89416 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0231; FRL–8524–02– 

OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK91 

Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: As part of EPA’s high-priority 

efforts to reduce childhood lead 

exposure, and in accordance with a U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

2021 opinion, EPA is finalizing its 

proposal to lower the dust-lead hazard 

standards to any reportable level as 

analyzed by a laboratory recognized by 

EPA’s National Lead Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NLLAP). EPA’s 

lead-based paint (LBP) regulations do 

not compel property owners or 

occupants to evaluate their property for 

LBP hazards or to take control actions, 

but if a LBP activity such as an 

abatement is performed, then EPA’s 

regulations set requirements for doing 

so. EPA is also finalizing changes to 

lower the post-abatement dust-lead 

clearance levels to 5 micrograms per 

square foot (mg/ft2), 40 mg/ft2, and 100 

mg/ft2 for floors, window sills and 

troughs respectively, the current levels 

in New York City. Due to feedback from 

public comments, EPA is also finalizing 

changes to the nomenclature to adopt 

the terms dust-lead reportable levels 

(DLRL) and dust-lead action levels 

(DLAL). Given the decoupling of the 

action levels from the reportable levels, 

EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

definition of abatement so that the 

recommendation for action based on 

dust-lead applies when dust-lead 

loadings are at or above the action 

levels, rather than the hazard standards, 

as has been the case historically. The 

dust-lead hazard standards will be 

described as DLRL moving forward (i.e., 

after publication of this final rule) and 

the dust-lead clearance levels will be 

described as DLAL. Additionally, EPA 

is finalizing several other amendments, 

including revising the definition of 

target housing to conform with the 

statute. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 13, 2025. The incorporation by 

reference of certain material listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of January 13, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0231, is 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additional 

information about dockets generally, 

along with instructions for visiting the 

docket in-person, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information: Claire 

Brisse, Existing Chemicals Risk 

Management Division (7404M), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

564–9004; email address: brisse.claire@

epa.gov. 

For general information on lead: The 

National Lead Information Center, 422 

South Clinton Avenue, Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (800) 424– 

LEAD [5323]; online form: https://

www.epa.gov/lead/forms/lead-hotlinenational-lead-information-center. 

For general information on TSCA: The 

TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

For hearing- or speech-impaired 

assistance: Persons may reach the 

telephone numbers for the contacts 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

Telecommunications Relay Service at 

711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be affected by this action if 

you conduct LBP activities in 

accordance with 40 CFR 745.227; if you 

operate a training program required to 

be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225; if 

you are a firm or individual who must 

be certified to conduct LBP activities or 

renovations in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.226; or if you own, manage, and/or 

conduct abatement, rehabilitations or 

maintenance activities in most pre-1978 

housing that is covered by a Federal 

housing assistance program in 

accordance with 24 CFR part 35. You 

may also be impacted by this rule if you 

administer the LBP activities program in 

States, territories, or Tribes that are 

authorized by EPA to operate their own 

lead abatement programs (40 CFR part 

745, subpart Q) (see Unit V.A. for more 

information). You may also be affected 

by this action if you operate a laboratory 

that is recognized by EPA’s National 

Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program 

in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90, 

745.223, 745.227, and 745.327. You may 

also be affected by this action, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 745.107 and 24 

CFR 35.88, as the seller or lessor of 

target housing, which is most pre-1978 

housing. See 40 CFR 745.103 and 24 

CFR 35.86. You may also be affected by 

this action if you are a resident of target 

housing, even if you would not be 

subject to the requirements of this 

action. Due to the change in the 

definition of ‘‘target housing,’’ you may 

also be affected if you are a firm or 

individual who must be certified to 

perform renovations in target housing or 

child-occupied facilities (COFs) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart E. 

The following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Affected 

entities may include: 

• Building construction (NAICS code 

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

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers). 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

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

air-conditioning contractors, painting, 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass, and glazing 

contractors). 

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

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers, and property owners, as well 

as those property owners that receive 

assistance through Federal housing 

programs). 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

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

schools with kindergarten classrooms). 

• Other technical and trade schools 

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

providers). 

• Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

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

sampling technicians). 

• Lead abatement professionals 

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

supervisors engaged in LBP activities). 

• Testing laboratories (NAICS code 

541380) (e.g., those laboratories that 

analyze dust wipe samples for lead). 

• Federal agencies that own 

residential property (NAICS codes 

92511, 92811). 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89417 

or contact the technical information 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

EPA is finalizing this rule under the 

authority of sections 401, 402, 403, 404, 

and 406 of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as 

amended by Title X of the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1992 

(also known as the Residential LeadBased Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 

1992 or ‘‘Title X’’) (Pub. L. 102–550) 

(Ref. 1) and section 237(c) of Title II of 

Division K of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115– 

31, 131 Stat. 789), as well as sections 

1004 and 1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 

4851b, 4852d), as amended by section 

237(b) of Title II of Division K of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 

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

mandates EPA to identify LBP hazards 

for purposes of administering Title X 

and TSCA Title IV. Under TSCA section 

401, LBP hazards are defined as 

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

result in adverse human health effects,’’ 

(15 U.S.C. 2681(10)) and leadcontaminated dust is defined as 

‘‘surface dust in residential dwellings’’ 

that contains lead in excess of levels 

determined ‘‘to pose a threat of adverse 

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

EPA has referred to the dust-lead 

portion of the LBP hazards as the dustlead hazard standards. As explained in 

Unit IV.A. of this final rule, going 

forward EPA is also describing these as 

the dust-lead reportable levels in order 

to better connote their purpose under 

the revisions. In this document, EPA has 

endeavored to use the term dust-lead 

hazard standards or DLHS to describe 

the standards in place prior to this final 

rule and the term dust-lead reportable 

levels or DLRL to describe the standards 

in place going forward. 

TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C. 2682) 

directs EPA to regulate LBP activities, 

which include risk assessments, 

inspections, and abatements. TSCA 

section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681) defines 

abatements as ‘‘measures designed to 

permanently eliminate lead-based paint 

hazards’’ and the term includes ‘‘all . . . 

cleanup . . . and post[-]abatement 

clearance testing activities’’ (15 U.S.C. 

2681(1)). EPA has referred to the dustlead level to be achieved after the postabatement clearance activities as the 

dust-lead clearance levels. As explained 

in Unit IV.A. of this final rule, going 

forward EPA is also describing these as 

the dust-lead action levels in order to 

better connote their purpose under the 

revisions. In this document, EPA has 

endeavored to use the term dust-lead 

clearance level or DLCL to describe the 

standards in place prior to this final rule 

and the term dust-lead action levels or 

DLAL to describe the standards in place 

going forward. 

EPA’s statutory authority for setting 

the hazard standards is laid out 

differently in Title X and TSCA Title IV 

than its authority for regulating 

clearance activities. In contrast to the 

grant of authority for setting hazard 

standards, EPA is directed, in 

promulgating the LBP activities 

regulations (including the DLAL), to 

‘‘tak[e] into account reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety’’ (15 U.S.C. 

2682(a)(1)). 

Pertaining to the other amendments 

presented in Unit IV.G. of this preamble, 

TSCA section 406 (15 U.S.C. 2686) 

requires EPA, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

and with the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to ‘‘publish, and from 

time to time revise, a lead hazard 

information pamphlet to be used in 

connection with this subchapter and 

section 4852d of title 42.’’ TSCA section 

406 (15 U.S.C. 2686) also requires EPA’s 

regulations to require any person 

performing for compensation a 

renovation of target housing to provide 

the pamphlet to the owner and occupant 

prior to commencing the renovation. 

Additionally, section 1018 of Title X (42 

U.S.C. 4852d) mandates that the Lead 

Warning Statement to be provided in 

contracts for the purchase or sale of 

target housing include, among other 

language, the following text: ‘‘. . . The 

seller of any interest in residential real 

property is required to provide the 

buyer with any information on leadbased paint hazards from risk 

assessments or inspections in the 

seller’s possession and notify the buyer 

of any known lead-based paint 

hazards.’’ TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 

2681(17)) and section 1004 of Title X 

(42 U.S.C. 4851b), as amended by 

section 237(b) and (c) of Title II of 

Division K of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115– 

31, 131 Stat. 789), define target housing 

as ‘‘any housing constructed prior to 

1978, except housing for the elderly or 

persons with disabilities or any 0- 

bedroom dwelling (unless any child 

who is less than 6 years of age resides 

or is expected to reside in such housing) 

. . .’’ In this context, ‘‘housing for the 

elderly’’ refers to retirement 

communities or similar types of housing 

reserved for households composed of 

one or more persons 62 years of age or 

more at the time of initial occupancy (40 

CFR 745.103). Note that HUD’s Lead 

Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) caveats its 

definition of ‘‘housing for the elderly’’ at 

24 CFR 35.110 to rely on an age other 

than 62 years ‘‘if recognized as elderly 

by a specific Federal housing assistance 

program.’’ 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

In 2019, EPA promulgated a final rule 

to lower the DLHS to 10 mg/ft2 for floors 

and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills (the 

2019 Final Rule) (Ref. 2). In 2021, EPA 

promulgated a final rule to lower the 

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

ft2 for window sills (the 2021 Final 

Rule) (Ref. 3). The 2019 Final Rule and 

the 2021 Final Rule continued a longstanding practice of setting the same 

levels for the DLHS and the DLCL and 

basing those levels in part on 

consideration of factors such as 

laboratory capacity and capabilities. On 

August 1, 2023, EPA proposed revisions 

in keeping with an opinion issued by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (the Court) in 2021 (described in 

Unit I.D.) that instructed EPA to 

consider only health factors when 

setting the DLHS (described as DLRL 

moving forward) and that EPA must 

continue to consider non-health factors 

(e.g., laboratory capabilities/capacity, 

and achievability after an abatement) 

when setting the DLCL (described as 

DLAL moving forward). Note that due to 

feedback from public comments, EPA is 

finalizing the previously mentioned 

changes to the nomenclature, from 

DLHS to dust-lead reportable level and 

from DLCL to dust-lead action level (see 

Unit IV.A., for more discussion on this 

terminology change). 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

changes to the DLRL from 10 mg/ft2 for 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills, 

as established in the 2019 Final Rule, to 

any reportable level of dust-lead 

analyzed by a NLLAP-recognized 

laboratory. The DLRL is not a static 

level set by EPA but rather the 

numerically reportable level as analyzed 

by a NLLAP-recognized laboratory. The 

approach represents a shift in the LBP 

activities program to a more inclusive 

DLRL, which will identify dust-lead 

hazards in the context of TSCA Title IV 

as any reportable level of dust-lead in 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities and will not distinguish based 

on health risks posed. Additional 

discussion on DLRL can be found in 

Unit IV.B. 

Additionally, EPA is finalizing a 

reduction of 50% or more in the values 

set by the 2021 Final Rule to the 

proposed alternative DLAL, from 10 mg/ 

ft2 to 5 mg/ft2 for dust-lead for floors, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89418 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

from 100 mg/ft2 to 40 mg/ft2 dust-lead for 

window sills and from 400 mg/ft2 to 100 

mg/ft2 dust-lead for window troughs. 

The reportable level for floors and 

window sills will not be the same as the 

action level for floors and window sills 

(i.e., the standards will be decoupled), 

acknowledging the different statutory 

direction that Congress provided EPA 

with respect to each. As a result, EPA 

is also finalizing the proposed 

amendment to the LBP activities 

regulations’ definition of abatement to 

be any measure or set of measures 

designed to eliminate LBP hazards, in 

the case of dust-lead hazards, to a level 

below the final DLAL; thus modifying 

the trigger so that the recommendation 

for action applies when dust-lead 

loadings are at or above the dust-lead 

action levels, rather than the hazard 

standards (described as dust-lead 

reportable levels moving forward), as 

has been the case historically. Note that 

EPA’s LBP regulations do not 

automatically compel property owners 

or occupants to evaluate their property 

for LBP hazards or to take control 

actions, but if a LBP activity such as an 

abatement is performed, then EPA’s 

regulations set requirements that must 

be met while doing so. EPA is also 

finalizing a requirement to include an 

additional statement in the final 

abatement reports that States that LBP 

hazards (particularly dust-lead hazards) 

remain after an abatement if postabatement testing has found that 

reportable levels remain below the 

action levels. See Unit IV.E., and Unit 

IV.F. for additional information on these 

programmatic changes. 

EPA is also finalizing several other 

amendments to 40 CFR part 745, 

subparts E (Residential Property 

Renovation), F (Disclosure of Known 

Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease of 

Residential Property), and L (LeadBased Paint Activities), including: 

conforming changes to the definition of 

‘‘target housing;’’ conforming the age 

requirements throughout the LBP 

regulations to under six years old; 

requiring that application payments, 

applications, and notices be submitted 

electronically; updating the Disclosure 

Rule warning statement (Ref. 4); 

correcting an incorrect reference to the 

lead-hazard control pamphlet; deleting 

obsolete regulatory text where language 

is out of date or no longer applicable; 

and adding incorporations by reference 

of two voluntary consensus standards 

already included in a relevant 

definition. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

Lead exposure has the potential to 

impact individuals of all ages, but it is 

especially harmful to young children 

because the developing brain can be 

particularly sensitive to environmental 

contaminants (Refs. 5 and 6). Because of 

this, reducing childhood lead exposure 

is a priority for both EPA and the 

Federal government. In December 2018, 

the President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children released the Federal 

Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead 

Exposures and Associated Health 

Impacts (Federal Lead Action Plan) (Ref. 

7) to enhance the Federal government’s 

efforts to identify and reduce lead 

exposure while ensuring children 

impacted by such exposure are getting 

the support and care they need to 

prevent or mitigate any associated 

health effects. The Federal Lead Action 

Plan is helping Federal agencies to work 

strategically and collaboratively to 

reduce exposure to lead and improve 

children’s health. On October 27, 2022, 

EPA released the Strategy to Reduce 

Lead Exposures and Disparities in U.S. 

Communities (EPA Lead Strategy). The 

EPA Lead Strategy lays out Agency and 

governmentwide approaches to 

strengthen public health protections, 

address legacy lead contamination for 

communities with the greatest 

exposures and promote environmental 

justice. It describes how the Agency will 

utilize the full suite of EPA authorities, 

expertise, and resources to continue to 

reduce lead exposure. This final rule, 

which revises the DLRL and the DLAL, 

among other regulatory changes, is an 

action that EPA committed to undertake 

in the EPA Lead Strategy (Ref. 8). 

In 2019, EPA re-evaluated the DLHS 

(described as DLRL moving forward) 

(Ref. 2). Based on that evaluation, the 

final rule revised the DLHS from 40 mg/ 

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

mg/ft2 for floors and window sills, 

respectively. However, public health 

advocates filed a lawsuit in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

seeking judicial review of the 2019 Final 

Rule as insufficiently protective. On 

May 14, 2021, the Court issued its 

opinion on the 2019 Final Rule. The 

Court held that ‘‘the 2019 Rule lowers 

the lead hazard level but not to a level 

sufficient to protect health as Congress 

has directed, because the EPA has 

looked to factors in addition to health.’’ 

A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env’t Prot. 

Agency, 997 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 

2021). The remedy the Court granted 

was a remand without vacatur of the 

lowered standard, and the Court 

instructed EPA to consider only health 

factors when setting the DLHS (Ref. 9). 

The 2023 Proposed Rule was issued to 

reconsider the DLHS and DLCL in light 

of the 2021 Court Opinion, which 

directed EPA to ‘‘reconsider the DLHS 

. . . [and] the dust-lead clearance levels 

. . . in the same proceeding’’ and 

affirmed that EPA must consider nonhealth factors when setting the DLCL 

(described as DLAL moving forward). A 

Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 995. This 2021 

Court Opinion led EPA to undertake a 

major shift from its approach in the 

2019 and 2021 final rules to the LBP 

activities program because the Court 

found that EPA did not have the 

authority, when setting the DLHS, to 

consider non-health factors. Consistent 

with the 2021 Court Opinion and based 

on the Agency’s careful review of the 

public comments received on the 

proposal, EPA is finalizing the DLRL in 

this rulemaking as proposed, based on 

only health considerations, as well as 

finalizing the proposed alternative 

DLAL, based on a variety of factors. See 

Unit IV. for more information on the 

final revisions to the DLRL and DLAL. 

E. What are the estimated incremental 

impacts of this action? 

EPA has prepared an Economic 

Analysis (EA), which is available in the 

docket, of the potential incremental 

impacts associated with this rulemaking 

(Ref. 10). The analysis focused 

specifically on the subset of target 

housing and child-occupied facilities 

affected by this rule. Although the 

DLHS and DLCL do not compel specific 

actions under the LBP Activities Rule to 

address identified LBP hazards, the 

DLHS and DLCL are directly crossreferenced in certain requirements 

mandated by HUD in the housing 

subject to HUD’s LSHR. As such, the 

analysis estimates incremental costs and 

benefits for two categories of events: (1) 

where dust-wipe testing occurs to 

comply with HUD’s Lead-Safe Housing 

Rule; and (2) where dust wipe testing 

occurs in response to blood lead testing 

that detects a blood lead level (BLL) 

above State or Federal action levels. The 

following is a brief outline of the 

estimated incremental impacts of this 

rulemaking. 

1. Benefits 

This rule will result in reduced 

exposure to lead, yielding benefits to 

residents of pre-1978 housing from 

avoided adverse health effects. Using a 

2% discount rate, the annualized 

benefits of improved cognitive function 

in children (quantified using the effect 

of avoided IQ decreases on lifetime 

earnings) are estimated to be $831 

million to $3.1 billion per year; the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89419 

annualized benefits of reduced cases of 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 

(ADHD) in children are estimated to be 

$129 million to $274 million per year; 

and the annualized benefits of reduced 

cases of cardiovascular mortality in 

adults are estimated to be $614 million 

to $6.9 billion per year. The total 

annualized quantified benefits for all 

health endpoints are estimated to range 

from $1.6 billion to $10.3 billion per 

year. EPA also analyzed the effect of 

mothers’ exposures to lead on the risk 

of low birthweight in their infants, but 

the analysis found that the resulting 

changes in infant birthweight could not 

be monetized using EPA’s cost-of-illness 

approach. Nevertheless, the increases in 

birth weights from this rule, however 

small, may still reduce initial birthrelated costs and hospitalization costs 

incurred by mothers. 

These benefits calculations are 

sensitive to the range in the estimated 

number of lead hazard reduction events 

triggered by children with tested BLLs 

above State action thresholds or the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) blood lead reference 

value (BLRV) of 3.5 micrograms per 

deciliter (mg/dL). The wide range is 

driven largely by uncertainty about the 

BLLs at which action might be taken, 

since in many States the action level is 

currently higher than the Federal blood 

lead reference value. The benefit 

estimates are also sensitive to the 

concentration response function used to 

estimate the number of reduced cases of 

premature cardiovascular mortality in 

adults, and the assumed rate of soil and 

dust ingestion by adults. EPA undertook 

a rigorous process to identify 

concentration response functions to 

quantify benefits. This included 

reviewing all available studies which 

could be used to develop quantitative 

relationships between changes in lead 

exposure and/or changes in blood lead 

levels and changes in health endpoints. 

EPA evaluated the studies for quality 

and potential biases. EPA then 

developed a separate report for each 

health endpoint. In addition to the 

quality review findings, each report 

provides quantitative estimates, based 

on the identified functions, of potential 

changes in the health endpoint and was 

reviewed by EPA experts and/or 

externally peer reviewed. For the 

analysis of this final rule EPA has relied 

on concentration response functions for 

four quantified health endpoints that 

have been extensively reviewed by the 

agency and in the case of reductions in 

IQ losses, low birth weight and 

cardiovascular disease premature 

mortality, externally peer reviewed. 

Also, the approach used for IQ has been 

used in multiple prior rulemakings and 

undergone SAB review. EPA will 

consider updates to the benefits 

estimation methodologies and peer 

review as appropriate and as new 

information becomes available in the 

future. 

Additionally, there may be benefits 

that are unquantified. These additional 

benefits might include avoided adverse 

health effects, including reduced postnatal growth, delayed puberty, and 

decreased kidney function in children, 

cancer, and impacts on reproductive 

function and outcomes in adults. 

2. Costs 

This rule is estimated to result in 

quantified costs of $207 million to $348 

million per year. These costs are 

expected to accrue to landlords, owners 

and operators of child-occupied 

facilities, residential remodelers, and 

abatement firms. Real estate agents and 

brokers may incur negligible costs 

related to the target housing definition 

amendment. The cost calculations are 

highly sensitive to the range in the 

estimated number of lead hazard 

reduction events triggered by children 

with higher BLLs. In the events affected 

by this rule, incremental costs can be 

incurred for specialized cleaning used 

to reduce dust-lead loadings (i.e., 

quantity of lead per unit of surface area) 

to below the action levels. In some 

instances, floors will also be sealed, 

overlaid, or replaced, or window sills 

will be sealed or repainted. Additional 

costs may result from the retesting of 

dust-lead levels. Additional potential 

impacts to HUD programs and their 

beneficiaries are discussed in Unit V. 

3. Small Entity Impacts 

This rule will directly impact 

approximately 18,000 small businesses 

of which 85% to 86% have cost impacts 

less than 1% of revenues, 12% to 13% 

have impacts between 1% and 3%, and 

2% have impacts greater than 3% of 

revenues. These small entities include 

landlords, owners and operators of 

child-occupied facilities, residential 

remodelers, abatement firms, and real 

estate agents and brokers. 

4. Environmental Justice 

EPA is finalizing this rulemaking 

under TSCA Title IV, as explained in 

Unit I.B. This rule would address lead 

exposure, as discussed throughout this 

preamble. EPA prepared an Economic 

Analysis for this rulemaking that 

assessed whether there are 

disproportionate effects to communities 

from lead exposure. EPA identified an 

existing concern: children living in 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns have significantly higher BLLs 

than other children (Ref. 11). This rule 

addresses health concerns for all 

affected communities, including those 

identified with environmental justice 

concerns. As identified in EPA’s 

Economic Analysis, the rule is expected 

to affect housing units receiving Federal 

assistance under HUD’s LSHR and 

housing units with a child with a BLL 

above the Federal BLRV, or above a 

State, or local blood lead action level. 

Because, in general, only lower income 

households are eligible to receive 

Federal housing assistance, the 

occupants of housing subject to the 

LSHR (and thus benefitting from the 

regulation) are considered an 

overburdened community. Additional 

details on any identified 

disproportionate impacts to 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns are contained in Unit IX.J. of 

this preamble and Section 8.6 of the 

Economic Analysis. 

5. Children’s Environmental Health 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13045, EPA evaluated the health and 

safety effects of this action on children. 

Children are disproportionately 

impacted by lead exposure. Children 

can have greater exposures than adults 

because they crawl on floors and often 

put their hands and other objects (that 

can have lead from dust on them) into 

their mouths and are more susceptible 

than adults to adverse health effects 

associated with lead exposure due to 

their rapid anatomical growth and 

physiological differences in lead uptake 

and metabolism. This rule protects 

children from these disproportionate 

environmental health risks. 

This action is also subject to EPA’s 

Policy on Children’s Health (https://

www.epa.gov/children/childrens-healthpolicy-and-plan) because the rule has 

considerations for human health and 

early life exposures. Accordingly, EPA 

has evaluated the environmental health 

or safety effects of dust-lead exposure 

on children. The results of this 

evaluation are contained in the EA and 

the Technical Support Document (TSD), 

where the health impacts of lead 

exposure on children are discussed 

more fully (Refs. 10 and 12). The 

documents referenced in this unit are 

available in the public docket for this 

action. 

A primary purpose of this rule is to 

reduce exposure to dust-lead hazards in 

target housing where children reside 

and in child-occupied facilities. EPA’s 

analysis indicates that there will be 

approximately 178,000 to 326,000 

children under age six per year affected 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89420 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

by the rule, and 83,000 to 158,000 

children between the ages of six and 

fifteen per year (Ref. 10). Using a 2% 

discount rate, the total annualized 

quantified benefits for children’s health 

endpoints (improved cognitive function 

and reduced cases of ADHD) are 

estimated to range from $960 million to 

$3.4 billion per year. 

6. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments 

EPA has concluded that this action 

has federalism implications because of 

the potential effects on certain public 

housing authorities. These compliance 

costs result from application of EPA’s 

standards in HUD’s LSHR. While some 

HUD funding for LBP projects exists, the 

Federal government may not provide 

the funds necessary to pay the entirety 

of the costs. As described in Section 8.8 

of the EA (Ref. 10), the costs to public 

housing authorities that include State, 

local, and Tribal governments— 

estimated at $27 million per year—cover 

additional lead hazard reduction 

activities, cleaning, and dust-lead 

testing to ensure that public housing 

units are in compliance with the LSHR. 

State and local governments may 

provide additional funding to pay for 

some of these costs. EPA also estimates 

annual compliance costs of 

approximately $850,000 per year to 

public school districts that operate a 

child-occupied facility built before 

1978. Additionally, States that have 

authorized LBP activities programs must 

demonstrate that they meet any new 

requirements imposed by this 

rulemaking and are at least as protective 

as the levels at 40 CFR 745.65 and 40 

CFR 745.227. However, authorized 

States are under no obligation to 

continue to administer the LBP 

activities program, and if they do not 

wish to adopt the new DLRL and DLAL 

they can relinquish their authorization. 

In the absence of a State authorization, 

EPA will administer these requirements. 

EPA provides a federalism summary 

impact statement, which is found in 

Unit IX.E. 

This action contains a Federal 

mandate under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, that may result in expenditures of 

$183 million or more in 2023 dollars 

($100 million or more in 1995 dollars, 

adjusted for inflation) for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. Accordingly, EPA has 

prepared a written statement as required 

under section 202 of UMRA, which is 

summarized in Unit IX.D. and included 

in the public docket (Ref. 13). This 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

exceed the inflation-adjusted cost 

significance threshold or uniquely affect 

small governments. 

This action will not have substantial 

direct effects (as specified in Executive 

Order 13175) on one or more federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. This action 

neither creates an obligation for Tribes 

to administer LBP activities programs 

nor alters EPA’s authority to administer 

these programs. 

Additionally, this rule would not 

have any significant or unique effects on 

small governments. See Unit IX. for 

more information on the executive 

orders. 

II. Background 

A. Health Effects of Lead 

Lead exposure has the potential to 

impact individuals of all ages, but it is 

especially harmful to young children 

because the developing brain can be 

particularly sensitive to environmental 

contaminants (Refs. 5, 6, 14). Ingestion 

of lead-contaminated dust is a major 

contributor to BLLs in children, 

particularly to those who reside in 

homes built prior to 1978 (Refs. 13 and 

15). Throughout early childhood, floor 

dust contamination is a source of lead 

exposure with the potential to affect 

children’s BLLs (Ref. 16). Infants, 

toddlers, and other young children are 

more highly exposed to lead through 

dust on floors and other surfaces at 

home and in child care facilities than 

older children and adults because they 

crawl on floors and often put their 

hands and other objects that can have 

lead from dust on them into their 

mouths. This is the main pathway of 

exposure to lead for young children 

(Ref. 5). 

Lead exposure in young children can 

cause neurocognitive decrements, such 

as reduction in intelligence as measured 

by IQ. Depending on the exposure and 

other factors, the effect may persist into 

adolescence and adulthood (Refs. 5, 6 

and 16). In children, lead exposure can 

also cause adverse developmental, 

neurobehavioral, hematological, and 

immunological effects (Refs. 5, 6, and 

14). In adults, lead exposure can cause 

adverse cardiovascular, hematological, 

renal, neurocognitive, 

psychopathological, immunological, 

and reproductive effects (Refs. 5, 6, and 

14). Lead is also classified as 

‘‘reasonably anticipated’’ to be a human 

carcinogen by the National Toxicology 

Program (NTP) (Ref. 17) and EPA has 

concluded that lead exposure has a 

‘‘likely causal’’ relationship with 

carcinogenesis (Ref. 5). In addition to 

the risk of harmful effects posed to the 

mother, lead can be transferred to the 

fetus during pregnancy with increased 

risk of adverse effects on the developing 

fetus (Refs. 5 and 14). Given young 

children’s disproportionate exposure to 

dust-lead in target housing, this 

rulemaking principally considers their 

exposure and associated adverse health 

effects, although dust-lead exposure and 

adverse health effects in adolescents 

and adults are also considered when 

estimating the rule’s benefits (Ref. 10). 

Currently available scientific 

information informs EPA’s 

understanding of the relationships 

between exposures to dust-lead, BLLs, 

and adverse human health effects. These 

relationships are summarized in the 

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for 

Lead, finalized in January 2024 (known 

as the 2024 Lead ISA) (Ref. 5), and the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological 

Profile for Lead, which was released by 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services in August 2020 (‘‘ATSDR Tox 

Profile for Lead’’) (Ref. 6). The 2024 

Lead ISA is a synthesis and evaluation 

of scientific information on the health 

and environmental effects of lead, 

including cognitive function decrements 

in children (Ref. 5). The 2024 Lead ISA, 

as well as NIEHS’ 2012 NTP monograph 

on lead, summarize the scientific 

evidence regarding potential health 

effects associated with low-level lead 

exposure and also note uncertainties in 

the data (Refs. 5 and 14). Based on the 

epidemiological studies and the 

evidence available, EPA stated in the 

2024 ISA that blood-lead-associated 

effects on children’s cognition as 

measured by IQ were observed in 

groups of children with mean BLLs as 

low as 2 mg/dL, and further that that 

‘‘the collective body of epidemiologic 

studies provides no evidence of a 

threshold for cognitive effects in 

children across the range of BLLs 

examined.’’ This body of evidence 

includes studies which found effects on 

children’s cognition in some groups of 

children with prenatal and early 

childhood blood lead or concurrent 

blood lead in the range of <1 to 10 mg/ 

dL (Ref. 5). 

For further information regarding lead 

and its health effects, see the TSD for 

this rulemaking and the 2024 ISA for 

lead (Refs. 5 and 12). 

B. Federal Actions To Reduce Lead 

Exposures 

Title X of the Housing and 

Community Development Act (also 

known as the Residential Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or 

‘‘Title X’’), codified primarily at 42 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89421 

U.S.C. 4822 and 4851 et seq. (Ref. 1), 

was a Federal response to the national 

crisis of childhood lead exposure and 

assigned responsibilities to Federal 

agencies with the overall goal of 

developing a ‘‘national strategy to build 

the infrastructure necessary to eliminate 

lead-based paint hazards in all housing 

as expeditiously as possible’’ (42 U.S.C. 

4851(a)(1)). Subtitle B of Title X (106 

Stat. 3912 through 3924), addressing 

lead exposure reduction, added Title IV 

to TSCA (codified at 15 U.S.C. 2681 et 

seq.) (Ref. 18). 

Since the establishment of Title X, 

EPA and HUD have promulgated both 

joint and separate regulatory actions in 

an effort to eliminate LBP hazards. 

Those actions include requirements for 

disclosure of known LBP or any known 

LBP hazards (Ref. 4), training and 

certification requirements for 

contractors performing LBP activities 

(Ref. 19), the establishment in 2001 of 

standards that identify lead-based paint 

hazards and post-abatement clearance 

levels (i.e., the DLHS and DLCL) (in the 

rule entitled, ‘‘Identification of 

Dangerous Levels of Lead,’’ see 66 FR 

1206, January 5, 2001 (FRL–6763–5), 

also known as the 2001 LBP Hazards 

Rule) (Refs. 2, 3 and 20), regulations 

covering renovation or remodeling 

activities (Refs. 21, 22 and 23), 

provisions for interested States, 

territories, and Tribes to apply for and 

receive authorization to administer their 

own LBP Activities and renovation, 

repair and painting (RRP) programs, and 

requirements to control LBP and LBP 

hazards in federally assisted target 

housing (Ref. 24). Additional 

description of and background on 

Federal actions to reduce lead exposure 

can be found in the 2021 Final Rule 

(Ref. 3). 

In addition, the Federal Lead Action 

Plan, which was written by the 

President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children, consisting of 17 

Federal departments and offices, states: 

‘‘Lead exposure to children can result 

from multiple sources and can cause 

irreversible and life-long health effects. 

No safe blood lead level in children has 

been identified’’ (Refs. 7 and 25). The 

Agency has also developed an EPA Lead 

Strategy to lay out an all-of-EPA plan to 

strengthen public health protections and 

address legacy lead contamination for 

communities with the greatest 

exposures and promote environmental 

justice (https://www.epa.gov/lead/finalstrategy-reduce-lead-exposures-anddisparities-us-communities). EPA plans 

to continue its work to equitably protect 

people of all races, ethnic groups, 

income levels, disabilities, and life 

stages, including young children and 

pregnant women, who are the most 

vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead. 

The actions in this final rule are part of 

those efforts, as dust-lead from leadbased paint remains one of the leading 

causes of lead exposure in the United 

States (Ref. 8). 

C. Applicability and Uses of DLRL and 

DLAL 

The reportable level and action level 

reconsidered in this regulation support 

EPA’s LBP activities program (i.e., 

inspections, risk assessments, and 

abatements) (codified at 40 CFR part 

745, subpart L), which applies to target 

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

and COFs (pre-1978 properties where 

children under 6 years of age spend a 

significant amount of time such as 

daycare centers and kindergartens). The 

statutory definition of target housing 

was amended by Congress in 2017, and 

EPA is making the necessary 

conforming regulatory changes, 

including finalizing the age to under 6 

years of age, in this rulemaking; see Unit 

IV.F.1. for more information. Apart from 

COFs, no other public or commercial 

buildings are covered by this proposal. 

The DLRL and DLAL are incorporated 

into requirements for risk assessment 

and post-abatement work. When 

conducted, LBP activities must be 

performed by a certified individual or 

firm (40 CFR 745.220) in accordance 

with the work practices outlined in the 

1996 LBP Activities Rule (40 CFR 

745.227). EPA administers the LBP 

activities program only where States 

(including the District of Columbia and 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), 

territories, or Tribes are not authorized 

by EPA to operate their own lead 

abatement programs (see 40 CFR part 

745, subpart Q). Currently the States in 

which the LBP program is administered 

by EPA are Alaska, Arizona, Florida, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

New York, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, and Wyoming. EPA also 

administers the LBP program in the 

territories of American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, as well as most Tribal Lands. 

All other States have EPA-authorized 

LBP programs. Additionally, the 

Cherokee Nation, Upper Sioux 

Community, Lower Sioux Indian 

Community, and the Bois Forte Band of 

Chippewa have EPA-authorized LBP 

programs, which ultimately must be at 

least as protective of human health and 

the environment as EPA’s program and 

provide adequate enforcement (this 

rule’s impact on authorized programs is 

discussed briefly in Unit V.A.). 

1. Dust-Lead Reportable Levels 

The DLRL support and implement 

major provisions of TSCA Title IV and 

provide the basis for risk assessors to 

determine whether dust-lead hazards 

are present during a risk assessment or 

a lead hazard screen. A risk assessment, 

where dust wipe testing occurs, may be 

required by the LSHR in certain 

circumstances (e.g., for certain 

properties receiving Federal assistance) 

or by other laws or regulations where 

dust-lead testing occurs in response to 

the discovery of a child with a BLL that 

exceeds a Federal, State, or local 

threshold, or in a situation to comply 

with State or local requirements. 

Additional information on the LSHR 

and the subparts which require risk 

assessment are discussed in the EA (Ref. 

10). The objective of a risk assessment 

is to determine, and then report, the 

existence, nature, severity, and location 

of LBP hazards in residential dwellings 

and COFs through an on-site 

investigation, which includes both a 

visual assessment and a collection of 

environmental samples. The visual 

inspection for a risk assessment 

includes an examination to determine 

the existence of deteriorated (e.g., 

cracking, flaking, chipping, peeling) 

LBP or other potential sources of LBP 

hazards. The environmental samples 

include, among other things, dust wipe 

samples (taken using documented 

methodologies as defined in 40 CFR 

745.227(a)(3)) from floors and window 

sills. Those samples are required to be 

analyzed by a laboratory that is 

recognized under NLLAP, which is an 

EPA program that defines the minimum 

standards that laboratories must meet to 

attain EPA recognition as an accredited 

testing laboratory (the standards for the 

program are laid out in the Laboratory 

Quality Standards for Recognition) (Ref. 

26). A risk assessor compares the results 

of the dust wipe samples to the 

applicable hazard standard (currently 

the DLHS and, upon implementation of 

this final rule, the DLRL). If the dustlead loadings from the samples are at or 

above the applicable standard, then a 

dust-lead hazard is present (40 CFR 

745.227(d)). 

Ultimately, the risk assessor prepares 

a risk assessment report for the property 

owner or manager, which lists any LBP 

hazards (including a dust-lead hazard) 

that were found and includes any 

recommendations for next steps, such as 

acceptable options for controlling the 

hazards via interim controls and/or 

abatement. These options are intended 

to allow the property owner to make an 

informed decision about what actions to 

take to protect the health of current and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89422 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

future residents. Under EPA’s rule, a 

risk assessment or risk assessment 

report does not compel or require 

action; rather it simply provides 

property owners with recommendations 

as appropriate (40 CFR 745.227(d)). 

However, HUD and some State or local 

governments may require action 

depending on whether a LBP hazard is 

present; see Unit V. for more 

information on the impacts of this final 

rule. 

A lead hazard screen also includes a 

visual inspection and collection of 

environmental samples, although it is 

not as comprehensive as a risk 

assessment nor conducted as often. A 

lead hazard screen may be used to 

determine if a full risk assessment is 

necessary. During a lead hazard screen, 

a risk assessor checks for deteriorated 

LBP and collects two composite dust 

samples (in residential dwellings), one 

from floors and one from window sills 

(more composite dust samples are 

required in multi-family dwellings or 

COFs). Samples are taken using 

documented methodologies. The risk 

assessor prepares a lead hazard screen 

report but is not required to include 

determinations about the LBP hazards 

or recommendations for interim controls 

and/or abatement but could include 

information on whether a follow-up risk 

assessment is warranted (40 CFR 

745.227(c)). 

Both risk assessments and lead hazard 

screens can only be performed by risk 

assessors certified according to the 

procedures in 40 CFR 745.226. 

2. Dust-Lead Action Levels 

The DLAL are incorporated into the 

post-abatement work practices outlined 

in the LBP Activities Rule and represent 

‘‘the amount of lead in dust on a surface 

following completion of an abatement 

activity’’ (40 CFR 745.227, 745.223) 

(Ref. 19). TSCA section 401 defines 

abatements as ‘‘measures designed to 

permanently eliminate lead-based paint 

hazards’’ (15 U.S.C. 2681(1)), while 

interim controls are ‘‘designed to 

temporarily reduce human exposure or 

likely exposure to lead-based paint 

hazards’’ (40 CFR 745.83 and 745.223). 

Abatement and/or interim controls 

could be recommended in a risk 

assessment report to inform the property 

owner about potential future action(s) 

they could take. After an abatement is 

complete (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)) and 

after interim control work above HUD’s 

de minimis level of paint disturbance, 

under HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule is 

complete (24 CFR 35.1340(b)), a risk 

assessor or inspector determines 

whether there are any ‘‘visible amounts 

of dust, debris or residue,’’ which need 

to be removed before dust-wipe 

sampling takes place (40 CFR 

745.227(e)(8)). Once the area is free of 

visible dust, debris, and residue, and 

one hour or more after final postabatement cleaning ceases, sampling for 

dust-lead (via dust wipe samples) can 

take place and will be conducted ‘‘using 

documented methodologies that 

incorporate adequate quality control 

procedures’’ (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). 

Only a properly trained and certified 

risk assessor or inspector can conduct 

clearance sampling. An NLLAPrecognized laboratory must analyze the 

dust wipe samples and a risk assessor or 

inspector must compare the results from 

window sills, floors, and window 

troughs to the appropriate DLAL. 

Every post-abatement sample must 

test below the DLAL in order to fulfill 

the post-abatement work practices of the 

LBP Activities Rule. If a single sample 

is equal to or greater than the 

corresponding DLAL, then the 

abatement fails to be successfully 

completed and the components 

represented by the failing sample must 

be recleaned and retested (40 CFR 

745.227(e)(8)). After all dust wipe 

samples show dust-lead loadings below 

the DLAL, an abatement report is 

prepared (in accordance with the 

requirements in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(10)), 

copies of any reports required under the 

LBP Activities Rule are provided to the 

building owner (and to potential lessees 

and purchasers under the LBP 

Disclosure Rule by those building 

owners or their agents), and all required 

records are retained by the abatement 

firm or by the individuals who 

developed each report for no fewer than 

three years (40 CFR 745.227(i)). 

D. Limitations of DLRL and DLAL 

The DLRL are intended to identify 

dust-lead hazards during risk 

assessments, while the DLAL are part of 

post-abatement work practices. Both 

regulatory values have several key 

limitations. Since the DLRL and DLAL 

were established and revised for the 

purposes of Title X and TSCA Title IV 

only, they do not apply to housing and 

COFs built during or after 1978, nor do 

they apply to pre-1978 housing that 

does not meet the definition of target 

housing (40 CFR 745.61 and 745.223). If 

one chooses to apply the DLRL or the 

DLAL to situations beyond the scope of 

Title X and TSCA Title IV, care must be 

taken to ensure that the action taken in 

such settings is appropriate, and that the 

action is adequate to provide any 

necessary protection for children or 

other individuals exposed. 

These standards cannot be used to 

identify that housing is free from all 

risks from exposure to lead including 

but not limited to dust-lead, soil-lead, or 

lead in drinking water, as risks are 

dependent on many factors. For 

instance, the physical condition of a 

property that contains LBP may change 

over time, resulting in an increase in 

risk. Plus, EPA’s DLRL do not require 

the owners of properties covered by this 

rule to evaluate their properties for the 

presence of dust-lead hazards, nor to 

take action if dust-lead hazards are 

identified (although these standards can 

be incorporated into certain 

requirements mandated by State, Tribal 

and local governments, as well as other 

Federal agencies). Additionally, 

consistent with the 2021 Court Opinion 

that instructed EPA to consider only 

health factors when setting the DLHS 

(described as DLRL moving forward) 

and affirmed that EPA must consider 

other factors (i.e., reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety) when setting 

the DLCL (described as DLAL moving 

forward), EPA is finalizing the DLAL as 

greater than the DLRL based on EPA’s 

consideration of other factors (e.g., 

laboratory capabilities/capacity, and 

achievability after an abatement). As a 

result and given the change in the 

definition of abatement discussed in 

Unit IV.E. of this preamble, there may 

be dust-lead remaining that meets the 

definition of a LBP hazard after an 

abatement is considered complete, due 

to dust-lead levels that are reportable 

but are less than the DLAL. Also, as has 

been the case historically, achieving the 

DLAL after an abatement does not mean 

that the home is lead safe or is free from 

all exposure to lead, including from 

other media such as soil-lead or lead in 

drinking water. EPA will continue 

coordinating with other Federal 

agencies to encourage best practices for 

owners and occupants of postabatement properties to conduct 

ongoing maintenance that will help to 

continue to lower dust-lead levels, as 

well as working collectively among the 

Agency’s offices to reduce overall lead 

exposure through all pathways. 

E. Litigation Overview 

As previously discussed, EPA revised 

the DLHS to 10 mg/ft2 for floors and 100 

mg/ft2 for window sills in a final rule in 

July 2019 (Ref. 2). On May 14, 2021, in 

response to a Petition for Review that 

was filed shortly after the final rule was 

published, the Court remanded the 2019 

Final Rule without vacatur and directed 

EPA to revisit it in conjunction with a 

reconsideration of the DLCL (Ref. 9). In 

its opinion accompanying the remand, 

the Court instructed EPA to consider 

only health factors when setting the 

DLHS (described by EPA as DLRL 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89423 

moving forward) and affirmed that EPA 

must continue to consider non-health 

factors when setting the DLCL 

(described by EPA as DLAL moving 

forward). Specifically, the 2021 Court 

Opinion held that EPA’s 2019 Final 

Rule ‘‘looked to other factors, including 

feasibility and efficacy,’’ when setting 

the DLHS, instead of ‘‘set[ting] the 

hazard standards at the point at which 

the level [of] dust-lead creates hazards 

to human health’’ A Cmty. Voice, 997 

F.3d at 989 and 990. The Court also held 

that ‘‘TSCA [Title] IV gives the EPA 

latitude to consider ‘reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety’ ’’ when 

promulgating regulations ‘‘[w]ith 

respect to implementation, including 

abatement,’’ thus enabling consideration 

of practicability when setting the DLCL. 

Id. at 995. The Court explained that 

‘‘[t]his is in line with the overall 

statutory scheme that differentiates 

between identification of hazards and 

implementation of remedial measures.’’ 

Id. The Court also explained elsewhere 

in the 2021 Court Opinion that, if an 

agency relies on uncertainty for 

regulatory action or inaction, the agency 

must ‘‘provide reasons why uncertainty 

justifies their actions’’ Id. at 993. 

Consistent with the 2021 Court Opinion, 

EPA is finalizing revisions to the DLRL 

in this rulemaking based only on health 

considerations. 

In addition, the Court held that EPA 

violated TSCA Title IV by leaving the 

soil-lead hazard standards (SLHS) at the 

values set in 2001, reasoning that EPA 

had an ongoing duty to update the 

standards. The SLHS identify leadcontaminated soil at target housing and 

pre-1978 COFs that would result in 

adverse human health effects. Soils that 

contain lead at levels determined to be 

hazardous to human health are 

considered contaminated. Lead 

inspectors, risk assessors, and 

abatement professionals use the SLHS to 

determine if soil-lead hazards are 

present and to inform options for 

reducing risk, such as during the risk 

assessment process. Due to resource 

considerations and to act as 

expeditiously as possible to revise the 

DLRL and DLAL, EPA will address the 

SLHS in a separate rulemaking. (For 

more background on resource 

constraints under TSCA, please see 

Congressional testimony from EPA 

leadership (Refs. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31)). 

EPA listed this SLHS rulemaking in the 

Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

under RIN 2070–AL12 as a long-term 

action, indicating the Agency’s 

commitment to meet the statutory 

requirement of addressing the SLHS 

revision but indicating that the Agency 

does not expect to propose this action 

in the 12 months following the agenda 

entry (Ref. 32). EPA has, however, 

initiated work on the SLHS rulemaking 

and is continuing to allocate additional 

resources to it as this reconsideration 

rulemaking is finalized. The Agency 

also intends to build off of the technical 

analysis utilized for this rulemaking for 

the SLHS rulemaking, mirroring where 

possible so as to reduce resource 

constraints and considerations. EPA 

plans to issue a proposed SLHS 

rulemaking in 2026. 

The Court also held that, to be 

consistent with its health-only 

interpretation of a LBP hazard (i.e., soil, 

dust), the definition of LBP must 

‘‘encompass all levels of lead in paint 

that lead to adverse human health 

effects.’’ A Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 992. 

The Court stated that ‘‘EPA ha[d] not 

explained why uncertainty justifies its 

decision to leave the definition of leadpaint as-is.’’ Id. at 993. The Court also 

noted that much knowledge has been 

gained since Congress adopted the 1992 

definition and that the U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has 

adopted a regulation that bans the 

production of paint with lead content of 

over 0.009 percent by weight. The CPSC 

standard, however, applies to new paint 

while TSCA is concerned with the 

hazards posed by existing paint in pre1978 structures and different 

information and considerations are 

relevant in that context. The definition 

of LBP (1.0 milligrams per square 

centimeter or more than 0.5 percent by 

weight) is incorporated throughout the 

LBP regulations of both EPA and HUD, 

and application of this definition is 

central to how LBP programs function. 

In the 2019 Final Rule, EPA discussed 

the Agency’s need for more information 

to establish a statistically valid causal 

relationship between concentrations of 

lead at low levels in paint and dust lead 

loadings that cause lead exposure. 

Additionally, information is still needed 

to quantify the direct ingestion of paint 

through consumption of paint chips or 

through teething on painted surfaces. 

Finally, it is important to understand 

how capabilities among various LBP 

testing technologies would be affected 

under a possible revision to the 

definition, such as field portable X-ray 

fluorescence devices (XRFs), which are 

the primary tools for lead inspections 

and risk assessments. They are 

calibrated to the current definition of 

LBP, and so EPA needs to fully 

understand the repercussions such a 

revision to the definition may have on 

these portable field technologies to 

ensure the technological feasibility. 

On November 1 and 2, 2023, EPA and 

HUD held a virtual public workshop to 

hear stakeholder perspectives on 

specific topics related to detection of 

and exposure to potential lead hazards 

from existing residential LBP and to 

obtain additional information needed to 

address data gaps related to the 

definition of LBP that were outlined in 

the 2019 Final Rule. This virtual 

workshop was held over two days and 

gathered critical input on innovative 

methods to address LBP and reduce lead 

exposure across the United States. 

In preparation for the LBP technical 

workshop, the Agency performed a 

literature review for sources relevant to 

the definition of LBP, consulted other 

Federal agencies, and refreshed 

materials that were developed for the 

2019 rulemaking. While the data gaps 

did not change since the 2019 rule, they 

were refined to add further specificity, 

which allowed for a more targeted scope 

for both continued investigation and for 

the technical workshop held in 

November 2023. The more specific data 

gaps that EPA continues to investigate 

include empirical data on the 

relationship between low levels of lead 

in paint and dust-lead, as well as data 

on the common exposure scenarios that 

may inform this relationship (for 

example, dust-lead generation during a 

renovation scenario versus slowly 

deteriorating paint). Currently the 

available empirical data and modeling 

approaches for estimating the 

relationship between lead content in onthe-wall paint and lead in related 

environmental media, including dust, 

are applicable at or above the current 

LBP definition. EPA believes that to use 

the available empirical data and 

modeling approaches to estimate dustlead loadings at low levels of lead in 

paint (particularly levels that are lower 

than the current definition by an order 

of magnitude or more) will introduce 

significant uncertainty to any 

estimations. Data and models applicable 

to lower levels of lead in paint are 

needed to develop an approach to 

estimate dust-lead from low levels of 

lead in paint, which will allow EPA to 

estimate incremental blood lead changes 

and associated health effect changes that 

may occur due to low levels of lead in 

paint. For the ingestion exposure 

pathway, EPA is exploring possible 

modeling solutions as well as seeking 

quantitative measures of ingestion and 

exposure (such as data on duration and 

frequency of consumption, and common 

paint chip characteristics). Studies on 

this subject have documented this 

behavior as a risk factor for exposure to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89424 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

lead from LBP; however, the studies 

have not provided quantitative 

estimates of paint ingestion, which are 

needed to quantify exposure. Lastly, 

EPA continues to investigate constraints 

to the field measurement options for 

low levels of lead in paint. Different 

technologies have different limitations 

in accuracy, processing time, detection 

limits, accessibility, and destructiveness 

among other factors. These practical 

considerations are important to consider 

in understanding how a change in the 

definition may affect the ability of the 

regulated community to use certain 

technologies, potentially impacting the 

residents of target housing and 

occupants of COFs. On top of these data 

gaps and as outlined in the document 

Definition of Lead-Based Paint 

Considerations from May 2019 (Ref. 33), 

EPA is exploring the relationship 

between the two different units used in 

the current definition (milligram per 

square centimeter and percent by 

weight) to inform whether and, if so, 

how to develop a conversion between 

the two. The search for relevant 

information to develop the conversion 

and exploration of the uncertainty 

involved with such a conversion is 

underway. 

The presenters at the workshop 

covered a wide range of topics. One of 

the most prominent discussions, 

covered by several presentations, was 

the potential and limitations of 

extending current technologies 

(particularly the XRF analyzer) to 

thresholds at or below the current 

definition, as well as the reliability of 

the analyzer’s lead detection estimates 

in general. Also discussed extensively 

were the capabilities of other testing 

methods, strategies to use these methods 

alongside XRF testing, and the impact 

on test kits of lowering the definition of 

LBP. The challenge of characterizing the 

relationship between mass-per-mass and 

mass-per-surface area definitions of LBP 

was also examined, with one speaker 

presenting a regression analysis to 

derive an overall relationship between 

the two. 

Other topics discussed during the 

workshop included trends in childhood 

lead exposure the capability of 

community outreach and involvement 

in assisting to address the LBP problem, 

and to some extent the relationship 

between lead in paint and dust-lead. On 

the latter point, however, the 

relationship between low levels of lead 

in paint and levels of lead in dust-lead 

was not examined in depth. Nor was the 

impact of paint condition, maintenance, 

age, and other factors. The ingestion 

pathway was also not examined. EPA 

and HUD continue to process the 

information gathered and the status of 

the data gaps that remain. Also, EPA 

and HUD hope to gain additional insight 

from a wider audience via public 

comments on the workshop’s docket, 

which was open until June 30, 2024. 

Similar to the SLHS rulemaking, due 

to resource considerations and EPA’s 

interest in acting as expeditiously as 

possible to revise the DLRL and DLAL 

and to hold the aforementioned LBP 

technical workshop, EPA will address 

the definition of lead-based paint in a 

separate rulemaking. EPA has listed this 

rulemaking on the definition of LBP in 

the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

under RIN 2070–AL11 as a long-term 

action, indicating the Agency’s 

commitment to meet the statutory 

requirement of addressing the definition 

of LBP revision but that the Agency 

does not expect to propose this action 

in the 12 months following the agenda 

entry (Ref. 34). 

Rulemakings such as those necessary 

for revisions to SLHS and the definition 

of LBP are complex, highly resourceintensive activities. A rulemaking’s 

development generally entails scientific, 

economic, legal, and other technical 

analyses. For many rulemakings, this 

includes research and data gathering, 

which itself can sometimes necessitate 

exercising other information collection 

tools and following appropriate 

procedural requirements (e.g., 

Paperwork Reduction Act). To develop 

a rulemaking, EPA also often consults 

with governments and key stakeholders. 

Federal law may require such 

consultations based on anticipated 

regulatory impacts (e.g., the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act). 

Additionally, various executive orders 

may also require the Agency to engage 

in such consultations. 

A rulemaking package often requires 

the development of complex supporting 

documents including an EA and a TSD, 

similar to those included alongside this 

reconsideration rulemaking (Refs. 10 

and 12). A complete TSD includes 

several components that may require 

internal and external stakeholder 

dialogue and scientific peer review, 

including model and input data 

revisions, health and exposure metrics 

of interest, environmental fate and 

exposure mechanisms for either soil or 

the definition of LBP, characterization 

of uncertainties in modeling, and 

literature reviews (which have not been 

done for soil since before the 2001 LBP 

Rule was finalized). If existing models 

and analytical methods are insufficient 

to conduct the analysis to support the 

rulemaking, then they must be 

developed as part of the technical work 

done in support of the rulemaking 

effort. Developing new models can take 

a considerable length of time and novel 

analyses may require peer-review, 

further extending the rulemaking 

timeline. The magnitude and effort of an 

SLHS TSD would mirror previous DLHS 

and DLCL TSDs (and the TSD for this 

rule); see the technical documents 

prepared in support of the 2019 Final 

Rule, the 2021 Final Rule, or this 

reconsideration rulemaking (Refs. 12, 

35, and 36). 

An EA includes various components 

such as a description of the need for 

Federal regulation; a profile of affected 

industries and populations; an overview 

of existing Federal, State and local 

regulations; a specification of the 

baseline state of the world and estimate 

of the number of events affected by the 

regulation; thorough analysis on the 

consequences of regulatory policy being 

considered and how regulated entities 

will respond; quantification and 

monetization of the regulation’s costs, 

benefits, and net benefits; a description 

of unquantified or qualitative benefits; 

and an assessment of uncertainty 

surrounding estimates. An EA also 

includes various additional analyses 

related to statutory compliance and 

executive orders, including but not 

limited to small business impacts, 

unfunded State, local, or Tribal 

mandates, paperwork reduction, 

environmental justice, protection of 

children, federalism, coordination with 

Tribal governments, and energy effects. 

A rulemaking also involves developing 

Federal Register documents to present, 

generally, the preamble to and 

regulatory text of the proposed and final 

rule. Such published documents reflect 

the culmination of the development and 

review of the complex supporting 

documents and the resulting decisionmaking, which includes internal steps at 

the Agency to reach officewide 

agreement, as well as external to the 

Agency, such as holding potential 

public consultations, completing 

interagency review and convening a 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, 

as necessary. These processes can also 

take many months or years. The 

proposed and final rules also present 

statutory and executive order review 

analyses. 

The current rulemaking on the DLRL 

and DLAL is one more step toward 

complete implementation of TSCA Title 

IV. Given the complications for the 

SLHS and the definition of LBP 

discussed earlier in this section, EPA 

does not believe that either the SLHS or 

the definition of LBP could have been 

reconsidered on this current 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89425 

rulemaking’s timeline. Instead, EPA will 

reconsider the SLHS and the definition 

of LBP as important next steps. Courts 

‘‘have recognized that, under the 

‘pragmatic’ one-step-at-a-time doctrine, 

‘agencies have great discretion to treat a 

problem partially’ and ‘regulat[e] in a 

piecemeal fashion.’ ’’ Transportation 

Div. of the Int’l Ass’n of Sheet Metal, 

Air, Rail & Transportation Workers v. 

Fed. R.R. Admin., 10 F.4th 869, 875 

(D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 

401, 409–10 (D.C. Cir. 2013)); cf. 

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 

(2007) (recognizing that ‘‘[a]gencies, like 

legislatures, do not generally resolve 

massive problems in one fell regulatory 

swoop’’). EPA intends to conduct 

rulemakings on the SLHS and the 

definition of LBP, as identified in the 

Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, to 

address the issues identified by the 

Ninth Circuit in its May 2021 opinion 

(Refs. 9, 32 and 34). 

F. Public Comments Summary 

The proposed rule provided a 60-day 

public comment period, which ended 

on October 2, 2023. EPA received a total 

of 21,309 comments in docket number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0231. This 

included 393 unique comments that 

were submitted as well as the transcript 

from a public webinar that EPA held on 

the proposed rule on August 23, 2023, 

where numerous public comments were 

received verbally. The majority of the 

21,309 comments were submitted as 

part of five mass mail campaigns (two 

that expressed support for the proposed 

rule and three that did not). One of the 

supportive mass mail campaigns 

accounted for roughly 20,723 or 97% of 

the total number of comments. 

Comments were received from private 

citizens, landlords, State/local 

governments (including State health 

departments), potentially affected leadbased paint businesses, lead 

laboratories, trade associations, nongovernmental organizations and 

environmental and public health 

advocacy groups. 

Numerous commenters supported 

EPA’s proposed ‘‘greater than zero’’ 

approach to revising the DLHS 

(described as DLRL moving forward) 

codified as ‘‘any reportable level’’ based 

on their view that there is no safe level 

of lead exposure (e.g., two commenters 

pointed to a ‘‘voluminous body of recent 

research [that] documents 

unequivocally that no level of lead 

exposure is safe for a fetus or young 

child’’). Public commenters also 

supported the proposed approach for a 

variety of related reasons, such as 

making the public more aware of the 

risk dust-lead may pose, preventing 

more children from lead poisoning, and 

emphasizing the importance of cleaning. 

Commenters also noted their view that 

prevention is the best solution to lead 

exposure in children, and that due to 

neurological and cognitive 

development, children are particularly 

susceptible to these impacts. (Note that 

interventions that are implemented 

before there is evidence of a disease or 

injury are defined as primary 

preventions by CDC (Ref. 37)). 

For the proposed approach there were 

several key concerns, raised 

predominately by lead-based paint 

professionals, laboratories and trade 

associations, that fall into several 

general categories: concerns over dustlead source and that the DLRL would 

fall below background levels of dustlead; laboratory concerns including that 

a laboratory’s reportable level can vary 

considerably between establishments; 

impacts this DLRL would have on 

existing housing stock, particularly 

affordable housing; the cost of 

implementation; concerns over 

decoupling DLRL from DLAL; and 

possible liability issues and confusion 

within the public and regulated 

community due to leaving a hazard 

behind after an abatement is considered 

complete. For more information on the 

rationale of the final DLRL approach of 

‘‘any reportable level’’ see Unit IV.B. 

Multiple commenters, predominately 

advocacy organizations, supported 

EPA’s proposed DLCL (described as 

DLAL moving forward) of 3 mg/ft2, 20 

mg/ft2, and 25 mg/ft2, for floors, window 

sills and window troughs, respectively, 

in order to protect children from lead 

exposure. EPA also received numerous 

public comments opposing the 

reduction in the DLAL, and requests 

that the values remain at the current 

levels of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 

mg/ft2, for floors, window sills and 

window troughs. A few commenters 

also supported the proposed alternative 

DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ 

ft2, for floors, window sills and window 

troughs. The concerns public 

commenters highlighted were related to 

laboratory technology shifts, costs, 

turnaround times, laboratory capacity, 

and the practicability/achievability of 

the lower levels of 3 mg/ft2, 20 mg/ft2, 

and 25 mg/ft2. 

EPA received several comments 

during the public comment period from 

a variety of organizations including 

industry, environmental and public 

health advocacy organizations, among 

others, requesting that EPA revise the 

terminology of the standards 

(specifically the terms of DLHS and 

DLCL) in order to better communicate to 

the public their purpose and to reduce 

confusion. Another concern raised by 

numerous public commenters was the 

confusion created by the messaging of 

‘‘greater than zero’’ (which was the 

terminology used to describe ‘‘any 

reportable level’’ in the proposed rule). 

Under this final rule the term ‘‘greater 

than zero’’ is being replaced with ‘‘any 

reportable level’’ in the preamble and 

within any implementation materials 

that accompany this final rule. For more 

information on the terminology changes 

see Unit IV.A. 

In this preamble, EPA has responded 

to the major comments relevant to this 

final rule. In addition, the more 

comprehensive version of EPA’s 

response to comments related to this 

final action, including comments not 

mentioned in this preamble, can be 

found in the Response to Comments 

document that accompanies this 

rulemaking (Ref. 38). 

III. Technical Analyses 

In its evaluation of options for 

reconsidering the DLRL and DLAL, EPA 

estimated children’s BLL and associated 

IQ decrements expected to result from 

lead exposures with each option. These 

estimates provide the means to 

quantitatively compare risk posed to 

young children by exposure to the dustlead loading levels analyzed. EPA also 

estimated BLL in adolescents and adults 

for the various dust-lead loading levels, 

and associated risk of ADHD diagnosis, 

cardiovascular mortality risk, and 

changes in low birthweight, to inform 

the benefits analysis accompanying this 

rule. The TSD (Ref. 12) and EA (Ref. 10) 

accompanying this rulemaking provide 

the complete analyses and associated 

estimates of expected impacts of the 

candidate DLRL and DLAL options on 

BLLs of exposed children, adolescents, 

and adults in target housing and 

associated changes in occurrence of 

adverse health impacts. See Unit IV. on 

the rationale for the revisions to DLRL 

and DLAL. 

The TSD uses both mechanistic and 

empirical models to predict possible 

BLLs in children that reside in target 

housing and are exposed to homogenous 

candidate values for dust-lead levels 

(e.g., candidate options for the DLRL or 

DLAL); the TSD also probabilistically 

accounts for variation in children’s 

BLLs due to other sources of lead 

exposure and differences in biological 

response to lead exposure. The first 

approach uses mechanistic modeling of 

lead exposure and uptake that takes into 

account age-specific ingestion rates, 

activity patterns, and background 

exposures. Specifically, the mechanistic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89426 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

blood lead modeling for children in this 

rulemaking reflects the application of an 

extensively peer-reviewed model (the 

Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose 

Simulation—Integrated Exposure 

Uptake Biokinetic model coded in R, 

referred to as R–SHEDS–Pb) using 

updated data sources and tailored to the 

dust-lead target housing scenario, 

described in depth in appendix E of the 

TSD. The empirical approach used data 

that includes co-reported dust-lead and 

BLL measurements in the homes of 

children; these dust-lead and BLL data 

are used to develop an empirical 

relationship to estimate BLLs for each 

candidate dust-lead level. Estimates 

derived from the two approaches 

(mechanistic and empirical) are 

compared; and similarity between the 

results increased confidence in the 

estimates of the relationship between 

dust-lead loadings and BLL (Section 9.3 

of the TSD, Ref. 12). The various 

components of the model and input 

parameters used for children in this 

rulemaking have been the subject of 

multiple Science Advisory Board 

Reviews, workshops and publications in 

the peer reviewed literature focused on 

dust-lead (Refs. 15, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 

43). 

The mechanistic blood lead modeling 

for adolescents and adults in this 

rulemaking was performed using an 

extensively peer-reviewed model (the 

All-Ages Lead Model, referred to as 

AALM) using updated data sources 

tailored to the dust-lead target housing 

scenario as was done for children using 

R–SHEDS–Pb (See section 4 and 

appendix F of the TSD). The TSD uses 

AALM version 3.0 to predict possible 

BLLs in adolescents and adults that 

reside in target housing and are exposed 

to dust-lead loadings at the candidate 

DLRL and DLAL. This model takes into 

account age-specific ingestion rates and 

background exposures (Section 4.2.1 of 

the TSD) (Ref. 12). The various 

components of the AALM version 2.0 

model and input parameters have been 

the subject of a Science Advisory Board 

review (Ref. 44) and the AALM version 

3.0 model been used to support recent 

EPA guidance and rulemakings (Ref. 45 

and 46). 

Detailed discussion of the limitations 

and uncertainties in blood lead 

modeling at the low dust-lead exposures 

and associated BLLs considered for this 

rulemaking can be found in Sections 

13.3.1 and 13.3.2 of the TSD (Ref. 12). 

Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic 

Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) 

version 2.0, as a standalone biokinetic 

model, was evaluated for performance 

in groups of children for which the 

geometric mean BLL is as low as 2.3 mg/ 

dL (Ref. 47). Mean estimated BLLs for 

groups of children at some of the lowest 

levels of dust lead exposure modeled for 

this rulemaking were lower than this 

value (between 0.81 and 1.12 mg/dL 

depending upon age) and are outside 

the range for which the underlying 

biokinetic model (IEUBK) has been 

evaluated. In order to address this lack 

of model evaluation at BLLs of interest, 

EPA conducted an evaluation of the R– 

SHEDS–Pb model used in this analysis 

with a dataset for which the geometric 

mean BLL in children aged 1 to 2 years 

old is 1.09 mg/dL. This evaluation found 

BLL estimates for 1- to 2-year-old 

children from the R–SHEDS–Pb model 

agreed well with the reference dataset at 

low percentiles, at the median, and at 

the 95th percentile. See table 13–2 and 

appendix D in the TSD (Ref. 12). AALM 

version 3.0 was validated against a 

panel of datasets including 

pharmacokinetic data from dosing 

studies in adults (Ref. 48), 

biomonitoring data including 

longitudinal studies of lead workers 

(Refs. 49, 50), and biokinetic studies in 

infants with estimated lead intakes 

(Refs. 51, 52). Additionally, AALM 

version 3.0 was evaluated at relatively 

low exposures and associated BLLs (∼1 

mg/dL) against the IEUBK predictions for 

children at birth until age 7 and the 

predictions were found to compare well, 

with a 5% discrepancy (0.07 mg/dL) 

between the two models at age 2 for a 

10 mg/day continuous lead dose (See 

Figure 13–1 in the TSD). 

In contrast to the TSD, which 

estimates the health risk and exposure 

associated with dust-lead loading 

candidates for a hypothetical population 

of children in target housing without 

consideration to how many children are 

actually affected by the rule, the EA 

estimates benefits that accrue to only 

the subpopulation that would be 

impacted by the final rule’s revisions. 

Rather than assuming all households 

living in target housing are impacted by 

the regulatory change, the EA instead 

estimates benefits solely for instances 

when dust-lead levels would be tested. 

These instances of dust wipe testing are 

henceforth referred to as ‘‘triggering 

events.’’ For the subpopulation of 

individuals who are affected by these 

events, the EA estimates quantified 

benefits from avoided lead-associated IQ 

decrements, avoided cases of ADHD or 

cardiovascular mortality, and changes in 

birthweight. The EA uses real world 

data to characterize: (1) variability in the 

housing stock that is affected; (2) how 

surface-by-surface dust-lead loadings 

change due to the DLRL/DLAL; (3) the 

number of individuals living in affected 

housing units; and (4) resultant changes 

in BLLs and IQ decrement, ADHD, low 

birthweight, and cardiovascular 

mortality risk that are expected. In 

modeling the relationships between 

dust-lead loadings and BLL/IQ, the EA 

presents results based on both the 

empirical and mechanistic approaches 

laid out in the TSD. EPA considered 

several methods to quantitatively 

represent the relationship between BLL 

and IQ for BLLs below the lowest 

lifetime average BLL (1.47 mg/dL) in the 

set of epidemiologic studies which the 

BLL–IQ concentration-response 

equations were based upon, and a range 

of IQ decrement estimates based on the 

methods considered are presented in the 

TSD and EA (see TSD section 6 and EA 

Section 6.4). The IQ decrement 

estimates presented in Unit IV. and in 

Section 12 of the TSD were derived 

using a linearization method, which 

resulted in the highest estimates of IQ 

decrements. 

Both the TSD and the EA present 

estimated changes in BLL and 

associated changes in health effects (IQ 

decrement, ADHD, low birthweight, and 

cardiovascular mortality risk). However, 

these estimates represent populations of 

exposed individuals characterized in 

differing ways. The TSD presents the 

expected response for a hypothetical 

dust-lead exposure, accounting for 

varying sources of background exposure 

(e.g., food, soil, water) and biological 

variability. The EA estimates expected 

responses to triggering events, 

recognizing that exposures at the higher 

end of the distribution of hypothetical 

conditions in the TSD are not realized 

in all target residences because dustlead levels across target housing are 

generally lower than the current hazard 

standards and clearance levels (10 mg/ft2

and 100 mg/ft2 on floors and window 

sills respectively) (Ref. 53) and existing 

abatements/interim controls typically 

overshoot the current clearance levels 

considerably (Ref. 54). Thus, the 

distributions of BLLs and health effects 

estimated in the TSD represent the 

impact of individuals’ exposures to 

hypothetical dust-lead levels while the 

EA estimates distributions of BLLs and 

health effects across individuals living 

in housing that is directly impacted by 

this rule. The analyses that EPA 

developed and presented for young 

children in the TSD and EA for this rule 

were specifically designed to estimate 

BLLs and associated risk of effects on IQ 

that might accrue to the population of 

interest (i.e., children living in pre-1978 

housing). EPA notes that its different 

program offices estimate exposures for 

different populations, different media, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89427 

and under different statutory 

requirements and thus different models 

or parameters may be a better fit for 

their purposes. Accordingly, the 

approach and modeling parameters 

chosen for this rulemaking should not 

necessarily be construed as appropriate 

for, or consistent with, those of other 

EPA programs or those of other Federal 

agencies. 

Public comments were received on 

the TSD and EA accompanying the 

proposed rule. EPA’s responses are 

included in Sections 9 and 10 of the 

Response to Comments filed under 

docket number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023– 

0231. 

IV. Final Rule 

As explained in Unit II.E., the 2021 

Court Opinion of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that 

EPA must reconsider the DLHS in 

conjunction with the DLCL (described 

by EPA as DLRL and DLAL moving 

forward) (Ref. 9). EPA carefully 

considered all public comments related 

to the proposed rule and is finalizing a 

nomenclature change from the 

terminology of DLHS and DLCL, to the 

dust-lead reportable level (abbreviated 

as DLRL) and the dust-lead action level 

(abbreviated DLAL), as well as revisions 

to lower both standards. In this final 

rule, EPA is revising the DLHS from 10 

mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for floors and 

window sills to a non-static DLRL 

represented by any reportable level of 

dust-lead as analyzed by an NLLAPrecognized laboratory. Lowering the 

DLRL (independent of the DLAL 

revisions) provides the regulatory 

benefit of additional disclosure of LBP 

hazards in target housing and COFs. 

This results in an estimated increase in 

individuals who are aware of the 

presence of dust-lead and the various 

actions that can be taken to minimize 

dust-lead hazards and take actions to 

protect themselves from exposure (even 

if LBP is not present). See Unit IV.B. for 

additional information describing the 

final DLRL of ‘‘any reportable level.’’ 

EPA is also finalizing revisions to the 

DLCL from 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2 and 400 

mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, and 

troughs to a DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, 

and 100 mg/ft2, which are the current 

DLCL in New York City (NYC). See Unit 

IV.C. for additional information 

describing the final DLAL. 

A. Nomenclature Changes 

EPA received several comments 

during the public comment period from 

a variety of organizations including 

industry, environmental and public 

health advocacy organizations, a local 

health department, the Attorneys 

General of several States and the District 

of Columbia, and a lead-based paint 

professional, suggesting EPA revise the 

terminology of DLHS and DLCL in order 

to better communicate to the public the 

purpose of the standards and to reduce 

confusion. Commenters highlighted that 

removing the use of ‘‘hazard’’ would be 

beneficial since it could imply that 

immediate action is needed or create 

confusion within the public when no 

action is recommended. Commenters 

also emphasized that changing the use 

of ‘‘clearance’’ could avoid any 

misconception that after an abatement 

no hazards remain. One commenter 

even noted that because this rule is 

shifting how the standards have worked 

together historically (i.e., decoupling the 

hazard standards and clearance levels 

for floors and sills), it may be helpful to 

both the public and the regulated 

community to make this shift even more 

transparent with a terminology change. 

Another commenter noted that EPA 

should consider how these terms are 

used in other Federal and State 

regulations. 

EPA received recommendations for 

new terminology for both standards, 

including dust-lead hazard level, 

disclosure level, lead dust disclosure 

level, contamination level, or leadcontaminated dust goal for the DLHS 

and action level or dust-lead action 

level for the DLCL, among other 

suggestions. EPA is finalizing a 

nomenclature change from the term 

DLHS to dust-lead reportable level 

(abbreviated DLRL) and from the term 

DLCL to dust-lead action level 

(abbreviated DLAL). The new term 

DLAL received the most support by 

public commenters, with the largest 

number of requests, whereas EPA 

believes DLRL captures the essence of 

the suggestion from the public 

commenters but avoids any confusion 

with the already well-established 

Disclosure Rule or disclosure program. 

While this exact terminology was not 

in the proposed rulemaking, EPA 

recognizes the value of these changes 

and agrees with commenters that the 

new terminology more clearly 

communicates the intention of the 

standards to the public and the 

regulated community. EPA believes this 

updated nomenclature aligns better and 

more intuitively with the operational 

function of the amendments EPA had 

proposed and is finalizing in this action. 

For example, the new terminology 

makes it clear that if a dust-lead loading 

falls below the DLAL but above the 

DLRL, that dust-lead is still present in 

the environment, but that the levels are 

below those prioritized for action. To 

implement this nomenclature change, 

EPA is adding a definition of ‘‘action 

levels’’ in 40 CFR 745.223 to replace 

‘‘clearance levels’’ and making other 

minor, conforming amendments in 

phrasing of the regulations. The term 

DLAL also emphasizes its new role, as 

the trigger for the recommendation for 

action due to the changes to the 

definition of abatement for dust-lead 

hazards (see Unit IV.E. for more 

information on the revisions to the 

definition of abatement). Ultimately, 

when the regulated community clears a 

project after an abatement, it would be 

to below the action levels. EPA intends 

any continuing use of the ‘‘clearance’’ 

term in the abatement context to 

describe such efforts (i.e., achieving 

loadings below the action level). EPA 

also appreciates that the reportable 

terminology in particular aligns with the 

regulatory definition that is being 

finalized of ‘‘any reportable level.’’ Note 

that within EPA’s regulatory landscape, 

dust-lead levels that are at or above the 

DLRL are still considered a LBP hazard, 

specifically a dust-lead hazard. EPA 

believes that messaging to the public 

and regulated community should 

revolve around explaining that any 

dust-lead levels at or above DLRL are 

above the level at which the LBP 

community must report a hazard on a 

risk assessment report, but that EPA 

recommends action only when levels 

are above the DLAL. Language around a 

reportable level should still clearly 

communicate that a dust-lead hazard is 

still present. 

Another concern raised by numerous 

public commenters was the confusion 

caused by the messaging of ‘‘greater 

than zero’’ (which was the terminology 

used to describe ‘‘any reportable level’’ 

in the proposed rule). In this final rule 

the terminology ‘‘greater than zero’’ is 

being replaced with ‘‘any reportable 

level’’ in the preamble and within any 

implementation materials that 

accompany this final rule. EPA agrees 

with the public that the concept of GTZ 

is confusing as it implies that if one has 

dust-lead loadings below any reportable 

level then there is zero or no dust-lead 

present. EPA wants to avoid this 

misconception and will refer to what 

was previously ‘‘greater than zero’’ as 

the ‘‘any reportable level’’ approach to 

avoid any further confusion. 

A more comprehensive version of 

EPA’s response on these communication 

and nomenclature comments can be 

found in Section 5 of the Response to 

Comments document that accompanies 

this final rule (Ref. 38). 

B. Dust-Lead Reportable Level Approach 

In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule EPA 

discussed the dilemma the Agency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89428 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

faced when establishing a dust-lead 

hazard standard, especially the 

challenges associated with choosing 

‘‘which [BLLs] are truly hazardous’’ and 

how to interpret the statutory criteria 

from TSCA section 401 (i.e., ‘‘would 

result in adverse human health effects’’ 

(15 U.S.C. 2681(10)) given the 

uncertainties that existed (Ref. 20). As a 

result, historically EPA took a pragmatic 

approach to setting the DLHS (described 

moving forward as the DLRL) and 

focused on the potential for risk 

reduction, cost-benefit balancing and 

other relevant factors, establishing the 

standards at 40 mg/ft2 and 250 mg/ft2 for 

floors and sills, respectively. The 

Agency did not establish a DLHS 

(described moving forward as the DLRL) 

for troughs as it found that window sills 

and troughs were highly correlated and 

concluded that testing both surfaces 

would not improve a risk assessor’s 

ability to characterize risk. 

Building off the precedent established 

in 2001, the 2019 Final Rule ‘‘evaluated 

the relationship between dust-lead 

levels and children’s health, and . . . 

the application of those standards in 

lead risk reduction programs.’’ In 

addition, when establishing the 2019 

standards, EPA also assessed laboratory 

capabilities, resources for addressing 

LBP hazards and consistency across the 

Federal government (Ref. 2). At that 

time EPA reasonably believed it had the 

discretion to set the DLHS (described as 

DLRL moving forward) based on both 

risk reduction and whether the 

standards were achievable, especially 

given the existing programs in place to 

reduce LBP hazards and revised the 

standards to 10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for 

floors and sills, respectively (Ref. 2). 

Ultimately, the 2021 Court Opinion, 

which is discussed in Unit II.E., led EPA 

to undertake a major shift in its 

approach to residential LBP hazard 

control and the LBP activities program 

because the Court found that EPA did 

not have the authority, when setting the 

DLHS, to consider non-health factors 

(e.g., laboratory capabilities, resources 

for addressing LBP hazards, consistency 

across the Federal government, or costbenefit balancing). Consistent with the 

2021 Court Opinion, EPA proposed 

revisions to the DLHS (described as 

DLRL moving forward) in August 2023 

and is finalizing those changes in this 

rulemaking based only on health 

considerations (Ref. 55). EPA intends 

health-only considerations in this 

context to refer to the effects of lead on 

health after exposure to dust-lead 

loadings, considering the statutory 

definition’s focus on ‘‘any condition 

that causes exposure to lead from leadcontaminated dust . . . that would 

result in adverse human health effects’’ 

(15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). These health-only 

considerations do not include broader 

public health concerns (such as health 

trade-offs and policy impacts on 

Federally assisted housing). See Unit 

IV.B.1.d. for more discussion on public 

health considerations and public 

feedback. 

1. Rationale for Selecting the Final 

DLRL 

EPA is finalizing a non-static DLRL 

that is any reportable level of dust-lead 

for floors and window sills as analyzed 

by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory. 

Setting a DLRL for floors and window 

sills only is consistent with current 

practice and regulatory history, which 

has not included a hazard standard or 

reportable level specifically for troughs. 

Given the statutory language in TSCA 

section 401 that defines what a ‘‘LBP 

hazard’’ is (i.e., as conditions of LBP and 

lead-contaminated dust and soil that 

‘‘would result in adverse human health 

effects’’), EPA believes that it cannot set 

the DLRL at zero because zero exposure 

to dust-lead loadings would not cause 

adverse health effects. EPA is not 

attempting to establish a safe level of 

dust-lead as, at this time, no BLL 

threshold at which no adverse effects 

occur in children has been identified 

(Ref. 5, 56), and EPA did not identify a 

level of dust-lead exposure at which 

there is no effect on BLL. The standard 

being established—‘‘any reportable 

level’’—is an appropriate non-zero 

DLRL and is based on dust-lead related 

health factors only. It was developed in 

accordance with the 2021 Court 

Opinion by taking into consideration 

the exposure modeling data outlined in 

TSD and the current state of the science 

on the health effects of lead exposure. 

The final DLRL approach represents a 

shift in the LBP activities program to a 

more inclusive and protective standard, 

compared with the 2019 levels. The 

DLRL approach will be inclusive of any 

reportable level of dust-lead and will 

not distinguish based on health risk 

posed. 

EPA received public comments on the 

‘‘any reportable level’’ approach to the 

DLRL, which are discussed in more 

depth in Unit IV.B.1.d. Additionally, 

two other approaches were also 

considered for revising the DLRL, 

including a numeric standard based 

entirely on the modeling data laid out 

in the TSD (summarized in TSD table 2– 

2), and an approach that would use the 

background dust-lead levels of housing 

built in or after 1978 (called post-1977 

background); both are briefly discussed 

in Unit IV.B.2. 

a. DLRL and the LQSR Action Level 

The DLRL is being finalized as any 

reportable level as analyzed by an 

NLLAP-accredited laboratory. 

‘‘Reportable level’’ had not previously 

been defined in EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR part 745 or EPA’s current guidance 

for NLLAP-recognized laboratories, 

titled Laboratory Quality Standards for 

Recognition (or LQSR 4.0). EPA is 

finalizing the definition of ‘‘reportable 

level’’ as proposed to mean the lowest 

analyte concentration (or amount) that 

does not contain a ‘‘less than’’ qualifier 

and that is reported with confidence for 

a specific method by an NLLAPrecognized laboratory. In other words, 

EPA interprets ‘‘any reportable level’’ of 

dust-lead to be any level greater than or 

equal to the lowest value a laboratory 

can reliably report to a client or the 

regulated community, and a report of 

zero concentration is not permitted 

under the LQSR. For target housing or 

a COF to achieve no dust-lead hazard, 

an NLLAP-recognized laboratory would 

need to provide a result that was less 

than (<) their reporting limit. Any 

numeric value that is above an NLLAPrecognized laboratory’s reporting limit 

would be considered a dust-lead hazard 

and would need to be disclosed as such, 

for example, on a risk assessment report 

prepared by a certified risk assessor. 

In terms of the standards being 

finalized in this rule and their impact 

on laboratories, given that the DLRL is 

a non-static value, the DLAL, rather 

than the DLRL, would be considered the 

‘‘action level’’ as described in the LQSR 

4.0, as well as for when a risk assessor 

would recommend an abatement (see 

Unit IV.E. for more information on 

EPA’s revisions to the definition of 

abatement). Under the LQSR 4.0, 

NLLAP-recognized laboratories that 

analyze dust wipe samples for lead must 

show that they can achieve a 

quantitation limit ‘‘equal to or less than 

. . . 80% of the lowest action level [i.e., 

regulatory limit] for dust wipe 

samples’’; this is a shift from LQSR 3.0 

where it was 50% (Refs. 26 and 57). The 

quantitation limit must also be ‘‘at least 

1.6 times but no greater than 10 times 

the method detection limit’’ (Ref. 26). 

Thus, EPA’s minimum standards for 

testing will rely on the numerical DLAL 

of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for 

floors, window sills and window 

troughs to establish the quantitation 

limit that any laboratory (that wishes to 

maintain or obtain NLLAP recognition) 

must be able to demonstrate (Ref. 26). 

The DLRL of ‘‘any reportable level’’ is 

considered distinct from the DLAL and 

not to affect the quantitation limit under 

the LQSR. Based on these minimum 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89429 

standards for NLLAP-recognized 

laboratories and previous laboratory 

stakeholder input, EPA expects that the 

lowest reportable level will be 

equivalent to the laboratory’s 

quantitation limit. Note that only 

laboratories that are NLLAP accredited 

can perform dust-wipe testing for lead 

under the existing regulations at 40 CFR 

part 745. 

EPA received public comments 

raising concerns that the DLRL is nonstatic and would change among 

laboratories depending given technology 

sensitivity, conditions etc. Commenters, 

including an NLLAP accrediting body, 

requested that the area wiped, 

instrumentation and/or method 

detection limit be defined to provide 

more consistency. EPA fully 

acknowledges that the reportable level 

under the final DLRL will potentially 

vary from laboratory to laboratory due to 

different capabilities. EPA believes 

establishing a DLRL based on the 

capabilities of individual laboratories is 

a strength of the final DLRL because it 

allows room for improvement and the 

possibility of getting as low as reliably 

reportable depending on the sensitivity 

of the technology—in turn allowing the 

regulated community to be able to 

disclose lower levels. This will also 

limit the need for future revisions to the 

DLRL, unless there is a compelling 

reason to, such as a threshold for 

adverse effects being identified. Note 

that the trigger for the recommendation 

of work has been shifted to the DLAL 

(rather than the DLHS, described as 

DLRL moving forward, as has been the 

case historically). See Unit IV.F. for 

more information on the change to the 

definition of abatement. 

While EPA understands the request 

for some form of minimum laboratory 

requirements, EPA disfavors requiring 

laboratories to use a specific type of 

technology for analysis, as that will 

limit some laboratories who have or 

would like to have more sensitive 

capabilities. Note that EPA does include 

standards that act as an upper bound 

within EPA’s LQSR 4.0 as discussed 

previously (e.g., every laboratory must 

have a quantitation limit equal to or less 

than 80% of the action level for each 

surface of interest, such as floors, 

window sills and troughs), among other 

standards, which effectively function to 

promote consistency between 

laboratories. For dust-wipe testing of 

floors, EPA does recommend that LBP 

professionals wipe at least two square 

feet as needed to help the NLLAPrecognized laboratory achieve the 

LQSR’s standard for the quantitation 

limit. Similarly, HUD already 

recommends using at least two square 

feet for LBP professionals conducting 

dust-lead testing of floors (in 

circumstances where needed for 

laboratory capabilities) for HUD’s 

current dust-lead action levels for its 

Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs 

(Ref. 58). EPA also recommends that 

LBP professionals document the sample 

size in order to inform the NLLAPrecognized laboratory either through 

already established practices or the 

Chain of Custody form. EPA does note 

that there may be laboratories with more 

sensitive technology that can meet the 

LQSR minimum standards without 

testing two square feet on floors. 

Overall EPA disagrees that the types 

of specifications requested by some 

commenters are required for the DLRL 

to work as intended. EPA recommends, 

if there are concerns, that the regulated 

community work directly with 

laboratories. Understanding the 

laboratory’s reporting limits and 

attaining consistent levels across larger 

projects is possible for the regulated 

community through contracts (i.e., 

arrangements incorporated into the 

project to use either the same laboratory 

or those with the same reporting values 

and technology), and through 

understanding various laboratories’ 

reporting limits. EPA acknowledges the 

potential challenges of inconsistency 

that may arise from the final DLRL, but 

EPA does not believe this can be 

considered when setting the DLRL or 

that it outweighs the benefit of 

additional disclosures to the public that 

will result from this approach. 

b. No Threshold Has Been Identified 

According to TSCA Title IV, EPA 

should identify the level of dust-lead 

exposure that ‘‘would result in adverse 

human health effects’’ as a type of LBP 

hazard (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). Any 

reportable level of lead in dust is a more 

protective approach compared with the 

current regulatory landscape. Any 

reportable level of lead in dust also 

acknowledges the current state of 

scientific evidence. Based on the 

epidemiological evidence available, 

EPA observed in the 2013 and 2024 

Integrated Science Assessments that 

there is no evidence of a threshold 

below which there are no harmful 

effects on cognition from lead exposure 

(Refs. 5 and 56). Depending on the 

exposure and other factors, effects on IQ 

associated with childhood lead 

exposure may persist into adolescence 

and adulthood (Refs. 5 and 6). EPA also 

favored such an approach for the DLRL 

under TSCA Title IV in part because a 

more protective approach to DLRL, such 

as any reportable level, aligns with the 

Congressional purpose for disclosure 

elsewhere under Title X (notably, as 

implemented in the Lead Disclosure 

Rule) and because Congress used the 

word ‘‘hazard’’ in the ‘‘lead-based paint 

hazard’’ term, even though the 

definition uses more risk-like language 

by introducing consideration of the 

level of exposure that would result in 

adverse health effects. 

The EPA 2024 Lead ISA stated that 

effects of lead exposure on children’s 

cognition were best substantiated to 

occur in study populations with mean 

BLLs between 2 and 8 mg/dL and noted 

that, extending the evidence described 

in the 2013 Lead ISA, associations with 

effects on cognition were also observed 

in groups with mean BLLs below 2 mg/ 

dL (though not all studies with mean 

BLL below 2 mg/dL reported positive 

associations between BLL and IQ 

decrements). Further, despite there 

being some uncertainty in 

epidemiological studies on lead 

exposure and BLLs (especially for older 

children and adults), the 2024 ISA 

stated that ‘‘the collective body of 

epidemiologic studies provides no 

evidence of a threshold for cognitive 

effects in children across the range of 

BLLs examined.’’ This body of evidence 

includes studies which found effects on 

children’s cognition in some groups of 

children with prenatal and early 

childhood blood lead or concurrent 

blood lead in the range of <1 to 10 mg/ 

dL. (Ref. 5). This statement was based 

on a synthesis of the extensive literature 

examining the relationship between BLL 

and cognitive function, including a 

landmark pooled cohort study by 

Lanphear et al. (Refs. 59 and 60), the 

results of which have been confirmed by 

repeated re-analysis (Refs. 61 and 62). 

The 2024 ISA’s statement on a threshold 

for cognitive function decrements in 

children is consistent with the 2013 ISA 

(Refs. 5 and 56), despite the evaluation 

of over 10 years of additional scientific 

evidence. The Federal Lead Action Plan, 

developed by the President’s Task Force 

on Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks to Children, which is 

comprised of 17 Federal departments 

and offices, states that ‘‘no safe blood 

lead level in children has been 

identified.’’ (Ref. 7). Further, the 

analysis that supports this rule 

examined the 95th percentile of 

children’s modeled BLLs and the 

associated IQ losses (Ref. 12), which for 

all options considered is at or above the 

group mean BLLs for which IQ loss is 

observed in the literature examined in 

the ISA (Ref. 5 and 12). 

EPA understands the limitations of 

the epidemiological analyses of BLL and 

children’s IQ and the heterogeneity 

observed in scientific studies evaluating 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89430 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

groups with mean BLLs below 2 mg/dL, 

and acknowledges that a threshold 

could exist that is currently 

unidentified; but ultimately in its 

assessment of the available scientific 

research findings in the 2024 ISA for 

lead, the Agency observed that ‘‘the 

collective body of epidemiologic studies 

provides no evidence of a threshold for 

cognitive effects in children across the 

range of BLLs examined.’’ This body of 

evidence includes studies which found 

effects on children’s cognition in some 

groups of children with prenatal and 

early childhood blood lead or 

concurrent blood lead in the range of <1 

to 10 mg/dL (Ref. 5). EPA continues to 

acknowledge the aforementioned 

uncertainties and notes that science is 

constantly evolving and, as additional 

data become available (e.g., exposure 

and health impacts), then EPA may 

undertake a new rulemaking to propose 

changing the standards in the future to 

reflect any new data or information 

about an acceptable threshold of effects 

on cognition in children. 

Additionally, the CDC acknowledges 

that ‘‘[s]cientific evidence suggests that 

there is no known safe [BLL], because 

even small amounts of lead can be 

harmful to a child’s developing brain’’ 

(Ref. 63). When the original DLHS and 

DLCL were proposed and finalized in 

1998 and 2001 the CDC had set a ‘‘level 

of concern’’ for children’s BLL at ≥10 

mg/dL (Refs. 64 and 65). In 1991, when 

that level was established as a level that 

should prompt public health actions, 

the CDC concurrently recognized that a 

BLL of 10 mg/dL did not define a 

threshold for the harmful effects of lead 

(Ref. 64). One goal for the level was that 

‘‘all lead poisoning prevention activities 

should be to reduce children’s BLLs 

below 10 mg/dL’’ (Ref. 64). Accordingly, 

in the 1998 proposal EPA stated that, 

‘‘[a]lthough the scientific community 

has not been able to identify a threshold 

of exposure below which adverse health 

effects do not occur, the evidence of 

health effects below 10 mg/dL is not 

sufficiently strong to warrant concern’’ 

(Ref. 66). In the final rule in 2001, EPA 

determined the lowest candidate DLHS 

by using a 1 to 5% probability of an 

individual child developing a BLL of 10 

mg/dL (Ref. 20). 

In the 2019 Final Rule, EPA 

recognized that ‘‘[a]lthough health risks 

to young children decrease with 

decreasing dust-lead levels, no non-zero 

lead level, including background levels, 

can be shown to eliminate health risk 

entirely.’’ At that time, EPA also 

recognized the CDC’s 2012 decision to 

discontinue its use of a 10 mg/dL blood 

lead ‘‘level of concern’’ and to introduce 

a population-based blood lead reference 

value (BLRV) to identify children 

exposed to more lead than most other 

children in the United States (Ref. 67). 

The BLRV represents the 97.5th 

percentile of the U.S. population BLL 

distribution in children ages 1 to 5 from 

the National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Surveys (NHANES). This 

means that by definition 2.5 percent of 

children ages 1 to 5 in the NHANES 

survey have a BLL greater than the 

BLRV. This metric was established in 

part because ‘‘no safe blood lead level 

in children ha[d] been identified,’’ (Ref. 

67). In 2012 the BLRV was 5 mg/dL, 

based on young children’s BLL in the 

2007–2010 NHANES, and in 2021 it was 

lowered to 3.5 mg/dL based on the 

children’s lower BLLs observed in the 

2015–2018 NHANES (Ref. 65). The 

BLRV is not based on a health endpoint, 

but rather is a statistical point in the 

distribution of children’s BLLs in the 

United States used as a policy tool to 

identify children who have higher levels 

of lead in their blood compared with 

most children. 

Establishing a health-based only 

standard for DLRL, as well as DLAL that 

considers other factors (i.e., taking into 

account reliability, effectiveness, and 

safety), is similar to EPA’s 

implementation of some other programs 

governing lead exposure. For example, 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), EPA is required to establish a 

maximum contaminant level goal 

(MCLG) at a level at which, in the 

Administrator’s judgment, ‘‘no known 

or anticipated adverse effects on the 

health of persons occur and which 

allows an adequate margin of safety.’’ 

SDWA section 1412(b)(4). EPA 

established a health based MCLG of zero 

for lead in drinking water. National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

include either an enforceable maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) or treatment 

technique requirements, EPA can set a 

treatment technique requirement in lieu 

of an MCL if ‘‘it is not economically or 

technologically feasible to ascertain the 

level of the contaminant.’’ SDWA 

section 1412(b)(7)(A). In addition to the 

MCLG, EPA established treatment 

technique requirements for lead taking 

into account several factors (56 FR 

26460). Unlike many other drinking 

water contaminants, lead is generally 

not present in source water but enters 

drinking water from corrosion of 

plumbing materials that contain lead 

including lead service lines and premise 

plumbing. Occurrence of lead in 

drinking water is variable within a 

system and across systems due to factors 

such as the amount of lead in any 

individual site’s plumbing, physical and 

chemical characteristics of the water, 

and consumer use patterns. 

Additionally, sources of lead can be 

beyond the control of the water system 

to replace, such as premise plumbing. 

Water systems can adjust or add 

treatment to control the corrosivity of 

the water to reduce lead leaching from 

lead pipes and premise plumbing. EPA 

is required to consider technical 

feasibility and costs when establishing 

the treatment technique. Under EPA’s 

treatment technique rule for lead in 

drinking water, EPA established a nonhealth-based action level that, if 

exceeded, requires water systems to take 

actions to reduce elevated levels of lead 

in drinking water. 

c. Modeling Discussion and Results 

The Technical Support Document 

estimated BLL and IQ decrements 

(among other health endpoints, see Unit 

III. for more information) in children 

exposed to hypothetical dust-lead 

loading values (i.e., it evaluated the 

estimated impacts of exact dust-lead 

exposures). These estimates for BLLs of 

children exposed to the DLRL dust-lead 

loadings were evaluated for children at 

each age up to age six, including age 

two (generally, age two is the age of 

greatest modeled exposure), and leadrelated reduction in IQ at age six was 

estimated from the lifetime average BLL 

(average of BLLs across the period prior 

to age six). This approach is consistent 

with the study from which the BLL 

concentration-IQ response function was 

drawn. This study related IQ quantified 

at about six years of age to each child’s 

lifetime average BLLs (based on blood 

lead measurements taken from six 

months up to age of the IQ test (Refs. 59 

and 60). In the following discussion 

towards the end of this section, both the 

model results for two-year BLL and the 

estimates of IQ change at six years are 

represented, and EPA refers to them as 

the results for ‘‘young children’’ for 

brevity. 

Ultimately, the results from the TSD 

show that as dust-lead levels in housing 

decrease below the current standard 

(i.e., 10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for floors 

and window sills), so do children’s BLL 

and IQ decrement from lead exposure, 

which supports the final approach of 

any reportable level and the concept of 

disclosure. These values are estimated 

to help EPA analyze the impacts of this 

rulemaking on the health (i.e., IQ 

decrement, which is a measure of 

cognitive function) and dust-lead 

exposure of the population in question 

(i.e., young children in pre-1978 

buildings and COFs), as well as to 

inform a costs and benefits analysis in 

the EA. Two other approaches to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89431 

revising the DLHS (described as DLRL 

moving forward) and their dust-lead 

loading candidates were considered and 

were both discussed in depth in the 

2023 Proposed Rule and evaluated in 

the TSD. See Unit IV.B.2. for more 

information. 

When choosing health or exposure 

metrics to evaluate the DLRL 

approaches based on the TSD results, 

the Agency considered three factors: (1) 

the CDC’s BLRV (which is a not a 

health-based end point but rather is a 

statistical measure of relative exposure); 

(2) responsiveness to feedback received 

previously from various scientific 

bodies; and (3) Agency precedent. The 

TSD considers BLL and IQ changes in 

two ways: relative to aggregate/total lead 

exposure (which includes exposure 

from other media: soil, diet, water, and 

air in addition to dust) and relative to 

incremental/dust-only lead exposure 

(Ref. 12). For example, in 2001 the 

lowest DLHS candidate was identified 

by using a 1 to 5% probability of an 

individual child developing a BLL of 10 

mg/dL (Ref. 20), which represented total 

BLL, inclusive of exposure to lead 

through other media. 

In the TSD analyses for this final rule, 

EPA compared BLL in young children, 

with an emphasis on 2-year-old children 

because this is the age of greatest 

modeled exposure, from aggregate or 

total exposure from all media (i.e., dust, 

soil, diet, water, and air) to the CDC 

BLRV of 3.5 mg/dL. This BLL value is 

not health based and does not represent 

a toxicity threshold (and is subject to 

change over time, since the CDC BLRV 

changes as the BLLs in the population 

change); however, CDC explains that it 

can still be used as a tool to ‘‘(1) help 

determine whether medical or 

environmental follow-up actions should 

be initiated for an individual child and 

(2) prioritize communities with the most 

need for primary prevention of exposure 

and evaluate the effectiveness of 

prevention efforts’’ (Ref. 65). 

Importantly, even at zero dust-lead 

(which again is not a candidate of 

interest but is being used for 

comparison and informational purposes 

only), children are estimated to have a 

5.7% probability of exceeding the BLRV 

given the impact of background lead 

exposures from other media (e.g., soil, 

diet, water, and air) (Ref. 12). 

TABLE 1—PERCENT EXCEEDANCE VALUES FOR ZERO DUST-LEAD, AGE: 2-YEAR-OLD (30 MONTHS) 

Approach Floor 

(μg/ft2) 

Sill 

(μg/ft2) 

Probability 

Total BLL 

>3.5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Total BLL 

>5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Dust only 

BLL >1 μg/dL 

(%) 

Dust only 

BLL >2.5 μg/ 

dL 

(%) 

Zero 1 ......................................................................................... 0 0 5.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 

1The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational purposes 

only. 

In 2011, EPA’s Scientific Advisory 

Board (SAB) and in 2012 the Children’s 

Health Protection Advisory Committee 

(CHPAC) both expressed support for an 

incremental BLL approach that focuses 

on dust-lead exposure only. In 2011 

SAB reviewed EPA’s Approach for 

Developing Lead Dust Hazard 

Standards for Residences (November 

2010 Draft) and Approach for 

Developing Lead Dust Hazard 

Standards for Public and Commercial 

Buildings (November 2010 Draft) and 

provided feedback that there are several 

key advantages to the incremental 

approach (e.g., reducing uncertainty 

from estimating exposures from other 

media) and provided that a change in 

BLL ‘‘of 1 or 2 mg/dL at the 90th 

percentile’’ could be an example of a 

target risk level. Similarly, CHPAC 

expressed support for using an 

incremental approach and preferred 

levels such that an adverse change in 

BLL is ‘‘no greater than 1 or 2.5 mg/dL’’ 

(Ref. 68). 

As a result, EPA also estimated what 

dust-lead levels (considering only the 

dust-lead component in the multi-media 

exposure modeling) would result in 

incremental BLL change ranging 

between 1 and 2.5 mg/dL based on 

exposure assumptions described in the 

TSD (Ref. 12). 

For this reconsideration rulemaking 

the Agency considered the estimated 

total/aggregate IQ change (i.e., the 

estimated total or aggregate IQ change 

from modeled BLL including all 

modeled sources of lead exposure) at 

age six and compared it to a threshold 

of 1 to 2 points. IQ changes due to 

background exposures to lead in other 

media (e.g., soil, diet, water, and air) are 

estimated to already have a 48.7% 

probability to exceed 2 points for 

children in target housing without also 

considering additional dust-lead 

exposure (Ref. 12). 

TABLE 2—PERCENT EXCEEDANCE VALUES FOR ZERO DUST-LEAD, AGE: 6-YEAR-OLD (72 MONTHS) 

Approach Floor 

(μg/ft2) 

Sill 

(μg/ft2) 

Probability 

Total IQ 

decrement 

>1pt 

(%) 

Total IQ 

decrement 

>2pt 

(%) 

Dust only IQ 

decrement 

>1pt 

(%) 

Dust only IQ 

decrement 

>2pt 

(%) 

Zero 1 ......................................................................................... 0 0 88.9 48.7 0.0 0.0 

1The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational purposes 

only. 

In addition to total/aggregate IQ 

change, EPA determined BLLs that were 

estimated to result in an incremental 

loss of 1 to 2 IQ points from exposure 

to only dust-lead (i.e., exclusive of lead 

in other media such as soil, diet, water, 

and air). This metric is explicitly healthbased, in that it is an estimated health 

effect. There is EPA precedence for 

using the metric of an incremental 

change in IQ with a range of values of 

1 to 2 points to inform national 

standards decisions. This includes the 

2008 and 2016 decisions on the primary 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for lead, which was informed 

by consideration of air-related IQ 

decrement estimates based on an 

evidence-based framework, with a focus 

on the at-risk subpopulation of children 

living near sources who are likely to be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89432 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

most highly exposed to air-related lead 

(Ref. 69). In their review of various 

technical documents supporting both 

the 2008 and 2016 NAAQS reviews, the 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC) supported using an 

incremental 1-to-2-point IQ decrement 

approach for consideration during 

development of the air standard (Refs. 

69 and 70). 

When modeling the ‘‘any reportable 

level’’ approach in the TSD to compare 

to these health and exposure metrics of 

interest (as discussed previously), EPA 

used estimated dust-lead loadings 

ranging from 0.8 to 2.0 mg/ft2 for floors 

and 0.8 to 4.3 mg/ft2 for window sills. 

These are estimated values for an any 

reportable level DLRL paired with both 

the proposed DLAL (3 mg/ft2, 20 mg/ft2, 

and 25 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, 

and window troughs respectively) and 

the proposed alternative DLAL (5 mg/ft2, 

40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, 

window sills and window troughs 

respectively, which is being finalized in 

this rulemaking). These estimated dustlead loadings account for the lower 

reporting thresholds that EPA estimates 

laboratories will realistically attain 

under this rule. EPA collected 

information on real-world laboratory 

reporting limits from stakeholder 

outreach conversations. These any 

reportable level values listed in this unit 

are based on the average of reporting 

limits (which can vary across 

laboratories) that currently report 

numeric dust wipe loadings at levels 

80% of the DLAL options. For the 

details of these calculations, see Section 

2.4.6 of the EA (Ref. 10). Once again, 

EPA also used a hypothetical dust-lead 

loading value of zero, for comparison 

purposes only, to better understand the 

estimated impact that lead exposure 

from other matrices is expected to have 

on a young child without any dust-lead 

exposure. 

The dust-lead reportable level will be 

used as a tool to identify when there are 

LBP hazards, particularly dust-lead 

hazards present, and to disclose those 

hazards to the individuals who 

requested the work. EPA’s analysis for 

the final DLRL (any reportable level 

partnered with the final DLAL of 5 mg/ 

ft2 and 40 mg/ft2 for floors and window 

sills) shows that after implementation of 

this standard, young children in target 

housing are estimated to have a 9.8% 

probability of exceeding an incremental 

BLL of 1 mg/dL (tables 12–2 and 12–3 in 

the TSD). In contrast, under the 2019 

DLHS of 10 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2, such 

children would have a 36.7% 

probability of exceeding that BLL. 

When evaluating the final DLRL of 

any reportable level partnered with the 

final DLAL of 5 mg/ft2 and 40 mg/ft2 for 

floors and window sills by its impact on 

the metric of total BLL, the modeling 

includes exposure from other media 

such as soil, diet, water, and air. 

Importantly, even at zero dust-lead, 2- 

year-old children in target housing are 

estimated to have a 5.7% probability of 

exceeding the BLRV given the impact of 

these other exposures. This is because 

children who reside in target housing 

(built before 1978) have higher 

exposures to lead in soil and water 

relative to the overall population of US 

children (Ref. 71). However, the TSD 

modeling results did show that for any 

reportable level approach partnered 

with the final DLAL, there was a 10% 

probability of exposed 2-year-old 

children’s BLL exceeding the CDC BLRV 

given their likely exposures to other 

sources of lead, an increase of 4.3% 

from the 5.7% probability at zero dustlead and a reduction from the 2019 

DLHS levels of 18%. 

TABLE 3—PERCENT EXCEEDANCE VALUES FOR DLRL CANDIDATES, AGE: 2-YEAR-OLD (30 MONTHS) 

Approach Floor 

(μg/ft2) 

Sill 

(μg/ft2) 

Probability 

Total BLL 

>3.5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Total BLL 

>5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Dust only 

BLL >1 μg/dL 

(%) 

Dust only 

BLL >2.5 μg/ 

dL 

(%) 

Zero 1 ......................................................................................... 0 0 5.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 

ARL With 3/20 DLAL ................................................................. 0.8 0.8 8.4 3.0 4.2 0.2 

ARL With 5/40 DLAL ................................................................. 2.0 4.3 10.0 3.8 9.8 0.9 

Current Standard ....................................................................... 10 100 18.0 7.5 36.7 6.5 

1The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational purposes 

only. 

DLRL candidates with the any 

reportable level approach are also 

estimated to be associated with a 

considerable reduction in the percent 

exceedance values for the lowest IQ 

decrements when compared with the 

current DLHS of 10/100 mg/ft2 for floors 

and window sills. Any reportable level 

partnered with the final DLAL option (5 

mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2) is estimated to have an 

8.4% probability of greater than 2 points 

of IQ decrement associated with dustexposure, keeping the percentage of 

exceedance of 2 points of IQ decrement 

below 10% probability compared with 

the previous 2019 DLHS of 37.9%. 

TABLE 4—PERCENT EXCEEDANCE VALUES FOR DLHS CANDIDATES, AGE: 6-YEAR-OLD (72 MONTHS) 

Approach Floor 

(μg/ft2) 

Sill 

(μg/ft2) 

Probability 

Total IQ 

decrement 

>1pt 

(%) 

Total IQ 

decrement 

>2pt 

(%) 

Dust only IQ 

decrement 

>1pt 

(%) 

Dust only IQ 

decrement 

>2pt 

(%) 

Zero 1 ......................................................................................... 0 0 88.9 48.7 0.0 0.0 

ARL With 3/20 DLAL ................................................................. 0.8 0.8 96.4 71.0 20.3 2.7 

ARL With 5/40 DLAL ................................................................. 2.0 4.3 97.7 78.0 39.2 8.4 

Current Standard ....................................................................... 10 100 99.4 90.3 75.8 37.9 

1The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational purposes 

only. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89433 

d. Public Comment Input 

EPA received a number of comments 

during the public comment period that 

supported the proposed DLHS approach 

(described as DLRL moving forward) of 

‘‘any reportable level’’ based on their 

view that there is no safe level of lead 

exposure. Multiple commenters also 

emphasized the dangers of lead 

exposure and were supportive as the 

DLRL will make the public and the 

regulated community aware of the risk 

lead dust may pose. Comments were 

also received expressing a lack of 

support for any reportable level, 

highlighting several primary concerns: 

that this approach would lead to larger 

public health impacts, create housing 

instability, encompass background 

levels of lead or lead sources that are 

not from lead-based paint, that the level 

would vary or be inconsistent from 

laboratory to laboratory, concerns over 

liability, and the impacts that an 

increase in costs would have. 

