[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 983-994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28565]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063; FRL-10018-61]
RIN 2070-AK50


Review of Dust-Lead Post Abatement Clearance Levels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Reducing childhood lead exposure is a priority for the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As part of EPA's efforts to 
reduce childhood lead exposure, and in coordination with the 
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
to Children, EPA reevaluated the 2001 dust-lead clearance levels 
(DLCL). Clearance levels indicate the amount of lead in dust on a 
surface following the completion of an abatement activity. Surface dust 
is collected via dust wipe samples that are sent to a laboratory for 
analysis to determine whether clearance has been achieved. The post-
abatement dust-lead levels are evaluated against, and must be below, 
the applicable clearance levels. The DLCL have not changed since they 
were issued in 2001. EPA is finalizing its proposal to lower the DLCL 
from 40 micrograms of per square foot ([mu]g/ft\2\) to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for floors, and from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063, is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency, the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service 
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC 
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information contact: Claire Brisse, Existing 
Chemicals Risk Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics (Mailcode 7404T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 564-9004; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#412333283232246f222d20283324012431206f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5537273c2626307b3639343c2730153025347b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>. These phone 
numbers may also be reached by individuals who are deaf or hard of 
hearing, or who have speech disabilities, through the Federal Relay 
Service's teletype service at (800) 877-8339.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2470776765096c4b50484d4a41644154450a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="50040313117d183f243c393e35103520317e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you conduct Lead-
Based Paint (LBP) activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.227; if you 
operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 
745.225; if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to 
conduct LBP activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226; or if you 
conduct rehabilitations or maintenance activities in most pre-1978 
housing that is covered by a Federal housing assistance program in 
accordance with 24 CFR part 35. You may also be affected by this action 
if you operate a laboratory that is recognized by EPA's National Lead 
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) in accordance with 40 CFR 
745.90, 745.223, 745.227, 745.327. You may also be affected by this 
action, in accordance with 40 CFR 745.107 and 24 CFR 35.88, as the 
seller or lessor of target housing, which is most pre-1978 housing. See 
40 CFR 745.103 and 24 CFR 35.86. The following list of North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine 
whether

[[Page 984]]

this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may 
include:
    [ssquf] Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential 
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
    [ssquf] Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), 
e.g., training providers.
    [ssquf] Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building 
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling 
technicians.
    [ssquf] Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., 
firms and supervisors engaged in LBP activities.
    [ssquf] Testing laboratories (NAICS code 541380) that analyze dust 
wipe samples for lead.
    [ssquf] Federal agencies that own residential property (NAICS code 
92511, 92811).
    [ssquf] Property owners, and property owners that receive 
assistance through Federal housing programs (NAICS code 531110, 
531311).

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

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

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    Clearance levels are defined as values that indicate the amount of 
lead in dust on a surface following completion of an abatement activity 
(40 CFR 745.223). Surface dust is collected via dust wipe samples that 
are sent to a laboratory for analysis. The post-abatement dust-lead 
levels must be below the clearance levels, which are the standards used 
to evaluate the effectiveness of post-abatement cleanings. If the 
levels are not below the clearance levels, the components (i.e. floors, 
window sills, etc.) represented by the failed sample(s) shall be 
recleaned and retested. In 2001, EPA originally established DLCL of 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 400 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for window troughs in a final rule entitled, ``Identification of 
Dangerous Levels of Lead.'' See 66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001 (FRL-6763-
5), also known as the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 2).
    On June 24, 2020, EPA proposed to revise the DLCL for window sills 
and floors. EPA is now finalizing its proposal to lower the DLCL set by 
the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule, from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floor dust and from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sill 
dust. As explained elsewhere in this preamble, EPA is not revising the 
DLCL for window troughs at this time. The revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills will not apply 
retroactively; that is, this final rule will not impose retroactive 
requirements on regulated entities that have previously performed post-
abatement clearance testing using the original DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. While EPA's dust-lead 
hazard standards (DLHS) do not compel property owners to evaluate their 
property for hazards or take control actions (40 CFR 745.61(c)), if 
someone opts to perform a lead-based paint activity such as an 
abatement, then EPA's regulations set requirements for doing so (40 CFR 
745.220(d)). This final rule requires individuals and firms who perform 
an abatement to achieve values below the DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills at the end of the abatement, 
which the 2019 rule updating the DLHS (``Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard 
Standards and the Definition of Lead-Based Paint,'' (84 FR 32632, July 
9, 2019) (FRL-9995-49), also known as the 2019 DLHS Rule) did not 
require under EPA's regulations (Ref. 3).

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    Reducing childhood lead exposure is an EPA priority. EPA continues 
to collaborate with its federal partners to reduce lead exposures and, 
in so doing, to explore ways to strengthen its relationships and 
partnerships with states, tribes, and localities. In December 2018, the 
President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
to Children released the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead 
Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (Lead Action Plan) (Ref. 4) to 
enhance the Federal Government's efforts to identify and reduce lead 
exposure while ensuring children impacted by such exposure are getting 
the support and care they need to prevent or mitigate any associated 
health effects. The Lead Action Plan is helping Federal agencies to 
work strategically and collaboratively to reduce exposure to lead and 
improve children's health. This final rule, which revises the DLCL, is 
an action that EPA committed to undertake in the Lead Action Plan (Ref. 
5).
    In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule, EPA first established the DLHS that 
identify dust-lead hazards and the DLCL used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of cleaning following an abatement. Abatements are 
designed to permanently eliminate LBP hazards including dust-lead 
hazards.
    In 2019, EPA reevaluated the DLHS (Ref. 3). Based on that 
revaluation, the final rule revised the DLHS from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 
250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 
window sills, respectively. EPA based that decision on the best 
available science, the Agency's review of public comments received on 
the proposal for that rule, and consideration of the potential for risk 
reduction, including whether such actions were achievable. At that 
time, EPA focused its rulemaking on the DLHS and the definition of LBP, 
which were the two actions that EPA had agreed to undertake in response 
to a 2009 citizen petition (Ref. 6). In that rulemaking, EPA did not 
propose to change DLCL in 40 CFR part 745, subpart L.
    However, EPA recognizes the important relationship between the DLHS 
and DLCL: The DLHS are used to identify dust-lead hazards and the DLCL 
are used to demonstrate that specific abatement activities have 
effectively abated those hazards. The purpose of this final rule is to 
update the DLCL so that attaining these levels demonstrates elimination 
of dust-lead hazards under the revised 2019 DLHS. Based on the Agency's 
careful review of the public comments received on the proposal, EPA is 
finalizing its proposal to revise the DLCL to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors 
and to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills. EPA finds that attaining these 
DLCL abates the dust-lead hazards identified under the 2019 standards, 
taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. EPA has not 
been persuaded that elimination of the dust-lead hazards (15 U.S.C. 
2681(1)) while accounting for reliability, effectiveness, and safety 
(15 U.S.C. 2682(a)(1)) justifies selecting different clearance levels. 
Although EPA is not persuaded to deviate from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors 
and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills for the DLCL, the Agency did 
consider whether potential reliability, effectiveness, or safety 
factors supported different clearance levels. In particular, EPA 
considered the achievability of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for

[[Page 985]]

window sills in relation to their application in lead risk reduction 
programs, how the lower dust-lead loadings can be reliably detected by 
laboratories, the effectiveness of these levels at eliminating dust-
lead hazards, and consistency with the revised 2019 standards and 
across the Federal Government.
    EPA did not propose to change the post-abatement clearance level in 
40 CFR 745, subpart L for window troughs, and is not modifying the 
level at this time. Because the revised 2019 standards updated the DLHS 
for floors and window sills and because EPA wanted to act as 
expeditiously as possible to update the DLCL in recognition of the 
updated DLHS for floors and window sills, EPA believes it has 
reasonably focused this rulemaking to update the DLCL so that attaining 
these levels demonstrates elimination of dust-lead hazards under the 
revised 2019 standards. As a result, and after careful review of the 
public comments, EPA is finalizing its proposal to only revise the DLCL 
for floors and window sills at this time.

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

    EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis of the potential incremental 
impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 7). The analysis is 
focused on a subset of the target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 housing) 
and child-occupied facilities where abatement activities are subject to 
this rule. The analysis, which is available in the docket, estimates 
incremental costs and benefits for abatements where a dust-lead level 
is between the original DLCL (40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for window sills) and alternate levels, including the revised 
DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills. 
Based on data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD), EPA estimates that the vast majority of floors and window sills 
are already clearing at levels below the revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ after the completion of an abatement.
    EPA identified in the proposal that there was uncertainty about 
whether some state and local regulations already use the same levels in 
EPA's DLHS as DLCL, and about whether some abatement contractors 
voluntarily conduct additional cleaning to ensure that the dust-lead 
levels fall below the DLHS following an abatement. To the extent that 
these situations occur, then the costs and benefits of meeting the DLCL 
estimated in the Economic Analysis would be attributable to the 2019 
DLHS Rule and not to this regulation. For the final rule Economic 
Analysis, EPA contacted states with authorized lead programs and found 
that several have already revised or are in the process of revising 
their regulations to adopt clearance levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors 
and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. In addition, one locality has 
adopted clearance levels below the original federal levels of 40 [mu]g/
ft\2\ on floors and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. Abatements in 
these jurisdictions will clear below the levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills even without revisions to 
the federal clearance levels. As a result, EPA has narrowed the range 
of estimated benefits and costs in the Economic Analysis of the final 
rule by including abatements in these jurisdictions in the baseline. 
EPA estimates that 57% to 61% of the abatements otherwise affected by 
the clearance levels in this rule will take place in these 
jurisdictions. As a result, the Economic Analysis does not account for 
the benefits and costs of these events. The information on state 
regulations and its use in the final rule analysis is described in 
sections 2.3 and 3.1.3(C) of the Economic Analysis. EPA did not obtain 
any information indicating the extent to which abatement contractors in 
other states and localities (where the clearance levels are still 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills) are 
voluntarily using 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on 
window sills as clearance levels. Instead, section 8.3 of the Economic 
Analysis presents sensitivity analyses reflecting different assumptions 
about abatement contractor actions in the baseline. In order to expand 
the range of possible estimates, EPA's final estimates of the 
incremental impacts of this action include a lower bound assumption 
that half of abatement contractors are voluntarily applying the hazard 
standards as clearance levels.
    As in the Economic Analysis for the 2019 DLHS Rule, there is also 
uncertainty about the blood lead levels at which investigative actions 
and lead hazard reduction activities might be taken and the exact 
nature of these activities. Most states set a blood lead level at which 
an environmental investigation is recommended or required. Based on 
guidance posted on environmental and public health department websites 
for each state, these blood lead action levels range from 5 micrograms 
per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) to 25 [mu]g/dL. In eight states (AK, IN, MD, 
ME, MI, NE, OR, and PA) the action level for an environmental 
investigation is a blood lead level of 5 [mu]g/dL. Fourteen states (CA, 
GA, IL, KS, LA, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OH, TX, VT, WA, and WV) and the 
District of Columbia use an action level of 10 [mu]g/dL. Nineteen 
states (AL, AZ, CO, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, KY, MN, MO, MS, NM, NY, RI, SC, 
UT, VA, and WI) use an action level of 15 [mu]g/dL. Four states (CT, 
MA, OK, and TN) use an action level of 20 [mu]g/dL or above. Five 
states (AR, MT, ND, SD, and WY) have no policy recommendation or 
requirement for the blood lead level at which an environmental 
investigation should be conducted. The differences between states may 
reflect the prevalence of lead hazards in each state and their relative 
prioritization of lead hazards and other funding needs.
    EPA's analysis includes two scenarios for the number of instances 
where clearance testing is performed that will be affected by the rule: 
(1) Where dust-lead loadings are tested because a child's blood lead 
level equals or exceeds 5 [mu]g/dL (the current Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) blood lead reference value) (Ref. 8), and 
a loading is at or above the DLHS; and (2) where dust-lead loadings are 
tested because a child's blood lead level equals or exceeds the action 
level set by the state the child lives in, and a loading is at or above 
the DLHS.
    Consequently, the Economic Analysis includes a range for the number 
of abatement events affected by this rule revising the clearance 
levels. The upper end of the range is approximately 11,000 events, 
which assumes that when a child's blood lead level equals or exceeds 5 
[mu]g/dL an environmental investigation occurs that includes testing 
the dust-lead loadings in their home. The low end of the range is 
approximately 1,200 events, which assumes that dust-lead loading 
testing occurs when a child's blood lead level equals or exceeds the 
state blood lead level action level. The benefit and cost estimates are 
highly sensitive to this range. The following is a brief outline of the 
estimated incremental impacts of this rulemaking.
1. Benefits
    Incremental actions to meet the revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills after abatements where a 
baseline post-intervention loading is between the original DLCL of 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and the 
revised DLCL would reduce exposure to lead, resulting in benefits from 
avoided adverse health effects. In the Economic Analysis of this rule, 
EPA quantified the benefits of reduced lead exposure to children from 
avoided Intelligence Quotient (IQ) loss as an indicator of

[[Page 986]]

improved cognitive function and, hence, lifetime earnings. For the 
subset of adverse health effects where these effects were quantified, 
the estimated annualized benefits are <=$13 million to >=$202 million 
per year using a 3% discount rate, and <=$3 million to >=$44 million 
per year using a 7% discount rate, with the range representing the 
uncertainties about the blood lead levels at which an environmental 
investigation will be triggered and about the relationship between 
changes in blood lead levels and IQ. The ``<='' and ``>='' symbols are 
intended to convey uncertainty in the results. They do not mean that 
the results are unbounded (i.e., that the true values could be zero on 
the lower end or infinity on the higher end). There are additional 
unquantified benefits due to other avoided adverse health or behavioral 
effects in children, including attention-related behavioral problems, 
greater incidence of problem behaviors, decreased cognitive 
performance, reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty, decreased 
hearing, and decreased kidney function (Ref. 9).
2. Costs
    This rule is estimated to result in costs of <=$2 million to >=$14 
million per year using either a 3% or a 7% discount rate. The ``<='' 
and ``>='' symbols are intended to convey uncertainty in the results. 
They do not mean that the results are unbounded (i.e., that the true 
values could be zero on the lower end or infinity on the higher end). 
In the events affected by this rule, incremental costs are incurred for 
specialized cleaning used to reduce dust-lead loadings to below the 
clearance levels and for retesting lead levels. In some instances, 
floors will also be sealed, overlaid or replaced, or window sills will 
be sealed or repainted.
3. Small Entity Impacts
    EPA estimates that this rule may impact <=1,240 to >=10,215 small 
abatement firms; <=1,025 to >=8,977 may have cost impacts estimated at 
less than 1% of revenues, <=113 to >=990 may have impacts estimated 
between 1% and 3%, and <=28 to >=240 may have impacts estimated at 
greater than 3% of revenues. The ``<='' and ``>='' symbols are intended 
to convey uncertainty in the results. They do not mean that the results 
are unbounded (i.e., that the true values could be zero on the lower 
end or infinity on the higher end). EPA's analysis assumes that in all 
cases the costs are borne entirely by the lead paint abatement firm (as 
opposed to being passed through to the property owner). However, it is 
more likely that some, or perhaps even most, of these costs will be 
passed on to the property owners.
4. Environmental Justice
    This rule would increase the level of environmental protection for 
all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population.
5. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments
    The rule would not have any significant or unique effects on small 
governments, or federalism or tribal implications.

F. Children's Environmental Health

    Lead exposure has the potential to impact individuals of all ages, 
but it is especially harmful to young children because the developing 
brain can be particularly sensitive to environmental contaminants 
(Refs. 10, 11). Exposure to lead is associated with increased risk of a 
number of adverse health or behavioral effects in children, including 
decreased cognitive performance, greater incidence of problem 
behaviors, and increased diagnoses of attention-related behavioral 
problems (Ref. 9). Furthermore, floor dust in homes and child-care 
facilities is a significant route of exposure for young children given 
their mouthing and crawling behavior and proximity to the floor. 
Therefore, the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this 
action may have a disproportionate effect on children (Ref. 12).
    Consistent with the Agency's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to 
Children (Ref. 13), EPA has evaluated the health effects in children of 
decreased lead exposure from the lowering of the DLCL. EPA prepared a 
Technical Support Document for this rulemaking, which models dust-lead 
exposures and estimates both blood lead levels and associated impacts 
on IQ at the revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ versus 
the original DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 
window sills, respectively (Ref. 12). While no safe level of lead in 
blood has been identified (Ref. 4), the reductions in children's blood-
lead levels resulting from this rule are expected to reduce the risk of 
adverse cognitive and developmental effects in children. The Technical 
Support Document shows that health risks to young children decrease 
with decreasing dust-lead levels.

II. Background

A. Health Effects

    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 (Ref. 
10, 11). Ingestion of lead-contaminated dust is a major contributor to 
blood lead levels in children, particularly those who reside in homes 
built prior to 1978 (Ref. 14, 15). Infants and young children can be 
more highly exposed to lead through floor dust at home and in child-
care facilities because they often put their hands and other objects 
that can have lead from dust on them into their mouths (Ref. 11).
    The best available science informs EPA's understanding of the 
relationships between exposures to dust-lead loadings, blood lead 
levels, and adverse human health effects. These relationships are 
summarized in the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (``Lead ISA'') 
(Ref. 16), which EPA released in June 2013, and the National Toxicology 
Program (NTP) Monograph on the Health Effects of Low-Level Lead, which 
was released by the Department of Health and Human Services in June 
2012 (``NTP Monograph'') (Ref. 9).The Lead ISA is a synthesis and 
evaluation of scientific information on the health and environmental 
effects of lead, including cognitive function decrements in children 
(Ref. 16).
    The NTP, in 2012, completed an evaluation of existing scientific 
literature to summarize the scientific evidence regarding potential 
health effects associated with low-level lead exposure as indicated by 
blood lead levels less than 10 [mu]g/dL. The evaluation specifically 
focused on the life stage (prenatal, childhood, adulthood) associated 
with these potential health effects, and on epidemiological evidence at 
blood lead levels less than 10 [mu]g/dL, because health effects at 
higher blood lead levels are well-established. The NTP concluded that 
there is sufficient evidence for adverse health effects in children and 
adults at blood lead levels less than 10 [mu]g/dL, and less than 5 
[mu]g/dL as well. The NTP concluded that there is sufficient evidence 
that blood lead levels less than 10 [mu]g/dL are associated with 
delayed puberty, decreased hearing, and reduced post-natal growth. In 
children, there is sufficient evidence that blood lead levels less than 
5 [mu]g/dL are associated with increased diagnoses of attention-related 
behavioral problems, greater incidence of problem behaviors, and 
decreased cognitive

[[Page 987]]

performance. There is limited evidence that blood lead levels less than 
5 [mu]g/dL are associated with delayed puberty and decreased kidney 
function in children 12 years of age and older (Ref. 9).
    For further information regarding lead and its health effects, and 
federal actions taken to eliminate LBP hazards in housing, see the Lead 
Action Plan, the Technical Support Document for this rulemaking and the 
background section of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, 
issued on April 22, 2008 (also referred to as the ``RRP Rule,'' (73 FR 
21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7), codified at 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart E) (Ref. 4, 12, 17).

B. Federal Actions To Reduce Lead Exposures

    In 1992, Congress enacted Title X of the Housing and Community 
Development Act (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title X'') (Ref. 1) in an effort to 
eliminate LBP hazards. Section 1018 of Title X required EPA and HUD to 
promulgate regulations for disclosure of any known LBP or any known LBP 
hazards in target housing offered for sale or lease (known as the 
``Disclosure Rule'') (Ref. 18). (``Target housing'' is defined in 
section 401(17) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2681(17).) On March 6, 1996, the 
Disclosure Rule was codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, for EPA, 
and 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, for HUD. It requires information 
disclosure activities before a purchaser or lessee is obligated under a 
contract to purchase or lease target housing.
    TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering 
LBP activities to ensure persons performing these activities are 
properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that 
contractors performing these activities are certified. On August 29, 
1996, EPA published final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that 
govern LBP inspections, risk assessments, and abatements in target 
housing and child occupied facilities (COFs) (also referred to as the 
``LBP Activities Rule,'' codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L) (Ref. 
19). The definition of ``child-occupied facility'' is codified at 40 
CFR 745.223 for purposes of LBP activities. Regulations promulgated 
under TSCA section 402(a) contain standards for performing LBP 
activities, while taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and 
safety.
    TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to promulgate regulations 
covering renovation or remodeling activities in target housing, public 
buildings constructed before 1978, and commercial buildings that create 
LBP hazards. EPA issued the final RRP Rule under TSCA section 402(c)(3) 
on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 17).
    [ssquf] TSCA section 403, 15 U.S.C. 2683, gives EPA a related 
authority to carry out responsibilities for addressing LBP hazards 
under the Disclosure and LBP Activities Rules. TSCA section 403 
requires EPA to promulgate regulations that ``identify . . . lead-based 
paint hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil'' for 
purposes of TSCA Title IV and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992. LBP hazards, under TSCA section 401, are defined 
as conditions of LBP and lead-contaminated dust and soil that ``would 
result'' in adverse human health effects (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). TSCA 
section 401 defines lead-contaminated dust as ``surface dust in 
residential dwellings'' that contains lead in excess of levels 
determined ``to pose a threat of adverse health effects'' (15 U.S.C. 
2681(11)). The 2001 LBP Hazards Rule established the DLHS to identify 
conditions of lead-contaminated dust that would result in adverse human 
health effects. These DLHS were revised in the 2019 DLHS Rule and are 
used to identify dust-lead hazards.
    The 2001 LBP Hazards Rule also established the DLCL (also referred 
to as ``clearance levels'' and sometimes referred to elsewhere as 
``clearance standards'') under TSCA section 402(a). These clearance 
levels are used to evaluate the effectiveness of cleaning following an 
abatement. As defined in TSCA section 401 abatements are designed to 
permanently eliminate LBP hazards, including dust-lead hazards. For 
purposes of the DLCL, post-clearance dust-lead loadings below the DLHS 
indicate permanent elimination of dust-lead hazards.
    Pursuant to TSCA section 404, 15 U.S.C. 2684, and EPA's regulations 
at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, interested states, territories, and 
federally recognized tribes may apply for and receive authorization to 
administer their own LBP Activities and RRP programs. EPA's regulations 
are intended to reduce exposures, and the LBP Activities regulations in 
particular are intended to identify and mitigate hazardous levels of 
lead. Authorized programs must be ``at least as protective of human 
health and the environment as the corresponding federal program,'' and 
must provide for ``adequate enforcement.'' See 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2). 
The 2019 DLHS Rule revised the regulation to improve the process for 
states, federally recognized tribes, and territories with authorized 
LBP Activities programs to demonstrate that their programs meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 745.325 (by submitting a report pursuant to 40 
CFR 745.324(h) with such demonstration within two years of the 
effective date of a revision).
    HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) is codified in 24 CFR part 35, 
subparts B through R. The LSHR implements sections 1012 and 1013 of 
Title X. Under Title X, HUD has specific authority to control LBP and 
LBP hazards in federally-assisted target housing (including COFs that 
are part of an assisted target housing property covered by the LSHR, 
because they are part of the common area of the property). The LSHR 
aims in part to ensure that federally-owned or federally-assisted 
target housing is free of LBP hazards (Ref. 20). Under the LSHR, when a 
child under age six with an elevated blood lead level residing in 
certain categories of assisted target housing is identified, the 
``designated party'' and/or the housing owner shall undertake certain 
actions.

C. Applicability and Uses of the DLCL

    The DLCL finalized in this regulation support the LBP Activities 
program, and apply to target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 housing) and 
COFs (i.e., pre-1978 non-residential properties where children six 
years of age or under spend a significant amount of time, such as child 
care centers and kindergartens). Apart from COFs, no other public and 
commercial buildings are covered by this rule. For further background 
on the types of buildings to which the LBP Activities program apply, 
refer to the proposed and final 2001 LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 2, 21).
    The DLCL are incorporated into the post-abatement work practices 
outlined in the LBP Activities Rule (40 CFR 745.227). LBP Activities 
regulations apply to inspections, risk assessments, project design, and 
abatement activities. Pre-abatement dust-lead testing occurs during a 
risk assessment, often initiated to comply with HUD's LSHR or in 
response to discovery of a child with a blood lead level that equals or 
exceeds the current CDC blood lead reference value (Ref. 9), or the 
action level set by the state the child lives in. The objective of a 
risk assessment is to determine, and then report, the existence, 
nature, severity, and location of LBP hazards in residential dwellings 
and COFs through an on-site investigation. During a risk assessment, a 
risk assessor collects environmental samples that include dust wipe 
samples from floors and window sills that are sent to an NLLAP-
recognized laboratory for analysis. NLLAP is an EPA program that 
defines the minimum requirements and abilities that a paint chips, 
dust, or soil testing

[[Page 988]]

laboratory must meet to attain EPA recognition as an accredited lead 
testing laboratory. Once the samples are analyzed by an NLLAP-
recognized laboratory, the risk assessor compares the results of the 
dust wipe samples against the DLHS. If the dust-lead loadings from the 
samples are at or above the applicable DLHS, indicating LBP hazards are 
present, the risk assessor will identify acceptable options for 
controlling the hazards in the respective property, which may include 
abatements and/or interim controls. TSCA section 401 defines abatements 
as, ``measures designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint 
hazards,'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(1)), while interim controls are ``designed 
to temporarily reduce human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based 
paint hazards,'' (40 CFR 745.83 and 745.223). These options should 
allow the property owner to make an informed decision about what 
actions should be taken to protect the health of current and future 
residents. Risk assessments can be performed only by certified risk 
assessors.
    The DLCL are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a cleaning 
following an abatement. After an abatement is complete, a risk assessor 
or inspector determines whether there are any ``visible amounts of 
dust, debris or residue,'' which will need to be removed before 
clearance sampling takes place (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). Once the area is 
free of visible dust, debris and residue, and one hour or more after 
final post-abatement cleaning ceases, clearance sampling for dust-lead 
(via dust wipe samples) can take place and will be conducted ``using 
documented methodologies that incorporate adequate quality control 
procedures'' (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). Only a properly trained and 
certified risk assessor or inspector can conduct clearance sampling. A 
NLLAP-recognized laboratory must analyze the dust wipe samples and a 
risk assessor or inspector must compare the results from window sills 
and floors (and window troughs) to the appropriate DLCL. Every sample 
must test below the corresponding DLCL, and if a single sample is equal 
to or greater than the corresponding DLCL, then the abatement fails 
clearance and the components represented by the sample must be 
recleaned and retested (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). After the dust wipe 
samples show dust-lead loadings below the DLCL, an abatement report is 
prepared, copies of any reports required under the LBP Activities Rule 
are provided to the building owner (and to potential lessees and 
purchasers under the LBP Disclosure Rule by those building owners or 
their agents), and all required records are retained by the abatement 
firm or by the individuals who developed each report.
    Achieving the DLCL after an abatement does not mean that the home 
is free from all exposure to lead, since exposures are dependent on 
many factors. For instance, the physical condition of a property may 
change over time, resulting in an increased exposure. EPA will continue 
coordinating with other Federal agencies to encourage best practices 
for occupants of post-abatement properties to conduct ongoing 
maintenance that will help prevent dust-lead from being reintroduced on 
previously cleared surfaces.

D. Public Comments Summary

    The proposed rule provided a 60-day public comment period, ending 
on August 24, 2020. EPA received public comments from 28 commenters 
during the comment period. Comments were received from private 
citizens, state/local governments (including state health departments), 
potentially affected lead-based paint businesses, non-governmental 
organizations, environmental and public health advocacy groups and an 
individual from an academic institution. Several commenters, including 
individuals, non-governmental organizations, and state/local 
governments supported the DLCL as proposed at 10 ug/ft\2\ for floors 
and 100 ug/ft\2\ for window sills. A number of commenters requested 
that EPA promulgate DLCL lower than the proposed levels of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills. Some commenters 
specifically suggested that EPA should revise the DLCL for window sills 
to 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ or lower and/or 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors. One 
commenter explained that within the considered options for the 
proposal, EPA should have analyzed a floor level lower than 10 
[micro]g/ft\2\ and that the Agency must consider a lower level for 
floors before finalizing the rule. Other commenters expressed concern 
over lower DLCL and that contractors may not be able to meet lower 
clearance requirements without additional work in some cases, which may 
make it difficult to attract qualified contractors. A few commenters 
discussed the discrepancy between the revised 2019 DLHS and the 
original DLCL from 2001 and noted that due to the inconsistency an 
abatement could be cleared at levels higher than the DLHS, which is 
confusing and less protective. 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 can be found in the Response to Comments document (Ref. 
22).
    To the extent that commenters discussed issues with the DLHS in 
their public comments, EPA has previously promulgated the DLHS in the 
recent 2019 rulemaking and notes that within this DLCL rule, EPA is not 
re-opening or reconsidering the recently revised DLHS.

III. Final Rule

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the DLCL so that 
attaining these clearance levels demonstrates elimination of dust-lead 
hazards under the revised 2019 standards. EPA carefully considered all 
the public comments related to the proposed rule and is finalizing its 
proposal to lower the DLCL for floors from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ and to lower the DLCL for window sills from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\. As previously mentioned, because there is no DLHS for 
window troughs, EPA is not revising the DLCL for window troughs at this 
time.

A. Approach for Reviewing and Selecting the Final Dust-Lead Clearance 
Levels

    As EPA explained in the LBP Activities Rule (Ref. 19) (61 FR 45778, 
45779), the work practice standards covered by those regulations are 
intended to ensure that abatements are conducted reliably, effectively, 
and safely. While considering those three criteria, the 2001 LBP 
Hazards Rule modified the work practice standards to include dust-lead 
clearance levels, which ``are used to evaluate the effectiveness of 
cleaning following an abatement.'' (Ref. 2) (66 FR 1206, 1211). 
Abatements are designed to permanently eliminate LBP hazards including 
dust-lead hazards and the definition of an abatement includes cleanup 
and post-abatement clearance testing activities (40 CFR 745.223). A 
dust-lead hazard is identified by the DLHS and the DLCL are used to 
demonstrate that abatement activities effectively and permanently 
eliminate those hazards. Therefore, in choosing which DLCL to finalize 
in this rulemaking, EPA considered how the DLCL will support the 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety of abatements to permanently 
eliminate LBP hazards.
    The 2001 LBP Hazards Rule adopted the rationale outlined in EPA's 
1998 proposed rule (``Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead,'' 63 
FR 30302, 30341, June 3, 1998) (Ref. 21). See also 66 FR 1206, 1222-
1223 (Ref. 2). EPA chose DLCL that were ``achievable

[[Page 989]]

using products and methods known to be reliable and effective'' (Ref. 
21). In the 2018 proposal for the 2019 DLHS Rule (``Review of the Dust-
Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of Lead-Based Paint,'' 83 CFR 
30889, July 2, 2018), EPA acknowledged that if the DLHS were set too 
low, the effectiveness of the LBP Activities program may be harmed if 
the abatement projects became overly expensive and time consuming due 
to issues of achievability (Ref. 23). That same concern for 
achievability applies to EPA's decision on which DLCL to set in this 
rulemaking.
    EPA received several comments during the public comment period 
suggesting that EPA promulgate DLCL lower than the proposed levels at 
10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, while a 
subset of commenters specifically requested lowering the DLCL to 5 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and/or to 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills. A few 
commenters also noted that lower levels for DLCL have been shown to be 
feasible by the survey of lead hazard control grantees conducted by 
HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH) (also 
known as the HUD Clearance Survey) (Ref. 24).
    As noted in the final 2019 DLHS Rule and the DLCL proposal, 
according to the HUD Clearance Survey ``reduction in the federal 
clearance standard for floors from 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ to 10 [micro]g/
ft\2\, a reduction in the federal clearance standard for windowsills 
from 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ to 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ . . . are all technically 
feasible using the methods currently employed by OLHCHH LHC grantees to 
prepare for clearance'' even though, at the time the survey took place, 
the levels that projects had to be cleared to were the original DLCL of 
40 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 250 [micro]g/ft\2\, respectively (Ref. 24). 
Additionally, according to public comments, a state department of 
health and a non-governmental organization believe that most NLLAP-
recognized laboratories or those within their state are capable of 
testing the clearance levels as proposed. Therefore, the final DLCL of 
10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills are shown 
to be achievable using available products and methods that are 
effective and reliable in permanently eliminating LBP hazards. To the 
extent commenters argue that lower options, particularly for sills, are 
also achievable, such an argument does not necessitate selecting the 
lower options because the primary design of the DLCL is to demonstrate 
permanent elimination of the dust-lead hazards, which EPA finds is 
achieved by clearance levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for window sills. For further information on the HUD Clearance 
Survey, see the preamble to the 2019 DLHS Rule (Ref. 3).
    In addition to the specific criteria of reliability, effectiveness, 
and safety, the 2001 LBP Hazards rulemaking considered the DLCL in the 
broader context of Title X, and selected DLCL that are compatible with 
a ``workable framework for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and 
reduction'' (Ref. 21). To this end, EPA chose DLCL that were consistent 
with the DLHS in part to ensure they were ``as easy as possible to 
understand and implement'' (Ref. 21).
    EPA maintains the concern for consistency between the DLCL and DLHS 
for this rulemaking. During the public comment period several 
commenters expressed concern over the discrepancy between the 2019 DLHS 
and the 2001 DLCL (Ref. 22). The commenters explained that this 
inconsistency in the levels created confusion and leads to ethical 
concerns of clearing a home with post-abatement levels higher than the 
2019 revised DLHS. A few commenters urged EPA to quickly finalize as 
proposed to, in part, fix the mismatch between the DLHS and the DLCL. 
Compounding the potential for such confusion is the fact that, as 
indicated in the 2019 DLHS Rule and described in greater detail 
elsewhere in this preamble, HUD cross-references EPA's DLHS for 
clearance work practices under HUD's LSHR. This means that if EPA chose 
a different DLCL than the DLHS, a segment of the regulated community 
would have had two sets of clearance levels to consider. The selected 
DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills 
will mitigate this confusion within the regulated community.
    As stated previously in this preamble, EPA wanted to act as 
expeditiously as possible to update the DLCL in recognition of the 
updated DLHS for floors and window sills. EPA believes it has 
reasonably focused this rulemaking to revise the DLCL so that attaining 
these levels demonstrates elimination of dust-lead hazards under the 
revised 2019 standards. When finalizing DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, as discussed above, the 
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. For further information on 
the public comments received and a more comprehensive version of EPA's 
response to comments related to this final action can be found in the 
Response to Comments document (Ref. 22).

B. Technical Analysis

    The Technical Support Document that accompanies this final rule 
evaluated the 2001 DLCL, the background dust-lead level, and the five 
DLCL options (15 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills; and 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, and 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 60 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 80 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills) with values 
between background (lowest) and the 2001 DLCL (highest). The methods 
for estimating exposure and health impacts utilized for the 2019 DLHS 
rulemaking are reflected in the Technical Support Document for this 
rule to analyze the DLCL options. The various components of the model 
and input parameters used in the Technical Support Document for the 
DLHS and this rulemaking have been the subject of multiple Science 
Advisory Board Reviews, workshops and publications in the peer review 
literature (Ref. 12, 26). The analysis outlined in the 2019 DLHS Rule 
was used in that rulemaking to identify conditions that would result in 
adverse health effects. Where the DLHS are used to identify conditions 
that would result in adverse health effects, the DLCL must demonstrate 
that those conditions identified by the DLHS have been eliminated. 
Therefore, the health impact analysis for the DLCL is less central to 
the decision-making for this rule than it was to the 2019 DLHS Rule. 
Regardless, EPA must understand the impact on public health when 
selecting the DLCL in order to inform the Economic Analysis.
    The analyses that EPA developed and presented in both the Technical 
Support Document for the 2019 DLHS Rule and the Technical Support 
Document accompanying this final rule, were specifically designed to 
model potential health effects that might accrue to the subpopulation, 
i.e., children living in pre-1940 and pre-1978 housing. EPA notes that 
its different program offices estimate exposures for different 
populations, different media, and under different statutory 
requirements and thus different models or parameters may be a better 
fit for their purpose. As such, the approach and modeling parameters 
chosen for this rulemaking should not necessarily be construed as 
appropriate for or consistent with the goals of other EPA programs 
(Ref. 12).
    In its evaluation, EPA estimated blood lead levels and IQ changes 
as a proxy for changes in cognitive function in children, six and 
under, exposed long-term to these analyzed dust-lead loading levels. As 
also reflected in the 2019 DLHS Rule, EPA generated two different

[[Page 990]]

modeling approaches to estimate the quantitative relationships between 
dust-lead and blood lead level data. The first approach used 
mechanistic modeling data that include consideration of age-specific 
ingestion rates, activity patterns, and background exposures. The 
second approach used empirical data that includes co-reported dust-lead 
and blood lead level measurements in the homes of children. The dust-
lead and blood lead level data are used to develop an empirical 
relationship to estimate blood lead level for each candidate DLCL. Both 
approaches (mechanistic and empirical) are compared to provide 
independent confirmation of the relationship between dust-lead loadings 
and blood lead level. For additional information summarizing the 
methodologies employed in the Technical Support Document, see the 2018 
preamble to the proposed DLHS rule (Ref. 23).

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

1. LBP Activities Rule--EPA Abatements
    Abatements are any measures or set of measures designed to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards and include activities 
such as the removal of paint and dust, the permanent enclosure or 
encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of painted surfaces 
or fixtures, and all preparation, cleanup, disposal, and post-abatement 
clearance testing activities associated with such measures. Abatements 
must be conducted by certified abatement workers and supervisors. After 
LBP abatements are conducted, EPA's regulations require a certified 
inspector or risk assessor to conduct post-abatement clearance testing 
(via dust wipe samples) of the abated area. If the dust wipe sample 
results show dust-lead loadings equal to or exceeding the applicable 
clearance level, ``the components represented by the failed sample 
shall be recleaned and retested.'' See 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(vii). In 
other words, the abatement is not cleared until the dust wipe samples 
in the work area are below the clearance levels. Under this final rule, 
inspectors and risk assessors would compare dust wipe sampling results 
for floors and window sills to the revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\, respectively, and the results for window troughs to 
the DLCL of 400 [mu]g/ft\2\. Dust wipe sampling results at or above the 
DLCL would indicate that the components represented by the sample must 
be recleaned and retested. This final rule does not change any other 
risk assessment requirements.
2. Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule
    The revised DLCL will not trigger new requirements under the 
existing RRP Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart E). The RRP Rule requires 
post-renovation cleaning verification under 40 CFR 745.85(b), but the 
rule does not require dust wipe sampling and analysis using the DLCL. 
However, although optional under the RRP Rule, dust wipe sampling for 
clearance using the DLCL in accordance with the LBP Activities Rule (40 
CFR 745.227(e)(8)) may be required by contract or by another Federal, 
state, territorial, tribal, or local law or regulation. At this time, 
other than HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, EPA is not familiar with other 
laws and regulations that require clearance testing using EPA's DLCL.
3. EPA-HUD Disclosure Rule
    Under the Disclosure Rule, prospective sellers and lessors of 
target housing must provide purchasers and renters with a federally 
approved lead hazard information pamphlet and disclose known LBP and/or 
LBP hazards, and any available records, reports, and additional 
information pertaining to LBP and/or LBP hazards. The information 
disclosure activities are required before a purchaser or renter is 
obligated under a contract to purchase or lease target housing. Records 
or reports pertaining to LBP and/or LBP hazards must be disclosed, 
including results from post-abatement clearance testing, regardless of 
whether the level of dust-lead is below the clearance levels.
    The revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on 
window sills will not result in additional disclosures because there 
are no new information collection requirements to consider under this 
rule. Property owners would already be disclosing results, records, 
reports, and any additional information that show dust-lead below the 
original DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors or below 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on 
window sills, and any results, records, and reports of additional 
cleaning due to the lower DLCL would be reflected in this same record.
4. LSHR Clearance Requirements
    The DLCL in this final rule will not change the clearance levels 
that apply to hazard reduction activities under HUD's LSHR because the 
LSHR currently requires clearance at the DLHS level, which is reflected 
by the lower DLCL. The LSHR requires certain hazard reduction 
activities to be performed in certain federally-owned and assisted 
target housing including abatements, interim controls, paint 
stabilization, and ongoing LBP maintenance. Hazard reduction activities 
are required in this housing when LBP hazards are identified or when 
maintenance or rehabilitation activities disturb paint known or 
presumed to be LBP. The LSHR's clearance regulations, 24 CFR 35.1340, 
specify requirements for clearance of these projects (when they disturb 
more than de minimis amounts of known or presumed lead-based painted 
surfaces, as defined in 24 CFR 35.1350(d)), including a visual 
assessment, dust sampling, submission of samples for analysis for lead 
in dust, interpretation of sampling results, and preparation of a 
report. As explained in the preamble to the 2019 DLHS Rule (Ref. 3), 
the LSHR clearance regulations cross-reference EPA's DLHS. As a result, 
the LSHR clearance levels were lowered to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and window sills, respectively, when the 2019 DLHS 
Rule became effective on January 6, 2020. Accordingly, activities under 
the LSHR are currently required to be cleared using EPA's DLHS.
5. 2017 Policy Guidance--HUD Requirements for Lead Hazard Control 
Grants
    On February 16, 2017, HUD's OLHCHH issued policy guidance to 
establish new and more protective requirements for dust-lead action 
levels for its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control (LBPHC) and Lead Hazard 
Reduction Demonstration (LHRD) grantees (the requirements also apply to 
related HUD grants authorized by Title X, section 1011 (42 U.S.C. 
4852), under similar names, including Lead Hazard Reduction (LHR) 
grants and their High Impact Neighborhoods and Highest Lead-Based Paint 
Abatement Needs grant categories) (Ref. 27). In particular, the 
guidance adopted clearance levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for floors and window sills, respectively, for lead hazard control 
activities performed under these grant programs. The change in 
requirements was supported by scientific evidence on the adverse 
effects of lead exposure at low blood-lead levels in children, (<10 
[mu]g/dL) as well as the achievability of lower clearance levels based 
on the HUD Clearance Survey (Ref. 24). The guidance clearance levels 
for floors and window sills are equal to the final DLCL. Consequently, 
the changes to the DLCL that EPA is promulgating with this final rule, 
will not affect the clearance levels used by the LBPHC and LHRD 
grantees.
6. HUD Guidelines
    The HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based

[[Page 991]]

Paint Hazards in Housing were developed in 1995 under section 1017 of 
Title X. They provide detailed, comprehensive, technical information on 
how to identify LBP hazards in residential housing and COFs, and how to 
control such hazards safely and efficiently. The Guidelines were 
revised in 2012 to incorporate new information, technological advances, 
and new Federal regulations, including EPA's LBP hazard standards. 
Based on EPA's changes to the DLHS in 2019 and the changes to DLCL from 
this final rule, HUD plans to revise Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on 
risk assessment and reevaluation and Chapter 15 on clearance, and make 
conforming changes elsewhere as needed.
7. Previous LBP-Related Activities
    The DLCL are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a cleaning 
following an abatement. After the dust wipe samples show dust-lead 
loadings below the DLCL, an abatement report is prepared, copies of any 
reports required under the LBP Activities Rule are provided to the 
building owner (and to potential lessees and purchasers under the LBP 
Disclosure Rule by those building owners or their agents), and all 
required records are also retained by the abatement firm or by the 
individuals who developed each report. The revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills will not impose 
retroactive requirements on regulated entities that have previously 
performed post-abatement clearance testing using the original DLCL of 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills. These new 
requirements would only apply to post-abatement clearance sampling and 
analysis conducted after the effective date of this final rule.

D. Conforming the Definition of Clearance Levels

    EPA is finalizing as proposed, clarifying language that defines the 
achievement of post-abatement clearance, which explains what dust-lead 
levels are permitted on a surface following an abatement that would 
achieve clearance. The post-abatement clearance procedures set forth in 
40 CFR 745.227 state that clearance is not achieved when post-abatement 
dust-lead levels (which are a measure of the mass of lead per area, 
commonly expressed in micrograms per square foot ([mu]g/ft\2\)) equal 
or exceed the clearance levels (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(vii)). However, 
prior to this rule's amended language, 40 CFR 745.223 defined clearance 
levels as ``the maximum amount of lead permitted in dust on a surface 
following completion of an abatement activity'' (40 CFR 745.223) 
(emphasis added). EPA also notes that HUD's clearance standards rule 
for interim controls of lead-based paint hazards in HUD-assisted target 
housing is consistent with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 745.227 
rather than 40 CFR 745.223. To resolve this post-abatement discrepancy, 
EPA is conforming the definition of clearance levels found in 40 CFR 
745.223 to the post-abatement clearance procedures in 40 CFR 745.227, 
in order to clarify in the definition that the post-abatement dust-lead 
levels must be below the clearance levels.
    Three commenters (including state health departments and an 
environmental non-governmental organization) submitted public comments 
that supported EPA's decision to clarify in the DLCL definition that 
the post-abatement dust-lead levels need to be below the DLCL in order 
to achieve clearance. EPA agrees with the support from the public 
commenters and is conforming the definition in 40 CFR 745.223 as 
proposed.

E. State Authorization

    Pursuant to TSCA section 404 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 
745, subpart Q, interested states, territories and federally recognized 
tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer their own 
LBP Activities programs, as long as their programs are at least as 
protective of human health and the environment as the EPA's program and 
provide adequate enforcement. As part of the authorization process, 
states, territories and federally recognized tribes must demonstrate to 
EPA that they meet the requirements of the LBP Activities Rule. A 
state, territory or federally recognized tribe must demonstrate that it 
meets the revised DLCL in its application for authorization or, if 
already authorized, in a report submitted under 40 CFR 745.324(h) no 
later than two years after the effective date of the new requirements. 
If an application for authorization has been submitted but not yet 
approved, the state, territory or federally recognized tribe must 
demonstrate that it meets the new requirements either by amending its 
application, or in a report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h) no later 
than two years after the effective date of the new requirements.

IV. References

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

1. Public Law 102-550, Title X--Housing and Community Development 
Act, enacted October 28, 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title X'') (42 U.S.C. 
4851 et seq.). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap63A-sec4851.htm.
2. U.S. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL-6763-5). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/05/01-84/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead.
3. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the 
Definition of Lead-Based Paint; Final Rule. Federal Register (84 FR 
32632, July 9, 2019) (FRL-9995-49). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/09/2019-14024/review-of-the-dust-lead-hazard-standards-and-the-definition-of-lead-based-paint.
4. 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.
5. U.S. EPA. Implementation Status of EPA Actions Under the 2018 
Federal Action Plan To Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and 
Associated Health Impacts: Fiscal Year 2019, 4th Quarter. October 
2019. https://www.epa.gov/leadactionplanimplementation/implementation-status-epa-actions-under-2018-federal-action-plan-1#goal1.
6. Sierra Club et al. Letter to Lisa Jackson RE: Citizen Petition to 
EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead Standards. August 10, 2009. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/epa_lead_standards_petition_final.pdf.
7. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic 
Analysis of the Final Rule to Revise the TSCA Dust-Lead Clearance 
Levels. December 2020.
8. CDC. Childhood Blood Lead Levels in Children Aged <5 Years--
United States, 2009-2014. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 
Vol. 66 No. 3, January 20, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/ss/ss6603a1.htm.
9. 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/

[[Page 992]]

monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf.
10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of 
Toxicology and Human Health Sciences. Lead--ToxFAQsTMCAS #7439-92-1. 
August 2007. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts13.pdf.
11. U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final Report). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F. September 2011. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Technical 
Support Document for Residential Dust-lead Clearance Levels 
Rulemaking Estimation of Blood Lead Levels and Effects from 
Exposures to Dust-lead. December 2020.
13. U.S. EPA. Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children. Policy. 
October 1995. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
14. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. 
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide 
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives, 
125(9), 097009-097009. September 12, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
15. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children. Key Federal Programs to Reduce Childhood Lead 
Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts. November 2016. 
https://ptfceh.niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/files/key_federal_programs_to_reduce_childhood_lead_exposures_and_eliminate_associated_health_impactspresidents_508.pdf.
16. U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Lead (Final 
Report, June 2013). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/075F, 
2013. https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-lead.
17. U.S. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 
https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/73-FR-21692.
18. HUD, EPA. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based 
Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996) (FRL-5347-9). https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-9064.
19. U.S. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in 
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal 
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1996/08/29/96-21954/lead-requirements-for-lead-based-paint-activities-in-target-housing-and-child-occupied-facilities.
20. HUD. Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of 
Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and 
Housing Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood 
Lead Levels; Final Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 4151, January 13, 
2017) (FR-5816-F-02). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/13/2017-00261/requirements-for-notification-evaluation-and-reduction-of-lead-based-paint-hazards-in-federally.
21. U.S. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; 
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998) (FRL-
5791-9). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1998/06/03/98-14736/lead-identification-of-dangerous-levels-of-lead.
22. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance 
Levels RIN 2070-AK50 Response to Public Comments. December 2020.
23. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the 
Definition of Lead-Based Paint; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (83 
FR 30889, July 2, 2018) (FRL-9976-04). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/02/2018-14094/review-of-the-dust-lead-hazard-standards-and-the-definition-of-lead-based-paint.
24. 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.
25. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the 
Definition of Lead-Based Paint RIN 2070-AJ82 Response to Public 
Comments. June 2019. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0571.
26. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Technical 
Support Document for Residential Dust-lead Hazard Standards 
Rulemaking Approach taken to Estimate Blood Lead Levels and Effects 
from Exposures to Dust-lead. June 2019.
27. 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.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that 
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The Agency prepared 
an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action, which is available in the docket (Ref. 7).

