[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 94 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28938-28939]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 178-045]

[Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Kern & Tule Hydro LLC; Notice
of Application for Transfer of License and Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Transfer of License and License Amendment.
    b. Project No.: 178-045.
    c. Date Filed: March 12, 2020.
    d. Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (transferor), Kern
& Tule Hydro LLC (transferee).
    e. Name of Project: Kern Canyon Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Kern River, Kern County,
California and occupies 11.26 acres of federal lands located within the
Sequoia National Forest and administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contacts: For Transferor: Ms. Annette Faraglia, Chief
Counsel, Hydro Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale
Street, B30A-3005, San Francisco, CA 94105, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Ms. Stephanie Maggard, Director,
Power Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 245 Market Street,
N11E-1136, San Francisco, CA 94105, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For Transferee: Ms. Ted S. Sorenson, P.E., Manager, Kern & Tule
Hydro LLC, P.O. Box 1855, Idaho Falls, ID 83403, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Mr. Miriah R. Elliott, Agent, Kern & Tule Hydro
LLC, 498 West 140 South, Ivins, UT 84738, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Mrs. Anumzziatta Purchiaroni,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mark Ivy,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: Within 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-178-045. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a
copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Transfer and Amendment Request: The applicants
request that the Commission transfer the Kern Canyon Hydroelectric
Project No. 178 from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to Kern &
Tule Hydro LLC (KTH). The applicants also request that the Commission
remove from the project an approximately 8.2-mile-long, 70 kilovolt
(kV) transmission line that connects the project powerhouse with PG&E's
integrated transmission system. The applicants state that the
transmission line segment is not used solely to transmit power from the
project to the interconnected grid and would remain part of the
interconnected transmission system even if the project did not exist.
Therefore, the transmission line segment does not qualify as a primary
transmission line and does not need to be part of the licensed project.
The switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse, as well as an approximately
300-foot-long segment of the 70-kV line running from the project
powerhouse to pole \0/1\ will remain in the license and will be
transferred to KTH. Furthermore, the applicants request that the
Commission revise the project boundary to remove 47.5 acres of land
which is occupied by the transmission line corridor.
    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. Currently, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    m. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of
comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling
link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may
mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: May 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10324 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18638-18641]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0240; FRL-8896-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Rochester Public Utility's Cascade Creek Generating Facility (Cascade
Creek), located in the city of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. On
March 5, 2008, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested
that EPA approve certain portions of a joint Title I/Title V document
into the Minnesota SO2 SIP for the Cascade Creek facility.
This SIP revision includes the addition of two new oil and gas fired
turbines and modification of the starter engine on the No. 1 turbine.
This SIP revision will show reduced emissions of SO2 from
this facility and the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) will be maintained in the area. Because the
SO2 emission limits are being reduced, the air quality of
Olmsted County will be protected.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 23, 2009, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 26, 2009. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0240, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0240. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is EPA Approving?

    EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP for Minnesota a joint
Title I/Title V document for the Rochester Public Utility's Cascade
Creek Facility (Cascade Creek), located in Rochester, Olmsted County,
Minnesota. This SIP amendment approval will replace the current Title I
SIP conditions under Air Emission Permit No. 00000610-001.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

A. What Prior SIP Actions Are Pertinent to This Action?

    Cascade Creek is an electrical generation facility consisting of
three combustion turbines and a diesel starter engine. The facility was
identified as a culpable source in the Rochester area at the time the
area was designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The
facility is now part of the SIP to maintain attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Rochester area. On February 7, 2008, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued an Air Emission Permit
No. 10900020-003 to Rochester Public Utilities. The permit is a joint
Title I/Title V document and will replace Permit No. 00000610-001, the
joint document currently approved into the SIP. Air Permit Nos.
10900020-001 and 002 were adopted at the state level, but the joint
documents were not submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP. These
permits authorized the modification of the existing turbine to allow
for burning of natural gas and distillate fuel oil and established
facility-wide Federally-enforceable

emission limits that restrict potential emissions to less than major
source levels under the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and New Source Review programs. These changes are being addressed
through EPA's action on joint Title I/Title V document 10900020-003.
Because the facility is located in the Rochester/Olmsted County
SO2 maintenance area, changes to the facility's operations
must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.

B. What Are the Revisions to the SIP?

    The revision involves changes to Cascade Creek's current operating
conditions and revisions to the applicable SO2 SIP
conditions currently listed in the Joint Title I/Title V document and
incorporated into Minnesota's SIP. The facility has accepted fuel
sulfur content limits that reduce SO2 beyond previously
permitted levels. This SIP revision also includes the addition of two
new oil and gas fired turbines and modification of the starter engine
on the No. 1 turbine.

C. Has Public Notice Been Provided?

    Minnesota published public notices for the Cascade Creek Facility
on December 20, 2007. No comments were received during the comment
period which ended on February 4, 2008. In the public notices,
Minnesota stated it would hold a public hearing if one were requested
during the comment period. This follows the alternative public
participation process EPA approved on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For
limited types of SIP revisions that the public has shown little
interest in, a public hearing is not automatically required. If anyone
requests a public hearing during the comment period, Minnesota will
hold a public hearing. Because no one requested a public hearing,
Minnesota did not hold a public hearing for this SIP revision.

D. What Are Title I Conditions and Joint Title I/Title V Documents?

    SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in
state-issued permits are not Federally-enforceable because the permits
expire. Minnesota then issued permanent Administrative Orders to
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
    Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into the
state SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any Title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
    Minnesota has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as
the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and
compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/
Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title I
conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent
and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint
Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements
and found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative
Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?

    Cascade Creek owned units included in the SO2 SIP for
the Rochester area. The facility has accepted fuel sulfur content
limits that reduced SO2 beyond previously permitted levels.
This SIP revision also includes the addition of two new oil and gas
fired turbines and modification of the starter engine on the No. 1
turbine.
    A modeling analysis conducted for the Cascade Creek Facility SIP
revision showed that incorporating a reduced fuel oil sulfur limit
resulted in less total SO2 impacts from operation of the
modified three-turbine system, as opposed to the single-turbine system.
Additionally, modeling shows that the location of the significant
impact area is much smaller for the modified facility and does not
include any new areas. Based on these modeled results, MPCA concluded
that the addition of the two new turbines did not jeopardize NAAQS
attainment.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    Due to the decrease in fuel oil sulfur content, overall emissions
of SO2 will decrease from current SIP conditions. Thus, the
Rochester area in Minnesota is expected to remain in attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS.
    SO2 causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of
existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain
and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major
cause of visibility impairment in the United States. Acid rain damages
lakes and streams, impairing aquatic life, and causes damage to
buildings, sculptures, statues and monuments. SO2 also
causes the loss of chlorophyll leading to vegetation damage.

V. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for the Cascade Creek Facility, located in the city
of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is only
approving into the SIP those portions of the joint Title I/Title V
document cited as ``Title I condition: State Implementation Plan for
SO2.''
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 23, 2009
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 26, 2009. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective June 23, 2009.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion''
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Name of source             Permit No.           State effective date                EPA approval date                     Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Rochester Public Utilities,         100900020-003  12/28/07.........................  4/24/09, [Insert page number      Only conditions cited as ``Title
 Cascade Creek Combustion.                                                             where the document begins].       I condition: SIP for SO2
                                                                                NAAQS.''

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-9368 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


P-19-0148-0151 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-19-0148-0151 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-19-0148 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-19-0149 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-19-0150 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-19-0151 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-19-0148 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-19-0149 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-19-0150 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-19-0151 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-19-0148 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-19-0149 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-19-0150 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-19-0151 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-19-0148 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-19-0149 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-19-0150 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-19-0151 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-19-0148 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-19-0149 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-19-0150 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-19-0151 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-19-0148-0151 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11618-11620]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4546]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice providing additional guidance on airfare/air tour price
advertisements.

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

SUMMARY: The Department is publishing the following notice providing
additional guidance on airfare/air tour price advertisements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Lowry, Attorney, Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements

    This notice provides additional guidance to airlines and ticket
agents that market prices for air transportation, air tours, or tour
components in connection with air transportation regarding the full
fare advertising rule. It describes several airline and ticket agent
practices that the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
(Enforcement Office) considers to violate section 399.84 and/or to be
unfair and deceptive and/or an unfair method of competition in
violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. The purpose of this notice is to urge
voluntary compliance by airlines and ticket agents and to announce the
office's intention to pursue enforcement action where it discovers such
practices, as appropriate.

Separate Listing of Taxes and Carrier Fees

    If a vendor chooses to make available information regarding the
amount of taxes and/or fees that are included in the full fare, the
disclosure must accurately distinguish between taxes and government
fees on the one hand and carrier-imposed fees on the other. In
addition, with respect to information about carrier-imposed fees
included in the full fare, such disclosure must accurately represent
the actual cost of the item for which the charge is assessed and must
not otherwise be deceptive.
    Under past policy that expired on January 25, 2012, fare
advertisements were permitted to state, separately from the base fare,
government fees and charges that were not ad valorem in nature.
Carrier-imposed charges, such as fuel or security surcharges, had to be
included in the base fare initially presented to consumers on Web site
displays, but carriers were allowed to break out these charges, along
with all government taxes and fees, in subsequent screens or through
pop-ups or hyperlinks. We have found, in reviewing airline Web sites,
that many Web sites which detailed additional fees labeled all
additional charges, government and carrier-imposed, as taxes when in
fact carrier-imposed fees were often the major portion of these fees.
Such displays were deceptive and in violation of section 41712.
    The Department's new consumer rule, ``Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections,'' 76 FR 23110 (Apr. 25, 2011), requires, among other
things, that the first price quote presented must be the full price,
including all taxes, fees and all carrier surcharges. This full price
provision became effective January 26, 2012. In response to concerns
expressed by carriers, the Department made clear in the preamble to the
rule that advertisers are free to advise the public in price
solicitations about government taxes and fees as well as carrier- or
agent-imposed fees that are included within the single total price, so
long as that notice is not deceptive. For example, as we explained in
the final rule, sellers of air transportation may have pop-ups or links
adjacent to an advertised price to take the consumer to a listing of
such charges, or they may display these charges on the same page in a
less prominent manner than the total price if they prefer.\1\ In
particular, the Department noted that any such charges must be
displayed on a per-passenger basis, accurately reflect the actual costs
of the service covered, and not otherwise be deceptive. (14 CFR 399.84,
76 FR 23110, 23143). When a cost component is described as a fuel
surcharge, for example, that amount

must actually reflect a reasonable estimate of the per-passenger fuel
costs incurred by the carrier above some baseline calculated based on
such factors as the length of the trip, varying costs of fuel, and
number of flight segments involved.\2\ Another example of a
solicitation likely to deceive and therefore prohibited under the rule
is a presentation of a fare as a ``total'' fare if it does not include
government taxes and fees or other mandatory charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
DOT, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, at 22 (Aug 19, 2011,
revised Sept. 6, 2011, and Oct 19, 2011), available at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/EAPP_22_FAQ --10-19-2011.pdf.
    \2\ For example, descriptions such as the following would be
acceptable: ``Fare includes a fuel surcharge. On average our
passengers paid $xx.xx more for fuel during 2011 in their ticket
price than they did in 2000;'' or ``Fares include a charge for fuel.
On average in 2011 our passengers paid $xx.xx for fuel as a part of
their ticket price.'' Of course, such assertions must be based on
the carrier's actual paid enplanements and fuel expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has come to our attention that some carriers and ticket agents
are providing notice of the cost components of airfares on their Web
site reservations systems in ways that are unfair and deceptive in
violation of section 41712. In some instances, the advertiser appears
to properly include government taxes and fees, as well as mandatory
carrier- or agent-imposed fees, in the initial fare quotations and
itinerary selections. However, on the page confirming the itinerary
selection, or on the fare quotation purchase page, where component
costs are displayed, a general category contains costs described as
``Taxes'' or ``Taxes incl 9/11 fee'' that actually include a carrier's
``fuel surcharge'' and/or other fees not imposed by a government. In
one particular example, the total fare for a U.S-Europe trip appears to
be properly listed as $769.41 on the initial itinerary pages, but the
confirming page describes the total as being composed of a ``Price'' of
$170 and ``Taxes incl 9/11 fee'' of $599.41. A further description of
the ``Taxes incl 9/11 fee'' discloses that the amount of $599.41
includes an amount of $476 described as a ``fuel surcharge'' and an
amount of $33.78 described as a ``Passenger service charge
international.'' These charges are not government-imposed taxes and
fees, and it is an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method
of competition in violation of section 41712 to lead consumers to
believe that they are.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that section 1104 of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-94, 126 Stat.11 (2012), includes
an amendment to the tax code that also may bear on what may be
included under a breakout of taxes in airfare advertising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In another example of non-government charges being included in an
amount described as ``taxes,'' advertisers present a category described
as ``taxes and fees'' where the amount in that category includes not
only government-imposed taxes and fees but carrier- or agent-imposed
fees, the latter of which may include ``fuel surcharges,''
``convenience'' fees, or other mandatory fees. Combining government-
imposed taxes and fees with those imposed by carriers or agents is
likely to confuse consumers and deceive them into believing the
government taxes and fees associated with their airfare are higher than
they actually are. Therefore, advertisers who desire to separately list
government taxes and fees as well as carrier- or agent-imposed fees
should ensure that they are not lumped together and described as
``taxes and fees.'' Language such as ``Taxes and carrier-imposed fees''
would be acceptable, for example.
    Moreover, using the particular example noted above, we wish to
remind carriers that amounts listed as charges for particular services
must accurately reflect the actual costs of the service covered.
Therefore, the ``fuel surcharge'' of $476 in the above example, which
is associated with a transatlantic trip originating in New York City,
must be an accurate reflection of the fuel cost over some reasonable
baseline for an individual passenger for that trip and the carrier
should be prepared to detail the services and costs per passenger
associated with its ``Passenger service charge international.''
    In a similar vein, we have observed that carriers may add ``fuel
surcharges'' or other fees to their frequent flyer ticket offerings,
some in an amount of several hundred dollars. Any such charges assessed
also must be fairly disclosed and an accurate reflection of the actual
costs as described above.

Advertising Each-Way Fares Based on a Roundtrip Purchase

    Under section 399.84(b), airlines and ticket agents are permitted
to advertise airfares on an each-way basis when a roundtrip purchase is
required provided that the roundtrip-purchase requirement is clearly
and conspicuously noted in the advertisement and is stated prominently
and proximately to the each-way fare amount. The Department has
historically allowed the marketing of each-way fares because it
facilitates the pricing and sale of ``open jaw'' itineraries (outbound
flights to one city and return flights from a different one, e.g.
Washington to Amsterdam with the return flight from Paris to
Washington). Such marketing also can provide consumers better fare
information where different prices exist for outbound and return
flights because one is in the high season or on a weekend and the other
flight is not.
    In the past, we have noted understandable variations in the price
of outbound and return flights sold on an each-way basis. For example,
fares could vary based on whether the travel was during high, low or
shoulder seasons, whether it was on a weekend or a weekday or whether
it was on flights during peak holiday periods or on other busy travel
days. Fares also could vary depending on the number of segment-related
taxes and government fees that might apply and for international travel
the varying U.S. and foreign arrival and connecting point taxes and
government fees that might apply. Until recently the variation in each-
way fares by direction was not a regulatory concern.
    Subsequent to the January 26, 2012, effective date of the full fare
advertising rule we observed that one carrier was offering outbound
each-way fares to European points that appeared to be deceptively low
in comparison to the return flight fares. In one case an outbound
Washington to Paris fare on February 22, 2012, was advertised at $102
with a return flight on February 29, 2012, advertised at $629 or more
than 600% higher. Even more troubling, a seat on the same February 29
flight was being offered for only $233 if it was bought as part of a
Paris-originating roundtrip to Washington. The only reasonable
explanation for such variations is that the carrier intended to bait
the passenger with an unrealistically low outbound fare and to induce
passengers to buy the roundtrip ticket at a substantially higher price
than any reasonable person would expect at the beginning of the search
process. We view such tactics as being unfair and deceptive and
amounting to an unfair method of competition.
    The requirements and guidance discussed above, it should be noted,
extend to travel agents and other non-airline vendors of air
transportation. Questions regarding this notice may be addressed to the
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), 400 7th St. SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. The office will provide those subject to the full
fare advertising rule and 49 U.S.C. 41712 60 days subsequent to the
date of this notice to ensure they are in compliance before instituting
enforcement action related to the issues covered in this notice.
    An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

     Dated: February 21, 2012.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2012-4546 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71178-71179]
[DOCID:fr25no05-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-14091]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Sherwood Brands, Inc.
To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, From Listing and
Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC

November 18, 2005.
    On June 20, 2005, Sherwood Brands, Inc., a North Carolina
corporation (``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, $.01 par value
(``Security''), from listing and registration on the American Stock
Exchange LLC (``Amex'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors (``Board'') of the Issuer unanimously
approved resolutions on March 2, 2005, to withdraw the Security from
listing and registration on Amex. The Issuer stated the Board
considered several factors relevant to its decision to withdraw the
Security from Amex, including, but not limited to the following: (i)
The limited number of holders of the Security; (ii) the Security is
very thinly traded; (iii) the nature and extent of trading in the
Security; (iv) the lack of analyst coverage and minimal liquidity of
the Security; and (v) the costs, both direct and indirect, associated
with the preparation and filing of the Issuer's periodic reports with
the Commission and Amex. The Board noted that the Issuer had
anticipated its legal, accounting, and insurance costs would increase
substantially as a result of recently enacted legislation affecting all
public companies (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). The Board believed
that in addition to the significant time and cost savings which would
result from deregistration, withdrawing the Security from listing and
registration on Amex would allow management to focus its attention and
resources on implementing the Issuer's business plan and exploring
financing and strategic alternatives for the business.
    The Issuer stated that it has met the requirements of Amex's rules
governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing
and registration by complying with all the applicable laws in effect in
the state of North Carolina, in which it is incorporated, and by
providing Amex with the required documents for withdrawal from Amex.
    The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the
Security from listing on Amex and from registration under Section 12(b)
of the Act,\3\ and shall not affect its obligation to be registered
under Section 12(g) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before December 14, 2005, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be

submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form(http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

the File Number 1-14091 or;

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-14091. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6513 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 19073-19074]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0172]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; New Animal Drugs for Investigational Use

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for ``New Animal Drugs for Investigational
Use.''

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the
Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

New Animal Drugs for Investigational Use--21 CFR Part 511 (OMB Control
Number 0910-0117)--Extension

    FDA has authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) to approve new animal drugs. Section 512(j) of the act (21
U.S.C 360b(j)), authorized FDA to issue regulations for the
investigational use of new animal drugs. The regulations which set
forth conditions for investigational use of new animal drugs are
codified under part 511 (21 CFR part 511). If a new animal drug is only
for tests in vitro, or testing in laboratory research animals, the
person distributing the new animal drug must maintain records showing:
(1) The name and post office address of the expert or expert
organization to whom the drug is shipped; and (2) the date, quantity,
batch or code mark for each shipment for a period of 2 years after such
shipment or delivery. Prior to shipping a new animal drug for clinical
investigations in animals, a sponsor must submit to FDA a Notice of
Claimed Investigational Exemption (NCIE). The NCIE must contain, among
other things, the following specific information: (1) The identity of
the new animal drug; (2) labeling; (3) a statement of compliance

of any non-clinical laboratory studies with good laboratory practices;
(4) the name and address of each clinical investigator; (5) the
approximate number of animals to be treated or amount of new animal
drug(s) to be shipped; and (6) information regarding the use of edible
tissues from investigational animals. Part 511 also requires that
records be established and maintained to document the distribution and
use of the investigational drug to assure that its use is safe and that
the distribution is controlled to prevent potential abuse. The agency
uses these required records under its Bio-Research Monitoring Program
to monitor the validity of the studies submitted to FDA to support new
animal drug approval and to assure that proper use of the drug is
maintained by the investigator.
    Investigational new animal drugs are used primarily by the
pharmaceutical industry, academic institutions, and the government.
Investigators may include individuals from these entities as well as
research firms and members of the medical professional. Respondents for
this collection of information are investigators who use new animal
drugs for investigational purposes.
    FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as
follows:

                                  Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual        Hours per
  21 CFR Section      Respondents        per Response        Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(4)                      134               7.66              1,027                  8              8,216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(5)                      134                .19                 25                140              3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(6)                      134                .01                  2                  1                  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(8)(ii)                  134                .11                 15                 20                300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(9)                      134                6.7                 20                  8                160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total              .................  .................  .................  .................             12,178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                                Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Annual Frequency
  21 CFR Section         No. of              per            Total Annual    Hours per  Record     Total Hours
                     Recordkeepers      Recordkeeping         Records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(a)(3)                      134               2.96                400                  9              3,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(3)                      134               7.66              1,027                  1              1,027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(7)(ii)                  134               7.46              1,000                3.5              3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
511.1(b)(8)(i)                   134               7.46              1,000                3.5              3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total              .................  .................  .................  .................             11,627
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The burden estimates for reporting requirements, record
preparation, and maintenance for this collection of information are
based on agency communication with industry and agency records. Based
on the number of sponsors subject to animal drug user fees, FDA
estimates there are 134 respondents. This estimate is used consistently
throughout the burden tables and for example, the ``annual frequency
per respondent'' was calculated by dividing the total annual responses
by the number of respondents. Additional information needed to make
final calculations for the total burden estimates in tables 1 and 2 of
this document, i.e., the hours per response, the hours per record, the
number of NCIEs received, etc., was derived from agency records.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA
through FDMS only.

    Dated: March 31, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-7255 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


October 30, 2007

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

FINAL REPORT

Statistical Analyses to Compare Average Levels of Lead in Paint

Between Housing Age Categories, for Household Surfaces Classified as
Containing Lead-Based Paint in Residences,

Using Data from the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing

Prepared by

BATTELLE

505 King Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693

Ron Morony, Work Assignment Manager

Sineta Wooten, Project Officer

Work Assignment 3-08

EPA Contract No. EP-W-04-021

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Battelle Disclaimer

This report is a work prepared for the United States Government by
Battelle. In no event shall either the United States Government or
Battelle have any responsibility or liability for any consequences of
any use, misuse, inability to use, or reliance upon the information
contained herein, nor does either warrant or otherwise represent in any
way the accuracy, adequacy, efficacy, or applicability of the contents
hereof.

EPA Disclaimer

The material in this document has not been subject to Agency technical
and policy review.  Views expressed by the authors are their own and do
not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey,
and should not be interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval,
endorsement, or recommendation.  Do not quote or cite this document.

Statistical Analyses to Compare Average Levels of Lead in Paint

Between Housing Age Categories, for Household Surfaces Classified as
Containing Lead-Based Paint

Introduction and Objectives

	The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is currently working to finalize the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RR&P) Rule, which will establish work
practice standards and training and certification requirements for
persons engaged in renovation activities for compensation within certain
housing units built prior to 1978 and found to contain lead-based paint.
 EPA’s proposed rule, published on January 10, 2006, as supplemented
on June 5, 2007 contained requirements that are aimed to reduce exposure
to lead hazards in such housing that may be created by performing
renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based
paint. The RR&P Rule supports the attainment of the Federal government's
goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in the U.S. by 2010.

	An important component to the economic analysis supporting the RR&P
Rule, which assesses the costs and benefits associated with the proposed
requirements, is a characterization of the levels of lead in paint on
building components within pre-1978 housing units, conditional on the
paint being characterized as lead-based (i.e., equal to or exceeding 1.0
mg of lead per square centimeter of painted surface area). This
characterization, with a focus on how lead levels in paint may differ
for housing units of different age ranges that were built while
lead-based paint was still sold for residential use, will aid in the use
of dust study data in the economic analysis.  The National Survey of
Lead and Allergens in Housing (NSLAH) is the most recent and complete
source of lead levels on painted surfaces in the nation’s housing.
The NSLAH, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS), was conducted in 1998-1999 to assess children's
potential exposure to lead and allergens in the home.  The target
population in this survey consisted of all permanently-occupied,
noninstitutional housing units in the U.S. housing stock, including
single- and multi-family buildings and manufactured housing units, in
which young children were permitted to live.  (Approximately 96 million
housing units existed within the target population at the time of the
survey.)  The NSLAH measured lead levels in various media, including
dust, soil, and paint, at each selected housing unit.  In particular,
within each unit, x-ray fluorescence (XRF) technology was used to
measure the concentration of lead on each painted surface in each of
four rooms, with each selected room representing one of the following
four room types: kitchen, common living areas, bedrooms (preferably
those containing children), and other rooms.

	The primary objectives of the statistical analyses presented in this
report were 1) to use XRF data collected within the NSLAH to
characterize lead levels in lead-based paint found in pre-1978 housing
according to housing stock vintage and specific building component
types, and 2) to identify those building components where statistically
significant differences exist in average XRF lead levels between
different housing age categories.

Conclusions

A statistical analysis was applied to XRF measurements within the NSLAH
that equaled or exceeded 1.0 mg/cm2 lead (i.e., representing lead levels
in lead-based paint) to determine the presence of significant
differences in average XRF measurements between specified housing age
categories (as defined by year built).  Data for all housing sampled in
the NSLAH and built prior to 1978 were included in this analysis.
Separate data analyses were performed for different types of interior
and exterior painted building components.  While EPA selected one set of
housing age categories for this analysis (pre-1930, 1930-1949,
1950-1959, 1960-1977), an alternative set was also considered for
illustrative purposes, and its results are presented in Appendix A.

Significant differences among pairs of housing age categories (at an
overall 0.05 level) in average XRF measurements (where these
measurements equaled or exceeded 1.0 mg/cm2 lead) occurred for exterior
building components but not interior components.  When exterior surfaces
were considered as a single group, housing built prior to 1930 had
significantly different average XRF measurements for this group compared
to housing in each of the other three age categories (i.e., 1930-1949,
1950-1959, 1960-1977), with higher average XRF measurements occurring in
the pre-1930 category.  When building components were further
categorized by their specific type (i.e., walls/floors/ceilings,
windows, doors, and trim), significant differences in average XRF
measurements continued to exist between housing age categories for each
exterior building component type, but not for interior components.  For
each of the exterior component types, the significant differences
consisted of the following age categories being significantly different
from the pre-1930 age category:

1930-1949 homes, for exterior walls and windows.

1950-1959 homes, for exterior walls, windows, doors, and trim.

1960-1977 homes, for exterior windows, doors, and trim.

Methods

	The NSLAH featured a complex probabilistic survey design, where
eligible units within the target population differed in their
probability of selection to the survey.  As a result, survey weights
were assigned to each of the 831 housing units that were selected to
participate in the survey.  Two sets of weights have been calculated:
one set representing all stages of sampling to the housing unit level,
and another set representing all stages to the room/component level.  By
incorporating these weights properly within data summaries, it is
possible to use data collected at the housing unit level to obtain
representative, unbiased estimates of unknown parameters, such as
average XRF lead levels, within the nation’s housing stock.  The
summaries and analyses presented in this report account for the survey
weights.

	Housing Age Categories.  Within the NSLAH database, each surveyed
housing unit is identified according to the year in which it was built,
with this value occasionally having been derived (as noted in the
survey’s data file documentation) if the respondent did not specify a
year within the questionnaires.  Thus, the housing units could be
categorized within any pre-defined set of housing age categories.
Published NSLAH reports focus on the following categorization:  pre-1940
housing, 1940-1959 housing (broken down into 1940-1945 and 1946-1959
groups within the NSLAH database), 1960-1977 housing, and 1978-1998
housing.  For the analyses presented in this report, data for housing
units built in 1978 or later (when the sale of lead-based paint was
banned for residential use in the United States) were excluded.  Upon
reviewing several different sets of housing age categories, EPA selected
the following set of housing age categories within which average XRF
lead levels would be summarized and the results used in further
evaluations:

Selected set

Units built prior to 1930

Units built between 1930 and 1949

Units built between 1950 and 1959

Units built between 1960 and 1977.

This report summarizes XRF levels in lead-based paint for specific
building component types according to this housing age categorization.
In addition, for illustrative purposes, the report presents a second set
of summaries (within Appendix A) for the following alternative set of
housing age categories:

Alternative set

Units built prior to 1920

Units built between 1920 and 1939

Units built between 1940 and 1959

Units built between 1960 and 1977.

Other sets of housing age categories which EPA had also considered
previously include the five sets listed in Table 1.  Outcomes of the
statistical analyses associated with these other sets of categories were
similar in nature to the findings summarized in this report.

Table 1.	Other Housing Age Categories which EPA Considered When
Summarizing Average XRF Measurements from Lead-Based Painted Surfaces
for Use in the RRP Rulemaking Process

Pre-1950

1950 - 1959

1960 - 1978	Pre-1950

1950 - 1978	Pre-1930

1930 - 1949

1950 - 1978	Pre-1940

1940 - 1959

1960 - 1978	Pre-1930

1930 - 1939

1940 - 1949

1950 - 1959

1960 - 1969

1970 - 1977

Building Component Categories.  For each NSLAH housing unit, database
records containing XRF measurements were categorized according to the
type of building component that they represented (as specified within a
database variable named COMPCAT).  The following eight building
component categories were defined:

Interior walls, ceilings, or floors (COMPCAT=1)

Exterior walls (COMPCAT=51)

Interior windows (COMPCAT=2)

Exterior windows (COMPCAT=52)

Interior doors (COMPCAT=3)

Exterior doors (COMPCAT=53)

Interior trim (COMPCAT=4)

Exterior trim (COMPCAT=54).

XRF measurements for other building components that were not among these
eight categories were not included in the analysis.  This report
presents XRF data summaries for each of these eight categories, as well
as for two more general categories of interior and exterior building
components, where the four interior building component categories were
collapsed into a single “interior” category, and the four exterior
component categories were collapsed into an “exterior” category.

	For a given building component category, each housing unit was
classified as to whether or not at least one tested component within the
category resulted in an XRF measurement that equaled or exceeded 1.0
mg/cm2 of lead (meaning   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 lead-based paint was found
to be present in at least one instance).  For a given housing age
category, this classification was used to determine the number of
sampled units with lead-based paint somewhere on that particular
component type, as well as to generate an estimate for the total number
of units in the housing stock with this characteristic (using weights
that account for sampling at the housing unit level).

	Calculation of Descriptive Statistics.  Only NSLAH database records
corresponding to building components with XRF measurements exceeding 1.0
mg/cm2 of lead were considered when calculating descriptive statistics
of XRF measurements.  These statistics were calculated across housing
units, rooms, and tested components, with separate sets of statistics
calculated for each housing age category and building component type.
To make the statistics representative of building components containing
lead-based paint within the housing stock population targeted in the
NSLAH, they were calculated utilizing sampling weights that account for
sampling down to the building component level.  The DESCRIPT procedure
in Version 9.0.1 of SUDAAN® was used to calculate these descriptive
statistics, which included the arithmetic and geometric means, standard
error of the mean, and the 25th, 50th (i.e., median), and 75th
percentiles.  In addition to the sampling weights, this procedure used a
set of jackknife replicate weights provided in the NSLAH database when
calculating the standard error of the mean.

	Statistical Analysis.  The statistical analysis, which compared average
XRF measurements (for components found to contain lead-based paint)
between housing age categories for a given building component type,
utilized a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach.  This analysis
was performed using the REGRESS procedure in Version 9.0.1 of SUDAAN®
and utilized the sampling weights (and corresponding jackknife replicate
weights) that account for sampling down to the building component level.
 The ANOVA model expressed XRF measurements as an overall average that
is allowed to vary by housing age category, plus random variation.
Within the ANOVA, statistical tests were performed to make comparisons
between each pair of housing age categories in order to determine which
pairs have arithmetic means that differ significantly from each other.
Because a set of housing age categories consisted of four categories, a
total of six pairs of categories existed.  To keep the overall Type I
error probability among all six pairwise comparisons (i.e., making at
least one incorrect conclusion of significant difference) to no higher
than 0.05, each comparison was tested at a 0.05/6=0.0083 significance
level.  These comparisons were performed using a chi-square test
statistic and Satterthwaite’s adjusted degrees of freedom.

Results

For the set of housing age categories that EPA selected for
consideration in the RRP rulemaking process, Tables 2 and 3 present the
values of the descriptive statistics that were calculated from XRF
measurements in the NSLAH database that equaled or exceeded 1.0 mg/cm2,
calculated for each housing age category and building component type.
Table 2 divides building components among two categories (interior and
exterior), while Table 3 considers eight different building component
categories.

The arithmetic means and standard errors listed in Table 2 are expressed
graphically in Figure 1a, and those listed in Table 3 are presented in
Figure 2a (for interior components) and Figure 2b (for exterior
components).  Within each of these figures, the bars represent the
arithmetic means, while plus and minus one standard error of the mean
emanate as lines from the top of each bar.  By observing the heights of
the bars and the size of the standard errors, these charts allow for
significant differences in the arithmetic means among housing age
categories to be more easily noticed.  Utilizing the same bar chart
format, Figure 1b presents the geometric means from Table 2, while
Figure 2c (for interior components) and Figure 2d (for exterior
components) present geometric means from Table 3.  (Note that standard
errors could be calculated for arithmetic means only, and therefore, the
bar charts of geometric means do not have standard error bars included.)

When classifying building components as only interior vs. exterior
(Table 2), both arithmetic and geometric means are similar between these
two types of components for a given housing age category.  The pre-1930
category has arithmetic and geometric means that are nearly twice the
size of those observed for 1930-1949 housing, and over twice the size of
the means for 1950-1959 and 1960-1977 housing.

Regardless of whether building components were classified into two or
eight categories, significant differences (at the 0.0083 level) in the
arithmetic means between pairs of age categories occurred only among
exterior building components, and not for interior components.  When all
exterior building components were grouped together (Table 2), each of
the three categories covering 1930-1977 housing were significantly
different from pre-1930 housing for exterior surfaces.  When data for
the four exterior building component types were analyzed separately
(Table 3), the following housing age categories were found to be
significantly different from pre-1930 homes for the specified exterior
building components:

1930-1949 homes, for exterior walls and windows.

1950-1959 homes, for exterior walls, windows, doors, and trim.

1960-1977 homes, for exterior windows, doors, and trim.

Thus, the analysis in Table 3 concluded that all three age categories
representing housing built in 1930 or later had significantly different
average XRF levels on exterior windows compared to pre-1930 housing,
while for exterior doors and trim, only the two age categories
representing housing built in 1950 or later differed significantly from
pre-1930 housing.  None of the building component types had significant
differences present among the three age categories representing housing
built in 1930 or later.  When significant differences with pre-1930
housing were present among exterior building components, average XRF
measurements were higher in pre-1930 housing.

	For the alternative set of housing age categories, Appendix A contains
the same set of descriptive statistics, tables, and bar charts for XRF
measurements within these categories.

Further investigation of the XRF data demonstrated that there is
considerable skewness in the distribution of XRF measurements within
each age category for both interior and exterior building components, as
would be expected with such measures, with most of the measurements
clustered between 1.0 and 5.0 mg/cm2 and occasional large measurements
leading to extended right tails in the distribution.  This finding
suggests that the geometric means in Figure 1b and Figure 2b are more
representative of the central tendency of the distribution than are the
arithmetic means, due to the heavier influence that large XRF measures
have on the arithmetic mean compared to the geometric mean.  When the
statistical analyses in Table 2 were repeated on log-transformed XRF
measures (to better account for the skewed distribution), significant
differences among age categories in their average log-transformed XRF
measures were noted for exterior components, but not for interior
components.  For exterior components, those pairs of housing age
categories that the analyses of the log-transformed XRF measures found
to be significantly different at an overall 0.05 level included the
pre-1930 category paired with each of the other three categories (which
Table 2 also notes as being significantly different when untransformed
data were analyzed), as well as the pair consisting of 1930-1949 housing
and 1950-1959 housing.

Table 2.	Descriptive Statistics on XRF Measures from Pre-1978 Housing
Units Participating in the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing, from Building Components Found to Contain Lead-Based Paint, and
Estimated Numbers of Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint, for the
Selected Set of Housing Age Categories and Interior vs. Exterior
Building Components

House Age Categories	# Houses Sampled 	# Sampled

Housing Units with LBP	Estimated #

U.S. Housing Units with LBP (1,000)	Summary of XRF Measures (mg/cm2)
Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2

Arithmetic

Mean	Standard Error of the Mean	Geometric Mean	25th

Percentile	Median	75th

Percentile

Interior Components

Pre-1930	140	108	12,233	9.92	4.89	6.30	2.59	6.43	14.86

1930-1949	74	48	5,558	5.34	2.40	3.34	1.36	2.36	7.95

1950-1959	130	46	4,940	4.73	4.01	3.14	1.41	2.71	5.43

1960-1977	267	40	4,298	5.99	9.68	3.66	1.90	3.06	5.06

Exterior Components

Pre-1930	134	93	10,643	10.68	1.03	6.07	2.39	5.93	15.86

1930-1949	72	51	6,145	5.49(1)	0.79	3.77	1.86	3.43	7.58

1950-1959	125	65	6,843	3.58(1)	0.45	2.53	1.46	1.95	3.53

1960-1977	251	34	3,323	4.80(1)	0.70	3.35	1.73	2.98	5.95

(1)  Significantly different from the pre-1930 housing group at a
0.05/6=0.0083 level.

Table 3.	Descriptive Statistics on XRF Measures from Pre-1978 Housing
Units Participating in the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing, from Building Components Found to Contain Lead-Based Paint, and
Estimated Numbers of Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint, for the
Selected Set of Housing Age Categories and Eight Different Building
Components

Age Categories	# Houses Sampled 	# Sampled

Housing Units with LBP	Estimated #

U.S. Housing Units with LBP (1,000)	Summary of XRF Measures (mg/cm2)
Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2

Arithmetic

Mean	Standard Error of the Mean	Geometric Mean	25th

Percentile	Median	75th

Percentile

Interior Walls, Ceilings, or Floors

Pre-1930	139	54	6,241	8.88	3.04	5.17	1.95	4.46	14.00

1930-1949	73	24	2,224	4.73	0.85	3.25	1.62	2.45	5.92

1950-1959	130	20	2,140	7.33	2.76	4.98	2.20	4.50	12.94

1960-1977	267	15	1,514	13.03	7.41	6.76	1.75	6.80	24.45

Exterior Walls

Pre-1930	100	53	6,167	7.12	1.01	4.29	1.96	3.61	8.02

1930-1949	58	20	2,415	4.04(1)	0.90	3.01	1.82	2.35	3.87

1950-1959	96	26	2,618	2.84(1)	0.42	2.29	1.45	1.88	3.02

1960-1977	180	18	1,962	5.57	1.21	3.71	1.97	3.20	6.61

Interior Windows

Pre-1930	135	90	9,830	10.51	3.18	6.77	2.98	6.74	15.95

1930-1949	71	30	3,452	6.16	0.99	4.06	1.78	3.32	9.09

1950-1959	120	25	2,753	4.13	4.62	2.73	1.24	2.06	5.00

1960-1977	236	20	2,092	3.33	2.74	2.80	1.97	2.19	3.85

Table 3.  (cont.)

Age Categories	# Houses Sampled 	# Sampled

Housing Units with LBP	Estimated #

U.S. Housing Units with LBP (1,000)	Summary of XRF Measures (mg/cm2)
Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2

Arithmetic

Mean	Standard Error of the Mean	Geometric Mean	25th

Percentile	Median	75th

Percentile

Exterior Windows

Pre-1930	96	58	6,630	13.92	2.32	8.57	3.72	7.68	20.88

1930-1949	47	28	3,271	5.57(1)	0.80	3.92	1.96	4.04	6.61

1950-1959	84	39	3,903	4.34(1)	0.84	3.00	1.65	2.31	4.39

1960-1977	120	17	1,798	4.15(1)	1.05	2.96	1.56	3.08	3.43

Interior Doors

Pre-1930	138	66	7,889	9.51	7.81	6.27	2.58	6.98	14.51

1930-1949	74	31	3,599	3.59	10.59	2.10	1.15	1.35	2.38

1950-1959	124	27	2,936	4.09	1.30	3.01	1.48	3.52	4.30

1960-1977	262	19	1,541	2.85	1.36	2.32	1.09	2.78	4.18

Exterior Doors

Pre-1930	125	64	6,907	11.07	1.90	6.31	2.47	4.47	17.32

1930-1949	70	35	4,113	6.72	1.32	4.41	2.05	3.66	9.53

1950-1959	119	36	4,003	3.89(1)	0.84	2.58	1.40	1.98	3.49

1960-1977	233	16	1,717	4.09(1)	1.02	2.99	1.48	2.58	4.38

Interior Trim

Pre-1930	130	50	6,330	8.55	1.18	5.43	2.06	6.36	13.32

1930-1949	64	13	1,110	7.34	2.01	5.15	2.22	4.59	9.39

1950-1959	105	12	1,222	4.16	1.14	2.81	1.35	2.87	3.08

1960-1977	219	9	1,075	8.85	3.09	7.20	4.44	8.90	---

Exterior Trim

Pre-1930	62	20	2,302	15.94	3.45	9.01	2.56	15.91	20.63

1930-1949	31	2	382	6.59	4.50	4.99	---	---	---

1950-1959	64	14	1,737	2.74(1)	0.91	1.98	---	1.51	2.26

1960-1977	128	14	1,429	4.47(1)	0.82	3.53	1.78	3.00	6.09

(1)  Significantly different from the pre-1930 housing group at a
0.05/6=0.0083 level.

Figure 1a.	Arithmetic Means (± standard error bars) for XRF
Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing,
for Each of the Selected Set of Housing Age Categories and Interior vs.
Exterior Building Components

Figure 1b.	Geometric Means for XRF Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on
Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing, for Each of the Selected Set of
Housing Age Categories and Interior vs. Exterior Building Components

Figure 2a.	Arithmetic Means (± standard error bars) for XRF
Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing,
for Each of the Selected Set of Housing Age Categories and Eight
Different Interior Building Components

Figure 2b.	Arithmetic Means (± standard error bars) for XRF
Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing,
for Each of the Selected Set of Housing Age Categories and Eight
Different Exterior Building Components

Figure 2c.	Geometric Means for XRF Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on
Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing, for Each of the Selected Set of
Housing Age Categories and Eight Different Interior Building Components

Figure 2d.	Geometric Means for XRF Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on
Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing, for Each of the Selected Set of
Housing Age Categories and Eight Different Exterior Building Components

Appendix A

Statistical Summaries for an Alternative Set

of Housing Age Categories

For the alternative set of housing age categories (pre-1920, 1920-1939,
1940-1959, 1960-1977), Tables A-1 and A-2 present the values of the
descriptive statistics that were calculated from XRF measurements in the
NSLAH database that equaled or exceeded 1.0 mg/cm2, calculated for each
housing age category and building component type.  Table A-1 divides
building components among two categories (interior and exterior), while
Table A-2 considers eight different building component categories.

The arithmetic means and standard errors listed in Table A-1 are
expressed graphically in Figure A-1a, and those listed in Table A-2 are
presented in Figure A-2a (for interior components) and Figure A-2b (for
exterior components).  Figure A-1b presents the geometric means from
Table A-1, while Figure A-2c (for interior components) and Figure A-2d
(for exterior components) present geometric means from Table A-2.

Table A-1 indicates that for exterior building components, each of the
two most recent categories (covering housing built after 1939) had
average XRF measures (when the XRF measures represented lead-based
paint) that were significantly different from each of the two earliest
categories (covering pre-1940 housing).   Significant differences were
not observed for interior building components, due to considerably
larger variability estimates within each age category (as seen by the
sizes of the standard errors of the mean of the untransformed XRF
measures) compared to exterior components.

As noted in Table A-2, all but one instance of significant differences
among arithmetic means occurred with exterior building components.
Among interior building components, significant differences were seen
only for interior windows, where 1960-1977 housing was significantly
different from pre-1920 housing.  Among exterior components, significant
differences in arithmetic means from pre-1920 homes were observed in
only one instance:  on exterior walls in 1940-1959 homes.  The most
frequent occurrences of significant differences within exterior
components were with 1920-1939 homes, which were seen in the following
instances:

1940-1959 homes, for exterior walls, windows, doors, and trim.

1960-1977 homes, for exterior windows and doors.

All cases of significant differences among pairs of building age
categories found higher averages for the older housing category within a
pair.

Table A-1.	Descriptive Statistics on XRF Measures from Pre-1978 Housing
Units Participating in the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing, from Building Components Found to Contain Lead-Based Paint, and
Estimated Numbers of Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint, for the
Alternative Set of Housing Age Categories and Interior vs. Exterior
Building Components

House Age Categories	# Houses Sampled 	# Sampled

Housing Units with LBP	Estimated #

U.S. Housing Units with LBP (1,000)	Summary of XRF Measures (mg/cm2)
Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2

Arithmetic

Mean	Standard Error of the Mean	Geometric Mean	25th

Percentile	Median	75th

Percentile

Interior Components

Pre-1920	30	28	3,625	11.67	3.29	7.03	2.60	7.38	21.23

1920-1939	128	94	10,040	8.60	5.84	5.58	2.35	5.80	13.03

1940-1959	186	80	9,066	4.70	3.11	3.04	1.31	2.24	5.92

1960-1977	267	40	4,298	5.99	9.68	3.66	1.90	3.06	5.06

Exterior Components

Pre-1920	29	23	2,948	13.40	2.56	7.46	2.59	6.92	19.85

1920-1939	123	85	9,255	8.83	0.72	5.29	2.31	4.11	12.77

1940-1959	179	101	11,428	4.09(1) (2)	0.41	2.85	1.50	2.27	4.44

1960-1977	251	34	3,323	4.80(1) (2)	0.70	3.35	1.73	2.98	5.95

(1)  Significantly different from the pre-1920 housing group at a
0.05/6=0.0083 level

(2)  Significantly different from the 1920-1939 housing group at a
0.05/6=0.0083 level.