EPA’s responsibility when revising 

the DLRL (which is being done in 

accordance with the May 2021 Court 

Opinion and EPA’s statutory authority) 

is to identify ‘‘any condition that causes 

exposure to lead from leadcontaminated dust . . . that would 

result in adverse human health effects’’ 

(emphasis added) (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). 

These health-only considerations do not 

include broader public health concerns 

and are specifically focused on the 

health impacts of dust-lead exposure, 

without consideration of housing 

instability, source of the lead in the 

dust, cost, etc. In 2019 when EPA 

originally revised the DLHS, the Agency 

did so based on other factors such as 

risk management, consistency across the 

U.S. government, and laboratory 

capacity and capability, among other 

reasons. The 2021 Court opinion clearly 

explained that EPA must reconsider the 

2019 DLHS and do so using health-only 

factors. 

Firstly, EPA agrees with public 

commenters about the importance of the 

availability of affordable housing in the 

United States and wants to highlight 

actions this Administration has taken on 

this issue, such as the May 2022 

Housing Supply Action Plan which was 

last updated in July 2023 with actions 

to further lower housing costs and boost 

supply (Refs. 72 and 73). Access to 

secure housing is an important social 

determinant of health (Ref. 74). 

Research finds negative health effects 

resulting from three key mechanisms of 

housing insecurity: lack of housing 

affordability leading to stress and 

material deprivation (Refs. 75, 76, 77 

and 78), lack of housing stability (Refs. 

79, 80, 81, 82 and 83), and lack of safe 

and adequate housing (Refs. 84, 85, 86, 

87 and 88). EPA does not want to 

negatively impact the availability of 

housing stock with this final rulemaking 

nor disincentivize participation in any 

Federal programs and plans to work 

closely with HUD to try to help mitigate 

any such consequences. See Unit V.B. 

for more information on the 

implications of this rulemaking on HUD 

programs. 

Secondly, EPA acknowledges that 

lead is naturally occurring and that it is 

impossible to entirely remove lead from 

nature. EPA acknowledges that 

background concentrations of dust-lead 

could be higher than any reportable 

level as analyzed by an NLLAPrecognized laboratory, depending on the 

sensitivity of the dust-wipe sampling 

technology being used and the 

background levels themselves. However, 

in EPA’s 2001 LBP Hazards Rule 

establishing the original dust-lead 

standards, including the DLHS and 

DLCL (described as DLRL and DLAL 

moving forward), EPA explained that 

the Agency would not exclude from 

coverage under TSCA Title IV certain 

dust or soil based on its lead source due 

to both statutory and technical reasons. 

The 2001 Response to Comment 

Document (that accompanies the 2001 

LBP Hazards Rule) rightly pointed out 

that the definitions of ‘‘leadcontaminated soil’’ and ‘‘leadcontaminated dust’’ from TSCA section 

401 do not include mention of leadpaint or any reference to paint as the 

source of lead in dust or soil. 

Additionally, the definition of a ‘‘leadbased paint hazard’’ lists exposure to 

lead from lead-contaminated dust and 

soil as sources of lead contamination 

separate from—and not explicitly linked 

to—lead-contaminated paint. The 2001 

Response to Comment Document 

continues that in addition to soil, paint 

and dust being defined separately and 

distinctly in the statute, TSCA section 

403 directs EPA to ‘‘promulgate 

regulations which shall identify, for the 

purposes of [TSCA Title IV] and the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992, lead-based paint 

hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and 

lead-contaminated soil’’ (15 U.S.C. 

2683). If the definitions for leadcontaminated dust and soil were meant 

to include only lead from paint, it 

would not be necessary to list them 

separately in TSCA section 403. EPA 

ultimately concluded, based on the 

‘‘breadth of the definition for leadcontaminated dust and soil taken 

together with the structures of both Title 

X and TSCA demonstrate that the lead 

source in lead-contaminated dust and 

soil covered by these statutes is not 

limited to lead from paint.’’ For the full 

discussion, see the 2001 response to 

comments document (Ref. 89). 

Separately, EPA also pointed out in 

the 2001 response to comments 

document the complexity of identifying 

a method for distinguishing the risks 

based on different types of lead (i.e., 

from different sources). It is not possible 

to determine easily and with good 

precision what element of lead in dust 

or soil is from what specific source or 

building component. EPA concluded at 

the time that ‘‘there is a distinct absence 

of a scientific method to determine 

conclusively that the source of lead in 

dust or soil is not paint on a routine 

basis.’’ EPA believes that this 

conclusion has not changed, and while 

there are some studies that involve 

stable isotope ratios (see 2001 response 

to comments document for more 

information), those are not a viable 

solution for the LBP activities program 

which includes numerous properties 

that fall under the definition of target 

housing and COFs, with risk 

assessments and testing happening 

across the United States on a routine 

basis. 

Note that the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

upheld this interpretation pertaining to 

source apportionment in 2002 in Nat’l 

Multi Housing Council v. EPA, 292 F.3d 

232 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Based on the 

epidemiological evidence available, 

EPA observed in the 2013 and 2024 

Integrated Science Assessments that 

there is no evidence of a threshold 

below which there are no harmful 

effects on cognition from lead exposure, 

(Refs. 5 and 56), and that conclusion is 

not impacted by the source of that lead 

exposure. EPA is also unaware of any 

information that points to different 

health effects based on different types of 

dust-lead (i.e., dust-lead from soil vs. 

dust-lead from household paint). 

Thirdly, EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the final DLRL 

(previously referred to as DLHS) will 

potentially vary from laboratory to 

laboratory. EPA sees this as a strength 

of the final DLRL: that there is room for 

improvement and the possibility of 

getting as low as reliably reportable 

depending on the sensitivity of the 

technology, which in turn allows the 

regulated community to be able to 

disclose lower levels. In addition, EPA 

sets the minimum standards laboratories 

need to meet, outlined in the latest 

LQSR version 4.0. Therefore, EPA feels 

the potential for variability that the 

commenters are raising is limited and 

any variability would be below the 80% 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

of the lowest action level for dust wipe 

samples per specific surface area (i.e., 

equal to or less than 4 mg/ft2 for floors, 

32 mg/ft2 for window sills and 80 mg/ft2

for troughs). This will also reduce the 

need to revise the DLRL, unless there is 

a compelling reason to, such as a 

threshold for adverse effects being 

identified. EPA also notes that it has 

previously adopted and continues to 

apply an analogous concept in the 

disclosure program (40 CFR part 745, 

subpart F and 24 CFR part 35, subpart 

A), where disclosable records and 

reports have included any information 

regarding LBP or LBP hazards, 

including dust-lead levels below the 

DLHS (described as DLRL moving 

forward). As laboratory testing protocols 

have improved, so has the quality of the 

information in the records and reports 

based on such testing, which are 

ultimately provided to the home/ 

building owner or lessee. 

EPA points the regulated community 

to other changes being finalized in the 

rulemaking, such as the definition of 

abatement and the nomenclature 

change, which will adjust the 

terminology used for the standards. EPA 

is finalizing a change in the definition 

of abatement that results in the 

recommendation for action being shifted 

to the DLAL (rather than the DLHS, 

described as DLRL moving forward, as 

has been the case historically). The 

DLAL is being finalized as 5 mg/ft2, 40 

mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, window 

sills, and window troughs. EPA also 

recommends that all local, Federal and 

authorized programs make similar 

changes, to change their trigger for 

recommending action, for the same 

reasons EPA has explained that this 

rulemaking adopts such changes. EPA 

believes this change will also alleviate 

some of the concerns surrounding 

laboratory inconsistency if the 

recommendation for action hinges off of 

the DLAL rather than the DLRL. See 

Unit IV.A. and Unit IV.E. for more 

information on these amendments. 

Additionally, due to feedback from 

public comments (see Section 5 of the 

response to comments document that 

accompanies this final rule for more 

information), EPA is also finalizing 

changes to the nomenclature of DLHS 

and DLCL, to dust-lead reportable level 

and dust-lead action level (abbreviated 

DLRL and DLAL). EPA believes these 

revisions will better communicate to the 

public the purpose of the standards and 

to reduce confusion. EPA believes these 

changes will also help address some of 

the commenters’ concerns about 

potential liability for LBP professionals 

or landlords from allowing dust-lead 

hazards to remain. 

A more comprehensive version of 

EPA’s responses on all of these issues 

can be found in the response to 

comments document that accompanies 

this rulemaking (Ref. 38). 

2. Other Approaches EPA Considered in 

the Proposed Rule 

EPA considered two other approaches 

for revising the DLHS (described as 

DLRL moving forward): a ‘‘numeric 

standard’’ approach and a ‘‘post-1977 

background’’ approach. Both 

approaches were discussed in depth in 

the proposed rule, which also included 

requests for comment. All three 

approaches (i.e., any reportable level, 

numeric standard, and post-1977 

background) would take different 

analytical paths to revising the DLRL 

based only on health considerations. 

EPA is finalizing any reportable level, 

see Unit IV.B.1. for more information; 

however, the other two approaches EPA 

considered are summarized briefly 

elsewhere in this unit (Unit.IV.B.2.). See 

the 2023 Proposed Rule for more 

detailed information (Ref. 55). 

The ‘‘numeric standard’’ approach 

would have been based on the 

probability of exceedance of one or 

more IQ or BLL metrics as determined 

by the Agency, meaning that the Agency 

would establish a DLRL with a rationale 

based solely on the interpretation of the 

TSD results and using a selected metric. 

To do this, the Agency would need to 

establish a health or exposure metric of 

interest (i.e., target BLL or IQ change) 

that would be acceptably protective of 

human health, such as the metrics used 

in the TSD and described in Unit 

IV.B.1.c. Within the TSD and for the 

2023 Proposed Rule, EPA evaluated 

several numeric DLRL candidates that 

the Agency thought were appropriate 

given the health and exposure metrics of 

interest and the uncertainty of the 

model at low loading values. The 

numeric DLRL candidates discussed in 

the proposed rule were 1/10 mg/ft2 (i.e., 

1 mg/ft2 for floors and 10 mg/ft2 for sills), 

2/20 mg/ft2, 3/30 mg/ft2, and 5/40 mg/ft2

and those values were compared with 

the specified BLL and IQ metrics to 

estimate the probability of exceeding the 

BLL or IQ targets. 

In 2001 and 2019, EPA expressed the 

challenges of meeting the statutory 

criterion for defining a LBP hazard (15 

U.S.C. 2681(10)) because it requires EPA 

to choose a cutoff for when 

unacceptable risk exists. EPA noted in 

2001, even if the science and 

environmental-lead prevalence data 

were perfect, there would likely be no 

agreement on the level, or certainty, of 

risk that is envisioned in the phrase 

‘‘would result in adverse human health 

effects.’’ Thus, EPA explained that it 

‘‘would not be appropriate to base a 

[LBP] hazard standard on any specific 

probability of exceeding any specific 

[BLL].’’ (Refs. 2 and 20). 

For this numeric approach the Agency 

would need to establish a health or 

exposure metric of interest (i.e., target 

BLL or IQ change) that would be 

acceptably protective of human health. 

Under this numeric standard approach, 

EPA planned to use the threshold of 5% 

probability of exceedance for a child 

from the population of interest (i.e., 

young children living in pre-1978 

housing and COFs). This is similar to 

the 1 to 5% probability that was used 

in 2001 for the lowest DLHS candidate 

(Ref. 20). However, EPA ultimately 

continues to agree with the challenges 

that were highlighted in 2001 and 2019, 

and the complexity with identifying a 

cutoff of risk or specific IQ/BLL metrics 

of interest that would be acceptable for 

purposes of setting the DLRL. 

Accordingly, EPA continues to favor the 

‘‘any reportable level’’ approach. 

EPA also considered and requested 

comment on the ‘‘post-1977’’ 

background approach that would use 

the average background dust-lead levels 

of housing built in 1978 and beyond as 

the DLRL. This approach would align 

target housing dust-lead levels with 

dust-lead levels in housing built after 

lead-based paint was banned. In 1978, 

the CPSC banned lead in paint and 

similar surface-coating materials for 

consumer use in excess of 0.06% and 

revised the level in 2009 to 0.009% 

following the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

314). As a result of CPSC’s 1978 lead 

paint ban, the focus of EPA’s LBP 

activities program is target housing, 

which includes most pre-1978 housing 

and COFs. This approach would result 

in lowering the DLRL to the dust-lead 

background levels of housing built after 

1977 (known as ‘‘post-1977 

background’’), which are presumably 

not from paint on the house in question 

containing more than 0.06% lead. 

Post-1977 background dust-lead 

values were calculated from a weighted 

geometric mean of the dust-lead 

loadings from the American Healthy 

Homes Survey II and were found to be 

0.2 mg/ft2 for floors and 0.8 mg/ft2 for 

window sills (Refs. 10 and 53). Setting 

the DLRL at the post-1977 background 

dust-lead levels would allow EPA to 

focus on dust-lead hazards above what 

is expected in housing without LBP (i.e., 

after CPSC established a maximum level 

of lead in paint for consumer products, 

including home paints). Establishing 

DLRL for target housing and COFs in 

this way, using post-1977 background 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89435 

dust-lead levels, would address 

disparities in the dust-lead levels that 

children in target housing may be 

exposed to and the corresponding 

disparate health risks. This approach 

would also align with the focus of Title 

X on lead hazards in housing 

constructed before 1978. However, there 

are questions about whether the post1977 background approach would 

directly address the 2021 Court Opinion 

as the ‘‘any reportable level’’ approach 

does. 

See the 2023 Proposed Rule for more 

detailed information about these two 

approaches, including a description of 

their estimated modeling results, such 

as BLL/IQ decrement impacts (Ref. 55). 

EPA did not receive significant public 

comment for either of these approaches 

and given the 2021 Court Opinion 

remanding the DLHS for reconsideration 

based only on health factors, the results 

of the analysis in the TSD, and the lack 

of a discernible threshold in the 

evidence for the association of blood 

lead with harmful effects on cognition 

in young children, EPA is finalizing 

revisions to the 2019 DLHS to any 

reportable level of lead analyzed by an 

NLLAP-recognized laboratory, as 

proposed. 

C. Dust-Lead Action Level Approach 

TSCA Title IV granted EPA the 

authority to regulate LBP activities, and 

to take into account reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety (15 U.S.C. 

2682(a)(1)) when setting those 

regulations (including the DLAL). While 

considering those three criteria, the 

2001 LBP Hazards Rule modified the 

work practice standards to include 

DLCL (described as DLAL moving 

forward), which ‘‘are used to evaluate 

the effectiveness of cleaning following 

an abatement’’ (Ref. 20). In both the 

2001 LBP Hazards Rule and the 2021 

Final Rule, the DLCL were finalized as 

the same value as the DLHS (described 

as DLRL moving forward) for floors and 

window sills. When originally 

established, EPA considered the DLCL 

in the broader context of Title X, and 

selected DLCL that were compatible 

with a ‘‘workable framework for leadbased paint hazard evaluation and 

reduction.’’ EPA chose DLCL that were 

consistent with the DLHS in part to 

ensure they were ‘‘as easy as possible to 

understand and implement’’ (Ref. 66). 

At that time EPA established the DLCL 

and the DLHS at 40 mg/ft2 and 250 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and window sills, with a 

separate DLCL of 400 mg/ft2 for troughs. 

In 2021 the DLCL set by EPA 

continued to mirror the DLHS as it had 

done historically, as the Agency 

explained that it wanted to update the 

DLCL to achievable levels that would 

demonstrate elimination of dust-lead 

hazards under the 2019 DLHS of 10 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window 

sills. The 2021 updates to the DLCL 

restored consistency between the DLCL 

and DLHS, which had been lowered in 

2019 without a corresponding 

amendment to the DLCL. Previous 

public comments received on the 2018 

DLHS proposal and 2020 DLCL proposal 

favored lowering the DLCL to be 

consistent with the DLHS (Refs. 90 and 

91). As a result, in 2021 EPA finalized 

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

ft2 for window sills (the same levels as 

the DLHS), and ‘‘EPA considered the 

achievability of these levels, how the 

lower dust-lead loadings can be reliably 

detected by laboratories, the 

effectiveness of these levels, and 

consistency with the revised 2019 

standards and across the Federal 

Government’’ (Ref. 3). 

The 2021 Court Opinion affirmed that 

‘‘TSCA [Title] IV gives the EPA latitude 

to consider ‘reliability, effectiveness, 

and safety’’’ when promulgating 

regulations ‘‘[w]ith respect to 

implementation, including abatement.’’ 

A Cmty. Voice, 997 F.3d at 995 (Ref. 9). 

This would include the DLCL/DLAL as 

they represent part of post-abatement 

work practices. The Court continued by 

emphasizing that this gives EPA more 

discretion when setting the DLCL 

because they are relevant to the 

implementation of remedial measures, 

rather than the identification of a hazard 

(i.e., DLHS/DLRL). The Court 

analogized this dichotomy to other 

environmental statutory schemes (see 

also Unit IV.B.1.b. for EPA’s discussion 

of the SDWA). The Court also held that 

the DLCL and DLHS are directly related 

and must be reconsidered together. Yet 

the Court recognized the difference in 

statutory authority and considerations 

(see Unit IV.B. for more information on 

DLRL, previously referred to as DLHS). 

In accordance with the 2021 Court 

Opinion, EPA is finalizing revisions to 

the DLAL (previously referred to as the 

DLCL) in the same proceeding as the 

reconsideration of the 2019 DLHS 

(described as DLRL moving forward). 

Given the Court’s direction for the 

considerations for how to revise the 

DLHS and DLCL and similar to what 

was proposed in 2023, EPA is finalizing 

dust-lead action levels that are 

decoupled from the dust-lead reportable 

levels (see Unit I.B. and C. for more 

background on decoupling). EPA 

evaluated the 2021 DLCL in accordance 

with the statute and is finalizing 

revisions to lower the levels to the 

alternative option that was proposed in 

2023, from 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2 and 400 

mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, and 

troughs, respectively, to 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ 

ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 and is finalizing a 

change in the terminology to DLAL. 

1. Rationale for Selecting the Final 

DLAL 

EPA is finalizing the DLAL given the 

statutory criteria of reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety, based on 

consideration of HUD’s Lead Hazard 

Control Clearance Survey (LHCCS), an 

evaluation of laboratory capabilities and 

capacity, the potential for risk reduction 

compared to the 2021 DLCL by lowering 

exposure to dust-lead, resource 

considerations and the Agency’s careful 

review of the public comments received 

on the proposal. EPA chose 5 mg/ft2, 40 

mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, window 

sills and window troughs, respectively, 

as the DLAL based on these 

consideration as well as high confidence 

that these standards can be successfully 

implemented, as shown by the use of 

these clearance levels currently in NYC. 

Another consideration supporting the 

choice of these DLAL is to avoid 

potentially spreading the limited 

resources for LBP hazard mitigation so 

broadly that they may be diverted from 

scenarios that present the greatest risk. 

a. Lead Hazard Control Clearance 

Survey. 

EPA collaborated with HUD to 

develop the 2015 LHCCS. The survey 

aimed to examine whether HUD’s Office 

of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy 

Homes (OLHCHH) Lead Hazard Control 

(LHC) grantees could achieve DLCL 

(described as DLAL moving forward) 

below the standards in place at that time 

(i.e., below 40 mg/ft2, 250 mg/ft2 and 400 

mg/ft2 for floors, window sills and 

troughs, respectively). LHC work 

performed by the grantees must be 

conducted by LBP certified individuals. 

Since most of the LHC grantees use 

commercial firms in their area, HUD 

OLHCHH believes that the grantees are 

conducting a large percentage of these 

activities and are therefore 

representative of the regulated 

community. 

98 LHC grantees completed the 2015 

survey, giving HUD information from 

housing units in which lead hazard 

control activities took place from 2010 

through 2012, for a total dataset of 1,552 

housing units including 7,211 floor 

samples and 4,893 window sill samples 

(Ref. 54). The data were analyzed to 

determine the percentage of samples 

cleared at or below specific values. 

Numerical modeling was performed to 

estimate loadings that fell below 

laboratory detection limits. For more 

information on how that analysis was 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

conducted please see appendix D of the 

EA (Ref. 10). Since the 2015 LHCCS 

report was published, to the Agency’s 

knowledge, there has not been any data 

or source of information of this 

magnitude in terms of clearance 

samples alongside the details of the 

process, including the number of tests 

performed (with results) and the type of 

additional work or cleaning performed. 

EPA found this 2015 LHCCS report still 

relevant and recent enough to provide 

meaningful input to inform this 

reconsideration rulemaking. 

EPA’s analysis of the LHCCS data 

indicates that 72% of samples from 

2010 to 2012 showed dust-lead levels at 

or below 5 mg/ft2 for floors, 88% were 

at or below 40 mg/ft2 for window sills, 

and 93% were at or below 100 mg/ft2 for 

window troughs. As a result, EPA 

believes that the final DLAL of 5 mg/ft2

for floors, 40 mg/ft2 for window sills and 

100 mg/ft2 for troughs are achievable by 

LBP professionals, especially since the 

survey respondents were only required 

to achieve clearance below the 2001 

DLCL at that time (40 mg/ft2 for floors, 

250 mg/ft2 window sills, and 400 mg/ft2

for window troughs). It is possible that 

the percentage of samples achieving 

clearance may be even higher today, due 

to the 2021 revision of the DLCL to 10 

mg/ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for 

window sills, meaning clearance has 

had to be achieved at these lower levels 

or below, since that time. As a result, 

EPA has high confidence that the 5 mg/ 

ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, 

window sills, and window troughs 

DLAL option is achievable by LBP 

professionals, considering reliability 

and effectiveness. 

b. Laboratory Capabilities for DLAL 

In order to better understand how 

laboratory capabilities would be 

impacted by the proposed DLAL 

(previously referred to as DLCL) of 3 mg/ 

ft2, 20 mg/ft2, and 25 mg/ft2 for floors, 

window sills and troughs, respectively, 

and the final DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ 

ft2, and 100 mg/ft2, EPA spoke with 

eighteen NLLAP-recognized 

laboratories, nine prior to the 2023 

Proposed Rule and nine after the public 

comment period was complete (Refs. 92, 

93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 

103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). 

EPA wanted to collect additional 

information from NLLAP-recognized 

laboratories about their dust-wipe 

programs, especially given that a nonstatic DLRL would shift the LQSR 

‘‘action level’’ to the DLAL (see Unit 

IV.B.1.a. for more information). As 

explained in the proposal, EPA was 

interested in information from 

laboratories who had high dust wipe 

testing capacity and laboratories that 

had both a flame atomic absorption 

spectroscopy (FAAS) and the more 

sensitive laboratory instruments such as 

inductively coupled plasma atomic 

emission spectroscopy (ICP–AES) (also 

referred to as inductively coupled 

plasma optical emission spectroscopy or 

ICP–OES) or an inductively coupled 

plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP–MS). 

The Agency wanted additional 

background on ICP instruments and 

their use for dust wipe testing in 

general. After the public comment 

period, EPA wanted to continue 

building on the outreach that had been 

previously performed and further refine 

the Agency’s understanding of the 

threshold for FAAS technology in terms 

of a lower limit of sensitivity by meeting 

with nine additional laboratories 

(eighteen total) and physically touring 

one location (Ref. 101, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). Among the 

laboratories EPA spoke to in 2022, 2023 

and 2024, 14 were accredited to use 

FAAS, 10 were accredited to use ICP– 

AES, and 2 were accredited to use ICP– 

MS to analyze dust wipe samples for 

lead, some being accredited for multiple 

types of technology. Seventeen of the 

eighteen laboratories provide 

commercial testing services, four of 

which are among the largest U.S. lead 

laboratories by dust wipe test volume. 

For additional details about the 

laboratory capabilities, see Section 2.4 

in the EA that accompanies this 

rulemaking (Ref. 10). 

FAAS has been the most popular 

choice for lead dust wipe testing for 

some time due in part to its low 

purchase price and operating cost, 

speed, and ease of use. Over two-thirds 

of laboratories recognized under the 

NLLAP for lead dust wipe testing 

currently use FAAS, and over half of 

these NLLAP laboratories rely solely on 

FAAS (Ref. 10). The laboratories using 

ICP–AES for dust-wipes tested an order 

of magnitude fewer dust-wipe samples 

than laboratories using FAAS. Some of 

the laboratories accredited for both 

types of instruments only use their ICP 

instrument for wipes being analyzed for 

multiple metals for industrial hygiene 

analyses or analysis of air or water 

samples instead of for dust-wipes 

related to EPA’s lead-based paint 

activities rule (Refs. 97, 101, 104, 107, 

108). One laboratory that uses both 

FAAS and ICP–AES indicated that it 

used FAAS for 95% of the samples 

tested and ICP–AES for only 5% (Ref. 

98). Another laboratory that uses both 

FAAS and ICP–AES stated that it used 

the ICP–AES instrument to test 

approximately 20 dust-wipes per year, 

out of 34,000 to 36,000 lead dust-wipes 

that it analyzes each year (Ref. 104). 

The information received from the 

laboratory outreach that was performed 

in preparation for the proposed rule 

indicated that if finalized as proposed, 

ICP–AES would likely become the 

instrument standard for dust wipe 

testing for lead at the NLLAP 

laboratories, as FAAS instruments were 

not reported to consistently meet the 

quantitation limits associated with the 

proposed DLCL. ICP–AES instruments 

can detect lead at lower levels than 

FAAS instruments, but ICP–AES 

instruments are more expensive to 

purchase, have higher operating costs 

for consumable supplies, require a more 

experienced technician to operate, and 

need more time for sample preparation, 

analysis, and quality control 

requirements than FAAS instruments. 

Laboratories raised several concerns 

about switching to ICP instruments, 

including the reduction in the 

throughput rate, the need for multiple 

instruments and staff to operate them, 

higher prices, delayed turnaround 

times, and concerns over maintaining 

the current sample volume. For 

example, one laboratory EPA spoke to 

estimated that they would have to 

purchase three to six new instruments, 

hire several highly qualified 

technicians, and run the laboratory on 

shifts over 24 hours to meet current 

demand for dust wipe tests conducted 

solely by ICP (Ref. 96). Several 

laboratories questioned whether they 

would keep dust-wipe testing in their 

portfolio if EPA finalized the levels from 

the 2023 Proposed Rule (Refs. 96, 98, 

103, 107). 

This shift in instrumentation that 

would have been needed as a result of 

the clearance levels in the proposed rule 

would increase both cost per sample as 

well as turnaround time. Dust wipe 

testing by ICP–AES is approximately 

two to four times more expensive per 

sample than testing by FAAS (Refs. 96, 

98, 100, 104, 108). Laboratories also 

mentioned that a substantial portion of 

their dust-wipe testing clients request 

results in one day or less (in some cases 

in as little as several hours) following a 

lead hazard reduction activity, so that 

residents can quickly reoccupy their 

homes (Refs. 95, 101, 103). Some of the 

laboratories using FAAS indicated that 

they offered turnaround times as short 

as several hours (Refs. 96, 104, 107). 

Several laboratories doubted the 

feasibility of providing same-day or 

next-day turnarounds at sufficient 

volume should they switch to ICP 

technology (Refs. 96, 98, 104, 108). 

Longer turnaround times would delay 

when individuals who temporarily 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89437 

moved out can reoccupy their homes, 

requiring them to spend more time in 

temporary accommodations (Ref. 91) 

which can increase the costs of lead 

hazard reduction activities, thus 

potentially reducing the number of 

abatements and interim control that 

would be funded. 

EPA found that several laboratories 

forecast that dust-wipe test volumes will 

continue to grow over the next decade 

even in the absence of this rule (Refs. 

96, 97 and 102). First, a growing 

proportion of laboratories’ dust-wipe 

testing business comes from landlords 

who need to comply with municipal 

housing regulations set by States or 

localities. Laboratories expect similar 

regulations to be enacted in the coming 

years, increasing demand for dust-wipe 

testing for clearance (Ref. 97). Second, 

in recent years laboratories have 

received an increased volume of test 

samples generated by disaster recovery 

programs. When there is a natural 

disaster (such as a major flood) that 

requires clean-up and re-construction of 

pre-1978 housing, laboratories can 

receive an unexpected spike in dustwipe tests. Laboratories pointed out that 

the increasing rate of disaster-related 

demand spikes may overwhelm their 

capacity if only ICP can be used for 

dust-wipe testing. 

Finally, laboratories also expressed 

concern that increases in costs for 

activities such as testing, cleaning, and 

temporary accommodations due to the 

dust-lead levels EPA originally 

proposed would reduce the number of 

housing units where lead hazards would 

be addressed, in part because State and 

local municipalities often have a fixed 

budget for their housing and health 

programs (Refs. 96 and 108). The 

laboratories felt that the 2023 Proposed 

Rule could have the unintended result 

of exposing more individuals to 

elevated dust-lead levels for a longer 

period of time (Refs. 108 and 109). 

Given the information gathered via 

EPA’s outreach to laboratories, EPA is 

concerned that setting action levels too 

low would deter participation in leadhazard control programs and activities 

that require dust-wipe testing or cause 

a market failure that does not allow the 

current volume of testing to continue. 

EPA is finalizing a DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 

40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, 

window sills and troughs. EPA has 

increased confidence that, relative to the 

proposed 2023 DLCL (i.e., 3 mg/ft2, 20 

mg/ft2, and 25 mg/ft2), laboratories can 

numerically quantify dust-lead levels of 

5 mg/wipe with FAAS technology and 

attain a quantitation limit of equal to or 

less than 80% of the final DLAL (i.e., 4 

mg/ft2, 32 mg/ft2, and 80 mg/ft2) for floors, 

window sills and troughs. EPA believes 

that the final DLAL, rather than the 

proposed 2023 DLCL, partnered with 

the changes incorporated into LQSR 4.0, 

allows NLLAP-recognized laboratories 

to continue using FAAS technology. 

This would mitigate any unintended 

reductions in dust wipe capacity (e.g., 

throughput time, cost, labor, etc.) due to 

having to switch to more sensitive 

technology such as ICP–AES. While 

some NLLAP-recognized laboratories 

may opt for more sensitive technologies, 

EPA does not foresee any concerns 

reporting to 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 

mg/ft2 even for those surfaces with a 

smaller area such as on window sills or 

troughs if laboratories successfully 

attain a regulatory limit of 5 mg/ft2. 

c. Final DLAL Modeling Results 

EPA must understand the estimated 

health impacts of dust-lead exposure 

when selecting a DLAL that is reliable, 

effective, and safe, as well as to help 

inform the economic analysis. The TSD 

that accompanies this rule includes an 

evaluation of dust-lead loadings, 

specifically the 2021 DLCL of 10 mg/ft2

and 100 mg/ft2 for floors and window 

sills, the proposed DLAL of 3 mg/ft2 and 

20 mg/ft2 for floors and window sills and 

the final DLAL of 5 mg/ft2 and 40 mg/ft2

for floors and window sills, compared to 

estimated BLL and IQ decrements. The 

unique dust-lead contribution to 

exposure from window troughs has not 

been distinguished from window sills 

given the strong correlation between 

dust-lead loadings on the two surface 

types, the lack of data on access to 

window troughs and window sills by 

children, and the paired impacts in 

window sills and window troughs from 

intervention studies addressing lead 

paint in window trim and casings. 

Further discussion on exposure to 

window troughs can be found in the 

TSD in appendix C. As a result, 

exposure to window trough dust-lead 

and resultant benefits from a lowered 

DLAL for troughs is not calculated 

separately for this rulemaking. The TSD 

also describes modeling of dust-lead 

exposures at the specific DLAL options 

for window sills and floors only and 

estimates of both BLLs that were 

evaluated for children at each age up to 

age six, including age two (generally, 

this is the age of greatest modeled 

exposure), and lead-related reduction in 

IQ at age six was estimated from the 

lifetime average BLL (average of BLLs 

across the period prior to age six). See 

Unit IV.B.1.c. for more specific 

information on which BLL and IQ 

decrements were chosen for 

comparison, and Unit III. for more 

details on estimated potential impacts 

from dust-lead exposures analyzed in 

the TSD. Tables 5 and 6 represent the 

percent exceedance of highlighted 

metrics at dust-lead loadings 

corresponding to the 2021 DLCL (10 mg/ 

ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for floors and window 

sills), the final DLAL (5 mg/ft2 and 40 

mg/ft2 for floors and window sills) and 

zero (for comparison purposes only). 

The final DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, 

and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills 

and troughs represents a 50% or more 

reduction of dust-lead left on a surface 

following the completion of an 

abatement, when compared to the 2021 

DLCL (10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ 

ft2). As a result, DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ 

ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 would be beneficial 

to maintaining lower children’s BLLs 

and protecting against associated health 

outcomes such as decreased IQ. The 

modeling results provided in the TSD 

show that 2-year-old children in pre1978 housing exposed to dust-lead 

loadings of 5 mg/ft2 for floors and 40 mg/ 

ft2 for window sills would have an 

estimated 13.9% probability of 

exceeding a total BLL of 3.5 mg/dL 

(CDC’s BLRV). Total BLL includes 

exposure from other media such as soil, 

diet, water, and air; even at zero dustlead, 2-year-old children would still 

have a 5.7% probability of exceeding 

the CDC’s BLRV from these other 

sources. The 13.9% probability of 

exceeding the BLRV is significantly 

lower than the 18.0% probability of 

exceedance of the BLRV when exposed 

to the current DLCL of 10 mg/ft2 for 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 on window sills 

(see table 5). 

When considering dust-lead exposure 

only (not including other estimated lead 

exposures from soil, diet, water, and 

air), 2-year-old children in pre-1978 

housing exposed to the final DLAL of 5 

mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 would 

have a 3.2 to 23.0% probability of 

exceeding a BLL of 1 to 2.5 mg/dL based 

on the modeled results. The final DLAL 

is also estimated to be associated with 

a 22.4% probability of exceeding 2 

points of IQ decrement in 6-year-old 

children. As with total BLL, this is a 

considerable reduction from the 37.9% 

chance of exceeding 2 points of IQ 

decrement for 6-year-old children living 

in target housing who are exposed the 

current DLCL (table 6). Overall, the 

modeling within the TSD indicated that 

the 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2

DLCL for floors, window sills and 

troughs represents a substantial 

reduction in risk from the current 

clearance levels of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, 

and 400 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, 

and window troughs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5—PERCENT EXCEEDANCE VALUES FOR THE FINAL DLAL CANDIDATE, AGE: 2-YEAR-OLD (30 MONTHS) 

Approach Floor 

(μg/ft2) 

Sill 

(μg/ft2) 

Probability 

Total BLL 

> 3.5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Total BLL 

> 5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Dust Only 

BLL > 1 μg/dL 

(%) 

Dust Only 

BLL > 

2.5 μg/dL 

(%) 

Zero 1 ......................................................................................... 0 0 5.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 

5/40 DLAL ................................................................................. 5 40 13.9 5.5 23.0 3.2 

Current Standard ....................................................................... 10 100 18.0 7.5 36.7 6.5 

1The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational purposes 

only. 

TABLE 6—PERCENT EXCEEDANCE VALUES FOR THE FINAL DLAL CANDIDATE, AGE: 6-YEAR-OLD (72 MONTHS) 

Approach Floor 

(μg/ft2) 

Sill 

(μg/ft2) 

Probability 

Total IQ 

Decrement 

> 1pt 

(%) 

Total IQ 

Decrement 

> 2pt 

(%) 

Dust Only IQ 

Decrement 

> 1pt 

(%) 

Dust Only IQ 

Decrement 

> 2pt 

(%) 

Zero 1 ......................................................................................... 0 0 88.9 48.7 0.0 0.0 

5/40 DLAL ................................................................................. 5 40 98.8 85.1 62.7 22.4 

Current Standard ....................................................................... 10 100 99.4 90.3 75.8 37.9 

1The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLRL candidates; it is not a candidate value and is for informational purposes 

only. 

These estimates represent postabatement exposure at the exact dustlead loadings of the final DLAL, but 

levels below those values must be 

achieved in order for an abatement to be 

considered complete. The 

subpopulation of children affected by 

this rule (i.e., children with preabatement dust-lead exposures above 

the action level) experience preabatement dust lead loadings that are in 

the upper percentiles of children living 

in target housing (Ref. 71). As a result, 

it is likely that actual exceedances 

among the full population of children in 

target housing (i.e., not only those who 

are affected by this rule, but all children 

who reside in housing constructed 

before 1978) are lower than what is 

represented in the TSD for the 

subpopulation affected by this rule. In 

contrast to the TSD, which estimates the 

health risk and exposure associated 

with dust-lead loading candidates for a 

hypothetical population of children in 

target housing without consideration to 

how many children are actually affected 

by the rule, the EA estimates benefits 

that accrue to only the subpopulation 

that would be impacted by the DLRL 

and DLAL revisions. See the Technical 

Support Document and Economic 

Analysis that accompany this 

rulemaking for more information (Refs. 

10 and 12). 

d. New York City 

Between 2019 and 2021 NYC 

Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene lowered their lead dust 

clearance and lead dust hazard risk 

assessment testing standards twice. NYC 

lowered their standards for floors, 

window sills and window wells (i.e., 

troughs), respectively, from 40 mg/ft2, 

250 mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2, 

50 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 in 2019 

(effective June 12, 2019) and again to 5 

mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2 in 2021 

(effective June 1, 2021) (Refs. 110 and 

111). The Agency spoke to the New 

York City Department of Health and 

Mental Hygiene and received feedback 

during the development of the proposed 

rule that although there was a 

transitionary period that lasted several 

months and had various challenges, 

overall, the regulated community was 

able to adjust and comply with the new 

lower standards (Ref. 112). EPA believes 

that NYC’s experience supports 

considering the final DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 

40 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2 for floors, window 

sills and window troughs to be effective 

and reliable. 

e. Public Comment Input 

EPA received a number of comments 

during the public comment period that 

supported the proposed DLCL approach 

(described as DLAL moving forward) of 

3 mg/ft2, 20 mg/ft2, and 25 mg/ft2 for 

floors, window sills and troughs, 

respectively, on the grounds that 

lowering the levels will further protect 

children from lead exposure. A mass 

mail campaign, which consisted of a 

coalition of 76 organizations and twelve 

individuals affirmed that the proposed 

levels promoted the greatest safety for 

those living in target housing, ensuring 

remedial measures meaningfully reduce 

the amount of dust-lead that remains in 

homes and child care facilities. Multiple 

comments were also received expressing 

a lack of support for the proposed DLCL 

(described as DLAL moving forward). 

Many commenters requested that the 

levels remain at the current 2021 values 

of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ft2

for floors, window sills, and window 

troughs, respectively. Several 

commenters also requested the 

alternative DLCL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, 

and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, 

and window troughs rather than the 

proposed levels. Of those comments that 

expressed opposition to the proposed 

DLCL, the concerns were focused 

around a reduction of laboratory 

capacity (due to needing to switch to an 

ICP, which is more sensitive 

technology), the lack of adequate surface 

area for both window sill and trough 

sampling, the potential for this being a 

deterrent within the industry from 

performing LBP activities due to an 

increase in cost, burden, complexity, 

and a reduction in contractor 

availability. 

Firstly, in response to the support for 

the proposed DLCL, EPA agrees and 

acknowledges that according to the 

results from the technical support 

document, as dust-lead levels in 

housing dust-lead levels in housing 

decrease below the current DLCL (i.e., 

10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ft2 for 

floors, window sills, and window 

troughs), children’s BLLs and associated 

IQ decrements from lead exposure are 

also expected to decrease. As a result, a 

lower DLAL is assumed to be more 

protective at a particular site than one 

that results in higher dust-lead loadings. 

However, based on the public feedback 

and the response to the 2023 Proposed 

Rule, as well as laboratory outreach, (see 

Unit IV.C.1.b. ‘‘Laboratory capabilities 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89439 

for DLAL’’ for more information), EPA 

is concerned that if the DLAL were set 

too low, limited resources for LBP 

mitigation would be distributed more 

broadly, diverting them from the most 

vulnerable communities or situations 

that present more serious risks to those 

that present lower risks. EPA is also 

concerned that increased costs due to 

the proposed DLCL could result in less 

LBP work taking place overall. EPA’s 

analysis indicates that the final rule’s 

approach to the DLAL is the most costeffective option analyzed for both the 

cost per lost IQ point avoided and the 

cost per ADHD case avoided, as 

explained in Section 7 of the UMRA 

Statement. These two benefit types 

accrue to the most sensitive population 

affected by this final rule (i.e., children). 

Assuming limited resources for LBP 

mitigation, achieving these benefits 

more cost effectively would result in 

more lost IQ points avoided and more 

ADHD cases avoided. Additionally, EPA 

believes that access to housing is also an 

important social determinant of health 

and research finds negative health 

effects resulting from a lack of safe and 

adequate housing. Due to the public 

comments received, EPA has concerns 

that the proposed DLCL could 

unintentionally contribute to housing 

insecurity and longer turnaround times 

for post-abatement testing, which could 

impact access. 

Secondly, safety is only one aspect of 

the statutory authority for reconsidering 

the DLAL (i.e., reliability, effectiveness 

and safety). In particular, the Ninth 

Circuit affirmed that when 

reconsidering the clearance levels ‘‘we 

must give effect to Congress’s clear 

intent for EPA to consider both health 

and nonrisk factors.’’ Cmty. Voice, 997 

F.3d at 995. As a result, the DLAL is not 

a solely health-based standard; rather it 

also considers what cleanup after an 

abatement is adequately reliable and 

effective. EPA agrees with commenters 

that the 2023 proposed DLCL of 3 mg/ 

ft2, 20 mg/ft2, and 25 mg/ft2 for floors, 

window sills, and window troughs 

respectively, partnered with the 

revisions in LQSR 4.0 would not present 

a problem, in terms of testing 

sensitivity, for laboratories using ICP– 

AES/OES. However, the majority of 

laboratories recognized under the 

NLLAP for lead dust wipe testing 

currently favor the less sensitive FAAS. 

EPA continues to believe that if the 

Agency finalized the DLCL as proposed, 

then ICP–AES would likely become the 

instrument standard for dust wipe 

testing for lead at the NLLAP 

laboratories. As a result, numerous 

public comments were received 

expressing concern over this switch; 

FAAS has been the most popular choice 

for lead dust wipe testing for some time 

due in part to its low purchase price and 

operating cost, speed, and ease of use. 

During the laboratory outreach that was 

performed for rule development, 

laboratories raised several concerns 

about switching to ICP instruments, the 

reduction in the throughput rate, the 

need for multiple instruments and staff 

to operate them, higher prices, delayed 

turnaround times, and concerns over 

maintaining the current sample volume. 

See Unit IV.C.1.b. for more discussion 

surrounding laboratory capabilities and 

capacity. Ultimately, due to public 

comments received, laboratory outreach 

and concerns raised about the reliability 

and effectiveness of the lower proposed 

DLCL, EPA is finalizing the alternative 

values of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ 

ft2 for floors, window sills, and window 

troughs respectively. EPA does not want 

to create a program that raises 

significant feasibility concerns, or that 

inadvertently reduces the number of 

abatement jobs that the regulated 

community is able to perform (due to a 

dilution of intervention resources), thus 

potentially impacting families and 

children and resulting in less of an 

overall reduction in dust-lead. 

A more comprehensive version of 

EPA’s responses on all of these issues 

can be found in the response to 

comments document that accompanies 

this rulemaking (Ref. 38). 

2. Other Approach EPA Considered in 

the Proposed Rule 

In 2023 EPA proposed to revise the 

2021 DLCL from 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2

and 400 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, 

and troughs to 3 mg/ft2, 20 mg/ft2, and 25 

mg/ft2, and requested comment on an 

alternative DLCL option of 5 mg/ft2, 40 

mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2. According to the 

2015 LHCCS report, 64% of the 2010 to 

2012 samples showed dust-lead levels at 

or below 3 mg/ft2 for floors, 64% were 

at or below 20 mg/ft2 for window sills, 

and 64% were at or below 25 mg/ft2 for 

window troughs. As a result, 

approximately 64% of samples from the 

LHCCS data had dust-lead levels at or 

below the primary DLCL option of 3 mg/ 

ft2 for floors, 20 mg/ft2 for window sills 

and 25 mg/ft2 for troughs, which EPA 

thought was achievable, especially since 

the survey respondents were only 

required to achieve clearance below the 

2001 DLCL at that time (40 mg/ft2, 250 

mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ft2 for floors, window 

sills and troughs, respectively). 

However, given the concerns 

highlighted by public commenters and 

during laboratory outreach, EPA is 

finalizing the alternative DLCL option of 

5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 along 

with the terminology change to DLAL. 

See the 2023 Proposed Rule for more 

detailed discussion about the proposed 

DLCL (Ref. 55). 

D. Cross Reference With HUD 

Regulations 

EPA is finalizing modifications to 40 

CFR 745.227(h) to clarify that the final 

DLAL would differ from the final DLRL, 

and that the Agency does not intend to 

compel LBP professionals to reduce 

dust-lead loadings all the way below the 

DLRL, just to below the DLAL. EPA is 

interested in alleviating any potential 

regulatory confusion surrounding 

clearance to the DLAL. HUD’s LSHR 

clearance regulations at 24 CFR 

35.1340(d), which apply to both 

abatement and interim control and paint 

stabilization activities above HUD’s de 

minimis amount of disturbance of paint 

known or presumed to be lead-based 

paint at 24 CFR 35.1350(d), currently 

refer to 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2). HUD’s 

regulations at 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2) in 

turn cross-references EPA’s regulations 

at 40 CFR 745.227(h), which currently 

discusses EPA’s DLHS (described by 

EPA as DLRL moving forward) but not 

EPA’s DLCL (described by EPA as DLAL 

moving forward). See Unit III.A.3.f the 

2019 Final Rule for additional 

background on this topic (Ref. 2). As 

explained earlier in this preamble, 

prompted by analysis conducted 

following the 2021 Court Opinion, EPA 

is finalizing a DLRL that is no longer the 

same value as the DLAL. As a result, 

EPA is amending the language at 40 CFR 

745.227(h), so it is clear when 

referenced by the LSHR, that EPA does 

not intend to compel clearance below 

the DLRL, but below the DLAL, whether 

in federally assisted housing or not. 

In the course of reviewing this 

amendment to 40 CFR 745.227(h), EPA 

realized that the regulation at 40 CFR 

745.227(h)(2)(i) inadvertently refers to 

‘‘dust hazard levels identified in [40 

CFR] 745.227(b).’’ 40 CFR 745.227(b) 

actually addresses how to conduct an 

inspection and does not address dust 

hazard levels. Based on its context and 

the parallel language in 40 CFR 

745.65(a)(1), the cross-reference in 40 

CFR 745.227(h)(2)(i) was intended to 

refer to 40 CFR 745.65(b), which does 

identify what constitutes a dust-lead 

hazard. EPA has updated the crossreference accordingly in order to remove 

any ambiguity. 

E. Definition of Abatement 

EPA is finalizing amendments to the 

definition of abatement in EPA’s LBP 

activities regulations, specifically for 

dust-lead hazards, and thus modifying 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the trigger for when EPA recommends 

an abatement. This change is a key 

element of the final rulemaking and is 

intended to align with the decoupling of 

the DLRL and DLAL, ultimately 

focusing the impacted entities’ 

resources (e.g., HUD, city, State) on the 

situations that present the most risk 

while still identifying and disclosing 

lower levels of concern. EPA has 

narrowly focused the amendments on 

the portions of the definition that 

address dust-lead. The abatement 

definition still applies unchanged with 

respect to paint-lead and soil-lead. 

TSCA section 401(1) defines an 

abatement as ‘‘any set of measures 

designed to permanently eliminate leadbased paint hazards in accordance with 

standards established by the 

Administrator under [TSCA Title IV]’’ 

and includes ‘‘the removal of lead-based 

paint and lead-contaminated dust, the 

permanent containment or 

encapsulation of lead-based paint . . . 

and all preparation, cleanup, disposal, 

and post-abatement clearance testing 

activities associated with such 

measures.’’ EPA included a definition of 

abatement, which closely resembles the 

statutory language, within the LBP 

activities regulations at 40 CFR 745.223. 

An abatement under the LBP activities 

regulations (40 CFR 745.223) is 

described as ‘‘any measure or set of 

measures designed to permanently 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards’’ and 

specifically includes ‘‘projects resulting 

in permanent elimination of lead-based 

paint hazards . . .’’. 

The 2021 Court Opinion stated that 

‘‘TSCA [Title] IV gives the EPA latitude 

to consider ‘reliability, effectiveness, 

and safety’’’ when promulgating 

regulations ‘‘[w]ith respect to 

implementation, including abatement’’ 

(Ref. 9). In addition, the statutory 

definition of abatement in TSCA section 

401(1) specifically references the 

elimination of hazards ‘‘in accordance 

with standards established by the 

Administrator under [TSCA Title IV].’’ 

Hence, in considering revising the 

DLAL as part of TSCA section 402’s 

‘‘standards for performing [LBP] 

activities,’’ EPA must and has 

considered whether reliability, 

effectiveness and safety support 

changing the regulatory definition of 

abatement. Given that under this 

statutory scheme EPA only intends to 

compel post-abatement clearance to the 

final DLAL, the Agency is also changing 

the regulatory definition of abatement so 

that the recommendation for action 

applies when dust-lead loadings are at 

or above the DLAL (which continues to 

incorporate non-health-based factors 

such as reliability), rather than at or 

above the hazard standards, described 

as DLRL moving forward, as has been 

the case historically (but which, going 

forward in accordance with the 2021 

Court Opinion, can no longer 

incorporate non-health-based factors 

such as reliability). This revision is 

necessary due to the decoupling of the 

DLRL from the DLAL and EPA’s desire 

to avoid situations where abatements 

are designed to eliminate dust-lead 

levels to the DLRL and are unable to do 

so in a reliable and effective manner. 

Otherwise, EPA would be 

recommending an abatement if dustlead levels are between the DLRL and 

the DLAL, even though such an 

abatement would only need to attain 

dust-lead loadings below the DLAL. 

Also, where an abatement is conducted, 

a cyclical pattern could result, where an 

abatement could successfully pass 

clearance below the DLAL but an 

abatement would still have been 

recommended by EPA if dust-lead levels 

were at or above the DLRL. Thus, EPA 

is revising the regulatory definition to 

require that abatements eliminate dustlead hazards to below the DLAL to 

ensure that successful abatements can 

be considered complete in accordance 

with this rule’s updated standards. 

Relatedly, as explained in Unit IV.F., 

EPA is proposing amendments to the 

abatement report to help protect from 

exposure even after the abatement is 

complete. 

An additional benefit to modifying 

the trigger for when EPA recommends 

an abatement is that it allows the 

regulated community to focus resources 

on situations that present more risk. As 

discussed in the 2001 and 2019 final 

rules, an important concern for EPA is 

having the resources for LBP hazard 

mitigation distributed so broadly that 

they may be diverted from situations 

that present the greatest risk. 

As a result, EPA is changing the 

regulatory definition of abatement to 

permanently eliminate dust-lead 

hazards to below the DLAL. EPA 

concludes that this amendment to the 

regulatory definition most appropriately 

applies the statutory definition in the 

context of this rule, where the statute 

requires EPA to consider reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety for purposes of 

EPA’s TSCA section 402 LBP activities 

regulations (including the DLAL). 

Furthermore, as noted earlier in this 

section, the statutory definition of 

abatement in TSCA section 401 states 

that the set of measures covered by the 

term are to be ‘‘in accordance with the 

standards established by the 

Administrator’’ under TSCA Title IV, 

which refers to the ‘‘standards for 

performing [LBP] activities’’ as what 

EPA’s TSCA section 402 regulations 

shall contain. Thus, EPA has concluded 

that the amended regulatory definition 

most appropriately implements the 

statutory instruction that abatement 

measures be ‘‘in accordance with’’ this 

rule’s updated section 402 standards 

(notably, the revised DLAL). Note that 

nothing in this rulemaking changes the 

fact that owners of properties covered 

by the LBP Activities Rule are not 

compelled to evaluate their properties 

for the presence of dust-lead hazards, 

nor compelled by EPA to take action 

(such as an abatement) if dust-lead 

hazards are identified at or above the 

DLAL, although HUD and some State or 

local governments may require action. 

F. Abatement Report 

As explained in Units IV.A., B. and 

C., EPA is finalizing a nomenclature 

change to the terminology for the 

standards, and lowering the current 

DLRL to any reportable level as 

analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized 

laboratory. Additionally, EPA is 

finalizing the DLAL to 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ 

ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, window 

sills and troughs, respectively. The 

DLRL identify when pre-1978 housing 

or a COF has a dust-lead hazard present. 

Given this decoupling of the floor and 

sill values, it is likely that once a project 

passes clearance and the abatement can 

be considered complete, there could 

still be dust-lead hazards present due to 

the DLRL being any reportable level. 

The Agency realizes the challenge this 

creates for the regulated community 

and, to keep dust-lead levels down and 

mitigate exposure, EPA is proposing to 

amend the requirements for what needs 

to be included in an abatement report. 

After the completion of an abatement, 

the certified supervisor or project 

designer is required to develop a report. 

The list of what needs to be included in 

the abatement report is described at 40 

CFR 745.227(e)(10), and consists of 

elements such as the start and 

completion dates of the abatement, 

information about the risk assessor or 

inspector conducting the sampling, any 

post-abatement dust-lead testing and 

soil analyses, etc. EPA is modifying 40 

CFR 745.227(e)(10) to include a 

requirement to add specific language 

into each abatement report, when dustlead levels are between the DLRL and 

the DLAL. That language refers the 

public to a useful reference titled 

‘‘Protect Your Family From Lead in 

Your Home’’ and acknowledges that 

LBP hazards (particularly dust-lead 

hazards) could remain after an 

abatement. The goal of including this 

language in an abatement report is to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89441 

ensure that occupants are provided with 

information about actions they can take 

to minimize dust-lead hazards and 

protect themselves from exposure even 

after an abatement is complete. 

The certified firm (or individual who 

prepared the report) must keep the 

abatement reports for at least 3 years 

and must provide a copy to the 

individual or entity who ‘‘contracted for 

its services’’ (40 CFR 745.227(i)). 

G. Other Amendments 

In order to conform the regulations to 

a statutory change, make several other 

amendments to improve efficiency of 

the program and make several 

regulatory text corrections, EPA is 

finalizing the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 745, subparts E (Residential 

Property Renovation), F (Disclosure of 

Known Lead-Based Paint and/or LeadBased Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease 

of Residential Property), and L (LeadBased Paint Activities). 

1. Definition of Target Housing 

EPA is finalizing changes to the 

definition of target housing in 40 CFR 

745.103 and 40 CFR 745.223 to align 

with the statutory changes made in 2017 

and is making conforming edits to 

language in 40 CFR 745.223 and 40 CFR 

745.227. Target housing defines which 

housing is subject to EPA’s LBP rules. 

Within section 237(a) through (c) of 

Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115– 

31, 131 Stat. 788 and 789), Congress 

amended HUD and EPA’s statutory 

definitions of target housing to include 

0-bedroom dwellings if a child less than 

6 years of age resides or is expected to 

reside in such housing (42 U.S.C. 

4822(e); 42 U.S.C. 4851(b)(27); 15 U.S.C. 

2681(17)). The change to the definition 

of target housing in 40 CFR 745.103 and 

40 CFR 745.223 conforms to the 

statutory language by defining target 

housing as any housing constructed 

prior to 1978, except housing for older 

adults or persons with disabilities or 

any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any 

child who is less than 6 years of age 

resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing). For consistency, EPA is also 

finalizing revisions to the definition of 

living area in 40 CFR 745.223 to change 

the age from 6 and under to less than 

6 years of age. Similarly, language 

describing the age of children in 40 CFR 

745.227(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(v), 

(d)(3), (d)(5), and (d)(6)(ii) was updated 

from 6 years of age and under to under 

age 6 to conform to the statutory 

language as amended. 

In the course of reviewing this 

amendment to 40 CFR 745.227(c)(2)(v), 

EPA realized that the regulation 

inadvertently refers to a paragraph 

(c)(1)(iii) of the section when no such 

provision exists. Based on its context, 

this cross-reference in paragraph 

(c)(2)(v) was intended to refer to the 

floor and window samples required by 

the immediately preceding provision 

(i.e., paragraph (c)(2)(iv)). EPA has 

updated the cross-reference accordingly 

in order to remove any ambiguity. 

2. Definition of Child-Occupied Facility 

(COF) and Living Areas 

EPA is finalizing revisions to the 

definition of COF in 40 CFR 745.223 

and related regulatory language in 40 

CFR 745.227 to establish consistency 

throughout the LBP regulations. The 

LBP Activities regulations define COFs 

as buildings or portions of buildings, 

constructed prior to 1978, in which the 

same child regularly visits on at least 

two different days within any given 

week, with their visits lasting at least 3 

hours with combined visits of at least 6 

hours, and combined annual visits 

lasting at least 60 hours. COFs may 

include, but are not limited to, day-care 

centers, preschools and kindergarten 

classrooms. Living areas are defined as 

any area of a residential dwelling used 

by one or more children, which 

includes, but is not limited to, living 

rooms, kitchen areas, dens, play rooms, 

and children’s bedrooms. Currently, the 

definition of COF at 40 CFR 745.223 

identifies children impacted by the LBP 

Activities regulations as age 6 and 

under, while the definition of COF in 

the RRP regulations at 40 CFR 745.83 

identifies children impacted by the RRP 

regulations as under 6 years of age. In 

order to establish consistency in age 

throughout the LBP regulations, 

including with the definition of target 

housing and the RRP regulations’ 

definition of COF, EPA is finalizing the 

change to the language in the definition 

of COF in 40 CFR 745.223 to less than 

6 years of age. Language describing the 

age of children in 40 CFR 745.227(d)(7) 

was also changed from 6 years of age 

and under to under age 6 to conform 

language throughout the LBP 

regulations. 

3. Electronic Submissions 

EPA is finalizing the requirement for 

submissions for application payments, 

applications, and notices to be done 

electronically. This rule specifically 

defines ‘‘electronic’’ in 40 CFR 745.83 

and 40 CFR 745.223 to mean ‘‘the 

submission of an application, payment, 

or notice using the Agency’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX), or a successor 

platform.’’ In 2016, the U.S. Treasury 

Department changed their process so 

that paper checks would no longer be 

allowed for payment of fees associated 

with RRP or abatement programs. Since 

that time, applications that require 

payment, such as individual and firm 

certifications as well as training 

provider accreditation applications, 

have been submitted electronically via 

CDX. Therefore, EPA is amending 40 

CFR 745.89(a)(1), 40 CFR 745.92(c)(2), 

and 40 CFR 745.238(e)(2) to conform to 

the 2016 U.S. Treasury Department 

process and require payments to be 

made only electronically via CDX or a 

successor platform. 

Currently there is no specific 

submission method defining how to 

submit applications in EPA’s LBP 

regulations. This ambiguity allows for 

the potential of written applications 

being submitted, which requires time 

consuming activities such as data entry 

and accrues administrative costs. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

amendments to 40 CFR 745.89(a)(1), 

(b)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (c)(1); 40 CFR 

745.225(b)(1), (e)(5), (f)(2), and (j)(2); 40 

CFR 745.226(a), (e), (f), and (h)(1)(iii); 40 

CFR 745.227(e)(4)(vii) and 40 CFR 

745.238(d), and (e) to reflect the 

requirement of submitting applications 

electronically via CDX or a successor 

platform. This will add further 

clarification and uniformity to this 

process. 

Additionally, EPA is finalizing the 

requirement for abatement and training 

notifications to be submitted 

electronically via CDX or a successor 

platform. Requiring electronic 

submissions and eliminating fax 

submissions removes the need for fax 

machine maintenance and also reduces 

phone service costs. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing their amendments to 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(13)(vi) and (14)(iii) to require 

submission of abatement and training 

notifications to occur electronically via 

CDX or a successor platform. 

4. Disclosure Rule Warning Statement 

EPA is finalizing the proposed update 

to the Disclosure Rule’s Lead Warning 

Statement in 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) to 

address a drafting error. Both the 

preamble of the Disclosure Rule 

(required by section 1018 of Title X), 

and the relevant public sample form 

include the following language: ‘‘Before 

renting pre-1978 housing, lessors must 

disclose the presence of known leadbased paint and/or lead-based paint 

hazards in the dwelling,’’ which is 

consistent with EPA and HUD’s 

adaptation to leasing contracts of the 

statutory language in section 1018 (Ref. 

4). However, the Lead Warning 

Statement in 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) does 

not currently include the word 

‘‘known.’’ To conform this regulatory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

text with the statutory and preamble 

language, EPA is finalizing the 

amendment to the Lead Warning 

Statement to include the word ‘‘known’’ 

when discussing lessors disclosing the 

presence of LBP and/or LBP hazards in 

the dwelling. 

5. Disclosure Rule Reference 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

amendment to the Disclosure Rule at 40 

CFR 745.113(a)(4) and 40 CFR 

745.113(b)(4) to include the correct lead 

hazard information pamphlet reference, 

15 U.S.C. 2686. This reference further 

discusses the requirements for the lead 

hazard information pamphlet and is the 

basis for its statutory authority. The 

current reference of 15 U.S.C. 2696 does 

not exist and was a drafting error. 

6. Definition of Housing for the Elderly 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

addition of the definition of ‘‘housing 

for the elderly’’ to 40 CFR 745.223 in 

order to clarify the term ‘‘elderly’’ used 

in the definition of ‘‘target housing,’’ 

also in 40 CFR 745.223. EPA already 

defines ‘‘housing for the elderly’’ in 40 

CFR 745.103 as ‘‘retirement 

communities or similar types of housing 

reserved for households composed of 

one or more persons 62 years of age or 

more at the time of initial occupancy’’ 

under Subpart F, ‘‘Disclosure of Known 

Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease of 

Residential Property.’’ Note that HUD’s 

LSHR (for federally owned or federally 

assisted target housing) caveats its 

definition of ‘‘housing for the elderly’’ at 

24 CFR 35.110 to rely on an age other 

than 62 years ‘‘if recognized as elderly 

by a specific Federal housing assistance 

program.’’ The finalized definition of 

‘‘housing for the elderly,’’ which is the 

same definition in Subpart F 

‘‘Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint 

and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards Upon 

Sale or Lease of Residential Property,’’ 

adds clarity and consistency throughout 

the LBP program. 

7. Obsolete Regulatory Text 

EPA is finalizing the proposed 

revisions and deleting obsolete 

regulatory text where language was out 

of date or no longer applicable in 40 

CFR 745.81(a)(4)(i) and (b); 40 CFR 

745.90(a)(3) and (4); 40 CFR 

745.225(i)(2); and 40 CFR 745.226(f)(5). 

For example, 40 CFR 745.81(b) currently 

reads: ‘‘Before December 22, 2008, 

renovators or firms performing 

renovations in State and Indian Tribal 

areas without an authorized program 

may provide owners and occupants 

with either of the following EPA 

pamphlets: Protect Your Family From 

Lead in Your Home or Renovate Right: 

Important Lead Hazard Information for 

Families, Child Care Providers and 

Schools. After that date, Renovate Right: 

Important Lead Hazard Information for 

Families, Child Care Providers and 

Schools must be used exclusively.’’ This 

information is outdated; therefore, EPA 

is finalizing this section to read: ‘‘After 

December 22, 2008, renovators or firms 

performing renovations in States and 

Indian Tribal areas without an 

authorized program must provide 

owners and occupants the following 

EPA pamphlet: Renovate Right: 

Important Lead Hazard Information for 

Families, Child Care Providers and 

Schools.’’ EPA is also deleting 40 CFR 

745.227(a)(4) because EPA added the 

provision in the 1996 LBP Activities 

Rule and it became obsolete with the 

2001 LBP Hazards Rule that first 

promulgated regulatory clearance levels. 

Other regulatory provisions now apply. 

8. Incorporation by Reference (IBR) 

As proposed, EPA is also 

incorporating by reference two 

voluntary consensus standards, each of 

which is already included in the 

definition of ‘‘wipe sample’’ at 40 CFR 

745.63: American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) E1728 and ASTM 

E1792. EPA is incorporating by 

reference the most recent version of 

each standard: ASTM E1728/E1728M– 

20, Standard Practice for Collection of 

Settled Dust Samples Using Wipe 

Sampling Methods for Subsequent Lead 

Determination, approved January 1, 

2020; and ASTM E1792–20, Standard 

Specification for Wipe Sampling 

Materials for Lead in Surface Dust, 

approved September 1, 2020. ASTM 

E1728/E1728M–20 covers the collection 

of settled lead-containing dust on 

surfaces using the wipe sampling 

method. ASTM E1792–20 covers 

requirements for the wipes that are used 

to collect settled dust on surfaces for the 

subsequent determination of lead. 

This material is reasonably available 

to interested parties. All approved 

incorporation by reference (IBR) 

material is available for inspection at 

EPA. Copies of the ASTM materials 

incorporated by reference in this rule 

may be obtained from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959, or by calling (877) 909– 

ASTM, or at https://www.astm.org. If 

you have a disability and the format of 

these materials intended for 

incorporation by reference interferes 

with your ability to access the 

information, please contact EPA’s 

Rehabilitation Act section 508 (29 

U.S.C. 794d) Program at https://

www.epa.gov/accessibility/forms/ 

contact-us-about-section-508- 

accessibility or via email at section508@

epa.gov. To enable us to respond in a 

manner most helpful to you, please 

indicate the nature of the accessibility 

issue, the web address of the requested 

material, the format you prefer to 

receive the material in (electronic 

format (ASCII, etc.), standard print, 

large print, etc.), and your contact 

information. 

V. Implications of the Final Rule for 

Existing HUD and EPA Programs 

A. LBP Activities Authorized Programs 

This subsection (Unit V.A.) is 

specifically relevant to any States, 

territories or federally recognized Tribes 

that are authorized to administer their 

own LBP activities program. Pursuant to 

TSCA section 404 and EPA’s regulations 

at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, interested 

States, territories, and federally 

recognized Tribes may apply for and 

receive authorization to administer their 

own LBP activities programs (as briefly 

described in Unit II.C.), as long as their 

programs are at least as protective of 

human health and the environment as 

EPA’s program, and provide adequate 

enforcement. 

As part of the authorization process, 

States, territories, and federally 

recognized Tribes must demonstrate to 

EPA that they meet the requirements of 

the LBP Activities Rule. Additionally, a 

State, territory, or federally recognized 

Tribe must demonstrate that it meets 

any new requirements imposed by this 

rulemaking in its application for 

authorization or, if already authorized, 

in a report submitted under 40 CFR 

745.324(h) no later than two years after 

the effective date of the new 

requirements (which in this case would 

be by January 11, 2027). If an 

application for authorization has been 

submitted but not yet approved, the 

State, territory, or federally recognized 

Tribe must demonstrate that it meets the 

new requirements either by amending 

its application, or in a report it submits 

under 40 CFR 745.324(h) no later than 

two years after the effective date of the 

new requirements (40 CFR 745.325(e)). 

EPA recommends that the authorized 

programs work closely with their EPA 

regional office in order to keep the 

Agency up to date on their progress. 

Given the breadth and nature of the 

revisions in this final rule, in particular 

those to the dust-lead reportable level, 

the definition of abatement and the shift 

in terminology, EPA recommends all 

authorized States, territories and 

federally recognized Tribes broadly 

review their LBP activities programs 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89443 

and consider more significant changes 

such as any triggers for work using the 

dust-lead action level rather than the 

dust-lead reportable level (or 

historically the dust-lead hazard 

standards). For example, if there is a 

program that requires LBP professionals 

to do a risk assessment every time a 

property is rented by a new tenant, 

instead of requiring that dust-lead 

loadings must be less than the dust-lead 

reportable level, EPA recommends that 

the authorized program in question 

utilizes the dust-lead action level 

instead. It will be important to disclose 

that dust-lead hazards are present above 

any reportable level (as analyzed by an 

NLLAP-recognized laboratory) but EPA 

does not recommend action such as an 

abatement when there are dust-lead 

loadings below the dust-lead action 

level. Changing the trigger for work 

within authorized programs could 

considerably reduce the financial 

burden that this final rulemaking may 

have on entities funding the work in 

those authorized States, territories and 

Tribes, including the local level and 

more specifically those environmental 

and health departments that assist in 

running these programs. EPA does, 

however, recommend use of best 

practices such as: using a vacuum with 

a high-efficiency particulate air filter on 

furniture and other items returned to the 

work area, and regularly cleaning hard 

surfaces with a damp cloth or sponge 

and a general all-purpose cleaner when 

any dust-lead hazard or LBP is present, 

even if it is below the dust-lead action 

level. For more information on how to 

continue to reduce lead exposure see 

Protect Your Family From Lead in Your 

Home. 

As authorized States, territories and 

federally recognized Tribes broadly 

review their LBP activities programs, 

EPA also recommends reconsideration 

of the terminology of any lead-free or 

lead-safe programs, as this language 

could cause confusion or be an 

oversimplification. If dust-lead levels 

fall above the DLRL, a LBP hazard, 

specifically a dust-lead hazard, can be 

present after an abatement is considered 

complete even in situations where a 

house or COF is considered LBP free 

(i.e., below the regulatory definition of 

LBP). Ultimately, target housing or 

COFs that are considered LBP free could 

still contain lead or even LBP hazards, 

particularly dust-lead hazards given the 

DLRL. Also, if target housing or COFs 

are found to be free of LBP hazards (e.g., 

dust-lead levels below the DLRL) that 

does not mean that no lead is present. 

As a result, identifying lead-free or leadsafe housing/COFs given these final 

revisions to the DLRL will be extremely 

challenging and could cause confusion 

or misunderstanding within the public. 

EPA also recommends any triggers for 

action become the DLAL (rather the 

DLHS, described as DLRL moving 

forward, as has been the case 

historically). EPA suggests that 

authorized programs work closely with 

their EPA regional office as needed to 

help inform this process, as an 

authorized program must demonstrate 

that it meets the new requirements 

imposed by this final rule in a report 

submitted under 40 CFR 745.324(h) by 

January 11, 2027. 

B. HUD Programs 

1. Lead-Safe Housing Rule 

HUD has specific authority to control 

LBP and LBP hazards in certain 

federally owned and federally assisted 

target housing (Ref. 24). HUD’s 

regulations at 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2) 

cross-reference EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 745.227(h), which currently 

discusses EPA’s DLHS but not EPA’s 

DLCL (described by EPA moving 

forward as DLRL and DLAL). Due to the 

current cross-reference, the HUD 

regulations have been read as requiring 

entities receiving government funding 

currently to conduct post-abatement 

clearance until the levels are below 

EPA’s DLHS, which at the time this 

cross-reference was made, were the 

same values as EPA’s DLCL. Clearance 

testing is also required following 

interim controls and renovation, repair, 

and painting events that incidentally 

disturb more than the HUD-specified de 

minimis amount of lead-based paint in 

assisted housing. Due to the 2021 Court 

Opinion, EPA is now finalizing 

regulatory changes that decouple the 

DLHS and DLCL and rename them as 

DLRL and DLAL as explained in Unit 

IV. EPA is also finalizing modifications 

to 40 CFR 745.227(h) to clarify that the 

Agency does not intend to compel 

clearance down to the DLRL but to the 

DLAL, including for HUD’s programs. 

EPA has taken this action for the 

reasons discussed in Unit IV.D. of this 

notice. HUD plans to conduct a 

rulemaking to make its determination 

on any appropriate amendments under 

its own regulations. 

Other impacts of this final rule could 

include a possible decrease in the 

number of landlords participating in 

HUD’s rental assistance and 

rehabilitation programs. If there are 

fewer homes that can meet the revised 

dust-lead standards at costs and project 

durations acceptable to landlords, there 

will be fewer affordable housing units 

available to families to rent. For 

example, if a family with a Housing 

Choice Voucher cannot find a landlord 

that can attain dust-lead levels below 

the revised DLAL (previously referred to 

as the dust-lead clearance levels) and 

accept their voucher, they will have 

longer search times. In some cases, the 

family may lose their voucher if they are 

unable to find a unit within established 

timeframes, and they will have to revert 

back to unassisted housing, attempting 

to rent housing without rental 

assistance, which has been shown to be 

associated with a higher prevalence of 

LBP hazards (Refs. 71 and 113) and 

higher BLLs (Ref. 114). However, the 

Economic Analysis that accompanies 

this final rulemaking estimates that only 

a small fraction of low-income 

households living in housing subject to 

LSHR Subpart M (which affects the 

Housing Choice Vouchers discussed in 

the text) are likely to lose their assisted 

housing and ultimately end up in 

private market housing that is higher 

cost and/or has dust-lead levels higher 

than their baseline. See Section 10.3 of 

the EA (Ref. 10) for more information. 

Note that the factors that EPA can 

consider in setting the DLHS (described 

as DLRL moving forward) do not 

include broader public health concerns 

(such as health trade-offs and policy 

impacts on public Federally assisted 

housing). 

As discussed in Unit II.A., lead 

exposure, even in small amounts, can 

cause substantial and long-lasting health 

problems, particularly through its 

effects on children’s development. 

Access to secure housing is also an 

important social determinant of health 

(Ref. 74). Research finds negative health 

effects resulting from three key 

mechanisms of housing insecurity: lack 

of housing affordability leading to stress 

and material deprivation (Refs. 75, 76, 

77 and 78), lack of housing stability 

(Refs. 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83), and lack 

of safe and adequate housing (Refs. 84, 

85, 86, 87 and 88). HUD’s housing 

assistance programs play a critical role 

in helping nearly 5 million households 

(Ref. 115) avoid housing insecurity and 

its harmful effects on physical and 

mental health (Refs. 114, 116, 117, 118 

and 119). Despite such Federal 

assistance, the nation faces a critical 

shortage of affordable rental housing 

affecting about 8 million very lowincome households (Ref. 120). EPA 

considered the final changes to the 

DLRL and DLAL and the potential 

impacts on HUD’s housing programs 

within the EA (see Section 10.3 for this 

discussion) (Ref. 10). Existing research 

on landlord participation in the Housing 

Choice Voucher program (Refs. 121, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

122, 123 and 124) suggests that more 

stringent standards or uncertainty as to 

how to meet those standards could be a 

disincentive for private target housing 

providers to participate in HUD’s rental 

assistance programs including the 

Housing Choice Voucher program 

(tenant-based rental assistance program) 

and the project-based assistance 

programs, which could in turn reduce 

access to affordable and stable housing 

associated with a relatively lower 

prevalence of LBP hazards than 

unassisted housing. As a result, EPA 

requested information and comment on 

whether the proposed rulemaking 

would lead to an increase in housing 

insecurity or lead exposures. EPA 

received multiple public comments that 

expressed concern over housing stock, 

in particular affordable housing, and 

that highlighted the negative 

consequences that the revised standards 

could lead to an increase in lead 

exposure due to less lead projects being 

done overall due to less available funds. 

As a result, EPA is finalizing the higher, 

alternative DLAL (previously referred to 

as the DLCL), the language in the 

abatement report for when postabatement dust-lead levels falls between 

the DLRL and DLAL, as well as the 

change to the definition of abatement, so 

that abatement is triggered based on the 

DLAL rather than the DLRL; see Unit 

IV.C., E., and F for more information on 

the final DLAL, the revisions to the 

abatement report, and the definition of 

abatement. EPA is also committed to 

working closely with HUD for 

communicating these changes to the 

regulated community, in order to best 

reduce and diminish any impact this 

final rule could have on the availability 

of affordable housing for families. 

As explained in section 10.3 of EPA’s 

Economic Analysis for the rule (Ref. 10), 

the owners of properties regulated 

under some of the LSHR Subparts seem 

unlikely to stop participating in HUD 

programs as a result of this rule. For 

example, Subpart F of the LSHR covers 

HUD-owned single family housing 

properties for sale that are sold under a 

HUD mortgage program. HUD (i.e., the 

Federal government) would be 

responsible for all costs associated with 

compliance to a stricter DLRL/DLAL 

before selling the property. While 

modest delays may occur in closing on 

sale transactions for these properties, a 

reduction in housing supply covered 

under this subpart is unlikely. Subpart 

G of the LSHR covers multi-family 

housing where either HUD is the owner 

of a mortgage, or the owner of a property 

receives mortgage insurance under a 

program run by HUD. Housing covered 

under this subpart of the LSHR has risk 

assessment, interim control, and LBP 

maintenance requirements. Private 

landlords for these properties directly 

seek out Federal funds, and even if 

some of the federally provided money is 

spent complying with a stricter DLRL/ 

DLAL to comply with the LSHR, 

participating grantees should typically 

have a positive net return. These 

landlords can opt-out of HUD mortgage 

assistance, by finding alternative 

financing or selling the property. Once 

the property opts out, the families must 

move unless they can afford market-rate 

rents, which is unlikely. Owners can 

also elect to not renew their Housing 

Assistance Payment contract upon 

expiration. HUD has suggested that the 

largest impact from changing the DLRL/ 

DLAL will likely be HUD’s tenant-based 

rental assistance programs. Under 

Subpart M of the LSHR, if an inspector 

identifies deteriorated paint in a unit 

with a child under age 6, they must 

perform paint stabilization and meet 

clearance for the unit to be eligible for 

housing assistance payments. A 

landlord faced with this option could 

decline to perform the work, and rent 

instead to a family without a voucher. 

This is an unintended consequence that 

may be magnified by the new clearance 

standard, and HUD will seek comment 

on this potential impact before it 

finalizes changes to the LSHR to 

implement the new DLRL/DLAL 

standards. 

2. Grantee Programs 

On February 16, 2017, HUD issued 

policy guidance to establish new and 

more protective requirements for dustlead action levels for its Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Control and Lead Hazard 

Reduction Demonstration grantees (the 

requirements also apply to related HUD 

grants authorized by Title X, section 

1011 (42 U.S.C. 4852), under similar 

names, including Lead Hazard 

Reduction grants and their High Impact 

Neighborhoods and Highest Lead-Based 

Paint Abatement Needs grant categories) 

(Ref. 58). The guidance adopted dustlead action levels of 10 mg/ft2 for floors 

and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills, 

respectively, for initiating lead hazard 

control activities under these grant 

programs, and lead clearance action 

levels of 10 mg/ft2 for floors, and 100 mg/ 

ft2 for window sills and troughs, 

respectively, for clearing such lead 

hazard control activities (Ref. 58). Given 

the revisions of this final rule that are 

discussed in Unit IV., Lead-Based Paint 

Hazard Control and Lead Hazard 

Reduction Demonstration grantees 

would be required by EPA’s regulations 

to clear lead abatement projects to the 

updated DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 

100 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills, and 

troughs respectively. Due to the changes 

EPA is finalizing, HUD has informed the 

Agency that it will likely issue new 

policy guidance on initiating lead 

hazard control activities and on clearing 

lead abatement projects under these 

grant programs, and that it would 

consider issuing new policy guidance 

on clearing interim control projects 

under these grant programs. 

3. EPA–HUD Disclosure Rule 

To administer the disclosure program, 

EPA and HUD jointly developed 

regulations (known as the Disclosure 

Rule under section 1018 of Title X (42 

U.S.C. 4852d)) requiring a seller or 

lessor of most pre-1978 housing to 

disclose the presence of any known LBP 

and/or LBP hazards, such as soil-lead 

hazards or dust-lead hazards, to the 

purchaser or lessee (24 CFR part 35, 

subpart A; 40 CFR part 745, subpart F). 

Under the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 4), 

prospective sellers and lessors of target 

housing, which is most pre-1978 

housing, must provide purchasers and 

renters with a federally approved lead 

hazard information pamphlet and 

disclose known LBP and/or LBP 

hazards, and any available records, 

reports, and additional information 

pertaining to LBP and/or LBP hazards 

(40 CFR 745.107(a)(4); 24 CFR 

35.88(a)(4)). Leases of target housing are 

exempt from disclosure requirements in 

limited circumstances, such as where 

the housing has been found to be LBP 

free by a certified inspector (24 CFR 

35.82; 40 CFR 745.101). 

The information disclosure activities 

are required before a purchaser or renter 

is obligated under a contract to purchase 

or lease target housing. The records or 

reports pertaining to LBP and/or LBP 

hazards include, among other things, 

results from risk assessments, regardless 

of whether the levels of dust-lead are 

above or below the dust-lead hazard 

standards (described by EPA as DLRL 

moving forward), and from postabatement dust wipe testing, above or 

below the clearance levels (described by 

EPA as DLAL moving forward). Because 

disclosure is required in target housing 

regardless of whether dust levels are 

above or below the DLRL or DLAL, 

finalizing the ‘‘any reportable level’’ 

approach for the dust-lead reportable 

level and lowering the dust-lead action 

level would not result in more 

disclosures; rather it would result in 

more of the disclosures indicating that 

a lead-based paint hazard is present 

(since the final DLRL is lower than the 

previous DLHS from 2019). EPA is also 

finalizing changes to the definition of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89445 

‘‘target housing’’ (40 CFR 745.223), 

which expands the universe of housing 

subject to the Disclosure Rule 

requirements. This is reflective of a 

change to the statutory definition (P.L. 

115–37, Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2017, Division K, Title II, section 

237(c)). This final conforming change to 

the regulatory definition of target 

housing to include 0-bedroom dwellings 

where a child resides may slightly 

increase the number of disclosures 

issued. 

Note that leases (which does not 

include sales) of target housing are 

exempt from disclosure requirements in 

limited circumstances, such as where 

the housing has been found to be LBP 

free by a certified inspector (24 CFR 

35.82; 40 CFR 745.101), even if the dustlead level is at or above the DLRL. 

4. HUD Guidelines 

The HUD Guidelines for the 

Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards in Housing (https://

www.hud.gov/program_offices/healthy_

homes/lbp/hudguidelines) were 

developed in 1995 under section 1017 

of Title X. The Guidelines provide 

detailed, comprehensive, and technical 

information on how to identify LBP 

hazards in residential housing and 

COFs, and how to control such hazards 

safely and efficiently. The Guidelines 

were revised in 2012 to incorporate new 

information, technological advances, 

and new Federal regulations, including 

EPA’s LBP hazard standards. Due to the 

changes EPA is finalizing, HUD has 

informed the Agency that it will likely 

revise Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on 

risk assessment and reevaluation, 

Chapter 12 on abatement, and Chapter 

15 on clearance, and make conforming 

changes elsewhere as needed (Ref. 125). 

C. EPA LBP Programs 

1. LBP Activities Rule 

LBP activities include risk 

assessments, inspections, and 

abatements. As a reminder, the States 

where the LBP program is currently 

administered by EPA are Alaska, 

Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

EPA also administers the LBP program 

in the territories of American Samoa, 

Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, as well as most Tribal 

Lands. This final rule impacts a variety 

of LBP activities, including: the 

definition of abatement, what is 

considered a dust-lead hazard, the 

DLAL (which is used to determine 

whether an abatement can be 

considered complete) and the definition 

of target housing. Within the States, 

territories and federally recognized 

Tribes that have EPA run LBP activities 

programs, this rule will become 

effective 60 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. However, certain 

elements of the rule such as the DLRL, 

DLAL and the change to the abatement 

report language have a compliance 

timeframe of one-year after the effective 

date of the final rule (see Unit VI. for 

more information on the timing of this 

rule’s revisions). 

As stated earlier in this preamble, 

EPA’s risk assessment work practice 

standards provide the basis for risk 

assessors to determine whether LBP 

hazards are present in target housing 

and COFs. As part of a risk assessment, 

dust samples are taken from floors and 

window sills to determine if dust-lead 

levels exceed the DLRL. The results of 

the sampling, among other things, are 

documented in a risk assessment report, 

which is required under the LBP 

Activities Rule (Ref. 19). In addition to 

the sampling results, the report must 

describe the location and severity of any 

dust-lead hazards found and describe 

interim controls or abatement measures 

needed to address the hazards. 

Under this final rule, sampling results 

reporting any level of lead as analyzed 

by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory will 

indicate that a dust-lead hazard is 

present on the surfaces tested. EPA 

expects that the DLRL will result in 

more hazards being identified in a 

portion of target housing and COFs that 

undergo risk assessments. This rule 

does not change any other risk 

assessment requirements; however, it 

does revise the definition of abatement, 

which is discussed in the following 

paragraph. 

Abatements are currently defined as 

any measures or set of measures 

designed to permanently eliminate leadbased paint hazards and include 

activities such as the removal of paint 

and dust, the permanent enclosure or 

encapsulation of lead-based paint, the 

replacement of painted surfaces or 

fixtures, and all preparation, cleanup, 

disposal, and post-abatement dust wipe 

testing activities associated with such 

measures. The change to the definition 

of abatement shifts the recommendation 

for an abatement based on dust-lead to 

when the dust-lead loadings are at or 

above the DLAL (rather than the DLHS, 

described as DLRL moving forward, as 

has been the case historically). Because 

EPA is finalizing DLAL that are lower 

than the 2019 DLHS, more 

recommendations for abatement are 

expected. However, not every 

circumstance where dust-lead hazards 

are identified will result in an EPA 

recommendation for abatement. In 

particular, when dust-lead loadings are 

at or above the DLRL, but below the 

DLAL, EPA recommends use of best 

practices such as: using a vacuum with 

a high-efficiency particulate air filter on 

furniture and other items returned to the 

work area, and regularly cleaning hard 

surfaces with a damp cloth or sponge 

and a general all-purpose cleaner. EPA 

is also including a requirement to add 

specific language into each abatement 

report when dust-lead levels are 

between the DLRL and the DLAL. That 

language refers the public to a useful 

reference titled Protect Your Family 

From Lead in Your Home and 

acknowledges that LBP hazards 

(particularly dust-lead hazards) could 

remain after an abatement. The goal of 

including this language in an abatement 

report is to ensure that occupants are 

provided with information about actions 

they can take to minimize dust-lead 

hazards and protect themselves from 

exposure even after an abatement is 

complete. Similar to abatement, EPA 

recommends interim controls only in 

circumstances when dust-lead loadings 

are at or above the DLAL, rather than 

the DLRL, for the reasons explained in 

this unit. 

After LBP abatements are conducted, 

EPA’s regulations require a certified 

inspector or risk assessor to conduct 

post-abatement dust wipe testing of the 

abated area. If the dust wipe sample 

results show dust-lead loadings equal to 

or exceeding the applicable DLAL, ‘‘the 

components represented by the failed 

sample shall be recleaned and retested.’’ 

See 40 CFR part 745.227(e)(8)(vii). In 

other words, the abatement is not 

complete until the dust wipe samples in 

the work area are below the DLAL. Once 

the relevant compliance deadline has 

passed, inspectors and risk assessors 

working in any State, territory or 

federally recognized Tribe with an EPA 

run LBP activities program must 

compare dust wipe sampling results for 

floors, window sills and troughs to the 

revised DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 

100 mg/ft2, respectively. Dust wipe 

sampling results at or above the DLAL 

would indicate that the components 

represented by the sample must be 

recleaned and retested. Due to lowering 

the DLAL from the 2021 levels, 

including the trough values, EPA 

expects a slight increase in the amount 

of recleaning and retesting that is 

required after an abatement in order for 

it to be considered complete, especially 

shortly after the change is enacted. 

Lastly, as described in Unit IV.G.1., 

this final rule conforms the regulatory 

definition of target housing with the 

statute to include any 0-bedroom 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

dwellings constructed prior to 1978 if a 

child less than 6 years of age resides or 

is expected to reside in such housing, 

which could increase the number of 

homes covered by this regulation. In 

addition, EPA is finalizing regulatory 

changes to adjust the age requirements 

from 6 years of age and under, to under 

age 6 for the definition of target housing, 

COFs and living area, which could 

reduce the number of homes and COFs 

covered by this regulation; see Units 

IV.G.1. and 2. for more information. 

States, territories, and federally 

recognized Tribes that are authorized to 

run their own LBP activities programs 

will also need to incorporate these 

Federal changes into their statutory and 

regulatory landscape no later than two 

years after the effective date of this final 

rule. See Unit V.A. for more information 

about the impacts of this action on 

authorized programs. 

2. Previous LBP-Related Activities 

Since the DLRL do not compel 

specific EPA actions, revisions to the 

DLRL would not in and of themselves 

compel any actions under the LBP 

Activities Rule, retroactively or 

otherwise, but actions would be 

compelled under other laws or 

regulations, including HUD’s LSHR and 

possibly those of some State, local, 

Tribal or territorial governments. 

Inspection reports and risk assessments 

describe conditions at a specific time. A 

report that indicates no presence of LBP 

and/or a LBP hazard should not imply 

the absence of those conditions in 

perpetuity. Additionally, the DLRL may 

be incorporated into requirements 

mandated by State, Federal, Tribal, and 

other programs that may require actions 

based on the revised DLRL. Those other 

authorities may want to consider 

guidance or other communications with 

their regulated communities, so those 

entities understand how to comply with 

the various programs that reference the 

DLRL. As a reminder, all new 

requirements imposed by this final rule 

must be incorporated into any 

authorized programs no later than two 

years after the effective date of the new 

requirements (see Unit V.A. for more 

information). 

The DLAL, however, are used to 

evaluate the effectiveness of a cleaning 

following an abatement. After the dust 

wipe samples show dust-lead loadings 

below the DLAL (and any other aspects 

of the abatement such as additional 

testing are also complete), an abatement 

report is prepared, copies of any reports 

required under the LBP Activities Rule 

are provided to the building owner (and 

to potential lessees and purchasers 

under the LBP Disclosure Rule by those 

building owners or their agents), and all 

required records are also retained by the 

abatement firm or by the individuals 

who developed each report. The final 

DLAL of 5 mg/ft2 for floors, 40 mg/ft2 for 

window sills, and 100 mg/ft2 for troughs 

would not impose retroactive 

requirements on regulated entities that 

have previously performed postabatement clearance. These updated 

DLAL would only apply to postabatement dust-lead sampling and 

analysis conducted after the compliance 

date for that portion of the final rule 

(i.e., one year after the effective date of 

the final rule) for any LBP activities 

programs specifically run by EPA, 

which include, as of the publication of 

this rule: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

New York, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Wyoming, American Samoa, 

Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, as well as most Tribal 

Lands. 

In addition, this rulemaking does not 

impose retroactive requirements to 

regulated entities that have previously 

complied with the Disclosure Rule. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 745.107, a 

seller or lessor generally must properly 

disclose any available records or reports 

pertaining to known LBP and/or LBP 

hazards before the purchaser or lessee is 

obligated under any contract to 

purchase or lease target housing. The 

seller or lessor is not required to 

disclose reports or records that may be 

created in the future, after the close of 

that transaction. Additionally, any LBPfree certification that was issued by a 

certified inspector and was issued 

before the effective date of this 

rulemaking, is still valid going forward 

and may continue to be used for 

exemption of leases from the Disclosure 

Rule under 40 CFR 745.101(b), as will 

any LBP-free certification issued on or 

after the effective date of this 

rulemaking. 

3. Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule 

The DLRL and DLAL would not 

trigger new requirements under the 

existing RRP Rule (40 CFR part 745, 

subpart E). The existing RRP work 

practices are required where LBP is 

present (or assumed to be present) and 

are not predicated by dust-lead loadings 

exceeding the DLRL. The existing RRP 

regulations do not require dust-lead 

sampling prior to or at the conclusion of 

a renovation and are not affected by a 

change to the DLRL or DLAL. Therefore, 

RRP regulations will not be directly 

affected by the final revisions to the 

DLRL or the DLAL. However, certified 

renovators and RRP firms should be 

aware of the conforming amendments to 

the definition of ‘‘target housing’’ and 

the amendments for consistency about 

electronic payments. 

The RRP Rule does require specific 

post-renovation cleaning verification 

under 40 CFR 745.85(b), but the rule 

does not require dust wipe sampling 

and analysis using the DLAL. EPA 

received several public comments 

pointing out that there are many more 

homes and projects that fall under the 

RRP program (i.e., rather than the LBP 

activities program), and that the visual 

inspection is less rigorous than 

clearance, requesting that EPA expand 

lead clearance testing to its RRP 

program. EPA notes that although 

optional under the RRP Rule, dust wipe 

sampling for clearance using the DLAL 

(previously known as the DLCL) in 

accordance with the LBP Activities Rule 

(40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)) may be required 

by contract or by another Federal, State, 

territorial, Tribal, or local law or 

regulation. At this time, other than 

HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, for 

renovations of assisted target housing, 

EPA is not aware of other laws and 

regulations that require clearance testing 

using EPA’s DLAL. 

EPA understands that the RRP 

program is larger than the LBP activities 

program; however, the LBP activities 

program (i.e., inspections, risk 

assessments, and abatements) is focused 

more specifically on addressing a LBP 

concern, such as due to non-EPA 

requirements triggered by a child with 

a higher BLL. Additionally, besides the 

conforming amendment to the 

definition of ‘‘target housing,’’ 

amendments for consistency about 

electronic payments, the removal of 

time-expired provisions (as discussed in 

Unit IV.G.), and the conforming 

terminology change at 40 CFR 

745.85(c)(3) to refer to the final dustlead action levels for optional RRP 

clearance testing, no other changes to 

the RRP program were included in the 

proposed rule that published in August 

2023 (Ref. 55) or within this final 

rulemaking. Additionally, in 2018 EPA 

reviewed the RRP rule pursuant to 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and reaffirmed the Agency’s 

previous conclusions not to include 

dust-wipe testing or clearance 

requirements on renovations. However, 

since 2018 the clearance or dust-lead 

action levels have been revised twice. 

While EPA is finalizing no additional 

changes to clearance or the cleaning 

verification process for RRP in this 

rulemaking, the Agency may consider 

whether to revise the RRP program at a 

later date. 

Finally, certified renovators and RRP 

firms should be aware of the change in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89447 

the definition of target housing to 

include 0-bedroom dwellings if a child 

less than 6 years of age resides or is 

expected to reside in such housing. Any 

certified renovators or RRP firms should 

be aware of whether they work in an 

EPA-administered RRP program State, 

territory, or federally recognized Tribe 

or a State, territory, or federally 

recognized Tribe that is authorized to 

run its own RRP program, as this will 

impact the timing for the revisions to 

the definition of target housing. For any 

EPA-administered programs, this 

amendment to target housing will be 

effective 60 days after this final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. Any 

authorized program will have up to two 

years after the effective date of this rule 

to incorporate any changes into their 

program, so RRP professionals should 

be aware those changes will eventually 

be incorporated. 

4. Laboratory Quality Standards for 

Recognition 

As discussed previously in Unit II.C., 

NLLAP is an EPA program under which 

an accrediting organization assesses 

whether a paint chip, dust, or soil 

testing laboratory meets minimum 

standards for laboratory analysis to 

attain EPA recognition as an accredited 

lead testing laboratory (https://

www.epa.gov/lead/national-leadlaboratory-accreditation-programnllap). Laboratories and other testing 

firms recognized under NLLAP follow 

the LQSR. This rulemaking does not 

modify the minimum standards 

outlined in the latest LQSR version 4.0. 

However, changes to the action level 

(i.e., the proposed DLAL) would impact 

the quantitation limit that NLLAPrecognized laboratories would attain to 

participate in the NLLAP, as under 

LQSR 4.0 the quantitation limit must be 

equal to or less than 80% of the lowest 

action level for dust wipe samples per 

specific surface area (i.e., floors, 

window sills, window troughs) (Ref. 

26). The lowest action level for dust 

wipe samples would be the DLAL of 5 

mg/ft2 for floors, 40 mg/ft2 for window 

sills and 100 mg/ft2 for troughs. As a 

result, the quantitation limit for NLLAPrecognized labs would be equal to or 

less than 4 mg/ft2 for floors, 32 mg/ft2 for 

window sills and 80 mg/ft2 for troughs. 

Note that only laboratories that are 

NLLAP accredited can perform dustwipe testing for lead under the existing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 745. 

D. Lead-Based Paint Professionals 

LBP activities (i.e., inspections, risk 

assessments, and abatements) may only 

be performed by a certified individual 

or firm (40 CFR 745.220) in accordance 

with the work practices outlined in the 

1996 LBP Activities Rule (40 CFR 

745.227). Any certified risk assessor, 

inspector or abatement firm should 

understand if they are performing LBP 

work in an authorized State, territory, or 

federally recognized Tribe or if they are 

working within an EPA administered 

LBP activity program, as it will impact 

the timing of when they need to comply 

with the revisions of this final rule. A 

certified LBP professional working 

within the jurisdiction of an EPAadministered LBP activity program (i.e., 

at the time of publication of this notice, 

Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New 

York, South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Marianas, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and within most Tribal Lands) 

should see Unit VI. for more 

information on the effective date and 

compliance timeframes for this rule. 

Those LBP professionals should also 

familiarize themselves with Unit IV. of 

this final notice in order to fully 

understand the revisions. If questions 

remain, LBP professionals may wish to 

coordinate with their EPA Regional 

Lead Coordinator as necessary, consult 

the EPA lead page (https://

www.epa.gov/lead), or contact the 

technical person or the National Lead 

Information Center listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if 

needed. Note that HUD or local 

jurisdictions may have slightly different 

requirements, so when applicable, EPA 

recommends coordinating directly with 

those specific programs, in order to 

avoid any confusion and to best 

understand how these rule changes will 

impact risk assessments, LBP 

inspections, and abatement work. 

In contrast, any LBP professionals that 

work within a State, territory or 

federally recognized Tribe that has an 

EPA-authorized LBP activity program, 

should be aware that the authorized 

program will need to incorporate these 

Federal changes into their statutory and 

regulatory landscapes no later than two 

years after the effective date of this rule. 

As a result, LBP professionals should be 

mindful of and monitor any changes to 

the LBP programs within their State, 

territory or Tribe. See Unit V.A. for 

more information about the impacts of 

this action on authorized programs. 

EPA received numerous public 

comments on the proposed rule 

requesting additional outreach and 

assistance throughout the 

implementation process in order to 

better communicate with the public 

about what the revisions are and how 

they impact various segments of the 

regulated community. Commenters 

urged EPA provide clear and accessible 

information in multiple languages 

regarding the general risks of lead 

exposure, the implications of this 

rulemaking for renters and property 

owners, and information regarding 

financial or other support available for 

the cleanup and removal of lead. EPA 

appreciates the need for clear and 

effective communication given the shift 

these revisions are triggering in the LBP 

activities programs (i.e., decoupling the 

DLRL and DLAL). As a result, EPA 

plans to coordinate closely with its 

communications teams, HUD and others 

to effectively update the public and the 

regulated community as appropriate, 

including revising Protect Your Family 

From Lead in Your Home, and any other 

EPA LBP trainings or public materials. 

EPA also plans on holding public 

webinars shortly after the rule is 

finalized in the Federal Register. LBP 

professionals should utilize any 

updated materials as they become 

available, and EPA welcomes their 

participation in any upcoming public 

webinars or educational opportunities. 

VI. Effective and Compliance Dates 

EPA has considered both the public 

comments received on the proposed 

rulemaking and the impacts of the DLRL 

and DLAL on NLLAP-recognized 

laboratories, and is finalizing a 

compliance timeframe of one year after 

the effective date of the final rule for 

certain provisions (i.e., DLRL, DLAL, 

and the change to the abatement report 

language). The compliance date for 

these provisions is on January 12, 2026. 

This extended compliance date is 

intended to provide a reasonable 

amount of time for NLLAP-recognized 

laboratories to take actions to meet the 

LQSR quantitation limit (80% of the 

lowest action level for dust wipe 

samples under LQSR 4.0) for the lower 

DLAL of this rule so they can continue 

providing dust wipe testing services to 

the regulated community without any 

significant disruption in service, 

including in urgent situations. 

To obtain a better understanding of 

laboratories’ capability and capacity for 

dust wipe testing, EPA conducted 

teleconferences with eighteen NLLAPrecognized laboratories over the course 

of the rulemaking process (Refs. 92, 93, 

94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109). As 

explained in Unit IV.C., based on the 

information EPA received from this 

outreach, EPA believes that laboratories 

with ICP–AES instruments and 

optimized methods should be able to 

comfortably satisfy the LQSR dust wipe 

testing procedures and the regulatory 

limit of the final DLAL option of 5 mg/ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

ft2 for floors, 40 mg/ft2 for window sills 

and 100 mg/ft2 for troughs (quantitation 

limit of 4 mg/ft2 for floors, 32 mg/ft2 for 

window sills and 80 mg/ft2 for troughs). 

However, FAAS is the most ubiquitous 

equipment used, and EPA believes that 

with the LQSR 4.0 dust-wipe 

procedures partnered with the final 

DLAL, NLLAP-laboratories should be 

able to continue using FAAS after this 

rule is finalized. Some laboratories may 

need to buy newer FAAS to meet the 

lower LQSR limits or adjust their 

methods. However, due to the outreach 

performed, EPA is aware of laboratories 

that already utilize FAAS and are 

currently able to meet the final DLAL 

without any modification. A few 

NLLAP-laboratories may still opt to buy 

more sensitive instruments such as ICP– 

AES. If that is the case, however, the 

accreditation process through the 

accrediting bodies is time consuming 

and could take anywhere from six to 

eighteen months or more based on 

feedback EPA received from NLLAPlaboratories. Given the range of timing 

and that EPA assumes the majority of 

laboratories will retain FAAS, EPA 

determined one year from the effective 

date was appropriate as a compliance 

date for the amended DLRL and DLAL 

(i.e., 14 months from the publication of 

the final rule). 

Several public commenters, including 

State and local government agencies and 

a mass mailer that consisted of a 

coalition of 76 organizations and twelve 

individuals, agreed with the NLLAPlaboratories that if the proposed DLAL 

of 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for 

floors, window sills, and troughs was 

adopted in the final rule, the 

compliance timeframe of one-year after 

the effective date would be an adequate 

time for laboratories and companies to 

buy any needed equipment, hire staff, 

and become accredited, especially since 

the AIHA LAP’s policy states that 

accreditation is expected to occur 

within 12 months or less once an 

application is submitted (Refs. 38 and 

126). Public commenters also believed 

that the one-year compliance timeframe 

would allow enough time for 

laboratories, inspectors, contractors, and 

State and local programs to complete 

trainings for testing larger surface areas, 

update the standards and specification 

documents managed by ASTM 

Technical Committees, and allow HUD 

to update its guidelines. Commenters 

who requested a compliance timeframe 

of 2+ years were almost exclusively 

discussing it in relation to if EPA 

adopted the proposed primary DLCL of 

3 mg/ft2, 20 mg/ft2, and 25 mg/ft2 for 

floors, window sills, and troughs (Ref. 

38). As a result, EPA is finalizing a oneyear compliance date for the DLRL, 

DLAL, and the abatement report 

language revisions (which directly 

pertains to the final standards). The 

Agency is also interested in revising 

both standards at the same time to 

reduce any confusion and avoid any 

concerns within the regulated 

community that may be caused by 

staggering the DLRL and the DLAL 

compliance dates. EPA believes that 

since the DLRL are non-static, which is 

different than they have been 

historically, and as the program is 

shifting to the DLAL becoming the 

‘‘action level’’ for the LQSR, it is 

important to allow ample time for the 

regulated community to adapt to the 

revised DLRL and DLAL. Additionally, 

if the DLRL compliance date occurred 

before the DLAL compliance date, EPA 

is concerned it might trigger 

unnecessary confusion for laboratories. 

VII. Severability 

EPA intends that each provision of 

this rulemaking be severable, with one 

exception identified below. In the event 

of litigation staying, remanding, or 

invalidating a portion of EPA’s 

amendments in this rule, EPA intends to 

preserve the amendments for all other 

portions of the rule to the fullest extent 

possible. The Agency evaluated each 

issue on its own merits and EPA’s 

amendments (with the one exception 

identified below) function 

independently from one another. 

Further, the Agency crafted this rule so 

that different regulatory decisions are 

reflected in different provisions or 

elements of the rule that are capable of 

operating independently. Accordingly, 

the Agency has organized the rule so 

that if any provision or element of this 

rule is determined by judicial review or 

operation of law to be invalid, that 

partial invalidation will not render the 

remainder of this rule invalid. 

The limited circumstance in which 

severability is not intended would be 

where the decoupled approach is 

determined to be invalid. If the 

decoupled approach is determined to be 

invalid, the revisions to the definition of 

abatement (at 40 CFR 745.223) and the 

abatement report language (at 40 CFR 

745.227(e)(10)(vii)) would not be 

necessary or helpful. In contrast, 

however, EPA does intend severability 

in the inverse scenario: if either the 

definition of abatement or the amended 

abatement report language were 

determined to be invalid, EPA intends 

severability of all other provisions, 

including the decoupled approach. 

VIII. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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

Community Development Act, enacted 

October 28, 1992 (also known as the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

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

U.S.C. 4822 and 4851 et seq.). https://

www.epa.gov/lead/residential-leadbased-paint-hazard-reduction-act-1992- 

title-x. 

2. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard 

Standards and the Definition of LeadBased Paint; Final Rule. RIN 2070–AJ82. 

Federal Register (84 FR 32632, July 9, 

2019) (FRL–9995–49). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019- 

07-09/pdf/2019-14024.pdf. 

3. EPA. Review of Dust-Lead Post Abatement 

Clearance Levels; Final Rule. RIN 2070– 

AK50. Federal Register (86 FR 983, 

January 7, 2021) (FRL–10018–61). 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ 

FR-2021-01-07/pdf/2020-28565.pdf. 

4. HUD, EPA. Lead; Requirements for 

Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint 

and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 

Housing; Final Rule. RIN 2070–AC75. 

Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 

1996) (FRL–5347–9). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996- 

03-06/pdf/96-5243.pdf. 

5. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) 

for Lead (Final Report, February 2024). 

U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R– 

23/375, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/isa/ 

integrated-science-assessment-isa-lead. 

6. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, HHS. Toxicological Profile for 

Lead. August 2020. https://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf. 

7. President’s Task Force on Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks to 

Children. Federal Action Plan to Reduce 

Childhood Lead Exposures and 

Associated Health Impacts. December 

2018. https://www.epa.gov/lead/federalaction-plan-reduce-childhood-leadexposure. 

8. EPA. EPA Strategy to Reduce Exposures 

and Disparities in U.S. Communities. 

October 27, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2022-11/

Lead%20Strategy_1.pdf. 

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

Circuit. A Community Voice v. EPA, No. 

19–71930, Opinion. May 14, 2021. 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ 

opinions/2021/05/14/19-71930.pdf. 

10. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Clearance Levels 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89449 

Reconsideration Final Rule. October 

2024. 

11. EPA. America’s Children and the 

Environment (ACE). ‘‘Biomonitoring— 

Lead.’’ June 29, 2022. https://

www.epa.gov/americaschildren

environment/biomonitoring-lead. 

12. EPA. Technical Support Document for 

the Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels. October 

2024. 

13. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels. Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act Statement. October 

2024. 

14. HHS, National Toxicology Program. NTP 

Monograph on Health Effects of LowLevel Lead. National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. NIH Pub. 

No. 12–5996. ISSN 2330–1279. June 13, 

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

lead/final/monographhealthe

ffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf. 

15. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Gibb-Snyder, E., 

Frank, J.J., Tornero-Velez, R., and Stanek, 

L.W. Children’s lead exposure in the 

U.S.: Application of a national-scale, 

probabilistic aggregate model with a 

focus on residential soil and dust lead 

(Pb) scenarios. Science of the Total 

Environment 905, https://doi.org/ 

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167132. 

16. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead; Final 

Report. EPA/600/R–05/144aF-bF. 

October 2006. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?

deid=158823. 

17. HHS, National Toxicology Program. Lead 

and Lead Compounds. 15th Report on 

Carcinogens. National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 15th edition. 

December 12, 2021. https://ntp.niehs.

nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles//

lead.pdf. 

18. TSCA Title IV, Lead Exposure Reduction. 

15 U.S.C. 2681 et seq. https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE2020-title15/pdf/USCODE-2020-title15- 

chap53-subchapIV.pdf. 

19. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based 

Paint Activities in Target Housing and 

Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. 

RIN 2070–AC64. Federal Register (61 FR 

45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ 

FR-1996-08-29/pdf/96-21954.pdf. 

20. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead; Final Rule. RIN 2070– 

AC63. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, 

January 5, 2001) (FRL–6763–5). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2001- 

01-05/pdf/01-84.pdf. 

21. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Final Rule. RIN 2070– 

AC83. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, 

April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008- 

04-22/pdf/E8-8141.pdf. 

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

and Recordkeeping Provisions in the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program. RIN 2070–AJ55. Federal 

Register (75 FR 24802, May 6, 2010) 

(FRL–8823–7). https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/FR-2010-05-06/pdf/2010- 

10100.pdf. 

23. EPA. Lead; Clearance and Clearance 

Testing Requirements for the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program. RIN 2070–AJ57. Federal 

Register (76 FR 47917, October 4, 2011) 

(FRL–8823–5). https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/FR-2011-08-05/pdf/2011- 

19417.pdf. 

24. HUD. Requirements for Notification, 

Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards in Federally Owned 

Residential Property and Housing 

Receiving Federal Assistance. RIN 2501– 

AB57. Federal Register (64 FR 50140, 

September 15, 1999). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999- 

09-15/pdf/99-23016.pdf. 

25. President’s Task Force on Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks to 

Children. Key Federal Programs to 

Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and 

Eliminate Associated Health Impacts. 

November 2016. https://ptfcehs.

niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/files/key_

federal_programs_to_reduce_childhood_

lead_exposures_and_eliminate_

associated_health_impactspresidents_

508.pdf. 

26. EPA. Laboratory Quality Standards for 

Recognition (LQSR). Revision 4.0. 2024. 

27. EPA. Testimony of Michal Ilana 

Freedhoff before the Senate Committee 

on Environmental and Public Works. 

June 22, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2022-06/EPAFreedhoff%20testimony-

%20SEPW%20TSCA%20

Hearing%206.22.2022.pdf. 

28. EPA. Testimony of Michael S. Regan 

before the Senate Committee on 

Environmental and Public Works. March 

22, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/system/ 

files/documents/2024-01/03-22-2023- 

regan-testimony.pdf. 

29. EPA. Testimony of Michal Ilana 

Freedhoff before the Senate Committee 

on the Environment and Public Works. 

January 24, 2024. https://

www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/ 

files/e/8/e8243202-117c-456d-952f53bf141c839a/525CB57776C75592

CCC48AEF442B4EFC.01-24-2024- 

freedhoff-testimony.pdf. 

30. EPA. Testimony of Michal S. Regan 

before the House Appropriations 

Committee. April 30, 2024. https://

docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP06/ 

20240430/117203/HHRG-118-AP06- 

Wstate-ReganM-20240430.pdf. 

31. EPA. Testimony of Michael S. Regan 

before the Senate Appropriations 

Committee. May 1, 2024. https://

www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/ 

media/doc/download_testimony31.pdf. 

32. Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions. Reconsideration of 

the Soil-Lead Hazard Standards. Spring 

2024. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/ 

do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&

RIN=2070-AL12. 

33. EPA. Definition of Lead-Based Paint 

Considerations. May 2019. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0447. 

34. Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions. Reconsideration of 

the Definition of Lead-Based Paint. 

Spring 2024. https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?

pubId=202404&RIN=2070-AL11. 

35. EPA. Technical Support Document for 

Residential Dust-lead Hazard Standards 

Rulemaking Approach taken to Estimate 

Blood Lead Levels and Effects from 

Exposures to Dust-lead. July 2019. 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0574. 

36. EPA. Technical Support Document for 

Residential Dust-lead Clearance Levels 

Rulemaking Estimation of Blood Lead 

Levels and Effects from Exposures to 

Dust-lead. December 2020. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0395. 

37. CDC. A framework for assessing the 

effectiveness of disease and injury 

prevention. Morbidity and Mortality 

Weekly Report (MMWR) 1992; 41(RR–3). 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ 

mmwrhtml/00016403.htm. 

38. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels. Response 

to Public Comments. October 2024. 

39. SAB. SAB review of EPA’s Approach for 

Developing Lead Dust Hazard Standards 

for Residences (November 2010 Draft) 

and Approach for Developing Lead Dust 

Hazard Standards for Public and 

Commercial Buildings (November 2010 

Draft). EPA–SAB–11–008. July 7, 2011. 

https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/

f?p=114:0:16965043720403:

APPLICATION_PROCESS=REPORT_

DOC:::REPORT_ID:964. 

40. Versar, Inc. External Peer Review of EPA’s 

Approach for Estimating Exposures and 

Incremental Health Effects from Lead 

due to Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities in Public and Commercial 

Buildings. February 27, 2015. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0259. 

41. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Summary 

Report of the Peer Review Meeting for 

EPA’s Draft Report, Proposed Modeling 

Approaches for a Health-Based 

Benchmark for Lead in Drinking Water. 

October 25, 2017. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OW-2017-0300-0091. 

42. Bevington, Charles, et al. ‘‘Relationship 

between Residential Dust-Lead Loading 

and Dust-Lead Concentration Across 

Multiple North American Datasets.’’ 

Building and Environment 188 (2021): 

107359. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 

j.buildenv.2020.107359. 

43. Frank, J., Poulakosc, A., Tornero-Velez, 

R., & Xueb, J. Systematic Review and 

Meta-analyses of Lead (Pb) 

Concentrations in Environmental Media 

(Soil, Dust, Water, Food, and Air) 

Reported in the United States from 1996 

to 2016. Science of The Total 

Environment, Volume 694, 133489. ISSN 

0048–9697. December 1, 2019. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.295. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89450 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

44. SAB (Science Advisory Board). (2020). 

Review of the All Ages Lead Model 

External Review Draft 2.0. Report 

Number EPA–SAB–20–009. Available at 

https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/ 

f?p=114:0:13468522010178:

APPLICATION_PROCESS=REPORT_

DOC:::REPORT_ID:1086. 

45. EPA. (2024). Updated Soil Lead Guidance 

for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective 

Action Facilities. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OLEM-2023-0644-0064. 

46. EPA. (2023). Proposed Rule; National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 

Lead and Copper: Improvements. 

Federal Register (88 FR 84878, 

December 6, 2023) (FRL–5423.2–01– 

OW). Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OW-2022-0801-0036. 

47. Brown JS, Diamond GL, Follansbee MH, 

Thayer WC, Spalinger SM, Thorhaug M, 

Weppner SG, and Witters Hicks KJ. 2021. 

Advancing Pb Exposure and Biokinetic 

Modeling for U.S. EPA Regulatory 

Decisions and Site Assessments using 

Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical 

Complex Superfund Site Data. EPA600/ 

R–21/017F. 

48. Rabinowitz M.B., Wetherill, G.W., & 

Kopple, J.D. (1976). Kinetic analysis of 

lead metabolism in healthy humans. 

Journal of Clinical Investigation, 58(2), 

260–270. 

49. Hattis D. (1981). Dynamics of medical 

removal protection for lead—A 

reappraisal. Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, Center for Policy 

Alternatives. Cambridge, MA. 

50. Nilsson, U., Attewell, R., Christoffersson, 

J.O., Schu ̈tz, A., Ahlgren, L., Skerfving, 

S., & Mattson, S. (1991). Kinetics of lead 

in bone and blood after end of 

occupational exposure. Basic & Clinical 

Pharmacology & Toxicology, 68(6), 477– 

484. 

51. Ryu, J.E., Ziegler, E.E., Nelson, SE, & 

Fomon, S.J. (1983). Dietary intake of lead 

and blood lead concentration in early 

infancy. American Journal of Diseases of 

Children, 137(9), 886–891. 

52. Sherlock, J.C., & Quinn, M.J. (1986). 

Relationship between blood and lead 

concentrations and dietary lead intake in 

infants: the Glasgow Duplicate Diet 

Study 1979–1980. Food Additives and 

Contaminants, 3(2), 167–176. 

53. HUD. Lead Hazards in U.S. Housing: 

American Healthy Homes Survey II. 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ 

pdredge/pdr-edge-trending-030822.html. 

(Accessed June 29, 2023.). 

54. HUD, Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. Lead Hazard Control 

Clearance Survey. Final Report. October 

2015. https://www.hud.gov/sites/ 

documents/clearancesurvey_

24oct15.pdf. 

55. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels. Proposed 

Rule. RIN 2070–AK91. Federal Register 

(88 FR 50444, August 1, 2023) (FRL– 

8524–01–OCSPP). https://

www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-15073. 

56. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) 

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

EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–10/ 

075F, 2013. https://www.epa.gov/isa/ 

integrated-science-assessment-isa-lead. 

57. EPA. Laboratory Quality System 

Requirements (LQSR) Revision 3.0. 

November 5, 2007. https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/lqsr3.pdf. 

58. HUD. Revised Dust-Lead Action Levels for 

Risk Assessment and Clearance; 

Clearance of Porch Floors. Policy 

Guidance 2017–01 Rev 1. February 16, 

2017. https://www.hud.gov/sites/ 

documents/LEADDUSTLEVELS_

REV1.pdf. 

59. Lanphear, Bruce P., et al. Low-Level 

Environmental Lead Exposure and 

Children’s Intellectual Function: An 

International Pooled Analysis. 

Environmental Health Perspective. July 

2005, 113(7):894–9. https://pubmed.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/16002379/. 

60. Lanphear, Bruce P., et al. Erratum: ‘‘LowLevel Environmental Lead Exposure and 

Children’s Intellectual Function: An 

International Pooled Analysis’’. 

Environmental Health Perspective. 

September 17, 2019, 127(9):99001. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

31526192/. 

61. Crump, Kenny S., et al. A Statistical 

Reevaluation of the Data Used in the 

Lanphear et al. (2005) Pooled-Analysis 

that Related Low Levels of Blood Lead to 

Intellectual Deficits in Children. Crit Rev 

Toxicol. October 2013, 43(9):785–99. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

24040996/. 

62. Kirrane, Ellen, F., and Patel, Molini, M. 

Memorandum to Integrated Science 

Assessment for Lead Docket (EPA–HQ– 

ORD–2011–0051). May 12, 2014. https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-ORD-2011-0051-0050. 

63. Ruckart PZ, Jones RL, Courtney JG, et al. 

Update of the Blood Lead Reference 

Value—United States, 2021. Morbidity 

and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 

2021; 70:1509–1512. DOI: https://

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ 

mm7043a4.htm. 

64. HHS, PHS, and CDC. Preventing Lead 

Poisoning in Young Children. October 1, 

1991. https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/ 

Prevguid/p0000029/p0000029.asp#head

007001001000000. 

65. The Blood Lead Reference Value (BLRV) 

Workgroup. Recommendation for a 

Revised Blood Lead Reference Value (for 

the Lead Exposure and Prevention 

Advisory Committee). August 10, 2021. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/docs/ 

lepac/blrv-recommendation-report508.pdf. 

66. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998) 

(FRL–5791–9). https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/FR-1998-06-03/pdf/98- 

14736.pdf. 

67. CDC. CDC Response to Advisory 

Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning 

Prevention Recommendations in ‘‘Low 

Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A 

Renewed Call of Primary Prevention.’’ 

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

lead/docs/cdc_response_lead_exposure_

recs.pdf. 

68. Children’s Health Protection Advisory 

Committee. RE: Childhood Lead 

Poisoning Prevention. Letter to Lisa P. 

Jackson, EPA Administrator. March 29, 

2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/ 

files/2015-10/documents/chpac_lead_

letter_2012_03_29.pdf. 

69. EPA. Review of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Lead. Federal 

Register (81 FR 71906, October 18, 2016) 

(FRL–9952–87). https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016- 

10-18/pdf/2016-23153.pdf. 

70. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Lead. Federal Register (73 

FR 77517, December 19, 2008) (FRL– 

8732–9). https://www.govinfo.gov/ 

content/pkg/FR-2008-12-19/pdf/E8- 

30199.pdf. 

71. HUD. Office of Lead Hazard Control and 

Healthy Homes. American Healthy 

Homes Survey II Lead Findings. Final 

Report. October 29, 2021. https://

www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/ 

documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_

Report_Final_29oct21.pdf. 

72. The White House. Biden-Harris 

Administration Announces New Actions 

to Ease the Burden of Housing Costs. 

May 16, 2022. https://

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

statements-releases/2022/05/16/ 

president-biden-announces-new-actionsto-ease-the-burden-of-housing-costs/. 

73. Biden-Harris Administration Announces 

Actions to Lower Housing Costs and 

Boost Supply. July 27, 2023. https://

www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

statements-releases/2023/07/27/bidenharris-administration-announcesactions-to-lower-housing-costs-andboost-supply/. 

74. Bess, K. D., A. L. Miller, and R. 

Mehdipanah. 2022. The Effects of 

Housing Insecurity on Children’s Health: 

A Scoping Review. Health Promotion 

International, daac006. Advance online 

publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/ 

heapro/daac006. 

75. Lee, C. Y., Zhao, X., Reesor-Oyer, L., 

Cepni, A. B., & Hernandez, D. C. (2021). 

Bidirectional Relationship Between Food 

Insecurity and Housing Instability. 

Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and 

Dietetics, 121(1), 84–91. https://doi.org/ 

10.1016/j.jand.2020.08.081. 

76. Baker, Emma, Laurence Lester, Kate 

Mason, and Rebecca Bentley. 2020. 

Mental Health and Prolonged Exposure 

to Unaffordable housing: A Longitudinal 

Analysis. Social Psychiatry and 

Psychiatric Epidemiology. 55, 6: 715– 

721. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 

32140739/. 

77. Chung, Roger Yat-Nork et al. 2020. 

Housing Affordability Effects on Physical 

and Mental Health: Household Survey in 

a Population with the World’s Greatest 

Housing Affordability Stress. Journal of 

Epidemiology and Community Health. 

74, 2: 164–172. https://pubmed.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/31690588/. 

78. Jenkins Morales, M., & Robert, S. A. 2022. 

Housing Cost Burden and Health Decline 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89451 

Among Low- and Moderate-Income 

Older Renters. The Journals of 

Gerontology: Series B, Psychological 

Sciences and Social Sciences, 77(4), 

815–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/ 

gbab184. 

79. Jelleyman, T., and N. Spencer. 2008. 

Residential Mobility in Childhood and 

Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. 

Journal of Epidemiology and Community 

Health. 62: 584–592. https://doi.org/ 

10.1136/jech.2007.060103. 

80. Burgard, Sarah A., Kristin S. Seefeldt and 

Sarah Zelner. 2012. Housing Instability 

and Health: Findings from the Michigan 

Recession and Recovery Study. Social 

Science & Medicine. 75, 12: 2215. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.

2012.08.020. 

81. Desmond, Matthew, and Rachel Tolbert 

Kimbro. 2020. Eviction’s Fallout: 

Housing, Hardship, and Health. Social 

Forces. 94, 1: 295–324. https://doi.org/ 

10.1093/sf/sov044. 

82. DiTosto, Julia. D., et al. 2021. Housing 

Instability and Adverse Perinatal 

Outcomes: A Systematic Review. 

American Journal of Obstetrics & 

Gynecology MFM. 3, 6: 100477. https:// 

doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100477. 

83. Collinson, Robert, John Eric Humphries, 

Nicholas S. Mader, Davin K. Reed, 

Daniel I. Tannenbaum, and Winnie van 

Dijk. 2022. Eviction and Poverty in 

American Cities. NBER Working Paper 

No. 30382. https://www.nber.org/papers/ 

w30382. 

84. Cutts, Diana Becker, et al. 2011. US 

Housing Insecurity and the Health of 

Very Young Children. American Journal 

of Public Health. 101, 8: 1508–1514. 

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.

300139. 

85. Solari, Claudia D. and Robert D Mare. 

2012. ‘‘Housing Crowding Effects on 

Children’s Wellbeing.’’ Social Science 

Research. 41, 2: 464–476. https://

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012. 

86. Ahmad, Khansa, Sebhat Erqou, Nishant 

Shah, Umair Nazir, Alan R. Morrison, 

Gaurav Choudhary, Wen-Chih. 2020. 

‘‘Association of Poor Housing Conditions 

with COVID–19 Incidence and Mortality 

Across US Counties.’’ PLoS ONE. 15, 11: 

e0241327. https://doi.org/10.1371/ 

journal.pone.0241327. 

87. Marmot Review Team. 2011. The Health 

Impacts of Cold Homes and Fuel 

Poverty. London: Friends of the Earth 

and the Marmot Review Team. https://

www.instituteofhealthequity.org/ 

resources-reports/the-health-impacts-ofcold-homes-and-fuel-poverty. 

88. ASHRAE Multidisciplinary Task Group. 

2020. Damp Buildings, Human Health, 

and HVAC Design. Atlanta, GA: 

ASHRAE. https://www.techstreet.com/ 

ashrae/standards/damp-buildingshuman-health-and-hvacdesign?product_id=2110372. 

89. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead. Response to Public 

Comments. March 2001. 

90. EPA. Review of the Dust-lead Hazard 

Standards and the Definition of LeadBased Paint. Response to Public 

Comments. June 2019. https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0571. 

91. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels. Response 

to Public Comments. December 2020. 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0397. 

92. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Stat Analysis Corporation. June 

13, 2022. 

93. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and HIH Laboratory, Inc. June 14, 

2022. 

94. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Batta Environmental. June 14, 

2022. 

95. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and EMSL Analytical, Inc. June 15, 

2022. 

96. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Environmental Hazard 

Services, LLC. June 21, 2022. 

97. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Accurate Analytical Testing, 

LLC. June 22, 2022. 

98. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Schneider Laboratories, Inc. 

June 30, 2022. 

99. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Marion County Health 

Department. July 11, 2022. 

100. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and GPI. July 12, 2022. 

101. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and EMSL Analytical. November 

29, 2023. 

102. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Criterion Laboratories, Inc. 

November 30, 2023. 

103. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Laboratory Testing Services. 

December 12, 2023. 

104. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and SanAir Technologies 

Laboratory. December 14, 2023. 

105. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and ALS Laboratory Group. 

December 15, 2023. 

106. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Armstrong Forensic Laboratory. 

June 22, 2023. 

107. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Micro Analytical Labs, Inc. 

December 20, 2023. 

108. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and Analytical Environmental 

Services International, Inc. December 21, 

2023. 

109. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and AMA Analytical Services, Inc. 

January 1, 2024. 

110. NYC. New Lead in Dust Standards for 

New York City. June 2019. https://

www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/ 

pdf/lead/lead-in-dust-standards.pdf. 

111. NYC. New Lead in Dust Standards for 

New York City. June 2021. https://

www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/ 

pdf/lead/lead-in-dust.pdf. 

112. EPA. Summary of discussion between 

EPA and New York City Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene; Healthy 

Homes Program. March 21, 2022. 

113. David E Jacobs, et al. The Prevalence of 

Lead-based Paint Hazards in U.S. 

Housing. October 1, 2002. https://

doi.org/10.1289/ehp.021100599. 

114. Ahrens, Katherine A., Barbara A. Haley, 

Lauren M. Rossen, Patricia C. Lloyd, and 

Yutaka Aoki. 2016. ‘‘Housing Assistance 

and Blood Lead Levels: Children in the 

United States, 2005–2012.’’ American 

Journal of Public Health. 106,11: 2049– 

2056. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.

2016.303432. 

115. HUD. Data compiled from HUD’s Picture 

of Subsidized Households dataset, 

available at https://www.huduser.gov/ 

portal/datasets/assthsg.html. 

116. Fenelon, Andrew, Natalie Slopen, 

Michel Boudreaux, and Sandra J. 

Newman. 2018. ‘‘The Impact of Housing 

Assistance on the Mental Health of 

Children in the United States.’’ Journal 

of Health and Social Behavior. 1–17. 

https://doi.10.1177/0022146518792286. 

117. Fenelon, Andrew, et al. 2017. Housing 

Assistance Programs and Adult Health in 

the United States. American Journal of 

Public Health. 107, 4: 571–578. https:// 

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28207335/. 

118. Boudreaux, Michel, Andrew Fenelon, 

Natalie Slopen, and Sandra J. Newman. 

2020. ‘‘Association of Childhood Asthma 

with Federal Rental Assistance.’’ JAMA 

Pediatrics. 174, 6: 592–598. https://

doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.

2019.6242. 

119. Slopen, Natalie, Andrew Fenelon, 

Sandra Newman, and Michel Boudreaux. 

2018. ‘‘Housing Assistance and Child 

Health: A Systematic Review.’’ 

Pediatrics. 141, 6: e20172742. https://

doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2742. 

120. Alvarez, Thyria and Barry L. Steffen. 

2021. Worst Case Housing Needs: 2021 

Report to Congress. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. https://

www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/ 

Worst-Case-Housing-Needs-2021.html. 

121. Greenlee, Andrew J. 2014. More Than 

Meets the Market? Landlord Agency in 

the Illinois Housing Choice Voucher 

Program. Housing Policy Debate, 24:3, 

500–524, DOI: 10.1080/ 

10511482.2014.913649. https://doi.org/ 

10.1080/10511482.2014.913649. 

122. Varady, David P., Joseph Jaroscak, and 

Reinout Kleinhans. 2017. How to Attract 

More Landlords to the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program: A Case Study of 

Landlord Outreach Efforts. Urban 

Research & Practice, 10:2, 143–155, DOI: 

10.1080/17535069.2016.1175741. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.

2016.1175741. 

123. Garboden, Philip M. E., Eva Rosen, 

Stefanie DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. 

2018. Taking Stock: What Drives 

Landlord Participation in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program. Housing Policy 

Debate. 28:6, 979–1003. https://doi.org/ 

10.1080/10511482.2018.1502202. 

124. Greif, Meredith. 2018. Regulating 

Landlords: Unintended Consequences 

for Poor Tenants. City & Community, 

17:3, 658–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 

cico.12321. 

125. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and 

Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89452 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Housing. Second Edition, July 2012. 

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/ 

healthy_homes/lbp/hudguidelines. 

126. Earthjustice. Public Comment Submitted 

by Earthjustice on behalf of A 

Community Voice et al. October 6, 2023. 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231-0531. 

127. EPA. Supporting Statement for an 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA); Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead 

Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead PostAbatement Clearance Levels; Final Rule, 

EPA ICR No. 2760.01, OMB Control No. 

2070–0227. October 2024. 

128. EPA. Notes from the Tribal Opportunity 

for Consultation on the Proposed 

Rulemaking for the Reconsideration of 

the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and 

Dust-Lead Clearance Levels. Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics. August 

9–10, 2023. 

129. EPA. EJ 2020 Action Agenda: The U.S. 

EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategic 

Plan for 2016—2020. October 2016. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2016-05/documents/052216_ej_2020_

strategic_plan_final_0.pdf. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and executive orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and 14094: 

Modernizing Regulatory Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), as amended by 

Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, 

April 11, 2023). Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the Executive Order 12866 

review is available in the docket. The 

Agency prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action (Ref. 10), which is 

available in the docket and is 

summarized in Unit I.E. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this final rule have been submitted 

for review and approval to OMB under 

the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that EPA prepared has been 

assigned EPA ICR No. 2760.02 and OMB 

Control No. 2070–0227 (Ref. 127). You 

can find a copy of the ICR in the docket 

for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The ICR addresses the incremental 

changes to the existing reporting, 

notification, and recordkeeping 

programs that are currently approved 

under OMB Control Nos. 2070–0151 

and 2070–0195. As approved under 

OMB Control No. 2070–0151 and 

pursuant to 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, 

and 40 CFR 745, Subpart F, sellers and 

lessors of target housing must already 

provide purchasers or lessees any 

available records or reports ‘‘pertaining 

to’’ LBP and/or LBP hazards available to 

the seller or lessor. Accordingly, a seller 

or lessor must disclose any reports 

showing dust-lead levels, regardless of 

the value. A lower hazard standard may 

prompt a different response on the 

already required lead disclosure form 

(i.e., that a lead-based paint hazard is 

present rather than not), which would 

occur when a dust-lead level is below 

the 2019 standard but at or above a 

lower final reportable level. However, 

for existing target housing, this action 

would not result in additional 

disclosures because the lead disclosure 

form is required regardless of whether 

dust-lead is present at or below the 

hazard standard or reportable level. 

Note that leases (which does not include 

sales) of target housing are exempt from 

disclosure requirements in limited 

circumstances, such as where the 

housing has been found to be LBP free 

by a certified inspector (24 CFR 35.82; 

40 CFR 745.101), even if the dust-lead 

level is at or above the DLRL. 

Nevertheless, due to the change in target 

housing definition, EPA estimates an 

additional 967 disclosure events will 

occur annually, which will affect 3,040 

respondents at an average burden and 

cost of 0.11 hours and $4.58 per 

respondent, resulting in a total annual 

burden of 337 hours at a total annual 

cost of $13,910. 

Next, as approved under OMB Control 

No. 2070–0195, the ICR addresses the 

information collection activities 

associated with the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

individuals, firms and State and local 

government entities conducting LBP 

activities or renovations of target 

housing and COFs; training providers; 

and States/territories/Tribes/Alaska 

Native villages. These information 

collection activities include the 

following: 

• LBP activity firm pre-abatement 

reports and occupant protection plans, 

abatement activity notifications, postabatement reports and recordkeeping; 

• Applications for certification of 

individuals performing LBP activities, 

and related recordkeeping; 

• LBP activities training provider 

accreditation applications, training 

notifications, and recordkeeping; 

• LBP activity firm certification 

applications and recordkeeping; 

• Distribution of pre-renovation lead 

hazard information pamphlet and postrenovation checklists documenting leadsafe work practices; 

• RRP and LBP professionals 

classroom training time related to 

recordkeeping compliance; 

• RRP training provider accreditation 

applications, training notifications, and 

recordkeeping; 

• Private RRP firm and Governmentemployed RRP professional certification 

applications and recordkeeping; and 

• Submission of related fees. 

Incremental abatement notifications 

would be required when an abatement 

occurs due to the DLRL/DLAL and does 

not occur in the baseline; EPA estimates 

that 1,779 to 2,687 such notifications 

will incur average annual paperworkassociated costs of $161. Additional LBP 

workers may need to be hired and 

subsequently trained and certified to 

accommodate the additional dust-lead 

remediation activities triggered by the 

DLRL/DLAL. EPA estimates that 1,304 

to 2,551 respondents will incur average 

annual paperwork-associated costs of 

$457. Because the EA finds that the 

DLRL/DLAL would increase the average 

number of new lead hazard reduction 

events per firm by up to 16 per year, 

EPA assumes that existing LBP activity 

firms would cover this new work and 

new entrants are unlikely to emerge. As 

such, EPA does not estimate any 

paperwork costs associated with LBP 

activity firm certification. Similarly, the 

EA finds that there would be fewer than 

1 incremental event per affected RRP 

firm and therefore EPA expects no new 

RRP firms or employees will enter the 

market in response to the DLRL/DLAL. 

As such, EPA does not estimate any 

paperwork costs associated with RRP 

firm certification or RRP training. 

The revisions to the definition of 

target housing will result in paperwork 

costs in two dimensions. First, 

abatement firms operating in newly 

defined target housing are expected to 

incur reporting and recordkeeping costs 

for those additional events. EPA 

estimates that 25 respondents will incur 

an average annual cost of $96 for these 

activities. Second, renovation service 

firms performing renovation activities in 

newly defined target housing are 

required to perform disclosure 

activities. This will result in recurring 

disclosure event, recordkeeping, and 

materials costs. EPA estimates that 

1,977 respondents will incur an average 

annual cost of $16. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89453 

In addition, EPA currently receives 

approximately 90 percent of required 

notifications as well as applications for 

accreditation, certification, and recertification from training providers, 

firms, and lead abatement individuals 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX). The paperwork activities, related 

burden and costs with CDX user 

registration for those who elect to 

exercise the electronic submission 

option established under the Agency’s 

Cross-media Electronic Reporting Rule 

(CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3) are 

described in an ICR approved under 

OMB Control No. 2025–0003. The 

amended information collection 

activities contained in this rule are 

designed to assist the Agency in meeting 

its responsibility under TSCA to 

receive, process, and review reports, 

data, and other information. 

Accordingly, this rule requires regulated 

parties to submit notifications and 

applications through CDX. 

The ICR prepared for this rule 

addresses the incremental burden 

changes related to the expected increase 

in the number of responses to the 

activities considered in the other 

existing ICRs, as well as the changing 

response obligation for the use of CDX 

from voluntary to mandatory. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Persons engaged in selling or leasing 

certain residential dwellings built before 

1978; persons who are engaged in leadbased paint activities and/or perform 

renovations of target housing or childoccupied facilities for compensation, 

dust sampling, or dust testing; persons 

who perform lead-based paint 

inspections, lead hazard screens, risk 

assessments or abatements in target 

housing or child-occupied facilities; 

persons who provide training or operate 

a training program for individuals who 

perform any of these activities; State, 

territorial or Tribal agencies that 

administer lead-based paint activities 

and/or renovation programs. See also 

Unit I.A. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (Title X and 40 CFR part 

745). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

8,123 to 10,278 (per year). 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Total estimated burden: 16,982 to 

29,462 hours (per year). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $0.9 million to 

$1.6 million (per year), includes no 

annualized capital or operation and 

maintenance costs. 

Under the PRA, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for certain 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9, and on associated 

collection instruments. When OMB 

approves this ICR, EPA will announce 

that approval in the Federal Register 

and publish a technical amendment to 

40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection activities 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

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

small entities subject to the 

requirements of the DLRL and DLAL are 

small businesses that are landlords who 

may incur costs for lead hazard 

reduction measures in compliance with 

the HUD’s LSHR; elementary and 

secondary schools or child day care 

services (who may incur costs 

associated with lead hazard reduction 

measures in COFs); residential 

remodelers (who may incur costs 

associated with additional cleaning and 

sealing in houses undergoing 

rehabilitation or ongoing lead-based 

paint maintenance subject to the HUD 

LSHR); and abatement firms (who may 

also incur costs associated with 

additional cleaning and sealing under 

the LSHR). The Agency has determined 

that approximately 18,000 small 

businesses would be directly affected by 

the DLRL and DLAL, of which 85% to 

86% have cost impacts less than 1% of 

revenues, 12% to 13% have impacts 

between 1% and 3% of revenues, and 

2% have impacts greater than 3% of 

revenues. The total estimated costs to 

small businesses are between $45 

million and $89 million per year. 

Additionally, the rule’s other 

amendments may potentially affect four 

types of small entities: property owners 

that will incur recordkeeping and 

material costs for real estate disclosures 

in newly defined target housing; 

renovation firms that will incur 

renovation disclosure costs and leadsafe work practice costs in newly 

defined target housing; LBP activities 

firms that will incur reporting and 

recordkeeping costs for abatement 

activities in newly defined target 

housing; and EPA-certified training 

providers that may incur costs for 

submitting reports electronically. The 

Agency has determined that 

approximately 2,998 small businesses 

would be directly affected by the 

amendment to the target housing 

definition, of which 100% have cost 

impacts less than 1% of revenues. The 

Agency has determined that 

approximately 86 small businesses 

would be directly affected by the 

amendment to the electronic reporting 

requirement, of which 100% have cost 

impacts less than 1% of revenues. All 

details of the analysis of potential costs 

and benefits associated with this action 

are presented in EPA’s EA, which is 

available in the docket (Ref. 10). 

The EA estimates potential costs from 

the DLRL and DLAL for activities in two 

types of target housing and COFs—those 

subject to the HUD LSHR and those 

where a child with a blood lead level 

exceeding a Federal or State threshold 

lives. Importantly, the DLRL do not 

require the owners of properties covered 

by this rule to evaluate their properties 

for the presence of dust-lead hazards, or 

to act if dust-lead hazards are identified. 

Although the DLRL and DLAL do not 

compel specific actions under EPA’s 

LBP Activities Rule to address 

identified LBP hazards, the DLHS and 

DLCL are directly cross-referenced in 

certain requirements mandated by HUD 

in the housing subject to the LSHR. 

Aside from the HUD regulations, and 

perhaps some State or local regulations, 

the DLRL and DLAL do not impose new 

Federal requirements on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

As discussed in Unit I.E.6., this action 

contains a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $183 million in 

2023 dollars ($100 million in 1995 

dollars adjusted for inflation using the 

GDP implicit price deflator) or more as 

described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, for State, local and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. However, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Additionally, EPA does not believe that 

this action would impose an unfunded 

mandate on Tribal governments or 

otherwise have substantial direct effects 

on one or more federally recognized 

Indian Tribes. EPA has prepared the 

written statement required under 

section 202 of UMRA (Ref. 13). The 

statement is included in the docket for 

this action and is briefly summarized 

here. 

This rulemaking is issued under the 

authority of TSCA sections 401, 402, 

403, 404, and 406, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et 

seq., as amended by Title X (Pub. L. 

102–550) (Ref. 1) and section 237(c) of 

Title II of Division K of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115– 

31, 131 Stat. 789), as well as sections 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89454 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1004 and 1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 

4851b, 4852d), as amended by section 

237(b) of Title II of Division K of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 

The EA (Ref. 10) presents the costs of 

the rule as well as various regulatory 

options, and is summarized in Unit I.E. 

The rule is estimated to result in total 

compliance costs of $207 million to 

$348 million per year. Thus, the annual 

cost of the rule to the private sector (and 

State, local, and Tribal governments) in 

the aggregate exceeds the inflationadjusted $100 million UMRA threshold. 

This rule will reduce exposures to 

lead, resulting in benefits from avoided 

adverse health effects. For the subset of 

health effects where the results were 

quantified, the estimated annualized 

benefits are $1.54 billion to $10.315 

billion per year using a 2% discount 

rate. There may be additional 

unquantified benefits due to other 

avoided health effects. 

Net benefits are the difference 

between benefits and costs. The rule is 

estimated to result in quantified net 

benefits of $1.367 billion to $9.966 

billion per year using a 2% discount 

rate. EPA considers unquantified health 

benefits to be potentially important nonmonetized impacts that contribute to the 

overall net benefits of this rule. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement is required, EPA must identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives. From those 

alternatives, EPA must select the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the rule’s objectives, unless the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

method was not adopted; or the 

provisions of section 205 are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

EPA considered several regulatory 

alternatives in the economic analysis for 

the final rule. One of these options, 

DLRL and DLAL of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, 

and 400 mg/ft2 for floors, window sills 

and window troughs, would have lower 

costs than the alternative selected for 

the final rule. This alternative option 

would be more cost-effective than the 

final rule in terms of the cost per case 

of premature cardiovascular mortality 

avoided. However, the final rule is the 

most cost-effective option analyzed for 

both the cost per lost IQ point avoided 

and the cost per ADHD case avoided. 

The final rule also avoids far more IQ 

loss and cases of cardiovascular 

mortality risk and ADHD than does the 

alternative option. 

Compared with DLAL of 10 mg/ft2, 

100 mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ft2, DLAL of 5 mg/ 

ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 represents 

a reduction of 50% or more in the 

allowable level of dust-lead loadings 

following the completion of an 

abatement. As a result, DLAL of 5 mg/ 

ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 would be 

beneficial to maintaining lower 

children’s BLLs and protecting against 

associated health outcomes such as 

decreased IQ. The TSD modeling shows 

that young children in pre-1978 housing 

exposed to dust-lead loadings of 5 mg/ 

ft2 for floors and 40 mg/ft2 for window 

sills would have an estimated 13.9% 

probability of exceeding a total BLL of 

3.5 mg/dL (CDC’s BLRV). This is 

significantly lower than the 18.0% 

probability of exceedance of the BLRV 

when exposed to DLAL of 10 mg/ft2 for 

floors and 100 mg/ft2 on window sills. 

When considering dust-lead exposure 

only, young children in pre-1978 

housing exposed to DLAL of 5 mg/ft2, 40 

mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 would have a 

22.4% probability of exceeding 2 points 

of IQ loss. This is considerably less than 

the 37.9% chance of exceeding 2 points 

of IQ loss for children exposed to DLAL 

levels of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 

mg/ft2. Overall, the TSD modeling 

indicates that the 5 mg/ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 

100 mg/ft2 DLAL represents a substantial 

reduction in risk compared with DLAL 

of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 mg/ft2. 

EPA’s analysis of the HUD LHCCS 

data indicates that 72% of samples 

showed dust-lead levels at or below 5 

mg/ft2 for floors, 88% were at or below 

40 mg/ft2 for window sills, and 93% 

were at or below 100 mg/ft2 for window 

troughs. The respondents to HUD’s 

survey were only required to achieve 

clearance below the dust-lead clearance 

levels that were in effect at that time 

(which were 40 mg/ft2 for floors, 250 mg/ 

ft2 window sills, and 400 mg/ft2 for 

window troughs), and the percentage of 

samples achieving these post-abatement 

dust-lead loadings may be even higher 

today (due to the 2021 Final Rule 

revising the clearance levels to 10 mg/ft2

for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window 

sills, described as dust-lead action 

levels moving forward). Furthermore, 

New York City lowered its standards for 

floors, window sills and window wells 

(i.e., troughs), respectively, to 5 mg/ft2, 

40 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2 in 2021. As a result, 

EPA has high confidence that the 5 mg/ 

ft2, 40 mg/ft2, and 100 mg/ft2 for floors, 

window sills, and window troughs 

DLAL option is achievable. 

Therefore, EPA has concluded that 

the final rule option better achieves the 

objectives of reliability, effectiveness 

and safety than does the alternative 

option of 10 mg/ft2, 100 mg/ft2, and 400 

mg/ft2 for floors, window sills and 

troughs. 

EPA sought input from State and local 

government representatives early in the 

rulemaking process during the joint 

intergovernmental consultation initiated 

in November 2022. EPA’s experience in 

administering the existing LBP activities 

program under TSCA section 402 

suggests that these governments will 

play a critical role in the successful 

implementation of the national program 

to reduce exposures to LBP hazards. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

EPA has concluded that this action 

has federalism implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because of the 

potential effects on public housing 

authorities. While some HUD grant 

funding for LBP projects exists, the 

Federal government may not provide 

the funds necessary to pay the entirety 

of the costs. State and local governments 

may provide additional funding to pay 

for some of these costs. These costs to 

public housing authorities—estimated at 

$27 million per year—cover additional 

lead hazard reduction activities, 

cleaning, and dust-lead testing to ensure 

that public housing units are in 

compliance with the LSHR. Public 

school districts that administer COFs 

are also estimated to have annual 

compliance costs of approximately 

$850,000 per year. Additionally, States 

that have authorized LBP activities 

programs must demonstrate that they 

meet any new requirements imposed by 

this rulemaking and are at least as 

protective as the levels at 40 CFR 745.65 

and 40 CFR 745.227. However, 

authorized States are under no 

obligation to continue to administer the 

LBP activities program, and if they do 

not wish to adopt the DLRL and DLCL 

they can relinquish their authorization. 

In the absence of a State authorization, 

EPA will administer these requirements. 

EPA provides the following 

federalism summary impact statement. 

EPA consulted with State and local 

officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action to 

permit them to have meaningful and 

timely input into its development. EPA 

invited the following national 

organizations representing State and 

local elected officials to a consultation 

meeting on November 10, 2022: 

National Governors’ Association, 

National Conference of State 

Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

National League of Cities, Council of 

State Governments, International City/ 

County Management Association, 

National Association of Counties, 

National Association of Towns and 

Townships, County Executives of 

America, and Environmental Council of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89455 

the States. Additionally, the agency 

invited professional organizations that 

represent or have State and local 

government members, such as Public 

Housing Authorities Directors 

Association, Council of Large Public 

Housing Authorities, Association of 

State and Territorial Health Officials, 

American Public Works Association, 

and other groups to participate in the 

meeting. The comments received during 

this consultation, and EPA’s response 

thereto, are discussed in Unit IX.E. of 

the notice of proposed rulemaking (88 

FR 50477). 

EPA notes that according to the 2021 

Court Opinion the Agency cannot take 

into account non-health factors, such as 

costs, when revising the DLHS. 

However, the Agency can and did 

consider non-health factors when 

revising the DLAL. Accordingly, as 

described elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

is promulgating DLAL that are higher 

than those it originally proposed. This 

will allow laboratories to continue using 

FAAS instruments for dust-wipe testing. 

This will limit increases in laboratory 

testing costs and turnaround times, 

including for abatements in properties 

owned by public housing authorities 

and public-school districts. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

Tribes. Federally recognized Tribes that 

have authorized LBP activities programs 

must demonstrate that they meet any 

new requirements imposed by this 

rulemaking and are at least as protective 

as the levels at 40 CFR 745.65 and 40 

CFR 745.227. However, these authorized 

Tribes are under no obligation to 

continue to administer the LBP 

activities program, and if they do not 

wish to adopt the new DLRL and DLAL 

they can relinquish their authorization. 

In the absence of a Tribal authorization, 

EPA will administer these requirements. 

This action does not create an obligation 

for Tribes to administer LBP activities 

programs or alter EPA’s authority to 

administer these programs. For these 

reasons, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

Consistent with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with 

Tribal officials during the development 

of this action. The Agency provided an 

opportunity for consultation from July 

24, 2023, to September 22, 2023, with 

consultation sessions on August 9 and 

10, 2023. Tribal officials were given the 

opportunity to meaningfully interact 

with EPA concerning the dust-lead 

standards, and all other amendments in 

the proposed rulemaking. During the 

consultation sessions, EPA covered the 

legal and regulatory history of this 

rulemaking, the approach to revising 

both dust-lead standards, other 

amendments such as the definition of 

target housing, the potential Tribal 

impacts and the estimated economic 

costs and benefits, as well as provided 

resources and information to Tribal 

officials about how to submit written 

comments to the Agency. Beyond a few 

clarifying questions, Tribal officials 

raised no related issues or concerns to 

EPA during or in follow-up to those 

meetings (Ref. 128). EPA received no 

additional written comments from 

Tribes as part of this consultation 

opportunity. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies 

to include an evaluation of the health 

and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (as amended by Executive 

Order 14094), and EPA believes that the 

environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action has a 

disproportionate effect on children as 

they are more susceptible to the adverse 

health effects of lead due to their 

behavior and physiology. Accordingly, 

we have evaluated the environmental 

health or safety effects of dust-lead 

exposure on children. 

The results of this evaluation are 

contained in Unit I.E., and in the EA 

and TSD, where the health impacts of 

lead exposure on children are discussed 

more fully (Refs. 10 and 12). The 

documents referenced in this unit are 

available in the public docket for this 

action. 

This action is preferred over other 

regulatory options analyzed because the 

DLRL aligns with the current state of the 

science, which does not support 

identifying a threshold of dust-lead 

exposure below which there would be 

no adverse human health effects. EPA 

has set the DLAL taking into account the 

statutory criteria of reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety. 

Furthermore, EPA’s 2021 Policy on 

Children’s Health also applies to this 

action. Discussion about how the 

Agency applied this policy is presented 

in Unit I.E.5. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards under NTTAA section 12(d), 

15 U.S.C. 272 note. ASTM E1728 and 

ASTM E1792 are already cited in an 

existing regulatory definition of ‘‘wipe 

sample’’ at 40 CFR 745.63. EPA is 

formally incorporating the most current 

version of these standards (i.e., ASTM 

E1728–20 and ASTM E1792–20). 

Additional information about these 

standards, including how to access 

them, is provided in Unit IV.F.8. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

EPA believes that the human health or 

environmental conditions that exist 

prior to this action result in or have the 

potential to result in disproportionate 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on communities 

with environmental justice concerns 

consistent with Executive Order 14096 

(88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) (building 

on and supplementing E.O. 12898 (59 

FR 7629, February 16, 1994)). See 

discussion in Section 8.6 of the EA (Ref. 

10) concerning existing disproportionate 

impacts of lead pollution faced by 

individuals in low-income households 

and households of people of color and/ 

or Indigenous peoples, and the 

measured extent to which this action 

particularly benefits the health of 

individuals in low-income households. 

EPA believes that this action is likely 

to reduce existing disproportionate and 

adverse effects on communities with 

environmental justice concerns. For 

example, 50% of children under age 6 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89456 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

who will benefit from the rule are 

members of households below the 

poverty line, compared with 17% of 

children under age 6 nationally who 

live below the poverty line. An 

estimated 48% of total monetized IQ 

benefits from this rule accrue to 

children under age 6 living in a 

household below the poverty line. An 

estimated 28% of children under age 6 

who will benefit from the rule are nonHispanic Black, compared with 12% of 

children under age 6 nationally who are 

non-Hispanic Black. An estimated 23% 

of total monetized IQ benefits from this 

rule accrue to non-Hispanic Black 

children. 

For children ages 0 to 15 at the time 

of exposure reduction benefiting from 

this rulemaking due to reduced cases of 

ADHD, 53% of those live in a household 

with an annual income below the 

poverty line, compared to 19% of 

children ages 0 to 15 in target housing 

who live below the poverty line. An 

estimated 40% of total monetized 

ADHD benefits from this rule accrue to 

children ages 0 to 15 living in a 

household below the poverty line. 

Additionally, 36% of children ages 0 to 

15 benefiting from this rulemaking are 

non-Hispanic Black, compared to the 

13% of children in target housing who 

similarly identify. However, only an 

estimated 27% of total monetized 

ADHD benefits from this rule accrue to 

non-Hispanic Black children. 

Similarly, 49% of the adults 

benefiting from this rulemaking live in 

a household with annual income below 

the poverty line, compared to 13% of 

adults in target housing who live below 

the poverty line. Adults living in a 

household below the poverty line 

receive an estimated 43% of total 

monetized cardiovascular mortality 

avoidance benefits from this rule. 

Moreover, 39% of adults benefitting 

from this rulemaking are non-Hispanic 

Black, compared to the 13% of adults in 

target housing who identify as nonHispanic Black. An estimated 49% of 

total monetized cardiovascular mortality 

avoidance benefits from this rule accrue 

to non-Hispanic Black adults. 

There is some uncertainty, however, 

regarding the environmental justice 

implications of this rule on HUDassisted housing. If the rule 

inadvertently limits the availability of 

federally assisted affordable housing, a 

subset of low-income individuals or 

families currently residing in assisted 

housing may face higher housing costs 

on the private market, disruptions 

caused by an involuntary loss of 

housing, and the potential for dust lead 

levels that exceed those in their baseline 

LSHR-regulated housing. 

EPA additionally identified and 

addressed environmental justice 

concerns through public comment and 

collaboration with State, Tribal, and 

other co-regulatory bodies related to the 

EJ2020 action agenda and the 

development of the EPA Lead Strategy. 

Through the EPA Lead Strategy, EPA 

has engaged with key stakeholders, 

communities, and organizations with 

vested interests in addressing lead 

exposures. Disparities in lead pollution 

are a national area of focus in the EJ2020 

action agenda (Ref. 129), and this 

rulemaking’s protective standards will 

deliver demonstrative progress on 

addressing childhood lead exposure and 

health disparities to members of 

overburdened communities. 

The information supporting the 

Executive Order 12898 review is 

contained in the EA (Ref. 10) and EPA 

Lead Strategy (Ref. 8), both of which are 

available in the docket. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit 

a rule report to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. This action meets 

the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Abatement, 

Child-occupied facility, Clearance 

levels, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, Lead 

poisoning, Lead-based paint, Target 

housing. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 745—LEAD-BASED PAINT 

POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN 

RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 745 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681– 

2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

■ 2. Amend § 745.61 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 745.61 Scope and applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) Before January 13, 2025, the levels 

identified in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii) 

were referred to as clearance levels. On 

or after January 13, 2025, the levels 

identified in § 745.227(e)(8)(viii) are 

referred to as action levels. 

■ 3. Amend § 745.63 by adding in 

alphabetical order the definitions of 

‘‘Reportable level’’ and revising the 

definition of ‘‘Wipe sample’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.63 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Reportable level means the lowest 

analyte concentration (or amount) that 

does not contain a ‘‘less than’’ qualifier 

and that is reported with confidence for 

a specific method by a laboratory 

recognized by EPA under TSCA section 

405(b). 

* * * * * 

Wipe sample means a sample 

collected by wiping a representative 

surface of known area, as determined by 

ASTM E1728/E1728M–20 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 745.67), or equivalent 

method, with an acceptable wipe 

material as defined in ASTM E1792–20 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 745.67). 

■ 4. Amend § 745.65 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 745.65 Lead-based paint hazards. 

* * * * * 

(b) Dust-lead hazard. Before January 

12, 2026, a dust-lead hazard is surface 

dust in a residential dwelling or childoccupied facility that contains a massper-area concentration of lead equal to 

or exceeding 10 mg/ft2 for floors or 100 

mg/ft2 for interior window sills based on 

wipe samples. On or after January 12, 

2026, a dust-lead hazard is surface dust 

in a residential dwelling or childoccupied facility that contains a massper-area concentration of any reportable 

level of lead for floors or for interior 

window sills based on wipe samples 

analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized 

laboratory. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add § 745.67 to Subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.67 Incorporation by reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved 

incorporation by reference (IBR) 

material is available for inspection at 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact EPA at: OPPT Docket in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading room is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89457 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@

nara.gov. The material may be obtained 

from the following sources: 

(a) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; (877) 

909–ASTM; www.astm.org. 

(1) ASTM E1728/E1728M–20, 

Standard Practice for Collection of 

Settled Dust Samples Using Wipe 

Sampling Methods for Subsequent Lead 

Determination, Approved January 1, 

2020; IBR approved for § 745.63. 

(2) ASTM E1792–20, Standard 

Specification for Wipe Sampling 

Materials for Lead in Surface Dust, 

Approved September 1, 2020; IBR 

approved for § 745.63. 

(b) [Reserved] 

■ 6. Amend § 745.81 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.81 Effective dates. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Work practices. On or after July 6, 

2010, all renovations must be performed 

in accordance with the work practice 

standards in § 745.85 and the associated 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target 

housing or child-occupied facilities, 

unless the renovation qualifies for the 

exception identified in § 745.82(a). 

* * * * * 

(b) Renovation-specific pamphlet. On 

or after December 22, 2008, renovators 

or firms performing renovations in 

States and Indian Tribal areas without 

an authorized program must provide 

owners and occupants the following 

EPA pamphlet: Renovate Right: 

Important Lead Hazard Information for 

Families, Child Care Providers and 

Schools. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 745.83 by adding in 

alphabetical order the definition of 

‘‘Electronic’’ to read as follows: 

§ 745.83 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Electronic means the submission of an 

application, payment, or notification 

using the Agency’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX), or successor platform. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 745.85 by revising 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 745.85 Work practice standards. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) The renovation firm is required to 

re-clean the work area until the dust 

sample results are below the dust-lead 

action levels in § 745.227(e)(8) or any 

applicable State, Territorial, Tribal, or 

local standard. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 745.89 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1), introductory text of 

paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i), and (c)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 745.89 Firm certification. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Firms that perform renovations for 

compensation must electronically apply 

to EPA for certification to perform 

renovations or dust sampling. To apply, 

a firm must submit to EPA a completed 

‘‘Application for Firms,’’ signed by an 

authorized agent of the firm, and pay 

electronically at least the correct 

amount of fees. If a firm pays more than 

the correct amount of fees, EPA will 

reimburse the firm for the excess 

amount. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Timely and complete application. 

To be re-certified, a firm must submit a 

complete electronic application for recertification. A complete application for 

re-certification includes a completed 

‘‘Application for Firms’’ which contains 

all of the information requested by the 

form and is signed by an authorized 

agent of the firm, noting on the form 

that it is submitted as a re-certification. 

A complete application must also 

include at least the correct amount of 

fees. If a firm pays more than the correct 

amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the 

firm for the excess amount. 

(i) An application for re-certification 

is timely if it is electronically submitted 

90 days or more before the date the 

firm’s current certification expires. If the 

firm’s application is complete and 

timely, the firm’s current certification 

will remain in effect until its expiration 

date or until EPA has made a final 

decision to approve or disapprove the 

re-certification application, whichever 

is later. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) To amend certification, a firm 

must electronically submit a completed 

‘‘Application for Firms,’’ signed by an 

authorized agent of the firm, noting on 

the form that it is submitted as an 

amendment and indicating the 

information that has changed. The firm 

must also pay at least the correct 

amount of fees. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 745.90 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) and paragraph 

(c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust 

sampling technician certification. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Individuals who have successfully 

completed an accredited lead-based 

paint inspector or risk assessor course 

before October 4, 2011 may take an 

accredited refresher dust sampling 

technician course in lieu of the initial 

training to become a certified dust 

sampling technician. Individuals who 

are currently certified as lead-based 

paint inspectors or risk assessors may 

act as certified dust sampling 

technicians without further training. 

(4) To maintain renovator certification 

or dust sampling technician 

certification, an individual must 

complete a renovator or dust sampling 

technician refresher course accredited 

by EPA under § 745.225 or by a State or 

Tribal program that is authorized under 

Subpart Q of this part within 5 years of 

the date the individual completed the 

initial course described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. If the individual 

does not complete a refresher course 

within this time, the individual must retake the initial course to become 

certified again. Individuals who take a 

renovator refresher course that does not 

include hands-on training will be 

certified for 3 years from the date they 

complete the training. Individuals who 

take a refresher training course that 

includes hands-on training will be 

certified for 5 years. Individuals who 

take the renovator refresher without 

hands-on training must, for their next 

refresher course, take a refresher course 

that includes hands-on training to 

maintain renovator certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Must collect dust samples in 

accordance with § 745.227(e)(8), must 

send the collected samples to a 

laboratory recognized by EPA under 

TSCA section 405(b), and must compare 

the results to the action levels in 

accordance with § 745.227(e)(8). 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 745.92 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of 

renovation and dust sampling technician 

training and the certification of renovation 

firms. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Submit the application and a 

payment of $15 electronically in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

accordance with the instructions 

provided with the application package. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 745.103 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Target housing’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.103 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Target housing means any housing 

constructed prior to 1978, except 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling 

(unless any child who is less than 6 

years of age resides or is expected to 

reside in such housing). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 745.113 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(1) and (4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.113 Certification and 

acknowledgement of disclosure. 

(a) * * * 

(4) A statement by the purchaser 

affirming receipt of the information set 

out in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this 

section and the lead hazard information 

pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 

2686. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) A Lead Warning Statement with 

the following language: 

Housing built before 1978 may contain 

lead-based paint. Lead from paint, paint 

chips, and dust can pose health hazards if 

not managed properly. Lead exposure is 

especially harmful to young children and 

pregnant women. Before renting pre-1978 

housing, lessors must disclose the presence 

of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based 

paint hazards in the dwelling. Lessees must 

also receive a federally approved pamphlet 

on lead poisoning prevention. 

* * * * * 

(4) A statement by the lessee affirming 

receipt of the information set out in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section 

and the lead hazard information 

pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 

2686. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 745.223 by: 

■ a. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Abatement’’; 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition of ‘‘Action levels’’; 

■ c. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Certified inspector’’, ‘‘Certified risk 

assessor’’ and ‘‘Child-occupied facility’’; 

■ d. Removing the definition of 

‘‘Clearance levels’’; 

■ e. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘Electronic’’ and 

‘‘Housing for the elderly’’; 

■ f. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Living 

area’’ and ‘‘Target housing’’; and 

■ g. Removing the definition for ‘‘Visual 

inspection for clearance testing’’ and 

adding in its place the definition 

‘‘Visual inspection for abatement-related 

testing’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 745.223 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Abatement means any measure or set 

of measures designed to permanently 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in 

the case of dust-lead hazards to below 

the action levels. Abatement includes, 

but is not limited to: 

(1) The removal of paint and dust (in 

the case of dust-lead hazards to below 

the action levels), the permanent 

enclosure or encapsulation of leadbased paint, the replacement of painted 

surfaces or fixtures, or the removal or 

permanent covering of soil, when leadbased paint hazards are present in such 

paint, dust or soil; and 

(2) All preparation, cleanup, disposal, 

and post-abatement testing activities 

associated with such measures. 

(3) Specifically, abatement includes, 

but is not limited to: 

(i) Projects for which there is a written 

contract or other documentation, which 

provides that an individual or firm will 

be conducting activities in or to a 

residential dwelling or child-occupied 

facility that: 

(A) Shall result in the permanent 

elimination of lead-based paint hazards, 

in the case of dust-lead hazards to below 

the action levels; or 

(B) Are designed to permanently 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in 

the case of dust-lead hazards to below 

the action levels, and are described in 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition. 

(ii) Projects resulting in the 

permanent elimination of lead-based 

paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead 

hazards to below the action levels, 

conducted by firms or individuals 

certified in accordance with § 745.226, 

unless such projects are covered by 

paragraph (4) of this definition; 

(iii) Projects resulting in the 

permanent elimination of lead-based 

paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead 

hazards to below the action levels, 

conducted by firms or individuals who, 

through their company name or 

promotional literature, represent, 

advertise, or hold themselves out to be 

in the business of performing lead-based 

paint activities as identified and defined 

by this section, unless such projects are 

covered by paragraph (4) of this 

definition; or 

(iv) Projects resulting in the 

permanent elimination of lead-based 

paint hazards, in the case of dust-lead 

hazards to below the action levels, that 

are conducted in response to State or 

local abatement orders. 

(4) Abatement does not include 

renovation, remodeling, landscaping or 

other activities, when such activities are 

not designed to permanently eliminate 

lead-based paint hazards, in the case of 

dust-lead hazards to below the action 

levels, but, instead, are designed to 

repair, restore, or remodel a given 

structure or dwelling, even though these 

activities may incidentally result in a 

reduction or elimination of lead-based 

paint hazards. Furthermore, abatement 

does not include interim controls, 

operations and maintenance activities, 

or other measures and activities 

designed to temporarily, but not 

permanently, reduce lead-based paint 

hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards 

to below the action levels. 

* * * * * 

Action levels are the values that 

indicate the amount of lead in dust on 

a surface following completion of an 

abatement activity. To complete 

abatement when dust sampling is 

required, values below these levels must 

be achieved. EPA previously used the 

term ‘‘clearance levels’’ to refer to these 

levels. 

* * * * * 

Certified inspector means an 

individual who has been trained by an 

accredited training program, as defined 

by this section, and certified by EPA 

pursuant to § 745.226 to conduct 

inspections. A certified inspector also 

samples for the presence of lead in dust 

and soil for the purposes of abatementrelated testing. 

* * * * * 

Certified risk assessor means an 

individual who has been trained by an 

accredited training program, as defined 

by this section, and certified by EPA 

pursuant to § 745.226 to conduct risk 

assessments. A risk assessor also 

samples for the presence of lead in dust 

and soil for the purposes of abatementrelated testing. 

* * * * * 

Child-occupied facility means a 

building, or portion of a building, 

constructed prior to 1978, visited 

regularly by the same child, under 6 

years of age, on at least two different 

days within any week (Sunday through 

Saturday period), provided that each 

day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the 

combined weekly visit lasts at least 6 

hours, and the combined annual visits 

last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 

facilities may include, but are not 

limited to, day-care centers, preschools 

and kindergarten classrooms. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89459 

Electronic means the submission of an 

application, payment, or notification 

using the Agency’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX), or successor platform. 

* * * * * 

Housing for the elderly means 

retirement communities or similar types 

of housing reserved for households 

composed of one or more persons 62 

years of age or more at the time of initial 

occupancy. 

* * * * * 

Living area means any area of a 

residential dwelling used by one or 

more children under age 6 including, 

but not limited to, living rooms, kitchen 

areas, dens, play rooms, and children’s 

bedrooms. 

* * * * * 

Target housing means any housing 

constructed prior to 1978, except 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling 

(unless any child who is less than 6 

years of age resides or is expected to 

reside in such housing). 

* * * * * 

Visual inspection for abatementrelated testing means the visual 

examination of a residential dwelling or 

a child-occupied facility following an 

abatement to determine whether or not 

the abatement has been successfully 

completed. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 745.225 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b)(1), paragraphs (c)(13)(vi) 

and (14)(iii), paragraphs (d)(1)(vi), 

(3)(xi), (4)(v), and (7)(v), paragraph 

(e)(5), and paragraph (f)(2); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(i)(2)(ii); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (j)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training 

programs: target housing and childoccupied facilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) A training program seeking 

accreditation shall submit an electronic 

application to EPA containing the 

following information: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(13) * * * 

(vi) Notification must be 

accomplished electronically. 

Instructions can be obtained online at 

https://www.epa.gov/lead or from the 

NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323). 

Hearing- or speech-impaired persons 

may reach this telephone number 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

Telecommunications Relay Service at 

711. 

* * * * * 

(14) * * * 

(iii) Notification must be 

accomplished electronically. 

Instructions can be obtained online at 

https://www.epa.gov/lead or from the 

NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323). 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vi) Action levels and testing, 

including random sampling. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xi) Action levels and testing. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) Action levels and testing for large 

scale abatement projects. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(v) Action levels and testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) A training program seeking 

accreditation to offer refresher training 

courses only shall submit an electronic 

application to EPA containing the 

following information: 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) A training program seeking reaccreditation shall submit an electronic 

application to EPA no later than 180 

days before its accreditation expires. If 

a training program does not submit its 

application for re-accreditation by that 

date, EPA cannot guarantee that the 

program will be re-accredited before the 

end of the accreditation period. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(2) To amend an accreditation, a 

training program must electronically 

submit a completed ‘‘Accreditation 

Application for Training Providers,’’ 

signed by an authorized agent of the 

training provider, noting on the form 

that it is submitted as an amendment 

and indicating the information that has 

changed. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 745.226 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(3), 

introductory text of paragraph (e)(1), 

and (2), and (f)(2) and (3); 

■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(f)(5); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 745.226 Certification of individuals and 

firms engaged in lead-based paint 

activities: target housing and childoccupied facilities. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Submit to EPA an electronic 

application demonstrating that they 

meet the requirements established in 

paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section for 

the particular discipline for which 

certification is sought; or 

(ii) Submit to EPA an electronic 

application attaching a copy of a valid 

lead-based paint activities certification 

(or equivalent) from a State or Tribal 

program that has been authorized by 

EPA pursuant to Subpart Q of this part. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) Following the submission of an 

electronic application demonstrating 

that all the requirements of this section 

have been meet, EPA shall certify an 

applicant as an inspector, risk assessor, 

supervisor, project designer, or 

abatement worker, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) To maintain certification in a 

particular discipline, a certified 

individual shall apply electronically to 

and be re-certified by EPA in that 

discipline by EPA either: 

* * * * * 

(2) An individual shall be re-certified 

if the individual successfully completes 

the appropriate accredited refresher 

training course and electronically 

submits a valid copy of the appropriate 

refresher course completion certificate. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) A firm seeking certification shall 

electronically submit to EPA an 

application attesting that the firm shall 

only employ appropriately certified 

employees to conduct lead-based paint 

activities, and that the firm and its 

employees shall follow the work 

practice standards in § 745.227 for 

conducting lead-based paint activities. 

(3) From the date of receiving the 

firm’s electronic application requesting 

certification, EPA shall have 90 days to 

approve or disapprove the firm’s request 

for certification. Within that time, EPA 

shall respond with either a certificate of 

approval or a letter describing the 

reasons for a disapproval. 

* * * * * 

(5) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Misrepresented facts in its 

application for certification to EPA. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
89460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 17. Amend § 745.227 by 

■ a. Removing paragraph (a)(4); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (iv) 

and (v), (d)(3), (5), (6)(ii) and (7), 

(e)(4)(ii), (vii), the introductory text of 

paragraph (8), (8)(i) through (v), (vii) 

and (viii), the introductory text of 

paragraph (9), (9)(ii), and (iii), and 

(10)(iv), and (v); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(vii); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(i) and (3). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 745.227 Work practice standards for 

conducting lead-based paint activities: 

target housing and child-occupied facilities. 

(a) * * * 

(4) [Removed] 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Background information regarding 

the physical characteristics of the 

residential dwelling or child-occupied 

facility and occupant use patterns that 

may cause lead-based paint exposure to 

one or more children under age 6 shall 

be collected. 

* * * * * 

(iv) In residential dwellings, two 

composite dust samples shall be 

collected, one from the floors and the 

other from the windows, in rooms, 

hallways or stairwells where one or 

more children, under age 6, are most 

likely to come in contact with dust. 

(v) In multi-family dwellings and 

child-occupied facilities, in addition to 

the floor and window samples required 

in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section, 

the risk assessor shall also collect 

composite dust samples from common 

areas where one or more children, under 

age 6, are most likely to come into 

contact with dust. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Background information regarding 

the physical characteristics of the 

residential dwelling or child-occupied 

facility and occupant use patterns that 

may cause lead-based paint exposure to 

one or more children under age 6 shall 

be collected. 

* * * * * 

(5) In residential dwellings, dust 

samples (either composite or singlesurface samples) from the interior 

window sill(s) and floor shall be 

collected and analyzed for lead 

concentration in all living areas where 

one or more children, under age 6, are 

most likely to come into contact with 

dust. 

(6) * * * 

(ii) Other common areas in the 

building where the risk assessor 

determines that one or more children, 

under age 6, are likely to come into 

contact with dust. 

(7) For child-occupied facilities, 

interior window sill and floor dust 

samples (either composite or singlesurface samples) shall be collected and 

analyzed for lead concentration in each 

room, hallway or stairwell utilized by 

one or more children, under age 6, and 

in other common areas in the childoccupied facility where one or more 

children, under age 6, are likely to come 

into contact with dust. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Notification for lead-based paint 

abatement activities required in 

response to an elevated blood lead level 

(EBL) determination, or Federal, State, 

Tribal, or local emergency abatement 

order should be received by EPA as 

early as possible before, but must be 

received no later than, the start date of 

the lead-based paint abatement 

activities. Should the start date and/or 

location provided to EPA change, an 

updated notification must be received 

by EPA on or before the start date 

provided to EPA. Documentation 

showing evidence of an EBL 

determination or a copy of the Federal/ 

State/Tribal/local emergency abatement 

order must be included in the 

notification to take advantage of this 

abbreviated notification period. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Notification must be 

accomplished electronically. 

Instructions can be obtained online at 

https://www.epa.gov/lead, or from the 

NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323). 

* * * * * 

(8) The following post-abatement 

procedures shall be performed only by 

a certified inspector or risk assessor: 

(i) Following an abatement, a visual 

inspection shall be performed to 

determine if deteriorated painted 

surfaces and/or visible amounts of dust, 

debris or residue are still present. If 

deteriorated painted surfaces or visible 

amounts of dust, debris or residue are 

present, these conditions must be 

eliminated prior to the continuation of 

the post-abatement testing procedures. 

(ii) Following the visual inspection 

and any post-abatement cleanup 

required by paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this 

section, post-abatement sampling for 

lead in dust shall be conducted. Postabatement sampling may be conducted 

by employing single-surface sampling or 

composite sampling techniques. 

(iii) Dust samples for post-abatement 

testing purposes shall be taken using 

documented methodologies that 

incorporate adequate quality control 

procedures. 

(iv) Dust samples for post-abatement 

testing purposes shall be taken a 

minimum of 1 hour after completion of 

final post-abatement cleanup activities. 

(v) The following post-abatement 

testing activities shall be conducted as 

appropriate based upon the extent or 

manner of abatement activities 

conducted in or to the residential 

dwelling or child-occupied facility: 

* * * * * 

(vii) The certified inspector or risk 

assessor shall compare the residual lead 

level (as determined by the laboratory 

analysis) from each single surface dust 

sample with action levels in paragraph 

(e)(8)(viii) of this section for lead in dust 

on floors, interior window sills, and 

window troughs or from each composite 

dust sample with the applicable action 

levels for lead in dust on floors, interior 

window sills, and window troughs 

divided by half the number of 

subsamples in the composite sample. If 

the residual lead level in a single 

surface dust sample equals or exceeds 

the applicable action level or if the 

residual lead level in a composite dust 

sample equals or exceeds the applicable 

action level divided by half the number 

of subsamples in the composite sample, 

the components represented by the 

failed sample shall be recleaned and 

retested. 

(viii) Before January 12, 2026, the 

action levels for lead in dust are 10 mg/ 

ft2 for floors, 100 mg/ft2 for interior 

window sills, and 400 mg/ft2 for window 

troughs. On or after January 12, 2026, 

the action levels for lead in dust are 5 

mg/ft2 for floors, 40 mg/ft2 for interior 

window sills, and 100 mg/ft2 for window 

troughs. 

(9) In a multi-family dwelling with 

similarly constructed and maintained 

residential dwellings, random sampling 

for the purposes of post-abatement 

testing may be conducted provided: 

* * * * * 

(ii) A sufficient number of residential 

dwellings are selected for dust sampling 

to provide a 95 percent level of 

confidence that no more than 5 percent 

or 50 of the residential dwellings 

(whichever is smaller) in the randomly 

sampled population exceed the 

appropriate action levels. 

(iii) The randomly selected residential 

dwellings shall be sampled and 

evaluated according to the postabatement testing procedures found in 

paragraph (e)(8) of this section. 

(10) * * * 

(iv) The name, address, and signature 

of each certified risk assessor or 

inspector conducting post-abatement 

sampling and the date of sampling. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89461 

(v) The results of post-abatement dustlead testing and all soil analyses (if 

applicable) and the name of each 

recognized laboratory that conducted 

the analyses. 

* * * * * 

(vii) On or after January 12, 2026, 

when post-abatement dust-lead testing 

results are below the dust-lead action 

levels and at or above the dust-lead 

reportable levels, a dust-lead hazard 

statement with the following language 

must be included: 

Although the completed abatement project 

achieved dust-lead below action levels, some 

dust-lead hazards remain because any 

reportable level of dust-lead is considered a 

dust-lead hazard by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency in a residential dwelling 

or child-occupied facility. In order for 

abatement work to be considered complete 

under EPA regulations, dust-lead levels must 

be below the action levels, which are 

established based on reliability, effectiveness 

and safety. To continue to reduce lead 

exposure from dust, the EPA pamphlet 

entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in 

Your Home includes recommendations such 

as: using a vacuum with a high-efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filter on furniture and 

other items returned to the work area, and 

regularly cleaning hard surfaces with a damp 

cloth or sponge and a general all-purpose 

cleaner. For more information on how to 

continue to reduce lead exposure, see Protect 

Your Family From Lead in Your Home. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) On any friction surface that is 

subject to abrasion and where the lead 

dust levels on the nearest horizontal 

surface underneath the friction surface 

(e.g., the window sill or floor) are equal 

to or greater than the dust hazard levels 

identified in § 745.65(b); 

* * * * * 

(3) Dust-lead hazards and dust-lead 

action levels are identified for 

residential dwellings and childoccupied facilities as follows: 

(i) Before January 12, 2026, a dust 

lead-hazard is present in a residential 

dwelling or child-occupied facility on 

floors and interior window sills when 

the weighted arithmetic mean lead 

loading for all single surface or 

composite samples of floors and interior 

window sills are equal to or greater than 

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

interior window sills, respectively; for 

projects where post-abatement dust-lead 

testing is required or otherwise 

performed, levels of lead in dust must 

be below 10 mg/ft2 for floors, 100 mg/ft2

for interior window sills, and 400 mg/ft2

for window troughs for purposes of the 

action levels; on or after January 12, 

2026, a dust lead-hazard is present in a 

residential dwelling or child-occupied 

facility on floors and interior window 

sills when the lead loading for any 

single surface or composite sample of 

floors and interior window sills is equal 

to or greater than any reportable level of 

dust-lead for floors and for interior 

window sills; for projects where postabatement dust-lead testing is required 

or otherwise performed, levels of lead in 

dust must be below 5 mg/ft2 for floors, 

40 mg/ft2 for interior window sills, and 

100 mg/ft2 for window troughs for 

purposes of clearing the action level; 

(ii) A dust lead-hazard is present on 

floors or interior window sills in an 

unsampled residential dwelling in a 

multi-family dwelling, if a dust-lead 

hazard is present on floors or interior 

window sills, respectively, in at least 

one sampled residential unit on the 

property (and, for projects where postabatement dust-lead testing is required 

or otherwise performed, levels of lead in 

dust must be below the applicable value 

from paragraph (i) of this paragraph for 

purposes of the action levels); and 

(iii) A dust lead-hazard is present on 

floors or interior window sills in an 

unsampled common area in a multifamily dwelling, if a dust-lead hazard is 

present on floors or interior window 

sills, respectively, in at least one 

sampled common area in the same 

common area group on the property 

(and, for projects where post-abatement 

dust-lead testing is required or 

otherwise performed, levels of lead in 

dust must be below the applicable value 

from paragraph (i) of this paragraph for 

purposes of the action levels). 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 745.238 by 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (d)(3); and 

■ c. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (e)(1) and (2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 745.238 Fees for accreditation and 

certification of lead-based paint activities. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Certification and re-certification. 

(i) Individuals. Submit a completed 

application electronically (titled 

‘‘Application for Individuals to Conduct 

Lead-based Paint Activities’’), the 

materials described at § 745.226, and the 

application fee(s) described in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(ii) Firms. Submit a completed 

application electronically (titled 

‘‘Application for Firms’’), the materials 

described at § 745.226, and the 

application fee(s) described in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. 

Submit a completed application 

electronically (titled ‘‘Accreditation 

Application for Training Programs’’), 

the materials described at § 745.225, and 

the application fee described in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(3) [Removed] 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Parties seeking identification card 

or certificate replacement shall 

electronically complete the applicable 

portions of the appropriate application 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided. The appropriate applications 

are: 

* * * * * 

(2) Submit application and payment 

electronically in the amount specified in 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section in 

accordance with the instructions. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 745.325 by revising 

paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.325 Lead-based paint activities: 

State and Tribal program requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Abatements permanently 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards, in 

the case of dust-lead hazards to below 

the action levels, and are conducted in 

a way that does not increase the hazards 

of lead-based paint to the occupants of 

the dwelling or child-occupied facility. 

(iii) Abatements include postabatement lead in dust sampling and 

conformance with the action levels 

established or adopted by the State or 

Indian Tribe. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–25070 Filed 11–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES4