This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

30889 

Vol. 83, No. 127 

Monday, July 2, 2018 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0166; FRL–9976–04] 

RIN 2070–AJ82 

Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard 

Standards and the Definition of LeadBased Paint 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Addressing childhood lead 

exposure is a priority for EPA. As part 

of EPA’s efforts to reduce childhood 

lead exposure, EPA evaluated the 

current dust-lead hazard standards 

(DLHS) and the definition of lead-based 

paint (LBP). Based on this evaluation, 

EPA is proposing to lower 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 is proposing no 

changes to the current definition of LBP 

due to insufficient information to 

support such a change. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0166, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: John 

Yowell, National Program Chemicals 

Division, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: 202–564–1213; email address: 

yowell.john@epa.gov. 

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 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 in 

accordance with 24 CFR 35. You may 

also be affected by this action, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 745.107, as the 

seller or lessor of target housing, which 

is most pre-1978 housing. See 40 CFR 

745.103. For further information 

regarding the authorization status of 

States, territories, and Tribes, contact 

the National Lead Information Center at 

1–800–424–LEAD (5323). The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Building construction (NAICS code 

236), e.g., single-family housing 

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and 

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

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

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary 

schools with kindergarten classrooms. 

• Other technical and trade schools 

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

providers. 

• Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

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

sampling technicians. 

• Lead abatement professionals 

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

supervisors engaged in LBP activities. 

• Federal agencies that own 

residential property (NAICS code 92511, 

92811). 

• Property owners, and property 

owners that receive assistance through 

Federal housing programs (NAICS code 

531110, 531311). 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

EPA is proposing this rule under 

sections 401, 402, 403, and 404 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as amended by 

Title X of the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992 (also known 

as the Residential Lead-Based Paint 

Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or ‘‘Title 

X’’) (Pub. L. 102–550) (Ref. 1). TSCA 

section 403 (15 U.S.C. 2683) mandates 

EPA to identify LBP hazards for 

purposes of administering Title X and 

TSCA Title IV. Under TSCA section 401 

(15 U.S.C. 2681), LBP hazards are 

defined as conditions of LBP and leadcontaminated dust and soil that ‘‘would 

result in adverse human health effects,’’ 

and lead-contaminated dust is defined 

as ‘‘surface dust in residential 

dwellings’’ that contains lead in excess 

of levels determined ‘‘to pose a threat of 

adverse health effects. . . .’’ As defined 

in TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), 

LBP means: 

‘‘paint or other surface coatings that contain 

lead in excess of 1.0 milligrams per 

centimeter squared or 0.5 percent by weight 

or (A) in the case of paint or other surface 

coatings on target housing, such lower level 

as may be established by the Secretary of 

[HUD], as defined in section 4822(c) of Title 

42, or (B) in the case of any other paint or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
30890 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

surface coatings, such other level as may be 

established by the Administrator [of EPA].’’ 

The amendments to the regulations on 

LBP activities are being proposed 

pursuant to TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C 

2682). The amendments to the 

regulations on the authorization of State 

and Tribal Programs are being proposed 

pursuant to TSCA section 404 (15 U.S.C. 

2684). 

This proposed rule is being issued in 

compliance with the December 27, 2017 

decision (‘‘Opinion’’) of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 

subsequent March 26, 2018 order that 

directed the EPA ‘‘to issue a proposed 

rule within ninety (90) days from the 

filed date of this order’’ (Ref. 2) (Ref. 3). 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA established dust-lead hazard 

standards (DLHS) of 40 mg/ft2 for floors 

and 250 mg/ft2 for window sills in a final 

rule entitled, ‘‘Identification of 

Dangerous Levels of Lead.’’ See 66 FR 

1206, January 5, 2001, also known as the 

LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 4). EPA is 

proposing to amend the DLHS set by the 

LBP Hazards Rule to lower the DLHS for 

floor dust to 10 mg/ft2 and to lower the 

DLHS for window sill dust to 100 mg/ 

ft2. EPA is requesting comment on the 

achievability and appropriateness of the 

proposed DLHS. EPA is requesting 

comments on all aspects of this 

proposal, including any options 

presented in EPA’s Technical Support 

Document that accompanies this 

proposal (Ref. 5), including taking 

comment on keeping the DLHS at the 

current levels. 

EPA and HUD adopted the statutory 

definition of LBP in a joint final rule 

entitled, ‘‘Requirements for Disclosure 

of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or 

Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing.’’ 

See 61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996, also 

known as the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 6). 

EPA is proposing no changes to the 

current definition of LBP due to 

insufficient information to support such 

a change. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

Reducing childhood lead exposure is 

an EPA priority, and EPA is 

collaborating with our federal partners 

to reduce lead exposures and to explore 

ways to increase our relationships and 

partnerships with States, Tribes, and 

localities. EPA Administrator Scott 

Pruitt hosted a meeting of principals 

from the 17 federal departments and 

agencies on the President’s Task Force 

on Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks to Children in February 

2018. At the meeting, the Task Force 

members committed to make addressing 

childhood lead exposure a priority and 

to develop a federal strategy to reduce 

childhood lead exposures. Today’s 

proposal is a component of EPA’s 

prioritizing the important issue of 

childhood lead exposure. 

In the 2001 final rule that set the 

initial hazard standards under TSCA 

section 403, EPA examined the health 

effects of various dust-lead loadings, 

and analyzed those values against issues 

of practicality to determine the 

appropriate standards, in accordance 

with the statute. At that time, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) identified a test result 

of 10 mg/dL of lead in blood or higher 

in children as a ‘‘level of concern’’. 

Based on the available science at the 

time, EPA explained that health effects 

at blood lead levels (BLLs) lower than 

10 mg/dL were ‘‘less well substantiated.’’ 

Further, the Agency acknowledged that 

the standards were ‘‘based on the best 

science available to the Agency,’’ and if 

new data were to become available, EPA 

would ‘‘consider changing the standards 

to reflect these data.’’ (Ref. 4) 

New data have become available since 

the 2001 final rule that indicates that 

health risks exist at lower BLLs than 

previously recognized. The CDC now 

considers that no safe BLL in children 

has been identified (Ref. 7), and is no 

longer using the term ‘‘level of concern’’ 

and is instead using the reference value 

to identify children who have been 

exposed to lead and who should 

undergo case management (Ref. 7). In 

2012, CDC established a blood lead 

‘‘reference level’’ as a benchmark for 

case management (especially assessment 

of sources of lead in their environment 

and follow up BLL testing). The 

reference level is based on the 97.5th 

percentile of the U.S. population 

distribution of BLLs in children ages 1– 

5 from the 2007–2008 and 2009–2010 

National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Surveys (Ref. 8). 

Current best available science, which, 

as indicated above, has evolved 

considerably since 2001, informs EPA’s 

understanding of the relationship 

between exposures to dust-lead 

loadings, blood lead levels, and risk of 

adverse human health effects. This is 

summarized in the Integrated Science 

Assessment for Lead, (‘‘Lead ISA’’) (Ref. 

9), 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 Human Health and 

Services in June 2012 (Ref. 10). The 

Lead ISA is a synthesis and evaluation 

of policy-relevant science and includes 

an analysis of the health effects of BLLs 

lower than 10 mg/dL. These effects 

include cognitive function decrements 

in children (Ref. 9). 

The NTP, in 2012, completed an 

evaluation of existing data to summarize 

the scientific evidence regarding health 

effects associated with low-level lead 

exposure as indicated by BLLs less than 

10 mg/dL. The evaluation specifically 

focused on the life stage (childhood, 

adulthood) associated with these health 

effects, as well as on epidemiological 

evidence at BLLs less than 10 mg/dL, 

because health effects at higher BLLs are 

well-established. The NTP concluded 

that there is sufficient evidence for 

adverse health effects in children and 

adults at BLLs less than 10 mg/dL, and 

less than 5 mg/dL. In children, there is 

sufficient evidence that BLLs less than 

5 mg/dL are associated with increased 

diagnoses of attention-related behavioral 

problems, greater incidence of problem 

behaviors, and decreased cognitive 

performance. There is limited evidence 

that BLLs less than 5 mg/dL are 

associated with delayed puberty and 

decreased kidney function in children 

12 years of age and older. Additionally, 

the NTP concluded that there is 

sufficient evidence that BLLs less than 

10 mg/dL are associated with delayed 

puberty, decreased hearing, and reduced 

post-natal growth (Ref. 10). 

Since 2001, EPA has worked 

collaboratively with other federal 

partners to promote further 

understanding of the technical aspects 

of rules in place to reduce exposures to 

dangerous levels of lead. EPA 

collaborated with HUD to develop the 

Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey 

to examine whether HUD’s Office of 

Lead Hazard Control and Healthy 

Homes (OLHCHH) Lead Hazard Control 

(LHC) grantees could achieve dust-lead 

clearance levels below the current 

standards. Although this proposed rule 

does not address clearance levels 

directly, EPA intends to review the 

clearance levels at a later date. The 

survey is still important to this 

rulemaking because EPA does not want 

to set a standard that cannot be reliably 

achieved using existing technology. The 

survey concluded that ‘‘a reduction in 

the federal clearance standard for floors 

from 40 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2, [and] 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.’’ The survey was 

completed in October 2015 (Ref. 11). 

E. What are the estimated incremental 

impacts of this action? 

EPA has prepared an Economic 

Analysis (EA) of the potential 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30891 

incremental impacts associated with 

this rulemaking (Ref. 12) on a subset of 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities, which is available in the 

docket. The analysis estimates 

incremental costs and benefits for two 

categories of events: (1) Where dust-lead 

testing occurs to comply with HUD’s 

Lead-Safe Housing Rule and (2) where 

dust-lead testing occurs in response to 

testing that detects an elevated blood 

lead level in a child. The following is a 

brief outline of the estimated 

incremental impacts of this rulemaking. 

D Benefits. This rule would reduce 

exposure to lead, resulting in benefits 

from avoided adverse health effects. For 

the subset of adverse health effects 

where the results were quantified, the 

estimated annualized benefits are $317 

million to $2.24 billion per year using 

a 3% discount rate, and $68 million to 

$479 million using a 7% discount rate. 

There are additional unquantified 

benefits due to other avoided adverse 

health effects in children, including 

attention-related behavioral problems, 

greater incidence of problem behaviors, 

decreased cognitive performance, 

reduced post-natal growth, delayed 

puberty and decreased kidney function 

(Ref. 10). 

D Costs. This rule is estimated to 

result in costs of $66 million to $119 

million per year. 

D Small entity impacts. This rule 

would impact 39,000 to 44,000 small 

businesses; 38,000 to 42,000 have cost 

impacts less than 1% of revenues, 1,000 

to 2,000 have impacts between 1% and 

3%, and approximately 100 have 

impacts greater than 3% of revenues. 

D Environmental Justice and 

Protection of Children. This rule would 

increase the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population or children. 

D 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. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR 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). 

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. Background 

A. Health Effects 

Lead exposure impacts individuals of 

all ages, but it is especially harmful to 

children (Ref. 13) (Ref. 14) (Ref. 15). 

Ingestion of lead-contaminated soil and 

dust is a major contributor to BLLs in 

children (Ref. 16) (Ref. 17). Infants and 

young children can be more highly 

exposed to lead because they often put 

their hands and other objects that can 

have lead from dust or soil on them into 

their mouths (Ref. 15). As mentioned 

elsewhere in this proposal, data 

evaluated by the NTP demonstrates that 

there is sufficient evidence to conclude 

that there are adverse health effects 

associated with low-level lead exposure; 

there is sufficient evidence that, in 

children, BLLs less than 5 mg/dL are 

associated with increased diagnoses of 

attention-related behavioral problems, 

greater incidence of problem behaviors, 

and decreased cognitive performance 

(Ref. 10). For further information about 

health effects and lead exposure, see the 

Lead ISA (Ref. 9). 

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 joint 

regulations for disclosure of any known 

LBP or any known LBP hazards in target 

housing offered for sale or lease (known 

as the Disclosure Rule) (Ref. 6). (‘‘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 745, subpart F, and 

requires information disclosure 

activities before a purchaser or lessee is 

obligated under a contract to purchase 

or lease target housing. 

Title X amended TSCA to add a new 

subchapter entitled ‘‘Title IV—Lead 

Exposure Reduction.’’ As defined in 

TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), 

LBP means: 

‘‘paint or other surface coatings that contain 

lead in excess of 1.0 milligrams per 

centimeter squared or 0.5 percent by weight 

or (A) in the case of paint or other surface 

coatings on target housing, such lower level 

as may be established by the Secretary of 

[HUD], as defined in section 4822(c) of Title 

42, or (B) in the case of any other paint or 

surface coatings, such other level as may be 

established by the Administrator [of EPA].’’ 

This definition was codified as part of 

the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 6) at 40 CFR 

745, subpart F, and as part of the Leadbased Paint Activities Rule (Ref. 18) at 

40 CFR 745, subpart L. 

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 promulgated final regulations 

under TSCA section 402(a) that govern 

LBP inspections, risk assessments, and 

abatements in target housing and childoccupied facilities (COFs) (also referred 

to as the LBP Activities Rule, codified 

at 40 CFR 745, subpart L) (Ref. 18). The 

definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’ is 

codified at 40 CFR 745.223 for purposes 

of LBP activities. Regulations 

promulgated under TSCA section 402(a) 

contain standards for performing LBP 

activities, taking into account reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety. 

TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations covering 

renovation or remodeling activities in 

target housing, public buildings 

constructed before 1978, and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
30892 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

commercial buildings that create LBP 

hazards. EPA promulgated final 

regulations for target housing and COFs 

in the Lead Renovation, Repair and 

Painting Rule, under TSCA section 

402(c)(3) on April 22, 2008 (also 

referred to as the RRP Rule, codified at 

40 CFR 745, subpart E) (Ref. 19). The 

rule was amended in 2010 (75 FR 

24802) (Ref. 20) to eliminate a provision 

for contractors to opt-out of prescribed 

work practices and in 2011 (76 FR 

47918) (Ref. 21) to affirm the work 

practice requirements for cleaning 

verification of renovated or repaired 

spaces, among other things. For further 

information regarding lead and its 

health effects, and federal actions taken 

to eliminate LBP hazards in housing, see 

the background section of the RRP Rule. 

TSCA section 403 is a related 

authority to carry out responsibilities for 

addressing LBP hazards under the 

Disclosure and LBP Activities Rules. 

Section 403 required EPA to promulgate 

regulations that ‘‘identify . . . leadbased paint hazards, lead-contaminated 

dust, and lead-contaminated soil’’ for 

purposes of TSCA Title IV and the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992. LBP hazards, 

under TSCA section 401, are defined as 

conditions of LBP and leadcontaminated dust and soil that ‘‘would 

result’’ in adverse human health effects 

(15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). TSCA section 401 

defines lead-contaminated dust as 

‘‘surface dust in residential dwellings’’ 

that contains lead in excess of levels 

determined ‘‘to pose a threat of adverse 

health effects’’ (15 U.S.C. 2681(11)). On 

January 5, 2001, EPA promulgated a 

final rule under TSCA sections 402 and 

403 called the LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 

4). The standards established under 

TSCA section 403 are used to calibrate 

activities carried out under TSCA 

section 402. As such, the utility of these 

standards should be considered in the 

context of the activities to which they 

are applied. 

Pursuant to TSCA section 404, 

provisions were made for interested 

States, territories, and Tribes to apply 

for and receive authorization to 

administer their own LBP Activities and 

RRP programs. Requirements applicable 

to State, territorial, and Tribal programs 

are codified in 40 CFR 745, subpart Q. 

As stated elsewhere in this document, 

EPA’s regulations are intended to 

reduce exposures and 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). 

HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 

(LSHR) is codified in 24 CFR 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. The LSHR aims in part to 

ensure that federally-owned or 

federally-assisted target housing is free 

of LBP hazards (Ref. 22). Under the 

LSHR, when a child under age six (6) 

with an elevated blood lead level (EBLL) 

is identified, the ‘‘designated party’’ 

and/or the housing owner shall 

undertake certain actions. 

HUD amended the LSHR in 2017, 

lowering its standard for identifying 

children with EBLLs from 20 mg/dL to 

5 mg/dL, aligning its standard with 

CDC’s reference level. The amendments 

also included revising HUD’s 

‘‘Environmental Investigation Blood 

Lead Level’’ (EIBLL) to the EBLL, 

changing the level of investigation 

required for a housing unit of a child 

with an EBLL to an ‘‘environmental 

investigation’’ and adding a requirement 

for testing in other covered units when 

a child is identified in a multiunit 

property. HUD may revisit and revise 

the agency’s EBLL via the notice and 

comment process, as provided by the 

definition of EBLL in the amended rule, 

if it is appropriate to do so in order to 

align with future changes to CDC’s 

reference level. (Ref. 22). 

C. Applicability and Uses of the DLHS 

The DLHS reviewed in this regulation 

support the Lead-based Paint Activities 

and Disclosure programs, and apply to 

target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 

housing) and COFs (pre-1978 nonresidential properties where children 

under the age of 6 spend a significant 

amount of time such as daycare 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 lead program rules 

apply, refer to the proposed and final 

LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 4). 

Within the scope of Title X, the DLHS 

support and implement major 

provisions of the statute. They were 

incorporated into the requirements and 

risk assessment work practice standards 

in the LBP Activities Rule; the 

relationship between post-abatement 

clearance and the DLHS is discussed in 

further detail elsewhere in this 

proposal. The DLHS provide the basis 

for risk assessors to determine whether 

LBP hazards are present. 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. If LBP hazards 

are found, the risk assessor will also 

identify acceptable options for 

controlling the hazards in each 

property. 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 only be performed by certified risk 

assessors. 

The risk assessment entails both a 

visual assessment and collection of 

environmental samples. The 

environmental samples include, among 

other things, dust samples from floors 

and window sills which are sent to a 

laboratory for analysis. When the lab 

results are received, the risk assessor 

compares them to the DLHS. If the dustlead loadings from the samples are 

above the applicable DLHS, then a 

hazard is present. Any hazards found 

are listed in a report prepared for the 

property owner by the risk assessor. 

For the Disclosure Rule under section 

1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4852d), EPA 

and HUD have jointly developed 

regulations requiring a seller or lessor of 

most pre-1978 housing to disclose the 

presence of any known LBP and LBP 

hazards to the purchaser or lessee (24 

CFR 35, subpart A; 40 CFR 745, subpart 

F). Under these regulations, the seller or 

lessor also must provide the purchaser 

or lessee any available records or reports 

‘‘pertaining to’’ LBP, LBP hazards and/ 

or any lead hazard evaluative reports 

available to the seller or lessor (40 CFR 

745.107(a)(4)). Accordingly, if a seller or 

lessor has a report showing lead is 

present in levels that would not 

constitute a hazard, that report must 

also be disclosed. Thus, disclosure is 

required under section 1018 even if dust 

and soil levels are less than the 

applicable hazard standard. EPA notes, 

however, that with respect only to 

leases of target housing, disclosure is 

not required in the limited circumstance 

where the housing has been found to be 

LBP free by a certified inspector (24 CFR 

35.82; 40 CFR 745.101). 

D. Limitations of the DLHS 

The proposed standards are intended 

to identify dust-lead hazards when LBP 

risk assessments are performed. These 

standards, as were those established in 

2001, are for the purposes of Title X and 

TSCA Title IV, and therefore they do not 

apply to housing and COFs built during 

or after 1978, nor do they apply to pre1978 housing that does not meet the 

definition of target housing. See 40 CFR 

745.61. These standards cannot be used 

to identify housing that is free from 

risks from exposure to lead, as risks are 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30893 

dependent on many factors. For 

instance, the physical condition of a 

property that contains LBP may change 

over time, resulting in an increased risk 

of exposure. If one chooses to apply the 

DLHS to situations beyond the scope of 

Title X, care must be taken to ensure 

that the action taken in such settings is 

appropriate to the circumstances 

presented in that situation, and that the 

action is adequate to provide any 

necessary protection for children 

exposed. 

The DLHS do not require the owners 

of properties covered by this proposed 

rule to evaluate their properties for the 

presence of dust-lead hazards, or to take 

action if dust-lead hazards are 

identified. Although these regulations 

do not compel specific actions to 

address identified hazards, these 

standards are incorporated into certain 

requirements mandated by State, 

Federal, Tribal, and local governments. 

EPA acknowledges that if the proposed 

DLHS were set too low, the effectiveness 

of these programs may be limited since 

resources for hazard mitigation would 

be distributed more broadly, diverting 

them from situations that present more 

serious risks. However, EPA does not 

believe that the levels proposed today 

constrict these programs, considering 

the demonstrated achievability of these 

levels (Ref. 11). As such, these standards 

are appropriate for incorporation into 

the various assessment and hazard 

control activities to which they apply. 

E. Administrative Petition and Litigation 

On August 10, 2009, EPA received an 

administrative petition from several 

environmental and public health 

advocacy groups requesting that EPA 

amend regulations issued under Title IV 

of TSCA (Sierra Club et al. 2009) (Ref. 

23). The petitioners requested that EPA 

lower the Agency’s DLHS issued 

pursuant to section 403 of TSCA, and 

the dust-lead clearance levels issued 

pursuant to section 402 of TSCA, from 

40 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2 or less for floors, 

and from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ft2 or less 

for window sills; and to lower the 

definition of LBP pursuant to section 

401 of TSCA from 1 mg/cm2 and 0.5 

percent by weight, to 0.06 percent by 

weight with a corresponding reduction 

in units of mg/cm2. 

On October 22, 2009, EPA responded 

to this petition pursuant to section 

553(e) of the Administrative Procedure 

Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) (EPA 2009) (Ref. 

24). EPA agreed to commence an 

appropriate proceeding on the DLHS 

and the definition of LBP in response to 

the petition, but stated that it did not 

commit to a particular schedule or to a 

particular outcome. 

In August 2016, administrative 

petitioners—joined by additional citizen 

groups—filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, seeking a court order finding 

that EPA had unreasonably delayed in 

promulgating a rule to update the DLHS 

and the definition of LBP under TSCA 

and directing EPA to promulgate a 

proposed rule within 90 days, and to 

finalize a rule within six months. On 

December 27, 2017, a panel majority of 

the Ninth Circuit granted the writ of 

mandamus and ordered that EPA (1) 

issue a proposed rule within ninety 

days of the date the decision becomes 

final and (2) issue a final rule one year 

thereafter (Ref. 2). On March 26, 2018, 

the Panel granted EPA’s Motion for 

Clarification, specifying that the 

proposed rule was due ninety days from 

the date of that order (Ref. 3). 

EPA is issuing this proposed rule in 

compliance with the Court’s order. 

Notably, the Court’s majority decision 

suggested that EPA had already 

determined that amending these 

regulations was necessary pursuant to 

TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2687). However, EPA 

stated in its 2009 petition response that 

‘‘the current hazard standards may not 

be sufficiently protective’’ (Ref. 24) 

(emphasis added). With regard to the 

definition of LBP, EPA had not even 

opined that the definition may not be 

sufficiently protective. Rather, 

throughout the litigation, EPA 

maintained that it would consider 

whether revision of the definition was 

appropriate. Also, the sufficiency of the 

standards was not at issue, as this 

mandamus petition was about timing, 

not substance and EPA had not 

previously conducted the analyses 

required to reach a conclusion under the 

statutory standard. It was not until EPA 

conducted its own analyses—during 

this rulemaking process—that it was in 

a position to express the preliminary 

conclusions that are set forward in this 

proposal. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to lower the DLHS 

for floors from 40 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2. 

EPA is proposing to lower the DLHS for 

window sills from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/ 

ft2. 

EPA is proposing no changes to the 

current definition of LBP due to 

insufficient information to support such 

a change. 

A. Dust-Lead Hazard Standards 

1. Approach for reviewing the dustlead hazard standards. As EPA 

explained in the 2001 hazard standards 

rulemaking (66 FR 1206, 1207), one of 

the underlying principles of Title X is 

to move the focus of public and private 

sector decision makers away from the 

mere presence of LBP, to the presence 

of LBP hazards, for which more 

substantive action should be undertaken 

to control exposures, especially to 

young children. Since there are many 

sources of lead exposure (e.g., air, water, 

diet, background levels of lead), and 

since, under TSCA Title IV, EPA may 

only account for risks associated with 

paint, dust and soil, EPA continues to 

believe that non-zero hazard standards 

are appropriate. 

Based on the language of sections 401, 

402, and 403 of TSCA and the purposes 

of Title X and its legislative history, 

EPA continues to believe that it is a 

reasonable exercise of its discretion to 

set hazard standards based on 

consideration of the potential for risk 

reduction and whether such actions are 

achievable, and with consideration 

given to the existing programs aimed at 

achieving such reductions. This 

proposal is informed by the 

achievability of these standards in 

relation to their application in lead risk 

reduction programs. These 

considerations will vary within different 

regulatory programs. 

In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule, EPA 

first determined the lowest candidate 

DLHS by using a 1–5% probability of an 

individual child developing a BLL of 10 

mg/dL. EPA then took a pragmatic 

approach by looking at numerous 

factors affected by the candidate 

standards and prioritized protection 

from the greatest lead risks so as not to 

dilute intervention resources. 

To develop this current proposal, EPA 

evaluated the relationship between 

dust-lead levels and children’s health, 

and considered the achievability of the 

DLHS given the relationship between 

standards established under TSCA 

section 403 and the application of those 

standards in lead risk reduction 

programs. Consistent with the 

establishment of the 2001 DLHS, EPA 

believes national standards are still an 

appropriate regulatory approach 

because they facilitate implementation 

and decrease uncertainty within the 

regulated community. For further 

information, see the LBP Hazards Rule 

(Ref. 4). 

EPA’s hazard standards should not be 

considered in isolation, but must be 

contemplated along with the Agency’s 

actions to address lead in other media. 

It is anticipated that this proposal, 

especially in conjunction with other 

federal actions on, would result in better 

health outcomes for children. As 

described elsewhere in this proposal, 

scientific advances made since the 

promulgation of the 2001 rule clearly 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
30894 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

demonstrate that exposure to low levels 

of lead result in adverse health effects. 

Moreover, since CDC has stated that no 

safe level of lead in blood has been 

identified, the reductions in children’s 

BLLs as a result of this rule would help 

reduce the risk of adverse cognitive and 

developmental effects in children. 

2. Technical Analyses and Standard 

Selection. The analyses that EPA 

developed to inform this regulation 

were specifically designed to model 

potential health risks that might accrue 

to the subpopulation, children living in 

pre-1940 and pre-1978 housing, 

impacted by this proposal and the 

specific regulatory decision under 

consideration (dust-lead hazard 

standards). As described in EPA’s 

Technical Support Document (TSD) that 

accompanies this proposal, EPA notes 

that 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. 5). 

When interpreting the results of 

Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic 

(IEUBK) modeling, it is important to 

recognize that the IEUBK was 

developed, calibrated and validated for 

site-specific risk assessments. The 

model and input parameters have been 

the subject of multiple Science Advisory 

Board Reviews, workshops and 

publications in the peer reviewed 

literature (Ref. 5). EPA’s Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (OCSPP) determined that 

adjustments to the input parameters 

used for site-specific evaluations would 

be desirable to better reflect 

considerations specific to this national 

rulemaking. OCSPP’s adjustments were 

made to support this rulemaking based 

on peer-reviewed data sources such as 

EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook and 

analysis for EPA’s Office of Water (Ref. 

5). While the agency believes that these 

adjustments are appropriate to support 

this rulemaking, this rulemaking and its 

supporting analyses should not be 

interpreted to recommend adjustments 

that vary from EPA’s Office of Land and 

Emergency Management’s IEUBK 

guidance for site-specific analyses. 

Reducing childhood lead exposure is 

an EPA priority, and today’s proposal is 

one component of EPA’s broad effort to 

reduce children’s exposure to lead. 

While no safe level of lead in blood has 

been identified (Ref. 7), 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. 

TSCA Section 403 required EPA to 

promulgate regulations that ‘‘identify 

. . . lead-based paint hazards, leadcontaminated dust, and leadcontaminated 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)). 

In the TSD, EPA models the risk of 

adverse health effects associated with 

lead dust exposures at differing 

potential candidate standards for dust 

levels (17 scenarios) in children living 

in pre-1940 and pre-1978 housing, as 

well as associated potential health 

effects in this subpopulation. Candidate 

standards that prioritize reducing floor 

dust loadings over sill dust loadings 

have the biggest impact on exposure 

because of the greater likelihood and 

magnitude of children’s exposure (floors 

take up more square footage of the 

housing unit and children spend more 

of their time in contact with the floor 

rather than the sills.) For example, a 

candidate standard of 40 mg/ft2 for floors 

and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills is likely 

to be less effective than a standard of 10 

or 20 mg/ft2 for floors and 250 mg/ft2 for 

window sills. 

EPA reported potential effects at the 

50th and 97.5th percentile of the 

affected subpopulation, and made 

comparisons with multiple metrics, in 

relation to the CDC reference level of 5 

mg/dL and the previous CDC level of 

concern of 10 mg/dL. Specifically, EPA 

evaluated which candidate dust-lead 

standards could approximate 97.5% of 

the modeled subpopulation of children 

being below the CDC reference level. 

EPA’s modeling showed that this value 

was only reached at background dustlead levels. However, modeling did 

show that at dust-lead levels of 10 mg/ 

ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 on floors and window 

sills, respectively, greater than 90% of 

the modeled children were below the 

CDC reference level, while at the current 

standards, about 80% of children were 

below this level. EPA feels more 

confident in potential health gains from 

candidate standards that compare 

favorably on multiple metrics. Outcome 

metrics and comparison values are 

summarized at tables 7–1 and 7–2 of the 

TSD. 

As expected, as the dust-lead levels 

were decreased, incremental decreases 

to BLL and adverse health effects were 

seen at all points below the current 

standard. Furthermore, the non-linear 

nature of the modeled relationships 

discussed in the TSD mean that greater 

changes were seen with greater 

incremental reductions and smaller 

changes were seen when changes were 

closer to the original dust-lead standard. 

These trends, in combination with the 

sources of uncertainty in the modeling 

(discussed in Chapter 8 of the TSD) and 

the fact that the uncertainty is 

propagated through the Economic 

Analysis (EA) that relies on the TSD, 

make it difficult to identify a clear cutpoint or a clear alternative for 

consideration. EPA does note, however, 

that the results of the EA show that in 

each of the scenarios examined the 

quantified benefits outweighed the 

quantified costs. In selecting a primary 

proposal, EPA considers that the HUD 

study shows that for many of the LHC 

grantees that use existing lead hazard 

control practices, dust-lead levels as low 

as 10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 on floors and 

window sills, respectively, were 

achievable. 

EPA is proposing standards of 10 mg/ 

ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for floors and window 

sills respectively. Based on the 

experiences of the LHC grantees EPA 

has tentatively concluded that the 

petitioned candidate standard of 10 mg/ 

ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ft2 on window 

sills is achievable. EPA also notes that 

all candidate standards evaluated in 

EPA’s economic analysis have positive 

net benefits and the petitioned 

candidate standard generally had the 

highest net benefits across the scenarios 

analyzed. In choosing the proposed 

standards, EPA gave significant weight 

to both the health outcomes identified 

in the TSD and technically 

achievability, since these standards will 

likely be applied in certain lead risk 

reduction programs, and considering 

achievability is consistent with the 

overall statutory goal of decreasing lead 

exposures to children. However, all 

standards more stringent than the 

current standard incrementally improve 

health outcomes above the existing 

standards, and the differences among 

candidate standards are small (see TSD 

Table 7–2). EPA notes that no non-zero 

lead level, including background, can be 

shown to eliminate health risk entirely, 

so it is appropriate for EPA to consider 

factors beyond health effects only in 

choosing the standard. Also, 

achievability itself is not a bright line 

concept; in general, as standards 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30895 

decrease, more and more target housing 

units will find it challenging to achieve 

dust lead levels below the standard. 

Practicability is an important 

component of achievability. 

While EPA is proposing standards of 

10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for floors and 

window sills respectively, EPA is 

encouraging public comment on the full 

range of candidate standards analyzed 

in the TSD as alternatives to the 

proposal, including the option not to 

change the current standard. EPA is also 

specifically requesting comment on an 

option that would reduce the floor dust 

standard but leave the sill dust standard 

unchanged (e.g., 20 mg/ft2 for floors and 

250 mg/ft2 for window sills, or 10 mg/ft2

for floors and 250 mg/ft2 for window 

sills), since reducing floor dust lead has 

the greatest impact on children’s health. 

Comments are also sought on EPA’s 

tentative conclusion that a standard of 

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

window sills is achievable, and what 

changes, if any, including laboratory 

analytic standard would be necessary to 

achieve that standard. EPA particularly 

welcomes data on the achievability of 

any of the candidate standards analyzed 

for this proposal. 

As mentioned in Unit I.D., EPA 

worked with HUD OLHCHH to survey 

the office’s LHC grantees to assess the 

achievability of candidate DLHS (Ref. 

11). Survey results showed that 

reductions in clearance levels to 10 mg/ 

ft2 of lead in floor dust and to 100 mg/ 

ft2 of lead in dust on window sills were 

shown to be technically achievable 

using existing cleaning practices. As 

explained in the survey final report, 

clearance testing results were collected 

from 1,552 housing units and included 

7,211 floor samples and 4,893 window 

sill samples. The data were analyzed to 

determine the percentage of samples 

cleared at or below various levels. For 

floors, 72% of samples showed dustlead levels at or below 5 mg/ft2, 85% 

were at or below 10 mg/ft2, 90% were at 

or below 15 mg/ft2, and 94% were at or 

below 20 mg/ft2. For window sills, 87% 

of samples showed dust-lead levels at or 

below 40 mg/ft2, 91% were at or below 

60 mg/ft2, 96% were at or below 80 mg/ 

ft2, and 97% were at or below 100 mg/ 

ft2 (Ref. 11). 

The specific purpose of the LHC 

programs is to assist ‘‘states, cities, 

counties/parishes, Native American 

Tribes, or other units of local 

government in undertaking 

comprehensive programs to identify and 

control lead-based paint hazards in 

eligible privately owned rental or 

owner-occupied housing populations.’’ 

(Ref. 25). Funded activities must be 

conducted by LBP certified individuals 

(Ref. 25). Since most of the LHC 

grantees use commercial firms in their 

area, HUD OLHCHH believes that the 

grantees are conducting a large 

percentage of these activities and are 

therefore representative of the regulated 

community. 

Ninety-eight of those grantees 

completed the survey, giving 

information from housing units in 

which lead hazard control activities 

took place from 2010 through 2012, for 

a total dataset of 1,552 housing units 

(Ref. 11). Of those housing units, 

‘‘[a]lmost half were detached single 

family homes, while less than 20% were 

apartments. Almost all were built before 

1960, and over three quarters before 

1940.’’ (Ref. 11). ‘‘The most common 

methods used included various types of 

cleaning as well as sealing of floors, 

[and] sills . . . Overlaying or replacing 

flooring . . . were less common. It was 

further found that the stated reductions 

in . . . standards for floors and sills are 

generally feasible using the more 

common methods (cleaning and sealing) 

exclusively.’’ (Ref. 11). 

Section 402(a) of TSCA requires EPA 

to promulgate regulations that ‘‘shall 

contain standards for performing leadbased paint activities, taking into 

account reliability, effectiveness, and 

safety.’’ To that end, as part of the Leadbased Paint Hazards Rule, EPA 

established clearance levels as ‘‘40 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and 250 mg/ft2 for window 

sills,’’ the same as the DLHS in that 

rulemaking. See 40 CFR 

745.227(e)(8)(viii). After conducting 

LBP abatements, EPA’s regulations 

require a certified inspector or risk 

assessor to sample the abated area. If the 

sample results show dust-lead loadings 

equal to or exceeding the applicable 

clearance level, ‘‘the components 

represented by the failed sample shall 

be recleaned and retested.’’ See 40 CFR 

745.227(e)(8)(vii). In other words, the 

abatement is not complete until the 

dust-lead loadings in the work area are 

below the clearance levels. 

EPA is not proposing to change the 

post-abatement clearance levels in 40 

CFR 745, subpart L today, but EPA 

recognizes that, in other lead regulatory 

programs, the DLHS are tightly linked to 

post-abatement clearance. As discussed 

elsewhere in this proposal, HUD uses 

the standards proposed here in their 

clearance regulations and lead hazard 

control grant requirements. EPA 

considered how this approach would 

impact partner agencies when 

evaluating candidate standards, and 

selected standards that accord with 

achievability studies and partner 

program implementation. While EPA is 

not proposing to change the clearance 

standards today, EPA does intend to 

review the clearance levels at a later 

date. 

In addition to ensuring that 

stakeholders can achieve the lower dustlead loadings proposed in this rule, it is 

important to assess whether those dustlead loadings are reliably detectable by 

laboratories. The National Lead 

Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NLLAP) is an EPA program that defines 

the minimum requirements and abilities 

that a laboratory must meet to attain 

EPA recognition as an accredited lead 

testing laboratory. EPA established 

NLLAP to recognize laboratories that 

demonstrate the ability to accurately 

analyze paint chips, dust, or soil 

samples for lead. If, as a result of 

lowering the DLHS, laboratories 

recognized by the NLLAP program were 

unable to accurately measure dust 

samples at those lower levels, then 

stakeholders would be unable to use 

those laboratories in conducting 

activities required by EPA’s LBP 

program. Notably, as mentioned 

elsewhere in this document, HUD has 

already required these lower dust-lead 

levels of their OLHCHH’s lead hazard 

control grantees in a recent policy 

guidance revision (Ref. 26). All the 

laboratories used by the approximately 

120 lead hazard control grantees (the 

number varies over time as grants begin 

and end) have established the required 

minimum reporting limit and minimum 

detection limit for the dust-lead 

loadings on floors and for window sills 

proposed today. EPA acknowledges that 

the laboratories used by OLHCHH’s lead 

hazard control grantees do not represent 

all of the laboratories accredited under 

EPA’s NLLAP program. In order to 

continue to be accredited if the DLHS 

for floors is reduced, all NLLAP 

laboratories will need to reach a 

reporting limit not greater than half of 

the level established (i.e., 5 mg/ft2 for a 

floor DLHS standard of 10 mg/ft2). 

However, given that 100% of the 

laboratories used by these grantees were 

using laboratories with reporting limit 

not greater 5 mg/ft2, there is no 

technological barrier to reducing the 

current standard to the petitioned 

candidate standard. The dust samples 

analyzed by the laboratories were 

collected by the grantees. A quantitative 

review of dust sampling results from 51 

grants where clearance was attempted in 

one of the housing units treated in the 

April 13, 2017, to May 14, 2018, period 

under each grant found that 80% (41) of 

the units passed floor clearance at 

HUD’s clearance level of <10 mg/ft2 for 

these grants on the first attempt. All 

units that failed floor clearance on the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
30896 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

first attempt passed on the second 

attempt. All (51) of the units passed the 

window sill clearance at the clearance 

level of < 100 mg/ft2 for these grants on 

the first attempt. The dust-lead sample 

analyses were conducted by a total of 28 

laboratories located in 24 states within 

a total of 12 laboratory firms. The grants 

were awarded to 49 state or local 

governments in 16 states (Ref. 27). 

In consideration of the factors 

discussed in this preamble, EPA is 

proposing to change 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 recognizes that this 

rulemaking does not address all hazards 

presented by lead. The DLHS alone 

cannot solve the lead problem. They are 

part of a broader program designed to 

educate the public and raise public 

awareness, empower and protect 

consumers, and provide helpful 

technical information that professionals 

can use to identify and control lead 

hazards. 

In 2001, EPA concluded that 

standards that are too stringent may 

afford less protection to these children 

by diluting the resources available to 

address hazards in these communities. 

While EPA recognizes that BLLs have 

declined since the promulgation of the 

2001 rule and that mitigation costs per 

child are generally low (see Refs. 8, 12, 

and 28), this concept is still applicable 

given BLL trends today. As described in 

the Key Federal Programs to Reduce 

Childhood Lead Exposures and 

Eliminate Associated Health Impacts 

document, national data suggest 

disparities persist among communities 

due to factors such as race, ethnicity, 

and income (Ref. 17). In 2013–2016, the 

95th percentile BLL of children ages 1 

to 5 years in families with incomes 

below poverty level was 3.0 mg/dL 

(median is 0.9 mg/dL,) and among those 

in families at or above the poverty level 

it was 2.1 mg/dL (median is 0.7 mg/dL), 

a difference that is statistically 

significant. In 2011–2014, 2.2% of 

children in families below the poverty 

level had a BLL at or above 5 mg/dL, 

compared to 0.6% of children in 

families at or above the poverty level. 

The 97.5th percentile in 2013–2016 is 

3.3 mg/dL, a slight decrease from the 

value for 2011–2014 (Ref. 28). 

EPA is proposing these new standards 

to complement other federal actions 

aimed at reducing lead exposures for all 

children. EPA also believes that the 

standards would continue to inform 

where intervention resources should be 

directed for children with higher 

exposures. These are the lowest levels 

that EPA believes are reliably achievable 

using existing lead-hazard control 

practices and that are aligned with the 

clearance levels required under certain 

HUD grant programs. As such, these 

levels provide greater uniformity across 

the federal government than the other 

options considered and provide 

consistency for the regulated and public 

health communities. EPA is requesting 

comment on the achievability and 

appropriateness of the proposed DLHS. 

EPA also seeks comment on other levels 

that are described and evaluated in the 

TSD (Ref. 5) and the EA (Ref. 12), 

including taking comment on keeping 

the DLHS at the current levels. 

4. Effect of this change on EPA and 

HUD Programs. a. EPA Risk 

Assessments. As stated earlier in this 

preamble, EPA’s risk assessment work 

practice standards provide the basis for 

risk assessors to determine whether LBP 

hazards are present in target housing 

and COFs. As part of a risk assessment, 

dust samples are taken from floors and 

window sills to determine if dust-lead 

levels exceed the hazard standards. 

Results of the sampling, among other 

things, are documented in a risk 

assessment report which is required 

under the LBP Activities Rule (Ref. 18). 

In addition to the sampling results, the 

report must describe the location and 

severity of any dust-lead hazards found 

and describe interim controls or 

abatement measures needed to address 

the hazards. Under this proposed rule, 

risk assessors would compare dust 

sampling results for floors and window 

sills to the new, lower DLHS. Sampling 

results above the new hazard standard 

would indicate that a dust-lead hazard 

is present on the surfaces tested. EPA 

expects that this would result in more 

hazards being identified in a portion of 

target housing and COFs that undergo 

risk assessments. The proposed rule 

does not change any other risk 

assessment requirements. 

b. EPA–HUD Disclosure Rule. Under 

the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 6), 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. 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 or LBP 

hazards must be disclosed, including 

results from dust sampling regardless of 

whether the level of dust lead is below 

the hazard standard. For this reason, a 

lower hazard standard would not result 

in more information being disclosed 

because property owners would already 

be disclosing results that show dust-lead 

below 40 mg/ft2 on floors or below 250 

mg/ft2 on window sills. However, a 

lower hazard standard may prompt a 

different response on the lead disclosure 

form, i.e., that a lead-based paint hazard 

is present rather than not, which would 

occur when a dust-lead level is below 

the current standard but at or above a 

lower final standard. 

c. Renovation, Repair and Painting 

(RRP) Rule. To avoid confusion about 

the applicability of this proposed rule, 

EPA notes that revising the DLHS will 

not trigger new requirements under the 

existing RRP Rule. The existing RRP 

work practices are required where LBP 

is present (or assumed to be present), 

and are not predicated on dust-lead 

loadings exceeding the hazard 

standards. The existing RRP regulations 

do not require dust sampling prior to or 

at the conclusion of a renovation and, 

therefore, will not be directly affected 

by a change to the DLHS. 

d. HUD Requirements for Federallyassisted or Federally-owned housing. 

Under sections 1012 and 1013 of Title 

X, HUD established LBP hazard 

notification, evaluation, and reduction 

requirements for certain pre-1978 HUDassisted and federally-owned target 

housing, known as the Lead Safe 

Housing Rule (LSHR). See 24 CFR 35, 

subparts B–R. The programs covered by 

these requirements range from 

supportive housing services to 

foreclosed HUD-insured single-family 

insured housing to public housing. For 

programs where hazard evaluation is 

required, the DLHS provide criteria to 

risk assessors for identifying LBP 

hazards in residences covered by these 

programs. For programs that require 

abatement of LBP hazards, the DLHS are 

used to identify residences that contain 

dust-lead hazards as part of determining 

where abatement will be necessary. 

e. HUD Guidelines. The HUD 

Guidelines for the Evaluation and 

Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 

Housing were developed in 1995 under 

section 1017 of Title X. They provide 

detailed, comprehensive, technical 

information on how to identify LBP 

hazards in residential housing and 

COFs, and how to control such hazards 

safely and efficiently. The Guidelines 

were revised in 2012 to incorporate new 

information, technological advances, 

and new Federal regulations, including 

EPA’s LBP hazard standards. If EPA 

were to finalize changes in the DLHS, 

HUD would plan to revise Chapter 5 of 

the Guidelines on risk assessment and 

Chapter 15 on clearance based on those 

changes. 

f. LSHR Clearance Requirements. 

While this proposed rule would not 

change the clearance levels under EPA’s 

regulations, it would have the effect of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30897 

changing the clearance levels that apply 

to hazard reduction activities under 

HUD’s LSHR. 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. Clearance testing of abatements 

and non-abatements is required by 24 

CFR 35.1340(a) and (b), respectively. 

The LSHR’s clearance regulations 

cross-reference different regulatory 

provisions to establish clearance levels 

for abatements than for non-abatement 

activities. The LSHR clearance 

regulations for both abatements and 

non-abatement activities, at 24 CFR 

35.1340(d), cross-reference the 

standards, at 24 CFR 35.1320(b), to be 

used by risk assessors for conducting 

clearance; in turn, the standards at 24 

CFR 35.1320(b) cross-reference EPA’s 

DLHS at 40 CFR 745.227(h). In addition, 

the LSHR clearance regulations for 

abatements, at 24 CFR 35.1340(a), which 

set forth that clearance must be 

performed in accordance with EPA 

regulations, cross-reference EPA’s 

clearance standards for abatements at 40 

CFR 745.227(e). Currently, the EPA’s 

DLHS and dust-lead clearance standards 

for abatements are the same, so crossreferencing different EPA regulatory 

provisions, at 40 CFR 745.227(e) and 

(h), has had no effect on hazard 

reduction activities under the LSHR. 

The LSHR clearance regulations for 

non-abatement activities, at 24 CFR 

35.1340(b) do not cross-reference EPA’s 

clearance standards at 40 CFR 

745.227(e). Only EPA’s DLHS at 40 CFR 

745.227(h) are referenced at 24 CFR 

1340(d) as the clearance standards for 

non-abatement activities, because EPA 

does not have its own clearance 

standards for them. Accordingly, if this 

rule is finalized as proposed, nonabatement activities under the LSHR 

would continue to be cleared using the 

EPA’s DLHS. 

EPA’s LBP activities regulations on 

work practice requirements, at 40 CFR 

745.65(d), specify that clearance 

requirements applicable to LBP hazard 

evaluation and hazard reduction 

activities are found in both the LSHR, at 

24 CFR 35, subpart R, and EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 745, subpart L. 

For abatements covered by both 

agencies’ regulations, the LSHR 

regulations, at 24 CFR 35.145 and 

35.1340(a), require clearance levels 

following abatement of LBP or LBP 

hazards to be at least as protective as 

EPA’s clearance levels for abatements at 

40 CFR 745.227(e). 

If this rule is finalized as proposed, 

EPA’s resultant DLHS would be lower 

than EPA’s clearance standards for 

abatements, and according to HUD, 

abatements under HUD’s LSHR would 

be cleared using the EPA’s DLHS. 

B. The Definition of Lead-Based Paint 

As noted in Unit II.D., EPA has 

neither opined nor concluded that the 

definition of LBP may not be 

sufficiently protective. In response to 

the administrative petition (Ref. 24) and 

throughout the litigation, EPA 

maintained that it would consider 

whether revision to the definition of 

LBP was appropriate. The definition of 

LBP is incorporated throughout EPA’s 

LBP regulations, and application of this 

definition is central to how EPA’s LBP 

program functions. EPA believes that 

accounting for feasibility and health 

effects would be appropriate when 

considering a revision. Given the 

current, significant data gaps presented 

below and the new approaches that 

would need to be devised to address 

them, EPA lacks sufficient information 

to conclude that the current definition 

requires revision or to support any 

specific proposed change to the 

definition of LBP. EPA is requesting 

comment on this proposal, and 

especially on any new available data on 

the technical feasibility of a revised 

definition of LBP or analysis of the 

relationship between levels of lead in 

paint, dust and risk of adverse health 

effects. 

1. Scope and applicability of the 

definition of lead-based paint. The 

definition of LBP reviewed in this 

proposal supports the LBP activities 

regulations, Disclosure regulations, and 

the RRP regulations, and currently 

applies to target housing and COFs. The 

definition of LBP helps LBP inspectors 

identify where LBP may be located, and 

helps risk assessors identify where LBP 

hazards are located and where LBP 

activities may be appropriate. It is the 

definition lessors and sellers must 

consider when disclosing LBP 

information about their properties, and 

it is the definition renovators must 

consider when evaluating applicability 

of the RRP program. 

2. Limitations of the Definition of 

Lead-Based Paint. The definition of LBP 

is intended to identify LBP for the 

purposes of Title X and TSCA Title IV. 

This definition should not be used to 

identify paint that poses a risk of lead 

exposure, as risks are dependent on a 

number of factors. If one chooses to 

apply the definition of LBP to situations 

beyond the scope of Title X, care must 

be taken to ensure that the action taken 

in such settings is appropriate to the 

circumstances presented. 

3. Analyses needed to evaluate 

whether a revision to the definition of 

LBP is appropriate. Evaluating whether 

revising the definition of LBP is 

appropriate requires analyzing levels of 

lead in paint that are lower than what 

was examined previously by EPA and 

other federal agencies. More information 

is needed to establish a statistically 

valid causal relationship between 

concentrations of lead in paint (lower 

than the current definition) and dustlead loadings which cause lead 

exposure. Additionally, it is important 

to understand how capabilities among 

various LBP testing technology would 

be affected under a possible revision to 

the definition. 

a. Relationship among lead in paint, 

environmental conditions, and 

exposure. EPA would need to further 

explore the availability and application 

of statistical modeling approaches that 

establish robust linkages between the 

concentration of lead in paint below the 

current definition and floor dust and 

BLL before EPA could develop a 

technically supportable proposal to 

revise the definition of LBP. To that 

end, EPA is coordinating with HUD to 

evaluate available data and approaches. 

Efforts suggest that most available 

empirical data and modeling 

approaches are only applicable at or 

above the current LBP definition (0.5% 

and 1 mg/cm2). It should be noted that 

EPA developed a model to estimate 

lead-based dust loadings from 

renovation activities in various 

renovation scenarios in 2014 and a 

similar model was developed in 2011 by 

Cox et al. However, the underlying data 

that supported EPA’s 2014 model for 

LBP was EPA’s 2007 dust study, which 

included concentrations of lead in paint 

ranging from 0.8% to 13% by weight. 

The data that supported Cox et al. 2011 

ranged from 0.7 to 13.2 mg/cm2

(converted to approximately 0.6% to 

31% by weight) of lead in paint (Ref. 29) 

(Ref. 30) (Ref. 31). Given the range of 

concentrations that support these 

models are well above the petitioners’ 

requested concentration of lead in paint, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
30898 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

there would be significant uncertainty 

associated with using these models to 

make predictions regarding lead in paint 

at concentrations an order of magnitude 

below the current definition. 

EPA has conducted a preliminary 

literature search for studies that coreport lead concentrations in paint and 

dust in order to identify available data 

to support modeling approaches (Ref. 

29). Among other things, EPA is looking 

to the literature to establish statistically 

valid associations between LBP and lead 

in dust. If such an association, 

appropriate for applications 

contemplating lead in paint at low 

concentrations, is found, EPA could use 

such information to estimate 

concentrations of lead in paint and 

household dust. Alternatively, EPA 

would likely need to consider 

generation of new data if data or 

modeling approaches are not identified, 

since, as discussed elsewhere in this 

document, EPA believes there is 

significant uncertainty associated with 

estimating dust-lead loadings for levels 

of lead in paint up to an order of 

magnitude lower than levels in the 

current definition using the existing 

models (Ref. 29), Cox et al. (Ref. 30). 

EPA expects to need to develop an 

approach to estimate dust-lead from 

lower levels of lead in paint so that EPA 

could estimate incremental blood lead 

changes and associated health effects 

changes as described in the existing 

dust-lead approach. This may involve 

conducting laboratory or field studies to 

characterize the relationship between 

LBP and dust-lead at lower levels of 

lead in paint (<0.5%) (Ref. 29). 

b. Feasibility. EPA lacks sufficient 

information to support a change to the 

definition of LBP with respect to 

feasibility. Significant data gaps prevent 

the Agency from evaluating and 

subsequently determining that a change 

to the existing definition is warranted. 

For instance, it is currently unknown 

whether portable field technologies 

utilized in EPA’s LBP activities and RRP 

programs, as well as HUD’s LSHR, 

perform reliably at significantly lower 

concentrations of lead in paint. 

Portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) 

LBP analyzers are the primary analytical 

method for inspections and risk 

assessments in housing because they 

can be used to quickly, nondestructively and inexpensively 

determine if LBP is present on many 

surfaces. These measurements do not 

require destructive sampling or paint 

removal. Renovation firms may also hire 

inspectors or risk assessors to conduct 

XRF testing to identify the presence of 

LBP. When using XRF technology, the 

instrument exposes the substrate being 

tested to electromagnetic radiation in 

the form of X-rays or gamma radiation. 

In response to radiation, the lead 

present in the substrate emits energy at 

a fixed and characteristic level. The 

emission is called ‘‘X-Ray 

Fluorescence,’’ or XRF (Ref. 32). 

XRF Performance Characteristic 

Sheets (PCS) have been developed by 

HUD and/or EPA for most commercially 

available XRF analyzers (XRFs). In order 

to comport with the HUD Guidelines for 

the Evaluation and Control of LeadBased Paint Hazards in Housing, an XRF 

instrument that is used for testing paint 

in target housing or pre-1978 COFs must 

have a HUD-issued XRF PCS. XRFs 

must be used in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions and the 

PCS. The PCS contains information 

about XRF readings taken on specific 

substrates, calibration check tolerances, 

interpretation of XRF readings, and 

other aspects of the model’s 

performance. For every XRF analyzer 

evaluated by EPA and/or HUD, the PCS 

defines acceptable operating 

specifications and procedures. The 

ranges where XRF results are positive, 

negative or inconclusive for LBP, the 

calibration check tolerances, and other 

important information needed to ensure 

accurate results are also included in the 

PCS. An inspector and risk assessor 

must follow the XRF PCS for all LBP 

activities, and only devices with a 

posted PCS may be used for LBP 

inspections and risk assessments (Ref. 

32). 

XRF analyzers and their 

corresponding PCS sheets were 

developed to be calibrated with the 

current definition of LBP. Therefore, 

these instruments would need to be reevaluated to determine the capabilities 

of each instrument model available on 

the market to meet a potentially revised 

definition of LBP, and the 

corresponding PCS sheet would need to 

be amended accordingly. If, as a result 

of a revision to the definition of LBP, 

the use of XRFs suddenly became 

unavailable, the effectiveness of the LBP 

activities regulations would be severely 

harmed. Since these instruments are the 

primary analytical method for 

inspections and risk assessments 

performed pursuant to the LBP activities 

regulations, EPA would need to 

understand how a potential revision to 

the definition of LBP would affect the 

ability of the regulated community to 

use this technology. 

When conducting renovations, 

contractors must determine whether or 

not their project will involve LBP, and 

thus fall under the scope of the RRP 

regulations under 40 CFR 745, subpart 

E, or in certain jurisdictions, authorized 

State and Indian Tribal programs under 

subpart Q (see Unit III.C). Under the 

RRP rule, renovators have the flexibility 

to choose among four strategies: Use (1) 

a lead test kit, (2) an XRF instrument, (3) 

paint chip sampling to indicate whether 

LBP is present; or (4) assume that LBP 

is present and follow all the workpractice requirements. For those using 

lead test kits, only test kits recognized 

by the EPA can be used for this purpose. 

EPA-recognized lead test kits used for 

the RRP program were evaluated 

through EPA’s Environmental 

Technology Verification (ETV) Program 

or by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology. ETV was a publicprivate partnership between EPA and 

nonprofit testing and evaluation 

organizations that verified the 

performance of innovative technologies. 

ETV evaluated the reliability of the 

technology used for on-site testing of 

LBP at the regulated level, under 

controlled conditions in a laboratory. 

ETV ended operations in early 2014. 

EPA would need to evaluate lead test 

kits using ETV-equivalent testing for a 

potential revision of the definition of 

LBP. This would allow EPA to evaluate 

the reliability of test kits for testing LBP 

under controlled conditions at levels 

lower than the current LBP definition, 

so contractors can continue to use this 

important tool in compliance with the 

RRP regulations. 

The regulated community uses XRF 

analyzers for inspections and risk 

assessments, and lead test kits to 

determine the presence of LBP during 

renovations. In consideration of any 

potential revised definition of LBP, EPA 

would need to fully understand the 

repercussions of such a revision on 

these portable field technologies in 

order to ensure the technological 

feasibility of any new revision. The 

methods EPA would need to employ to 

do so would involve complex processes 

that include evaluating the potential 

ability of XRF analyzers to detect LBP 

at lower levels than the current 

definition, the ability to recalibrate PCS 

sheets for each available model of XRF 

analyzer, and re-evaluating lead test kits 

under controlled conditions in a 

laboratory. EPA currently lacks 

sufficient information to support such 

an undertaking. 

C. State Authorization 

Pursuant to TSCA section 404, a 

provision was made for interested 

States, territories and Tribes to 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 Agency’s program 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30899 

and provides adequate enforcement. 

The regulations applicable to State, 

territorial and Tribal programs are 

codified at 40 CFR 745, subpart Q. As 

part of the authorization process, States, 

territories and Tribes must demonstrate 

to EPA that they meet the requirements 

of the LBP Activities Rule. Over time, 

the Agency may make changes to these 

requirements. To address the changes 

proposed in this rule and future changes 

to the LBP Activities Rule, the Agency 

is proposing to require States, territories 

and Tribes to demonstrate that they 

meet any new requirements imposed by 

this rulemaking. The Agency is 

proposing to provide States, territories 

and Tribes up to two years to 

demonstrate that their programs include 

any new requirements that EPA may 

promulgate. A State, territory or Tribe 

would have to indicate that it meets the 

requirements of the LBP Activities 

program in its application for 

authorization or, if already authorized, a 

report it submits 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 

Tribe must demonstrate that it meets the 

new requirements by either 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. The Agency believes 

that the proposed requirements allow 

sufficient time for States, territories and 

Tribes to demonstrate that their 

programs contain requirements at least 

as protective as any new requirements 

that EPA may promulgate. 

IV. Request for Comment 

EPA is requesting comment on its 

proposal to lower the DLHS for floor 

dust to 10 mg/ft2 and for window sill 

dust to 100 mg/ft2. EPA is requesting 

comment on the achievability and 

appropriateness of the proposed DLHS 

in these ranges. EPA is requesting 

comments on all aspects of this 

proposal, including all options 

presented in the EA and the TSD that 

accompanies this proposal. EPA is 

requesting comment on whether it has 

properly characterized the 

neurodevelopmental effects of lead in 

children. EPA specifically requests 

additional studies that support the 

quantification and monetization of these 

neurodevelopmental effects in the 

Agency’s analyses. EPA also seeks 

comment on four other alternatives 

discussed in the EA, including 

maintaining the DLHS at the current 

levels. 

EPA is proposing no changes to the 

definition of LBP due to insufficient 

information to support such a change. 

EPA is requesting comment on this 

proposal to make no change to the 

definition of LBP. 

EPA is requesting comment on its 

proposal to provide States, territories 

and Tribes up to two years to 

demonstrate that their programs include 

any new requirements that EPA may 

promulgate. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

methods, models and data used in the 

EA and the TSD that accompany this 

proposal. (1) The agency provided a 

preliminary assessment of how this 

hazard standard may potentially affect 

other units in target housing and child 

occupied facilities in the Appendix B of 

the Economic Analysis. The agency is 

seeking information—e.g., data, 

scholarly articles—that will allow the 

agency to refine this assessment and 

determine whether the effect on the 

target housing and child occupied 

facilities should be included in the 

primary benefit and cost estimates 

presented in the analysis. (2) The 

agency is seeking information that will 

allow the agency to refine their current 

approach on assessing uncertainties 

associated with the benefit and cost 

estimates. (See page ES–8 of the 

Executive Summary of the EA for more 

specific requests). 

In addition to the areas on which EPA 

has specifically requested comment, 

EPA requests comment on all other 

aspects of this proposed rule. 

V. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. Public Law 102–550, Title X—Housing and 

Community Development Act, enacted 

October 28, 1992 (also known as the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992 or ‘‘Title X’’) (42 

U.S.C. 4851 et seq.). 

2. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit. A Community Voice v. EPA, No. 

16–72816, Opinion. December 27, 2017. 

3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit. A Community Voice v. EPA, No. 

16–72816, Order. March 26, 2018. 

4. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) 

(FRL–6763–5). 

5. 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 2018. 

6. 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). 

7. CDC. CDC Response to Advisory 

Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning 

Prevention Recommendations in ‘‘Low 

Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A 

Renewed Call of Primary Prevention.’’ 

June 7, 2012. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ 

lead/acclpp/cdc_response_lead_

exposure_recs.pdf. 

8. CDC. Blood Lead Levels in Children Aged 

1–5 Years—United States, 1999–2010. 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

Vol. 62 No. 13, April 5, 2013. https://

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/ 

mm6213.pdf. 

9. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) 

for Lead (Final Report, Jul 2013). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–10/075F, 

2013. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=255721. 

10. HHS, National Toxicology Program. NTP 

Monograph: Health Effects of Low-Level 

Lead. 2012. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ 

ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographheal

theffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf. 

11. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. Lead Hazard Control 

Clearance Survey. October 2015. https:// 

www.hud.gov/sites/documents/ 

CLEARANCESURVEY_24OCT15.PDF. 

12. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. Economic Analysis of the 

Proposed Rule to Revise the TSCA Dustlead Hazard Standards. June 2018. 

13. CDC. Lead Poisoning in Children 

(February 2011). https://www.cdc.gov/ 

healthcommunication/toolstemplates/ 

entertainmented/tips/LeadPoisoning

Children.html. 

14. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, Division of Toxicology and 

Human Health Sciences. Lead— 

ToxFAQsTM CAS #7439–92–1, August 

24, 2016. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

toxfaqs/tfacts13.pdf. 

15. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook Chapter 

5 Soil and Dust Ingestion (2017 update). 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252. 

16. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., 

& Brown, J. (2017). Children’s Lead 

Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling 

Analysis to Guide Public Health 

Decision-Making. Environmental Health 

Perspectives, 125(9), 097009–097009. 

https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605. 

17. 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://


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
30900 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

ptfceh.niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/ 

files/key_federal_programs_to_reduce_

childhood_lead_exposures_and_

eliminate_associated_health_

impactspresidents_508.pdf. 

18. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based 

Paint Activities in Target Housing and 

Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 

29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 

19. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) 

(FRL–8355–7). 

20. EPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out 

and Recordkeeping Provisions in the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(75 FR 24802, May 6, 2010) (FRL–8823– 

7). 

21. EPA. Lead; Clearance and Clearance 

Testing Requirements for the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL– 

8881–8). 

22. 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). 

23. Sierra Club et al. Letter to Lisa Jackson 

RE: Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding 

the Paint and Dust Lead Standards. 

August 10, 2009. 

24. EPA. Letter in response to citizen petition 

under section 553(e) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553(e)). October 22, 2009. 

25. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. Lead-Based Paint 

Hazard Reduction. FR–6200–N–12. 

Section I.A.1. June 19, 2018. https://

www.hud.gov/program_offices/spm/ 

gmomgmt/grantsinfo/fundingopps/ 

fy18lbphr. 

26. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. OLHCHH Policy 

Guidance 2017–01 Rev 1. Revised DustLead Action Levels for Risk Assessment 

and Clearance. February 16, 2017. 

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/ 

LeadDustLevels_rev1.pdf. 

27. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. First-Round Clearance 

Results from Sample of Grants Active as 

of April 13, 2017. May 24, 2018. 

28. CDC, National Center for Health 

Statistics. National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey: Questionnaires, 

Datasets, and Related Documentation. 

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ 

Default.aspx. Accessed May 30, 2018. 

29. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. Definition of Lead-Based Paint 

Considerations. June 2018. 

30. Cox et al. (2011). Improving the 

Confidence Level in Lead Clearance 

Examination Results through 

Modifications to Dust Sampling 

Protocols. Journal of ASTM 

International, Vol. 8, No. 8. https://

doi.org/10.1520/JAI103469. 

31. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. Revised Final Report on 

Characterization of Dust Lead Levels 

After Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities. November 13, 2007. https://

www.epa.gov/lead/revised-final-reportcharacterization-dust-lead-levels-afterrenovation-repair-and-painting. 

32. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. Guidelines for the 

Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards in Housing. Second 

Edition, July 2012. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

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. 12). 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). Details 

on the estimated costs of this proposed 

rule can be found in EPA’s analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. 

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 35, subpart A and 40 CFR 745, 

subpart F, sellers and lessors must 

already provide purchasers or lessees 

any available records or reports 

‘‘pertaining to’’ LBP, LBP hazards and/ 

or any lead hazard evaluative reports 

available to the seller or lessor. 

Accordingly, a seller or lessor must 

disclose any reports showing dust-lead 

levels, regardless of the value. Thus, this 

action would not result in additional 

disclosures. Because there are no new 

information collection requirements to 

consider under the proposed rule, or 

any changes to the existing 

requirements that might impact existing 

ICR burden estimates, additional OMB 

review and approval under the PRA is 

not necessary. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In 

making this determination, the impact 

of concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities. The 

small entities subject to the 

requirements of this action are small 

businesses that are lessors of residential 

buildings and dwellings (who may incur 

costs for lead hazard reduction 

measures in compliance with the HUD 

Lead Safe Housing Rule or 

environmental investigations triggered 

by a child with an EBLL); residential 

remodelers (who may incur costs 

associated with additional cleaning and 

sealing in houses undergoing 

rehabilitation subject to the HUD LeadSafe Housing Rule) and abatement firms 

(who may also incur costs associated 

with additional cleaning and sealing). 

The Agency has determined that this 

rule would impact 39,000 to 44,000 

small businesses; 38,000 to 42,000 have 

cost impacts less than 1% of revenues, 

1,000 to 2,000 have impacts between 

1% and 3%, and approximately 100 

have impacts greater than 3% of 

revenues. Details of the analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action are presented in the EA, 

which is available in the docket (Ref. 

12). 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

total estimated annual cost of the 

proposed rule is $66 million to $119 

million per year (Ref. 12), which does 

not exceed the inflation-adjusted 

unfunded mandate threshold of $154 

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 DLHS at least as protective as the 

standards at 40 CFR 745.227. However, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30901 

authorized States are under no 

obligation to continue to administer the 

LBP Activities program, and if they do 

not wish to adopt new DLHS 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). Tribes that have authorized LBP 

Activities programs must demonstrate 

that they have DLHS at least as 

protective as the standards at 40 CFR 

745.227. However, authorized Tribes are 

under no obligation to continue to 

administer the LBP Activities program, 

and if they do not wish to adopt new 

DLHS they can relinquish their 

authorization. In the absence of a Tribal 

authorization, EPA will administer 

these requirements. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the 

environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

(Ref. 5) 

The primary purpose of this rule is to 

reduce exposure to dust-lead hazards in 

target housing where children reside 

and in target housing or COFs. EPA’s 

analysis indicates that there will be 

approximately 78,000 to 252,000 

children affected by the rule (Ref. 12). 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Target 

housing, Child-occupied facility, 

Housing renovation, Lead, Lead 

poisoning, Lead-based paint, 

Renovation, Hazardous substances. 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, 

subchapter R, is proposed to be 

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. In § 745.65 paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 745.65 Lead-based paint hazards. 

* * * * * 

(b) Dust-lead hazard. A dust-lead 

hazard is surface dust in a residential 

dwelling or child-occupied facility that 

contains a mass-per-area concentration 

of lead equal to or exceeding 10 mg/ft2

on floors or 100 mg/ft2 on interior 

window sills based on wipe samples. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 745.227 paragraph (h)(3)(i) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 745.227 Work practice standards for 

conducting lead-based paint activities: 

Target housing and child-occupied facilities 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) In a residential dwelling on floors 

and interior window sills when the 

weighted arithmetic mean lead loading 

for all single surface or composite 

samples of floors and interior window 

sills are equal to or greater than 10 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for interior 

window sills, respectively; 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 745.325 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 745.325 Lead-based paint activities: 

State and Tribal program requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) Revisions to lead-based paint 

activities program requirements. When 

EPA publishes in the Federal Register 

revisions to the lead-based paint 

activities program requirements 

contained in subpart L of this part: 

(1) A State or Tribe with a lead-based 

paint activities program approved before 

the effective date of the revisions to the 

lead-based paint activities program 

requirements in subpart L of this part 

must demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements of this section in a report 

that it submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) 

but no later than 2 years after the 

effective date of the revisions. 

(2) A State or Tribe with an 

application for approval of a lead-based 

paint activities program submitted but 

not approved before the effective date of 

the revisions to the lead-based paint 

activities program requirements in 

subpart L of this part must demonstrate 

that it meets the requirements of this 

section either by amending its 

application or in a report that it submits 

pursuant to § 745.324(h) of this part but 

no later than 2 years after the effective 

date of the revisions. 

(3) A State or Tribe submitting its 

application for approval of a lead-based 

paint activities program on or after the 

effective date of the revisions must 

demonstrate in its application that it 

meets the requirements of the new leadbased paint activities program 

requirements in subpart L of this part. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14094 Filed 6–29–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 5, 73, and 74 

[MB Docket No. 18–121; FCC 18–61] 

Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 5, 73, and 74 

of the Commission’s Rules Regarding 

Posting of Station Licenses and 

Related Information 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on 

whether to streamline or eliminate 

provisions of our regulation which 

require the posting and maintenance of 

broadcast licenses and related 

information in specific locations. The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

these licenses posting rules should be 

eliminated because they are redundant 

and obsolete now that licensing 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS