Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 983 

October 17, 2018, though not 

incorporated by reference, are 

referenced as part of the approved 

underground storage tank program 

under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6991 et seq. 

(5) Memorandum of Agreement. The 

Memorandum of Agreement between 

EPA Region 6 and the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

signed by the EPA Regional 

Administrator on May 8, 2019, though 

not incorporated by reference, is 

referenced as part of the approved 

underground storage tank program 

under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6991 et seq. 

■ 3. Appendix A to part 282 is amended 

by revising the entry for Arkansas to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 282—State 

Requirements Incorporated by 

Reference in Part 282 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 

* * * * * 

Arkansas 

(a) The regulatory provisions include: 

Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology 

Commission (APC&EC) Regulation No. 12 

Storage Tanks, as amended effective August 

24, 2018: 

Chapter 1 General Provisions, Reg. 12.103 

Definitions, except (B)(1), Reg. 12.104 

Incorporation of Federal Regulations, Reg. 

12.105 Records, Reg. 12.106 Entry and 

Inspection of Underground Storage Tank 

Facilities, Reg. 12.108 Notice Requirements, 

Reg. 12.109 Secondary Containment; 

Chapter 2 Registration of Storage Tanks, 

Reg. 12.201(A); 

Chapter 5: Licensing of Underground 

Storage Tank Installers and Service 

Personnel, Reg. 12.502 Definitions, Reg. 

12.503 Applicability, Reg. 12.504 General 

Requirements, Reg. 12.505 Surety 

Requirement, Reg. 12.506 Notification 

Requirement, Reg. 12.507 Contractor 

Licensing, Reg. 12.508 Individual Licensing, 

Reg. 12.509 Contractor/Individual Licensing, 

Reg. 12.510 Experience Requirements, Reg. 

12.511 Licensing Examination, Reg. 12.512 

Renewal of Licenses, Reg. 12.513 Denial of 

Licenses, Reg. 12.514 Department Approval 

of Training and Continuing Education; 

Chapter 6: Licensing of Underground 

Storage Tank Testers, Reg. 12.602 

Definitions, Reg. 12.603 Applicability, Reg. 

12.604 General Requirements, Reg. 12.605 

Surety Requirement, Reg. 12.606 Company 

Licensing, Reg. 12.607 Individual Licensing, 

Reg. 12.608 Company/Individual Licensing, 

Reg. 12.609 Experience Requirements, Reg. 

12.610 Renewal of Licenses, Reg. 12.611 

Denial of Licenses, Reg. 12.612 Department 

Approval of Training and Continuing 

Education; and 

Chapter 7: Operator Training, Reg. 12.702 

Definitions, Reg. 12.703 Applicability, Reg. 

12.704 General Requirements, Reg. 12.705 

Class A Operator Certification, Reg. 12.706 

Class B Operator Certification, Reg. 12.707 

Class C Operator Training, Reg. 12.708 

Operator Examination. 

(b) Copies of the Arkansas regulations that 

are incorporated by reference are available 

from the Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) website at 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/default.htm 

or the Public Outreach Office, ADEQ, 5301 

Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, 

Arkansas 72118–5317; Phone number: (501) 

682–0923. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–24240 Filed 1–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 (mg/ft2) to 10 mg/ft2 for floors, 

and from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ft2 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: brisse.claire@epa.gov. 

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: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
984 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

this document applies to them. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include: 

D Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., 

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

D Other technical and trade schools 

(NAICS code 611519), e.g., training 

providers. 

D Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust 

sampling technicians. 

D Lead abatement professionals 

(NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and 

supervisors engaged in LBP activities. 

D Testing laboratories (NAICS code 

541380) that analyze dust wipe samples 

for lead. 

D Federal agencies that own 

residential property (NAICS code 92511, 

92811). 