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

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). Details on the estimated costs 
of this final rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential 
costs and benefits associated with this action (Ref. 7).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not directly impose an information collection 
burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under 24 CFR part 35, 
subpart A, and 40 CFR 745, subpart F, and approved under OMB Control 
Number 2070-0151, sellers and lessors must already provide purchasers 
or lessees any available records or reports ``pertaining to'' LBP, LBP 
hazards and/or any lead hazard evaluative reports available to the 
seller or lessor. Accordingly, a seller or lessor must disclose any 
reports showing dust-lead levels, regardless of the value. Thus, this 
action would not result in additional disclosures. Because there are no 
new information collection requirements to consider under this rule, or 
any changes to the existing requirements to consider under this rule, 
an ICR is not necessary.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small businesses subject to the requirements of 
this action are abatement firms that may incur costs associated with 
additional cleaning and sealing in houses where a post-abatement 
loading is between the original DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and the revised DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills.
    EPA's Economic Analysis (Ref. 7) presents low and high scenarios 
for the number of housing units where a child with a blood lead level 
that equals or exceeds a Federal or state trigger value lives. For the 
low scenario, environmental investigations are assumed to be conducted 
when a child's blood lead level equals or exceeds the trigger value set 
by that child's state. These values vary from 5 [mu]g/dL to 25 [mu]g/
dL, depending on the state. For the

[[Page 993]]

high scenario, environmental investigations are assumed to be conducted 
when a child's blood lead level equals or exceeds the CDC's reference 
level of 5 [mu]g/dL. The two scenarios function as bounding estimates, 
and a more realistic assessment of the number of environmental 
investigations is that they are between the high and low scenarios. The 
low and high scenarios for the number of environmental investigations 
affect the estimated number of small business that might incur costs 
for cleaning and additional dust wipe testing if EPA promulgates the 
clearance levels in this final rule.
    The Agency has determined that this rule may impact <=1,240 to 
>=10,215 small abatement firms. Of these, about <=1,025 to >=8,977 may 
have cost impacts less than 1% of revenues, <=113 to >=990 may have 
impacts between 1% and 3%, and <=28 to >=240 may have impacts greater 
than 3% of revenues. The ``<='' and ``>='' symbols are intended to 
convey uncertainty in the results. They do not mean that the results 
are unbounded (i.e., that the true values could be zero on the lower 
end or infinity on the higher end). Details of the analysis are 
presented in the EA, which is available in the docket (Ref. 7).
    In addition to the use of the high scenario (which is likely to 
overestimate the number of small entities with significant impacts), 
the analysis makes a series of other assumptions that are likely to 
lead to an overestimate of small entity impacts. In order to estimate 
the potential impacts of the rule, EPA assumed that an environmental 
investigation occurs whenever a child's blood lead level is found to 
equal or exceed a Federal or state trigger value; that the 
environmental investigation always includes dust wipe testing of the 
child's home; and that a clean-up occurs whenever the environmental 
investigation indicates that dust-lead loadings exceed a hazard 
standard. Neither the DLCL nor the other provisions of EPA's LBP 
activities regulations require property owners to evaluate their 
properties for the presence of dust-lead hazards, nor to take action to 
address the hazards if dust-lead hazards are identified. These 
assumptions may overestimate the number of abatements affected, and 
thus the number of small abatement firms with significant impacts.
    The analysis also assumes that in all cases where a dust-lead 
hazard is identified, the property owner performs at least one baseline 
abatement activity. This likely overestimates costs because some events 
may only involve interim controls, and EPA does not require clearance 
testing for such events. Again, this assumption may overestimate the 
number of abatements affected, and thus the number of small abatement 
firms with significant impacts.
    Finally, the analysis assumes that in all cases the costs are borne 
entirely by the lead paint abatement firm (as opposed to being passed 
through to the property owner). However, it is more likely that some, 
or perhaps even most, of these costs will be passed on to the property 
owners. In some circumstances the demand for abatements is likely to be 
relatively inelastic. Furthermore, the costs of this rule for an 
affected job are a fraction of the costs of a typical abatement, and 
only a fraction of jobs are estimated to require re-clearance (meaning 
that the additional costs for a few jobs can be spread over the up-
front prices of a much larger pool of abatements). EPA believes it is 
likely that abatement contractors will be able to raise up-front prices 
to some degree to account for the potential costs of additional 
cleaning and associated activities. Such pass-through of costs would 
decrease the magnitude of the cost impacts on individual abatement 
firms.
    In light of these conservative assumptions, the small entity 
impacts analysis likely overstates the number of small businesses with 
large impacts, both in terms of the magnitude of the impacts and the 
number of businesses affected.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The total estimated 
annual cost of the rule is $3 million to $14 million per year (Ref. 7), 
which does not exceed the inflation-adjusted unfunded mandate threshold 
of $156 million.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. States 
that have authorized LBP Activities programs must demonstrate that they 
have DLCL at least as protective as the levels at 40 CFR 745.227. 
However, authorized states are under no obligation to continue to 
administer the LBP Activities program, and if they do not wish to adopt 
the new DLCL they can relinquish their authorization. In the absence of 
a state authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Federally 
recognized tribes that have authorized LBP Activities programs must 
demonstrate that they have DLCL at least as protective as the clearance 
level at 40 CFR 745.227. However, these authorized tribes are under no 
obligation to continue to administer the LBP Activities program, and if 
they do not wish to adopt the new DLCL they can relinquish their 
authorization. In the absence of a tribal authorization, EPA will 
administer these requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

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

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is economically significant as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health 
or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental 
health or safety effects of dust-lead exposure in children. The results 
of this evaluation are contained in Unit I.F. of the preamble titled 
``Children's Environmental Health,'' Unit II.A. of the preamble titled 
``Health Effects,'' the Economic Analysis and the Technical Support 
Document, where the health impacts of lead exposure and children is 
discussed more fully (Ref. 7, 12). The documents referenced above are 
available in the public docket for this action.
    The primary purpose of this rule is to clear abatements to a level 
that can reliably, effectively and safely eliminate LBP hazards in 
target housing, including target housing where children reside, and 
COFs. EPA's analysis indicates that there will be approximately 2,300 
to 22,000 children per year affected by the rule (Ref. 7).

[[Page 994]]

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy and the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has not otherwise determined that the action is a 
significant energy action.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
documentation for this decision is contained in the Economic Analysis, 
which is available in the docket (Ref. 7).

L. 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 is a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

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

PART 745--[AMENDED]

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

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


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


Sec.  745.223  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Clearance levels are values that indicate the amount of lead in 
dust on a surface following completion of an abatement activity. To 
achieve clearance when dust sampling is required, values below these 
levels must be achieved.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  745.227 by revising paragraph (e)(8)(viii) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (viii) The clearance levels for lead in dust are 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for window troughs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-28565 Filed 1-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>