Table A-2.	Descriptive Statistics on XRF Measures from Pre-1978 Housing
Units Participating in the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing, from Building Components Found to Contain Lead-Based Paint, and
Estimated Numbers of Housing Units with Lead-Based Paint, for the
Alternative Set of Housing Age Categories and Eight Different Building
Components

Age Categories	# Houses Sampled 	# Sampled

Housing Units with LBP	Estimated #

U.S. Housing Units with LBP (1,000)	Summary of XRF Measures (mg/cm2)
Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2

Arithmetic

Mean	Standard Error of the Mean	Geometric Mean	25th

Percentile	Median	75th

Percentile

Interior Walls, Ceilings, or Floors

Pre-1920	29	17	2,031	11.25	6.09	6.43	2.11	4.78	22.01

1920-1939	128	44	4,939	6.39	0.82	4.04	1.63	3.27	9.47

1940-1959	185	37	3,634	6.26	1.56	4.20	1.92	4.18	7.47

1960-1977	267	15	1,514	13.03	7.41	6.76	1.75	6.80	24.45

Exterior Walls

Pre-1920	24	16	2,221	8.83	1.95	5.11	1.58	5.83	8.78

1920-1939	92	42	4,524	5.95	0.97	3.89	2.13	2.68	7.64

1940-1959	138	41	4,456	3.08(1)(2)	0.43	2.40	1.48	1.90	3.29

1960-1977	180	18	1,962	5.57	1.21	3.71	1.97	3.20	6.61

Interior Windows

Pre-1920	29	23	2,853	12.19	2.12	7.49	2.94	8.16	21.19

1920-1939	124	79	8,254	9.17	5.34	6.05	2.71	5.98	13.24

1940-1959	173	43	4,928	4.98	2.52	3.18	1.31	2.22	7.59

1960-1977	236	20	2,092	3.33(1)	2.74	2.80	1.97	2.19	3.85

Table A-2.  (cont.)

Age Categories	# Houses Sampled 	# Sampled

Housing Units with LBP	Estimated #

U.S. Housing Units with LBP (1,000)	Summary of XRF Measures (mg/cm2)
Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2

Arithmetic

Mean	Standard Error of the Mean	Geometric Mean	25th

Percentile	Median	75th

Percentile

Exterior Windows

Pre-1920	21	16	2,079	16.41	5.93	9.73	5.10	7.15	28.40

1920-1939	85	50	5,373	11.08	1.63	6.93	2.53	7.48	16.01

1940-1959	121	59	6,353	4.71(2)	0.59	3.30	1.64	2.81	5.96

1960-1977	120	17	1,798	4.15(2)	1.05	2.96	1.56	3.08	3.43

Interior Doors

Pre-1920	29	17	2,096	10.34	7.80	6.51	2.68	8.66	14.69

1920-1939	127	60	6,937	8.62	5.43	5.45	2.20	6.00	13.76

1940-1959	180	47	5,391	3.22	3.89	2.28	1.23	1.75	3.73

1960-1977	262	19	1,541	2.85	1.36	2.32	1.09	2.78	4.18

Exterior Doors

Pre-1920	28	15	1,852	15.87	5.26	9.23	2.48	9.62	25.91

1920-1939	115	59	5,982	9.46	1.36	5.65	2.43	3.80	16.99

1940-1959	171	61	7,189	4.65(2)	0.74	3.09	1.51	2.54	4.78

1960-1977	233	16	1,717	4.09(2)	1.02	2.99	1.48	2.58	4.38

Interior Trim

Pre-1920	28	13	1,839	11.70	3.66	6.61	1.96	10.55	19.96

1920-1939	118	43	5,129	7.58	1.01	5.24	2.23	6.05	10.00

1940-1959	153	19	1,695	4.30	1.09	2.89	1.38	2.71	3.09

1960-1977	219	9	1,075	8.85	3.09	7.20	4.44	8.90	---

Exterior Trim

Pre-1920	18	8	818	20.01	8.07	11.89	3.10	16.22	20.67

1920-1939	51	12	1,484	13.59	3.42	7.67	1.91	9.97	19.12

1940-1959	88	16	2,119	3.44(2)	1.09	2.34	---	1.68	2.93

1960-1977	128	14	1,429	4.47	0.82	3.53	1.78	3.00	6.09

(1)  Significantly different from the pre-1920 housing group at a
0.05/6=0.0083 level.

(2)  Significantly different from the 1920-1939 housing group at a
0.05/6=0.0083 level.

Figure A-1a.	Arithmetic Means (± standard error bars) for XRF
Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing,
for Each of the Alternative Set of Housing Age Categories and Interior
vs. Exterior Building Components

Figure A-1b.	Geometric Means for XRF Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2
on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing, for Each of the Alternative Set of
Housing Age Categories and Interior vs. Exterior Building Components

Figure A-2a.	Arithmetic Means (± standard error bars) for XRF
Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing,
for Each of the Alternative Set of Housing Age Categories and Eight
Different Interior Building Components

Figure A-2b.	Arithmetic Means (± standard error bars) for XRF
Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2 on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing,
for Each of the Alternative Set of Housing Age Categories and Eight
Different Exterior Building Components

Figure A-2c.	Geometric Means for XRF Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2
on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing, for Each of the Alternative Set of
Housing Age Categories and Eight Different Interior Building Components

Figure A-2d.	Geometric Means for XRF Measurements Exceeding 1.0 mg/cm2
on Painted Surfaces in U.S. Housing, for Each of the Alternative Set of
Housing Age Categories and Eight Different Exterior Building Components

 The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act of 1971, as amended by
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, established 1.0
mg/cm2 as the Federal threshold for lead on painted architectural
components in public and Indian housing, where exceeding this threshold
(along with paint condition standards) can trigger abatement of the
paint due to the lead hazard.  Title X of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 provides the Federal definition of lead-based
paint, applicable to all housing, as paint containing 1.0 mg/cm2 of lead
or 0.5% lead by weight.

 See footnote on previous page.

Battelle	  PAGE  8 	June 25, 2007

WA 3-08, Contract No. EP-W-04-021

Battelle	  PAGE  1 	October 30, 2007

WA 3-08, Contract No. EP-W-04-021