51274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: September 30, 2009. 

Lori Stewart, 

Acting Director, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality. 

[FR Doc. E9–24056 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0665; FRL–8793–3] 

Lead Dust Hazard Standards and 

Definition of Lead-Based Paint; TSCA 

Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt 

and Request for Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

EPA has received a petition from the 

National Center for Healthy Housing, 

Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra 

Club, et al., (petitioners) on August 10, 

2009, and requests comments on issues 

raised by the petition. The petition 

requests, under section 21 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) or, in 

the alternative, under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

EPA to lower the regulatory lead dust 

standards and modify the regulatory 

definition of lead-based paint. EPA must 

either grant or deny a TSCA section 21 

petition within 90 days of filing. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0655, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0655. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2009–0655. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Christina Wadlington, National Program 

Chemicals Division (7404T), Office 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(202) 566–1859; e-mail address: 

wadlington.christina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to you if you manufacture, 

process, distribute, or use lead-based 

paint. Since other entities may also be 

interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 

as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51275 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. TSCA Section 21 

A. What Is a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 

2620), any person can petition EPA to 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule 

under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an 

order under TSCA section 5(e) or 

6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition 

must set forth the facts that are claimed 

to establish the necessity for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or 

deny a TSCA section 21 petition within 

90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the 

petition, the Agency must promptly 

commence an appropriate proceeding. If 

EPA denies the petition, the Agency 

must publish its reasons for the denial 

in the Federal Register. A petitioner 

may commence a civil action in a U.S. 

district court to compel initiation of the 

requested rulemaking proceeding within 

60 days of either a denial, or if EPA fails 

to grant or deny a TSCA section 21 

petition, the expiration of the 90–day 

period. 

B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on 

a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

The scope of a TSCA section 21 

petition is limited to the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule under 

TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order 

under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). 

Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that 

the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it 

is claimed establish that it is necessary’’ 

to issue the rule or order requested. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 

21 implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner after 

denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA 

will refer to the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this petition. 

III. Summary of TSCA Section 21 

Petition Received 

A. What Action was Requested? 

On August 10, 2009, EPA received a 

petition from the National Center for 

Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy 

Homes, Sierra Club, et al., petitioning 

EPA to amend regulations promulgated 

under TSCA sections 401 and 403. 

Specifically, the petitioners are 

requesting that EPA: 

‘‘1. Lower dust lead hazard standards at 40 

CFR 745.65(b), 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), 

and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 

micrograms of lead per square foot of surface 

area (μg/ft2) to 10 μg/ft2 or less for floors and 

from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg/ft2 or less for 

window sills. 2. Modify the definition of 

lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 

745.223 for previously applied paint or other 

surface coatings in housing, child-occupied 

facilities, public building and commercial 

buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 

percent by weight (5,000 parts per million 

(ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) 

with a corresponding reduction in the 1.0 

milligram per square centimeter standard.’’ 

(Ref. 1) Petition at 2. 

B. What Support Do the Petitioners 

Offer? 

The petitioners provide results of 

analysis derived from studies that have 

become available since the current dust 

lead standards were promulgated in 

2001. Studies referenced by petitioners, 

include: Dixon et al. (2009) (Ref. 2), 

National Center for Healthy Housing 

(rev. 2006) (Ref. 3), Wilson (2008) (Ref. 

4), and the Cincinnati Children’s 

Hospital Medical Center’s ‘‘HOME 

Study.’’ 

Citing their analysis of data from the 

National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey (NHANES) from 

1999–2004 (Refs. 2 and 4), the 

petitioners conclude that: 

1. ‘‘4.6% of children with an average 

age of 33 months living in pre-1978 

homes would have a blood lead level of 

10 μg/[deciliter]dL or greater when their 

floor dust lead loading was 12 μg/ft2.’’ 

2. ‘‘At a floor dust lead loading of 12 

μg/ft2, there is 95% confidence that no 

more than 7.9% of children would have 

a blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or 

greater.’’ 

