Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels
Posted Date: 2023-08-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50444-50483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15073]

[[Page 50443]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 146

August 1, 2023

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 745

Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-
Abatement Clearance Levels; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50444]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231; FRL-8524-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK91

Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead 
Post-Abatement Clearance Levels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Addressing childhood lead exposure is a priority for the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This rule addresses health 
concerns for all affected communities, including children living in 
communities with environmental justice concerns, who have significantly 
higher blood lead levels (BLLs) than other children. As part of EPA's 
efforts to reduce childhood lead exposure, and in accordance with a 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2021 opinion, EPA is 
proposing to lower the dust-lead hazard standards (DLHS) from 10 
micrograms per square foot ([micro]g/ft\2\) and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and window sills to any reportable level as analyzed by a 
laboratory recognized by EPA's National Lead Laboratory Accreditation 
Program. This is a non-numeric value that the Agency refers to as 
greater than zero [micro]g/ft\2\ and may vary based on laboratory or 
test. While EPA's DLHS do not compel property owners or occupants to 
evaluate their property for lead-based paint (LBP) hazards nor take 
control actions, if an LBP activity such as an abatement is performed, 
then EPA's regulations set requirements for doing so. EPA is also 
proposing to change the dust-lead clearance levels (DLCL), which are 
the values used to determine when abatement work can be considered 
complete, from 10 [micro]g/ft\2\, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 400 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and window troughs to 3 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
20 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\, respectively. Under this 
proposal, the DLHS for floors and window sills would not be the same as 
the DLCL for floors and window sills (i.e., the DLHS and DLCL would be 
decoupled). Accordingly, dust-lead hazards could remain after an 
abatement due to the different statutory direction that Congress 
provided EPA with respect to the DLCL. Additionally, EPA is proposing 
to change the definition of abatement so that the recommendation for 
action applies when dust-lead loadings are at or above the DLCL, as 
well as several other amendments, including revising the definition of 
target housing to conform with the statute.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2023. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before August 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0231, through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information 
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional 
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more 
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information contact: Claire Brisse, Existing 
Chemicals Risk Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9004; email 
address: [email protected]. Hearing- or speech-impaired 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.
    For general information contact: The TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you conduct lead-
based paint (LBP) activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.227; if you 
operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 
745.225; if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to 
conduct LBP activities 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 affected by this action if you operate 
a laboratory that is recognized by EPA's National Lead Laboratory 
Accreditation Program (NLLAP) in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90, 
745.223, 745.227, 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 proposed 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. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction, 
residential remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., 
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting, and wall 
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, 
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass, and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential 
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers, 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.

[[Page 50445]]

     Testing laboratories (NAICS code 541380) that analyze dust 
wipe samples for lead.
     Federal agencies that own residential property (NAICS code 
92511, 92811).

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

    EPA is proposing 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 Lead-Based 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.
    Regarding the dust-lead hazard standards (DLHS), 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 lead-contaminated dust and 
soil that ``would result in adverse human health effects,'' (15 U.S.C. 
2681(10)) and lead-contaminated dust is defined as ``surface dust in 
residential dwellings'' that contains lead in excess of levels 
determined ``to pose a threat of adverse health effects . . .'' (15 
U.S.C. 2681(11)).
    As relevant to the dust-lead clearance levels (DLCL), 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's statutory authority for setting 
the DLCL was laid out differently in Title X and TSCA Title IV than 
those for the DLHS. As a result, distinct from the DLHS, EPA is further 
directed, in promulgating the DLCL regulations, 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.F. 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 lead-based paint hazards from risk assessments or 
inspections in the seller's possession and notify the buyer of any 
known lead-based paint hazards'' (emphasis added). 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, ``elderly'' refers to 62 years of age or more (40 CFR 
745.103).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    In 2019, EPA promulgated a final rule to lower the DLHS to 10 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills (the 2019 
DLHS Rule) (Ref. 2). In 2021, EPA promulgated a final rule to lower the 
DLCL to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills 
(the 2021 DLCL Rule) (Ref. 3). The 2019 DLHS Rule and the 2021 DLCL 
Rule continued a long-standing 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.
    In keeping with an opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit in 2021 (described in Unit I.D.) that instructed EPA 
to consider only health factors when setting the DLHS, EPA is now 
proposing to change the DLHS from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, as established in the 2019 DLHS Rule, to 
any reportable level of dust-lead analyzed by a NLLAP-recognized 
laboratory. The Agency refers to this level as greater than zero (GTZ). 
It is not a specific numeric level set by EPA but rather the 
numerically reportable level as analyzed by a NLLAP-recognized 
laboratory, which is sometimes referred to as a ``non-numeric'' value. 
However, that term, as used in this document, refers only to the GTZ 
level and should not be confused with non-numeric standards such as 
work practice standards. EPA believes GTZ and the standard of ``any 
reportable level'' is an appropriate DLHS based on health effects, 
given there is no identified level of lead in blood that does not cause 
adverse cognitive impacts in children, and this more protective 
approach is consistent with 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''), and with the results from the Technical Support 
Document (TSD). There is no evidence of a threshold below which there 
are not harmful effects from lead exposure, including neurobehavioral 
and cognitive effects on children (Refs. 4 and 5). The proposed GTZ 
approach represents a shift in the LBP activities program to a more 
inclusive DLHS, identifying dust-lead hazards in the context of TSCA 
Title IV as any condition that causes exposure to lead from lead-
contaminated dust in target housing and child-occupied facilities. If 
finalized as proposed, the GTZ approach will be inclusive of any 
reportable level of dust-lead and will not distinguish between severe, 
less severe, or negligible risks. Additional discussion on GTZ can be 
found in Unit IV.A.1.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to revise the DLCL, set by the 2021 
DLCL Rule, from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 3 [mu]g/ft\2\ for dust-lead for 
floors, from 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 20 [mu]g/ft\2\ dust-lead for window 
sills and from 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ dust-lead for window 
troughs, following a consideration of reliability, effectiveness, and 
safety, including non-health factors such as laboratory capabilities/
capacity and achievability after an abatement. EPA is also requesting 
comment on an alternative DLCL option of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ dust-lead for 
floors, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ dust-lead for window sills, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for window troughs. If finalized as proposed, the DLHS for floors and 
window sills would not be the same as the DLCL for floors and window 
sills (i.e., the DLHS and DLCL would be decoupled), acknowledging the 
different statutory direction that Congress provided EPA with respect 
to the DLCL. Although EPA has in the past promulgated rules setting the 
DLHS and

[[Page 50446]]

DLCL to be the same values, an opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit in May 2021 instructed EPA to consider only health 
factors when setting the DLHS and affirmed that EPA could consider non-
health factors (e.g., laboratory capabilities/capacity, and 
achievability after an abatement) when setting the DLCL.
    The proposed DLCL would not impose retroactive requirements on 
regulated entities that have previously performed post-abatement dust 
wipe testing using the current DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for troughs, or the 
previous DLCL of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for troughs (Ref. 6). They would apply to 
post-abatement clearance sampling and analysis conducted after the 
compliance date for that portion of the regulations (i.e., one year 
after publication of the final rule). Additionally, while EPA's DLHS do 
not compel property owners or occupants to evaluate their property for 
LBP hazards or take control actions (40 CFR 745.61(c)), if an LBP 
activity such as an abatement is performed, then EPA's regulations set 
requirements for doing so (40 CFR 745.220(d)). This rule, if finalized, 
would change 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 new proposed DLCL, 
and would require an additional statement in the final abatement 
reports that states that LBP hazards (particularly dust-lead hazards) 
remain after an abatement if clearance testing has found that they do 
remain.
    EPA is also proposing several other amendments, 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. 7); as well as correcting an incorrect reference to the 
lead-hazard control pamphlet; and deleting obsolete regulatory text 
where language is out of date or no longer applicable. EPA is also 
considering adding incorporations by reference of two voluntary 
consensus standards already included in a relevant definition.
    EPA is requesting comment on the changes described in this 
proposal, in particular the reliability, effectiveness, and safety of 
the primary and alternative DLCL options, and all other amendments 
discussed in Unit IV.

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. 4 and 8). 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. 9) 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 (Lead Strategy). The Lead Strategy lays out Agency and 
government-wide 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 proposed rule, 
which revises the DLHS and the DLCL (among other proposed regulatory 
changes), is an action that EPA committed to undertake in the Lead 
Strategy (Ref. 10).
    In 2019, EPA re-evaluated the DLHS (Ref. 2). Based on that 
evaluation, the final rule revised the DLHS from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 
[mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window 
sills, respectively. However, public health advocates filed a lawsuit 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Court) seeking 
judicial review of the 2019 DLHS Rule as insufficiently protective. On 
May 14, 2021, the Court issued its opinion on the 2019 DLHS 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 DLHS), 
and the Court instructed EPA to consider only health factors when 
setting the DLHS (Ref. 11). This proposed rule is being 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 
could consider non-health factors when setting the DLCL. 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 
residential LBP hazard control and the LBP activities program because 
the Opinion found that EPA did not have the authority, when setting the 
DLHS, to consider non-health factors. Consistent with the 2021 Court 
Opinion, EPA is proposing to revise the DLHS in this rulemaking based 
on only health considerations. See Unit IV for more information on the 
proposed revisions to the DLHS and DLCL.
    Additionally, Executive Order 13990, entitled Protecting Public 
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate 
Crisis, directed agencies to, among other things, review certain 
regulations promulgated between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021 
(Ref. 12). The 2019 DLHS and 2021 DLCL final rules were among those 
specifically designated for review in accordance with Executive Order 
13990 (Ref. 13). As a result, the Agency was tasked with immediately 
considering whether the final rules were aligned with the identified 
national objectives from Executive Order 13990, such as listening to 
the science, improving public health and protecting our environment, 
and limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals. As a result of its own 
review in response to Executive Order 13990 and the 2021 Court Opinion, 
EPA has reconsidered the 2019 DLHS and 2021 DLCL final rules. If 
finalized as proposed, EPA believes this rule will result in a 
reduction of exposure to dust-lead (beyond the 2019 and 2021 rules).

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. 14). 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 incorporated by reference into certain requirements 
mandated by HUD in the

[[Page 50447]]

housing subject to HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (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 would result in reduced exposure to lead, yielding 
benefits to residents of pre-1978 housing from avoided adverse health 
effects. For the subset of adverse health effects that were quantified 
(i.e., the effect of avoided IQ decreases on lifetime earnings as an 
indicator of improved cognitive function), the estimated monetized and 
annualized benefits are $1.069 billion to $4.684 billion per year using 
a 3% discount rate, and $231 million to $1.013 billion per year using a 
7% discount rate. These benefits calculations are sensitive to the 
discount rate used and the range in the estimated number of lead hazard 
reduction events triggered by children with tested BLLs above state or 
Federal action levels. With respect to the latter, 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.
    Additionally, there are unquantified benefits. These additional 
benefits include avoided adverse health effects in children, including 
decreased attention-related behavioral problems, decreased cognitive 
performance, reduced post-natal growth, delayed puberty, and decreased 
kidney function. These additional unquantified benefits also include 
avoided adverse health effects in adults, including cardiovascular 
mortality and impacts on reproductive function and outcomes.
2. Costs
    This rule is estimated to result in quantified costs of $536 
million to $784 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 elevated 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 clearance 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 lead 
dust levels. Because of the lower laboratory reporting limits necessary 
for testing lead dust levels under this rule, incremental laboratory 
test costs are likely to increase. Additional potential impacts to HUD 
programs and their beneficiaries are discussed in Unit V.
3. Small Entity Impacts
    This rule would directly impact approximately 39,000 small 
businesses of which 87% to 91% have cost impacts less than 1% of 
revenues, 9% to 12% have impacts between 1% and 3%, and 1% 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 proposing this rulemaking under TSCA Title IV, as explained 
in Unit I.B. This rule would address lead exposure, as discussed 
throughout this proposal. EPA prepared an Economic Impact 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. 15). 
This rule addresses health concerns for all affected communities, 
including those identified with environmental justice concerns. As 
identified in EPA's Economic Impact Analysis, this rule would reduce 
identified disproportionate impacts to communities with environmental 
justice concerns. The primary and alternative regulatory options under 
consideration are expected to affect housing units receiving Federal 
assistance under HUD's LSHR and housing units with a child with a blood 
lead level above a Federal, state, or local blood lead threshold. 
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 proposed 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 impact 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 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 subject to EPA's Policy on Children's Health 
(https://www.epa.gov/children/childrens-health-policy-and-plan) because 
the rule has considerations for human health and early life exposures. 
Accordingly, we have 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 TSD, where the health 
impacts of lead exposure on children are discussed more fully (Refs. 14 
and 16). The documents referenced above are available in the public 
docket for this action.
    The 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 
217,432 to 436,642 children under age six per year affected by the rule 
(Ref. 14). Proposing GTZ for the DLHS is a more protective approach, 
supported by the modeled results from the TSD and that the current 
state of the science does not support identifying a threshold of dust-
lead exposure below which there would be no adverse human health 
effects. Additionally, the proposed DLCL of 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, window sills and troughs respectively, is the lowest option 
under consideration and according to the TSD it is estimated to be the 
most protective of children's IQ when compared to the other options 
evaluated for this proposed rulemaking.
6. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments
    EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications 
because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on public 
housing authorities that state or local governments may be

[[Page 50448]]

obligated to offset. 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. These costs to public housing 
authorities--estimated at $143 million for the primary option--cover 
additional lead hazard reduction activities, cleaning, and dust-lead 
testing to ensure that public housing units are in compliance with the 
LSHR. EPA also estimates annual compliance costs of approximately $904 
thousand 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 have DLHS and DLCL 
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 DLHS and DLCL they can relinquish their authorization. In 
the absence of a state authorization, EPA will administer these 
requirements. EPA provides a preliminary federalism summary impact 
statement, which is found in Unit IX.E.
    Additionally, 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 $100 million or more 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. 17). 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 would 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. However, through a live consultation on this 
rulemaking the Agency will solicit input from Tribal officials from the 
four Indian Tribes currently with authorized programs during the public 
comment period. EPA will ensure that the consultation materials are 
accessible to Tribal officials so that they may view it later as they 
consider submitting feedback during the public comment period. The 
consultation will also be open to any Tribal officials who would like 
to participate. If a Tribal official is interested in attending the 
consultation on behalf of an Indian Tribe, please consult the technical 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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. 4, 5, and 8). Ingestion of lead-contaminated dust is a major 
contributor to BLLs in children, particularly those who reside in homes 
built prior to 1978 (Refs. 17 and 18). Throughout early childhood, 
floor dust contamination is a source of lead exposure with the 
potential to affect children's BLLs (Ref. 20). Infants, toddlers, and 
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 childhood exposure to lead (Ref. 
4).
    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. 4, 8 and 20). In children, lead 
exposure can also cause adverse developmental, neurobehavioral, 
hematological, and immunological effects, as well as sensory effects 
such as hearing loss (Refs. 4, 5, and 8). In adults, lead exposure can 
cause adverse cardiovascular, hematological, renal, neurocognitive, 
neurobehavioral, immunological, and reproductive effects (Refs. 4, 5, 
and 8). Lead is also classified as ''reasonably anticipated to be a 
human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) (Ref. 21) and 
the EPA has concluded that lead exposure has a ``likely causal 
relationship'' with carcinogenesis (Ref. 4). In addition to the harmful 
effects experienced by the mother, lead can be transferred to the fetus 
during pregnancy and there is evidence that suggests adverse effects on 
the developing fetus including inhibited fetal growth (Refs. 4 and 5). 
Given young children's disproportionate exposure to dust-lead in target 
housing, this rulemaking principally considers their exposure and 
associated adverse health effects.
    The best available science 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 June 2013 (known as the 
2013 Lead ISA) (Ref. 4), 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. 8). The 2013 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. 4). The 2013 Lead ISA, as well as NIEHS' 2012 
National Toxicology Program (NTP) monograph on lead, summarize the 
scientific evidence regarding potential health effects associated with 
low-level lead exposure and acknowledge uncertainties in the data 
(Refs. 4 and 5). Based on the epidemiological studies and the evidence 
available at that time, the EPA stated in the 2013 ISA that harmful 
effects on children's cognition as measured by IQ were observed in 
groups with mean BLLs as low as 2 [micro]g/dL, and further that ``A 
threshold for cognitive function decrements is not discernable from the 
available evidence (i.e., examination of early childhood blood Pb or 
concurrent blood Pb in the range of < 1 to 10 [mu]g/dL).'' (Ref. 4). 
Additionally, 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 
that ``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. 9 and 22).
    For further information regarding lead and its health effects, see 
the TSD for this rulemaking and the 2013 ISA for lead (Refs. 4 and 16).