D 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 postabatement 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 

mg/ft2 for floors, 250 mg/ft2 for window 

sills and 400 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2

to 10 mg/ft2 for floor dust and from 250 

mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 on floors and 

100 mg/ft2 on window sills will not 

apply retroactively; that is, this final 

rule will not impose retroactive 

requirements on regulated entities that 

have previously performed postabatement clearance testing using the 

original DLCL of 40 mg/ft2 on floors or 

250 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 on 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ 

ft2 and 250 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2 and 100 

mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 for floors and to 

100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 

mg/ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 mg/ft2 for 

floors and 250 mg/ft2 for window sills) 

and alternate levels, including the 

revised DLCL of 10 mg/ft2 for floors and 

100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ 

ft2 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 mg/ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ft2 on 

window sills. In addition, one locality 

has adopted clearance levels below the 

original federal levels of 40 mg/ft2 on 

floors and 250 mg/ft2 on window sills. 

Abatements in these jurisdictions will 

clear below the levels of 10 mg/ft2 on 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 on floors and 

250 mg/ft2 on window sills) are 

voluntarily using 10 mg/ft2 on floors and 

100 mg/ft2 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 (mg/dL) 

to 25 mg/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 mg/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 mg/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 mg/dL. 

Four states (CT, MA, OK, and TN) use 

an action level of 20 mg/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 dustlead loadings are tested because a 

child’s blood lead level equals or 

exceeds 5 mg/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 mg/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 mg/ft2 for floors and 

100 mg/ft2 for window sills after 

abatements where a baseline postintervention loading is between the 

original DLCL of 40 mg/ft2 for floors and 

250 mg/ft2 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
986 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 attentionrelated 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 attentionrelated 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 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 versus 

the original DLCL of 40 mg/ft2 and 250 

mg/ft2 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 mg/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 mg/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 

mg/dL, and less than 5 mg/dL as well. 

The NTP concluded that there is 

sufficient evidence that blood lead 

levels less than 10 mg/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 mg/dL 

are associated with increased diagnoses 

of attention-related behavioral 

problems, greater incidence of problem 

behaviors, and decreased cognitive 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 987 

performance. There is limited evidence 

that blood lead levels less than 5 mg/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). 

D 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 LeadBased 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 leadcontaminated 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, postclearance 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 pre1978 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 NLLAPrecognized laboratory for analysis. 

NLLAP is an EPA program that defines 

the minimum requirements and abilities 

that a paint chips, dust, or soil testing 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
988 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 postabatement 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, nongovernmental 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/ft2 for floors 

and 100 ug/ft2 for window sills. A 

number of commenters requested that 

EPA promulgate DLCL lower than the 

proposed levels of 10 mg/ft2 for floors 

and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills. Some 

commenters specifically suggested that 

EPA should revise the DLCL for window 

sills to 40 mg/ft2 or lower and/or 5 mg/ 

ft2 for floors. One commenter explained 

that within the considered options for 

the proposal, EPA should have analyzed 

a floor level lower than 10 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 to 10 

mg/ft2 and to lower the DLCL for 

window sills from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ 

ft2. 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 LeadBased 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 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window 

sills, while a subset of commenters 

specifically requested lowering the 

DLCL to 5 mg/ft2 for floors and/or to 40 

mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2, a reduction 

in the federal clearance standard for 

windowsills from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ 

ft2 . . . 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 mg/ft2 and 250 mg/ 

ft2, respectively (Ref. 24). Additionally, 

according to public comments, a state 

department of health and a nongovernmental 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 mg/ft2 on 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ 

ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 on floors 

and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 dustlead level, and the five DLCL options 

(15 mg/ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for 

window sills; and 10 mg/ft2 for floors, 

and 40 mg/ft2, 60 mg/ft2, 80 mg/ft2 and 

100 mg/ft2 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 longterm to these analyzed dust-lead loading 

levels. As also reflected in the 2019 

DLHS Rule, EPA generated two different 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
990 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

modeling approaches to estimate the 

quantitative relationships between dustlead and blood lead level data. The first 

approach used mechanistic modeling 

data that include consideration of agespecific 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 postabatement clearance testing (via dust 

wipe samples) of the abated area. If the 

dust wipe sample results show dustlead 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 mg/ft2 and 

100 mg/ft2, respectively, and the results 

for window troughs to the DLCL of 400 

mg/ft2. 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 mg/ft2 on 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 on floors or below 250 

mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 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 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 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 bloodlead levels in children, (<10 mg/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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 mg/ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ 

ft2 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 mg/ft2 on floors 

or 250 mg/ft2 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 dustlead 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 dustlead levels (which are a measure of the 

mass of lead per area, commonly 

expressed in micrograms per square foot 

(mg/ft2)) 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 postabatement 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 dustlead 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/USCODE2017-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-ofdangerous-levels-of-lead. 

3. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard 

Standards and the Definition of LeadBased 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-hazardstandards-and-the-definition-of-leadbased-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/federalaction-plan-reduce-childhood-leadexposure. 

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-actionsunder-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 LowLevel 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/ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
992 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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-FR21692. 

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 LeadBased 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-requirementsfor-lead-based-paint-activities-in-targethousing-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-evaluationand-reduction-of-lead-based-painthazards-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/leadidentification-of-dangerous-levels-oflead. 

22. U.S. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead PostAbatement 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-thedust-lead-hazard-standards-and-thedefinition-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/lawsregulations/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 dustlead 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 postabatement loading is between the 

original DLCL of 40 mg/ft2 for floors and 

250 mg/ft2 for window sills, and the 

revised DLCL of 10 mg/ft2 for floors and 

100 mg/ft2 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 mg/dL to 25 

mg/dL, depending on the state. For the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 mg/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 inflationadjusted 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). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
994 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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, lowincome 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] 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 745.223 by revising the 

definition for ‘‘Clearance levels’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 745.227 by revising 

paragraph (e)(8)(viii) to read as follows: 

§ 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 mg/ft2 for floors, 100 mg/ft2

for interior window sills, and 400 mg/ft2

for window troughs. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2020–28565 Filed 1–6–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 17–108, 17–287; 

FCC 20–151; FRS 17241] 

Restoring Internet Freedom; Bridging 

the Digital Divide for Low-Income 

Consumers; Lifeline and Link Up 

Reform and Modernization 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) responds to a remand 

from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit directing the Commission to 

assess the effects of the Commission’s 

Restoring Internet Freedom Order on 

public safety, pole attachments, and the 

statutory basis for broadband internet 

access service’s inclusion in the 

universal service Lifeline program. This 

document also amends the 

Commission’s rules to remove 

broadband internet service from the list 

of services supported by the universal 

service Lifeline program, while 

preserving the Commission’s authority 

to fund broadband internet access 

service through the Lifeline program. 

DATES: This Order on Remand shall 

become effective February 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Annick Banoun, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at (202) 418–1521, annick.banoun@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Remand in WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 17– 

108, and 17–287, adopted October 27, 

2020, and released on October 29, 2020. 

The document is available for download 

at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccresponds-narrow-remand-restoringinternet-freedom-order-0. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. In the Restoring Internet Freedom 

Order (83 FR 7852, Feb. 22, 2018), we 

reversed the Commission’s misguided 

and short-lived utility-style regulation 

of the internet and returned to the lighttouch regulatory framework for 

broadband internet access service that 

facilitated rapid and unprecedented 

growth for almost two decades. In this 

Order on Remand, we maintain this 

well-established approach after further 

considering three discrete issues raised 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit). 

2. In Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, the D.C. 

Circuit upheld the vast majority of our 

decision in the Restoring Internet 

Freedom Order, remanding three 

discrete issues for further 

consideration—namely, the effect of that 

Order on: (1) Public safety; (2) the 

regulation of pole attachments; and (3) 

universal service support for lowincome consumers through the Lifeline 

program. Because the court concluded 

that ‘‘the Commission may well be able 

to address on remand’’ these three 

issues, it declined to vacate the 

Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 

pending our further analysis. After 

considering the three issues identified 

by the court in light of the record 

developed thereafter, we see no grounds 

to depart from our determinations in the 

Restoring Internet Freedom Order. 

I. Background 

3. Building on decades of precedent, 

the Commission adopted the Restoring 

Internet Freedom Order to return to the 

successful light-touch bipartisan 

framework that promoted a free and 

open internet and, for almost twenty 

years, saw it flourish. The Restoring 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES