action Plan, which was written by the 
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
to Children, consisting of 17 Federal departments and offices, states: 
``Lead exposure to children can result from multiple sources and can 
cause irreversible and life-long health effects. No safe blood lead 
level in children has been identified'' (Refs. 7 and 25). The Agency 
has also developed an EPA Lead Strategy to lay out an all-of-EPA plan 
to strengthen public health protections and address legacy lead 
contamination for communities with the greatest exposures and promote 
environmental justice (https://www.epa.gov/lead/final-strategy-reduce-lead-exposures-and-disparities-us-communities). EPA plans to continue 
its work to equitably protect people of all races, ethnic groups, 
income levels, disabilities, and life stages, including young children 
and pregnant women, who are the most vulnerable to the toxic effects of 
lead. The actions in this final rule are part of those efforts, as 
dust-lead from lead-based paint remains one of the leading causes of 
lead exposure in the United States (Ref. 8).

C. Applicability and Uses of DLRL and DLAL

    The reportable level and action level reconsidered in this 
regulation support EPA's LBP activities program (i.e., inspections, 
risk assessments, and abatements) (codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 
L), which applies to target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 housing) and 
COFs (pre-1978 properties where children under 6 years of age spend a 
significant amount of time such as daycare centers and kindergartens). 
The statutory definition of target housing was amended by Congress in 
2017, and EPA is making the necessary conforming regulatory changes, 
including finalizing the age to under 6 years of age, in this 
rulemaking; see Unit IV.F.1. for more information. Apart from COFs, no 
other public or commercial buildings are covered by this proposal.
    The DLRL and DLAL are incorporated into requirements for risk 
assessment and post-abatement work. When conducted, LBP activities must 
be performed by a certified individual or firm (40 CFR 745.220) in 
accordance with the work practices outlined in the 1996 LBP Activities 
Rule (40 CFR 745.227). EPA administers the LBP activities program only 
where States (including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico), territories, or Tribes are not authorized by EPA to 
operate their own lead abatement programs (see 40 CFR part 745, subpart 
Q). Currently the States in which the LBP program is administered by 
EPA are Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 
New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. EPA also 
administers the LBP program in the territories of American Samoa, Guam, 
Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as most Tribal 
Lands. All other States have EPA-authorized LBP programs. Additionally, 
the Cherokee Nation, Upper Sioux Community, Lower Sioux Indian 
Community, and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa have EPA-authorized LBP 
programs, which ultimately must be at least as protective of human 
health and the environment as EPA's program and provide adequate 
enforcement (this rule's impact on authorized programs is discussed 
briefly in Unit V.A.).
1. Dust-Lead Reportable Levels
    The DLRL support and implement major provisions of TSCA Title IV 
and provide the basis for risk assessors to determine whether dust-lead 
hazards are present during a risk assessment or a lead hazard screen. A 
risk assessment, where dust wipe testing occurs, may be required by the 
LSHR in certain circumstances (e.g., for certain properties receiving 
Federal assistance) or by other laws or regulations where dust-lead 
testing occurs in response to the discovery of a child with a BLL that 
exceeds a Federal, State, or local threshold, or in a situation to 
comply with State or local requirements. Additional information on the 
LSHR and the subparts which require risk assessment are discussed in 
the EA (Ref. 10). 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, which includes both a visual assessment and a collection 
of environmental samples. The visual inspection for a risk assessment 
includes an examination to determine the existence of deteriorated 
(e.g., cracking, flaking, chipping, peeling) LBP or other potential 
sources of LBP hazards. The environmental samples include, among other 
things, dust wipe samples (taken using documented methodologies as 
defined in 40 CFR 745.227(a)(3)) from floors and window sills. Those 
samples are required to be analyzed by a laboratory that is recognized 
under NLLAP, which is an EPA program that defines the minimum standards 
that laboratories must meet to attain EPA recognition as an accredited 
testing laboratory (the standards for the program are laid out in the 
Laboratory Quality Standards for Recognition) (Ref. 26). A risk 
assessor compares the results of the dust wipe samples to the 
applicable hazard standard (currently the DLHS and, upon implementation 
of this final rule, the DLRL). If the dust-lead loadings from the 
samples are at or above the applicable standard, then a dust-lead 
hazard is present (40 CFR 745.227(d)).
    Ultimately, the risk assessor prepares a risk assessment report for 
the property owner or manager, which lists any LBP hazards (including a 
dust-lead hazard) that were found and includes any recommendations for 
next steps, such as acceptable options for controlling the hazards via 
interim controls and/or abatement. These options are intended to allow 
the property owner to make an informed decision about what actions to 
take to protect the health of current and

[[Page 89422]]

future residents. Under EPA's rule, a risk assessment or risk 
assessment report does not compel or require action; rather it simply 
provides property owners with recommendations as appropriate (40 CFR 
745.227(d)). However, HUD and some State or local governments may 
require action depending on whether a LBP hazard is present; see Unit 
V. for more information on the impacts of this final rule.
    A lead hazard screen also includes a visual inspection and 
collection of environmental samples, although it is not as 
comprehensive as a risk assessment nor conducted as often. A lead 
hazard screen may be used to determine if a full risk assessment is 
necessary. During a lead hazard screen, a risk assessor checks for 
deteriorated LBP and collects two composite dust samples (in 
residential dwellings), one from floors and one from window sills (more 
composite dust samples are required in multi-family dwellings or COFs). 
Samples are taken using documented methodologies. The risk assessor 
prepares a lead hazard screen report but is not required to include 
determinations about the LBP hazards or recommendations for interim 
controls and/or abatement but could include information on whether a 
follow-up risk assessment is warranted (40 CFR 745.227(c)).
    Both risk assessments and lead hazard screens can only be performed 
by risk assessors certified according to the procedures in 40 CFR 
745.226.
2. Dust-Lead Action Levels
    The DLAL are incorporated into the post-abatement work practices 
outlined in the LBP Activities Rule and represent ``the amount of lead 
in dust on a surface following completion of an abatement activity'' 
(40 CFR 745.227, 745.223) (Ref. 19). 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). Abatement and/
or interim controls could be recommended in a risk assessment report to 
inform the property owner about potential future action(s) they could 
take. After an abatement is complete (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)) and after 
interim control work above HUD's de minimis level of paint disturbance, 
under HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule is complete (24 CFR 35.1340(b)), a 
risk assessor or inspector determines whether there are any ``visible 
amounts of dust, debris or residue,'' which need to be removed before 
dust-wipe 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, 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. An NLLAP-
recognized laboratory must analyze the dust wipe samples and a risk 
assessor or inspector must compare the results from window sills, 
floors, and window troughs to the appropriate DLAL.
    Every post-abatement sample must test below the DLAL in order to 
fulfill the post-abatement work practices of the LBP Activities Rule. 
If a single sample is equal to or greater than the corresponding DLAL, 
then the abatement fails to be successfully completed and the 
components represented by the failing sample must be recleaned and 
retested (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). After all dust wipe samples show dust-
lead loadings below the DLAL, an abatement report is prepared (in 
accordance with the requirements in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(10)), 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 for no fewer than three years (40 
CFR 745.227(i)).

D. Limitations of DLRL and DLAL

    The DLRL are intended to identify dust-lead hazards during risk 
assessments, while the DLAL are part of post-abatement work practices. 
Both regulatory values have several key limitations. Since the DLRL and 
DLAL were established and revised for the purposes of Title X and TSCA 
Title IV only, they do not apply to housing and COFs built during or 
after 1978, nor do they apply to pre-1978 housing that does not meet 
the definition of target housing (40 CFR 745.61 and 745.223). If one 
chooses to apply the DLRL or the DLAL to situations beyond the scope of 
Title X and TSCA Title IV, care must be taken to ensure that the action 
taken in such settings is appropriate, and that the action is adequate 
to provide any necessary protection for children or other individuals 
exposed.
    These standards cannot be used to identify that housing is free 
from all risks from exposure to lead including but not limited to dust-
lead, soil-lead, or lead in drinking water, as risks are dependent on 
many factors. For instance, the physical condition of a property that 
contains LBP may change over time, resulting in an increase in risk. 
Plus, EPA's DLRL do not require the owners of properties covered by 
this rule to evaluate their properties for the presence of dust-lead 
hazards, nor to take action if dust-lead hazards are identified 
(although these standards can be incorporated into certain requirements 
mandated by State, Tribal and local governments, as well as other 
Federal agencies). Additionally, consistent with the 2021 Court Opinion 
that instructed EPA to consider only health factors when setting the 
DLHS (described as DLRL moving forward) and affirmed that EPA must 
consider other factors (i.e., reliability, effectiveness, and safety) 
when setting the DLCL (described as DLAL moving forward), EPA is 
finalizing the DLAL as greater than the DLRL based on EPA's 
consideration of other factors (e.g., laboratory capabilities/capacity, 
and achievability after an abatement). As a result and given the change 
in the definition of abatement discussed in Unit IV.E. of this 
preamble, there may be dust-lead remaining that meets the definition of 
a LBP hazard after an abatement is considered complete, due to dust-
lead levels that are reportable but are less than the DLAL. Also, as 
has been the case historically, achieving the DLAL after an abatement 
does not mean that the home is lead safe or is free from all exposure 
to lead, including from other media such as soil-lead or lead in 
drinking water. EPA will continue coordinating with other Federal 
agencies to encourage best practices for owners and occupants of post-
abatement properties to conduct ongoing maintenance that will help to 
continue to lower dust-lead levels, as well as working collectively 
among the Agency's offices to reduce overall lead exposure through all 
pathways.

E. Litigation Overview

    As previously discussed, EPA revised the DLHS to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills in a final rule in July 
2019 (Ref. 2). On May 14, 2021, in response to a Petition for Review 
that was filed shortly after the final rule was published, the Court 
remanded the 2019 Final Rule without vacatur and directed EPA to 
revisit it in conjunction with a reconsideration of the DLCL (Ref. 9). 
In its opinion accompanying the remand, the Court instructed EPA to 
consider only health factors when setting the DLHS (described by EPA as 
DLRL

[[Page 89423]]

moving forward) and affirmed that EPA must continue to consider non-
health factors when setting the DLCL (described by EPA as DLAL moving 
forward). Specifically, the 2021 Court Opinion held that EPA's 2019 
Final Rule ``looked to other factors, including feasibility and 
efficacy,'' when setting the DLHS, instead of ``set[ting] the hazard 
standards at the point at which the level [of] dust-lead creates 
hazards to human health'' A Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 989 and 990. The 
Court also held that ``TSCA [Title] IV gives the EPA latitude to 
consider `reliability, effectiveness, and safety' '' when promulgating 
regulations ``[w]ith respect to implementation, including abatement,'' 
thus enabling consideration of practicability when setting the DLCL. 
Id. at 995. The Court explained that ``[t]his is in line with the 
overall statutory scheme that differentiates between identification of 
hazards and implementation of remedial measures.'' Id. The Court also 
explained elsewhere in the 2021 Court Opinion that, if an agency relies 
on uncertainty for regulatory action or inaction, the agency must 
``provide reasons why uncertainty justifies their actions'' Id. at 993. 
Consistent with the 2021 Court Opinion, EPA is finalizing revisions to 
the DLRL in this rulemaking based only on health considerations.
    In addition, the Court held that EPA violated TSCA Title IV by 
leaving the soil-lead hazard standards (SLHS) at the values set in 
2001, reasoning that EPA had an ongoing duty to update the standards. 
The SLHS identify lead-contaminated soil at target housing and pre-1978 
COFs that would result in adverse human health effects. Soils that 
contain lead at levels determined to be hazardous to human health are 
considered contaminated. Lead inspectors, risk assessors, and abatement 
professionals use the SLHS to determine if soil-lead hazards are 
present and to inform options for reducing risk, such as during the 
risk assessment process. Due to resource considerations and to act as 
expeditiously as possible to revise the DLRL and DLAL, EPA will address 
the SLHS in a separate rulemaking. (For more background on resource 
constraints under TSCA, please see Congressional testimony from EPA 
leadership (Refs. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31)). EPA listed this SLHS 
rulemaking in the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions under RIN 2070-AL12 as a long-term action, 
indicating the Agency's commitment to meet the statutory requirement of 
addressing the SLHS revision but indicating that the Agency does not 
expect to propose this action in the 12 months following the agenda 
entry (Ref. 32). EPA has, however, initiated work on the SLHS 
rulemaking and is continuing to allocate additional resources to it as 
this reconsideration rulemaking is finalized. The Agency also intends 
to build off of the technical analysis utilized for this rulemaking for 
the SLHS rulemaking, mirroring where possible so as to reduce resource 
constraints and considerations. EPA plans to issue a proposed SLHS 
rulemaking in 2026.
    The Court also held that, to be consistent with its health-only 
interpretation of a LBP hazard (i.e., soil, dust), the definition of 
LBP must ``encompass all levels of lead in paint that lead to adverse 
human health effects.'' A Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 992. The Court 
stated that ``EPA ha[d] not explained why uncertainty justifies its 
decision to leave the definition of lead-paint as-is.'' Id. at 993. The 
Court also noted that much knowledge has been gained since Congress 
adopted the 1992 definition and that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) has adopted a regulation that bans the production of 
paint with lead content of over 0.009 percent by weight. The CPSC 
standard, however, applies to new paint while TSCA is concerned with 
the hazards posed by existing paint in pre-1978 structures and 
different information and considerations are relevant in that context. 
The definition of LBP (1.0 milligrams per square centimeter or more 
than 0.5 percent by weight) is incorporated throughout the LBP 
regulations of both EPA and HUD, and application of this definition is 
central to how LBP programs function. In the 2019 Final Rule, EPA 
discussed the Agency's need for more information to establish a 
statistically valid causal relationship between concentrations of lead 
at low levels in paint and dust lead loadings that cause lead exposure. 
Additionally, information is still needed to quantify the direct 
ingestion of paint through consumption of paint chips or through 
teething on painted surfaces. Finally, it is important to understand 
how capabilities among various LBP testing technologies would be 
affected under a possible revision to the definition, such as field 
portable X-ray fluorescence devices (XRFs), which are the primary tools 
for lead inspections and risk assessments. They are calibrated to the 
current definition of LBP, and so EPA needs to fully understand the 
repercussions such a revision to the definition may have on these 
portable field technologies to ensure the technological feasibility.
    On November 1 and 2, 2023, EPA and HUD held a virtual public 
workshop to hear stakeholder perspectives on specific topics related to 
detection of and exposure to potential lead hazards from existing 
residential LBP and to obtain additional information needed to address 
data gaps related to the definition of LBP that were outlined in the 
2019 Final Rule. This virtual workshop was held over two days and 
gathered critical input on innovative methods to address LBP and reduce 
lead exposure across the United States.
    In preparation for the LBP technical workshop, the Agency performed 
a literature review for sources relevant to the definition of LBP, 
consulted other Federal agencies, and refreshed materials that were 
developed for the 2019 rulemaking. While the data gaps did not change 
since the 2019 rule, they were refined to add further specificity, 
which allowed for a more targeted scope for both continued 
investigation and for the technical workshop held in November 2023. The 
more specific data gaps that EPA continues to investigate include 
empirical data on the relationship between low levels of lead in paint 
and dust-lead, as well as data on the common exposure scenarios that 
may inform this relationship (for example, dust-lead generation during 
a renovation scenario versus slowly deteriorating paint). Currently the 
available empirical data and modeling approaches for estimating the 
relationship between lead content in on-the-wall paint and lead in 
related environmental media, including dust, are applicable at or above 
the current LBP definition. EPA believes that to use the available 
empirical data and modeling approaches to estimate dust-lead loadings 
at low levels of lead in paint (particularly levels that are lower than 
the current definition by an order of magnitude or more) will introduce 
significant uncertainty to any estimations. Data and models applicable 
to lower levels of lead in paint are needed to develop an approach to 
estimate dust-lead from low levels of lead in paint, which will allow 
EPA to estimate incremental blood lead changes and associated health 
effect changes that may occur due to low levels of lead in paint. For 
the ingestion exposure pathway, EPA is exploring possible modeling 
solutions as well as seeking quantitative measures of ingestion and 
exposure (such as data on duration and frequency of consumption, and 
common paint chip characteristics). Studies on this subject have 
documented this behavior as a risk factor for exposure to

[[Page 89424]]

lead from LBP; however, the studies have not provided quantitative 
estimates of paint ingestion, which are needed to quantify exposure. 
Lastly, EPA continues to investigate constraints to the field 
measurement options for low levels of lead in paint. Different 
technologies have different limitations in accuracy, processing time, 
detection limits, accessibility, and destructiveness among other 
factors. These practical considerations are important to consider in 
understanding how a change in the definition may affect the ability of 
the regulated community to use certain technologies, potentially 
impacting the residents of target housing and occupants of COFs. On top 
of these data gaps and as outlined in the document Definition of Lead-
Based Paint Considerations from May 2019 (Ref. 33), EPA is exploring 
the relationship between the two different units used in the current 
definition (milligram per square centimeter and percent by weight) to 
inform whether and, if so, how to develop a conversion between the two. 
The search for relevant information to develop the conversion and 
exploration of the uncertainty involved with such a conversion is 
underway.
    The presenters at the workshop covered a wide range of topics. One 
of the most prominent discussions, covered by several presentations, 
was the potential and limitations of extending current technologies 
(particularly the XRF analyzer) to thresholds at or below the current 
definition, as well as the reliability of the analyzer's lead detection 
estimates in general. Also discussed extensively were the capabilities 
of other testing methods, strategies to use these methods alongside XRF 
testing, and the impact on test kits of lowering the definition of LBP. 
The challenge of characterizing the relationship between mass-per-mass 
and mass-per-surface area definitions of LBP was also examined, with 
one speaker presenting a regression analysis to derive an overall 
relationship between the two.
    Other topics discussed during the workshop included trends in 
childhood lead exposure the capability of community outreach and 
involvement in assisting to address the LBP problem, and to some extent 
the relationship between lead in paint and dust-lead. On the latter 
point, however, the relationship between low levels of lead in paint 
and levels of lead in dust-lead was not examined in depth. Nor was the 
impact of paint condition, maintenance, age, and other factors. The 
ingestion pathway was also not examined. EPA and HUD continue to 
process the information gathered and the status of the data gaps that 
remain. Also, EPA and HUD hope to gain additional insight from a wider 
audience via public comments on the workshop's docket, which was open 
until June 30, 2024.
    Similar to the SLHS rulemaking, due to resource considerations and 
EPA's interest in acting as expeditiously as possible to revise the 
DLRL and DLAL and to hold the aforementioned LBP technical workshop, 
EPA will address the definition of lead-based paint in a separate 
rulemaking. EPA has listed this rulemaking on the definition of LBP in 
the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 
under RIN 2070-AL11 as a long-term action, indicating the Agency's 
commitment to meet the statutory requirement of addressing the 
definition of LBP revision but that the Agency does not expect to 
propose this action in the 12 months following the agenda entry (Ref. 
34).
    Rulemakings such as those necessary for revisions to SLHS and the 
definition of LBP are complex, highly resource-intensive activities. A 
rulemaking's development generally entails scientific, economic, legal, 
and other technical analyses. For many rulemakings, this includes 
research and data gathering, which itself can sometimes necessitate 
exercising other information collection tools and following appropriate 
procedural requirements (e.g., Paperwork Reduction Act). To develop a 
rulemaking, EPA also often consults with governments and key 
stakeholders. Federal law may require such consultations based on 
anticipated regulatory impacts (e.g., the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act). Additionally, various executive 
orders may also require the Agency to engage in such consultations.
    A rulemaking package often requires the development of complex 
supporting documents including an EA and a TSD, similar to those 
included alongside this reconsideration rulemaking (Refs. 10 and 12). A 
complete TSD includes several components that may require internal and 
external stakeholder dialogue and scientific peer review, including 
model and input data revisions, health and exposure metrics of 
interest, environmental fate and exposure mechanisms for either soil or 
the definition of LBP, characterization of uncertainties in modeling, 
and literature reviews (which have not been done for soil since before 
the 2001 LBP Rule was finalized). If existing models and analytical 
methods are insufficient to conduct the analysis to support the 
rulemaking, then they must be developed as part of the technical work 
done in support of the rulemaking effort. Developing new models can 
take a considerable length of time and novel analyses may require peer-
review, further extending the rulemaking timeline. The magnitude and 
effort of an SLHS TSD would mirror previous DLHS and DLCL TSDs (and the 
TSD for this rule); see the technical documents prepared in support of 
the 2019 Final Rule, the 2021 Final Rule, or this reconsideration 
rulemaking (Refs. 12, 35, and 36).
    An EA includes various components such as a description of the need 
for Federal regulation; a profile of affected industries and 
populations; an overview of existing Federal, State and local 
regulations; a specification of the baseline state of the world and 
estimate of the number of events affected by the regulation; thorough 
analysis on the consequences of regulatory policy being considered and 
how regulated entities will respond; quantification and monetization of 
the regulation's costs, benefits, and net benefits; a description of 
unquantified or qualitative benefits; and an assessment of uncertainty 
surrounding estimates. An EA also includes various additional analyses 
related to statutory compliance and executive orders, including but not 
limited to small business impacts, unfunded State, local, or Tribal 
mandates, paperwork reduction, environmental justice, protection of 
children, federalism, coordination with Tribal governments, and energy 
effects. A rulemaking also involves developing Federal Register 
documents to present, generally, the preamble to and regulatory text of 
the proposed and final rule. Such published documents reflect the 
culmination of the development and review of the complex supporting 
documents and the resulting decision-making, which includes internal 
steps at the Agency to reach officewide agreement, as well as external 
to the Agency, such as holding potential public consultations, 
completing interagency review and convening a Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel, as necessary. These processes can also take many months 
or years. The proposed and final rules also present statutory and 
executive order review analyses.
    The current rulemaking on the DLRL and DLAL is one more step toward 
complete implementation of TSCA Title IV. Given the complications for 
the SLHS and the definition of LBP discussed earlier in this section, 
EPA does not believe that either the SLHS or the definition of LBP 
could have been reconsidered on this current

[[Page 89425]]

rulemaking's timeline. Instead, EPA will reconsider the SLHS and the 
definition of LBP as important next steps. Courts ``have recognized 
that, under the `pragmatic' one-step-at-a-time doctrine, `agencies have 
great discretion to treat a problem partially' and `regulat[e] in a 
piecemeal fashion.' '' Transportation Div. of the Int'l Ass'n of Sheet 
Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers v. Fed. R.R. Admin., 10 F.4th 
869, 875 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 
EPA, 722 F.3d 401, 409-10 (D.C. Cir. 2013)); cf. Massachusetts v. EPA, 
549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007) (recognizing that ``[a]gencies, like 
legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell 
regulatory swoop''). EPA intends to conduct rulemakings on the SLHS and 
the definition of LBP, as identified in the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda 
of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, to address the issues 
identified by the Ninth Circuit in its May 2021 opinion (Refs. 9, 32 
and 34).

F. Public Comments Summary

    The proposed rule provided a 60-day public comment period, which 
ended on October 2, 2023. EPA received a total of 21,309 comments in 
docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231. This included 393 unique comments 
that were submitted as well as the transcript from a public webinar 
that EPA held on the proposed rule on August 23, 2023, where numerous 
public comments were received verbally. The majority of the 21,309 
comments were submitted as part of five mass mail campaigns (two that 
expressed support for the proposed rule and three that did not). One of 
the supportive mass mail campaigns accounted for roughly 20,723 or 97% 
of the total number of comments. Comments were received from private 
citizens, landlords, State/local governments (including State health 
departments), potentially affected lead-based paint businesses, lead 
laboratories, trade associations, non-governmental organizations and 
environmental and public health advocacy groups.
    Numerous commenters supported EPA's proposed ``greater than zero'' 
approach to revising the DLHS (described as DLRL moving forward) 
codified as ``any reportable level'' based on their view that there is 
no safe level of lead exposure (e.g., two commenters pointed to a 
``voluminous body of recent research [that] documents unequivocally 
that no level of lead exposure is safe for a fetus or young child''). 
Public commenters also supported the proposed approach for a variety of 
related reasons, such as making the public more aware of the risk dust-
lead may pose, preventing more children from lead poisoning, and 
emphasizing the importance of cleaning. Commenters also noted their 
view that prevention is the best solution to lead exposure in children, 
and that due to neurological and cognitive development, children are 
particularly susceptible to these impacts. (Note that interventions 
that are implemented before there is evidence of a disease or injury 
are defined as primary preventions by CDC (Ref. 37)).
    For the proposed approach there were several key concerns, raised 
predominately by lead-based paint professionals, laboratories and trade 
associations, that fall into several general categories: concerns over 
dust-lead source and that the DLRL would fall below background levels 
of dust-lead; laboratory concerns including that a laboratory's 
reportable level can vary considerably between establishments; impacts 
this DLRL would have on existing housing stock, particularly affordable 
housing; the cost of implementation; concerns over decoupling DLRL from 
DLAL; and possible liability issues and confusion within the public and 
regulated community due to leaving a hazard behind after an abatement 
is considered complete. For more information on the rationale of the 
final DLRL approach of ``any reportable level'' see Unit IV.B.
    Multiple commenters, predominately advocacy organizations, 
supported EPA's proposed DLCL (described as DLAL moving forward) of 3 
[micro]g/ft\2\, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\, for floors, 
window sills and window troughs, respectively, in order to protect 
children from lead exposure. EPA also received numerous public comments 
opposing the reduction in the DLAL, and requests that the values remain 
at the current levels of 10 [micro]g/ft\2\, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 400 
[micro]g/ft\2\, for floors, window sills and window troughs. A few 
commenters also supported the proposed alternative DLAL of 5 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\, for floors, window 
sills and window troughs. The concerns public commenters highlighted 
were related to laboratory technology shifts, costs, turnaround times, 
laboratory capacity, and the practicability/achievability of the lower 
levels of 3 [micro]g/ft\2\, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\.
    EPA received several comments during the public comment period from 
a variety of organizations including industry, environmental and public 
health advocacy organizations, among others, requesting that EPA revise 
the terminology of the standards (specifically the terms of DLHS and 
DLCL) in order to better communicate to the public their purpose and to 
reduce confusion. Another concern raised by numerous public commenters 
was the confusion created by the messaging of ``greater than zero'' 
(which was the terminology used to describe ``any reportable level'' in 
the proposed rule). Under this final rule the term ``greater than 
zero'' is being replaced with ``any reportable level'' in the preamble 
and within any implementation materials that accompany this final rule. 
For more information on the terminology changes see Unit IV.A.
    In this preamble, EPA has responded to the major comments relevant 
to this final rule. In addition, the more comprehensive version of 
EPA's response to comments related to this final action, including 
comments not mentioned in this preamble, can be found in the Response 
to Comments document that accompanies this rulemaking (Ref. 38).

III. Technical Analyses

    In its evaluation of options for reconsidering the DLRL and DLAL, 
EPA estimated children's BLL and associated IQ decrements expected to 
result from lead exposures with each option. These estimates provide 
the means to quantitatively compare risk posed to young children by 
exposure to the dust-lead loading levels analyzed. EPA also estimated 
BLL in adolescents and adults for the various dust-lead loading levels, 
and associated risk of ADHD diagnosis, cardiovascular mortality risk, 
and changes in low birthweight, to inform the benefits analysis 
accompanying this rule. The TSD (Ref. 12) and EA (Ref. 10) accompanying 
this rulemaking provide the complete analyses and associated estimates 
of expected impacts of the candidate DLRL and DLAL options on BLLs of 
exposed children, adolescents, and adults in target housing and 
associated changes in occurrence of adverse health impacts. See Unit 
IV. on the rationale for the revisions to DLRL and DLAL.
    The TSD uses both mechanistic and empirical models to predict 
possible BLLs in children that reside in target housing and are exposed 
to homogenous candidate values for dust-lead levels (e.g., candidate 
options for the DLRL or DLAL); the TSD also probabilistically accounts 
for variation in children's BLLs due to other sources of lead exposure 
and differences in biological response to lead exposure. The first 
approach uses mechanistic modeling of lead exposure and uptake that 
takes into account age-specific ingestion rates, activity patterns, and 
background exposures. Specifically, the mechanistic

[[Page 89426]]

blood lead modeling for children in this rulemaking reflects the 
application of an extensively peer-reviewed model (the Stochastic Human 
Exposure and Dose Simulation--Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic 
model coded in R, referred to as R-SHEDS-Pb) using updated data sources 
and tailored to the dust-lead target housing scenario, described in 
depth in appendix E of the TSD. The empirical approach used data that 
includes co-reported dust-lead and BLL measurements in the homes of 
children; these dust-lead and BLL data are used to develop an empirical 
relationship to estimate BLLs for each candidate dust-lead level. 
Estimates derived from the two approaches (mechanistic and empirical) 
are compared; and similarity between the results increased confidence 
in the estimates of the relationship between dust-lead loadings and BLL 
(Section 9.3 of the TSD, Ref. 12). The various components of the model 
and input parameters used for children in this rulemaking have been the 
subject of multiple Science Advisory Board Reviews, workshops and 
publications in the peer reviewed literature focused on dust-lead 
(Refs. 15, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43).
    The mechanistic blood lead modeling for adolescents and adults in 
this rulemaking was performed using an extensively peer-reviewed model 
(the All-Ages Lead Model, referred to as AALM) using updated data 
sources tailored to the dust-lead target housing scenario as was done 
for children using R-SHEDS-Pb (See section 4 and appendix F of the 
TSD). The TSD uses AALM version 3.0 to predict possible BLLs in 
adolescents and adults that reside in target housing and are exposed to 
dust-lead loadings at the candidate DLRL and DLAL. This model takes 
into account age-specific ingestion rates and background exposures 
(Section 4.2.1 of the TSD) (Ref. 12). The various components of the 
AALM version 2.0 model and input parameters have been the subject of a 
Science Advisory Board review (Ref. 44) and the AALM version 3.0 model 
been used to support recent EPA guidance and rulemakings (Ref. 45 and 
46).
    Detailed discussion of the limitations and uncertainties in blood 
lead modeling at the low dust-lead exposures and associated BLLs 
considered for this rulemaking can be found in Sections 13.3.1 and 
13.3.2 of the TSD (Ref. 12). Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic 
Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) version 2.0, as a standalone 
biokinetic model, was evaluated for performance in groups of children 
for which the geometric mean BLL is as low as 2.3 [micro]g/dL (Ref. 
47). Mean estimated BLLs for groups of children at some of the lowest 
levels of dust lead exposure modeled for this rulemaking were lower 
than this value (between 0.81 and 1.12 [micro]g/dL depending upon age) 
and are outside the range for which the underlying biokinetic model 
(IEUBK) has been evaluated. In order to address this lack of model 
evaluation at BLLs of interest, EPA conducted an evaluation of the R-
SHEDS-Pb model used in this analysis with a dataset for which the 
geometric mean BLL in children aged 1 to 2 years old is 1.09 [micro]g/
dL. This evaluation found BLL estimates for 1- to 2-year-old children 
from the R-SHEDS-Pb model agreed well with the reference dataset at low 
percentiles, at the median, and at the 95th percentile. See table 13-2 
and appendix D in the TSD (Ref. 12). AALM version 3.0 was validated 
against a panel of datasets including pharmacokinetic data from dosing 
studies in adults (Ref. 48), biomonitoring data including longitudinal 
studies of lead workers (Refs. 49, 50), and biokinetic studies in 
infants with estimated lead intakes (Refs. 51, 52). Additionally, AALM 
version 3.0 was evaluated at relatively low exposures and associated 
BLLs (~1 [micro]g/dL) against the IEUBK predictions for children at 
birth until age 7 and the predictions were found to compare well, with 
a 5% discrepancy (0.07 [micro]g/dL) between the two models at age 2 for 
a 10 [micro]g/day continuous lead dose (See Figure 13-1 in the TSD).
    In contrast to the TSD, which estimates the health risk and 
exposure associated with dust-lead loading candidates for a 
hypothetical population of children in target housing without 
consideration to how many children are actually affected by the rule, 
the EA estimates benefits that accrue to only the subpopulation that 
would be impacted by the final rule's revisions. Rather than assuming 
all households living in target housing are impacted by the regulatory 
change, the EA instead estimates benefits solely for instances when 
dust-lead levels would be tested. These instances of dust wipe testing 
are henceforth referred to as ``triggering events.'' For the 
subpopulation of individuals who are affected by these events, the EA 
estimates quantified benefits from avoided lead-associated IQ 
decrements, avoided cases of ADHD or cardiovascular mortality, and 
changes in birthweight. The EA uses real world data to characterize: 
(1) variability in the housing stock that is affected; (2) how surface-
by-surface dust-lead loadings change due to the DLRL/DLAL; (3) the 
number of individuals living in affected housing units; and (4) 
resultant changes in BLLs and IQ decrement, ADHD, low birthweight, and 
cardiovascular mortality risk that are expected. In modeling the 
relationships between dust-lead loadings and BLL/IQ, the EA presents 
results based on both the empirical and mechanistic approaches laid out 
in the TSD. EPA considered several methods to quantitatively represent 
the relationship between BLL and IQ for BLLs below the lowest lifetime 
average BLL (1.47 [micro]g/dL) in the set of epidemiologic studies 
which the BLL-IQ concentration-response equations were based upon, and 
a range of IQ decrement estimates based on the methods considered are 
presented in the TSD and EA (see TSD section 6 and EA Section 6.4). The 
IQ decrement estimates presented in Unit IV. and in Section 12 of the 
TSD were derived using a linearization method, which resulted in the 
highest estimates of IQ decrements.
    Both the TSD and the EA present estimated changes in BLL and 
associated changes in health effects (IQ decrement, ADHD, low 
birthweight, and cardiovascular mortality risk). However, these 
estimates represent populations of exposed individuals characterized in 
differing ways. The TSD presents the expected response for a 
hypothetical dust-lead exposure, accounting for varying sources of 
background exposure (e.g., food, soil, water) and biological 
variability. The EA estimates expected responses to triggering events, 
recognizing that exposures at the higher end of the distribution of 
hypothetical conditions in the TSD are not realized in all target 
residences because dust-lead levels across target housing are generally 
lower than the current hazard standards and clearance levels (10 
[micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors and window sills 
respectively) (Ref. 53) and existing abatements/interim controls 
typically overshoot the current clearance levels considerably (Ref. 
54). Thus, the distributions of BLLs and health effects estimated in 
the TSD represent the impact of individuals' exposures to hypothetical 
dust-lead levels while the EA estimates distributions of BLLs and 
health effects across individuals living in housing that is directly 
impacted by this rule. The analyses that EPA developed and presented 
for young children in the TSD and EA for this rule were specifically 
designed to estimate BLLs and associated risk of effects on IQ that 
might accrue to the population of interest (i.e., children living in 
pre-1978 housing). EPA notes that its different program offices 
estimate exposures for different populations, different media,

[[Page 89427]]

and under different statutory requirements and thus different models or 
parameters may be a better fit for their purposes. Accordingly, the 
approach and modeling parameters chosen for this rulemaking should not 
necessarily be construed as appropriate for, or consistent with, those 
of other EPA programs or those of other Federal agencies.
    Public comments were received on the TSD and EA accompanying the 
proposed rule. EPA's responses are included in Sections 9 and 10 of the 
Response to Comments filed under docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231.

IV. Final Rule

    As explained in Unit II.E., the 2021 Court Opinion of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that EPA must reconsider 
the DLHS in conjunction with the DLCL (described by EPA as DLRL and 
DLAL moving forward) (Ref. 9). EPA carefully considered all public 
comments related to the proposed rule and is finalizing a nomenclature 
change from the terminology of DLHS and DLCL, to the dust-lead 
reportable level (abbreviated as DLRL) and the dust-lead action level 
(abbreviated DLAL), as well as revisions to lower both standards. In 
this final rule, EPA is revising the DLHS from 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 
100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills to a non-static DLRL 
represented by any reportable level of dust-lead as analyzed by an 
NLLAP-recognized laboratory. Lowering the DLRL (independent of the DLAL 
revisions) provides the regulatory benefit of additional disclosure of 
LBP hazards in target housing and COFs. This results in an estimated 
increase in individuals who are aware of the presence of dust-lead and 
the various actions that can be taken to minimize dust-lead hazards and 
take actions to protect themselves from exposure (even if LBP is not 
present). See Unit IV.B. for additional information describing the 
final DLRL of ``any reportable level.''
    EPA is also finalizing revisions to the DLCL from 10 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills, and troughs to a DLAL of 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\, which are the current DLCL in New York City 
(NYC). See Unit IV.C. for additional information describing the final 
DLAL.

A. Nomenclature Changes

    EPA received several comments during the public comment period from 
a variety of organizations including industry, environmental and public 
health advocacy organizations, a local health department, the Attorneys 
General of several States and the District of Columbia, and a lead-
based paint professional, suggesting EPA revise the terminology of DLHS 
and DLCL in order to better communicate to the public the purpose of 
the standards and to reduce confusion. Commenters highlighted that 
removing the use of ``hazard'' would be beneficial since it could imply 
that immediate action is needed or create confusion within the public 
when no action is recommended. Commenters also emphasized that changing 
the use of ``clearance'' could avoid any misconception that after an 
abatement no hazards remain. One commenter even noted that because this 
rule is shifting how the standards have worked together historically 
(i.e., decoupling the hazard standards and clearance levels for floors 
and sills), it may be helpful to both the public and the regulated 
community to make this shift even more transparent with a terminology 
change. Another commenter noted that EPA should consider how these 
terms are used in other Federal and State regulations.
    EPA received recommendations for new terminology for both 
standards, including dust-lead hazard level, disclosure level, lead 
dust disclosure level, contamination level, or lead-contaminated dust 
goal for the DLHS and action level or dust-lead action level for the 
DLCL, among other suggestions. EPA is finalizing a nomenclature change 
from the term DLHS to dust-lead reportable level (abbreviated DLRL) and 
from the term DLCL to dust-lead action level (abbreviated DLAL). The 
new term DLAL received the most support by public commenters, with the 
largest number of requests, whereas EPA believes DLRL captures the 
essence of the suggestion from the public commenters but avoids any 
confusion with the already well-established Disclosure Rule or 
disclosure program.
    While this exact terminology was not in the proposed rulemaking, 
EPA recognizes the value of these changes and agrees with commenters 
that the new terminology more clearly communicates the intention of the 
standards to the public and the regulated community. EPA believes this 
updated nomenclature aligns better and more intuitively with the 
operational function of the amendments EPA had proposed and is 
finalizing in this action. For example, the new terminology makes it 
clear that if a dust-lead loading falls below the DLAL but above the 
DLRL, that dust-lead is still present in the environment, but that the 
levels are below those prioritized for action. To implement this 
nomenclature change, EPA is adding a definition of ``action levels'' in 
40 CFR 745.223 to replace ``clearance levels'' and making other minor, 
conforming amendments in phrasing of the regulations. The term DLAL 
also emphasizes its new role, as the trigger for the recommendation for 
action due to the changes to the definition of abatement for dust-lead 
hazards (see Unit IV.E. for more information on the revisions to the 
definition of abatement). Ultimately, when the regulated community 
clears a project after an abatement, it would be to below the action 
levels. EPA intends any continuing use of the ``clearance'' term in the 
abatement context to describe such efforts (i.e., achieving loadings 
below the action level). EPA also appreciates that the reportable 
terminology in particular aligns with the regulatory definition that is 
being finalized of ``any reportable level.'' Note that within EPA's 
regulatory landscape, dust-lead levels that are at or above the DLRL 
are still considered a LBP hazard, specifically a dust-lead hazard. EPA 
believes that messaging to the public and regulated community should 
revolve around explaining that any dust-lead levels at or above DLRL 
are above the level at which the LBP community must report a hazard on 
a risk assessment report, but that EPA recommends action only when 
levels are above the DLAL. Language around a reportable level should 
still clearly communicate that a dust-lead hazard is still present.
    Another concern raised by numerous public commenters was the 
confusion caused by the messaging of ``greater than zero'' (which was 
the terminology used to describe ``any reportable level'' in the 
proposed rule). In this final rule the terminology ``greater than 
zero'' is being replaced with ``any reportable level'' in the preamble 
and within any implementation materials that accompany this final rule. 
EPA agrees with the public that the concept of GTZ is confusing as it 
implies that if one has dust-lead loadings below any reportable level 
then there is zero or no dust-lead present. EPA wants to avoid this 
misconception and will refer to what was previously ``greater than 
zero'' as the ``any reportable level'' approach to avoid any further 
confusion.
    A more comprehensive version of EPA's response on these 
communication and nomenclature comments can be found in Section 5 of 
the Response to Comments document that accompanies this final rule 
(Ref. 38).

B. Dust-Lead Reportable Level Approach

    In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule EPA discussed the dilemma the Agency

[[Page 89428]]

faced when establishing a dust-lead hazard standard, especially the 
challenges associated with choosing ``which [BLLs] are truly 
hazardous'' and how to interpret the statutory criteria from TSCA 
section 401 (i.e., ``would result in adverse human health effects'' (15 
U.S.C. 2681(10)) given the uncertainties that existed (Ref. 20). As a 
result, historically EPA took a pragmatic approach to setting the DLHS 
(described moving forward as the DLRL) and focused on the potential for 
risk reduction, cost-benefit balancing and other relevant factors, 
establishing the standards at 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ 
for floors and sills, respectively. The Agency did not establish a DLHS 
(described moving forward as the DLRL) for troughs as it found that 
window sills and troughs were highly correlated and concluded that 
testing both surfaces would not improve a risk assessor's ability to 
characterize risk.
    Building off the precedent established in 2001, the 2019 Final Rule 
``evaluated the relationship between dust-lead levels and children's 
health, and . . . the application of those standards in lead risk 
reduction programs.'' In addition, when establishing the 2019 
standards, EPA also assessed laboratory capabilities, resources for 
addressing LBP hazards and consistency across the Federal government 
(Ref. 2). At that time EPA reasonably believed it had the discretion to 
set the DLHS (described as DLRL moving forward) based on both risk 
reduction and whether the standards were achievable, especially given 
the existing programs in place to reduce LBP hazards and revised the 
standards to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
sills, respectively (Ref. 2).
    Ultimately, the 2021 Court Opinion, which is discussed in Unit 
II.E., led EPA to undertake a major shift in its approach to 
residential LBP hazard control and the LBP activities program because 
the Court found that EPA did not have the authority, when setting the 
DLHS, to consider non-health factors (e.g., laboratory capabilities, 
resources for addressing LBP hazards, consistency across the Federal 
government, or cost-benefit balancing). Consistent with the 2021 Court 
Opinion, EPA proposed revisions to the DLHS (described as DLRL moving 
forward) in August 2023 and is finalizing those changes in this 
rulemaking based only on health considerations (Ref. 55). EPA intends 
health-only considerations in this context to refer to the effects of 
lead on health after exposure to dust-lead loadings, considering the 
statutory definition's focus on ``any condition that causes exposure to 
lead from lead-contaminated dust . . . that would result in adverse 
human health effects'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). These health-only 
considerations do not include broader public health concerns (such as 
health trade-offs and policy impacts on Federally assisted housing). 
See Unit IV.B.1.d. for more discussion on public health considerations 
and public feedback.
1. Rationale for Selecting the Final DLRL
    EPA is finalizing a non-static DLRL that is any reportable level of 
dust-lead for floors and window sills as analyzed by an NLLAP-
recognized laboratory. Setting a DLRL for floors and window sills only 
is consistent with current practice and regulatory history, which has 
not included a hazard standard or reportable level specifically for 
troughs.
    Given the statutory language in TSCA section 401 that defines what 
a ``LBP hazard'' is (i.e., as conditions of LBP and lead-contaminated 
dust and soil that ``would result in adverse human health effects''), 
EPA believes that it cannot set the DLRL at zero because zero exposure 
to dust-lead loadings would not cause adverse health effects. EPA is 
not attempting to establish a safe level of dust-lead as, at this time, 
no BLL threshold at which no adverse effects occur in children has been 
identified (Ref. 5, 56), and EPA did not identify a level of dust-lead 
exposure at which there is no effect on BLL. The standard being 
established--``any reportable level''--is an appropriate non-zero DLRL 
and is based on dust-lead related health factors only. It was developed 
in accordance with the 2021 Court Opinion by taking into consideration 
the exposure modeling data outlined in TSD and the current state of the 
science on the health effects of lead exposure. The final DLRL approach 
represents a shift in the LBP activities program to a more inclusive 
and protective standard, compared with the 2019 levels. The DLRL 
approach will be inclusive of any reportable level of dust-lead and 
will not distinguish based on health risk posed.
    EPA received public comments on the ``any reportable level'' 
approach to the DLRL, which are discussed in more depth in Unit 
IV.B.1.d. Additionally, two other approaches were also considered for 
revising the DLRL, including a numeric standard based entirely on the 
modeling data laid out in the TSD (summarized in TSD table 2-2), and an 
approach that would use the background dust-lead levels of housing 
built in or after 1978 (called post-1977 background); both are briefly 
discussed in Unit IV.B.2.
a. DLRL and the LQSR Action Level
    The DLRL is being finalized as any reportable level as analyzed by 
an NLLAP-accredited laboratory. ``Reportable level'' had not previously 
been defined in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 745 or EPA's current 
guidance for NLLAP-recognized laboratories, titled Laboratory Quality 
Standards for Recognition (or LQSR 4.0). EPA is finalizing the 
definition of ``reportable level'' as proposed to mean the lowest 
analyte concentration (or amount) that does not contain a ``less than'' 
qualifier and that is reported with confidence for a specific method by 
an NLLAP-recognized laboratory. In other words, EPA interprets ``any 
reportable level'' of dust-lead to be any level greater than or equal 
to the lowest value a laboratory can reliably report to a client or the 
regulated community, and a report of zero concentration is not 
permitted under the LQSR. For target housing or a COF to achieve no 
dust-lead hazard, an NLLAP-recognized laboratory would need to provide 
a result that was less than (<) their reporting limit. Any numeric 
value that is above an NLLAP-recognized laboratory's reporting limit 
would be considered a dust-lead hazard and would need to be disclosed 
as such, for example, on a risk assessment report prepared by a 
certified risk assessor.
    In terms of the standards being finalized in this rule and their 
impact on laboratories, given that the DLRL is a non-static value, the 
DLAL, rather than the DLRL, would be considered the ``action level'' as 
described in the LQSR 4.0, as well as for when a risk assessor would 
recommend an abatement (see Unit IV.E. for more information on EPA's 
revisions to the definition of abatement). Under the LQSR 4.0, NLLAP-
recognized laboratories that analyze dust wipe samples for lead must 
show that they can achieve a quantitation limit ``equal to or less than 
. . . 80% of the lowest action level [i.e., regulatory limit] for dust 
wipe samples''; this is a shift from LQSR 3.0 where it was 50% (Refs. 
26 and 57). The quantitation limit must also be ``at least 1.6 times 
but no greater than 10 times the method detection limit'' (Ref. 26). 
Thus, EPA's minimum standards for testing will rely on the numerical 
DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 
window sills and window troughs to establish the quantitation limit 
that any laboratory (that wishes to maintain or obtain NLLAP 
recognition) must be able to demonstrate (Ref. 26). The DLRL of ``any 
reportable level'' is considered distinct from the DLAL and not to 
affect the quantitation limit under the LQSR. Based on these minimum

[[Page 89429]]

standards for NLLAP-recognized laboratories and previous laboratory 
stakeholder input, EPA expects that the lowest reportable level will be 
equivalent to the laboratory's quantitation limit. Note that only 
laboratories that are NLLAP accredited can perform dust-wipe testing 
for lead under the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745.
    EPA received public comments raising concerns that the DLRL is non-
static and would change among laboratories depending given technology 
sensitivity, conditions etc. Commenters, including an NLLAP accrediting 
body, requested that the area wiped, instrumentation and/or method 
detection limit be defined to provide more consistency. EPA fully 
acknowledges that the reportable level under the final DLRL will 
potentially vary from laboratory to laboratory due to different 
capabilities. EPA believes establishing a DLRL based on the 
capabilities of individual laboratories is a strength of the final DLRL 
because it allows room for improvement and the possibility of getting 
as low as reliably reportable depending on the sensitivity of the 
technology--in turn allowing the regulated community to be able to 
disclose lower levels. This will also limit the need for future 
revisions to the DLRL, unless there is a compelling reason to, such as 
a threshold for adverse effects being identified. Note that the trigger 
for the recommendation of work has been shifted to the DLAL (rather 
than the DLHS, described as DLRL moving forward, as has been the case 
historically). See Unit IV.F. for more information on the change to the 
definition of abatement.
    While EPA understands the request for some form of minimum 
laboratory requirements, EPA disfavors requiring laboratories to use a 
specific type of technology for analysis, as that will limit some 
laboratories who have or would like to have more sensitive 
capabilities. Note that EPA does include standards that act as an upper 
bound within EPA's LQSR 4.0 as discussed previously (e.g., every 
laboratory must have a quantitation limit equal to or less than 80% of 
the action level for each surface of interest, such as floors, window 
sills and troughs), among other standards, which effectively function 
to promote consistency between laboratories. For dust-wipe testing of 
floors, EPA does recommend that LBP professionals wipe at least two 
square feet as needed to help the NLLAP-recognized laboratory achieve 
the LQSR's standard for the quantitation limit. Similarly, HUD already 
recommends using at least two square feet for LBP professionals 
conducting dust-lead testing of floors (in circumstances where needed 
for laboratory capabilities) for HUD's current dust-lead action levels 
for its Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs (Ref. 58). EPA also 
recommends that LBP professionals document the sample size in order to 
inform the NLLAP-recognized laboratory either through already 
established practices or the Chain of Custody form. EPA does note that 
there may be laboratories with more sensitive technology that can meet 
the LQSR minimum standards without testing two square feet on floors.
    Overall EPA disagrees that the types of specifications requested by 
some commenters are required for the DLRL to work as intended. EPA 
recommends, if there are concerns, that the regulated community work 
directly with laboratories. Understanding the laboratory's reporting 
limits and attaining consistent levels across larger projects is 
possible for the regulated community through contracts (i.e., 
arrangements incorporated into the project to use either the same 
laboratory or those with the same reporting values and technology), and 
through understanding various laboratories' reporting limits. EPA 
acknowledges the potential challenges of inconsistency that may arise 
from the final DLRL, but EPA does not believe this can be considered 
when setting the DLRL or that it outweighs the benefit of additional 
disclosures to the public that will result from this approach.
b. No Threshold Has Been Identified
    According to TSCA Title IV, EPA should identify the level of dust-
lead exposure that ``would result in adverse human health effects'' as 
a type of LBP hazard (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). Any reportable level of lead 
in dust is a more protective approach compared with the current 
regulatory landscape. Any reportable level of lead in dust also 
acknowledges the current state of scientific evidence. Based on the 
epidemiological evidence available, EPA observed in the 2013 and 2024 
Integrated Science Assessments that there is no evidence of a threshold 
below which there are no harmful effects on cognition from lead 
exposure (Refs. 5 and 56). Depending on the exposure and other factors, 
effects on IQ associated with childhood lead exposure may persist into 
adolescence and adulthood (Refs. 5 and 6). EPA also favored such an 
approach for the DLRL under TSCA Title IV in part because a more 
protective approach to DLRL, such as any reportable level, aligns with 
the Congressional purpose for disclosure elsewhere under Title X 
(notably, as implemented in the Lead Disclosure Rule) and because 
Congress used the word ``hazard'' in the ``lead-based paint hazard'' 
term, even though the definition uses more risk-like language by 
introducing consideration of the level of exposure that would result in 
adverse health effects.
    The EPA 2024 Lead ISA stated that effects of lead exposure on 
children's cognition were best substantiated to occur in study 
populations with mean BLLs between 2 and 8 [micro]g/dL and noted that, 
extending the evidence described in the 2013 Lead ISA, associations 
with effects on cognition were also observed in groups with mean BLLs 
below 2 [micro]g/dL (though not all studies with mean BLL below 2 
[micro]g/dL reported positive associations between BLL and IQ 
decrements). Further, despite there being some uncertainty in 
epidemiological studies on lead exposure and BLLs (especially for older 
children and adults), the 2024 ISA stated that ``the collective body of 
epidemiologic studies provides no evidence of a threshold for cognitive 
effects in children across the range of BLLs examined.'' This body of 
evidence includes studies which found effects on children's cognition 
in some groups of children with prenatal and early childhood blood lead 
or concurrent blood lead in the range of <1 to 10 [mu]g/dL. (Ref. 5). 
This statement was based on a synthesis of the extensive literature 
examining the relationship between BLL and cognitive function, 
including a landmark pooled cohort study by Lanphear et al. (Refs. 59 
and 60), the results of which have been confirmed by repeated re-
analysis (Refs. 61 and 62). The 2024 ISA's statement on a threshold for 
cognitive function decrements in children is consistent with the 2013 
ISA (Refs. 5 and 56), despite the evaluation of over 10 years of 
additional scientific evidence. The Federal Lead Action Plan, developed 
by the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children, which is comprised of 17 Federal departments and 
offices, states that ``no safe blood lead level in children has been 
identified.'' (Ref. 7). Further, the analysis that supports this rule 
examined the 95th percentile of children's modeled BLLs and the 
associated IQ losses (Ref. 12), which for all options considered is at 
or above the group mean BLLs for which IQ loss is observed in the 
literature examined in the ISA (Ref. 5 and 12).
    EPA understands the limitations of the epidemiological analyses of 
BLL and children's IQ and the heterogeneity observed in scientific 
studies evaluating

[[Page 89430]]

groups with mean BLLs below 2 [micro]g/dL, and acknowledges that a 
threshold could exist that is currently unidentified; but ultimately in 
its assessment of the available scientific research findings in the 
2024 ISA for lead, the Agency observed that ``the collective body of 
epidemiologic studies provides no evidence of a threshold for cognitive 
effects in children across the range of BLLs examined.'' This body of 
evidence includes studies which found effects on children's cognition 
in some groups of children with prenatal and early childhood blood lead 
or concurrent blood lead in the range of <1 to 10 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 5). 
EPA continues to acknowledge the aforementioned uncertainties and notes 
that science is constantly evolving and, as additional data become 
available (e.g., exposure and health impacts), then EPA may undertake a 
new rulemaking to propose changing the standards in the future to 
reflect any new data or information about an acceptable threshold of 
effects on cognition in children.
    Additionally, the CDC acknowledges that ``[s]cientific evidence 
suggests that there is no known safe [BLL], because even small amounts 
of lead can be harmful to a child's developing brain'' (Ref. 63). When 
the original DLHS and DLCL were proposed and finalized in 1998 and 2001 
the CDC had set a ``level of concern'' for children's BLL at >=10 
[micro]g/dL (Refs. 64 and 65). In 1991, when that level was established 
as a level that should prompt public health actions, the CDC 
concurrently recognized that a BLL of 10 [micro]g/dL did not define a 
threshold for the harmful effects of lead (Ref. 64). One goal for the 
level was that ``all lead poisoning prevention activities should be to 
reduce children's BLLs below 10 [micro]g/dL'' (Ref. 64). Accordingly, 
in the 1998 proposal EPA stated that, ``[a]lthough the scientific 
community has not been able to identify a threshold of exposure below 
which adverse health effects do not occur, the evidence of health 
effects below 10 [micro]g/dL is not sufficiently strong to warrant 
concern'' (Ref. 66). In the final rule in 2001, EPA determined the 
lowest candidate DLHS by using a 1 to 5% probability of an individual 
child developing a BLL of 10 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 20).
    In the 2019 Final Rule, EPA recognized that ``[a]lthough health 
risks to young children decrease with decreasing dust-lead levels, no 
non-zero lead level, including background levels, can be shown to 
eliminate health risk entirely.'' At that time, EPA also recognized the 
CDC's 2012 decision to discontinue its use of a 10 [micro]g/dL blood 
lead ``level of concern'' and to introduce a population-based blood 
lead reference value (BLRV) to identify children exposed to more lead 
than most other children in the United States (Ref. 67). The BLRV 
represents the 97.5th percentile of the U.S. population BLL 
distribution in children ages 1 to 5 from the National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). This means that by definition 
2.5 percent of children ages 1 to 5 in the NHANES survey have a BLL 
greater than the BLRV. This metric was established in part because ``no 
safe blood lead level in children ha[d] been identified,'' (Ref. 67). 
In 2012 the BLRV was 5 [micro]g/dL, based on young children's BLL in 
the 2007-2010 NHANES, and in 2021 it was lowered to 3.5 [micro]g/dL 
based on the children's lower BLLs observed in the 2015-2018 NHANES 
(Ref. 65). The BLRV is not based on a health endpoint, but rather is a 
statistical point in the distribution of children's BLLs in the United 
States used as a policy tool to identify children who have higher 
levels of lead in their blood compared with most children.
    Establishing a health-based only standard for DLRL, as well as DLAL 
that considers other factors (i.e., taking into account reliability, 
effectiveness, and safety), is similar to EPA's implementation of some 
other programs governing lead exposure. For example, under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA is required to establish a maximum 
contaminant level goal (MCLG) at a level at which, in the 
Administrator's judgment, ``no known or anticipated adverse effects on 
the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of 
safety.'' SDWA section 1412(b)(4). EPA established a health based MCLG 
of zero for lead in drinking water. National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations include either an enforceable maximum contaminant level 
(MCL) or treatment technique requirements, EPA can set a treatment 
technique requirement in lieu of an MCL if ``it is not economically or 
technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant.'' 
SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A). In addition to the MCLG, EPA established 
treatment technique requirements for lead taking into account several 
factors (56 FR 26460). Unlike many other drinking water contaminants, 
lead is generally not present in source water but enters drinking water 
from corrosion of plumbing materials that contain lead including lead 
service lines and premise plumbing. Occurrence of lead in drinking 
water is variable within a system and across systems due to factors 
such as the amount of lead in any individual site's plumbing, physical 
and chemical characteristics of the water, and consumer use patterns. 
Additionally, sources of lead can be beyond the control of the water 
system to replace, such as premise plumbing. Water systems can adjust 
or add treatment to control the corrosivity of the water to reduce lead 
leaching from lead pipes and premise plumbing. EPA is required to 
consider technical feasibility and costs when establishing the 
treatment technique. Under EPA's treatment technique rule for lead in 
drinking water, EPA established a non-health-based action level that, 
if exceeded, requires water systems to take actions to reduce elevated 
levels of lead in drinking water.
c. Modeling Discussion and Results
    The Technical Support Document estimated BLL and IQ decrements 
(among other health endpoints, see Unit III. for more information) in 
children exposed to hypothetical dust-lead loading values (i.e., it 
evaluated the estimated impacts of exact dust-lead exposures). These 
estimates for BLLs of children exposed to the DLRL dust-lead loadings 
were evaluated for children at each age up to age six, including age 
two (generally, age two is the age of greatest modeled exposure), and 
lead-related reduction in IQ at age six was estimated from the lifetime 
average BLL (average of BLLs across the period prior to age six). This 
approach is consistent with the study from which the BLL concentration-
IQ response function was drawn. This study related IQ quantified at 
about six years of age to each child's lifetime average BLLs (based on 
blood lead measurements taken from six months up to age of the IQ test 
(Refs. 59 and 60). In the following discussion towards the end of this 
section, both the model results for two-year BLL and the estimates of 
IQ change at six years are represented, and EPA refers to them as the 
results for ``young children'' for brevity.
    Ultimately, the results from the TSD show that as dust-lead levels 
in housing decrease below the current standard (i.e., 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ 
and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills), so do children's 
BLL and IQ decrement from lead exposure, which supports the final 
approach of any reportable level and the concept of disclosure. These 
values are estimated to help EPA analyze the impacts of this rulemaking 
on the health (i.e., IQ decrement, which is a measure of cognitive 
function) and dust-lead exposure of the population in question (i.e., 
young children in pre-1978 buildings and COFs), as well as to inform a 
costs and benefits analysis in the EA. Two other approaches to

[[Page 89431]]

revising the DLHS (described as DLRL moving forward) and their dust-
lead loading candidates were considered and were both discussed in 
depth in the 2023 Proposed Rule and evaluated in the TSD. See Unit 
IV.B.2. for more information.
    When choosing health or exposure metrics to evaluate the DLRL 
approaches based on the TSD results, the Agency considered three 
factors: (1) the CDC's BLRV (which is a not a health-based end point 
but rather is a statistical measure of relative exposure); (2) 
responsiveness to feedback received previously from various scientific 
bodies; and (3) Agency precedent. The TSD considers BLL and IQ changes 
in two ways: relative to aggregate/total lead exposure (which includes 
exposure from other media: soil, diet, water, and air in addition to 
dust) and relative to incremental/dust-only lead exposure (Ref. 12). 
For example, in 2001 the lowest DLHS candidate was identified by using 
a 1 to 5% probability of an individual child developing a BLL of 10 
[mu]g/dL (Ref. 20), which represented total BLL, inclusive of exposure 
to lead through other media.
    In the TSD analyses for this final rule, EPA compared BLL in young 
children, with an emphasis on 2-year-old children because this is the 
age of greatest modeled exposure, from aggregate or total exposure from 
all media (i.e., dust, soil, diet, water, and air) to the CDC BLRV of 
3.5 [mu]g/dL. This BLL value is not health based and does not represent 
a toxicity threshold (and is subject to change over time, since the CDC 
BLRV changes as the BLLs in the population change); however, CDC 
explains that it can still be used as a tool to ``(1) help determine 
whether medical or environmental follow-up actions should be initiated 
for an individual child and (2) prioritize communities with the most 
need for primary prevention of exposure and evaluate the effectiveness 
of prevention efforts'' (Ref. 65). Importantly, even at zero dust-lead 
(which again is not a candidate of interest but is being used for 
comparison and informational purposes only), children are estimated to 
have a 5.7% probability of exceeding the BLRV given the impact of 
background lead exposures from other media (e.g., soil, diet, water, 
and air) (Ref. 12).

                                   Table 1--Percent Exceedance Values for Zero Dust-Lead, Age: 2-Year-Old (30 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Probability
                                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Approach                       Floor ([micro]g/ Sill ([micro]g/                                     Dust only BLL    Dust only BLL
                                                       ft[sup2])        ft[sup2])      Total BLL >3.5    Total BLL >5    >1 [micro]g/dL   >2.5 [micro]g/
                                                                                      [micro]g/dL (%)  [micro]g/dL (%)        (%)             dL (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\..........................................               0                0              5.7              2.2              0.0              0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational
  purposes only.

    In 2011, EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and in 2012 the 
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) both expressed 
support for an incremental BLL approach that focuses on dust-lead 
exposure only. In 2011 SAB reviewed EPA's Approach for Developing Lead 
Dust Hazard Standards for Residences (November 2010 Draft) and Approach 
for Developing Lead Dust Hazard Standards for Public and Commercial 
Buildings (November 2010 Draft) and provided feedback that there are 
several key advantages to the incremental approach (e.g., reducing 
uncertainty from estimating exposures from other media) and provided 
that a change in BLL ``of 1 or 2 [mu]g/dL at the 90th percentile'' 
could be an example of a target risk level. Similarly, CHPAC expressed 
support for using an incremental approach and preferred levels such 
that an adverse change in BLL is ``no greater than 1 or 2.5 [micro]g/
dL'' (Ref. 68).
    As a result, EPA also estimated what dust-lead levels (considering 
only the dust-lead component in the multi-media exposure modeling) 
would result in incremental BLL change ranging between 1 and 2.5 [mu]g/
dL based on exposure assumptions described in the TSD (Ref. 12).
    For this reconsideration rulemaking the Agency considered the 
estimated total/aggregate IQ change (i.e., the estimated total or 
aggregate IQ change from modeled BLL including all modeled sources of 
lead exposure) at age six and compared it to a threshold of 1 to 2 
points. IQ changes due to background exposures to lead in other media 
(e.g., soil, diet, water, and air) are estimated to already have a 
48.7% probability to exceed 2 points for children in target housing 
without also considering additional dust-lead exposure (Ref. 12).

                                   Table 2--Percent Exceedance Values for Zero Dust-Lead, Age: 6-Year-Old (72 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Probability
                                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Approach                       Floor ([micro]g/ Sill ([micro]g/      Total IQ         Total IQ       Dust only IQ     Dust only IQ
                                                       ft[sup2])        ft[sup2])      decrement >1pt   decrement >2pt   decrement >1pt   decrement >2pt
                                                                                            (%)              (%)              (%)              (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\..........................................               0                0             88.9             48.7              0.0              0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational
  purposes only.

    In addition to total/aggregate IQ change, EPA determined BLLs that 
were estimated to result in an incremental loss of 1 to 2 IQ points 
from exposure to only dust-lead (i.e., exclusive of lead in other media 
such as soil, diet, water, and air). This metric is explicitly health-
based, in that it is an estimated health effect. There is EPA 
precedence for using the metric of an incremental change in IQ with a 
range of values of 1 to 2 points to inform national standards 
decisions. This includes the 2008 and 2016 decisions on the primary 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for lead, which was 
informed by consideration of air-related IQ decrement estimates based 
on an evidence-based framework, with a focus on the at-risk 
subpopulation of children living near sources who are likely to be

[[Page 89432]]

most highly exposed to air-related lead (Ref. 69). In their review of 
various technical documents supporting both the 2008 and 2016 NAAQS 
reviews, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) supported 
using an incremental 1-to-2-point IQ decrement approach for 
consideration during development of the air standard (Refs. 69 and 70).
    When modeling the ``any reportable level'' approach in the TSD to 
compare to these health and exposure metrics of interest (as discussed 
previously), EPA used estimated dust-lead loadings ranging from 0.8 to 
2.0 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 0.8 to 4.3 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills. These are estimated values for an any reportable level DLRL 
paired with both the proposed DLAL (3 [mu]g/ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 
25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs 
respectively) and the proposed alternative DLAL (5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and window 
troughs respectively, which is being finalized in this rulemaking). 
These estimated dust-lead loadings account for the lower reporting 
thresholds that EPA estimates laboratories will realistically attain 
under this rule. EPA collected information on real-world laboratory 
reporting limits from stakeholder outreach conversations. These any 
reportable level values listed in this unit are based on the average of 
reporting limits (which can vary across laboratories) that currently 
report numeric dust wipe loadings at levels 80% of the DLAL options. 
For the details of these calculations, see Section 2.4.6 of the EA 
(Ref. 10). Once again, EPA also used a hypothetical dust-lead loading 
value of zero, for comparison purposes only, to better understand the 
estimated impact that lead exposure from other matrices is expected to 
have on a young child without any dust-lead exposure.
    The dust-lead reportable level will be used as a tool to identify 
when there are LBP hazards, particularly dust-lead hazards present, and 
to disclose those hazards to the individuals who requested the work. 
EPA's analysis for the final DLRL (any reportable level partnered with 
the final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft2 and 40 [mu]g/ft2 for floors and window 
sills) shows that after implementation of this standard, young children 
in target housing are estimated to have a 9.8% probability of exceeding 
an incremental BLL of 1 [mu]g/dL (tables 12-2 and 12-3 in the TSD). In 
contrast, under the 2019 DLHS of 10 [mu]g/ft2 and 100 [mu]g/ft2, such 
children would have a 36.7% probability of exceeding that BLL.
    When evaluating the final DLRL of any reportable level partnered 
with the final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
window sills by its impact on the metric of total BLL, the modeling 
includes exposure from other media such as soil, diet, water, and air. 
Importantly, even at zero dust-lead, 2-year-old children in target 
housing are estimated to have a 5.7% probability of exceeding the BLRV 
given the impact of these other exposures. This is because children who 
reside in target housing (built before 1978) have higher exposures to 
lead in soil and water relative to the overall population of US 
children (Ref. 71). However, the TSD modeling results did show that for 
any reportable level approach partnered with the final DLAL, there was 
a 10% probability of exposed 2-year-old children's BLL exceeding the 
CDC BLRV given their likely exposures to other sources of lead, an 
increase of 4.3% from the 5.7% probability at zero dust-lead and a 
reduction from the 2019 DLHS levels of 18%.

                                   Table 3--Percent Exceedance Values for DLRL Candidates, Age: 2-Year-Old (30 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                               Floor                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                            ([micro]g/    Sill ([micro]g/ Total BLL >3.5   Total BLL >5    Dust only BLL   Dust only BLL
                                                             ft[sup2])       ft[sup2])      [micro]g/dL     [micro]g/dL   >1 [micro]g/dL  >2.5 [micro]g/
                                                                                                (%)             (%)             (%)           dL (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0             5.7             2.2             0.0             0.0
ARL With 3/20 DLAL......................................             0.8             0.8             8.4             3.0             4.2             0.2
ARL With 5/40 DLAL......................................             2.0             4.3            10.0             3.8             9.8             0.9
Current Standard........................................              10             100            18.0             7.5            36.7             6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational
  purposes only.

    DLRL candidates with the any reportable level approach are also 
estimated to be associated with a considerable reduction in the percent 
exceedance values for the lowest IQ decrements when compared with the 
current DLHS of 10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills. Any 
reportable level partnered with the final DLAL option (5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\) is estimated to have an 8.4% probability of greater 
than 2 points of IQ decrement associated with dust-exposure, keeping 
the percentage of exceedance of 2 points of IQ decrement below 10% 
probability compared with the previous 2019 DLHS of 37.9%.

                                   Table 4--Percent Exceedance Values for DLHS Candidates, Age: 6-Year-Old (72 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                               Floor                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                            ([micro]g/    Sill ([micro]g/    Total IQ        Total IQ      Dust only IQ    Dust only IQ
                                                             ft[sup2])       ft[sup2])    decrement >1pt  decrement >2pt  decrement >1pt  decrement >2pt
                                                                                                (%)             (%)             (%)             (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0            88.9            48.7             0.0             0.0
ARL With 3/20 DLAL......................................             0.8             0.8            96.4            71.0            20.3             2.7
ARL With 5/40 DLAL......................................             2.0             4.3            97.7            78.0            39.2             8.4
Current Standard........................................              10             100            99.4            90.3            75.8            37.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational
  purposes only.


[[Page 89433]]

d. Public Comment Input
    EPA received a number of comments during the public comment period 
that supported the proposed DLHS approach (described as DLRL moving 
forward) of ``any reportable level'' based on their view that there is 
no safe level of lead exposure. Multiple commenters also emphasized the 
dangers of lead exposure and were supportive as the DLRL will make the 
public and the regulated community aware of the risk lead dust may 
pose. Comments were also received expressing a lack of support for any 
reportable level, highlighting several primary concerns: that this 
approach would lead to larger public health impacts, create housing 
instability, encompass background levels of lead or lead sources that 
are not from lead-based paint, that the level would vary or be 
inconsistent from laboratory to laboratory, concerns over liability, 
and the impacts that an increase in costs would have.
    EPA's responsibility when revising the DLRL (which is being done in 
accordance with the May 2021 Court Opinion and EPA's statutory 
authority) is to identify ``any condition that causes exposure to lead 
from lead-contaminated dust . . . that would result in adverse human 
health effects'' (emphasis added) (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). These health-
only considerations do not include broader public health concerns and 
are specifically focused on the health impacts of dust-lead exposure, 
without consideration of housing instability, source of the lead in the 
dust, cost, etc. In 2019 when EPA originally revised the DLHS, the 
Agency did so based on other factors such as risk management, 
consistency across the U.S. government, and laboratory capacity and 
capability, among other reasons. The 2021 Court opinion clearly 
explained that EPA must reconsider the 2019 DLHS and do so using 
health-only factors.
    Firstly, EPA agrees with public commenters about the importance of 
the availability of affordable housing in the United States and wants 
to highlight actions this Administration has taken on this issue, such 
as the May 2022 Housing Supply Action Plan which was last updated in 
July 2023 with actions to further lower housing costs and boost supply 
(Refs. 72 and 73). Access to secure housing is an important social 
determinant of health (Ref. 74). Research finds negative health effects 
resulting from three key mechanisms of housing insecurity: lack of 
housing affordability leading to stress and material deprivation (Refs. 
75, 76, 77 and 78), lack of housing stability (Refs. 79, 80, 81, 82 and 
83), and lack of safe and adequate housing (Refs. 84, 85, 86, 87 and 
88). EPA does not want to negatively impact the availability of housing 
stock with this final rulemaking nor disincentivize participation in 
any Federal programs and plans to work closely with HUD to try to help 
mitigate any such consequences. See Unit V.B. for more information on 
the implications of this rulemaking on HUD programs.
    Secondly, EPA acknowledges that lead is naturally occurring and 
that it is impossible to entirely remove lead from nature. EPA 
acknowledges that background concentrations of dust-lead could be 
higher than any reportable level as analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized 
laboratory, depending on the sensitivity of the dust-wipe sampling 
technology being used and the background levels themselves. However, in 
EPA's 2001 LBP Hazards Rule establishing the original dust-lead 
standards, including the DLHS and DLCL (described as DLRL and DLAL 
moving forward), EPA explained that the Agency would not exclude from 
coverage under TSCA Title IV certain dust or soil based on its lead 
source due to both statutory and technical reasons. The 2001 Response 
to Comment Document (that accompanies the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule) 
rightly pointed out that the definitions of ``lead-contaminated soil'' 
and ``lead-contaminated dust'' from TSCA section 401 do not include 
mention of lead-paint or any reference to paint as the source of lead 
in dust or soil. Additionally, the definition of a ``lead-based paint 
hazard'' lists exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust and soil as 
sources of lead contamination separate from--and not explicitly linked 
to--lead-contaminated paint. The 2001 Response to Comment Document 
continues that in addition to soil, paint and dust being defined 
separately and distinctly in the statute, TSCA section 403 directs EPA 
to ``promulgate regulations which shall identify, for the purposes of 
[TSCA Title IV] and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 
Act of 1992, lead-based paint hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and 
lead-contaminated soil'' (15 U.S.C. 2683). If the definitions for lead-
contaminated dust and soil were meant to include only lead from paint, 
it would not be necessary to list them separately in TSCA section 403. 
EPA ultimately concluded, based on the ``breadth of the definition for 
lead-contaminated dust and soil taken together with the structures of 
both Title X and TSCA demonstrate that the lead source in lead-
contaminated dust and soil covered by these statutes is not limited to 
lead from paint.'' For the full discussion, see the 2001 response to 
comments document (Ref. 89).
    Separately, EPA also pointed out in the 2001 response to comments 
document the complexity of identifying a method for distinguishing the 
risks based on different types of lead (i.e., from different sources). 
It is not possible to determine easily and with good precision what 
element of lead in dust or soil is from what specific source or 
building component. EPA concluded at the time that ``there is a 
distinct absence of a scientific method to determine conclusively that 
the source of lead in dust or soil is not paint on a routine basis.'' 
EPA believes that this conclusion has not changed, and while there are 
some studies that involve stable isotope ratios (see 2001 response to 
comments document for more information), those are not a viable 
solution for the LBP activities program which includes numerous 
properties that fall under the definition of target housing and COFs, 
with risk assessments and testing happening across the United States on 
a routine basis.
    Note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit upheld this interpretation pertaining to source apportionment 
in 2002 in Nat'l Multi Housing Council v. EPA, 292 F.3d 232 (D.C. Cir. 
2002). Based on the epidemiological evidence available, EPA observed in 
the 2013 and 2024 Integrated Science Assessments that there is no 
evidence of a threshold below which there are no harmful effects on 
cognition from lead exposure, (Refs. 5 and 56), and that conclusion is 
not impacted by the source of that lead exposure. EPA is also unaware 
of any information that points to different health effects based on 
different types of dust-lead (i.e., dust-lead from soil vs. dust-lead 
from household paint).
    Thirdly, EPA agrees with the commenters that the final DLRL 
(previously referred to as DLHS) will potentially vary from laboratory 
to laboratory. EPA sees this as a strength of the final DLRL: that 
there is room for improvement and the possibility of getting as low as 
reliably reportable depending on the sensitivity of the technology, 
which in turn allows the regulated community to be able to disclose 
lower levels. In addition, EPA sets the minimum standards laboratories 
need to meet, outlined in the latest LQSR version 4.0. Therefore, EPA 
feels the potential for variability that the commenters are raising is 
limited and any variability would be below the 80%

[[Page 89434]]

of the lowest action level for dust wipe samples per specific surface 
area (i.e., equal to or less than 4 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 32 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 80 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs). 
This will also reduce the need to revise the DLRL, unless there is a 
compelling reason to, such as a threshold for adverse effects being 
identified. EPA also notes that it has previously adopted and continues 
to apply an analogous concept in the disclosure program (40 CFR part 
745, subpart F and 24 CFR part 35, subpart A), where disclosable 
records and reports have included any information regarding LBP or LBP 
hazards, including dust-lead levels below the DLHS (described as DLRL 
moving forward). As laboratory testing protocols have improved, so has 
the quality of the information in the records and reports based on such 
testing, which are ultimately provided to the home/building owner or 
lessee.
    EPA points the regulated community to other changes being finalized 
in the rulemaking, such as the definition of abatement and the 
nomenclature change, which will adjust the terminology used for the 
standards. EPA is finalizing a change in the definition of abatement 
that results in the recommendation for action being shifted to the DLAL 
(rather than the DLHS, described as DLRL moving forward, as has been 
the case historically). The DLAL is being finalized as 5 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills, and window troughs. EPA also recommends that all local, Federal 
and authorized programs make similar changes, to change their trigger 
for recommending action, for the same reasons EPA has explained that 
this rulemaking adopts such changes. EPA believes this change will also 
alleviate some of the concerns surrounding laboratory inconsistency if 
the recommendation for action hinges off of the DLAL rather than the 
DLRL. See Unit IV.A. and Unit IV.E. for more information on these 
amendments.
    Additionally, due to feedback from public comments (see Section 5 
of the response to comments document that accompanies this final rule 
for more information), EPA is also finalizing changes to the 
nomenclature of DLHS and DLCL, to dust-lead reportable level and dust-
lead action level (abbreviated DLRL and DLAL). EPA believes these 
revisions will better communicate to the public the purpose of the 
standards and to reduce confusion. EPA believes these changes will also 
help address some of the commenters' concerns about potential liability 
for LBP professionals or landlords from allowing dust-lead hazards to 
remain.
    A more comprehensive version of EPA's responses on all of these 
issues can be found in the response to comments document that 
accompanies this rulemaking (Ref. 38).
2. Other Approaches EPA Considered in the Proposed Rule
    EPA considered two other approaches for revising the DLHS 
(described as DLRL moving forward): a ``numeric standard'' approach and 
a ``post-1977 background'' approach. Both approaches were discussed in 
depth in the proposed rule, which also included requests for comment. 
All three approaches (i.e., any reportable level, numeric standard, and 
post-1977 background) would take different analytical paths to revising 
the DLRL based only on health considerations. EPA is finalizing any 
reportable level, see Unit IV.B.1. for more information; however, the 
other two approaches EPA considered are summarized briefly elsewhere in 
this unit (Unit.IV.B.2.). See the 2023 Proposed Rule for more detailed 
information (Ref. 55).
    The ``numeric standard'' approach would have been based on the 
probability of exceedance of one or more IQ or BLL metrics as 
determined by the Agency, meaning that the Agency would establish a 
DLRL with a rationale based solely on the interpretation of the TSD 
results and using a selected metric. To do this, the Agency would need 
to establish a health or exposure metric of interest (i.e., target BLL 
or IQ change) that would be acceptably protective of human health, such 
as the metrics used in the TSD and described in Unit IV.B.1.c. Within 
the TSD and for the 2023 Proposed Rule, EPA evaluated several numeric 
DLRL candidates that the Agency thought were appropriate given the 
health and exposure metrics of interest and the uncertainty of the 
model at low loading values. The numeric DLRL candidates discussed in 
the proposed rule were 1/10 [mu]g/ft\2\ (i.e., 1 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors 
and 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for sills), 2/20 [mu]g/ft\2\, 3/30 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 
5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and those values were compared with the specified BLL 
and IQ metrics to estimate the probability of exceeding the BLL or IQ 
targets.
    In 2001 and 2019, EPA expressed the challenges of meeting the 
statutory criterion for defining a LBP hazard (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)) 
because it requires EPA to choose a cutoff for when unacceptable risk 
exists. EPA noted in 2001, even if the science and environmental-lead 
prevalence data were perfect, there would likely be no agreement on the 
level, or certainty, of risk that is envisioned in the phrase ``would 
result in adverse human health effects.'' Thus, EPA explained that it 
``would not be appropriate to base a [LBP] hazard standard on any 
specific probability of exceeding any specific [BLL].'' (Refs. 2 and 
20).
    For this numeric approach the Agency would need to establish a 
health or exposure metric of interest (i.e., target BLL or IQ change) 
that would be acceptably protective of human health. Under this numeric 
standard approach, EPA planned to use the threshold of 5% probability 
of exceedance for a child from the population of interest (i.e., young 
children living in pre-1978 housing and COFs). This is similar to the 1 
to 5% probability that was used in 2001 for the lowest DLHS candidate 
(Ref. 20). However, EPA ultimately continues to agree with the 
challenges that were highlighted in 2001 and 2019, and the complexity 
with identifying a cutoff of risk or specific IQ/BLL metrics of 
interest that would be acceptable for purposes of setting the DLRL. 
Accordingly, EPA continues to favor the ``any reportable level'' 
approach.
    EPA also considered and requested comment on the ``post-1977'' 
background approach that would use the average background dust-lead 
levels of housing built in 1978 and beyond as the DLRL. This approach 
would align target housing dust-lead levels with dust-lead levels in 
housing built after lead-based paint was banned. In 1978, the CPSC 
banned lead in paint and similar surface-coating materials for consumer 
use in excess of 0.06% and revised the level in 2009 to 0.009% 
following the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-314). As a result of CPSC's 1978 lead paint ban, the focus of EPA's 
LBP activities program is target housing, which includes most pre-1978 
housing and COFs. This approach would result in lowering the DLRL to 
the dust-lead background levels of housing built after 1977 (known as 
``post-1977 background''), which are presumably not from paint on the 
house in question containing more than 0.06% lead.
    Post-1977 background dust-lead values were calculated from a 
weighted geometric mean of the dust-lead loadings from the American 
Healthy Homes Survey II and were found to be 0.2 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 0.8 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills (Refs. 10 and 53). 
Setting the DLRL at the post-1977 background dust-lead levels would 
allow EPA to focus on dust-lead hazards above what is expected in 
housing without LBP (i.e., after CPSC established a maximum level of 
lead in paint for consumer products, including home paints). 
Establishing DLRL for target housing and COFs in this way, using post-
1977 background

[[Page 89435]]

dust-lead levels, would address disparities in the dust-lead levels 
that children in target housing may be exposed to and the corresponding 
disparate health risks. This approach would also align with the focus 
of Title X on lead hazards in housing constructed before 1978. However, 
there are questions about whether the post-1977 background approach 
would directly address the 2021 Court Opinion as the ``any reportable 
level'' approach does.
    See the 2023 Proposed Rule for more detailed information about 
these two approaches, including a description of their estimated 
modeling results, such as BLL/IQ decrement impacts (Ref. 55). EPA did 
not receive significant public comment for either of these approaches 
and given the 2021 Court Opinion remanding the DLHS for reconsideration 
based only on health factors, the results of the analysis in the TSD, 
and the lack of a discernible threshold in the evidence for the 
association of blood lead with harmful effects on cognition in young 
children, EPA is finalizing revisions to the 2019 DLHS to any 
reportable level of lead analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory, as 
proposed.

C. Dust-Lead Action Level Approach

    TSCA Title IV granted EPA the authority to regulate LBP activities, 
and to take into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety (15 
U.S.C. 2682(a)(1)) when setting those regulations (including the DLAL). 
While considering those three criteria, the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule 
modified the work practice standards to include DLCL (described as DLAL 
moving forward), which ``are used to evaluate the effectiveness of 
cleaning following an abatement'' (Ref. 20). In both the 2001 LBP 
Hazards Rule and the 2021 Final Rule, the DLCL were finalized as the 
same value as the DLHS (described as DLRL moving forward) for floors 
and window sills. When originally established, EPA considered the DLCL 
in the broader context of Title X, and selected DLCL that were 
compatible with a ``workable framework for lead-based paint hazard 
evaluation and reduction.'' EPA chose DLCL that were consistent with 
the DLHS in part to ensure they were ``as easy as possible to 
understand and implement'' (Ref. 66). At that time EPA established the 
DLCL and the DLHS at 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
window sills, with a separate DLCL of 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for troughs.
    In 2021 the DLCL set by EPA continued to mirror the DLHS as it had 
done historically, as the Agency explained that it wanted to update the 
DLCL to achievable levels that would demonstrate elimination of dust-
lead hazards under the 2019 DLHS of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills. The 2021 updates to the DLCL restored 
consistency between the DLCL and DLHS, which had been lowered in 2019 
without a corresponding amendment to the DLCL. Previous public comments 
received on the 2018 DLHS proposal and 2020 DLCL proposal favored 
lowering the DLCL to be consistent with the DLHS (Refs. 90 and 91). As 
a result, in 2021 EPA finalized DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills (the same levels as the DLHS), and 
``EPA considered the achievability of these levels, how the lower dust-
lead loadings can be reliably detected by laboratories, the 
effectiveness of these levels, and consistency with the revised 2019 
standards and across the Federal Government'' (Ref. 3).
    The 2021 Court Opinion affirmed that ``TSCA [Title] IV gives the 
EPA latitude to consider `reliability, effectiveness, and safety''' 
when promulgating regulations ``[w]ith respect to implementation, 
including abatement.'' A Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 995 (Ref. 9). This 
would include the DLCL/DLAL as they represent part of post-abatement 
work practices. The Court continued by emphasizing that this gives EPA 
more discretion when setting the DLCL because they are relevant to the 
implementation of remedial measures, rather than the identification of 
a hazard (i.e., DLHS/DLRL). The Court analogized this dichotomy to 
other environmental statutory schemes (see also Unit IV.B.1.b. for 
EPA's discussion of the SDWA). The Court also held that the DLCL and 
DLHS are directly related and must be reconsidered together. Yet the 
Court recognized the difference in statutory authority and 
considerations (see Unit IV.B. for more information on DLRL, previously 
referred to as DLHS).
    In accordance with the 2021 Court Opinion, EPA is finalizing 
revisions to the DLAL (previously referred to as the DLCL) in the same 
proceeding as the reconsideration of the 2019 DLHS (described as DLRL 
moving forward). Given the Court's direction for the considerations for 
how to revise the DLHS and DLCL and similar to what was proposed in 
2023, EPA is finalizing dust-lead action levels that are decoupled from 
the dust-lead reportable levels (see Unit I.B. and C. for more 
background on decoupling). EPA evaluated the 2021 DLCL in accordance 
with the statute and is finalizing revisions to lower the levels to the 
alternative option that was proposed in 2023, from 10 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
100 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and 
troughs, respectively, to 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 100 
[micro]g/ft\2\ and is finalizing a change in the terminology to DLAL.
1. Rationale for Selecting the Final DLAL
    EPA is finalizing the DLAL given the statutory criteria of 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety, based on consideration of HUD's 
Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey (LHCCS), an evaluation of 
laboratory capabilities and capacity, the potential for risk reduction 
compared to the 2021 DLCL by lowering exposure to dust-lead, resource 
considerations and the Agency's careful review of the public comments 
received on the proposal. EPA chose 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and window troughs, 
respectively, as the DLAL based on these consideration as well as high 
confidence that these standards can be successfully implemented, as 
shown by the use of these clearance levels currently in NYC. Another 
consideration supporting the choice of these DLAL is to avoid 
potentially spreading the limited resources for LBP hazard mitigation 
so broadly that they may be diverted from scenarios that present the 
greatest risk.
a. Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey.
    EPA collaborated with HUD to develop the 2015 LHCCS. The survey 
aimed to examine whether HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and 
Healthy Homes (OLHCHH) Lead Hazard Control (LHC) grantees could achieve 
DLCL (described as DLAL moving forward) below the standards in place at 
that time (i.e., below 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 400 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs, respectively). LHC 
work performed by the grantees must be conducted by LBP certified 
individuals. Since most of the LHC grantees use commercial firms in 
their area, HUD OLHCHH believes that the grantees are conducting a 
large percentage of these activities and are therefore representative 
of the regulated community.
    98 LHC grantees completed the 2015 survey, giving HUD information 
from housing units in which lead hazard control activities took place 
from 2010 through 2012, for a total dataset of 1,552 housing units 
including 7,211 floor samples and 4,893 window sill samples (Ref. 54). 
The data were analyzed to determine the percentage of samples cleared 
at or below specific values. Numerical modeling was performed to 
estimate loadings that fell below laboratory detection limits. For more 
information on how that analysis was

[[Page 89436]]

conducted please see appendix D of the EA (Ref. 10). Since the 2015 
LHCCS report was published, to the Agency's knowledge, there has not 
been any data or source of information of this magnitude in terms of 
clearance samples alongside the details of the process, including the 
number of tests performed (with results) and the type of additional 
work or cleaning performed. EPA found this 2015 LHCCS report still 
relevant and recent enough to provide meaningful input to inform this 
reconsideration rulemaking.
    EPA's analysis of the LHCCS data indicates that 72% of samples from 
2010 to 2012 showed dust-lead levels at or below 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 88% were at or below 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 93% 
were at or below 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window troughs. As a result, EPA 
believes that the final DLAL of 5 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 40 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs are 
achievable by LBP professionals, especially since the survey 
respondents were only required to achieve clearance below the 2001 DLCL 
at that time (40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ window 
sills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window troughs). It is possible that the 
percentage of samples achieving clearance may be even higher today, due 
to the 2021 revision of the DLCL to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills, meaning clearance has had to be 
achieved at these lower levels or below, since that time. As a result, 
EPA has high confidence that the 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs 
DLAL option is achievable by LBP professionals, considering reliability 
and effectiveness.
b. Laboratory Capabilities for DLAL
    In order to better understand how laboratory capabilities would be 
impacted by the proposed DLAL (previously referred to as DLCL) of 3 
[mu]g/ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills and troughs, respectively, and the final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, EPA spoke with eighteen NLLAP-
recognized laboratories, nine prior to the 2023 Proposed Rule and nine 
after the public comment period was complete (Refs. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 
97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). EPA 
wanted to collect additional information from NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories about their dust-wipe programs, especially given that a 
non-static DLRL would shift the LQSR ``action level'' to the DLAL (see 
Unit IV.B.1.a. for more information). As explained in the proposal, EPA 
was interested in information from laboratories who had high dust wipe 
testing capacity and laboratories that had both a flame atomic 
absorption spectroscopy (FAAS) and the more sensitive laboratory 
instruments such as inductively coupled plasma atomic emission 
spectroscopy (ICP-AES) (also referred to as inductively coupled plasma 
optical emission spectroscopy or ICP-OES) or an inductively coupled 
plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). The Agency wanted additional 
background on ICP instruments and their use for dust wipe testing in 
general. After the public comment period, EPA wanted to continue 
building on the outreach that had been previously performed and further 
refine the Agency's understanding of the threshold for FAAS technology 
in terms of a lower limit of sensitivity by meeting with nine 
additional laboratories (eighteen total) and physically touring one 
location (Ref. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). Among 
the laboratories EPA spoke to in 2022, 2023 and 2024, 14 were 
accredited to use FAAS, 10 were accredited to use ICP-AES, and 2 were 
accredited to use ICP-MS to analyze dust wipe samples for lead, some 
being accredited for multiple types of technology. Seventeen of the 
eighteen laboratories provide commercial testing services, four of 
which are among the largest U.S. lead laboratories by dust wipe test 
volume. For additional details about the laboratory capabilities, see 
Section 2.4 in the EA that accompanies this rulemaking (Ref. 10).
    FAAS has been the most popular choice for lead dust wipe testing 
for some time due in part to its low purchase price and operating cost, 
speed, and ease of use. Over two-thirds of laboratories recognized 
under the NLLAP for lead dust wipe testing currently use FAAS, and over 
half of these NLLAP laboratories rely solely on FAAS (Ref. 10). The 
laboratories using ICP-AES for dust-wipes tested an order of magnitude 
fewer dust-wipe samples than laboratories using FAAS. Some of the 
laboratories accredited for both types of instruments only use their 
ICP instrument for wipes being analyzed for multiple metals for 
industrial hygiene analyses or analysis of air or water samples instead 
of for dust-wipes related to EPA's lead-based paint activities rule 
(Refs. 97, 101, 104, 107, 108). One laboratory that uses both FAAS and 
ICP-AES indicated that it used FAAS for 95% of the samples tested and 
ICP-AES for only 5% (Ref. 98). Another laboratory that uses both FAAS 
and ICP-AES stated that it used the ICP-AES instrument to test 
approximately 20 dust-wipes per year, out of 34,000 to 36,000 lead 
dust-wipes that it analyzes each year (Ref. 104).
    The information received from the laboratory outreach that was 
performed in preparation for the proposed rule indicated that if 
finalized as proposed, ICP-AES would likely become the instrument 
standard for dust wipe testing for lead at the NLLAP laboratories, as 
FAAS instruments were not reported to consistently meet the 
quantitation limits associated with the proposed DLCL. ICP-AES 
instruments can detect lead at lower levels than FAAS instruments, but 
ICP-AES instruments are more expensive to purchase, have higher 
operating costs for consumable supplies, require a more experienced 
technician to operate, and need more time for sample preparation, 
analysis, and quality control requirements than FAAS instruments. 
Laboratories raised several concerns about switching to ICP 
instruments, including the reduction in the throughput rate, the need 
for multiple instruments and staff to operate them, higher prices, 
delayed turnaround times, and concerns over maintaining the current 
sample volume. For example, one laboratory EPA spoke to estimated that 
they would have to purchase three to six new instruments, hire several 
highly qualified technicians, and run the laboratory on shifts over 24 
hours to meet current demand for dust wipe tests conducted solely by 
ICP (Ref. 96). Several laboratories questioned whether they would keep 
dust-wipe testing in their portfolio if EPA finalized the levels from 
the 2023 Proposed Rule (Refs. 96, 98, 103, 107).
    This shift in instrumentation that would have been needed as a 
result of the clearance levels in the proposed rule would increase both 
cost per sample as well as turnaround time. Dust wipe testing by ICP-
AES is approximately two to four times more expensive per sample than 
testing by FAAS (Refs. 96, 98, 100, 104, 108). Laboratories also 
mentioned that a substantial portion of their dust-wipe testing clients 
request results in one day or less (in some cases in as little as 
several hours) following a lead hazard reduction activity, so that 
residents can quickly reoccupy their homes (Refs. 95, 101, 103). Some 
of the laboratories using FAAS indicated that they offered turnaround 
times as short as several hours (Refs. 96, 104, 107). Several 
laboratories doubted the feasibility of providing same-day or next-day 
turnarounds at sufficient volume should they switch to ICP technology 
(Refs. 96, 98, 104, 108). Longer turnaround times would delay when 
individuals who temporarily

[[Page 89437]]

moved out can reoccupy their homes, requiring them to spend more time 
in temporary accommodations (Ref. 91) which can increase the costs of 
lead hazard reduction activities, thus potentially reducing the number 
of abatements and interim control that would be funded.
    EPA found that several laboratories forecast that dust-wipe test 
volumes will continue to grow over the next decade even in the absence 
of this rule (Refs. 96, 97 and 102). First, a growing proportion of 
laboratories' dust-wipe testing business comes from landlords who need 
to comply with municipal housing regulations set by States or 
localities. Laboratories expect similar regulations to be enacted in 
the coming years, increasing demand for dust-wipe testing for clearance 
(Ref. 97). Second, in recent years laboratories have received an 
increased volume of test samples generated by disaster recovery 
programs. When there is a natural disaster (such as a major flood) that 
requires clean-up and re-construction of pre-1978 housing, laboratories 
can receive an unexpected spike in dust-wipe tests. Laboratories 
pointed out that the increasing rate of disaster-related demand spikes 
may overwhelm their capacity if only ICP can be used for dust-wipe 
testing.
    Finally, laboratories also expressed concern that increases in 
costs for activities such as testing, cleaning, and temporary 
accommodations due to the dust-lead levels EPA originally proposed 
would reduce the number of housing units where lead hazards would be 
addressed, in part because State and local municipalities often have a 
fixed budget for their housing and health programs (Refs. 96 and 108). 
The laboratories felt that the 2023 Proposed Rule could have the 
unintended result of exposing more individuals to elevated dust-lead 
levels for a longer period of time (Refs. 108 and 109). Given the 
information gathered via EPA's outreach to laboratories, EPA is 
concerned that setting action levels too low would deter participation 
in lead-hazard control programs and activities that require dust-wipe 
testing or cause a market failure that does not allow the current 
volume of testing to continue.
    EPA is finalizing a DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs. EPA has increased 
confidence that, relative to the proposed 2023 DLCL (i.e., 3 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\), laboratories can 
numerically quantify dust-lead levels of 5 [mu]g/wipe with FAAS 
technology and attain a quantitation limit of equal to or less than 80% 
of the final DLAL (i.e., 4 [mu]g/ft\2\, 32 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 80 [mu]g/
ft\2\) for floors, window sills and troughs. EPA believes that the 
final DLAL, rather than the proposed 2023 DLCL, partnered with the 
changes incorporated into LQSR 4.0, allows NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories to continue using FAAS technology. This would mitigate any 
unintended reductions in dust wipe capacity (e.g., throughput time, 
cost, labor, etc.) due to having to switch to more sensitive technology 
such as ICP-AES. While some NLLAP-recognized laboratories may opt for 
more sensitive technologies, EPA does not foresee any concerns 
reporting to 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ even 
for those surfaces with a smaller area such as on window sills or 
troughs if laboratories successfully attain a regulatory limit of 5 
[mu]g/ft\2\.
c. Final DLAL Modeling Results
    EPA must understand the estimated health impacts of dust-lead 
exposure when selecting a DLAL that is reliable, effective, and safe, 
as well as to help inform the economic analysis. The TSD that 
accompanies this rule includes an evaluation of dust-lead loadings, 
specifically the 2021 DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and window sills, the proposed DLAL of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 20 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills and the final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/
ft\2\ and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills, compared to 
estimated BLL and IQ decrements. The unique dust-lead contribution to 
exposure from window troughs has not been distinguished from window 
sills given the strong correlation between dust-lead loadings on the 
two surface types, the lack of data on access to window troughs and 
window sills by children, and the paired impacts in window sills and 
window troughs from intervention studies addressing lead paint in 
window trim and casings. Further discussion on exposure to window 
troughs can be found in the TSD in appendix C. As a result, exposure to 
window trough dust-lead and resultant benefits from a lowered DLAL for 
troughs is not calculated separately for this rulemaking. The TSD also 
describes modeling of dust-lead exposures at the specific DLAL options 
for window sills and floors only and estimates of both BLLs that were 
evaluated for children at each age up to age six, including age two 
(generally, this is the age of greatest modeled exposure), and lead-
related reduction in IQ at age six was estimated from the lifetime 
average BLL (average of BLLs across the period prior to age six). See 
Unit IV.B.1.c. for more specific information on which BLL and IQ 
decrements were chosen for comparison, and Unit III. for more details 
on estimated potential impacts from dust-lead exposures analyzed in the 
TSD. Tables 5 and 6 represent the percent exceedance of highlighted 
metrics at dust-lead loadings corresponding to the 2021 DLCL (10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills), the final DLAL 
(5 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills) and zero 
(for comparison purposes only).
    The final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs represents a 50% or more 
reduction of dust-lead left on a surface following the completion of an 
abatement, when compared to the 2021 DLCL (10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\). As a result, DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ would be beneficial to maintaining 
lower children's BLLs and protecting against associated health outcomes 
such as decreased IQ. The modeling results provided in the TSD show 
that 2-year-old children in pre-1978 housing exposed to dust-lead 
loadings of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills would have an estimated 13.9% probability of exceeding a total 
BLL of 3.5 [mu]g/dL (CDC's BLRV). Total BLL includes exposure from 
other media such as soil, diet, water, and air; even at zero dust-lead, 
2-year-old children would still have a 5.7% probability of exceeding 
the CDC's BLRV from these other sources. The 13.9% probability of 
exceeding the BLRV is significantly lower than the 18.0% probability of 
exceedance of the BLRV when exposed to the current DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills (see table 5).
    When considering dust-lead exposure only (not including other 
estimated lead exposures from soil, diet, water, and air), 2-year-old 
children in pre-1978 housing exposed to the final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ would have a 3.2 to 23.0% 
probability of exceeding a BLL of 1 to 2.5 [mu]g/dL based on the 
modeled results. The final DLAL is also estimated to be associated with 
a 22.4% probability of exceeding 2 points of IQ decrement in 6-year-old 
children. As with total BLL, this is a considerable reduction from the 
37.9% chance of exceeding 2 points of IQ decrement for 6-year-old 
children living in target housing who are exposed the current DLCL 
(table 6). Overall, the modeling within the TSD indicated that the 5 
[mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ DLCL for floors, 
window sills and troughs represents a substantial reduction in risk 
from the current clearance levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs.

[[Page 89438]]



                              Table 5--Percent Exceedance Values for the Final DLAL Candidate, Age: 2-Year-Old (30 months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                          Floor  ([mu]g/   Sill  ([mu]g/   Total BLL  >                   Dust Only  BLL  Dust Only  BLL
                                                              ft\2\)          ft\2\)       3.5 [mu]g/dL   Total BLL  > 5   > 1 [mu]g/dL    >  2.5 [mu]g/
                                                                                                (%)        [mu]g/dL  (%)        (%)           dL  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0             5.7             2.2             0.0             0.0
5/40 DLAL...............................................               5              40            13.9             5.5            23.0             3.2
Current Standard........................................              10             100            18.0             7.5            36.7             6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational
  purposes only.


                              Table 6--Percent Exceedance Values for the Final DLAL Candidate, Age: 6-Year-Old (72 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                          Floor  ([mu]g/   Sill  ([mu]g/     Total IQ        Total IQ      Dust Only IQ    Dust Only IQ
                                                              ft\2\)          ft\2\)       Decrement  >    Decrement  >    Decrement  >    Decrement  >
                                                                                             1pt  (%)        2pt  (%)        1pt  (%)        2pt  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0            88.9            48.7             0.0             0.0
5/40 DLAL...............................................               5              40            98.8            85.1            62.7            22.4
Current Standard........................................              10             100            99.4            90.3            75.8            37.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational
  purposes only.

    These estimates represent post-abatement exposure at the exact 
dust-lead loadings of the final DLAL, but levels below those values 
must be achieved in order for an abatement to be considered complete. 
The subpopulation of children affected by this rule (i.e., children 
with pre-abatement dust-lead exposures above the action level) 
experience pre-abatement dust lead loadings that are in the upper 
percentiles of children living in target housing (Ref. 71). As a 
result, it is likely that actual exceedances among the full population 
of children in target housing (i.e., not only those who are affected by 
this rule, but all children who reside in housing constructed before 
1978) are lower than what is represented in the TSD for the 
subpopulation affected by this rule. In contrast to the TSD, which 
estimates the health risk and exposure associated with dust-lead 
loading candidates for a hypothetical population of children in target 
housing without consideration to how many children are actually 
affected by the rule, the EA estimates benefits that accrue to only the 
subpopulation that would be impacted by the DLRL and DLAL revisions. 
See the Technical Support Document and Economic Analysis that accompany 
this rulemaking for more information (Refs. 10 and 12).
d. New York City
    Between 2019 and 2021 NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 
lowered their lead dust clearance and lead dust hazard risk assessment 
testing standards twice. NYC lowered their standards for floors, window 
sills and window wells (i.e., troughs), respectively, from 40 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 50 
[mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ in 2019 (effective June 12, 2019) and 
again to 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ in 2021 
(effective June 1, 2021) (Refs. 110 and 111). The Agency spoke to the 
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and received 
feedback during the development of the proposed rule that although 
there was a transitionary period that lasted several months and had 
various challenges, overall, the regulated community was able to adjust 
and comply with the new lower standards (Ref. 112). EPA believes that 
NYC's experience supports considering the final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and window 
troughs to be effective and reliable.
e. Public Comment Input
    EPA received a number of comments during the public comment period 
that supported the proposed DLCL approach (described as DLAL moving 
forward) of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, window sills and troughs, respectively, on the grounds that 
lowering the levels will further protect children from lead exposure. A 
mass mail campaign, which consisted of a coalition of 76 organizations 
and twelve individuals affirmed that the proposed levels promoted the 
greatest safety for those living in target housing, ensuring remedial 
measures meaningfully reduce the amount of dust-lead that remains in 
homes and child care facilities. Multiple comments were also received 
expressing a lack of support for the proposed DLCL (described as DLAL 
moving forward). Many commenters requested that the levels remain at 
the current 2021 values of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs, respectively. 
Several commenters also requested the alternative DLCL of 5 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, 
and window troughs rather than the proposed levels. Of those comments 
that expressed opposition to the proposed DLCL, the concerns were 
focused around a reduction of laboratory capacity (due to needing to 
switch to an ICP, which is more sensitive technology), the lack of 
adequate surface area for both window sill and trough sampling, the 
potential for this being a deterrent within the industry from 
performing LBP activities due to an increase in cost, burden, 
complexity, and a reduction in contractor availability.
    Firstly, in response to the support for the proposed DLCL, EPA 
agrees and acknowledges that according to the results from the 
technical support document, as dust-lead levels in housing dust-lead 
levels in housing decrease below the current DLCL (i.e., 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, 
and window troughs), children's BLLs and associated IQ decrements from 
lead exposure are also expected to decrease. As a result, a lower DLAL 
is assumed to be more protective at a particular site than one that 
results in higher dust-lead loadings. However, based on the public 
feedback and the response to the 2023 Proposed Rule, as well as 
laboratory outreach, (see Unit IV.C.1.b. ``Laboratory capabilities

[[Page 89439]]

for DLAL'' for more information), EPA is concerned that if the DLAL 
were set too low, limited resources for LBP mitigation would be 
distributed more broadly, diverting them from the most vulnerable 
communities or situations that present more serious risks to those that 
present lower risks. EPA is also concerned that increased costs due to 
the proposed DLCL could result in less LBP work taking place overall. 
EPA's analysis indicates that the final rule's approach to the DLAL is 
the most cost-effective option analyzed for both the cost per lost IQ 
point avoided and the cost per ADHD case avoided, as explained in 
Section 7 of the UMRA Statement. These two benefit types accrue to the 
most sensitive population affected by this final rule (i.e., children). 
Assuming limited resources for LBP mitigation, achieving these benefits 
more cost effectively would result in more lost IQ points avoided and 
more ADHD cases avoided. Additionally, EPA believes that access to 
housing is also an important social determinant of health and research 
finds negative health effects resulting from a lack of safe and 
adequate housing. Due to the public comments received, EPA has concerns 
that the proposed DLCL could unintentionally contribute to housing 
insecurity and longer turnaround times for post-abatement testing, 
which could impact access.
    Secondly, safety is only one aspect of the statutory authority for 
reconsidering the DLAL (i.e., reliability, effectiveness and safety). 
In particular, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that when reconsidering the 
clearance levels ``we must give effect to Congress's clear intent for 
EPA to consider both health and nonrisk factors.'' Cmty. Voice, 997 
F.3d at 995. As a result, the DLAL is not a solely health-based 
standard; rather it also considers what cleanup after an abatement is 
adequately reliable and effective. EPA agrees with commenters that the 
2023 proposed DLCL of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for floors, window sills, and window troughs respectively, partnered 
with the revisions in LQSR 4.0 would not present a problem, in terms of 
testing sensitivity, for laboratories using ICP-AES/OES. However, the 
majority of laboratories recognized under the NLLAP for lead dust wipe 
testing currently favor the less sensitive FAAS. EPA continues to 
believe that if the Agency finalized the DLCL as proposed, then ICP-AES 
would likely become the instrument standard for dust wipe testing for 
lead at the NLLAP laboratories. As a result, numerous public comments 
were received expressing concern over this switch; FAAS has been the 
most popular choice for lead dust wipe testing for some time due in 
part to its low purchase price and operating cost, speed, and ease of 
use. During the laboratory outreach that was performed for rule 
development, laboratories raised several concerns about switching to 
ICP instruments, the reduction in the throughput rate, the need for 
multiple instruments and staff to operate them, higher prices, delayed 
turnaround times, and concerns over maintaining the current sample 
volume. See Unit IV.C.1.b. for more discussion surrounding laboratory 
capabilities and capacity. Ultimately, due to public comments received, 
laboratory outreach and concerns raised about the reliability and 
effectiveness of the lower proposed DLCL, EPA is finalizing the 
alternative values of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs respectively. EPA 
does not want to create a program that raises significant feasibility 
concerns, or that inadvertently reduces the number of abatement jobs 
that the regulated community is able to perform (due to a dilution of 
intervention resources), thus potentially impacting families and 
children and resulting in less of an overall reduction in dust-lead.
    A more comprehensive version of EPA's responses on all of these 
issues can be found in the response to comments document that 
accompanies this rulemaking (Ref. 38).
2. Other Approach EPA Considered in the Proposed Rule
    In 2023 EPA proposed to revise the 2021 DLCL from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and 
troughs to 3 [mu]g/ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 
requested comment on an alternative DLCL option of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\. According to the 2015 LHCCS report, 
64% of the 2010 to 2012 samples showed dust-lead levels at or below 3 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 64% were at or below 20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills, and 64% were at or below 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window troughs. As a 
result, approximately 64% of samples from the LHCCS data had dust-lead 
levels at or below the primary DLCL option of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 
20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for troughs, which 
EPA thought was achievable, especially since the survey respondents 
were only required to achieve clearance below the 2001 DLCL at that 
time (40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 
window sills and troughs, respectively). However, given the concerns 
highlighted by public commenters and during laboratory outreach, EPA is 
finalizing the alternative DLCL option of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/
ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ along with the terminology change to DLAL. 
See the 2023 Proposed Rule for more detailed discussion about the 
proposed DLCL (Ref. 55).

D. Cross Reference With HUD Regulations

    EPA is finalizing modifications to 40 CFR 745.227(h) to clarify 
that the final DLAL would differ from the final DLRL, and that the 
Agency does not intend to compel LBP professionals to reduce dust-lead 
loadings all the way below the DLRL, just to below the DLAL. EPA is 
interested in alleviating any potential regulatory confusion 
surrounding clearance to the DLAL. HUD's LSHR clearance regulations at 
24 CFR 35.1340(d), which apply to both abatement and interim control 
and paint stabilization activities above HUD's de minimis amount of 
disturbance of paint known or presumed to be lead-based paint at 24 CFR 
35.1350(d), currently refer to 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2). HUD's regulations 
at 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2) in turn cross-references EPA's regulations at 
40 CFR 745.227(h), which currently discusses EPA's DLHS (described by 
EPA as DLRL moving forward) but not EPA's DLCL (described by EPA as 
DLAL moving forward). See Unit III.A.3.f the 2019 Final Rule for 
additional background on this topic (Ref. 2). As explained earlier in 
this preamble, prompted by analysis conducted following the 2021 Court 
Opinion, EPA is finalizing a DLRL that is no longer the same value as 
the DLAL. As a result, EPA is amending the language at 40 CFR 
745.227(h), so it is clear when referenced by the LSHR, that EPA does 
not intend to compel clearance below the DLRL, but below the DLAL, 
whether in federally assisted housing or not.
    In the course of reviewing this amendment to 40 CFR 745.227(h), EPA 
realized that the regulation at 40 CFR 745.227(h)(2)(i) inadvertently 
refers to ``dust hazard levels identified in [40 CFR] 745.227(b).'' 40 
CFR 745.227(b) actually addresses how to conduct an inspection and does 
not address dust hazard levels. Based on its context and the parallel 
language in 40 CFR 745.65(a)(1), the cross-reference in 40 CFR 
745.227(h)(2)(i) was intended to refer to 40 CFR 745.65(b), which does 
identify what constitutes a dust-lead hazard. EPA has updated the 
cross-reference accordingly in order to remove any ambiguity.

E. Definition of Abatement

    EPA is finalizing amendments to the definition of abatement in 
EPA's LBP activities regulations, specifically for dust-lead hazards, 
and thus modifying

[[Page 89440]]

the trigger for when EPA recommends an abatement. This change is a key 
element of the final rulemaking and is intended to align with the 
decoupling of the DLRL and DLAL, ultimately focusing the impacted 
entities' resources (e.g., HUD, city, State) on the situations that 
present the most risk while still identifying and disclosing lower 
levels of concern. EPA has narrowly focused the amendments on the 
portions of the definition that address dust-lead. The abatement 
definition still applies unchanged with respect to paint-lead and soil-
lead. TSCA section 401(1) defines an abatement as ``any set of measures 
designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards in 
accordance with standards established by the Administrator under [TSCA 
Title IV]'' and includes ``the removal of lead-based paint and lead-
contaminated dust, the permanent containment or encapsulation of lead-
based paint . . . and all preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-
abatement clearance testing activities associated with such measures.'' 
EPA included a definition of abatement, which closely resembles the 
statutory language, within the LBP activities regulations at 40 CFR 
745.223. An abatement under the LBP activities regulations (40 CFR 
745.223) is described as ``any measure or set of measures designed to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards'' and specifically 
includes ``projects resulting in permanent elimination of lead-based 
paint hazards . . .''.
    The 2021 Court Opinion stated that ``TSCA [Title] IV gives the EPA 
latitude to consider `reliability, effectiveness, and safety''' when 
promulgating regulations ``[w]ith respect to implementation, including 
abatement'' (Ref. 9). In addition, the statutory definition of 
abatement in TSCA section 401(1) specifically references the 
elimination of hazards ``in accordance with standards established by 
the Administrator under [TSCA Title IV].'' Hence, in considering 
revising the DLAL as part of TSCA section 402's ``standards for 
performing [LBP] activities,'' EPA must and has considered whether 
reliability, effectiveness and safety support changing the regulatory 
definition of abatement. Given that under this statutory scheme EPA 
only intends to compel post-abatement clearance to the final DLAL, the 
Agency is also changing the regulatory definition of abatement so that 
the recommendation for action applies when dust-lead loadings are at or 
above the DLAL (which continues to incorporate non-health-based factors 
such as reliability), rather than at or above the hazard standards, 
described as DLRL moving forward, as has been the case historically 
(but which, going forward in accordance with the 2021 Court Opinion, 
can no longer incorporate non-health-based factors such as 
reliability). This revision is necessary due to the decoupling of the 
DLRL from the DLAL and EPA's desire to avoid situations where 
abatements are designed to eliminate dust-lead levels to the DLRL and 
are unable to do so in a reliable and effective manner. Otherwise, EPA 
would be recommending an abatement if dust-lead levels are between the 
DLRL and the DLAL, even though such an abatement would only need to 
attain dust-lead loadings below the DLAL. Also, where an abatement is 
conducted, a cyclical pattern could result, where an abatement could 
successfully pass clearance below the DLAL but an abatement would still 
have been recommended by EPA if dust-lead levels were at or above the 
DLRL. Thus, EPA is revising the regulatory definition to require that 
abatements eliminate dust-lead hazards to below the DLAL to ensure that 
successful abatements can be considered complete in accordance with 
this rule's updated standards. Relatedly, as explained in Unit IV.F., 
EPA is proposing amendments to the abatement report to help protect 
from exposure even after the abatement is complete.
    An additional benefit to modifying the trigger for when EPA 
recommends an abatement is that it allows the regulated community to 
focus resources on situations that present more risk. As discussed in 
the 2001 and 2019 final rules, an important concern for EPA is having 
the resources for LBP hazard mitigation distributed so broadly that 
they may be diverted from situations that present the greatest risk.
    As a result, EPA is changing the regulatory definition of abatement 
to permanently eliminate dust-lead hazards to below the DLAL. EPA 
concludes that this amendment to the regulatory definition most 
appropriately applies the statutory definition in the context of this 
rule, where the statute requires EPA to consider reliability, 
effectiveness, and safety for purposes of EPA's TSCA section 402 LBP 
activities regulations (including the DLAL). Furthermore, as noted 
earlier in this section, the statutory definition of abatement in TSCA 
section 401 states that the set of measures covered by the term are to 
be ``in accordance with the standards established by the 
Administrator'' under TSCA Title IV, which refers to the ``standards 
for performing [LBP] activities'' as what EPA's TSCA section 402 
regulations shall contain. Thus, EPA has concluded that the amended 
regulatory definition most appropriately implements the statutory 
instruction that abatement measures be ``in accordance with'' this 
rule's updated section 402 standards (notably, the revised DLAL). Note 
that nothing in this rulemaking changes the fact that owners of 
properties covered by the LBP Activities Rule are not compelled to 
evaluate their properties for the presence of dust-lead hazards, nor 
compelled by EPA to take action (such as an abatement) if dust-lead 
hazards are identified at or above the DLAL, although HUD and some 
State or local governments may require action.

F. Abatement Report

    As explained in Units IV.A., B. and C., EPA is finalizing a 
nomenclature change to the terminology for the standards, and lowering 
the current DLRL to any reportable level as analyzed by an NLLAP-
recognized laboratory. Additionally, EPA is finalizing the DLAL to 5 
[mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills and troughs, respectively. The DLRL identify when pre-1978 
housing or a COF has a dust-lead hazard present. Given this decoupling 
of the floor and sill values, it is likely that once a project passes 
clearance and the abatement can be considered complete, there could 
still be dust-lead hazards present due to the DLRL being any reportable 
level. The Agency realizes the challenge this creates for the regulated 
community and, to keep dust-lead levels down and mitigate exposure, EPA 
is proposing to amend the requirements for what needs to be included in 
an abatement report.
    After the completion of an abatement, the certified supervisor or 
project designer is required to develop a report. The list of what 
needs to be included in the abatement report is described at 40 CFR 
745.227(e)(10), and consists of elements such as the start and 
completion dates of the abatement, information about the risk assessor 
or inspector conducting the sampling, any post-abatement dust-lead 
testing and soil analyses, etc. EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.227(e)(10) 
to include a requirement to add specific language into each abatement 
report, when dust-lead levels are between the DLRL and the DLAL. That 
language refers the public to a useful reference titled ``Protect Your 
Family From Lead in Your Home'' and acknowledges that LBP hazards 
(particularly dust-lead hazards) could remain after an abatement. The 
goal of including this language in an abatement report is to

[[Page 89441]]

ensure that occupants are provided with information about actions they 
can take to minimize dust-lead hazards and protect themselves from 
exposure even after an abatement is complete.
    The certified firm (or individual who prepared the report) must 
keep the abatement reports for at least 3 years and must provide a copy 
to the individual or entity who ``contracted for its services'' (40 CFR 
745.227(i)).

G. Other Amendments

    In order to conform the regulations to a statutory change, make 
several other amendments to improve efficiency of the program and make 
several regulatory text corrections, EPA is finalizing the amendments 
to 40 CFR part 745, subparts E (Residential Property Renovation), F 
(Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
Upon Sale or Lease of Residential Property), and L (Lead-Based Paint 
Activities).
1. Definition of Target Housing
    EPA is finalizing changes to the definition of target housing in 40 
CFR 745.103 and 40 CFR 745.223 to align with the statutory changes made 
in 2017 and is making conforming edits to language in 40 CFR 745.223 
and 40 CFR 745.227. Target housing defines which housing is subject to 
EPA's LBP rules. Within section 237(a) through (c) of Title II of 
Division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-
31, 131 Stat. 788 and 789), Congress amended HUD and EPA's statutory 
definitions of target housing to include 0-bedroom dwellings if a child 
less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such 
housing (42 U.S.C. 4822(e); 42 U.S.C. 4851(b)(27); 15 U.S.C. 2681(17)). 
The change to the definition of target housing in 40 CFR 745.103 and 40 
CFR 745.223 conforms to the statutory language by defining target 
housing as any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for 
older adults or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling 
(unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is 
expected to reside in such housing). For consistency, EPA is also 
finalizing revisions to the definition of living area in 40 CFR 745.223 
to change the age from 6 and under to less than 6 years of age. 
Similarly, language describing the age of children in 40 CFR 
745.227(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(v), (d)(3), (d)(5), and (d)(6)(ii) 
was updated from 6 years of age and under to under age 6 to conform to 
the statutory language as amended.
    In the course of reviewing this amendment to 40 CFR 
745.227(c)(2)(v), EPA realized that the regulation inadvertently refers 
to a paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of the section when no such provision 
exists. Based on its context, this cross-reference in paragraph 
(c)(2)(v) was intended to refer to the floor and window samples 
required by the immediately preceding provision (i.e., paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv)). EPA has updated the cross-reference accordingly in order 
to remove any ambiguity.
2. Definition of Child-Occupied Facility (COF) and Living Areas
    EPA is finalizing revisions to the definition of COF in 40 CFR 
745.223 and related regulatory language in 40 CFR 745.227 to establish 
consistency throughout the LBP regulations. The LBP Activities 
regulations define COFs as buildings or portions of buildings, 
constructed prior to 1978, in which the same child regularly visits on 
at least two different days within any given week, with their visits 
lasting at least 3 hours with combined visits of at least 6 hours, and 
combined annual visits lasting at least 60 hours. COFs may include, but 
are not limited to, day-care centers, preschools and kindergarten 
classrooms. Living areas are defined as any area of a residential 
dwelling used by one or more children, which includes, but is not 
limited to, living rooms, kitchen areas, dens, play rooms, and 
children's bedrooms. Currently, the definition of COF at 40 CFR 745.223 
identifies children impacted by the LBP Activities regulations as age 6 
and under, while the definition of COF in the RRP regulations at 40 CFR 
745.83 identifies children impacted by the RRP regulations as under 6 
years of age. In order to establish consistency in age throughout the 
LBP regulations, including with the definition of target housing and 
the RRP regulations' definition of COF, EPA is finalizing the change to 
the language in the definition of COF in 40 CFR 745.223 to less than 6 
years of age. Language describing the age of children in 40 CFR 
745.227(d)(7) was also changed from 6 years of age and under to under 
age 6 to conform language throughout the LBP regulations.
3. Electronic Submissions
    EPA is finalizing the requirement for submissions for application 
payments, applications, and notices to be done electronically. This 
rule specifically defines ``electronic'' in 40 CFR 745.83 and 40 CFR 
745.223 to mean ``the submission of an application, payment, or notice 
using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or a successor 
platform.'' In 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department changed their process 
so that paper checks would no longer be allowed for payment of fees 
associated with RRP or abatement programs. Since that time, 
applications that require payment, such as individual and firm 
certifications as well as training provider accreditation applications, 
have been submitted electronically via CDX. Therefore, EPA is amending 
40 CFR 745.89(a)(1), 40 CFR 745.92(c)(2), and 40 CFR 745.238(e)(2) to 
conform to the 2016 U.S. Treasury Department process and require 
payments to be made only electronically via CDX or a successor 
platform.
    Currently there is no specific submission method defining how to 
submit applications in EPA's LBP regulations. This ambiguity allows for 
the potential of written applications being submitted, which requires 
time consuming activities such as data entry and accrues administrative 
costs. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the amendments to 40 CFR 
745.89(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (c)(1); 40 CFR 745.225(b)(1), 
(e)(5), (f)(2), and (j)(2); 40 CFR 745.226(a), (e), (f), and 
(h)(1)(iii); 40 CFR 745.227(e)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 745.238(d), and (e) 
to reflect the requirement of submitting applications electronically 
via CDX or a successor platform. This will add further clarification 
and uniformity to this process.
    Additionally, EPA is finalizing the requirement for abatement and 
training notifications to be submitted electronically via CDX or a 
successor platform. Requiring electronic submissions and eliminating 
fax submissions removes the need for fax machine maintenance and also 
reduces phone service costs. Therefore, EPA is finalizing their 
amendments to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(13)(vi) and (14)(iii) to require 
submission of abatement and training notifications to occur 
electronically via CDX or a successor platform.
4. Disclosure Rule Warning Statement
    EPA is finalizing the proposed update to the Disclosure Rule's Lead 
Warning Statement in 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) to address a drafting error. 
Both the preamble of the Disclosure Rule (required by section 1018 of 
Title X), and the relevant public sample form include the following 
language: ``Before renting pre-1978 housing, lessors must disclose the 
presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in 
the dwelling,'' which is consistent with EPA and HUD's adaptation to 
leasing contracts of the statutory language in section 1018 (Ref. 4). 
However, the Lead Warning Statement in 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) does not 
currently include the word ``known.'' To conform this regulatory

[[Page 89442]]

text with the statutory and preamble language, EPA is finalizing the 
amendment to the Lead Warning Statement to include the word ``known'' 
when discussing lessors disclosing the presence of LBP and/or LBP 
hazards in the dwelling.
5. Disclosure Rule Reference
    EPA is finalizing the proposed amendment to the Disclosure Rule at 
40 CFR 745.113(a)(4) and 40 CFR 745.113(b)(4) to include the correct 
lead hazard information pamphlet reference, 15 U.S.C. 2686. This 
reference further discusses the requirements for the lead hazard 
information pamphlet and is the basis for its statutory authority. The 
current reference of 15 U.S.C. 2696 does not exist and was a drafting 
error.
6. Definition of Housing for the Elderly
    EPA is finalizing the proposed addition of the definition of 
``housing for the elderly'' to 40 CFR 745.223 in order to clarify the 
term ``elderly'' used in the definition of ``target housing,'' also in 
40 CFR 745.223. EPA already defines ``housing for the elderly'' in 40 
CFR 745.103 as ``retirement communities or similar types of housing 
reserved for households composed of one or more persons 62 years of age 
or more at the time of initial occupancy'' under Subpart F, 
``Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
Upon Sale or Lease of Residential Property.'' Note that HUD's LSHR (for 
federally owned or federally assisted target housing) caveats its 
definition of ``housing for the elderly'' at 24 CFR 35.110 to rely on 
an age other than 62 years ``if recognized as elderly by a specific 
Federal housing assistance program.'' The finalized definition of 
``housing for the elderly,'' which is the same definition in Subpart F 
``Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
Upon Sale or Lease of Residential Property,'' adds clarity and 
consistency throughout the LBP program.
7. Obsolete Regulatory Text
    EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions and deleting obsolete 
regulatory text where language was out of date or no longer applicable 
in 40 CFR 745.81(a)(4)(i) and (b); 40 CFR 745.90(a)(3) and (4); 40 CFR 
745.225(i)(2); and 40 CFR 745.226(f)(5). For example, 40 CFR 745.81(b) 
currently reads: ``Before December 22, 2008, renovators or firms 
performing renovations in State and Indian Tribal areas without an 
authorized program may provide owners and occupants with either of the 
following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home or 
Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child 
Care Providers and Schools. After that date, Renovate Right: Important 
Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools 
must be used exclusively.'' This information is outdated; therefore, 
EPA is finalizing this section to read: ``After December 22, 2008, 
renovators or firms performing renovations in States and Indian Tribal 
areas without an authorized program must provide owners and occupants 
the following EPA pamphlet: Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard 
Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools.'' EPA is 
also deleting 40 CFR 745.227(a)(4) because EPA added the provision in 
the 1996 LBP Activities Rule and it became obsolete with the 2001 LBP 
Hazards Rule that first promulgated regulatory clearance levels. Other 
regulatory provisions now apply.
8. Incorporation by Reference (IBR)
    As proposed, EPA is also incorporating by reference two voluntary 
consensus standards, each of which is already included in the 
definition of ``wipe sample'' at 40 CFR 745.63: American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1728 and ASTM E1792. EPA is incorporating 
by reference the most recent version of each standard: ASTM E1728/
E1728M-20, Standard Practice for Collection of Settled Dust Samples 
Using Wipe Sampling Methods for Subsequent Lead Determination, approved 
January 1, 2020; and ASTM E1792-20, Standard Specification for Wipe 
Sampling Materials for Lead in Surface Dust, approved September 1, 
2020. ASTM E1728/E1728M-20 covers the collection of settled lead-
containing dust on surfaces using the wipe sampling method. ASTM E1792-
20 covers requirements for the wipes that are used to collect settled 
dust on surfaces for the subsequent determination of lead.
    This material is reasonably available to interested parties. All 
approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for 
inspection at EPA. Copies of the ASTM materials incorporated by 
reference in this rule may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 
Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by 
calling (877) 909-ASTM, or at https://www.astm.org. If you have a 
disability and the format of these materials intended for incorporation 
by reference interferes with your ability to access the information, 
please contact EPA's Rehabilitation Act section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d) 
Program at https://www.epa.gov/accessibility/forms/contact-us-about-section-508-accessibility or via email at [email protected]. To enable 
us to respond in a manner most helpful to you, please indicate the 
nature of the accessibility issue, the web address of the requested 
material, the format you prefer to receive the material in (electronic 
format (ASCII, etc.), standard print, large print, etc.), and your 
contact information.

V. Implications of the Final Rule for Existing HUD and EPA Programs

A. LBP Activities Authorized Programs

    This subsection (Unit V.A.) is specifically relevant to any States, 
territories or federally recognized Tribes that are authorized to 
administer their own LBP activities program. 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 briefly described in Unit II.C.), as long as their programs are at 
least as protective of human health and the environment as EPA's 
program, and provide adequate enforcement.
    As part of the authorization process, States, territories, and 
federally recognized Tribes must demonstrate to EPA that they meet the 
requirements of the LBP Activities Rule. Additionally, a State, 
territory, or federally recognized Tribe must demonstrate that it meets 
any new requirements imposed by this rulemaking 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 (which in this case would be by January 11, 2027). 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 (40 CFR 
745.325(e)). EPA recommends that the authorized programs work closely 
with their EPA regional office in order to keep the Agency up to date 
on their progress.
    Given the breadth and nature of the revisions in this final rule, 
in particular those to the dust-lead reportable level, the definition 
of abatement and the shift in terminology, EPA recommends all 
authorized States, territories and federally recognized Tribes broadly 
review their LBP activities programs

[[Page 89443]]

and consider more significant changes such as any triggers for work 
using the dust-lead action level rather than the dust-lead reportable 
level (or historically the dust-lead hazard standards). For example, if 
there is a program that requires LBP professionals to do a risk 
assessment every time a property is rented by a new tenant, instead of 
requiring that dust-lead loadings must be less than the dust-lead 
reportable level, EPA recommends that the authorized program in 
question utilizes the dust-lead action level instead. It will be 
important to disclose that dust-lead hazards are present above any 
reportable level (as analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory) but 
EPA does not recommend action such as an abatement when there are dust-
lead loadings below the dust-lead action level. Changing the trigger 
for work within authorized programs could considerably reduce the 
financial burden that this final rulemaking may have on entities 
funding the work in those authorized States, territories and Tribes, 
including the local level and more specifically those environmental and 
health departments that assist in running these programs. EPA does, 
however, recommend use of best practices such as: using a vacuum with a 
high-efficiency particulate air filter on furniture and other items 
returned to the work area, and regularly cleaning hard surfaces with a 
damp cloth or sponge and a general all-purpose cleaner when any dust-
lead hazard or LBP is present, even if it is below the dust-lead action 
level. For more information on how to continue to reduce lead exposure 
see Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home.
    As authorized States, territories and federally recognized Tribes 
broadly review their LBP activities programs, EPA also recommends 
reconsideration of the terminology of any lead-free or lead-safe 
programs, as this language could cause confusion or be an 
oversimplification. If dust-lead levels fall above the DLRL, a LBP 
hazard, specifically a dust-lead hazard, can be present after an 
abatement is considered complete even in situations where a house or 
COF is considered LBP free (i.e., below the regulatory definition of 
LBP). Ultimately, target housing or COFs that are considered LBP free 
could still contain lead or even LBP hazards, particularly dust-lead 
hazards given the DLRL. Also, if target housing or COFs are found to be 
free of LBP hazards (e.g., dust-lead levels below the DLRL) that does 
not mean that no lead is present. As a result, identifying lead-free or 
lead-safe housing/COFs given these final revisions to the DLRL will be 
extremely challenging and could cause confusion or misunderstanding 
within the public. EPA also recommends any triggers for action become 
the DLAL (rather the DLHS, described as DLRL moving forward, as has 
been the case historically). EPA suggests that authorized programs work 
closely with their EPA regional office as needed to help inform this 
process, as an authorized program must demonstrate that it meets the 
new requirements imposed by this final rule in a report submitted under 
40 CFR 745.324(h) by January 11, 2027.

B. HUD Programs

1. Lead-Safe Housing Rule
    HUD has specific authority to control LBP and LBP hazards in 
certain federally owned and federally assisted target housing (Ref. 
24). HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2) cross-reference EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR 745.227(h), which currently discusses EPA's DLHS 
but not EPA's DLCL (described by EPA moving forward as DLRL and DLAL). 
Due to the current cross-reference, the HUD regulations have been read 
as requiring entities receiving government funding currently to conduct 
post-abatement clearance until the levels are below EPA's DLHS, which 
at the time this cross-reference was made, were the same values as 
EPA's DLCL. Clearance testing is also required following interim 
controls and renovation, repair, and painting events that incidentally 
disturb more than the HUD-specified de minimis amount of lead-based 
paint in assisted housing. Due to the 2021 Court Opinion, EPA is now 
finalizing regulatory changes that decouple the DLHS and DLCL and 
rename them as DLRL and DLAL as explained in Unit IV. EPA is also 
finalizing modifications to 40 CFR 745.227(h) to clarify that the 
Agency does not intend to compel clearance down to the DLRL but to the 
DLAL, including for HUD's programs. EPA has taken this action for the 
reasons discussed in Unit IV.D. of this notice. HUD plans to conduct a 
rulemaking to make its determination on any appropriate amendments 
under its own regulations.
    Other impacts of this final rule could include a possible decrease 
in the number of landlords participating in HUD's rental assistance and 
rehabilitation programs. If there are fewer homes that can meet the 
revised dust-lead standards at costs and project durations acceptable 
to landlords, there will be fewer affordable housing units available to 
families to rent. For example, if a family with a Housing Choice 
Voucher cannot find a landlord that can attain dust-lead levels below 
the revised DLAL (previously referred to as the dust-lead clearance 
levels) and accept their voucher, they will have longer search times. 
In some cases, the family may lose their voucher if they are unable to 
find a unit within established timeframes, and they will have to revert 
back to unassisted housing, attempting to rent housing without rental 
assistance, which has been shown to be associated with a higher 
prevalence of LBP hazards (Refs. 71 and 113) and higher BLLs (Ref. 
114). However, the Economic Analysis that accompanies this final 
rulemaking estimates that only a small fraction of low-income 
households living in housing subject to LSHR Subpart M (which affects 
the Housing Choice Vouchers discussed in the text) are likely to lose 
their assisted housing and ultimately end up in private market housing 
that is higher cost and/or has dust-lead levels higher than their 
baseline. See Section 10.3 of the EA (Ref. 10) for more information. 
Note that the factors that EPA can consider in setting the DLHS 
(described as DLRL moving forward) do not include broader public health 
concerns (such as health trade-offs and policy impacts on public 
Federally assisted housing).
    As discussed in Unit II.A., lead exposure, even in small amounts, 
can cause substantial and long-lasting health problems, particularly 
through its effects on children's development. Access to secure housing 
is also an important social determinant of health (Ref. 74). Research 
finds negative health effects resulting from three key mechanisms of 
housing insecurity: lack of housing affordability leading to stress and 
material deprivation (Refs. 75, 76, 77 and 78), lack of housing 
stability (Refs. 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83), and lack of safe and adequate 
housing (Refs. 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88). HUD's housing assistance 
programs play a critical role in helping nearly 5 million households 
(Ref. 115) avoid housing insecurity and its harmful effects on physical 
and mental health (Refs. 114, 116, 117, 118 and 119). Despite such 
Federal assistance, the nation faces a critical shortage of affordable 
rental housing affecting about 8 million very low-income households 
(Ref. 120). EPA considered the final changes to the DLRL and DLAL and 
the potential impacts on HUD's housing programs within the EA (see 
Section 10.3 for this discussion) (Ref. 10). Existing research on 
landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program (Refs. 
121,

[[Page 89444]]

122, 123 and 124) suggests that more stringent standards or uncertainty 
as to how to meet those standards could be a disincentive for private 
target housing providers to participate in HUD's rental assistance 
programs including the Housing Choice Voucher program (tenant-based 
rental assistance program) and the project-based assistance programs, 
which could in turn reduce access to affordable and stable housing 
associated with a relatively lower prevalence of LBP hazards than 
unassisted housing. As a result, EPA requested information and comment 
on whether the proposed rulemaking would lead to an increase in housing 
insecurity or lead exposures. EPA received multiple public comments 
that expressed concern over housing stock, in particular affordable 
housing, and that highlighted the negative consequences that the 
revised standards could lead to an increase in lead exposure due to 
less lead projects being done overall due to less available funds. As a 
result, EPA is finalizing the higher, alternative DLAL (previously 
referred to as the DLCL), the language in the abatement report for when 
post-abatement dust-lead levels falls between the DLRL and DLAL, as 
well as the change to the definition of abatement, so that abatement is 
triggered based on the DLAL rather than the DLRL; see Unit IV.C., E., 
and F for more information on the final DLAL, the revisions to the 
abatement report, and the definition of abatement. EPA is also 
committed to working closely with HUD for communicating these changes 
to the regulated community, in order to best reduce and diminish any 
impact this final rule could have on the availability of affordable 
housing for families.
    As explained in section 10.3 of EPA's Economic Analysis for the 
rule (Ref. 10), the owners of properties regulated under some of the 
LSHR Subparts seem unlikely to stop participating in HUD programs as a 
result of this rule. For example, Subpart F of the LSHR covers HUD-
owned single family housing properties for sale that are sold under a 
HUD mortgage program. HUD (i.e., the Federal government) would be 
responsible for all costs associated with compliance to a stricter 
DLRL/DLAL before selling the property. While modest delays may occur in 
closing on sale transactions for these properties, a reduction in 
housing supply covered under this subpart is unlikely. Subpart G of the 
LSHR covers multi-family housing where either HUD is the owner of a 
mortgage, or the owner of a property receives mortgage insurance under 
a program run by HUD. Housing covered under this subpart of the LSHR 
has risk assessment, interim control, and LBP maintenance requirements. 
Private landlords for these properties directly seek out Federal funds, 
and even if some of the federally provided money is spent complying 
with a stricter DLRL/DLAL to comply with the LSHR, participating 
grantees should typically have a positive net return. These landlords 
can opt-out of HUD mortgage assistance, by finding alternative 
financing or selling the property. Once the property opts out, the 
families must move unless they can afford market-rate rents, which is 
unlikely. Owners can also elect to not renew their Housing Assistance 
Payment contract upon expiration. HUD has suggested that the largest 
impact from changing the DLRL/DLAL will likely be HUD's tenant-based 
rental assistance programs. Under Subpart M of the LSHR, if an 
inspector identifies deteriorated paint in a unit with a child under 
age 6, they must perform paint stabilization and meet clearance for the 
unit to be eligible for housing assistance payments. A landlord faced 
with this option could decline to perform the work, and rent instead to 
a family without a voucher. This is an unintended consequence that may 
be magnified by the new clearance standard, and HUD will seek comment 
on this potential impact before it finalizes changes to the LSHR to 
implement the new DLRL/DLAL standards.
2. Grantee Programs
    On February 16, 2017, HUD issued policy guidance to establish new 
and more protective requirements for dust-lead action levels for its 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control and Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration 
grantees (the requirements also apply to related HUD grants authorized 
by Title X, section 1011 (42 U.S.C. 4852), under similar names, 
including Lead Hazard Reduction grants and their High Impact 
Neighborhoods and Highest Lead-Based Paint Abatement Needs grant 
categories) (Ref. 58). The guidance adopted dust-lead action levels of 
10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, 
respectively, for initiating lead hazard control activities under these 
grant programs, and lead clearance action levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and troughs, respectively, 
for clearing such lead hazard control activities (Ref. 58). Given the 
revisions of this final rule that are discussed in Unit IV., Lead-Based 
Paint Hazard Control and Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grantees 
would be required by EPA's regulations to clear lead abatement projects 
to the updated DLAL of 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 100 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and troughs respectively. Due 
to the changes EPA is finalizing, HUD has informed the Agency that it 
will likely issue new policy guidance on initiating lead hazard control 
activities and on clearing lead abatement projects under these grant 
programs, and that it would consider issuing new policy guidance on 
clearing interim control projects under these grant programs.
3. EPA-HUD Disclosure Rule
    To administer the disclosure program, EPA and HUD jointly developed 
regulations (known as the Disclosure Rule under section 1018 of Title X 
(42 U.S.C. 4852d)) requiring a seller or lessor of most pre-1978 
housing to disclose the presence of any known LBP and/or LBP hazards, 
such as soil-lead hazards or dust-lead hazards, to the purchaser or 
lessee (24 CFR part 35, subpart A; 40 CFR part 745, subpart F). Under 
the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 4), prospective sellers and lessors of target 
housing, which is most pre-1978 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 (40 CFR 745.107(a)(4); 24 CFR 35.88(a)(4)). Leases of target 
housing are exempt from disclosure requirements in limited 
circumstances, such as where the housing has been found to be LBP free 
by a certified inspector (24 CFR 35.82; 40 CFR 745.101).
    The information disclosure activities are required before a 
purchaser or renter is obligated under a contract to purchase or lease 
target housing. The records or reports pertaining to LBP and/or LBP 
hazards include, among other things, results from risk assessments, 
regardless of whether the levels of dust-lead are above or below the 
dust-lead hazard standards (described by EPA as DLRL moving forward), 
and from post-abatement dust wipe testing, above or below the clearance 
levels (described by EPA as DLAL moving forward). Because disclosure is 
required in target housing regardless of whether dust levels are above 
or below the DLRL or DLAL, finalizing the ``any reportable level'' 
approach for the dust-lead reportable level and lowering the dust-lead 
action level would not result in more disclosures; rather it would 
result in more of the disclosures indicating that a lead-based paint 
hazard is present (since the final DLRL is lower than the previous DLHS 
from 2019). EPA is also finalizing changes to the definition of

[[Page 89445]]

``target housing'' (40 CFR 745.223), which expands the universe of 
housing subject to the Disclosure Rule requirements. This is reflective 
of a change to the statutory definition (P.L. 115-37, Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017, Division K, Title II, section 237(c)). This 
final conforming change to the regulatory definition of target housing 
to include 0-bedroom dwellings where a child resides may slightly 
increase the number of disclosures issued.
    Note that leases (which does not include sales) of target housing 
are exempt from disclosure requirements in limited circumstances, such 
as where the housing has been found to be LBP free by a certified 
inspector (24 CFR 35.82; 40 CFR 745.101), even if the dust-lead level 
is at or above the DLRL.
4. HUD Guidelines
    The HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in Housing (https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/healthy_homes/lbp/hudguidelines) were developed in 1995 under section 
1017 of Title X. The Guidelines provide detailed, comprehensive, and 
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. Due to the changes EPA is 
finalizing, HUD has informed the Agency that it will likely revise 
Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on risk assessment and reevaluation, 
Chapter 12 on abatement, and Chapter 15 on clearance, and make 
conforming changes elsewhere as needed (Ref. 125).

C. EPA LBP Programs

1. LBP Activities Rule
    LBP activities include risk assessments, inspections, and 
abatements. As a reminder, the States where the LBP program is 
currently administered by EPA are Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
and Wyoming. EPA also administers the LBP program in the territories of 
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
as well as most Tribal Lands. This final rule impacts a variety of LBP 
activities, including: the definition of abatement, what is considered 
a dust-lead hazard, the DLAL (which is used to determine whether an 
abatement can be considered complete) and the definition of target 
housing. Within the States, territories and federally recognized Tribes 
that have EPA run LBP activities programs, this rule will become 
effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, 
certain elements of the rule such as the DLRL, DLAL and the change to 
the abatement report language have a compliance timeframe of one-year 
after the effective date of the final rule (see Unit VI. for more 
information on the timing of this rule's revisions).
    As stated earlier in this preamble, EPA's risk assessment work 
practice standards provide the basis for risk assessors to determine 
whether LBP hazards are present in target housing and COFs. As part of 
a risk assessment, dust samples are taken from floors and window sills 
to determine if dust-lead levels exceed the DLRL. The results of the 
sampling, among other things, are documented in a risk assessment 
report, which is required under the LBP Activities Rule (Ref. 19). In 
addition to the sampling results, the report must describe the location 
and severity of any dust-lead hazards found and describe interim 
controls or abatement measures needed to address the hazards.
    Under this final rule, sampling results reporting any level of lead 
as analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory will indicate that a 
dust-lead hazard is present on the surfaces tested. EPA expects that 
the DLRL will result in more hazards being identified in a portion of 
target housing and COFs that undergo risk assessments. This rule does 
not change any other risk assessment requirements; however, it does 
revise the definition of abatement, which is discussed in the following 
paragraph.
    Abatements are currently defined as 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 dust wipe testing activities associated with such 
measures. The change to the definition of abatement shifts the 
recommendation for an abatement based on dust-lead to when the dust-
lead loadings are at or above the DLAL (rather than the DLHS, described 
as DLRL moving forward, as has been the case historically). Because EPA 
is finalizing DLAL that are lower than the 2019 DLHS, more 
recommendations for abatement are expected. However, not every 
circumstance where dust-lead hazards are identified will result in an 
EPA recommendation for abatement. In particular, when dust-lead 
loadings are at or above the DLRL, but below the DLAL, EPA recommends 
use of best practices such as: using a vacuum with a high-efficiency 
particulate air filter on furniture and other items returned to the 
work area, and regularly cleaning hard surfaces with a damp cloth or 
sponge and a general all-purpose cleaner. EPA is also including a 
requirement to add specific language into each abatement report when 
dust-lead levels are between the DLRL and the DLAL. That language 
refers the public to a useful reference titled Protect Your Family From 
Lead in Your Home and acknowledges that LBP hazards (particularly dust-
lead hazards) could remain after an abatement. The goal of including 
this language in an abatement report is to ensure that occupants are 
provided with information about actions they can take to minimize dust-
lead hazards and protect themselves from exposure even after an 
abatement is complete. Similar to abatement, EPA recommends interim 
controls only in circumstances when dust-lead loadings are at or above 
the DLAL, rather than the DLRL, for the reasons explained in this unit.
    After LBP abatements are conducted, EPA's regulations require a 
certified inspector or risk assessor to conduct post-abatement dust 
wipe testing of the abated area. If the dust wipe sample results show 
dust-lead loadings equal to or exceeding the applicable DLAL, ``the 
components represented by the failed sample shall be recleaned and 
retested.'' See 40 CFR part 745.227(e)(8)(vii). In other words, the 
abatement is not complete until the dust wipe samples in the work area 
are below the DLAL. Once the relevant compliance deadline has passed, 
inspectors and risk assessors working in any State, territory or 
federally recognized Tribe with an EPA run LBP activities program must 
compare dust wipe sampling results for floors, window sills and troughs 
to the revised DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\, respectively. Dust wipe sampling results at or above the DLAL 
would indicate that the components represented by the sample must be 
recleaned and retested. Due to lowering the DLAL from the 2021 levels, 
including the trough values, EPA expects a slight increase in the 
amount of recleaning and retesting that is required after an abatement 
in order for it to be considered complete, especially shortly after the 
change is enacted.
    Lastly, as described in Unit IV.G.1., this final rule conforms the 
regulatory definition of target housing with the statute to include any 
0-bedroom

[[Page 89446]]

dwellings constructed prior to 1978 if a child less than 6 years of age 
resides or is expected to reside in such housing, which could increase 
the number of homes covered by this regulation. In addition, EPA is 
finalizing regulatory changes to adjust the age requirements from 6 
years of age and under, to under age 6 for the definition of target 
housing, COFs and living area, which could reduce the number of homes 
and COFs covered by this regulation; see Units IV.G.1. and 2. for more 
information.
    States, territories, and federally recognized Tribes that are 
authorized to run their own LBP activities programs will also need to 
incorporate these Federal changes into their statutory and regulatory 
landscape no later than two years after the effective date of this 
final rule. See Unit V.A. for more information about the impacts of 
this action on authorized programs.
2. Previous LBP-Related Activities
    Since the DLRL do not compel specific EPA actions, revisions to the 
DLRL would not in and of themselves compel any actions under the LBP 
Activities Rule, retroactively or otherwise, but actions would be 
compelled under other laws or regulations, including HUD's LSHR and 
possibly those of some State, local, Tribal or territorial governments. 
Inspection reports and risk assessments describe conditions at a 
specific time. A report that indicates no presence of LBP and/or a LBP 
hazard should not imply the absence of those conditions in perpetuity. 
Additionally, the DLRL may be incorporated into requirements mandated 
by State, Federal, Tribal, and other programs that may require actions 
based on the revised DLRL. Those other authorities may want to consider 
guidance or other communications with their regulated communities, so 
those entities understand how to comply with the various programs that 
reference the DLRL. As a reminder, all new requirements imposed by this 
final rule must be incorporated into any authorized programs no later 
than two years after the effective date of the new requirements (see 
Unit V.A. for more information).
    The DLAL, however, are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a 
cleaning following an abatement. After the dust wipe samples show dust-
lead loadings below the DLAL (and any other aspects of the abatement 
such as additional testing are also complete), 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 
final DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for troughs would not impose retroactive 
requirements on regulated entities that have previously performed post-
abatement clearance. These updated DLAL would only apply to post-
abatement dust-lead sampling and analysis conducted after the 
compliance date for that portion of the final rule (i.e., one year 
after the effective date of the final rule) for any LBP activities 
programs specifically run by EPA, which include, as of the publication 
of this rule: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 
Mexico, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming, American 
Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as 
most Tribal Lands.
    In addition, this rulemaking does not impose retroactive 
requirements to regulated entities that have previously complied with 
the Disclosure Rule. In accordance with 40 CFR 745.107, a seller or 
lessor generally must properly disclose any available records or 
reports pertaining to known LBP and/or LBP hazards before the purchaser 
or lessee is obligated under any contract to purchase or lease target 
housing. The seller or lessor is not required to disclose reports or 
records that may be created in the future, after the close of that 
transaction. Additionally, any LBP-free certification that was issued 
by a certified inspector and was issued before the effective date of 
this rulemaking, is still valid going forward and may continue to be 
used for exemption of leases from the Disclosure Rule under 40 CFR 
745.101(b), as will any LBP-free certification issued on or after the 
effective date of this rulemaking.
3. Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule
    The DLRL and DLAL would not trigger new requirements under the 
existing RRP Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart E). The existing RRP work 
practices are required where LBP is present (or assumed to be present) 
and are not predicated by dust-lead loadings exceeding the DLRL. The 
existing RRP regulations do not require dust-lead sampling prior to or 
at the conclusion of a renovation and are not affected by a change to 
the DLRL or DLAL. Therefore, RRP regulations will not be directly 
affected by the final revisions to the DLRL or the DLAL. However, 
certified renovators and RRP firms should be aware of the conforming 
amendments to the definition of ``target housing'' and the amendments 
for consistency about electronic payments.
    The RRP Rule does require specific post-renovation cleaning 
verification under 40 CFR 745.85(b), but the rule does not require dust 
wipe sampling and analysis using the DLAL. EPA received several public 
comments pointing out that there are many more homes and projects that 
fall under the RRP program (i.e., rather than the LBP activities 
program), and that the visual inspection is less rigorous than 
clearance, requesting that EPA expand lead clearance testing to its RRP 
program. EPA notes that although optional under the RRP Rule, dust wipe 
sampling for clearance using the DLAL (previously known as 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, for renovations of assisted target housing, EPA is not 
aware of other laws and regulations that require clearance testing 
using EPA's DLAL.
    EPA understands that the RRP program is larger than the LBP 
activities program; however, the LBP activities program (i.e., 
inspections, risk assessments, and abatements) is focused more 
specifically on addressing a LBP concern, such as due to non-EPA 
requirements triggered by a child with a higher BLL. Additionally, 
besides the conforming amendment to the definition of ``target 
housing,'' amendments for consistency about electronic payments, the 
removal of time-expired provisions (as discussed in Unit IV.G.), and 
the conforming terminology change at 40 CFR 745.85(c)(3) to refer to 
the final dust-lead action levels for optional RRP clearance testing, 
no other changes to the RRP program were included in the proposed rule 
that published in August 2023 (Ref. 55) or within this final 
rulemaking. Additionally, in 2018 EPA reviewed the RRP rule pursuant to 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and reaffirmed the 
Agency's previous conclusions not to include dust-wipe testing or 
clearance requirements on renovations. However, since 2018 the 
clearance or dust-lead action levels have been revised twice. While EPA 
is finalizing no additional changes to clearance or the cleaning 
verification process for RRP in this rulemaking, the Agency may 
consider whether to revise the RRP program at a later date.
    Finally, certified renovators and RRP firms should be aware of the 
change in

[[Page 89447]]

the definition of target housing to include 0-bedroom dwellings if a 
child less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such 
housing. Any certified renovators or RRP firms should be aware of 
whether they work in an EPA-administered RRP program State, territory, 
or federally recognized Tribe or a State, territory, or federally 
recognized Tribe that is authorized to run its own RRP program, as this 
will impact the timing for the revisions to the definition of target 
housing. For any EPA-administered programs, this amendment to target 
housing will be effective 60 days after this final rule is published in 
the Federal Register. Any authorized program will have up to two years 
after the effective date of this rule to incorporate any changes into 
their program, so RRP professionals should be aware those changes will 
eventually be incorporated.
4. Laboratory Quality Standards for Recognition
    As discussed previously in Unit II.C., NLLAP is an EPA program 
under which an accrediting organization assesses whether a paint chip, 
dust, or soil testing laboratory meets minimum standards for laboratory 
analysis to attain EPA recognition as an accredited lead testing 
laboratory (https://www.epa.gov/lead/national-lead-laboratory-accreditation-program-nllap). Laboratories and other testing firms 
recognized under NLLAP follow the LQSR. This rulemaking does not modify 
the minimum standards outlined in the latest LQSR version 4.0. However, 
changes to the action level (i.e., the proposed DLAL) would impact the 
quantitation limit that NLLAP-recognized laboratories would attain to 
participate in the NLLAP, as under LQSR 4.0 the quantitation limit must 
be equal to or less than 80% of the lowest action level for dust wipe 
samples per specific surface area (i.e., floors, window sills, window 
troughs) (Ref. 26). The lowest action level for dust wipe samples would 
be the DLAL of 5 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
window sills and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs. As a result, the 
quantitation limit for NLLAP-recognized labs would be equal to or less 
than 4 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 32 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills 
and 80 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs. Note that only laboratories that are 
NLLAP accredited can perform dust-wipe testing for lead under the 
existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745.

D. Lead-Based Paint Professionals

    LBP activities (i.e., inspections, risk assessments, and 
abatements) may only be performed by a certified individual or firm (40 
CFR 745.220) in accordance with the work practices outlined in the 1996 
LBP Activities Rule (40 CFR 745.227). Any certified risk assessor, 
inspector or abatement firm should understand if they are performing 
LBP work in an authorized State, territory, or federally recognized 
Tribe or if they are working within an EPA administered LBP activity 
program, as it will impact the timing of when they need to comply with 
the revisions of this final rule. A certified LBP professional working 
within the jurisdiction of an EPA-administered LBP activity program 
(i.e., at the time of publication of this notice, Alaska, Arizona, 
Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, and within most Tribal Lands) should see Unit VI. 
for more information on the effective date and compliance timeframes 
for this rule. Those LBP professionals should also familiarize 
themselves with Unit IV. of this final notice in order to fully 
understand the revisions. If questions remain, LBP professionals may 
wish to coordinate with their EPA Regional Lead Coordinator as 
necessary, consult the EPA lead page (https://www.epa.gov/lead), or 
contact the technical person or the National Lead Information Center 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if needed. Note that HUD 
or local jurisdictions may have slightly different requirements, so 
when applicable, EPA recommends coordinating directly with those 
specific programs, in order to avoid any confusion and to best 
understand how these rule changes will impact risk assessments, LBP 
inspections, and abatement work.
    In contrast, any LBP professionals that work within a State, 
territory or federally recognized Tribe that has an EPA-authorized LBP 
activity program, should be aware that the authorized program will need 
to incorporate these Federal changes into their statutory and 
regulatory landscapes no later than two years after the effective date 
of this rule. As a result, LBP professionals should be mindful of and 
monitor any changes to the LBP programs within their State, territory 
or Tribe. See Unit V.A. for more information about the impacts of this 
action on authorized programs.
    EPA received numerous public comments on the proposed rule 
requesting additional outreach and assistance throughout the 
implementation process in order to better communicate with the public 
about what the revisions are and how they impact various segments of 
the regulated community. Commenters urged EPA provide clear and 
accessible information in multiple languages regarding the general 
risks of lead exposure, the implications of this rulemaking for renters 
and property owners, and information regarding financial or other 
support available for the cleanup and removal of lead. EPA appreciates 
the need for clear and effective communication given the shift these 
revisions are triggering in the LBP activities programs (i.e., 
decoupling the DLRL and DLAL). As a result, EPA plans to coordinate 
closely with its communications teams, HUD and others to effectively 
update the public and the regulated community as appropriate, including 
revising Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, and any other EPA 
LBP trainings or public materials. EPA also plans on holding public 
webinars shortly after the rule is finalized in the Federal Register. 
LBP professionals should utilize any updated materials as they become 
available, and EPA welcomes their participation in any upcoming public 
webinars or educational opportunities.

VI. Effective and Compliance Dates

    EPA has considered both the public comments received on the 
proposed rulemaking and the impacts of the DLRL and DLAL on NLLAP-
recognized laboratories, and is finalizing a compliance timeframe of 
one year after the effective date of the final rule for certain 
provisions (i.e., DLRL, DLAL, and the change to the abatement report 
language). The compliance date for these provisions is on January 12, 
2026. This extended compliance date is intended to provide a reasonable 
amount of time for NLLAP-recognized laboratories to take actions to 
meet the LQSR quantitation limit (80% of the lowest action level for 
dust wipe samples under LQSR 4.0) for the lower DLAL of this rule so 
they can continue providing dust wipe testing services to the regulated 
community without any significant disruption in service, including in 
urgent situations.
    To obtain a better understanding of laboratories' capability and 
capacity for dust wipe testing, EPA conducted teleconferences with 
eighteen NLLAP-recognized laboratories over the course of the 
rulemaking process (Refs. 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). As explained in Unit IV.C., 
based on the information EPA received from this outreach, EPA believes 
that laboratories with ICP-AES instruments and optimized methods should 
be able to comfortably satisfy the LQSR dust wipe testing procedures 
and the regulatory limit of the final DLAL option of 5 [micro]g/

[[Page 89448]]

ft\2\ for floors, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 100 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for troughs (quantitation limit of 4 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 
32 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 80 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs). 
However, FAAS is the most ubiquitous equipment used, and EPA believes 
that with the LQSR 4.0 dust-wipe procedures partnered with the final 
DLAL, NLLAP-laboratories should be able to continue using FAAS after 
this rule is finalized. Some laboratories may need to buy newer FAAS to 
meet the lower LQSR limits or adjust their methods. However, due to the 
outreach performed, EPA is aware of laboratories that already utilize 
FAAS and are currently able to meet the final DLAL without any 
modification. A few NLLAP-laboratories may still opt to buy more 
sensitive instruments such as ICP-AES. If that is the case, however, 
the accreditation process through the accrediting bodies is time 
consuming and could take anywhere from six to eighteen months or more 
based on feedback EPA received from NLLAP-laboratories. Given the range 
of timing and that EPA assumes the majority of laboratories will retain 
FAAS, EPA determined one year from the effective date was appropriate 
as a compliance date for the amended DLRL and DLAL (i.e., 14 months 
from the publication of the final rule).
    Several public commenters, including State and local government 
agencies and a mass mailer that consisted of a coalition of 76 
organizations and twelve individuals, agreed with the NLLAP-
laboratories that if the proposed DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/
ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and troughs was 
adopted in the final rule, the compliance timeframe of one-year after 
the effective date would be an adequate time for laboratories and 
companies to buy any needed equipment, hire staff, and become 
accredited, especially since the AIHA LAP's policy states that 
accreditation is expected to occur within 12 months or less once an 
application is submitted (Refs. 38 and 126). Public commenters also 
believed that the one-year compliance timeframe would allow enough time 
for laboratories, inspectors, contractors, and State and local programs 
to complete trainings for testing larger surface areas, update the 
standards and specification documents managed by ASTM Technical 
Committees, and allow HUD to update its guidelines. Commenters who 
requested a compliance timeframe of 2+ years were almost exclusively 
discussing it in relation to if EPA adopted the proposed primary DLCL 
of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills, and troughs (Ref. 38). As a result, EPA is finalizing a one-year 
compliance date for the DLRL, DLAL, and the abatement report language 
revisions (which directly pertains to the final standards). The Agency 
is also interested in revising both standards at the same time to 
reduce any confusion and avoid any concerns within the regulated 
community that may be caused by staggering the DLRL and the DLAL 
compliance dates. EPA believes that since the DLRL are non-static, 
which is different than they have been historically, and as the program 
is shifting to the DLAL becoming the ``action level'' for the LQSR, it 
is important to allow ample time for the regulated community to adapt 
to the revised DLRL and DLAL. Additionally, if the DLRL compliance date 
occurred before the DLAL compliance date, EPA is concerned it might 
trigger unnecessary confusion for laboratories.

VII. Severability

    EPA intends that each provision of this rulemaking be severable, 
with one exception identified below. In the event of litigation 
staying, remanding, or invalidating a portion of EPA's amendments in 
this rule, EPA intends to preserve the amendments for all other 
portions of the rule to the fullest extent possible. The Agency 
evaluated each issue on its own merits and EPA's amendments (with the 
one exception identified below) function independently from one 
another. Further, the Agency crafted this rule so that different 
regulatory decisions are reflected in different provisions or elements 
of the rule that are capable of operating independently. Accordingly, 
the Agency has organized the rule so that if any provision or element 
of this rule is determined by judicial review or operation of law to be 
invalid, that partial invalidation will not render the remainder of 
this rule invalid.
    The limited circumstance in which severability is not intended 
would be where the decoupled approach is determined to be invalid. If 
the decoupled approach is determined to be invalid, the revisions to 
the definition of abatement (at 40 CFR 745.223) and the abatement 
report language (at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(10)(vii)) would not be necessary 
or helpful. In contrast, however, EPA does intend severability in the 
inverse scenario: if either the definition of abatement or the amended 
abatement report language were determined to be invalid, EPA intends 
severability of all other provisions, including the decoupled approach.

VIII. 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. 
4822 and 4851 et seq.). https://www.epa.gov/lead/residential-lead-based-paint-hazard-reduction-act-1992-title-x.
2. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition 
of Lead-Based Paint; Final Rule. RIN 2070-AJ82. Federal Register (84 
FR 32632, July 9, 2019) (FRL-9995-49). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-09/pdf/2019-14024.pdf.
3. EPA. Review of Dust-Lead Post Abatement Clearance Levels; Final 
Rule. RIN 2070-AK50. Federal Register (86 FR 983, January 7, 2021) 
(FRL-10018-61). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-07/pdf/2020-28565.pdf.
4. HUD, EPA. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based 
Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. RIN 
2070-AC75. Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996) (FRL-5347-
9). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-06/pdf/96-5243.pdf.
5. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Lead (Final Report, 
February 2024). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-23/375, 2024. 
https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-lead.
6. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, HHS. 
Toxicological Profile for Lead. August 2020. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.
7. 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.
8. EPA. EPA Strategy to Reduce Exposures and Disparities in U.S. 
Communities. October 27, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-11/Lead%20Strategy_1.pdf.
9. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A Community Voice v. 
EPA, No. 19-71930, Opinion. May 14, 2021. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/14/19-71930.pdf.
10. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and 
Clearance Levels

[[Page 89449]]

Reconsideration Final Rule. October 2024.
11. EPA. America's Children and the Environment (ACE). 
``Biomonitoring--Lead.'' June 29, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/americaschildrenenvironment/biomonitoring-lead.
12. EPA. Technical Support Document for the Reconsideration of the 
Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance 
Levels. October 2024.
13. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-
Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
Statement. October 2024.
14. 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.
15. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Gibb-Snyder, E., Frank, J.J., Tornero-
Velez, R., and Stanek, L.W. Children's lead exposure in the U.S.: 
Application of a national-scale, probabilistic aggregate model with 
a focus on residential soil and dust lead (Pb) scenarios. Science of 
the Total Environment 905, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167132.
16. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead; Final Report. EPA/600/R-05/
144aF-bF. October 2006. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823.
17. HHS, National Toxicology Program. Lead and Lead Compounds. 15th 
Report on Carcinogens. National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. 15th edition. December 12, 
2021. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles//lead.pdf.
18. TSCA Title IV, Lead Exposure Reduction. 15 U.S.C. 2681 et seq. 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title15/pdf/USCODE-2020-title15-chap53-subchapIV.pdf.
19. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in 
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. RIN 2070-
AC64. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-08-29/pdf/96-21954.pdf.
20. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final 
Rule. RIN 2070-AC63. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) 
(FRL-6763-5). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2001-01-05/pdf/01-84.pdf.
21. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. 
RIN 2070-AC83. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-
8355-7). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-04-22/pdf/E8-8141.pdf.
22. EPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions 
in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program. RIN 2070-AJ55. 
Federal Register (75 FR 24802, May 6, 2010) (FRL-8823-7). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-05-06/pdf/2010-10100.pdf.
23. EPA. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program. RIN 2070-AJ57. Federal 
Register (76 FR 47917, October 4, 2011) (FRL-8823-5). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-08-05/pdf/2011-19417.pdf.
24. HUD. Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of 
Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and 
Housing Receiving Federal Assistance. RIN 2501-AB57. Federal 
Register (64 FR 50140, September 15, 1999). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-09-15/pdf/99-23016.pdf.
25. 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://ptfcehs.niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/files/key_federal_programs_to_reduce_childhood_lead_exposures_and_eliminate_associated_health_impactspresidents_508.pdf.
26. EPA. Laboratory Quality Standards for Recognition (LQSR). 
Revision 4.0. 2024.
27. EPA. Testimony of Michal Ilana Freedhoff before the Senate 
Committee on Environmental and Public Works. June 22, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-06/EPA-Freedhoff%20testimony-%20SEPW%20TSCA%20Hearing%206.22.2022.pdf.
28. EPA. Testimony of Michael S. Regan before the Senate Committee 
on Environmental and Public Works. March 22, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-01/03-22-2023-regan-testimony.pdf.
29. EPA. Testimony of Michal Ilana Freedhoff before the Senate 
Committee on the Environment and Public Works. January 24, 2024. 
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/8/e8243202-117c-456d-952f-53bf141c839a/525CB57776C75592CCC48AEF442B4EFC.01-24-2024-freedhoff-testimony.pdf.
30. EPA. Testimony of Michal S. Regan before the House 
Appropriations Committee. April 30, 2024. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP06/20240430/117203/HHRG-118-AP06-Wstate-ReganM-20240430.pdf.
31. EPA. Testimony of Michael S. Regan before the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. May 1, 2024. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/download_testimony31.pdf.
32. Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. 
Reconsideration of the Soil-Lead Hazard Standards. Spring 2024. 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2070-AL12.
33. EPA. Definition of Lead-Based Paint Considerations. May 2019. 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0447.
34. Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. 
Reconsideration of the Definition of Lead-Based Paint. Spring 2024. 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2070-AL11.
35. EPA. Technical Support Document for Residential Dust-lead Hazard 
Standards Rulemaking Approach taken to Estimate Blood Lead Levels 
and Effects from Exposures to Dust-lead. July 2019. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0574.
36. EPA. Technical Support Document for Residential Dust-lead 
Clearance Levels Rulemaking Estimation of Blood Lead Levels and 
Effects from Exposures to Dust-lead. December 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0395.
37. CDC. A framework for assessing the effectiveness of disease and 
injury prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 
1992; 41(RR-3). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016403.htm.
38. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-
Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. Response to Public Comments. 
October 2024.
39. SAB. SAB review of EPA's Approach for Developing Lead Dust 
Hazard Standards for Residences (November 2010 Draft) and Approach 
for Developing Lead Dust Hazard Standards for Public and Commercial 
Buildings (November 2010 Draft). EPA-SAB-11-008. July 7, 2011. 
https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=114:0:16965043720403:APPLICATION_PROCESS=REPORT_DOC:::REPORT_ID:964.
40. Versar, Inc. External Peer Review of EPA's Approach for 
Estimating Exposures and Incremental Health Effects from Lead due to 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities in Public and Commercial 
Buildings. February 27, 2015. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0259.
41. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Summary Report of the Peer Review 
Meeting for EPA's Draft Report, Proposed Modeling Approaches for a 
Health-Based Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water. October 25, 2017. 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-0091.
42. Bevington, Charles, et al. ``Relationship between Residential 
Dust-Lead Loading and Dust-Lead Concentration Across Multiple North 
American Datasets.'' Building and Environment 188 (2021): 107359. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107359.
43. Frank, J., Poulakosc, A., Tornero-Velez, R., & Xueb, J. 
Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Lead (Pb) Concentrations in 
Environmental Media (Soil, Dust, Water, Food, and Air) Reported in 
the United States from 1996 to 2016. Science of The Total 
Environment, Volume 694, 133489. ISSN 0048-9697. December 1, 2019. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.295.

[[Page 89450]]

44. SAB (Science Advisory Board). (2020). Review of the All Ages 
Lead Model External Review Draft 2.0. Report Number EPA-SAB-20-009. 
Available at https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/f?p=114:0:13468522010178:APPLICATION_PROCESS=REPORT_DOC:::REPORT_ID:1086.
45. EPA. (2024). Updated Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and 
RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0644-0064.
46. EPA. (2023). Proposed Rule; National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements. Federal Register (88 
FR 84878, December 6, 2023) (FRL-5423.2-01-OW). Available at: 
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0036.
47. Brown JS, Diamond GL, Follansbee MH, Thayer WC, Spalinger SM, 
Thorhaug M, Weppner SG, and Witters Hicks KJ. 2021. Advancing Pb 
Exposure and Biokinetic Modeling for U.S. EPA Regulatory Decisions 
and Site Assessments using Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical 
Complex Superfund Site Data. EPA600/R-21/017F.
48. Rabinowitz M.B., Wetherill, G.W., & Kopple, J.D. (1976). Kinetic 
analysis of lead metabolism in healthy humans. Journal of Clinical 
Investigation, 58(2), 260-270.
49. Hattis D. (1981). Dynamics of medical removal protection for 
lead--A reappraisal. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center 
for Policy Alternatives. Cambridge, MA.
50. Nilsson, U., Attewell, R., Christoffersson, J.O., Sch[uuml]tz, 
A., Ahlgren, L., Skerfving, S., & Mattson, S. (1991). Kinetics of 
lead in bone and blood after end of occupational exposure. Basic & 
Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 68(6), 477-484.
51. Ryu, J.E., Ziegler, E.E., Nelson, SE, & Fomon, S.J. (1983). 
Dietary intake of lead and blood lead concentration in early 
infancy. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 137(9), 886-891.
52. Sherlock, J.C., & Quinn, M.J. (1986). Relationship between blood 
and lead concentrations and dietary lead intake in infants: the 
Glasgow Duplicate Diet Study 1979-1980. Food Additives and 
Contaminants, 3(2), 167-176.
53. HUD. Lead Hazards in U.S. Housing: American Healthy Homes Survey 
II. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-trending-030822.html. (Accessed June 29, 2023.).
54. 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.
55. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-
Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. Proposed Rule. RIN 2070-AK91. 
Federal Register (88 FR 50444, August 1, 2023) (FRL-8524-01-OCSPP). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-15073.
56. 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.
57. EPA. Laboratory Quality System Requirements (LQSR) Revision 3.0. 
November 5, 2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/lqsr3.pdf.
58. 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.
59. Lanphear, Bruce P., et al. Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure 
and Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled 
Analysis. Environmental Health Perspective. July 2005, 113(7):894-9. 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16002379/.
60. Lanphear, Bruce P., et al. Erratum: ``Low-Level Environmental 
Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International 
Pooled Analysis''. Environmental Health Perspective. September 17, 
2019, 127(9):99001. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31526192/.
61. Crump, Kenny S., et al. A Statistical Reevaluation of the Data 
Used in the Lanphear et al. (2005) Pooled-Analysis that Related Low 
Levels of Blood Lead to Intellectual Deficits in Children. Crit Rev 
Toxicol. October 2013, 43(9):785-99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24040996/.
62. Kirrane, Ellen, F., and Patel, Molini, M. Memorandum to 
Integrated Science Assessment for Lead Docket (EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-
0051). May 12, 2014. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0051-0050.
63. Ruckart PZ, Jones RL, Courtney JG, et al. Update of the Blood 
Lead Reference Value--United States, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality 
Weekly Report (MMWR) 2021; 70:1509-1512. DOI: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043a4.htm.
64. HHS, PHS, and CDC. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. 
October 1, 1991. https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/Prevguid/p0000029/p0000029.asp#head007001001000000.
65. The Blood Lead Reference Value (BLRV) Workgroup. Recommendation 
for a Revised Blood Lead Reference Value (for the Lead Exposure and 
Prevention Advisory Committee). August 10, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/docs/lepac/blrv-recommendation-report-508.pdf.
66. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Proposed 
Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998) (FRL-5791-9). 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-06-03/pdf/98-14736.pdf.
67. CDC. CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead 
Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in ``Low Level Lead Exposure 
Harms Children: A Renewed Call of Primary Prevention.'' June 7, 
2012. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/docs/cdc_response_lead_exposure_recs.pdf.
68. Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee. RE: Childhood 
Lead Poisoning Prevention. Letter to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA 
Administrator. March 29, 2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/chpac_lead_letter_2012_03_29.pdf.
69. EPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Lead. Federal Register (81 FR 71906, October 18, 2016) (FRL-9952-
87). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-10-18/pdf/2016-23153.pdf.
70. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead. Federal 
Register (73 FR 77517, December 19, 2008) (FRL-8732-9). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-12-19/pdf/E8-30199.pdf.
71. HUD. Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. American 
Healthy Homes Survey II Lead Findings. Final Report. October 29, 
2021. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
72. The White House. Biden-Harris Administration Announces New 
Actions to Ease the Burden of Housing Costs. May 16, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/16/president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-ease-the-burden-of-housing-costs/.
73. Biden-Harris Administration Announces Actions to Lower Housing 
Costs and Boost Supply. July 27, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/27/biden-harris-administration-announces-actions-to-lower-housing-costs-and-boost-supply/.
74. Bess, K. D., A. L. Miller, and R. Mehdipanah. 2022. The Effects 
of Housing Insecurity on Children's Health: A Scoping Review. Health 
Promotion International, daac006. Advance online publication. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daac006.
75. Lee, C. Y., Zhao, X., Reesor-Oyer, L., Cepni, A. B., & 
Hernandez, D. C. (2021). Bidirectional Relationship Between Food 
Insecurity and Housing Instability. Journal of the Academy of 
Nutrition and Dietetics, 121(1), 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2020.08.081.
76. Baker, Emma, Laurence Lester, Kate Mason, and Rebecca Bentley. 
2020. Mental Health and Prolonged Exposure to Unaffordable housing: 
A Longitudinal Analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric 
Epidemiology. 55, 6: 715-721. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32140739/.
77. Chung, Roger Yat-Nork et al. 2020. Housing Affordability Effects 
on Physical and Mental Health: Household Survey in a Population with 
the World's Greatest Housing Affordability Stress. Journal of 
Epidemiology and Community Health. 74, 2: 164-172. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31690588/.
78. Jenkins Morales, M., & Robert, S. A. 2022. Housing Cost Burden 
and Health Decline

[[Page 89451]]

Among Low- and Moderate-Income Older Renters. The Journals of 
Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 
77(4), 815-826. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbab184.
79. Jelleyman, T., and N. Spencer. 2008. Residential Mobility in 
Childhood and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Journal of 
Epidemiology and Community Health. 62: 584-592. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.060103.
80. Burgard, Sarah A., Kristin S. Seefeldt and Sarah Zelner. 2012. 
Housing Instability and Health: Findings from the Michigan Recession 
and Recovery Study. Social Science & Medicine. 75, 12: 2215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.020.
81. Desmond, Matthew, and Rachel Tolbert Kimbro. 2020. Eviction's 
Fallout: Housing, Hardship, and Health. Social Forces. 94, 1: 295-
324. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov044.
82. DiTosto, Julia. D., et al. 2021. Housing Instability and Adverse 
Perinatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review. American Journal of 
Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM. 3, 6: 100477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100477.
83. Collinson, Robert, John Eric Humphries, Nicholas S. Mader, Davin 
K. Reed, Daniel I. Tannenbaum, and Winnie van Dijk. 2022. Eviction 
and Poverty in American Cities. NBER Working Paper No. 30382. 
https://www.nber.org/papers/w30382.
84. Cutts, Diana Becker, et al. 2011. US Housing Insecurity and the 
Health of Very Young Children. American Journal of Public Health. 
101, 8: 1508-1514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300139.
85. Solari, Claudia D. and Robert D Mare. 2012. ``Housing Crowding 
Effects on Children's Wellbeing.'' Social Science Research. 41, 2: 
464-476. https://doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012.
86. Ahmad, Khansa, Sebhat Erqou, Nishant Shah, Umair Nazir, Alan R. 
Morrison, Gaurav Choudhary, Wen-Chih. 2020. ``Association of Poor 
Housing Conditions with COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality Across US 
Counties.'' PLoS ONE. 15, 11: e0241327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241327.
87. Marmot Review Team. 2011. The Health Impacts of Cold Homes and 
Fuel Poverty. London: Friends of the Earth and the Marmot Review 
Team. https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/the-health-impacts-of-cold-homes-and-fuel-poverty.
88. ASHRAE Multidisciplinary Task Group. 2020. Damp Buildings, Human 
Health, and HVAC Design. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/damp-buildings-human-health-and-hvac-design?product_id=2110372.
89. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead. Response 
to Public Comments. March 2001.
90. EPA. Review of the Dust-lead Hazard Standards and the Definition 
of Lead-Based Paint. Response to Public Comments. June 2019. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0571.
91. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. 
Response to Public Comments. December 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0397.
92. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Stat Analysis 
Corporation. June 13, 2022.
93. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and HIH Laboratory, Inc. 
June 14, 2022.
94. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Batta Environmental. 
June 14, 2022.
95. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and EMSL Analytical, Inc. 
June 15, 2022.
96. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Environmental Hazard 
Services, LLC. June 21, 2022.
97. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Accurate Analytical 
Testing, LLC. June 22, 2022.
98. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Schneider 
Laboratories, Inc. June 30, 2022.
99. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Marion County Health 
Department. July 11, 2022.
100. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and GPI. July 12, 2022.
101. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and EMSL Analytical. 
November 29, 2023.
102. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Criterion 
Laboratories, Inc. November 30, 2023.
103. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Laboratory Testing 
Services. December 12, 2023.
104. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and SanAir Technologies 
Laboratory. December 14, 2023.
105. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and ALS Laboratory 
Group. December 15, 2023.
106. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Armstrong Forensic 
Laboratory. June 22, 2023.
107. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Micro Analytical 
Labs, Inc. December 20, 2023.
108. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Analytical 
Environmental Services International, Inc. December 21, 2023.
109. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and AMA Analytical 
Services, Inc. January 1, 2024.
110. NYC. New Lead in Dust Standards for New York City. June 2019. 
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/lead/lead-in-dust-standards.pdf.
111. NYC. New Lead in Dust Standards for New York City. June 2021. 
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/lead/lead-in-dust.pdf.
112. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and New York City 
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Healthy Homes Program. 
March 21, 2022.
113. David E Jacobs, et al. The Prevalence of Lead-based Paint 
Hazards in U.S. Housing. October 1, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.021100599.
114. Ahrens, Katherine A., Barbara A. Haley, Lauren M. Rossen, 
Patricia C. Lloyd, and Yutaka Aoki. 2016. ``Housing Assistance and 
Blood Lead Levels: Children in the United States, 2005-2012.'' 
American Journal of Public Health. 106,11: 2049-2056. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303432.
115. HUD. Data compiled from HUD's Picture of Subsidized Households 
dataset, available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html.
116. Fenelon, Andrew, Natalie Slopen, Michel Boudreaux, and Sandra 
J. Newman. 2018. ``The Impact of Housing Assistance on the Mental 
Health of Children in the United States.'' Journal of Health and 
Social Behavior. 1-17. https://doi.10.1177/0022146518792286.
117. Fenelon, Andrew, et al. 2017. Housing Assistance Programs and 
Adult Health in the United States. American Journal of Public 
Health. 107, 4: 571-578. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28207335/.
118. Boudreaux, Michel, Andrew Fenelon, Natalie Slopen, and Sandra 
J. Newman. 2020. ``Association of Childhood Asthma with Federal 
Rental Assistance.'' JAMA Pediatrics. 174, 6: 592-598. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6242.
119. Slopen, Natalie, Andrew Fenelon, Sandra Newman, and Michel 
Boudreaux. 2018. ``Housing Assistance and Child Health: A Systematic 
Review.'' Pediatrics. 141, 6: e20172742. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2742.
120. Alvarez, Thyria and Barry L. Steffen. 2021. Worst Case Housing 
Needs: 2021 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 
Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Worst-Case-Housing-Needs-2021.html.
121. Greenlee, Andrew J. 2014. More Than Meets the Market? Landlord 
Agency in the Illinois Housing Choice Voucher Program. Housing 
Policy Debate, 24:3, 500-524, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2014.913649. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2014.913649.
122. Varady, David P., Joseph Jaroscak, and Reinout Kleinhans. 2017. 
How to Attract More Landlords to the Housing Choice Voucher Program: 
A Case Study of Landlord Outreach Efforts. Urban Research & 
Practice, 10:2, 143-155, DOI: 10.1080/17535069.2016.1175741. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2016.1175741.
123. Garboden, Philip M. E., Eva Rosen, Stefanie DeLuca, and Kathryn 
Edin. 2018. Taking Stock: What Drives Landlord Participation in the 
Housing Choice Voucher Program. Housing Policy Debate. 28:6, 979-
1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1502202.
124. Greif, Meredith. 2018. Regulating Landlords: Unintended 
Consequences for Poor Tenants. City & Community, 17:3, 658-674. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12321.
125. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in

[[Page 89452]]

Housing. Second Edition, July 2012. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/healthy_homes/lbp/hudguidelines.
126. Earthjustice. Public Comment Submitted by Earthjustice on 
behalf of A Community Voice et al. October 6, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231-0531.
127. EPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request 
(ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); Reconsideration of 
the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement 
Clearance Levels; Final Rule, EPA ICR No. 2760.01, OMB Control No. 
2070-0227. October 2024.
128. EPA. Notes from the Tribal Opportunity for Consultation on the 
Proposed Rulemaking for the Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard 
Standards and Dust-Lead Clearance Levels. Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics. August 9-10, 2023.
129. EPA. EJ 2020 Action Agenda: The U.S. EPA's Environmental 
Justice Strategic Plan for 2016--2020. October 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/052216_ej_2020_strategic_plan_final_0.pdf.

IX. 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 Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 14094: 
Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under 
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 
1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 
2023). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866. 
Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 
12866 review is available in the docket. The Agency prepared an 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action (Ref. 10), which is available in the docket and is summarized in 
Unit I.E.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for review and approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA 
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2760.02 and OMB Control No. 
2070-0227 (Ref. 127). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for 
this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information 
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The ICR addresses the incremental changes to the existing 
reporting, notification, and recordkeeping programs that are currently 
approved under OMB Control Nos. 2070-0151 and 2070-0195. As approved 
under OMB Control No. 2070-0151 and pursuant to 24 CFR part 35, subpart 
A, and 40 CFR 745, Subpart F, sellers and lessors of target housing 
must already provide purchasers or lessees any available records or 
reports ``pertaining to'' LBP and/or LBP hazards available to the 
seller or lessor. Accordingly, a seller or lessor must disclose any 
reports showing dust-lead levels, regardless of the value. A lower 
hazard standard may prompt a different response on the already required 
lead disclosure form (i.e., that a lead-based paint hazard is present 
rather than not), which would occur when a dust-lead level is below the 
2019 standard but at or above a lower final reportable level. However, 
for existing target housing, this action would not result in additional 
disclosures because the lead disclosure form is required regardless of 
whether dust-lead is present at or below the hazard standard or 
reportable level. Note that leases (which does not include sales) of 
target housing are exempt from disclosure requirements in limited 
circumstances, such as where the housing has been found to be LBP free 
by a certified inspector (24 CFR 35.82; 40 CFR 745.101), even if the 
dust-lead level is at or above the DLRL. Nevertheless, due to the 
change in target housing definition, EPA estimates an additional 967 
disclosure events will occur annually, which will affect 3,040 
respondents at an average burden and cost of 0.11 hours and $4.58 per 
respondent, resulting in a total annual burden of 337 hours at a total 
annual cost of $13,910.
    Next, as approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0195, the ICR 
addresses the information collection activities associated with the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for individuals, firms and 
State and local government entities conducting LBP activities or 
renovations of target housing and COFs; training providers; and States/
territories/Tribes/Alaska Native villages. These information collection 
activities include the following:
     LBP activity firm pre-abatement reports and occupant 
protection plans, abatement activity notifications, post-abatement 
reports and recordkeeping;
     Applications for certification of individuals performing 
LBP activities, and related recordkeeping;
     LBP activities training provider accreditation 
applications, training notifications, and recordkeeping;
     LBP activity firm certification applications and 
recordkeeping;
     Distribution of pre-renovation lead hazard information 
pamphlet and post-renovation checklists documenting lead-safe work 
practices;
     RRP and LBP professionals classroom training time related 
to recordkeeping compliance;
     RRP training provider accreditation applications, training 
notifications, and recordkeeping;
     Private RRP firm and Government-employed RRP professional 
certification applications and recordkeeping; and
     Submission of related fees.
    Incremental abatement notifications would be required when an 
abatement occurs due to the DLRL/DLAL and does not occur in the 
baseline; EPA estimates that 1,779 to 2,687 such notifications will 
incur average annual paperwork-associated costs of $161. Additional LBP 
workers may need to be hired and subsequently trained and certified to 
accommodate the additional dust-lead remediation activities triggered 
by the DLRL/DLAL. EPA estimates that 1,304 to 2,551 respondents will 
incur average annual paperwork-associated costs of $457. Because the EA 
finds that the DLRL/DLAL would increase the average number of new lead 
hazard reduction events per firm by up to 16 per year, EPA assumes that 
existing LBP activity firms would cover this new work and new entrants 
are unlikely to emerge. As such, EPA does not estimate any paperwork 
costs associated with LBP activity firm certification. Similarly, the 
EA finds that there would be fewer than 1 incremental event per 
affected RRP firm and therefore EPA expects no new RRP firms or 
employees will enter the market in response to the DLRL/DLAL. As such, 
EPA does not estimate any paperwork costs associated with RRP firm 
certification or RRP training.
    The revisions to the definition of target housing will result in 
paperwork costs in two dimensions. First, abatement firms operating in 
newly defined target housing are expected to incur reporting and 
recordkeeping costs for those additional events. EPA estimates that 25 
respondents will incur an average annual cost of $96 for these 
activities. Second, renovation service firms performing renovation 
activities in newly defined target housing are required to perform 
disclosure activities. This will result in recurring disclosure event, 
recordkeeping, and materials costs. EPA estimates that 1,977 
respondents will incur an average annual cost of $16.

[[Page 89453]]

    In addition, EPA currently receives approximately 90 percent of 
required notifications as well as applications for accreditation, 
certification, and re-certification from training providers, firms, and 
lead abatement individuals through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). 
The paperwork activities, related burden and costs with CDX user 
registration for those who elect to exercise the electronic submission 
option established under the Agency's Cross-media Electronic Reporting 
Rule (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3) are described in an ICR approved under 
OMB Control No. 2025-0003. The amended information collection 
activities contained in this rule are designed to assist the Agency in 
meeting its responsibility under TSCA to receive, process, and review 
reports, data, and other information. Accordingly, this rule requires 
regulated parties to submit notifications and applications through CDX.
    The ICR prepared for this rule addresses the incremental burden 
changes related to the expected increase in the number of responses to 
the activities considered in the other existing ICRs, as well as the 
changing response obligation for the use of CDX from voluntary to 
mandatory.
    Respondents/affected entities: Persons engaged in selling or 
leasing certain residential dwellings built before 1978; persons who 
are engaged in lead-based paint activities and/or perform renovations 
of target housing or child-occupied facilities for compensation, dust 
sampling, or dust testing; persons who perform lead-based paint 
inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments or abatements in 
target housing or child-occupied facilities; persons who provide 
training or operate a training program for individuals who perform any 
of these activities; State, territorial or Tribal agencies that 
administer lead-based paint activities and/or renovation programs. See 
also Unit I.A.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (Title X and 40 CFR 
part 745).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8,123 to 10,278 (per year).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 16,982 to 29,462 hours (per year). Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0.9 million to $1.6 million (per year), 
includes no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 
for certain EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 
and on associated collection instruments. When OMB approves this ICR, 
EPA will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a 
technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection activities contained in this 
final rule.

C. 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 entities subject to the requirements of 
the DLRL and DLAL are small businesses that are landlords who may incur 
costs for lead hazard reduction measures in compliance with the HUD's 
LSHR; elementary and secondary schools or child day care services (who 
may incur costs associated with lead hazard reduction measures in 
COFs); residential remodelers (who may incur costs associated with 
additional cleaning and sealing in houses undergoing rehabilitation or 
ongoing lead-based paint maintenance subject to the HUD LSHR); and 
abatement firms (who may also incur costs associated with additional 
cleaning and sealing under the LSHR). The Agency has determined that 
approximately 18,000 small businesses would be directly affected by the 
DLRL and DLAL, of which 85% to 86% have cost impacts less than 1% of 
revenues, 12% to 13% have impacts between 1% and 3% of revenues, and 2% 
have impacts greater than 3% of revenues. The total estimated costs to 
small businesses are between $45 million and $89 million per year.
    Additionally, the rule's other amendments may potentially affect 
four types of small entities: property owners that will incur 
recordkeeping and material costs for real estate disclosures in newly 
defined target housing; renovation firms that will incur renovation 
disclosure costs and lead-safe work practice costs in newly defined 
target housing; LBP activities firms that will incur reporting and 
recordkeeping costs for abatement activities in newly defined target 
housing; and EPA-certified training providers that may incur costs for 
submitting reports electronically. The Agency has determined that 
approximately 2,998 small businesses would be directly affected by the 
amendment to the target housing definition, of which 100% have cost 
impacts less than 1% of revenues. The Agency has determined that 
approximately 86 small businesses would be directly affected by the 
amendment to the electronic reporting requirement, of which 100% have 
cost impacts less than 1% of revenues. All details of the analysis of 
potential costs and benefits associated with this action are presented 
in EPA's EA, which is available in the docket (Ref. 10).
    The EA estimates potential costs from the DLRL and DLAL for 
activities in two types of target housing and COFs--those subject to 
the HUD LSHR and those where a child with a blood lead level exceeding 
a Federal or State threshold lives. Importantly, the DLRL do not 
require the owners of properties covered by this rule to evaluate their 
properties for the presence of dust-lead hazards, or to act if dust-
lead hazards are identified. Although the DLRL and DLAL do not compel 
specific actions under EPA's LBP Activities Rule to address identified 
LBP hazards, the DLHS and DLCL are directly cross-referenced in certain 
requirements mandated by HUD in the housing subject to the LSHR. Aside 
from the HUD regulations, and perhaps some State or local regulations, 
the DLRL and DLAL do not impose new Federal requirements on small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    As discussed in Unit I.E.6., this action contains a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditures of $183 million in 2023 dollars ($100 
million in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation using the GDP implicit 
price deflator) or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for 
State, local and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. However, this action is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Additionally, EPA does not believe that this action would 
impose an unfunded mandate on Tribal governments or otherwise have 
substantial direct effects on one or more federally recognized Indian 
Tribes. EPA has prepared the written statement required under section 
202 of UMRA (Ref. 13). The statement is included in the docket for this 
action and is briefly summarized here.
    This rulemaking is issued under the authority of TSCA sections 401, 
402, 403, 404, and 406, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as amended by Title X 
(Pub. L. 102-550) (Ref. 1) and section 237(c) of Title II of Division K 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, 131 Stat. 
789), as well as sections

[[Page 89454]]

1004 and 1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4851b, 4852d), as amended by 
section 237(b) of Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017.
    The EA (Ref. 10) presents the costs of the rule as well as various 
regulatory options, and is summarized in Unit I.E. The rule is 
estimated to result in total compliance costs of $207 million to $348 
million per year. Thus, the annual cost of the rule to the private 
sector (and State, local, and Tribal governments) in the aggregate 
exceeds the inflation-adjusted $100 million UMRA threshold.
    This rule will reduce exposures to lead, resulting in benefits from 
avoided adverse health effects. For the subset of health effects where 
the results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits are 
$1.54 billion to $10.315 billion per year using a 2% discount rate. 
There may be additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided 
health effects.
    Net benefits are the difference between benefits and costs. The 
rule is estimated to result in quantified net benefits of $1.367 
billion to $9.966 billion per year using a 2% discount rate. EPA 
considers unquantified health benefits to be potentially important non-
monetized impacts that contribute to the overall net benefits of this 
rule.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, before promulgating a rule for which a 
written statement is required, EPA must identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. From those alternatives, 
EPA must select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the rule's objectives, unless the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome method was not 
adopted; or the provisions of section 205 are inconsistent with 
applicable law.
    EPA considered several regulatory alternatives in the economic 
analysis for the final rule. One of these options, DLRL and DLAL of 10 
[mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills and window troughs, would have lower costs than the alternative 
selected for the final rule. This alternative option would be more 
cost-effective than the final rule in terms of the cost per case of 
premature cardiovascular mortality avoided. However, the final rule is 
the most cost-effective option analyzed for both the cost per lost IQ 
point avoided and the cost per ADHD case avoided. The final rule also 
avoids far more IQ loss and cases of cardiovascular mortality risk and 
ADHD than does the alternative option.
    Compared with DLAL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 
[mu]g/ft\2\, DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
represents a reduction of 50% or more in the allowable level of dust-
lead loadings following the completion of an abatement. As a result, 
DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ would be 
beneficial to maintaining lower children's BLLs and protecting against 
associated health outcomes such as decreased IQ. The TSD modeling shows 
that young children in pre-1978 housing exposed to dust-lead loadings 
of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills would 
have an estimated 13.9% probability of exceeding a total BLL of 3.5 
[mu]g/dL (CDC's BLRV). This is significantly lower than the 18.0% 
probability of exceedance of the BLRV when exposed to DLAL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills.
    When considering dust-lead exposure only, young children in pre-
1978 housing exposed to DLAL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ would have a 22.4% probability of exceeding 2 points of IQ 
loss. This is considerably less than the 37.9% chance of exceeding 2 
points of IQ loss for children exposed to DLAL levels of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\. Overall, the TSD modeling 
indicates that the 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
DLAL represents a substantial reduction in risk compared with DLAL of 
10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\.
    EPA's analysis of the HUD LHCCS data indicates that 72% of samples 
showed dust-lead levels at or below 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 88% were 
at or below 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 93% were at or below 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window troughs. The respondents to HUD's survey 
were only required to achieve clearance below the dust-lead clearance 
levels that were in effect at that time (which were 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ window sills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
troughs), and the percentage of samples achieving these post-abatement 
dust-lead loadings may be even higher today (due to the 2021 Final Rule 
revising the clearance levels to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, described as dust-lead action levels 
moving forward). Furthermore, New York City lowered its standards for 
floors, window sills and window wells (i.e., troughs), respectively, to 
5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ in 2021. As a result, 
EPA has high confidence that the 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs DLAL option is 
achievable.
    Therefore, EPA has concluded that the final rule option better 
achieves the objectives of reliability, effectiveness and safety than 
does the alternative option of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 400 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs.
    EPA sought input from State and local government representatives 
early in the rulemaking process during the joint intergovernmental 
consultation initiated in November 2022. EPA's experience in 
administering the existing LBP activities program under TSCA section 
402 suggests that these governments will play a critical role in the 
successful implementation of the national program to reduce exposures 
to LBP hazards.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
because of the potential effects on public housing authorities. While 
some HUD grant funding for LBP projects exists, the Federal government 
may not provide the funds necessary to pay the entirety of the costs. 
State and local governments may provide additional funding to pay for 
some of these costs. These costs to public housing authorities--
estimated at $27 million per year--cover additional lead hazard 
reduction activities, cleaning, and dust-lead testing to ensure that 
public housing units are in compliance with the LSHR. Public school 
districts that administer COFs are also estimated to have annual 
compliance costs of approximately $850,000 per year. Additionally, 
States that have authorized LBP activities programs must demonstrate 
that they meet any new requirements imposed by this rulemaking and are 
at least as protective as the levels at 40 CFR 745.65 and 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 DLRL and DLCL they can relinquish their authorization. In the 
absence of a State authorization, EPA will administer these 
requirements.
    EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement. EPA 
consulted with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and 
timely input into its development. EPA invited the following national 
organizations representing State and local elected officials to a 
consultation meeting on November 10, 2022: National Governors' 
Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, National League of Cities, Council of State Governments, 
International City/County Management Association, National Association 
of Counties, National Association of Towns and Townships, County 
Executives of America, and Environmental Council of

[[Page 89455]]

the States. Additionally, the agency invited professional organizations 
that represent or have State and local government members, such as 
Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, Council of Large 
Public Housing Authorities, Association of State and Territorial Health 
Officials, American Public Works Association, and other groups to 
participate in the meeting. The comments received during this 
consultation, and EPA's response thereto, are discussed in Unit IX.E. 
of the notice of proposed rulemaking (88 FR 50477).
    EPA notes that according to the 2021 Court Opinion the Agency 
cannot take into account non-health factors, such as costs, when 
revising the DLHS. However, the Agency can and did consider non-health 
factors when revising the DLAL. Accordingly, as described elsewhere in 
this notice, EPA is promulgating DLAL that are higher than those it 
originally proposed. This will allow laboratories to continue using 
FAAS instruments for dust-wipe testing. This will limit increases in 
laboratory testing costs and turnaround times, including for abatements 
in properties owned by public housing authorities and public-school 
districts.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will 
not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian Tribes. Federally recognized Tribes that have 
authorized LBP activities programs must demonstrate that they meet any 
new requirements imposed by this rulemaking and are at least as 
protective as the levels at 40 CFR 745.65 and 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 DLRL and DLAL they can relinquish their authorization. In the 
absence of a Tribal authorization, EPA will administer these 
requirements. This action does not create an obligation for Tribes to 
administer LBP activities programs or alter EPA's authority to 
administer these programs. For these reasons, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with Tribal officials during the 
development of this action. The Agency provided an opportunity for 
consultation from July 24, 2023, to September 22, 2023, with 
consultation sessions on August 9 and 10, 2023. Tribal officials were 
given the opportunity to meaningfully interact with EPA concerning the 
dust-lead standards, and all other amendments in the proposed 
rulemaking. During the consultation sessions, EPA covered the legal and 
regulatory history of this rulemaking, the approach to revising both 
dust-lead standards, other amendments such as the definition of target 
housing, the potential Tribal impacts and the estimated economic costs 
and benefits, as well as provided resources and information to Tribal 
officials about how to submit written comments to the Agency. Beyond a 
few clarifying questions, Tribal officials raised no related issues or 
concerns to EPA during or in follow-up to those meetings (Ref. 128). 
EPA received no additional written comments from Tribes as part of this 
consultation opportunity.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal 
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of 
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety 
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive 
Order 14094), and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety 
risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on children 
as they are more susceptible to the adverse health effects of lead due 
to their behavior and physiology. Accordingly, we have evaluated the 
environmental health or safety effects of dust-lead exposure on 
children.
    The results of this evaluation are contained in Unit I.E., and in 
the EA and TSD, where the health impacts of lead exposure on children 
are discussed more fully (Refs. 10 and 12). The documents referenced in 
this unit are available in the public docket for this action.
    This action is preferred over other regulatory options analyzed 
because the DLRL aligns with the current state of the science, which 
does not support identifying a threshold of dust-lead exposure below 
which there would be no adverse human health effects. EPA has set the 
DLAL taking into account the statutory criteria of reliability, 
effectiveness, and safety.
    Furthermore, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health also applies to 
this action. Discussion about how the Agency applied this policy is 
presented in Unit I.E.5.

H. 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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards under NTTAA section 12(d), 
15 U.S.C. 272 note. ASTM E1728 and ASTM E1792 are already cited in an 
existing regulatory definition of ``wipe sample'' at 40 CFR 745.63. EPA 
is formally incorporating the most current version of these standards 
(i.e., ASTM E1728-20 and ASTM E1792-20). Additional information about 
these standards, including how to access them, is provided in Unit 
IV.F.8.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that 
exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in 
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on 
communities with environmental justice concerns consistent with 
Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) (building on and 
supplementing E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)). See 
discussion in Section 8.6 of the EA (Ref. 10) concerning existing 
disproportionate impacts of lead pollution faced by individuals in low-
income households and households of people of color and/or Indigenous 
peoples, and the measured extent to which this action particularly 
benefits the health of individuals in low-income households.
    EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. For example, 50% of children under age 6

[[Page 89456]]

who will benefit from the rule are members of households below the 
poverty line, compared with 17% of children under age 6 nationally who 
live below the poverty line. An estimated 48% of total monetized IQ 
benefits from this rule accrue to children under age 6 living in a 
household below the poverty line. An estimated 28% of children under 
age 6 who will benefit from the rule are non-Hispanic Black, compared 
with 12% of children under age 6 nationally who are non-Hispanic Black. 
An estimated 23% of total monetized IQ benefits from this rule accrue 
to non-Hispanic Black children.
    For children ages 0 to 15 at the time of exposure reduction 
benefiting from this rulemaking due to reduced cases of ADHD, 53% of 
those live in a household with an annual income below the poverty line, 
compared to 19% of children ages 0 to 15 in target housing who live 
below the poverty line. An estimated 40% of total monetized ADHD 
benefits from this rule accrue to children ages 0 to 15 living in a 
household below the poverty line. Additionally, 36% of children ages 0 
to 15 benefiting from this rulemaking are non-Hispanic Black, compared 
to the 13% of children in target housing who similarly identify. 
However, only an estimated 27% of total monetized ADHD benefits from 
this rule accrue to non-Hispanic Black children.
    Similarly, 49% of the adults benefiting from this rulemaking live 
in a household with annual income below the poverty line, compared to 
13% of adults in target housing who live below the poverty line. Adults 
living in a household below the poverty line receive an estimated 43% 
of total monetized cardiovascular mortality avoidance benefits from 
this rule. Moreover, 39% of adults benefitting from this rulemaking are 
non-Hispanic Black, compared to the 13% of adults in target housing who 
identify as non-Hispanic Black. An estimated 49% of total monetized 
cardiovascular mortality avoidance benefits from this rule accrue to 
non-Hispanic Black adults.
    There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the environmental 
justice implications of this rule on HUD-assisted housing. If the rule 
inadvertently limits the availability of federally assisted affordable 
housing, a subset of low-income individuals or families currently 
residing in assisted housing may face higher housing costs on the 
private market, disruptions caused by an involuntary loss of housing, 
and the potential for dust lead levels that exceed those in their 
baseline LSHR-regulated housing.
    EPA additionally identified and addressed environmental justice 
concerns through public comment and collaboration with State, Tribal, 
and other co-regulatory bodies related to the EJ2020 action agenda and 
the development of the EPA Lead Strategy. Through the EPA Lead 
Strategy, EPA has engaged with key stakeholders, communities, and 
organizations with vested interests in addressing lead exposures. 
Disparities in lead pollution are a national area of focus in the 
EJ2020 action agenda (Ref. 129), and this rulemaking's protective 
standards will deliver demonstrative progress on addressing childhood 
lead exposure and health disparities to members of overburdened 
communities.
    The information supporting the Executive Order 12898 review is 
contained in the EA (Ref. 10) and EPA Lead Strategy (Ref. 8), both of 
which are available in the docket.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action meets the 
criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR 
chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 745--LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN 
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

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.  745.61 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.61  Scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) Before January 13, 2025, the levels identified in 40 CFR 
745.227(e)(8)(viii) were referred to as clearance levels. On or after 
January 13, 2025, the levels identified in Sec.  745.227(e)(8)(viii) 
are referred to as action levels.

0
3. Amend Sec.  745.63 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions 
of ``Reportable level'' and revising the definition of ``Wipe sample'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  745.63  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Reportable level means the lowest analyte concentration (or amount) 
that does not contain a ``less than'' qualifier and that is reported 
with confidence for a specific method by a laboratory recognized by EPA 
under TSCA section 405(b).
* * * * *
    Wipe sample means a sample collected by wiping a representative 
surface of known area, as determined by ASTM E1728/E1728M-20 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  745.67), or equivalent method, 
with an acceptable wipe material as defined in ASTM E1792-20 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  745.67).

0
4. Amend Sec.  745.65 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.65  Lead-based paint hazards.

* * * * *
    (b) Dust-lead hazard. Before January 12, 2026, a dust-lead hazard 
is surface dust in a residential dwelling or child-occupied facility 
that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to or 
exceeding 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors or 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
interior window sills based on wipe samples. On or after January 12, 
2026, a dust-lead hazard is surface dust in a residential dwelling or 
child-occupied facility that contains a mass-per-area concentration of 
any reportable level of lead for floors or for interior window sills 
based on wipe samples analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory.
* * * * *

0
5. Add Sec.  745.67 to Subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  745.67  Incorporation by reference.

    Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by 
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). Contact EPA at: OPPT Docket in the 
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 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

[[Page 89457]]

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 
566-0280. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 
visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email 
[email protected]. The material may be obtained from the following 
sources:
    (a) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; (877) 909-ASTM; www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM E1728/E1728M-20, Standard Practice for Collection of 
Settled Dust Samples Using Wipe Sampling Methods for Subsequent Lead 
Determination, Approved January 1, 2020; IBR approved for Sec.  745.63.
    (2) ASTM E1792-20, Standard Specification for Wipe Sampling 
Materials for Lead in Surface Dust, Approved September 1, 2020; IBR 
approved for Sec.  745.63.
    (b) [Reserved]

0
6. Amend Sec.  745.81 by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  745.81  Effective dates.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Work practices. On or after July 6, 2010, all renovations must 
be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in Sec.  
745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target housing or child-occupied facilities, 
unless the renovation qualifies for the exception identified in Sec.  
745.82(a).
* * * * *
    (b) Renovation-specific pamphlet. On or after December 22, 2008, 
renovators or firms performing renovations in States and Indian Tribal 
areas without an authorized program must provide owners and occupants 
the following EPA pamphlet: Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard 
Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  745.83 by adding in alphabetical order the definition of 
``Electronic'' to read as follows:


Sec.  745.83  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electronic means the submission of an application, payment, or 
notification using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or 
successor platform.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  745.85 by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.85  Work practice standards.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) The renovation firm is required to re-clean the work area until 
the dust sample results are below the dust-lead action levels in Sec.  
745.227(e)(8) or any applicable State, Territorial, Tribal, or local 
standard.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  745.89 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), introductory text 
of paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.89  Firm certification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Firms that perform renovations for compensation must 
electronically apply to EPA for certification to perform renovations or 
dust sampling. To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a completed 
``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm, 
and pay electronically at least the correct amount of fees. If a firm 
pays more than the correct amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the firm 
for the excess amount.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Timely and complete application. To be re-certified, a firm 
must submit a complete electronic application for re-certification. A 
complete application for re-certification includes a completed 
``Application for Firms'' which contains all of the information 
requested by the form and is signed by an authorized agent of the firm, 
noting on the form that it is submitted as a re-certification. A 
complete application must also include at least the correct amount of 
fees. If a firm pays more than the correct amount of fees, EPA will 
reimburse the firm for the excess amount.
    (i) An application for re-certification is timely if it is 
electronically submitted 90 days or more before the date the firm's 
current certification expires. If the firm's application is complete 
and timely, the firm's current certification will remain in effect 
until its expiration date or until EPA has made a final decision to 
approve or disapprove the re-certification application, whichever is 
later.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) To amend certification, a firm must electronically submit a 
completed ``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of 
the firm, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and 
indicating the information that has changed. The firm must also pay at 
least the correct amount of fees.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  745.90 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) and 
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.90  Renovator certification and dust sampling technician 
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-
based paint inspector or risk assessor course before October 4, 2011 
may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in 
lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust sampling 
technician. Individuals who are currently certified as lead-based paint 
inspectors or risk assessors may act as certified dust sampling 
technicians without further training.
    (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician 
certification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling 
technician refresher course accredited by EPA under Sec.  745.225 or by 
a State or Tribal program that is authorized under Subpart Q of this 
part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial 
course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual 
does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual 
must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals 
who take a renovator refresher course that does not include hands-on 
training will be certified for 3 years from the date they complete the 
training. Individuals who take a refresher training course that 
includes hands-on training will be certified for 5 years. Individuals 
who take the renovator refresher without hands-on training must, for 
their next refresher course, take a refresher course that includes 
hands-on training to maintain renovator certification.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Must collect dust samples in accordance with Sec.  
745.227(e)(8), must send the collected samples to a laboratory 
recognized by EPA under TSCA section 405(b), and must compare the 
results to the action levels in accordance with Sec.  745.227(e)(8).
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  745.92 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.92  Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust 
sampling technician training and the certification of renovation firms.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Submit the application and a payment of $15 electronically in

[[Page 89458]]

accordance with the instructions provided with the application package.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  745.103 by revising the definition of ``Target 
housing'' to read as follows:


Sec.  745.103  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except 
housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom 
dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or 
is expected to reside in such housing).
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  745.113 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(1) and (4) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  745.113  Certification and acknowledgement of disclosure.

    (a) * * *
    (4) A statement by the purchaser affirming receipt of the 
information set out in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section and 
the lead hazard information pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 2686.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A Lead Warning Statement with the following language:

    Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead 
from paint, paint chips, and dust can pose health hazards if not 
managed properly. Lead exposure is especially harmful to young 
children and pregnant women. Before renting pre-1978 housing, 
lessors must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and/or 
lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling. Lessees must also receive 
a federally approved pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention.
* * * * *
    (4) A statement by the lessee affirming receipt of the information 
set out in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section and the lead 
hazard information pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 2686.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  745.223 by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``Abatement'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of ``Action levels'';
0
c. Revising the definitions of ``Certified inspector'', ``Certified 
risk assessor'' and ``Child-occupied facility'';
0
d. Removing the definition of ``Clearance levels'';
0
e. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Electronic'' and 
``Housing for the elderly'';
0
f. Revising the definitions of ``Living area'' and ``Target housing''; 
and
0
g. Removing the definition for ``Visual inspection for clearance 
testing'' and adding in its place the definition ``Visual inspection 
for abatement-related testing''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  745.223  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Abatement means any measure or set of measures designed to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in the case of dust-
lead hazards to below the action levels. Abatement includes, but is not 
limited to:
    (1) The removal of paint and dust (in the case of dust-lead hazards 
to below the action levels), the permanent enclosure or encapsulation 
of lead-based paint, the replacement of painted surfaces or fixtures, 
or the removal or permanent covering of soil, when lead-based paint 
hazards are present in such paint, dust or soil; and
    (2) All preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement testing 
activities associated with such measures.
    (3) Specifically, abatement includes, but is not limited to:
    (i) Projects for which there is a written contract or other 
documentation, which provides that an individual or firm will be 
conducting activities in or to a residential dwelling or child-occupied 
facility that:
    (A) Shall result in the permanent elimination of lead-based paint 
hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the action levels; 
or
    (B) Are designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, 
in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the action levels, and are 
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition.
    (ii) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based 
paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the action 
levels, conducted by firms or individuals certified in accordance with 
Sec.  745.226, unless such projects are covered by paragraph (4) of 
this definition;
    (iii) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based 
paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the action 
levels, conducted by firms or individuals who, through their company 
name or promotional literature, represent, advertise, or hold 
themselves out to be in the business of performing lead-based paint 
activities as identified and defined by this section, unless such 
projects are covered by paragraph (4) of this definition; or
    (iv) Projects resulting in the permanent elimination of lead-based 
paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the action 
levels, that are conducted in response to State or local abatement 
orders.
    (4) Abatement does not include renovation, remodeling, landscaping 
or other activities, when such activities are not designed to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in the case of dust-
lead hazards to below the action levels, but, instead, are designed to 
repair, restore, or remodel a given structure or dwelling, even though 
these activities may incidentally result in a reduction or elimination 
of lead-based paint hazards. Furthermore, abatement does not include 
interim controls, operations and maintenance activities, or other 
measures and activities designed to temporarily, but not permanently, 
reduce lead-based paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to 
below the action levels.
* * * * *
    Action levels are the values that indicate the amount of lead in 
dust on a surface following completion of an abatement activity. To 
complete abatement when dust sampling is required, values below these 
levels must be achieved. EPA previously used the term ``clearance 
levels'' to refer to these levels.
* * * * *
    Certified inspector means an individual who has been trained by an 
accredited training program, as defined by this section, and certified 
by EPA pursuant to Sec.  745.226 to conduct inspections. A certified 
inspector also samples for the presence of lead in dust and soil for 
the purposes of abatement-related testing.
* * * * *
    Certified risk assessor means an individual who has been trained by 
an accredited training program, as defined by this section, and 
certified by EPA pursuant to Sec.  745.226 to conduct risk assessments. 
A risk assessor also samples for the presence of lead in dust and soil 
for the purposes of abatement-related testing.
* * * * *
    Child-occupied facility means a building, or portion of a building, 
constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 
years of age, on at least two different days within any week (Sunday 
through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least 
3 hours and the combined weekly visit lasts at least 6 hours, and the 
combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 
facilities may include, but are not limited to, day-care centers, 
preschools and kindergarten classrooms.
* * * * *

[[Page 89459]]

    Electronic means the submission of an application, payment, or 
notification using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or 
successor platform.
* * * * *
    Housing for the elderly means retirement communities or similar 
types of housing reserved for households composed of one or more 
persons 62 years of age or more at the time of initial occupancy.
* * * * *
    Living area means any area of a residential dwelling used by one or 
more children under age 6 including, but not limited to, living rooms, 
kitchen areas, dens, play rooms, and children's bedrooms.
* * * * *
    Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except 
housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom 
dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or 
is expected to reside in such housing).
* * * * *
    Visual inspection for abatement-related testing means the visual 
examination of a residential dwelling or a child-occupied facility 
following an abatement to determine whether or not the abatement has 
been successfully completed.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  745.225 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1), paragraphs 
(c)(13)(vi) and (14)(iii), paragraphs (d)(1)(vi), (3)(xi), (4)(v), and 
(7)(v), paragraph (e)(5), and paragraph (f)(2);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (i)(2)(ii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (j)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: target housing and 
child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit an 
electronic application to EPA containing the following information:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (13) * * *
    (vi) Notification must be accomplished electronically. Instructions 
can be obtained online at https://www.epa.gov/lead or from the NLIC at 
1-800-424-LEAD (5323). Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reach 
this telephone number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Communications Commission's Telecommunications Relay Service at 711.
* * * * *
    (14) * * *
    (iii) Notification must be accomplished electronically. 
Instructions can be obtained online at https://www.epa.gov/lead or from 
the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Action levels and testing, including random sampling.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (xi) Action levels and testing.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) Action levels and testing for large scale abatement projects.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (v) Action levels and testing.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher 
training courses only shall submit an electronic application to EPA 
containing the following information:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) A training program seeking re-accreditation shall submit an 
electronic application to EPA no later than 180 days before its 
accreditation expires. If a training program does not submit its 
application for re-accreditation by that date, EPA cannot guarantee 
that the program will be re-accredited before the end of the 
accreditation period.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must 
electronically submit a completed ``Accreditation Application for 
Training Providers,'' signed by an authorized agent of the training 
provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and 
indicating the information that has changed.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  745.226 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3), introductory text of paragraph (e)(1), 
and (2), and (f)(2) and (3);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  745.226  Certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-
based paint activities: target housing and child-occupied facilities.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Submit to EPA an electronic application demonstrating that they 
meet the requirements established in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this 
section for the particular discipline for which certification is 
sought; or
    (ii) Submit to EPA an electronic application attaching a copy of a 
valid lead-based paint activities certification (or equivalent) from a 
State or Tribal program that has been authorized by EPA pursuant to 
Subpart Q of this part.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Following the submission of an electronic application 
demonstrating that all the requirements of this section have been meet, 
EPA shall certify an applicant as an inspector, risk assessor, 
supervisor, project designer, or abatement worker, as appropriate.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) To maintain certification in a particular discipline, a 
certified individual shall apply electronically to and be re-certified 
by EPA in that discipline by EPA either:
* * * * *
    (2) An individual shall be re-certified if the individual 
successfully completes the appropriate accredited refresher training 
course and electronically submits a valid copy of the appropriate 
refresher course completion certificate.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) A firm seeking certification shall electronically submit to EPA 
an application attesting that the firm shall only employ appropriately 
certified employees to conduct lead-based paint activities, and that 
the firm and its employees shall follow the work practice standards in 
Sec.  745.227 for conducting lead-based paint activities.
    (3) From the date of receiving the firm's electronic application 
requesting certification, EPA shall have 90 days to approve or 
disapprove the firm's request for certification. Within that time, EPA 
shall respond with either a certificate of approval or a letter 
describing the reasons for a disapproval.
* * * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Misrepresented facts in its application for certification to 
EPA.
* * * * *

[[Page 89460]]


0
17. Amend Sec.  745.227 by
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (iv) and (v), (d)(3), (5), (6)(ii) 
and (7), (e)(4)(ii), (vii), the introductory text of paragraph (8), 
(8)(i) through (v), (vii) and (viii), the introductory text of 
paragraph (9), (9)(ii), and (iii), and (10)(iv), and (v);
0
c. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(vii); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i) and (3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (4) [Removed]
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Background information regarding the physical characteristics 
of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility and occupant use 
patterns that may cause lead-based paint exposure to one or more 
children under age 6 shall be collected.
* * * * *
    (iv) In residential dwellings, two composite dust samples shall be 
collected, one from the floors and the other from the windows, in 
rooms, hallways or stairwells where one or more children, under age 6, 
are most likely to come in contact with dust.
    (v) In multi-family dwellings and child-occupied facilities, in 
addition to the floor and window samples required in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) of this section, the risk assessor shall also collect 
composite dust samples from common areas where one or more children, 
under age 6, are most likely to come into contact with dust.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Background information regarding the physical characteristics 
of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility and occupant use 
patterns that may cause lead-based paint exposure to one or more 
children under age 6 shall be collected.
* * * * *
    (5) In residential dwellings, dust samples (either composite or 
single-surface samples) from the interior window sill(s) and floor 
shall be collected and analyzed for lead concentration in all living 
areas where one or more children, under age 6, are most likely to come 
into contact with dust.
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Other common areas in the building where the risk assessor 
determines that one or more children, under age 6, are likely to come 
into contact with dust.
    (7) For child-occupied facilities, interior window sill and floor 
dust samples (either composite or single-surface samples) shall be 
collected and analyzed for lead concentration in each room, hallway or 
stairwell utilized by one or more children, under age 6, and in other 
common areas in the child-occupied facility where one or more children, 
under age 6, are likely to come into contact with dust.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Notification for lead-based paint abatement activities 
required in response to an elevated blood lead level (EBL) 
determination, or Federal, State, Tribal, or local emergency abatement 
order should be received by EPA as early as possible before, but must 
be received no later than, the start date of the lead-based paint 
abatement activities. Should the start date and/or location provided to 
EPA change, an updated notification must be received by EPA on or 
before the start date provided to EPA. Documentation showing evidence 
of an EBL determination or a copy of the Federal/State/Tribal/local 
emergency abatement order must be included in the notification to take 
advantage of this abbreviated notification period.
* * * * *
    (vii) Notification must be accomplished electronically. 
Instructions can be obtained online at https://www.epa.gov/lead, or 
from the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
* * * * *
    (8) The following post-abatement procedures shall be performed only 
by a certified inspector or risk assessor:
    (i) Following an abatement, a visual inspection shall be performed 
to determine if deteriorated painted surfaces and/or visible amounts of 
dust, debris or residue are still present. If deteriorated painted 
surfaces or visible amounts of dust, debris or residue are present, 
these conditions must be eliminated prior to the continuation of the 
post-abatement testing procedures.
    (ii) Following the visual inspection and any post-abatement cleanup 
required by paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this section, post-abatement 
sampling for lead in dust shall be conducted. Post-abatement sampling 
may be conducted by employing single-surface sampling or composite 
sampling techniques.
    (iii) Dust samples for post-abatement testing purposes shall be 
taken using documented methodologies that incorporate adequate quality 
control procedures.
    (iv) Dust samples for post-abatement testing purposes shall be 
taken a minimum of 1 hour after completion of final post-abatement 
cleanup activities.
    (v) The following post-abatement testing activities shall be 
conducted as appropriate based upon the extent or manner of abatement 
activities conducted in or to the residential dwelling or child-
occupied facility:
* * * * *
    (vii) The certified inspector or risk assessor shall compare the 
residual lead level (as determined by the laboratory analysis) from 
each single surface dust sample with action levels in paragraph 
(e)(8)(viii) of this section for lead in dust on floors, interior 
window sills, and window troughs or from each composite dust sample 
with the applicable action levels for lead in dust on floors, interior 
window sills, and window troughs divided by half the number of 
subsamples in the composite sample. If the residual lead level in a 
single surface dust sample equals or exceeds the applicable action 
level or if the residual lead level in a composite dust sample equals 
or exceeds the applicable action level divided by half the number of 
subsamples in the composite sample, the components represented by the 
failed sample shall be recleaned and retested.
    (viii) Before January 12, 2026, the action levels for lead in dust 
are 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior 
window sills, and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs. On or after 
January 12, 2026, the action levels for lead in dust are 5 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 100 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs.
    (9) In a multi-family dwelling with similarly constructed and 
maintained residential dwellings, random sampling for the purposes of 
post-abatement testing may be conducted provided:
* * * * *
    (ii) A sufficient number of residential dwellings are selected for 
dust sampling to provide a 95 percent level of confidence that no more 
than 5 percent or 50 of the residential dwellings (whichever is 
smaller) in the randomly sampled population exceed the appropriate 
action levels.
    (iii) The randomly selected residential dwellings shall be sampled 
and evaluated according to the post-abatement testing procedures found 
in paragraph (e)(8) of this section.
    (10) * * *
    (iv) The name, address, and signature of each certified risk 
assessor or inspector conducting post-abatement sampling and the date 
of sampling.

[[Page 89461]]

    (v) The results of post-abatement dust-lead testing and all soil 
analyses (if applicable) and the name of each recognized laboratory 
that conducted the analyses.
* * * * *
    (vii) On or after January 12, 2026, when post-abatement dust-lead 
testing results are below the dust-lead action levels and at or above 
the dust-lead reportable levels, a dust-lead hazard statement with the 
following language must be included:

    Although the completed abatement project achieved dust-lead 
below action levels, some dust-lead hazards remain because any 
reportable level of dust-lead is considered a dust-lead hazard by 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a residential dwelling 
or child-occupied facility. In order for abatement work to be 
considered complete under EPA regulations, dust-lead levels must be 
below the action levels, which are established based on reliability, 
effectiveness and safety. To continue to reduce lead exposure from 
dust, the EPA pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in 
Your Home includes recommendations such as: using a vacuum with a 
high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on furniture and other 
items returned to the work area, and regularly cleaning hard 
surfaces with a damp cloth or sponge and a general all-purpose 
cleaner. For more information on how to continue to reduce lead 
exposure, see Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) On any friction surface that is subject to abrasion and where 
the lead dust levels on the nearest horizontal surface underneath the 
friction surface (e.g., the window sill or floor) are equal to or 
greater than the dust hazard levels identified in Sec.  745.65(b);
* * * * *
    (3) Dust-lead hazards and dust-lead action levels are identified 
for residential dwellings and child-occupied facilities as follows:
    (i) Before January 12, 2026, a dust lead-hazard is present in a 
residential dwelling or child-occupied facility on floors and interior 
window sills when the weighted arithmetic mean lead loading for all 
single surface or composite samples of floors and interior window sills 
are equal to or greater than 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, respectively; for projects 
where post-abatement dust-lead testing is required or otherwise 
performed, levels of lead in dust must be below 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 400 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for window troughs for purposes of the action levels; on or after 
January 12, 2026, a dust lead-hazard is present in a residential 
dwelling or child-occupied facility on floors and interior window sills 
when the lead loading for any single surface or composite sample of 
floors and interior window sills is equal to or greater than any 
reportable level of dust-lead for floors and for interior window sills; 
for projects where post-abatement dust-lead testing is required or 
otherwise performed, levels of lead in dust must be below 5 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 100 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs for purposes of clearing the action 
level;
    (ii) A dust lead-hazard is present on floors or interior window 
sills in an unsampled residential dwelling in a multi-family dwelling, 
if a dust-lead hazard is present on floors or interior window sills, 
respectively, in at least one sampled residential unit on the property 
(and, for projects where post-abatement dust-lead testing is required 
or otherwise performed, levels of lead in dust must be below the 
applicable value from paragraph (i) of this paragraph for purposes of 
the action levels); and
    (iii) A dust lead-hazard is present on floors or interior window 
sills in an unsampled common area in a multi-family dwelling, if a 
dust-lead hazard is present on floors or interior window sills, 
respectively, in at least one sampled common area in the same common 
area group on the property (and, for projects where post-abatement 
dust-lead testing is required or otherwise performed, levels of lead in 
dust must be below the applicable value from paragraph (i) of this 
paragraph for purposes of the action levels).
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  745.238 by
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(3); and
0
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e)(1) and (2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  745.238  Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based 
paint activities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Certification and re-certification.
    (i) Individuals. Submit a completed application electronically 
(titled ``Application for Individuals to Conduct Lead-based Paint 
Activities''), the materials described at Sec.  745.226, and the 
application fee(s) described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Firms. Submit a completed application electronically (titled 
``Application for Firms''), the materials described at Sec.  745.226, 
and the application fee(s) described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. Submit a completed 
application electronically (titled ``Accreditation Application for 
Training Programs''), the materials described at Sec.  745.225, and the 
application fee described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) [Removed]
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Parties seeking identification card or certificate replacement 
shall electronically complete the applicable portions of the 
appropriate application in accordance with the instructions provided. 
The appropriate applications are:
* * * * *
    (2) Submit application and payment electronically in the amount 
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section in accordance with the 
instructions.
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  745.325 by revising paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  745.325  Lead-based paint activities: State and Tribal program 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Abatements permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in 
the case of dust-lead hazards to below the action levels, and are 
conducted in a way that does not increase the hazards of lead-based 
paint to the occupants of the dwelling or child-occupied facility.
    (iii) Abatements include post-abatement lead in dust sampling and 
conformance with the action levels established or adopted by the State 
or Indian Tribe.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-25070 Filed 11-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P