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

[[Page 50449]]

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. 23).
    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. 7), training and certification 
requirements for contractors performing LBP activities (Ref. 24), the 
establishment of standards that identify lead-based paint hazards and 
post-abatement clearance levels (i.e., the DLHS and DLCL) (Refs. 2, 3 
and 6), regulations covering renovation or remodeling activities (Refs. 
25, 26 and 27), 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. 28). Additional description of and background on 
Federal actions to reduce lead exposure to can be found in the 2021 
DLCL rulemaking (Ref. 3).
    In addition, EPA has developed a 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/final-strategy-reduce-lead-exposures-and-disparities-us-communities). EPA plans to 
continue its work to equally 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 proposed actions in this notice are part of those 
efforts, as dust-lead from lead-based paint remains one of the leading 
causes of lead exposure in the United States (Ref. 10).

C. Applicability and Uses of DLHS and DLCL

    The DLHS and DLCL reconsidered in this regulation support EPA's 
lead-based paint (LBP) activities program (i.e., inspections, risk 
assessments, and abatements) and disclosure program, both of which 
apply to target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 housing) and COFs (pre-
1978 non-residential properties where under the current regulation, 
children 6 years of age or under spend a significant amount of time 
such as daycare centers and kindergartens) (codified at 40 CFR part 
745, subpart L). The statutory definition of target housing was amended 
by Congress in 2017, and EPA is planning to make the necessary 
conforming regulatory changes, including changing the age to under six 
years of age, within 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 DLHS and DLCL 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. In addition, EPA 
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.
    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 
these regulations, the seller or lessor also must provide the purchaser 
or lessee any available records or reports ``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). For more 
information on how the DLHS and DLCL revisions impact various EPA and 
HUD programs, see Unit V.A. and Unit V.B.
1. Dust-Lead Hazard Standards
    The DLHS 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 may be required by the LSHR where dust wipe testing 
occurs to comply with the LSHR (e.g., for certain properties receiving 
Federal assistance) or by other law or regulation where dust-lead 
testing occurs in response to the discovery of a child with a BLL that 
exceeds a Federal, state, or local threshold. Additional information on 
the LSHR and the subparts which require risk evaluation is discussed in 
the EA (Ref. 14). 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 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 
requirements and abilities 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 System Requirements) 
(Ref. 29). A risk assessor compares the results of the dust wipe 
samples to the current DLHS. If the dust-lead loadings from the samples 
are at or above the applicable DLHS, 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 future residents. Under EPA's 
rule, a risk assessment/risk assessment report does not compel or 
require action;

[[Page 50450]]

rather it simply provides property owners with recommendations as 
appropriate (40 CFR 745.227(d)).
    A lead hazard screen also includes a visual inspection and 
collection of environmental samples, although it is not as 
comprehensive as a risk assessment or 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 Clearance Levels
    The DLCL 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. 24). 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, a risk assessor or inspector 
determines whether there are any ``visible amounts of dust, debris or 
residue,'' which will need to be removed before clearance sampling 
takes place (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). Once the area is free of visible 
dust, debris, and residue, and one hour or more after final post-
abatement cleaning ceases, clearance sampling for dust-lead (via dust 
wipe samples) can take place and will be conducted ``using documented 
methodologies that incorporate adequate quality control procedures'' 
(40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)). Only a properly trained and certified risk 
assessor or inspector can conduct clearance sampling. An NLLAP-
recognized 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 DLCL.
    Every post-abatement sample must test below the DLCL 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 DLCL, 
then the abatement fails clearance 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 DLCL, 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 DLHS and DLCL

    The DLHS are intended to identify dust-lead hazards during risk 
assessments, while the DLCL are part of post-abatement work practices, 
ensuring that clearance is achieved. Both regulatory values have 
several key limitations. Since the DLHS and DLCL 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 DLHS or the 
DLCL 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 DLHS do not require the owners of properties covered by 
this proposal 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 
which instructed EPA to consider only health factors when setting the 
DLHS and affirmed that EPA could consider other factors (i.e., 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety) when setting the DLCL, EPA is 
proposing that the DLCL would be greater than the DLHS based on its 
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.D. of this 
preamble, there may be dust-lead left behind that meets the definition 
of an LBP hazard after an abatement is considered complete, due to 
dust-lead levels that are reportable but are less than the proposed 
DLCL. Also, as has been the case historically, achieving the DLCL after 
an abatement does not mean that the home 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 post-abatement 
properties to conduct ongoing maintenance that will help to continue to 
lower dust-lead levels, as well as work collectively as an Agency to 
reduce overall lead exposure through all pathways.

E. Litigation Overview

    As previously discussed, EPA revised the DLHS to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills in a final rule in July 
2019 (Ref. 2). Later that same year, multiple organizations, including 
A Community Voice, California Communities Against Toxics, Healthy Homes 
Collaborative, New Jersey Citizen Action, New York City Coalition to 
End Lead Poisoning, Sierra Club, United Parents Against Lead National, 
and We Act for Environmental Justice, petitioned the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review the 2019 DLHS Rule (Ref. 30).
    In response to the Petition for Review, on May 14, 2021, the Court 
remanded the 2019 DLHS Rule without vacatur and directed EPA to revisit 
it in conjunction with a reconsideration of the DLCL (Ref. 11). In its 
opinion accompanying the remand, the Court instructed EPA to consider 
only health factors when setting the DLHS and affirmed that EPA could 
continue to consider non-health factors when setting the DLCL. 
Specifically, the 2021 Court Opinion held that EPA's 2019 DLHS Rule 
``looked to other factors,

[[Page 50451]]

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 proposing to revise 
the DLHS 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 lead-contaminated 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. Due to resource 
considerations and to act as expeditiously as possible to revise the 
DLHS and DLCL, 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. 31 and 32)). EPA 
listed this SLHS rulemaking in the Spring 2023 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 next 12 months 
(Ref. 33). EPA has however, initiated work on the SLHS rulemaking and, 
as this rulemaking on the DLHS and DLCL progresses and as resources 
allow, EPA intends to work further on the technical analysis for SLHS 
in preparation for the SLHS rulemaking. 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.
    The Court also held that, to be consistent with its health-only 
interpretation of an 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 lead-paint 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 pre-1978 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, and application of this definition is central to how the 
LBP program functions. In the 2019 DLHS 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 fluorescent 
devices 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.
    EPA plans to sponsor a technical workshop to obtain additional 
information needed to address data gaps related to the definition of 
LBP that were outlined in the 2019 DLHS Rule. 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 done for the 2019 rulemaking. With 
this information the data gaps have been refined to add further 
specificity, which allows for a more targeted scope for both continued 
investigation and for the technical workshop. 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 on-the-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 dust-lead 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 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, EPA is 
exploring the relationship between the two different units used in the 
current definition (milligram per

[[Page 50452]]

square centimeter and percent by weight) to inform whether and 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. EPA intends 
the technical workshop to explore these issues and position the Agency 
to reconsider the definition of LBP in light of the most current 
scientific information. EPA will collaborate with HUD on the technical 
workshop regarding these lead-based paint definition data needs.
    Similar to the SLHS rulemaking, due to resource considerations and 
EPA's interest in acting as expeditiously as possible to revise the 
DLHS and DLCL 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 2023 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 next 12 months (Ref. 33).
    Rulemakings such as those necessary for revisions to SLHS and the 
definition of LBP are complex, highly resource-intensive activities 
that usually occur as part of options development and decision-making. 
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. 14 and 16). A 
complete TSD includes several components which 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; see the 
technical documents prepared in support of the 2019 DLHS Final Rule, 
the 2021 DLCL Final Rule, or this reconsideration rulemaking (Refs. 16, 
19, and 34).
    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 benefit descriptions; 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 RFA/SBREFA (Small Business 
Impacts), UMRA (Unfunded State, Local, or Tribal Mandates), PRA 
(Paperwork Reduction), Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice), 
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children), Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism), Executive Order 13175 (Coordination with Tribal 
Governments), and Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects). A rulemaking 
also involves preparing 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 decision-making, which includes internal steps at the Agency 
to reach office wide agreement, as well as external to the Agency, such 
as holding potential public consultations, completing interagency 
review and convening a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 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 Agency may also need to publish Federal Register 
documents to extend or reopen public comment periods--or even to 
announce new public comment periods related to a Notice of Data 
Availability or a supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--should 
new information become available, or the Agency determine that it needs 
to alter its proposal before taking final action.
    The current rulemaking on the DLHS and DLCL is one more step toward 
complete implementation of TSCA Title IV. Given existing resource 
constraints and the additional 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 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 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, to 
address the issues identified by the Ninth Circuit in its May 2021 
opinion (Refs. 11 and 33).

III. Technical Analyses

    In its evaluation of options for reconsidering the DLHS and DLCL, 
EPA estimated children's BLL and associated IQ decrements. Estimated 
BLL and IQ decrements provide the means to quantify the effects that 
long-term exposure to the analyzed dust-lead loading levels can have on 
young children. The TSD (Ref. 16) and EA (Ref. 14) accompanying this 
proposed rulemaking estimated the expected impacts of the candidate 
DLHS and DLCL options on BLLs and associated IQ decrements of exposed 
children in target housing. See Unit IV. on the

[[Page 50453]]

approaches for developing the options for DLHS and DLCL.
    The TSD uses both mechanistic and empirical models to predict the 
possible BLLs of children in target housing exposed to homogenous 
candidate values for dust-lead levels (e.g., candidate options for the 
DLHS) and characterizes the probabilistic variability due to biological 
response and variation in other sources of lead exposure at each 
possible candidate dust-lead level. The first approach used mechanistic 
modeling that includes use of age-specific ingestion rates, activity 
patterns, and background exposures. The second approach used empirical 
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. Both approaches (mechanistic and empirical) are compared to 
increase our confidence in the estimates of the relationship between 
dust-lead loadings and BLL (Section 6.3 of the TSD). The various 
components of the model and input parameters used 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. 18, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39). Specifically, the 
mechanistic blood lead modeling for this rulemaking reflects the 
application of an extensively peer-reviewed model by EPA (the 
Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation--Integrated Exposure 
Uptake Biokinetic model coded in R, referred to as R-SHEDS-IEUBK) using 
updated data sources and tailored to the dust-lead target housing 
scenario, described in depth in Appendix E of the TSD.
    Detailed discussion of the limitations and uncertainties in blood 
lead modeling at the low BLL and exposure levels considered for this 
rulemaking can be found in Section 8 of the TSD (Ref. 16). In brief, 
IEUBK, as a standalone biokinetic model, was evaluated for performance 
in groups for which the geometric mean BLL is as low as 2.3 [micro]g/
dL. Some of the groups at the lowest levels of dust lead exposure 
modeled for this rulemaking had mean estimated BLL lower than this 
value (between 0.81 and 1.12 [micro]g/dL depending upon age), which are 
outside the range for which the underlying biokinetic model (IEUBK) was 
evaluated. In order to address this concern, EPA conducted an 
evaluation of the R-SHEDS-IEUBK 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 [micro]g/dL. This evaluation found that the R-SHEDS-IEUBK 
model had good agreement with the reference dataset at low percentiles, 
as well as at the median and at the 95th percentile. See Table 8-2 and 
Appendix D in the TSD (Ref. 16).
    In contrast to the TSD, which estimates the health risk and 
exposure associated with dust-lead loading candidates for a 
hypothetical subpopulation 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 which 
would be impacted by the DLHS and DLCL 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 children who are affected by these events, the EA 
estimates quantified benefits from avoided IQ losses. 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 DLHS/DLCL, (3) the number of children living in affected housing 
units, and (4) resultant changes in BLLs and IQ 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 
impute the relationship between BLL and IQ below the lowest BLLs 
observed in the underlying empirical data, and a range of IQ loss 
results based on the methods considered are presented in the EA (see 
TSD section 5 and EA section 6.4). The IQ loss estimates presented in 
Unit IV. and in Section 7 of the TSD result from a linearization 
method, which resulted in the most conservative estimates of IQ loss.
    Both the TSD and the EA present probabilistic distributions of 
estimated change in BLL or IQ decrement for young children up to the 
age of six. However, these distributions represent subpopulations of 
exposed children characterized in differing ways. The TSD presents the 
expected response for a hypothetical exposure, accounting for varying 
sources of background exposure (e.g., food, soil, water) and biological 
variability. The EA estimates expected results from triggering events, 
recognizing exposure to the hypothetical conditions in the TSD are rare 
as dust-lead levels across target housing are generally quite low and 
existing abatements/interim controls typically overshoot the clearance 
levels considerably. Thus, the distributions of BLLs and IQ decrements 
presented in the TSD represent the impact of children's exposures to 
hypothetical dust-lead levels while the EA estimates distributions of 
BLLs and IQ decrements across all children living in housing that would 
be directly impacted by this proposed rule.
    The analyses that EPA developed and presented in the TSD and EA for 
this rule were specifically designed to estimate BLLs and associated 
effects on IQ that might accrue to the subpopulation, i.e., children 
living in pre-1978 housing. EPA notes that its different program 
offices estimate exposures for different populations, different media, 
and under different statutory requirements and thus different models or 
parameters may be a better fit for their purposes. As such, 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.

IV. Proposed 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 (Ref. 11). Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to change the DLHS from 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors and window sills to a non-numeric value called GTZ or 
any reportable level of dust-lead analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized 
laboratory. Lowering the DLHS (independent of the DLCL 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. See Unit IV.A.1. for 
additional information describing the proposed DLHS of ``any reportable 
level.'' EPA is also proposing to revise the DLCL from 10 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window 
sills, and troughs to 3 [micro]g/ft\2\, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 25 
[micro]g/ft\2\, and requesting comment on an alternative DLCL option of 
5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\.

A. Dust-Lead Hazard Standards Approach

    In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule EPA discussed the dilemma the Agency 
faced when establishing a dust-lead hazard, especially the challenges 
associated with choosing ``which [BLLs]

[[Page 50454]]

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. 6). As a result, EPA took a pragmatic approach to setting the 
DLHS and focused on the potential for risk reduction, cost-benefit 
balancing and other relevant factors, establishing the standards at 40 
[micro]g/ft\2\ and 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and sills, 
respectively. As an aside, at that time the Agency did not establish a 
DLHS 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 DLHS 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 DLHS, 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 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 DLHS to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ 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 Opinion 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 cost-benefit balancing). Consistent with the 2021 Court 
Opinion, EPA is proposing to revise the DLHS in this rulemaking based 
only on health considerations. EPA intends health-only considerations 
in this DLHS 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 lead-
contaminated 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 public housing).
1. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed DLHS
    EPA is proposing a non-numeric DLHS that is any reportable level of 
dust-lead for floors and window sills as analyzed by an NLLAP-
recognized laboratory. Proposing a DLHS for floors and window sills 
only, is consistent with current practice and regulatory history which 
has not included a hazard standard specifically for troughs.
    ``Reportable level'' is not defined in EPA's 40 CFR 745 or EPA's 
current guidance for NLLAP-recognized laboratories, titled Laboratory 
Quality System Requirements (or LQSR 3.0). EPA is proposing to define 
``reportable level'' in the regulations 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 NLLAP-recognized 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 (i.e., any reportable level of dust-lead in a 
laboratory sample result report that does not contain a ``less than'' 
(``<'') qualifier).
    Under the LQSR, an NLLAP-recognized laboratory must demonstrate it 
can achieve a quantitation limit equal to or less than 50% of the 
lowest action level for dust wipe samples (more discussion on the 
``action level'' is found in Unit IV.A.1.c). In addition, a report of 
zero concentration is not permitted and laboratories must establish a 
method of limiting the lower reported values to a positive finite lead 
level that is appropriate for the technology being used. Measured lead 
levels below this positive finite value must be reported with a 
qualifier ``less than'' (``<'') this positive finite value (Ref. 29).
    Based on these current minimum 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 in some cases, but could be lower depending on 
laboratory capabilities. Ultimately, the proposed DLHS of ``any 
reportable level'' is not dependent on the DLCL or quantitation limit, 
but rather is based on the capabilities of individual laboratories. EPA 
is requesting comment on the appropriateness of this interpretation and 
of the proposed definition of ``reportable level.''
    EPA refers to this non-numeric DLHS approach as GTZ. 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 DLHS at zero because zero does not 
identify a level of exposure to dust-lead loadings that would cause 
adverse health effects. Rather EPA believes the proposed standard of 
``any reportable level'' is an appropriate DLHS based on dust-lead 
exposure related health factors only, and in accordance with the 2021 
Court Opinion by taking into consideration the modeling data outlined 
in TSD and the current state of the science on lead exposure and 
children's BLL. The proposed GTZ approach represents a shift in the LBP 
activities program to a more inclusive and protective DLHS, compared to 
the current 2019 and 2021 levels. If finalized as proposed, the GTZ 
approach will be inclusive of any reportable level of dust-lead and 
will not distinguish between severe, less severe, or negligible risks.
    As discussed further in Unit IV.A.2 Other DLHS Options EPA 
Considered, two other approaches were also considered for revising the 
DLHS, 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). EPA seeks comment on its proposed 
and potential alternative approaches to updating the DLHS.
a. GTZ Rationale: Modeled Discussion
    The GTZ approach is primarily supported by the modeling results 
provided in the TSD and discussed further in Unit IV.A.3. In the TSD 
(which is introduced in Unit III) EPA estimated BLL and related changes 
in IQ (a measure of cognitive function) in young children. The results 
show that as dust-lead levels in housing decrease below the current 
standard (i.e., 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
window sills), so do children's BLL and IQ decrement from lead 
exposure. When modeling GTZ, EPA used estimated dust-lead loadings 
ranging from 0.7 to 2.2 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 0.8 to 4.4 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills. These are assumed values for a GTZ 
DLHS paired with the proposed or alternative DLCL, and account for the 
lower reporting thresholds that EPA estimates laboratories will 
realistically attain under this proposal. EPA collected information on 
real-world laboratory reporting limits from stakeholder outreach 
conversations as well as

[[Page 50455]]

publicly available sources. GTZ values listed above are based on the 
average of reporting limits at laboratories that currently report 
numeric dust wipe loadings at levels 50% below the proposed DLCL 
options. For the details of these calculations, see Sections 4.1 and 
2.4.6 of the EA (Ref. 14). EPA also used a hypothetical dust-lead 
loading value of zero. Details about how the TSD results are 
interpreted are described in Unit IV.A.2., and the modeled results 
themselves, which are supportive of the GTZ approach, are described in 
Unit IV.A.3.
b. GTZ Rationale: No Threshold Has Been Identified
    According to TSCA Title IV, the DLHS should identify the level of 
dust-lead exposure that ``would result in adverse human health 
effects'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). GTZ is a more protective approach 
compared to the current regulatory landscape and all the options that 
were considered for this rulemaking (except post-77 background). GTZ 
also acknowledges that the current state of scientific evidence does 
not identify a BLL threshold below which there is no association of 
adverse effects on children's cognition. Depending on the exposure and 
other factors, the effects on IQ associated with childhood lead 
exposure may persist into adolescence and adulthood (Refs. 4 and 8). 
EPA also favored such an approach for the DLHS under TSCA Title IV in 
part because a more protective approach to DLHS, such as GTZ, 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.
    EPA's 2013 Lead ISA stated that harmful effects on children's 
cognition as measured by IQ were observed in groups with mean BLLs as 
low as 2 [micro]g/dL, and further that despite there being some 
uncertainty in epidemiological studies on lead exposure and BLLs 
(especially for older children and adults) that ``A threshold for 
cognitive function decrements is not discernable from the available 
evidence (i.e., examination of early childhood blood Pb or concurrent 
blood Pb in the range of <1 to 10 [mu]g/dL).'' (Ref. 4)). 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 meta-analysis by Lanphear et 
al. (Refs. 40 and 41), the results of which have been confirmed by 
repeated re-analysis (Refs. 42 and 43). While the 2013 ISA went on to 
state that ``the current evidence does not preclude the possibility of 
a threshold for neurodevelopmental effects in children existing with 
lower blood levels than those currently examined'', the Federal Lead 
Action Plan articulated the U.S. Government position that ``no safe 
blood lead level in children has been identified.'' (Ref. 9). Further, 
the analysis that supports this rule examined the 95th percentile of 
children's modeled BLLs and the associated IQ losses (Ref. 16), 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. 4 and 
16).
    EPA understands the limitations of the epidemiological analyses, 
the lack of scientific studies evaluating low BLLs and acknowledges 
that a threshold could exist that is currently unidentified; but 
ultimately in its assessment of the available scientific research 
findings in the 2013 ISA for lead, the Agency observed that there is no 
evidence of a threshold below which there are no harmful health effects 
from lead exposure. 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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (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. 44). 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 [micro]g/dL (Refs. 45 and 46). 
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 
[micro]g/dL did not define a threshold for the harmful effects of lead 
(Ref. 45). One goal for the level was that ``all lead poisoning 
prevention activities should be to reduce children's BLLs below 10 
[micro]g/dL'' (Ref. 45). 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 [micro]g/dL is not 
sufficiently strong to warrant concern'' (Ref. 47). 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 [mu]g/dL 
(Ref. 6).
    In the 2019 DLHS 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 [micro]g/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. 48). 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. 48). 
In 2012 the BLRV was 5 [micro]g/dL, based on young children's BLL in 
the 2007-2010 NHANES, and in 2021 it was lowered to 3.5 [micro]g/dL 
based on the children's lower BLLs observed in the 2015-2018 NHANES 
(Ref. 46). The BLRV is not based on a health endpoint, but rather is a 
statistical point in the distribution of children's BLLs in the U.S. 
used as a screening tool to identify children who have higher levels of 
lead in their blood compared with most children.
    Establishing a health-based only standard for dust-lead hazard, as 
well as clearance levels that consider other factors (i.e., take 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 judgement, ``no known or anticipated adverse 
effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate 
margin of safety.'' 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

[[Page 50456]]

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 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, which is analogous to EPA's development of the 
clearance levels that also include non-health-based factors. Under 
EPA's treatment technique rule for lead in drinking water, EPA 
established a non-health-based action level which, if exceeded, 
requires water systems to take actions to reduce elevated levels of 
lead in drinking water.
    Because of 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 proposes to change the DLHS to any 
reportable level of lead analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory.
c. LQSR Action Level
    Given that GTZ is a non-numeric value, if finalized as proposed, 
the DLCL, rather than the DLHS, would become the ``action level'' as 
described in the Laboratory Quality System Requirements (LQSR 3.0), as 
well as for when a risk assessor would recommend an abatement (see Unit 
IV.D. for more information on EPA's proposed change to the definition 
of abatement). According to the current LQSR, NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories that analyze dust wipe samples for lead must show that 
they can achieve a quantitation limit ``equal to or less than . . . 50% 
of the lowest action level [i.e., regulatory limit] for dust wipe 
samples'' (Ref. 29). The quantitation limit must also be ``at least 2 
times but no greater than 10 times the method detection limit'' (Ref. 
29). Therefore, due to the non-numeric nature of the proposed DLHS of 
``any reportable level,'' these current testing requirements will rely 
on the numerical DLCL to establish the quantitation limit that any 
laboratory (that wishes to maintain or obtain NLLAP recognition) must 
be able to demonstrate. Note however, that the proposed DLHS of ``any 
reportable level'' is still considered distinct from the DLCL and the 
quantitation limit.
2. Other DLHS Approaches EPA Considered
    EPA considered two other approaches for revising the DLHS: a 
numeric standard based on the probability of exceedance of one or more 
IQ or BLL metrics as determined by the Agency, and an approach that 
would use the background dust-lead levels of housing built in 1978 and 
beyond as the DLHS (known as ``post-1977 background''). The three 
approaches (i.e., GTZ, numeric standard, and post-1977 background) take 
different analytical paths to revising the DLHS based only on health 
considerations. EPA is proposing the GTZ approach, given the discussion 
laid out in Unit IV.A.1. but welcomes comment on the other two 
approaches outlined in both the preamble and in the TSD (Ref. 16).

a. Numeric Standard Approach

    In addition to the GTZ approach, EPA also explored a ``numeric 
standard'' approach, meaning that the Agency would propose a numerical 
DLHS with a rationale based solely on the interpretation of the TSD 
results. To do so, 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. Estimated BLL and IQ 
decrements in children exposed to hypothetical dust-lead loading values 
are included in the TSD for every DLHS candidate considered for all 
three approaches (i.e., GTZ, numeric standard and post-1977 
background), as well as the primary and alternative DLCL options. These 
values are estimated to help EPA analyze the impacts of this proposed 
rulemaking on the health (i.e., IQ decrement) and dust-lead exposure of 
the subpopulation in question (i.e., young children in pre-1978 
buildings and COFs) and to inform a costs and benefits analysis in the 
EA.
    In 2001 and 2019, EPA expressed the challenges of meeting the 
statutory criterion for defining an 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 
6). EPA continues to agree with the challenges highlighted in 2001 and 
2019.
    When choosing health or exposure metrics to evaluate the DLHS 
approaches based on the TSD results, the Agency has 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. 16). 
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 
[mu]g/dL (Ref. 6), which represented total BLL, inclusive of exposure 
to lead through other media.
    In the TSD analyses for this proposal, 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 [mu]g/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. 46). Importantly, even at zero dust-lead, 
children are already 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. 16).

[[Page 50457]]

                                         Table 1--Percent Exceedance Values for Zero, Age: 2 Yr Old (30 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                               Floor                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                            ([micro]g/    Sill ([micro]g/                                                  Dust only BLL
                                                             ft[sup2])       ft[sup2])    Total BLL >3.5   Total BLL >5    Dust only BLL  >2.5 [micro]g/
                                                                                            [micro]g/dL     [micro]g/dL   >1 [micro]g/dL        dL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0            5.7%            2.2%            0.0%            0.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLHS candidates; it is not a candidate value.

    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 [mu]g/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 [micro]g/
dL'' (Ref. 49).
    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 [mu]g/
dL based on exposure assumptions described in the TSD (Ref. 16).
    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. 16).

                                         Table 2--Percent Exceedance Values for Zero, Age: 6 Yr Old (72 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                           Floor ([mu]g/  Sill ([mu]g/ft ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                              ft \2\)          \2\)                                        Dust only IQ    Dust only IQ
                                                                                           Total IQ >1pt   Total IQ >2pt       >1pt            >2pt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0           88.9%           48.7%            0.0%            0.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLHS candidates; it is not a candidate value.

    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 health-
based, 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 most 
highly exposed (Ref. 50). 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. 50 and 51).
    As reported in the TSD, EPA evaluated several numeric DLHS 
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 DLHS candidates were 1/10 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
(i.e., 1 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for sills), 2/20 
[mu]g/ft\2\, 3/30 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and those values 
were compared to the specified BLL and IQ metrics to estimate the 
probability of exceeding the BLL or IQ targets. For example, a 2-year-
old living in pre-1978 housing exposed to 3 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 
30 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills would have a 4.8% probability of 
exceeding, for example, 5 total [micro]g/dL BLL. Under this numeric 
standard approach, EPA would plan to use the threshold of 5% 
probability of exceedance for a child from the sub-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. 6).
    Due to the aforementioned complexities with identifying a cutoff of 
risk or specific IQ/BLL metrics of interest that would be acceptable 
for purposes of setting the DLHS, as well as the reasons for favoring 
GTZ, EPA is not proposing the numeric standard approach for the DLHS as 
the Agency's preferred option. For specific discussion on the modeled 
numeric DLHS candidates and IQ/BLL metrics, see Unit IV.A.3. EPA 
welcomes comment on this numeric standard approach including the IQ/BLL 
metrics under consideration (i.e., the target values of interest) and 
the use of a 5% probability of exceedance.
b. Post-1977 Background Approach
    EPA also considered an approach to revise the DLHS that would align 
target housing dust-lead levels with dust-lead levels in housing built 
after lead-based paint was banned. This approach would result in 
lowering the DLHS to the dust-lead background levels of housing built 
after 1977 (known as ``post-1977 background''), which are presumably 
not from LBP. 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

[[Page 50458]]

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.
    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 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and 0.8 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills (Refs. 14 and 52). 
Setting the DLHS 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 DLHS for target housing and COFs in this way, using post-
1977 background 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. Using this approach, DLHS would be established at 0.2 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills as the 
dust-lead levels that would result in adverse human health effects. 
However, there are questions about whether the post-1977 background 
approach would as directly address the 2021 Court Opinion as the GTZ 
approach. Due to those concerns and the reasons for favoring GTZ, EPA 
is not proposing the post-1977 background approach for the DLHS as the 
Agency's preferred option.
    As statistical points in a distribution of environmental data, the 
calculation of the average background value is highly influenced by the 
way in which data/measurements below the analytical detection limit are 
treated. Further discussion on deriving these candidates can be found 
in the TSD Section 2.3. The TSD models the health and exposure outcomes 
based on these candidate DLHS of 0.2 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 0.8 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, as described in Unit IV.A.3. EPA welcomes 
comment on this background approach, and its appropriateness given the 
description above, 2021 Court Opinion and the statutory authority.
3. Modeled Results for All Three DLHS Approaches
    The TSD that accompanies this proposal evaluated the DLHS 
candidates of all three approaches (i.e., GTZ, numeric standard, and 
post-1977 background). Estimates for BLLs of children exposed to the 
DLHS 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 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). 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 Pb measurements taken from six 
months up to age of the IQ test (Refs. 40 and 41). In the following 
discussion, both the model results for two-year BLL and the estimates 
of IQ change at six-years, are represented, referring to them as the 
results for ``young children'' for brevity. EPA considered numerous 
dust-lead loadings, including: 0.7/0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\, (i.e., 0.7 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills) which is the GTZ 
option partnered with the primary DLCL option (3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, window sills, and window troughs respectively) and 2.2/4.4 
[mu]g/ft\2\, which is the GTZ partnered with the alternative DLCL 
option (5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\). Other modeled dust-lead loadings are 
0.2/0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\, which is the post-1977 background dust-lead level, 
1/10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 2/20 [mu]g/ft\2\, 3/30 [mu]g/ft\2\, 5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 
and 10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\, which is the 2019 DLHS. Zero was also provided 
for comparison purposes with the DLHS candidates and is not itself a 
candidate value. More information on the TSD and the health/exposure 
metrics (i.e., IQ and BLL decrements) that were analyzed can be found 
in Unit III. and Unit IV.A.2.a.
    DLHS candidates associated with GTZ, post-1977 background, and the 
numeric standard (1/10 [mu]g/ft\2\) approaches are associated with the 
lowest BLLs when compared to the other numeric DLHS candidates (2/20 
[mu]g/ft\2\, 3/30 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and the current DLHS 
of 10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills). The TSD modeling 
results for young children exposed to dust-lead associated with the 
loading candidates from the GTZ approach (which range from 0.7 to 2.2 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 0.8 to 4.4 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window 
sills depending on which DLCL it is coupled with, see Unit IV.A.1.a. 
for more information) show that young children would have a 0.0 to 
10.6% probability of exceeding an incremental BLL of 1 to 2.5 [mu]g/dL 
(Tables 7-2 and 7-3 in the TSD). However, the results for GTZ partnered 
with the primary DLCL option (0.7/0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\), and post-1977 
background (0.2/0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\) are the only two DLHS candidates that 
keep both the percentage of exceedance of incremental BLL of 1 to 2.5 
[mu]g/dL below 5% probability (which is the threshold of interest EPA 
identified).
    When comparing the three DLHS approaches to total BLL, the modeling 
includes exposure from other media such as soil, diet, water, and air. 
Importantly, even at zero dust-lead, children would still have a 5.7% 
probability of exceeding the BLRV given the impact of these other 
exposures. Thus, none of the considered DLHS candidates resulted in 
less than 5% probability of exposed children's BLL exceeding the CDC 
BLRV. However, the TSD modeling results did show that for young 
children exposed to dust-lead loadings using the GTZ approach, the 
post-1977 background approach or the numeric DLHS candidate of 1/10 
[mu]g/ft\2\ would have approximately a 7.3 to 9.1% probability of 
exceeding a total BLL of 3.5 [mu]g/dL, the CDC's BLRV. This is lower 
than the 10.3 to 13.9% probability when exposed to other numeric DLHS 
candidates (2/20 [mu]g/ft\2\, 3/30 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and window sills) and the 18.0% probability when exposed to the 
current DLHS of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
window sills. Therefore, while no DLHS option results in a less than 
5.7% probability of exposed children's BLL exceeding the CDC BLRV given 
their likely exposures to other sources of lead, the options with the 
lowest levels (GTZ, post-1977 background, and 1/10 [mu]g/ft\2\) result 
in exposed children experiencing about a two to three times less 
likelihood of exceeding the CDC BLRV compared to the current DLHS.

                                    Table 3--Percent Exceedance Values for DLHS Candidates, Age: 2 Yr Old (30 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                           Floor ([mu]g/   Sill ([mu]g/                                    Dust only BLL   Dust only BLL
                                                              ft\2\)          ft\2\)      Total BLL >3.5   Total BLL >5     >1 [mu]g/dL    >2.5 [mu]g/dL
                                                                                           [mu]g/dL  (%)   [mu]g/dL  (%)        (%)             (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0             5.7             2.2             0.0             0.0

[[Page 50459]]

 
Post-1977 Background....................................             0.2             0.8             7.3             2.8             1.0             0.0
GTZ With 3/20 DLCL......................................             0.7             0.8             8.2             3.0             3.7             0.1
Numeric.................................................               1              10             9.1             3.3             6.6             0.5
GTZ With 5/40 DLCL......................................             2.2             4.4            10.1             3.9            10.6             1.0
Numeric.................................................               2              20            10.3             4.1            12.5             1.2
Numeric.................................................               3              30            11.8             4.8            17.2             2.0
Numeric.................................................               5              40            13.9             5.5            23.0             3.2
Current Standard........................................              10             100            18.0             7.5            36.7             6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLHS candidates; it is not a candidate value.

    DLHS candidates associated with GTZ and post-1977 background are 
also estimated to be associated with the lowest IQ decrements when 
compared to the other DLHS candidates (GTZ partnered with the 
alternative DLCL, 1/10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 2/20 [mu]g/ft\2\, 3/30 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
and 5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and the current DLHS of 10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors and window sills). GTZ partnered with the primary DLCL option 
(0.7/0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\), and post-1977 background (0.2/0.8 [mu]g/ft\2\) 
are the only two DLHS candidates estimated to have a 0.6 to 2.5% 
probability of exceeding 2 points of incremental IQ loss from dust-
exposure, keeping the percentage of exceedance of 2 points of IQ loss 
below 5% probability.

                                    Table 4--Percent Exceedance Values for DLHS Candidates, Age: 6 yr old (72 months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                           Floor ([mu]g/   Sill ([mu]g/  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                              ft\2\)          ft\2\)       Total IQ  1pt   Total IQ >2pt   Dust only IQ    Dust only IQ
                                                                                                (%)             (%)          >1pt  (%)       >2pt  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0            88.9            48.7             0.0             0.0
Post-1977 Background....................................             0.2             0.8            94.7            63.1             6.2             0.6
GTZ With 3/20 DLCL......................................             0.7             0.8            96.4            70.4            18.5             2.5
Numeric.................................................               1              10            97.0            74.5            30.2             5.2
GTZ With 5/40 DLCL......................................             2.2             4.4            97.7            78.5            40.7             9.0
Numeric.................................................               2              20            97.9            80.0            44.6            11.0
Numeric.................................................               3              30            98.5            82.3            53.6            16.0
Numeric.................................................               5              40            98.8            85.1            62.7            22.4
Current Standard........................................              10             100            99.4            90.3            75.8            37.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLHS candidates; it is not a candidate value.

B. Dust-Lead Clearance Levels 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 the DLCL. While considering those three 
criteria, the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule modified the work practice 
standards to include DLCL, which ``are used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of cleaning following an abatement'' (Ref. 6). In both 
the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule and the 2021 DLCL Rule, the DLCL were 
finalized as the same value as the DLHS 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 lead-based 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. 47). At that time EPA established the DLCL and the DLHS at 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills, with a 
separate DLCL of 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ 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 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ 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. 53 and 54). As 
a result, in 2021 EPA finalized DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 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. 11). This 
would include the DLCL 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). The Court analogized this dichotomy to other 
environmental statutory schemes (see also Unit IV.A.1.b. for EPA's 
discussion of the

[[Page 50460]]

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.A. 
for more information on DLHS).
    In accordance with the 2021 Court Opinion, EPA is proposing to 
revise the DLCL in the same proceeding as the reconsideration of the 
2019 DLHS, and given the Court's direction for how to revise the DLHS 
and DLCL, EPA is proposing clearance levels that are decoupled from the 
DLHS (see Unit I.B and C. for more background on decoupling). EPA 
evaluated the 2021 DLCL in accordance with the statute and is proposing 
to revise the DLCL from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 400 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and troughs, respectively, to 3 [mu]g/
ft\2\, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\. EPA is proposing to revise 
the DLCL in order to reduce exposure to dust-lead beyond the 2021 
levels. Additionally, New York City (NYC) has lowered their clearance 
levels since the 2021 DLCL final rule, which shows that levels below 
EPA's 2021 DLCL are achievable. Discussion on NYC's clearance levels 
can be found in Unit IV.B.2.d. Accordingly, EPA is also requesting 
comment on an alternative DLCL of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 [mu]g/ft\2\, and 
100 [mu]g/ft\2\, as well as whether another DLCL is appropriate given 
reliability, effectiveness and safety and why, see Unit VII.
1. Selecting the Proposed DLCL
    EPA is proposing to revise the DLCL given the statutory criteria of 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety, based on consideration of HUD's 
Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey (LHCCS), the potential for risk 
reduction by lowering exposure to dust-lead, and an evaluation of 
laboratory capabilities and capacity.
a. Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey
    EPA collaborated with HUD to develop the 2015 LHCCS to examine 
whether HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH) 
Lead Hazard Control (LHC) grantees could achieve DLCL below the 
standards at that time (40 [mu]g/ft\2\, 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 400 [mu]g/
ft\2\ 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.
    At that time, 98 LHC grantees completed the 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. 
55). 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 conducted please see Appendix 
D of the EA (Ref. 14). 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 DLCL samples alongside the 
details of the clearance 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.
    In terms of the primary DLCL option EPA is proposing, 64% of the 
2010 to 2012 samples showed dust-lead levels at or below 3 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for floors, 64% were at or below 20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 
64% were at or below 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ 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 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 20 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for troughs, which EPA 
believes is achievable, especially since the survey respondents were 
only required to achieve clearance below the 2001 DLCL at that time 
(40/250/400 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs, 
respectively). It is possible that the percentage of samples achieving 
clearance may be even higher today, due to the 2021 revision of the 
DLCL to 10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\, meaning clearance has had to be achieved at 
these lower levels or below, since that time. Given lead-hazard control 
work has been subject to the current DLCL of 10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
some time, EPA is requesting comment from the regulated community 
regarding their ability to clear to 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\ after various 
lead hazard control activities and given any additional cleaning 
necessary to make sure the dust-lead levels fall below the DLCL. See 
Unit IV.B.2.a. for more information on the LHCCS results for the 
alternative DLCL of 5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and 
troughs, respectively.
b. Primary DLCL Modeling Results
    EPA must understand the estimated health impacts of dust-lead 
exposure when selecting a DLCL that is reliable, effective, and safe, 
and in order to inform the EA. The TSD that accompanies this proposal 
includes evaluation of the 2021 DLCL (10/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
window sills), and the primary DLCL (3/20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors/window 
sills) and alternative DLCL (5/40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors/window sills) 
options. The unique dust-lead contribution to exposure from window 
troughs cannot be 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 versus 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 DLCL for troughs is not 
calculated separately for this rulemaking.
    The TSD also describes modeling of dust-lead exposures at the 
specific DLCL 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). More information on estimated potential impacts from dust-
lead exposures analyzed in the TSD, can be found in Unit III. Technical 
Analyses and Unit IV.A.2.a. Modeled Approach.
    Compared to the alternative DLCL option, the primary option (3/20/
25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs) is expected to be 
more health protective in that it results in the least amount of dust-
lead left on a surface after the completion of an abatement. The 
modeling results provided in the TSD show that young children in pre-
1978 housing exposed to dust-lead loadings of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors 
and 20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for sills would have a 11.3% probability of 
exceeding a total BLL of 3.5 [mu]g/dL (CDC's BLRV). This is lower than 
the 18.0% probability when exposed to the current DLCL of 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and the 13.9% 
probability when exposed to the alternative DLCL. Total BLL includes 
exposure from other media such as soil, diet, water, and air; even at 
zero dust-

[[Page 50461]]

lead, children would still have a 5.7% probability of exceeding the 
CDC's BLRV from these other sources. When considering dust-lead 
exposure only, the primary option for DLCL (3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\), is 
estimated to result in 1.6 to 16.0% probability of young children's BLL 
exceeding 1 to 2.5 [mu]g/dL, compared to 3.2 to 23.0% probability for 
the alternative DLCL (5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\). The primary DLCL is also 
estimated to have a 14.6% probability of exceeding 2 IQ points 
decrement from dust exposure, while the alternative DLCL is estimated 
to result in a 22.4% probability of exceeding 2 IQ points decrement 
from dust exposure. Ultimately, the primary DLCL option is expected to 
result in a higher reduction of dust-lead exposure than the alternative 
DLCL.

                                    Table 5--Percent Exceedance Values for DLHS Candidates, Age: 2 Yr Old (30 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Probability
                                     Floor ([mu]g/                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Approach                    ft\2\)        Sill ([mu]g/ft\2\)    Total BLL >3.5       Total BLL >5      Dust only BLL >1   Dust only BLL >2.5
                                                                             [mu]g/dL  (%)       [mu]g/dL  (%)       [mu]g/dL  (%)       [mu]g/dL  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\........................  0.................  0.................  5.7...............  2.2...............  0.0...............  0.0
3/20 DLCL.......................  3.................  20................  11.3..............  4.5...............  16.0..............  1.6
5/40 DLCL.......................  5.................  40................  13.9..............  5.5...............  23.0..............  3.2
Current Standard................  10................  100...............  18.0..............  7.5...............  36.7..............  6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLHS candidates; it is not a candidate value.

                                    Table 6--Percent Exceedance Values for DLHS Candidates, Age: 6 Yr Old (72 Months)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Probability
                                                           Floor ([mu]g/   Sill ([mu]g/  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Approach                              ft\2\)          ft\2\)       Total IQ >1pt   Total IQ >2pt   Dust only IQ    Dust only IQ
                                                                                                (%)             (%)          >1pt  (%)       >2pt  (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero \1\................................................               0               0           88.9%           48.7%            0.0%            0.0%
3/20 DLCL...............................................               3              20           98.2%           81.8%           51.4%           14.6%
5/40 DLCL...............................................               5              40           98.8%           85.1%           62.7%           22.4%
Current Standard........................................              10             100           99.4%           90.3%           75.8%           37.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exceedance values for zero dust-lead are provided for comparison with the DLHS candidates; it is not a candidate value.

c. Laboratory Capabilities for Primary DLCL
    To better understand current laboratory capabilities for specific 
equipment types, and the impact that the primary and alternative DLCL 
options, especially given that a non-numeric DLHS would shift the LQSR 
``action level'' to the DLCL, EPA spoke with nine NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories about their dust wipe testing programs (Refs. 56, 57, 58, 
59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64). 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) 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. Among the laboratories EPA spoke to, six were accredited to 
use FAAS, five were accredited to use ICP-AES, and two were accredited 
to use ICP-MS to analyze dust wipe samples for lead. Eight of the nine 
laboratories provide commercial testing services, four of which are the 
largest U.S. lead laboratories by dust wipe test volume.
    The information received from stakeholder outreach indicates that 
laboratories using ICP-AES equipment for dust wipe testing have a 
reporting limit of <=3 [mu]g/wipe. The five laboratories with ICP-AES 
capabilities have current reporting limits ranging from 0.5 [mu]g/wipe 
to 3 [mu]g/wipe. EPA believes that laboratories with more up-to-date 
instruments and optimized methods should be able to satisfy the LQSR 
dust wipe recommendations and the regulatory limit of the primary DLCL 
option of 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\ and the quantitation limit of equal to or 
less than 50% of that level (i.e., 1.5/10/12.5 [mu]g/ft\2\). If 
finalized as proposed, EPA believes that ICP-AES would likely become 
the instrument standard for dust wipe testing for lead at the NLLAP 
laboratories, as other technologies were not reported to consistently 
meet the quantitation limit described above. For more information on 
the on how the alternative DLCL compares or the impact it could have on 
NLLAP-recognized laboratories, see Unit IV.B.2.c.
    FAAS has been the most popular choice for lead dust wipe testing 
because it has a lower purchase price and operating cost, is fast and 
easy to use, and was sensitive enough for the 2019 and 2021 rules' DLHS 
and DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window 
sills. As shown in the table below, Table 2-9 of the EA, 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. 14). EPA seeks information on whether and the 
extent to which labs that do not have any or have only limited ICP 
capabilities would adopt ICP technology for dust wipe testing if it 
were to effectively become the standard for dust wipe testing for lead. 
In addition, EPA requests comment on the timing, benefits, and 
challenges associated with ICP adoption.

[[Page 50462]]

    Table 7--Analytical Equipment Used for Lead Dust Wipe Testing by
               Laboratories Recognized Under NLLAP Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Total number
                                                of          Commercial
                Equipment                  laboratories    laboratories
                                            accredited      accredited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAAS....................................              56              54
ICP-AES.................................              27              19
ICP-MS..................................               5               1
FAAS and ICP-AES........................              10              10
FAAS and ICP-MS.........................               2               2
ICP-AES and ICP-MS......................               1               1
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             101              87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Methods described in accreditation certificates for NLLAP
  laboratories, and descriptions on laboratory websites.

    Several concerns about switching to ICP instruments were raised by 
laboratories, such as, a reduction in the throughput rate, need for 
additional equipment and staff due to the complexity of the machines 
(compared to FAAS), higher prices, delayed turnaround, and concerns 
over maintaining the current sample volume and ultimately whether to 
continue keeping dust wipe testing for lead in their portfolio/
revisiting their business model. Based on the outreach conducted, 
laboratories indicated that the throughput rate on ICP-AES machines is 
roughly seven to 12 times slower than FAAS throughput. One major 
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. This shift 
in instrumentation is estimated to increase both cost per sample as 
well as turnaround time. Laboratories mentioned that for clearance a 
substantial portion of their dust wipe testing clients request same-day 
or next-day turnaround on samples so that residents can quickly 
reoccupy their homes. Several laboratories doubted the technical 
feasibility of providing same-day or next-day turnarounds at sufficient 
volume should they switch to ICP technology thereby, potentially 
delaying homeowners from quickly reoccupying their homes and renters 
from quickly beginning occupancy or from quickly reoccupying their 
rental housing. Dust wipe testing by ICP-AES is also estimated to be 
about 125% more expensive per sample than testing by FAAS, and 
laboratories expressed concerned that less overall dust wipe testing 
will occur because state and local municipalities often have a fixed 
budget for their housing and health programs. See the EA for more 
specific information on the breakdown of the cost estimates of dust 
wipe testing. EPA also seeks information on the potential geographic 
impacts of the proposal on laboratory testing for lead dust wipes.
    Finally, EPA found that several high-volume laboratories forecast 
that dust wipe test volumes will continue to grow over the next decade 
(Refs. 60 and 61). 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. 61). 
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 dust wipe 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. If finalized as 
proposed, this rulemaking will also likely increase the amount of dust 
wipe testing required given the proposed regulatory levels. EPA seeks 
comment on the extent to which laboratories would be able to 
accommodate increased or emergency demand for dust wipe testing if this 
proposal is finalized.
    The Agency is proposing 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\ as the primary DLCL 
option due to the potential for risk reduction as discussed in Unit 
IV.B.1.b. Given information gathered via EPA's outreach to 
laboratories, EPA is concerned that setting clearance levels too low 
may deter participation in lead-hazard 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. As a result, EPA is 
requesting comment on the reliability, effectiveness, and safety of the 
primary DLCL of 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and 
troughs, including specifically the impact on laboratory capability as 
well as the accuracy of the information presented. See Unit VII. 
Request for Comments for more information.
2. Alternative DLCL
    EPA is requesting comment on an alternative option to revise the 
DLCL for floors, window sills, and troughs from 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\, respectively to 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, 40 
[mu]g/ft\2\, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\, respectively. EPA chose 5/40/100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ as the alternate DLCL based on consideration of HUD's 
LHCCS, potential for risk reduction, an evaluation of laboratory 
capabilities 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 alternative DLCL 
option is to avoid potentially spreading the resources for LBP hazard 
mitigation so broadly that they may be diverted from scenarios that 
present the greatest risk. EPA notes that the EA indicates that the 
alternative DLCL option is estimated to have positive net benefits. See 
EA, Table ES-11.
a. Lead Hazard Control Clearance Survey
    The LHCCS indicates that 73% of samples from 2010 to 2012 showed 
dust-lead levels at or below 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 89% were at or 
below 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 94% were at or below 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for window troughs. As such, overall more than 72% of 
samples had dust-lead levels at or below the alternative DLCL option of 
5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and window troughs. This 
is compared to 64% of samples clearing at or below the primary DLCL 
option of 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\. As a result, EPA has high confidence 
that the alternative DLCL option is

[[Page 50463]]

achievable, while considering reliability and effectiveness. EPA is 
requesting comment on whether the LHCCS data support the reliability 
and effectiveness of the alternative DLCL option, and whether the 
regulated community can clear to 5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ after various 
lead hazard control activities and specialized cleaning.
b. Alternative DLCL Modeling Results
    The alternative (5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 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 
current DLCL (10/100/400 [mu]g/ft\2\). This alternative DLCL option 
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 young children in pre-1978 
housing exposed to dust-lead loadings of 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills would have an estimated 13.9% 
probability of exceeding a total BLL of 3.5 [mu]g/dL (CDC's BLRV); this 
is compared to the primary DLCL option (3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\) which 
would result in a 11.3% probability of exceedance (a difference of 2.6% 
between the primary and alternative DLCL options). Ultimately, both 
options are lower than the 18.0% probability of exceedance of the BLRV 
when exposed to the current DLCL of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ on window sills.
    When considering dust-lead exposure only, young children in pre-
1978 housing exposed to the alternative DLCL would have a 3.2 to 23.0% 
probability of exceeding a BLL of 1 to 2.5 [mu]g/dL based on the 
modeled results, compared to 1.6 to 16.0% probability for the primary 
DLCL (3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\). The alternative DLCL is also estimated to 
have a 22.4% probability of exceeding 2 points of IQ loss. As with 
total BLL, this is a considerable reduction from the 37.9% chance of 
exceeding 2 points of IQ loss for young children living in target 
housing who are exposed the current DLCL, but still higher than the 
primary DLCL estimate of 14.6%. EPA must understand the impact on 
health effects when selecting a DLCL that is reliable, effective, and 
safe, and to inform the EA. Overall, the modeling within the TSD 
indicated that the alternative DLCL (5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 
window sills and troughs) represents a reduction in risk from the 
current clearance levels of 10/100/400 [mu]g/ft\2\, but that risk is 
still higher than the estimated results for the primary DLCL. For a 
table representation of these modeling results, please see Unit 
IV.B.1.b. (Tables 5 and 6).
c. Laboratory Capabilities for Alternative DLCL
    EPA spoke with nine NLLAP-recognized laboratories about their dust 
wipe testing programs. For additional details about the laboratory 
outreach see Unit IV.B.1.c. Laboratory Capabilities and the EA (Ref. 
14). Based on EPA's laboratory outreach, EPA has increased confidence 
relative to the proposed DLCL (i.e., 3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\), that 
laboratories can numerically quantify dust-lead levels of 5 [mu]g/wipe 
with FAAS technology and attain a quantitation limit of equal to or 
less than 50% of that level (i.e., 2.5/20/50 [mu]g/ft\2\). Three major 
laboratories EPA spoke with already report at this level with FAAS, and 
the remaining three laboratories using FAAS that EPA talked to 
expressed no concern about attaining this level in the future if they 
ask their customers to wipe 2 ft\2\ instead of 1 ft\2\ (Refs. 57, 60 
and 64). EPA is requesting comment on whether the alternative DLCL 
option (i.e., 5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and 
troughs) would allow NLLAP-recognized laboratories to continue using 
FAAS technology, if it would mitigate any unintended reductions in dust 
wipe capacity (due to throughput time, cost, labor, etc.) and avoid any 
negative impacts on other programs that require specific testing using 
ICP-AES or FAAS.
    Should EPA finalize the DLCL at 5/40/100 [micro]g/ft\2\ and given 
no changes to the LQSR, EPA's laboratory outreach suggests that a 
handful of smaller laboratories with dated FAAS equipment may elect to 
discontinue their dust wipe programs for lead. Due to the expected 
continuing participation of other smaller as well as large-volume 
laboratories, EPA believes that these limited discontinuations are 
unlikely to impact the nationwide availability or market pricing of 
tests (see the EA for a breakdown of cost estimates). Additionally, EPA 
does not foresee any concerns reporting to 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ on window 
sill or 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on troughs (even with the small surface 
areas) if laboratories successfully attain a regulatory limit of 5 
[micro]g/ft\2\.
    EPA also received feedback that the alternative DLCL option (5/40/
100 [mu]g/ft\2\) could better mitigate any negative impacts on other 
programs that require specific testing using ICP-AES or FAAS equipment. 
Laboratories currently use their ICP-AES machines for a variety of 
purposes. Most notably, this equipment is regularly used for the 
characterization of metals in hazardous waste and measuring lead in 
drinking water. Under the primary DLCL option 3/20/25 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
laboratories would face a significant increase in demand for use of 
their ICP machines, which could result in substantial downstream 
effects on the availability and price of testing for other lead and 
non-lead programs. Additionally, some laboratories mentioned they might 
eliminate use of their FAAS machines to streamline laboratory 
functionality. This may have downstream effects on testing for lead in 
soil, paint chips, and air; laboratories currently test these matrices 
by FAAS with some frequency. If laboratories decide maintaining FAAS is 
no longer viable for their primary line of business (dust wipes), all 
lead matrices could be added to ICP queue, which would worsen 
availability issues and increase prices.
    The Agency is requesting comment on whether reliability, 
effectiveness and safety support the DLCL alternative option of 5/40/
100 [micro]g/ft\2\. EPA is interested in setting a DLCL that has a high 
potential for risk reduction; however, the Agency also wants to 
finalize an option that is achievable and encourages (not deters) 
participation in lead-hazard control programs and activities that 
require dust wipe testing. As a result, EPA is requesting comment on 
the alternative DLCL option of 5/40/100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 
window sills, and troughs (compared to the primary DLCL option), the 
impact that level could have on laboratories, and the accuracy of the 
information presented. See Unit VII. Request for Comments for more 
details.
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 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 250 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
50 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ in 2019 (effective June 12, 
2019) and again to 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, 100 [micro]g/
ft\2\ in 2021 (effective June 1, 2021) (Refs. 65 and 66). The Agency 
spoke to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and 
received feedback 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. 67). Based on NYC's experience, EPA believes that the 
alternative DLCL option (i.e., 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, 100 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and window troughs) can be 
considered effective and reliable.

[[Page 50464]]

C. Cross Reference With HUD Regulations

    EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 745.227(h) to clarify that the 
proposed DLCL would differ from the DLHS, that the Agency does not 
intend to compel clearance down to the DLHS, and to alleviate potential 
regulatory confusion surrounding clearance. HUD's LSHR's clearance 
regulations at 24 CFR 35.1340(d), which apply to both abatement and 
non-abatement activities, currently refer to 24 CFR 35.1320(b)(2), 
which in turn cross-references EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 745.227(h), 
which currently discusses EPA's DLHS but not EPA's DLCL. See Unit 
III.A.3.f the 2019 DLHS 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 proposing a DLHS 
that is no longer the same value as the DLCL. As a result, EPA is 
proposing to clarify the language at 40 CFR 745.227(h), so it is clear, 
including when referenced by the LSHR, that EPA does not intend to 
compel clearance to the DLHS, whether in federally assisted housing or 
not.

D. Definition of Abatement

    EPA is proposing to amend the definition of abatement in EPA's LBP 
activities regulations and thus modify the trigger for when EPA 
recommends an abatement. This change is intended to align with the 
proposed decoupling of the DLHS and DLCL and to focus impacted entity 
resources (e.g., HUD, city, state) on the situations that present the 
most risk. TSCA Section 401(1) defines an abatement as ``any set of 
measures designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards . . 
.'' 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 
postabatement 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 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. 11). Hence, in considering revising the DLCL, 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 proposed DLCL, the Agency is proposing to change the 
regulatory definition of abatement so that the recommendation for 
action applies when dust-lead loadings are at or above the DLCL (which 
continues to incorporate non-health-based factors such as reliability), 
rather than at or above the DLHS 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 
is deemed necessary due to the decoupling of the DLHS from the DLCL, 
and EPA's desire to avoid situations where abatements are designed to 
eliminate dust-lead levels to the DLHS and are unable to do so in a 
reliable and effective manner. Otherwise, EPA would be recommending an 
abatement if dust-lead levels are between the DLHS and the DLCL, even 
though such an abatement would only need to pass clearance below the 
DLCL. Also, where an abatement is conducted, a cyclical pattern could 
result, where an abatement successfully passes clearance below the DLCL 
but an abatement is still recommended by EPA if dust-lead levels are at 
or above the DLHS. Thus, EPA is proposing to change the regulatory 
definition to require that abatements eliminate dust-lead hazards to 
below the DLCL to ensure that successful abatements can be considered 
complete. Relatedly, as explained in Unit IV.E, 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 proposing to change the regulatory definition of 
abatement to permanently eliminate dust-lead hazards to below the DLCL 
and requesting public comment on this proposal. EPA believes that this 
proposed amendment to the regulatory definition 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 DLCL regulations. Furthermore, 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. 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 DLCL, although HUD and some state or local governments may 
require action.

E. Abatement Report

    As explained in Units IV.A. and B., EPA is proposing to lower the 
current DLHS to any reportable level analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized 
laboratory, and the DLCL to 3 [micro]g/ft\2\, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 25 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills and troughs, respectively. The 
DLHS identify when pre-1978 housing or a COF has a dust-lead hazard 
present. If finalized as proposed, 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 DLHS 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, a report is required to be 
developed by a certified supervisor or project designer. 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 clearance testing and soil 
analyses, etc. EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 745.227(e)(10) to 
include a requirement to add specific language into each abatement 
report, when dust-lead levels are between the DLHS and the DLCL. That 
language refers the public to a useful reference titled ``Protect Your 
Family From Lead in Your Home'' and acknowledges that LBP hazards

[[Page 50465]]

(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 information and tools available to them to 
minimize dust-lead hazards and take actions to protect themselves from 
exposure even after the 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)). EPA is requesting comment on the proposed language to be 
added to the abatement report.

F. 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 proposing to amend 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 (Lead-Based Paint Activities).
1. Definition of Target Housing
    EPA is proposing to update 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 to make 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 proposed change to the definition of target housing in 40 CFR 
745.103 and 40 CFR 745.223 would conform 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 proposing to revise 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) 
would be updated from 6 years of age and under to under age 6 to 
conform to the statutory language as amended.
2. Definition of Child-Occupied Facility (COF) and Living Areas
    EPA is proposing to revise 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 define any area of a residential dwelling used 
by one or more children which include, but are 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 proposing to change 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) would also be updated from 6 years of age and under to 
under age 6 to conform.
3. Electronic Submissions
    EPA is proposing to require submissions for application payments, 
applications, and notices to be done electronically. Under this 
proposal, this rule would specifically define ``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 proposing 
to amend 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's no specific submission method defining how to 
submit applications in EPA's LBP regulations. This ambiguity allows for 
the potential of written applications to be submitted which requires 
time consuming activities such as data entry and accrues administrative 
costs. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 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 
proposed requirement of submitting applications electronically via CDX 
or a successor platform. This will add further clarification and 
uniformity to this process.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to require that abatement and 
training notifications be submitted electronically via CDX or a 
successor platform. Requiring electronic submissions and eliminating 
fax submissions would remove the need for fax machine maintenance and 
would also reduce phone service costs. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
amend 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 proposing to update 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 lead-based 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. 7). 
However, the Lead Warning Statement in 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) does not 
include the word ``known.'' To conform this regulatory text with the 
statutory and preamble language, EPA is proposing to amend the Lead 
Warning Statement to include the word ``known'' when discussing lessors 
disclosing the presence of LBP and/or LBP hazards in the dwelling.

[[Page 50466]]

5. Disclosure Rule Reference
    EPA is proposing to amend 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 proposing to add 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.'' The proposal to include the same definition in 
Subpart L, ``Lead-Based Paint Activities'' would add clarity and 
consistency throughout the LBP program.
7. Obsolete Regulatory Text
    EPA is proposing to revise and delete obsolete regulatory text 
where language is 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 proposing to update and consolidate 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.''
8. Incorporation by Reference
    EPA is also considering adding incorporations by reference for 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 intends to 
incorporate by reference the most recent version of each standard 
(i.e., ASTM E1728-20 and ASTM E1792-20). Copies of these materials 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. ASTM standards referenced in this rule are 
also available for public review in read-only format in the ASTM 
Reading Room at https://www.astm.org/epa.htm only for the duration of 
the public comment period.
    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 
[email protected]. 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, your preferred format in which you 
want to receive the material (electronic format (ASCII, etc.), standard 
print, large print, etc.), and your contact information.

V. Implications of Proposed Rule for Existing HUD and EPA Programs

A. 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. 
28). 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. 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. Due to the 2021 Court Opinion, EPA 
is now proposing approaches for these standards that would result in 
decoupling the DLHS and DLCL as explained in Unit IV. EPA is proposing 
modifications to 40 CFR 745.227(h) to clarify that the Agency does not 
intend to compel clearance down to the DLHS and to alleviate potential 
regulatory confusion surrounding clearance (as discussed in Unit IV.C 
of this notice).
    Other impacts of EPA's proposal could include a possible decrease 
in the number of landlords participating in certain HUD programs, as 
well as families potentially shifting from assisted housing to 
unassisted housing, which has been shown to be associated with a higher 
prevalence of LBP hazards (Refs. 68 and 69) and higher BLLs (Ref. 70). 
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. 71). Research 
finds negative health effects resulting from three key mechanisms of 
housing insecurity: lack of housing affordability leading to stress and 
material deprivation (Refs. 72, 73, 74 and 75), lack of housing 
stability (Refs. 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80), and lack of safe and adequate 
housing (Refs. 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85). HUD's housing assistance 
programs play a critical role in helping nearly 5 million households 
(Ref. 86) avoid housing insecurity and its harmful effects on physical 
and mental health (Refs. 70, 87, 88, 89, and 90). Despite such Federal 
assistance, the nation faces a critical shortage of affordable rental 
housing affecting about 8 million very low-income households (Ref. 91). 
EPA considered the proposed changes to the DLHS and DLCL and the 
potential impacts on HUD's housing programs within the EA (see Section 
10.2 for this discussion) (Ref. 14). Existing research on landlord 
participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program (Refs. 92, 93, 94 
and 95) 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 is requesting information and comment on 
whether adoption of the proposed DLHS and DLCL or alternative 
regulatory options under consideration would lead to an increase in 
housing insecurity or

[[Page 50467]]

lead exposures. If so, EPA is requesting comment on whether there would 
be any adverse health effects due to this potential increase in housing 
insecurity alongside the health benefits of reduced lead exposure, as 
well as whether there are changes that EPA could make to the rule that 
maintain landlord participation in rental assistance programs while 
achieving the objectives of the statute.
    EPA expects relatively limited impacts on housing supply due to 
this rulemaking for some housing types subject to HUD's LSHR. 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 DLHS/DLCL 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, but 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 DLHS/DLCL 
to comply with the LSHR, participating grantees should typically have a 
positive net return. To ensure all potential impacts of the rule are 
considered, EPA is requesting comment on impacts to housing covered 
under these other LSHR subparts as well as additional factors that 
should be considered as part of the EA.
2. Grantee Programs
    On February 16, 2017, HUD issued policy guidance to establish new 
and more protective requirements for dust-lead action levels for its 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control (LBPHC) and Lead Hazard Reduction 
Demonstration (LHRD) grantees (the requirements also apply to related 
HUD grants authorized by Title X, section 1011 (42 U.S.C. 4852), under 
similar names, including Lead Hazard Reduction grants and their High 
Impact Neighborhoods and Highest Lead-Based Paint Abatement Needs grant 
categories) (Ref. 96). The guidance adopted dust-lead action levels of 
10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, 
respectively, for initiating lead hazard control activities under these 
grant programs, and lead clearance action levels of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills and troughs, respectively, 
for clearing such lead hazard control activities. If the proposed 
changes to the DLCL discussed in Unit IV are finalized, LBPHC and LHRD 
grantees would be required by EPA's regulations to clear lead abatement 
projects to the updated DLCL of 3 [micro]g/ft\2\, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\, 
and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, window sills, and troughs 
respectively. If EPA finalizes the proposed changes to the DLHS and 
DLCL, HUD has informed the Agency that it would 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
    Under the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 7), 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. 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, and from post-abatement dust wipe 
testing, above or below the clearance levels. Because disclosure is 
required in target housing regardless of whether dust levels are above 
or below the DLHS or DLCL, finalizing the GTZ approach for the dust-
lead hazard standards and lowering the dust-lead clearance levels would 
not result in more disclosures; rather it would result in more 
disclosures indicating that a lead-based paint hazard is present (since 
the proposed GTZ is lower than the current DLHS from 2019). EPA is also 
proposing changes to the definition of ``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 (Pub. L. 115-37, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2017, Division K, Title II, section 237(c)). This proposed 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.
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. If EPA finalizes changes to the 
DLHS and DLCL as proposed, HUD has informed the Agency that it would 
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. 97).

B. EPA LBP Programs

1. LBP Activities Rule
    LBP activities include risk assessments, inspections, and 
abatements. If this rule is finalized as proposed, it will have impacts 
to LBP activities, including: the definition of abatement, what is 
considered a DLHS, the DLCL used to determine whether an abatement can 
be considered complete, and the definition of target housing.
    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 DLHS. The results of the 
sampling, among other things, are documented in a risk assessment 
report which is required under the LBP Activities Rule (Ref. 24). In 
addition to the sampling results, the report must describe the location 
and severity of any dust-lead hazards found and describe interim 
controls or abatement measures needed to address the hazards.
    Under this proposed rule, sampling results reporting any level of 
lead analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized laboratory will indicate that a 
dust-lead hazard is present on the surfaces tested. EPA expects that 
the proposed DLHS will result in more hazards being identified in a 
portion of target housing and COFs that undergo risk assessments. This 
proposed rule does

[[Page 50468]]

not change any other risk assessment requirements; however, it does 
recommend changes to 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 lead-based paint hazards and include 
activities such as the removal of paint and dust, the permanent 
enclosure or encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of 
painted surfaces or fixtures, and all preparation, cleanup, disposal, 
and post-abatement dust wipe testing activities associated with such 
measures. The proposed change to the definition of abatement would 
shift the recommendation for an abatement to when the dust-lead 
loadings are at or above the DLCL. Because the proposed DLCL 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, i.e., when dust-
lead loadings are at or above the DLHS, but below the DLCL. Similarly, 
EPA recommends interim controls only in circumstances when dust-lead 
loadings are at or above the DLCL, rather than the DLHS, for the 
reasons explained above.
    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 DLCL, ``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 cleared until the dust wipe samples in the work area 
are below the DLCL. If this rule is finalized as proposed, inspectors 
and risk assessors would compare dust wipe sampling results for floors, 
window sills and troughs to the revised DLCL of 3 [mu]g/ft\2\, 20 
[mu]g/ft\2\, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\, respectively. Dust wipe sampling 
results at or above the DLCL would indicate that the components 
represented by the sample must be recleaned and retested.
    Lastly, as described in Unit IV.F.1, this proposed rule conforms 
the regulatory definition of target housing with the statute to include 
any 0-bedroom 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 proposing 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.F.1. and 2. for more information.
2. Previous LBP-Related Activities
    Since the DLHS do not compel specific EPA actions, revisions to the 
DLHS 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 an LBP 
hazard should not imply the absence of those conditions in perpetuity. 
Additionally, the DLHS may be incorporated into requirements mandated 
by state, Federal, Tribal, and other programs that may require actions 
based on the revised DLHS. 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 DLHS.
    The DLCL however, are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a 
cleaning following an abatement. After the dust wipe samples show dust-
lead loadings below the DLCL, an abatement report is prepared, copies 
of any reports required under the LBP Activities Rule are provided to 
the building owner (and to potential lessees and purchasers under the 
LBP Disclosure Rule by those building owners or their agents), and all 
required records are also retained by the abatement firm or by the 
individuals who developed each report. The proposed DLCL of 3 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for floors, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 25 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
for troughs would not impose retroactive requirements on regulated 
entities that have previously performed post-abatement clearance. These 
updated DLCL would only apply to post-abatement clearance sampling and 
analysis conducted after the compliance date for that portion of the 
final rule (i.e., one year after publication of the final rule).
    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 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 LBP-free 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 to the Disclosure Rule.
3. Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule
    The proposed DLHS and DLCL 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 
DLHS. 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 DLHS or DLCL. Therefore, RRP regulations will not be 
directly affected by the proposed revisions to the DLHS or the DLCL.
    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 DLCL. However, although optional 
under the RRP Rule, dust wipe sampling for clearance using the DLCL in 
accordance with the LBP Activities Rule (40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)) may be 
required by contract or by another Federal, state, territorial, Tribal, 
or local law or regulation. At this time, other than HUD's Lead Safe 
Housing Rule, for renovations of assisted target housing, EPA is not 
aware of other laws and regulations that require clearance testing 
using EPA's DLCL. EPA seeks information on this point and welcomes 
public comments.
4. Laboratory Quality System Requirements
    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-lead-laboratory-accreditation-program-nllap). 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 3.0. However, 
changes to the action level (i.e., the proposed DLCL) would impact the 
quantitation limit that NLLAP-

[[Page 50469]]

recognized laboratories would attain to participate in the NLLAP, as 
that must be equal to or less than 50% of the lowest action level for 
dust wipe samples per specific surface area (i.e., floors, window 
sills, window troughs) (Ref. 29). If finalized as proposed, the lowest 
action level for dust wipe samples would be the DLCL of 3 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 25 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for troughs. As a result, the quantitation limit for NLLAP-
recognized labs would be equal to or less than 1.5 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills and 12.5 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
troughs.

C. Authorized Programs

    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. A state, territory, or 
federally recognized Tribe must demonstrate that it meets any new 
requirements imposed by this rulemaking upon finalization in its 
application for authorization or, if already authorized, in a report 
submitted under 40 CFR 745.324(h) no later than two years after the 
effective date of the new requirements. If an application for 
authorization has been submitted but not yet approved, the state, 
territory, or federally recognized Tribe must demonstrate that it meets 
the proposed 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)).

VI. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates

    EPA is proposing that the final rule would become effective on the 
date that is 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The 
Agency is proposing an extended compliance date of one year for the 
DLHS, the DLCL, and the change to the abatement report requirements (40 
CFR 745.65 definition ``dust-lead hazard''; 40 CFR 227(h)(3)(i); 40 CFR 
745.227(e)(8)(viii) and (10)(vii)). EPA seeks comment on the 
appropriate compliance date, including whether the compliance date 
should be six months, eighteen months, two years or another longer 
timeframe, as well as the justification for the change.
    EPA has considered the impacts of the proposed DLHS and DLCL on 
NLLAP-recognized laboratories and is proposing a subsequent compliance 
date of one year after publication of the final rule in Federal 
Register for certain provisions under this rulemaking. The proposed 
compliance date is intended to provide a reasonable amount of time for 
NLLAP-recognized laboratories to take actions to meet the lower LQSR 
quantitation limit (50% of the lowest action level for dust wipe 
samples) so they can continue providing dust wipe testing services to 
the regulated community and in emergent situations by the compliance 
date for the revised standards.
    To obtain a better understanding of laboratories' capability and 
capacity for dust wipe testing, EPA conducted teleconferences with nine 
NLLAP-recognized laboratories (Refs. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 
64). As explained in Unit IV.B., based on the information EPA received 
from this outreach, EPA believes that laboratories with more up to date 
ICP-AES instruments and optimized methods should be able to satisfy the 
LQSR dust wipe testing procedures and the regulatory limit of the 
primary DLCL option of 3 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ 
for window sills and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs (quantitation limit 
of 1.5 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills 
and 12.5 [micro]g/ft\2\ for troughs). However, FAAS is the most 
ubiquitous equipment used, and EPA is estimating that accredited 
laboratories may buy new equipment to meet the lower LQSR limits. Based 
on the outreach performed, laboratories may need as little as six 
months but as much as 18 months to finance and obtain new equipment 
(such as ICP-AES), hire and train staff, and potentially receive new 
NLLAP accreditation (Refs. 56, 57 and 62). Two laboratories said it 
could take as much as two years to adjust to hypothetical regulatory 
changes such as the ones being proposed (Refs. 58 and 59).
    EPA therefore believes that the proposed compliance date provides 
the needed flexibility for laboratories while ensuring that the revised 
DLHS and DLCL become effective in a timely manner. However, in 
consideration of the feedback received from NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories during the Agency's outreach efforts, EPA is requesting 
comment on the proposed compliance date, whether six-months is 
appropriate for the primary DLCL option (i.e., 3/20/25 [micro]g/ft\2\) 
or if 12 months, 18 months, or some other amount of time is necessary, 
and why the extra time is needed.
    Additionally, if the alternative DLCL is finalized (i.e., 5/40/100 
[micro]g/ft\2\), based on the laboratory outreach, EPA has increased 
confidence that laboratories can numerically quantify dust-lead levels 
of 5 [micro]g/wipe and attain a quantitation limit of equal to or less 
than 50% of that level (i.e., 2.5/20/50 [mu]g/ft\2\) with FAAS 
technology, especially if the area tested is doubled from one square 
foot to two. EPA is also requesting comment on whether NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories would still need a six-month compliance date if the Agency 
finalized the alternative DLCL, or if 12-months, 18-months, or some 
other amount of time would be necessary to provide the flexibility that 
laboratories need in that scenario and why.
    EPA is also proposing a six-month compliance date for the DLHS 
along with the DLCL and is 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 DLHS and the 
DLCL compliance dates. EPA believes that since the DLHS are non-numeric 
which is different than they have been historically, and as the program 
is shifting to the DLCL becoming the ``action level'' for the LQSR, it 
is important to allow ample time for the regulated community to adapt 
to the revised DLHS and DLCL. Additionally, if the DLHS compliance date 
occurred before the DLCL compliance date, EPA is concerned it may 
trigger unnecessary confusion for laboratories. EPA is requesting 
comment on the appropriateness of the DLHS and the DLCL having the same 
compliance date.

VII. Request for Comments

A. Proposed Dust-Lead Hazard Standards

    EPA is seeking input on its proposal to lower the DLHS to any 
reportable level of dust-lead analyzed by an NLLAP-recognized 
laboratory, and the two alternative approaches to revising the DLHS--
the numeric standard approach and the post-1977 background approach. 
EPA is requesting feedback not only on all the approaches considered 
but also on all the DLHS options themselves outlined in the preamble 
and within the TSD. EPA is requesting comment on the appropriateness of 
EPA's interpretation of ``any reportable level.'' EPA is also 
requesting comment on whether laboratories believe there are potential 
inconsistencies with the lowest reportable level within any one 
laboratory or across the industry, the

[[Page 50470]]

extent of these inconsistencies, and if laboratories foresee this 
causing any concern for their clients. EPA is also requesting comment 
on the effects of not setting the DLHS at a fixed numeric value, and 
whether any potential inconsistencies with individual laboratory 
reporting levels (when interpreting dust-lead results in relation to 
the hazard standards), would cause challenges for the regulated 
community or other stakeholders, e.g., building owners or residents.
    EPA is also seeking any information or data for a level of dust-
lead exposure that would not result in adverse health effects, and any 
information on how much exposure in terms of BLL or change in IQ 
decrement would be the most scientifically appropriate to compare to 
the modeled results or as a rationale to set the DLHS, including the 
appropriate threshold of probability of exceedance for a child from the 
sub-population of interest.

B. Proposed Dust-Lead Clearance Levels and Alternatives

    EPA is requesting comment on its proposal to lower the DLCL to 3 
[mu]g/ft\2\ for floors, 20 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills, and 25 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for troughs. EPA is requesting comment on NLLAP-recognized 
laboratories' ability to test to these clearance levels, especially 
given that, if finalized as proposed, the quantitation limit would be 
50% of the DLCL (i.e., 1.5/10/12.5 [mu]g/ft\2\) for laboratories that 
remain in NLLAP. EPA is also requesting comment on whether LBP 
professionals can clean/achieve clearance at these levels. EPA is also 
interested in feedback on whether the primary or alternative DLCL 
option is preferred and if they appropriately take into account 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety. Also, in some cases, window 
sills and troughs may have a small surface area, and therefore, EPA is 
requesting comment on the ability to collect a sufficient amount of 
dust-lead to meet all laboratories' quantitation limits with their 
existing analytical equipment or any other equipment that might be 
necessary for the DLCL primary and secondary options presented. EPA is 
also requesting comment on whether there is any data or information on 
whether window sills and window troughs should have the same clearance 
values, and why or why not. EPA is interested in both feedback and 
justification for whether a higher trough value such as 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ 
or if another DLCL combination (for floors, window sills and window 
troughs) besides the primary and alternative options considered is 
appropriate given the statutory criteria of reliability, effectiveness, 
and safety. Lastly, EPA requests comment on whether or not the proposed 
DLCL would discourage initiation of elective dust-lead remediation 
altogether.
    Additionally, EPA is seeking input on a phased approach of 
establishing the alternative, higher DLCL first (5/40/100 [mu]g/ft\2\) 
and then in a specific amount of time, e.g., three years, lowering it 
to the primary DLCL value (3/20/25 [mu]g/ft\2\). This phased approach 
would give laboratories with FAAS equipment time to purchase the more 
sensitive equipment needed to achieve the lower levels, hire new 
employees, become accredited with the new equipment, etc. EPA requests 
feedback on whether this is an approach that should be considered and, 
if so, what would be an appropriate amount of time between the first 
and second lowering of the DLCL.

C. Other Amendments

    EPA is seeking comment on whether the changes to the definition of 
abatement make it clear that abatements should only be recommended when 
the dust-lead loadings are at or above the DLCL, rather than at or 
above the DLHS as it has been historically. EPA is also interested in 
receiving feedback on its proposed changes to 40 CFR 745.227(h) (to 
alleviate potential regulatory confusion surrounding clearance); as 
well as the additional language being added to the abatement report 
requirements, including whether EPA should make similar modifications 
to the risk assessment report requirements to add specific language 
explaining that abatements should only be recommended when the dust-
lead loadings are at or above DLCL. EPA is also requesting comment on 
the effectiveness of the proposed language in the abatement report 
requirements to educate the public on remaining dust-lead hazards, 
promote behavior change, and point them to educational materials such 
as Protect Your Family. In those circumstances where the additional 
language would be added to abatement reports, EPA is also interested in 
feedback on whether the Protect Your Family materials themselves should 
be included alongside the abatement report and why Protect Your Family 
should be included. Separately, due to feedback received during the 
UMRA/federalism consultation: EPA is also interested in feedback on 
whether additional communication materials would be beneficial for 
public housing authorities to have access to in order to provide to 
residents living in homes with dust-lead hazards. If so, EPA is 
requesting information on what type of materials, for what DLHS and 
DLCL options, and for which type of stakeholder/end user (if there are 
any besides public housing authorities) would be helpful.
    EPA is seeking comment on all other amendments including the 
conforming change to the definition of target housing to provide 
consistency with the statutory change to the definition, as well as the 
conforming edits to children's age (i.e., under six) to provide 
consistency within the LBP regulations. EPA is requesting comment on 
how long after final rule publication the compliance date should be. 
EPA is proposing to establish a compliance date for the DLHS and DLCL 
that would occur on the date that is one year after the publication 
date of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Agency invites 
public comment on the adequacy of the proposed compliance date. EPA is 
also seeking feedback from states, territories, or Tribes that are 
authorized by EPA to operate their own LBP activities programs, on the 
impact of this proposed rule and if it will have substantial direct 
effects on the states, territories, or Tribes, on the relationship 
between the U.S. government and the states, territories, or Tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian 
Tribes, such as whether states, territories, or Tribes may relinquish 
their programs back to EPA.

D. Methods, Models and Data

    EPA is also requesting comment on the methods, models and data used 
in the EA and the TSD that accompany this proposal. In particular, EPA 
requests comment on the EA's use of the lifetime IQ concentration-
response function to calculate IQ loss for ages for young children, 
particularly at low exposure levels (see section 6.4 in the EA). 
Additionally, EPA solicits comment and peer reviewed information on 
evidence relevant to quantifying and monetizing the incremental 
contribution of blood lead concentrations to other health and/or 
behavioral endpoints, including adult cardiovascular mortality.
    EPA is proposing to update its regulatory definition of target 
housing to conform to the 2017 revised statutory language (see Unit 
IV.F.1.). EPA estimates that there are 10,850 pre-1978 dwellings that 
would be affected because they have zero bedrooms and a child under the 
age of 6 resides in them. EPA's EA for this action (Ref. 14) estimates 
that the total annual cost (including complying with existing lead-
based paint program requirements for disclosure for real estate 
transactions, disclosure for renovation

[[Page 50471]]

activities, abatement, and the renovation, repair and painting rule) in 
newly defined target housing would be $0.2 million. EPA's analysis also 
estimates that the annual benefits of these requirements would be $3.7 
million using a 3% discount rate and $0.8 million using a 7% discount 
rate. EPA requests comment on its estimate of the number of affected 
housing units, and on the methods and assumptions it used to estimate 
the costs and benefits resulting from aligning its regulatory 
definition with the revised statutory definition.
    EPA is proposing to require submissions for applications, 
application payments, and abatement and training notifications notices 
for the lead paint program be made electronically, instead of through 
mail, fax, or hand delivery (see Unit IV.F.3.). Based on its EA for 
this action (Ref. 14), EPA expects that this automation would save 
firms switching to electronic reporting an average of 5 hours per firm 
in labor, and that across all affected firms the change would result in 
total annual savings of approximately $20,000 using a 3% discount rate 
and $10,000 using a 7% discount rate. EPA solicits comment on the 
benefits and costs of requiring such electronic reporting.
    Certain provisions of the HUD LSHR require lead hazard reduction 
activities when dust-lead levels exceed the DLHS. Given the nature of 
the proposed GTZ approach, in order to account for these activities in 
its EA (Ref. 14), EPA estimated what the reportable levels would be 
under the GTZ options, based on the analytical equipment that 
laboratories would likely use under these options. According to the 
LQSR, NLLAP-recognized laboratories must be able to demonstrate a 
quantitation limit less than or equal to half of the action level in 
order to maintain or obtain NLLAP recognition. Since the action level 
under the GTZ options would be the DLCL, the floor and window sill 
reporting levels estimated for analytical purposes for the GTZ options 
vary depending on the DLCL levels that the GTZ is paired with. Because 
some types of laboratory equipment have quantitation levels well below 
half of the DLCL options, EPA estimated the reporting limits for the 
mix of analytical instruments likely to be used under the GTZ options 
in order for the quantitation limits to be at least half of the DLCL. 
EPA solicits data on the distribution of quantitation limits for 
different types of analytical instruments in order to allow the Agency 
to refine its estimates of the reportable levels under the GTZ/DLCL 
options that the Agency is considering. EPA also requests data on the 
false positive and false negative rates for testing lead in dust using 
different types of analytical equipment (e.g., FAAS, ICP-AES, and ICP-
MS).
    EPA requests data on costs for dust-lead testing that the Agency 
can use to refine its EA for the final rule. EPA also solicits 
information and comments related to any other data, assumptions, or 
methodology that EPA used to estimate the costs of the proposed rule, 
or on any costs that EPA did not quantify. EPA also requests comment on 
potential changes to the proposed rule that would reduce impacts on 
small entities while being consistent with statutory requirements and 
still achieving the rule's objectives.
    Also, due to feedback from the UMRA/federalism consultation EPA is 
interested in any comments that can provide information on COFs, 
particularly any information that could help inform an EA, such as data 
on the number and cost of abatements partnered with recent dust-lead 
loading results, how many children under six were present in the COF at 
the time, etc. Based on the information available to it at the time of 
the proposal, EPA was unable to quantify benefits to children visiting 
COFs that would be affected by this rule. Since the data EPA used were 
only associated with the abatements in states, territories and tribes 
where the Agency administers the lead-based paint activities program, 
EPA specifically requests data on COF abatements in the jurisdictions 
that are authorized to administer their own lead abatement programs. 
EPA also requests information on the typical practices of environmental 
investigations at child-occupied facilities, and whether or how these 
practices may differ by type of COF (e.g., public school, private 
school, daycare center). EPA is interested in whether state/local 
requirements ever require routine dust wipe testing at COFs in the 
absence of a child with a blood lead level above a state or Federal 
action level, or how often COFs proactively have their dust-lead levels 
voluntarily tested. EPA would also welcome information on whether, in 
real-world practice, COFs always undergo dust wipe testing when a child 
who frequents the facility has a BLL above state or Federal action 
levels, or whether COFs are only tested if an investigation of the 
affected child's home reports no LBP, and if there are other 
circumstances that might lead to dust wipe testing at a COF.
    Based on the information available to it at the time of the 
proposal, EPA was unable to quantify benefits to children visiting COFs 
that would be affected by this rule. EPA requests information that 
would allow it to estimate such benefits for the final rule. EPA 
requests comment on data sources for parameterizing the R-SHEDS-IEUBK 
model used in the TSD and EA to estimate changes in blood lead levels 
for COFs (given that children's activity and exposure patterns may 
differ between housing and COFs, and the model is not calibrated or 
validated for predicting blood lead level changes in COFs), as well as 
how to avoid double-counting benefits between activities in target 
housing and COFs. EPA requests comment on sources of data including: 
children's activity patterns while attending COFs, physical parameters 
of COFs including area covered by different flooring material types, 
number and type of windows, and information on frequency of maintenance 
and cleaning. EPA also requests information on the range of baseline 
blood lead levels or lead exposures across the population of children 
that visit a COF where an abatement occurs.
    EPA also requests information and data on the potential economic 
and health impacts to current residents and landlords of housing that 
is subsidized by tenant-based rental or project assistance programs run 
by HUD or USDA. EPA also requests comment on whether there are other 
types of assisted housing programs where there is a significant risk of 
landlords withdrawing from the program due to this rulemaking; specific 
factors that determine whether landlords would stop participating in 
Federal assistance programs; and estimates of the cost elasticity of 
landlord participation in such programs. EPA also welcomes comment and/
or data that provides evidence for direct or indirect health impacts 
associated with relatively higher potential lead exposures in regard to 
housing insecurity attributable to housing quality standards (both 
generally and specific to lead-related standards).
    EPA is requesting comment on research, studies, modeling, data, and 
any other information on the effects of the availability of target 
housing units for low-income families, including assisted target 
housing units, due to housing quality standards. Furthermore, EPA 
requests comment on potential impacts to the non-federally-assisted 
rental housing market, particularly naturally-occurring low-income 
housing, due to housing quality standards, including quantitative 
evidence of housing instability or differential housing outcomes or 
lead

[[Page 50472]]

exposures for families with young children that have resulted from 
local, state, or Federal lead paint regulations.

E. Other Requests for Comment

    Finally, EPA is requesting comment on the impacts on NLLAP-
recognized dust-lead laboratories, through considerations such as: 
added turnaround time for testing analysis (affecting re-occupancy, 
including temporary housing costs adding to overall project costs); 
added laboratory costs and the possibility of increasing project costs; 
and possible loss to NLLAP-recognized laboratories that cannot or do 
not want to make the investment and/or reduce their throughput at the 
proposed lower DLHS and DLCL. EPA is also interested in information 
about possible solutions for any unintended consequences of the lower 
DLHS and DLCL (which are consistent with the 2021 Court Opinion that 
instructed EPA to consider only health factors when setting the DLHS 
and affirmed that EPA could consider other factors i.e., reliability, 
effectiveness, and safety, when setting the DLCL).
    In addition to the areas which EPA has specifically requested 
comment, EPA requests comment on all other aspects of this proposed 
rule.

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-lead-based-paint-hazard-reduction-act-1992-title-x.
2. EPA. Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition 
of Lead-Based 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. 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.
5. HHS, National Toxicology Program. NTP Monograph on Health Effects 
of Low-Level Lead. National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. NIH Pub. No. 12-5996. ISSN 
2330-1279. June 13, 2012. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, HHS. 
Toxicological Profile for Lead. August 2020. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.
9. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children. Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead 
Exposures and Associated Health Impacts. December 2018. https://www.epa.gov/lead/federal-action-plan-reduce-childhood-lead-exposure.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 
Federal Register (86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021-01765.pdf.
13. The White House. Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review. 
January 20, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/.
14. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Reconsideration of the 
Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. June 
2023.
15. EPA. America's Children and the Environment (ACE). 
``Biomonitoring--Lead.'' June 29, 2022.https://www.epa.gov/americaschildrenenvironment/biomonitoring-lead.
16. EPA. Technical Support Document for the Reconsideration of the 
Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance 
Levels. June 2023.
17. EPA. Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-
Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
Statement. June 2023.
18. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. 
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide 
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives, 
125(9), 097009-097009. September 12, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
19. 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/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0395.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. TSCA Title IV, Lead Exposure Reduction. 15 U.S.C. 2681 et seq. 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title15/pdf/USCODE-2020-title15-chap53-subchapIV.pdf.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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,

[[Page 50473]]

September 15, 1999). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-09-15/pdf/99-23016.pdf.
29. EPA. Laboratory Quality System Requirements (LQSR) Revision 3.0. 
November 5, 2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/lqsr3.pdf.
30. Petition for Review, A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 
997 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2021) (No. 19-71930).
31. EPA. Testimony of Michal Ilana Freedhoff before the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. June 22, 2022. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/1/31e721e6-dc47-4eb3-a241-5dcb0d5c9221/1424B42DD6F7DF8A64EE202F42E44247. 06-22-2022-freedhoff-
testimony.pdf.
32. EPA. Testimony of Michael S. Regan before the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works. March 22, 2023. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/5/0/504a2c31-4291-496c-b37e-5322d5d5c7a8/3B200C21C840470316D7F6842BFDD9EE. 03-22-2023-regan-
testimony.pdf.
33. Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. EPA Long-
Term Actions. Spring 2023. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST¤tPubId=202304&showStage=longterm&agencyCd=2000.
34. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Technical 
Support Document for Residential Dust-lead Hazard Standards 
Rulemaking Approach taken to Estimate Blood Lead Levels and Effects 
from Exposures to Dust-lead. June 2019.
35. 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.
36. 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/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0259.
37. 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/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-0091.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Lanphear, Bruce P., et al. Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure 
and Children's Intellectual Function: International Pooled Analysis. 
Environmental Health Perspective. July 2005, 113(7):894-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16002379/.
41. Lanphear, Bruce P., et al. Erratum: ``Low-Level 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/.
42. 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/.
43. 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/EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0051-0050.
44. Ruckart PZ, Jones RL, Courtney JG, et al. Update of the Blood 
Lead Reference Value--United States, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 
2021; 70:1509-1512. DOI: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043a4.htm.
45. HHS, PHS, and CDC. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. 
October 1, 1991. https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/Prevguid/p0000029/p0000029.asp#head007001001000000.
46. 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-report-508.pdf.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.)
53. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Review of the 
Dust-lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of Lead-Based Paint. 
Response to Public Comments. June 2019. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166-0571.
54. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Review of the 
Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels. Response to Public 
Comments. December 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0063-0397.
55. 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.
56. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Stat Analysis 
Corporation. June 13, 2022.
57. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and HIH Laboratory, Inc. 
June 14, 2022.
58. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Batta Environmental. 
June 14, 2022.
59. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and EMSL Analytical, Inc. 
June 15, 2022.
60. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Environmental Hazard 
Services, LLC. June 21, 2022.
61. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Accurate Analytical 
Testing, LLC. June 22, 2022.
62. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Schneider 
Laboratories, Inc. June 30, 2022.
63. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and Marion County Health 
Department. July 11, 2022.
64. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and GPI. July 12, 2022.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. EPA. Summary of discussion between EPA and New York City 
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Healthy Homes Program. 
March 21, 2022.
68. 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.
69. HUD. Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. American 
Healthy Homes Survey II Lead Findings. Final Report.

[[Page 50474]]

October 29, 2021. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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/.
74. 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/.
75. Jenkins Morales, M., & Robert, S.A. 2022. Housing Cost Burden 
and Health Decline 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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-of-cold-homes-and-fuel-poverty.
85. ASHRAE Multidisciplinary Task Group. 2020. Damp Buildings, Human 
Health, and HVAC Design. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/damp-buildings-human-health-and-hvac-design?product_id=2110372.
86. HUD. Data compiled from HUD's Picture of Subsidized Households 
dataset, available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html.
87. 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.
88. 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/.
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Greif, Meredith. 2018. Regulating Landlords: Unintended 
Consequences for Poor Tenants. City & Community, 17:3, 658-674. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12321.
96. 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.
97. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in Housing. Second Edition, July 2012. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/healthy_homes/lbp/hudguidelines.
98. 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 Post-Abatement 
Clearance Levels; Proposed Rule (RIN 2070-AK91), (EPA ICR No. 
2760.01). June 30, 2023.
99. Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. Letter to EPA RE: 
Dust-Lead Hazard Standards (DLHS) and Dust-Lead Clearance Levels 
(DLCL) Reconsideration Rulemaking. January 10, 2023.
100. 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/laws-regulations/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, this analysis (Ref. 14), is available in the docket.

[[Page 50475]]

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed 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 the 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2760.01 (Ref. 98). You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    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 
current standard but at or above a lower final standard. 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. 
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 
0.08 hours and $4.37 per respondent, resulting in a total annual burden 
of 337 hours at a total annual cost of $13,272.
    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, post-abatement 
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 post-renovation checklists documenting lead-safe 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 Government-employed RRP professional 
certification applications and recordkeeping; and
     Submission of related fees.
    Incremental abatement notifications would be required when an 
abatement occurs due to the revised DLHS/DLCL and does not occur in the 
baseline; EPA estimates that 1,618 to 2,404 such notifications will 
incur average annual paperwork-associated costs of $149. Additional LBP 
workers may need to be hired and subsequently trained and certified to 
accommodate the additional dust-lead remediation activities triggered 
by the revised DLHS/DLCL. EPA estimates that 2,237 to 3,971 respondents 
will incur average annual paperwork-associated costs of $432. Because 
the EA finds that the revised DLHS/DLCL would increase the number of 
new lead hazard reduction events by no more than 5 per firm 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 assumes no new RRP firms 
or employees will enter the market in response to the DLHS/DLCL 
revision. 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 $89.21 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 $14.73.
    In addition, EPA currently receives approximately 90 percent of 
required notifications as well as applications for accreditation, 
certification, and re-certification 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 3) are described in an ICR approved under OMB 
Control No. 2025-0003. The amended information collection activities 
contained in this proposed 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 proposed rule 
would require regulated parties to submit notifications and 
applications through CDX.
    The ICR prepared for this proposed 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 lead-based paint activities and/or perform renovations 
of target housing or child-occupied 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 (40 CFR part 745).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8,897 to 11,417 (per year).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 23,329 to 38,985 hours (per year). Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1.3 million to $2.1 million (per year), 
includes no

[[Page 50476]]

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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments 
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the 
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. EPA will respond to 
ICR-related comments in the context of the 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 revised DLHS and DLCL 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 make incur costs associated with 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 39,000 small 
businesses would be directly affected by the revised DLHS and DLCL, of 
which 87% to 91% have cost impacts less than 1% of revenues, 9% to 12% 
have impacts between 1% and 3% of revenues, and 1% have impacts greater 
than 3% of revenues. The total estimated costs to small businesses are 
between $303.1 million and $414.4 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 lead-safe 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. 14).
    The EA estimates potential costs from the revised DLHS and DLCL 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 DLHS do not 
require the owners of properties covered by this proposed rule to 
evaluate their properties for the presence of dust-lead hazards, or to 
act if dust-lead hazards are identified. 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 incorporated by 
reference into 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 DLHS and DLCL do not impose new Federal 
requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared the written 
statement required under section 202 of UMRA (Ref. 17). The statement 
is included in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized 
here.
1. Authorizing Legislation
    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 
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also known as the 
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title 
X'') (Pub. L. 102-550) (Ref. 1) 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.
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    The EA (Ref. 14) 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 $536 million to $784 
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 inflation-adjusted $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 
$1.069 billion to $4.684 billion per year using a 3% discount rate and 
$231 million to $1.013 billion per year using a 7% discount rate. There 
are 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 $532 million 
to $3.899 billion per year using a 3% discount rate and -$302 million 
to $231 million per year using a 7% discount rate. EPA considers 
unquantified health benefits to be potentially important non-monetized 
impacts that contribute to the overall net benefits of this rule.
3. State, Local, and Tribal Government Input
    EPA sought input from State and local government representatives 
early in the rulemaking process during the joint intergovernmental 
consultation initiated in November 2022 and will continue to engage 
these partners throughout the rulemaking process. 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.
    This action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 
because it contains no regulatory requirements that exceed the 
inflation-adjusted cost significance threshold or

[[Page 50477]]

uniquely affect small governments. Additionally, although 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 as specified in Executive Order 
13175, the Agency is soliciting input from Tribal officials during the 
public comment period.

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 it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on public 
housing authorities that state or local governments may be obligated to 
offset, and while some HUD funding for LBP projects exists, the Federal 
Government may not provide the funds necessary to pay the entirety of 
the costs. These costs to public housing authorities--estimated at $143 
million for the primary option--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 $904 thousand. Additionally, states that have 
authorized LBP Activities programs must demonstrate that they have DLHS 
and DLCL 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 DLHS 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 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.
    During the consultation EPA presented an overview on LBP 
terminology, authorized programs and background on the DLHS and the 
DLCL, including the relevant statutory authority and regulatory and 
litigation history. EPA also discussed potentially impacted entities, 
especially those relevant to the organizations present, as well as the 
three regulatory approaches for DLHS (i.e., GTZ, numeric standard, and 
the post-1977 background) and what the Agency is considering while 
revising the DLCL. EPA concluded the consultation with a description of 
the preliminary costs and benefits, an update on target housing 
revisions, and a series of targeted questions for organizations' 
consideration.
    Throughout the presentation several clarifying questions/comments 
were posed and responded to about the program requirements, triggers, 
and impacted entities. One commenter inquired whether cost estimates 
were included for COFs. EPA responded that the costs to COFs had not 
been considered; these costs are now included in the analysis. The 
Agency has also added a request for comment seeking additional data on 
COFs, see Unit VII.
    Additionally, two commenters expressed concerns about having 
adequate funding for public housing authorities to meet their basic 
needs, such as electricity, and the inability to be proactive about 
issues such as lead, due to those same financial concerns. EPA 
appreciates those concerns being highlighted and will note 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 consider non-health factors when revising the DLCL. In this 
proposal EPA has a lower primary and higher alternative DLCL, which the 
Agency is requesting comment on. EPA has also spoken to nine NLLAP 
laboratories and has incorporated their feedback into the discussion 
surrounding DLCL within Unit IV.B. EPA is also requesting comment on a 
phased approach for the DLCL (i.e., lowering the DLCL to the 
alternative and then the primary options), and on whether this proposal 
will have impacts on tenants or landlords of public housing, including 
the potential to impact availability of federally assisted housing.
    After the consultation was complete, EPA provided the organizations 
and officials an opportunity to provide follow-up comments in writing. 
The Agency received one comment from a non-profit organization whose 
members consist of over seventy large public housing authorities (Ref. 
99). The commenter highlighted that a large portion of public housing 
properties are dated, resulting in many families and children who are 
living in dated housing units. They explained that public housing 
authorities have unmet financial needs and strongly encouraged the 
Agency to consider costs when revising the DLCL. The commenter 
expressed concerns about the lower DLCL resulting in a need to switch 
laboratory technology to ICP, which could require a larger surface 
area, increase turnaround time and an increase in costs. Feedback on 
all three DLHS approaches was also provided, notably that the post-1977 
background approach would incur the highest costs and was ``undesirable 
as currently presented'' and the commenter emphasized the importance of 
communication materials and clear communication surrounding the GTZ 
approach.
    The Agency appreciates the feedback provided to the EPA during the 
consultation process. Regarding concerns over the laboratories moving 
to ICP, EPA conducted laboratory outreach and included their feedback 
in this proposed rule. EPA is proposing the primary DLCL of 3/20/25 
[mu]g/ft\2\ and is also proposing an alternative DLCL of 5/40/100 
[mu]g/ft\2\ and requesting comment on both options. As mentioned above, 
EPA is also requesting comment on a phased approach to lowering the 
DLCL, as well as the proposal to extend the compliance date by one year 
and whether it should be shorter or longer to allow laboratories 
adequate time to adjust. Additionally, the Agency agrees that 
communication surrounding the GTZ approach may be an important element 
of this rulemaking and has added in an additional request for comment 
in Unit VII.

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

[[Page 50478]]

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 have DLHS and DLCL 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 DLHS and DLCL 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. 
However, EPA still intends to hold a Tribal consultation on this 
rulemaking in order to solicit input from Tribal officials from the 
four Indian Tribes with authorized programs during the public comment 
period. This consultation will also be open to any Tribal officials who 
would like to participate. EPA will ensure that the consultation 
materials are accessible to Tribal officials so that they may view it 
later as they consider submitting feedback during the public comment 
period. If a Tribal official is interested in attending the 
consultation on behalf of an Indian Tribe, please consult the technical 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 that Federal health and safety standards must include an 
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation 
on children. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 
is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 
Order 12866, 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. 14 and 16). The documents referenced 
above are available in the public docket for this action.
    The proposed DLHS 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; while the 
proposed DLCL is more health protective than the alternative in that it 
results in the least amount of dust-lead left on a surface after the 
completion of an abatement. EPA is proposing to revise the DLCL given 
the statutory criteria of reliability, effectiveness, and safety. 
Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also applies to this 
action. Discussion about how the Agency applied this policy is 
presented in Unit I.E.6.

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 proposing to formally incorporate 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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous 
peoples) and low-income populations.
    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 
people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. See 
discussion in Section 8.6 of the EA concerning existing 
disproportionate impacts of lead pollution faced by children 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 children 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, 49% of children who will benefit from 
the rule are members of households below the poverty line, compared to 
17% of children nationally who live below the poverty line. An 
estimated 44% of total monetized benefits from this rule accrue to 
children living in a household below the poverty line. 22-27% of 
children who will benefit from the rule are non-Hispanic Black, 
compared to 12% of children nationally who are non-Hispanic Black. An 
estimated 23% of total monetized benefits from this rule accrue to non-
Hispanic Black children.
    There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the environmental 
justice implications of this rule on HUD-assisted 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 Lead Strategy. Through the agency-wide 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. 100), 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. 14) and Lead Strategy (Ref. 10), both of 
which are available in the docket.

[[Page 50479]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is 
proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

PART 745--LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN 
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  745.63 by adding in alphabetical order a definition for 
``Reportable level'' to read as follows:

Sec.  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).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  745.65 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  745.65  Lead-based paint hazards.

* * * * *
    (b) Dust-lead hazard. Before [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a dust-lead 
hazard is surface dust in a residential dwelling or child-occupied 
facility that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to 
or exceeding 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors or 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
interior window sills based on wipe samples. On or after [DATE 12 
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER], a dust-lead hazard is surface dust in a residential dwelling 
or child-occupied facility that contains a mass-per-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.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  745.81 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(4)(i) and redesignating paragraph (a)(4)(ii) 
as paragraph (a)(4); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.81  Effective dates.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Work practices. * * *
* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  745.83, by adding in alphabetical order a definition for 
``Electronic'' to read as follows:

Sec.  745.83  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electronic means the submission of an application, payment, or 
notification using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX), or 
successor platform.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  745.89 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  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 re-certification. 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.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  745.90 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 re-take 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.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  745.92 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

[[Page 50480]]

Sec.  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 
accordance with the instructions provided with the application package.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  745.103 by revising the definition for ``Target 
housing'' to read as follows:

Sec.  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).
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  745.113 by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(1) and (4) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  745.223 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (1), (3)(i) through 
(iii), and (4) of the definition for ``Abatement'';
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Child-occupied facility'';
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Electronic'' and 
``Housing for the elderly''; and
0
d. Revising the definitions for ``Living area'' and ``Target housing''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  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 clearance 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 clearance levels), the permanent enclosure or 
encapsulation of lead-based paint, the replacement of painted surfaces 
or fixtures, or the removal or permanent covering of soil, when lead-
based paint hazards are present in such paint, dust or soil; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Shall result in the permanent elimination of lead-based paint 
hazards, in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance 
levels; or
    (B) Are designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards, 
in the case of dust-lead hazards to below the clearance 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 clearance 
levels, conducted by firms or individuals certified in accordance with 
Sec.  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 clearance 
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
* * * * *
    (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 clearance 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 clearance levels.
* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
    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).
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  745.225 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1), paragraphs 
(c)(13)(vi) and (14)(iii), the introductory text of paragraph (e)(5) 
and paragraph (f)(2);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (i)(2)(ii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (j)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: target housing and 
child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit an 
electronic

[[Page 50481]]

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 
the above 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).
* * * * *
    (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 re-accreditation 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.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec.  745.226 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1), introductory text of paragraph (e)(1), 
paragraphs (e)(2), (f)(2) and (3);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.226  Certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-
based paint activities: target housing and child-occupied 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 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 
Sec.  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 electronic application for 
certification to EPA.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  745.227 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (iv) and (v), (d)(3), (5), (6)(ii) 
and (7), (e)(4)(ii), (vii) and (8)(viii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(10)(vii); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (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)(1)(iii) 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 
single-surface 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 single-surface samples) shall be 
collected and

[[Page 50482]]

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 child-occupied 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) * * *
    (viii) Before [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the clearance levels for lead in 
dust are 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior 
window sills, and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs; on or after 
[DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER], the clearance levels for lead in dust are 3 
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, 
and 25 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (vii) On or after [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], when dust-lead clearance 
sampling results are below the dust-lead clearance levels and at or 
above the dust-lead hazard standards, a dust-lead hazard statement with 
the following language must be included:

    Although the completed abatement project achieved dust-lead 
levels below clearance, some dust-lead hazards remain because any 
reportable level of dust-lead is considered a dust-lead hazard. In 
order for abatement work to be considered complete, dust-lead levels 
must be below clearance 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) * * *
    (3) Dust-lead hazards and dust-lead clearance levels are identified 
for residential dwellings and child-occupied facilities as follows:
    (i) Before [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a dust lead-hazard is present in a 
residential dwelling on floors and interior window sills when the 
weighted arithmetic mean lead loading for all single surface or 
composite samples of floors and interior window sills are equal to or 
greater than 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
interior window sills, respectively; for projects where clearance 
sampling is required or otherwise performed, levels of lead in dust 
must be below 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors, 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
interior window sills, and 400 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window troughs for 
purposes of clearance; on or after [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a dust lead-
hazard is present in a residential dwelling 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 clearance sampling is required or otherwise 
performed, levels of lead in dust must be below 3 [micro]g/ft\2\ for 
floors, 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ for interior window sills, and 25 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for window troughs for purposes of clearance;
    (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 clearance sampling is required or otherwise 
performed, levels of lead in dust must be below the applicable value 
from paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section for purposes of clearance); 
and
    (iii) A dust lead-hazard is present on floors or interior window 
sills in an unsampled common area in a multi-family 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 clearance sampling 
is required or otherwise performed, levels of lead in dust must be 
below the applicable value from paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section for 
purposes of clearance).
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec.  745.238 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2),
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(3),
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  745.225, and the 
application fee described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (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.
* * * * *

[[Page 50483]]

0
16. Amend Sec.  745.325 by revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 clearance 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-15073 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P