3. ‘‘5.1% of children would have a 

blood lead level of 10 μg/dL or greater 

when their window sill dust lead 

loading was 100 μg/ft2.’’ Based on this 

information the petitioners conclude 

that ‘‘[u]sing EPA’s criteria of protecting 

95% of children from an elevated blood 

lead level (currently defined as 10 μg/ 

dL or greater), dust standards of 10 μg/ 

ft2 for floors and 100 μg/ft2 for window 

sills should be adopted.’’ Petition at 3. 

From their own ‘‘Study of HUD’s Risk 

Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. 

Communities’’ (Ref .3), the petitioners 

assert ‘‘that children living in homes 

with floor dust lead levels under 20 μg/ 

ft2 had proportionally fewer elevated 

blood lead levels than children living in 

homes where the floor dust lead loading 

exceeded 20 μg/ft2.’’ The petitioners 

further assert, based on on-going 

analysis of the ‘‘HOME Study,’’ that 

‘‘lower dust standards are achievable.’’ 

Petition at 4. 

The petitioners also contend that ‘‘the 

economic consequences of a rule based 

on the standards recommended in this 

petition will be less than EPA originally 

estimated when it adopted the current 

standards.’’ They provide that in the 

January 5, 2001 final rule (Ref. 5), EPA 

estimated that 22 million homes would 

have lead dust hazards based on a 

standard of 10 μg/ft2, and assert that the 

their ‘‘review of the Six-Year Follow-Up 

Study and the HOME Study 

demonstrated that current lead hazard 

control practices are adequate to reduce 

dust lead below the levels 

recommended in the petition.’’ The 

petitioners also assert that the 

‘‘NHANES data suggest that less than 

15% of pre-1978 homes–9.8 million 

homes–would be classified as having a 

dust lead hazard.’’ Petition at 5. 

When reviewing the regulatory 

definition of lead-based paint at 40 CFR 

745.103 and 745.223, the petitioners 

note that EPA simply adopted that 

statutory standard: Lead-based paint 

means paint or other surface coatings 

that contain lead equal to or in excess 

of 1.0 mg/cm2 or more than 0.5% by 

weight. Petitioners further note that 

HUD used the same definition in its 

Lead-Safe Housing Rule. 

To support their request that EPA 

lower the lead level in the definition of 

lead-based paint, petitioners explain 

that ‘‘under the current standards, paint 

that contains less than 5,000 ppm of 

lead would not be considered leadbased paint. As a result, when a lead 

inspector or lead risk assessor 

documents levels of 4,500 ppm of lead 

in the paint, the buyer or tenant would 

be told that lead-based paint is not 

present. The buyer or tenant would be 

unaware of the potential dangers of 

disturbing the paint.’’ Petition at 6. 

The petitioners estimate that ‘‘the 

economic consequences of this change 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

in the definition of lead-based paint 

would primarily impact those buildings 

that already have been tested for the 

presence of lead-based paint by a 

certified lead risk assessor or lead 

inspector and found to have levels of 

lead in the paint between 600 ppm and 

5,000 ppm (and the equivalent in mg/ 

cm2).’’ Petition at 7. 

IV. EPA Seeks Public Comment 

Under TSCA section 21, EPA must 

either grant or deny a petition within 90 

days. EPA is providing this opportunity 

for the public to comment on, or 

provide any additional information 

relevant to, the issues identified in the 

petition. In order for the Agency to 

consider such comments within the 90– 

day petition review period, EPA must 

receive the comments on or before 

October 21, 2009 (see ADDRESSES). 

In assessing the usability of any data 

or information that may be submitted, 

EPA plans to follow the guidelines in 

EPA’s ‘‘A Summary of General 

Assessment Factors for Evaluating the 

Quality of Scientific and Technical 

Information’’ (EPA 100B–03/001), 

referred to as the ‘‘Assessment Factors 

Document.’’ The ‘‘Assessment Factors 

Document’’ was published in the 

Federal Register issue of July 1, 2003 

(Ref. 6). 

V. References 

1. National Center for Healthy 

Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes 

and Sierra Club. Letter from Rebecca 

Morley, National Center for Healthy 

Housing; Patrick MacRoy, Alliance for 

Healthy Homes; and Tom Neltner, 

Sierra Club to Administrator Jackson, 

Environmental Protection Agency. Re: 

Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding the 

Paint and Dust Lead Standards. August 

10, 2009. 

2. Dixon, S.L.; Gaitens, J.M.; Jacobs, 

D.E., et al. (2009) Exposure of U.S. 

children to residential dust lead, 1999– 

2004: II: The contribution of leadcontaminated dust to children’s blood 

lead levels. Environmental Health 

Perspectives. 117(3): 468–474. 

3. National Center for Healthy 

Housing (rev. 2006) Study of HUDs Risk 

Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. 

Communities: Final Report, Columbia, 

MD (accessed 5–13–2009: http:// 

www.nchh.org/ 

LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HZUenslvU/ 

0=&tabid=217). 

4. Wilson, Jonathan. (2008) Should 

the EPA Lead Dust Standards be 

Lowered? (accessed 5–8–2009: http:// 

www.healthyhomestraining.org/ 

Research/Translational_Research_11- 

17_PbDust_Standard_r2.1.pdf). 

5. EPA. Lead; Identification of 

Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 

2001) (FRL–6763–5). Available on-line 

at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. 

6. EPA. A Summary of General 

Assessment Factors for Evaluating the 

Quality of Scientific and Technical 

Information; Notice. Federal Register 

(68 FR 39086, July 1, 2003) (FRL–7520– 

2). Available on-line at http:// 

www.epa.gov/osa/spc/assess.htm. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Lead, 

Lead-based paint, Lead dust hazard 

standards. 

Dated: September 29, 2009. 

James Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. E9–23929 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8966–1] 

Environmental Laboratory Advisory 

Board (ELAB) Meeting Dates and 

Agenda 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Environmental Laboratory 

Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously 

announced, will have teleconference 

meetings on October 21, 2009 at 1 p.m. 

ET; November 18, 2009 at 1 p.m. ET; 

December 16, 2009 at 1 p.m. ET; 

February 17, 2010 at 1 p.m. ET; and 

March 17, 2010 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss 

the ideas and views presented at the 

previous ELAB meetings, as well as new 

business. Items to be discussed by ELAB 

over these coming meetings include: (1) 

Expanding the number of laboratories 

seeking National Environmental 

Laboratory Accreditation Conference 

(NELAC) accreditation; (2) proficiency 

testing; (3) ELAB support to the 

Agency’s Forum on Environmental 

Measurements (FEM); (4) implementing 

the performance approach; and (5) 

follow-up on some of ELAB’s past 

recommendations and issues. In 

addition to these teleconferences, ELAB 

will be hosting their next face-to-face 

meeting on January 25, 2010 at the Hyatt 

Regency in Chicago, IL at 1:30 p.m. 

(CT). 

Written comments on laboratory 

accreditation issues and/or 

environmental monitoring issues are 

encouraged and should be sent to Ms. 

Lara P. Autry, DFO, U.S. EPA (E243– 

05), 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709, faxed to (919) 

541–4261, or e-mailed to 

autry.lara@epa.gov. Members of the 

public are invited to listen to the 

teleconference calls, and time 

permitting, will be allowed to comment 

on issues discussed during this and 

previous ELAB meetings. Those persons 

interested in attending should call Lara 

P. Autry at (919) 541–5544 to obtain 

teleconference information. For 

information on access or services for 

individuals with disabilities, please 

contact Lara P. Autry at the number 

above. To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact Lara P. Autry, 

preferably at least 10 days prior to the 

meeting, to give EPA as much time as 

possible to process your request. 

Dated: September 28, 2009. 

Kevin Teichman, 

EPA Acting Science Advisor. 

[FR Doc. E9–24060 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank 

Holding Companies 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank 

holding company. The factors that are 

considered in acting on the notices are 

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the office of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than October 

19, 2009. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of 

Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 

Community Affairs Officer) 90 

Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota 55480–0291: 

1. Earl E. Geiger, Bloomington, 

Minnesota, acting in concert with the 

Geiger Family Group; to acquire voting 

shares of Heritage Bancshares Group, 

Inc., Willmar, Minnesota, and thereby 

indirectly acquire voting shares of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES