[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30889-30901]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14094]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 127 / Monday, July 2, 2018 / Proposed
Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166; FRL-9976-04]
RIN 2070-AJ82

Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of
Lead-Based Paint

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Addressing childhood lead exposure is a priority for EPA. As
part of EPA's efforts to reduce childhood lead exposure, EPA evaluated
the current dust-lead hazard standards (DLHS) and the definition of
lead-based paint (LBP). Based on this evaluation, EPA is proposing to
lower the DLHS from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/
ft\2\ and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors and window sills, respectively. EPA
is proposing no changes to the current definition of LBP due to
insufficient information to support such a change.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0166, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
John Yowell, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-
564-1213; email address: [email protected].
    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 LBP
activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.227, if you operate a training
program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a
firm or individual who must be certified to conduct LBP activities in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you conduct rehabilitations in
accordance with 24 CFR 35. You may also be affected by this action, in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.107, as the seller or lessor of target
housing, which is most pre-1978 housing. See 40 CFR 745.103. For
further information regarding the authorization status of States,
territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information Center
at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323). The following list of North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities
may include:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction,
residential remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g.,
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors,
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
     Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
e.g., training providers.
     Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling
technicians.
     Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g.,
firms and supervisors engaged in LBP activities.
     Federal agencies that own residential property (NAICS code
92511, 92811).
     Property owners, and property owners that receive
assistance through Federal housing programs (NAICS code 531110,
531311).

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

    EPA is proposing this rule under sections 401, 402, 403, and 404 of
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., as
amended by Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
(also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992 or ``Title X'') (Pub. L. 102-550) (Ref. 1). TSCA section 403 (15
U.S.C. 2683) mandates EPA to identify LBP hazards for purposes of
administering Title X and TSCA Title IV. Under TSCA section 401 (15
U.S.C. 2681), LBP hazards are defined as conditions of LBP and lead-
contaminated dust and soil that ``would result in adverse human health
effects,'' and lead-contaminated dust is defined as ``surface dust in
residential dwellings'' that contains lead in excess of levels
determined ``to pose a threat of adverse health effects. . . .'' As
defined in TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), LBP means:

``paint or other surface coatings that contain lead in excess of 1.0
milligrams per centimeter squared or 0.5 percent by weight or (A) in
the case of paint or other surface coatings on target housing, such
lower level as may be established by the Secretary of [HUD], as
defined in section 4822(c) of Title 42, or (B) in the case of any
other paint or

surface coatings, such other level as may be established by the
Administrator [of EPA].''

    The amendments to the regulations on LBP activities are being
proposed pursuant to TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C 2682). The amendments
to the regulations on the authorization of State and Tribal Programs
are being proposed pursuant to TSCA section 404 (15 U.S.C. 2684).
    This proposed rule is being issued in compliance with the December
27, 2017 decision (``Opinion'') of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and the subsequent March 26, 2018 order that directed the EPA ``to
issue a proposed rule within ninety (90) days from the filed date of
this order'' (Ref. 2) (Ref. 3).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA established dust-lead hazard standards (DLHS) of 40 [mu]g/ft\2\
for floors and 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window sills in a final rule
entitled, ``Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead.'' See 66 FR
1206, January 5, 2001, also known as the LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 4). EPA
is proposing to amend the DLHS set by the LBP Hazards Rule to lower the
DLHS for floor dust to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ and to lower the DLHS for window
sill dust to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\. EPA is requesting comment on the
achievability and appropriateness of the proposed DLHS. EPA is
requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal, including any
options presented in EPA's Technical Support Document that accompanies
this proposal (Ref. 5), including taking comment on keeping the DLHS at
the current levels.
    EPA and HUD adopted the statutory definition of LBP in a joint
final rule entitled, ``Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based
Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing.'' See 61 FR 9064,
March 6, 1996, also known as the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 6). EPA is
proposing no changes to the current definition of LBP due to
insufficient information to support such a change.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    Reducing childhood lead exposure is an EPA priority, and EPA is
collaborating with our federal partners to reduce lead exposures and to
explore ways to increase our relationships and partnerships with
States, Tribes, and localities. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hosted a
meeting of principals from the 17 federal departments and agencies on
the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children in February 2018. At the meeting, the Task Force
members committed to make addressing childhood lead exposure a priority
and to develop a federal strategy to reduce childhood lead exposures.
Today's proposal is a component of EPA's prioritizing the important
issue of childhood lead exposure.
    In the 2001 final rule that set the initial hazard standards under
TSCA section 403, EPA examined the health effects of various dust-lead
loadings, and analyzed those values against issues of practicality to
determine the appropriate standards, in accordance with the statute. At
that time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
identified a test result of 10 [mu]g/dL of lead in blood or higher in
children as a ``level of concern''. Based on the available science at
the time, EPA explained that health effects at blood lead levels (BLLs)
lower than 10 [mu]g/dL were ``less well substantiated.'' Further, the
Agency acknowledged that the standards were ``based on the best science
available to the Agency,'' and if new data were to become available,
EPA would ``consider changing the standards to reflect these data.''
(Ref. 4)
    New data have become available since the 2001 final rule that
indicates that health risks exist at lower BLLs than previously
recognized. The CDC now considers that no safe BLL in children has been
identified (Ref. 7), and is no longer using the term ``level of
concern'' and is instead using the reference value to identify children
who have been exposed to lead and who should undergo case management
(Ref. 7). In 2012, CDC established a blood lead ``reference level'' as
a benchmark for case management (especially assessment of sources of
lead in their environment and follow up BLL testing). The reference
level is based on the 97.5th percentile of the U.S. population
distribution of BLLs in children ages 1-5 from the 2007-2008 and 2009-
2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (Ref. 8).
    Current best available science, which, as indicated above, has
evolved considerably since 2001, informs EPA's understanding of the
relationship between exposures to dust-lead loadings, blood lead
levels, and risk of adverse human health effects. This is summarized in
the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead, (``Lead ISA'') (Ref. 9),
which EPA released in June 2013, and the National Toxicology Program
(NTP) Monograph on the Health Effects of Low-Level Lead, which was
released by the Department of Human Health and Services in June 2012
(Ref. 10). The Lead ISA is a synthesis and evaluation of policy-
relevant science and includes an analysis of the health effects of BLLs
lower than 10 [mu]g/dL. These effects include cognitive function
decrements in children (Ref. 9).
    The NTP, in 2012, completed an evaluation of existing data to
summarize the scientific evidence regarding health effects associated
with low-level lead exposure as indicated by BLLs less than 10 [mu]g/
dL. The evaluation specifically focused on the life stage (childhood,
adulthood) associated with these health effects, as well as on
epidemiological evidence at BLLs less than 10 [mu]g/dL, because health
effects at higher BLLs are well-established. The NTP concluded that
there is sufficient evidence for adverse health effects in children and
adults at BLLs less than 10 [mu]g/dL, and less than 5 [mu]g/dL. In
children, there is sufficient evidence that BLLs less than 5 [mu]g/dL
are associated with increased diagnoses of attention-related behavioral
problems, greater incidence of problem behaviors, and decreased
cognitive performance. There is limited evidence that BLLs less than 5
[mu]g/dL are associated with delayed puberty and decreased kidney
function in children 12 years of age and older. Additionally, the NTP
concluded that there is sufficient evidence that BLLs less than 10
[mu]g/dL are associated with delayed puberty, decreased hearing, and
reduced post-natal growth (Ref. 10).
    Since 2001, EPA has worked collaboratively with other federal
partners to promote further understanding of the technical aspects of
rules in place to reduce exposures to dangerous levels of lead. EPA
collaborated with HUD to develop the Lead Hazard Control Clearance
Survey to examine whether HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control and
Healthy Homes (OLHCHH) Lead Hazard Control (LHC) grantees could achieve
dust-lead clearance levels below the current standards. Although this
proposed rule does not address clearance levels directly, EPA intends
to review the clearance levels at a later date. The survey is still
important to this rulemaking because EPA does not want to set a
standard that cannot be reliably achieved using existing technology.
The survey concluded that ``a reduction in the federal clearance
standard for floors from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, [and] a
reduction in the federal clearance standard for windowsills from 250
[mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ . . . are all technically feasible using
the methods currently employed by OLHCHH LHC grantees to prepare for
clearance.'' The survey was completed in October 2015 (Ref. 11).

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has prepared an Economic Analysis (EA) of the potential

incremental impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 12) on a
subset of target housing and child-occupied facilities, which is
available in the docket. The analysis estimates incremental costs and
benefits for two categories of events: (1) Where dust-lead testing
occurs to comply with HUD's Lead-Safe Housing Rule and (2) where dust-
lead testing occurs in response to testing that detects an elevated
blood lead level in a child. The following is a brief outline of the
estimated incremental impacts of this rulemaking.
    [ssquf] Benefits. This rule would reduce exposure to lead,
resulting in benefits from avoided adverse health effects. For the
subset of adverse health effects where the results were quantified, the
estimated annualized benefits are $317 million to $2.24 billion per
year using a 3% discount rate, and $68 million to $479 million using a
7% discount rate. There are additional unquantified benefits due to
other avoided adverse health effects in children, including attention-
related behavioral problems, greater incidence of problem behaviors,
decreased cognitive performance, reduced post-natal growth, delayed
puberty and decreased kidney function (Ref. 10).
    [ssquf] Costs. This rule is estimated to result in costs of $66
million to $119 million per year.
    [ssquf] Small entity impacts. This rule would impact 39,000 to
44,000 small businesses; 38,000 to 42,000 have cost impacts less than
1% of revenues, 1,000 to 2,000 have impacts between 1% and 3%, and
approximately 100 have impacts greater than 3% of revenues.
    [ssquf] Environmental Justice and Protection of Children. This rule
would increase the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population or children.
    [ssquf] Effects on State, local, and Tribal governments. The rule
would not have any significant or unique effects on small governments,
or Federalism or Tribal implications.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Health Effects

    Lead exposure impacts individuals of all ages, but it is especially
harmful to children (Ref. 13) (Ref. 14) (Ref. 15). Ingestion of lead-
contaminated soil and dust is a major contributor to BLLs in children
(Ref. 16) (Ref. 17). Infants and young children can be more highly
exposed to lead because they often put their hands and other objects
that can have lead from dust or soil on them into their mouths (Ref.
15). As mentioned elsewhere in this proposal, data evaluated by the NTP
demonstrates that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there
are adverse health effects associated with low-level lead exposure;
there is sufficient evidence that, in children, BLLs less than 5 [mu]g/
dL are associated with increased diagnoses of attention-related
behavioral problems, greater incidence of problem behaviors, and
decreased cognitive performance (Ref. 10). For further information
about health effects and lead exposure, see the Lead ISA (Ref. 9).

B. Federal Actions To Reduce Lead Exposures

    In 1992, Congress enacted Title X of the Housing and Community
Development Act (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Ref. 1) in an effort to eliminate
LBP hazards. Section 1018 of Title X required EPA and HUD to promulgate
joint regulations for disclosure of any known LBP or any known LBP
hazards in target housing offered for sale or lease (known as the
Disclosure Rule) (Ref. 6). (``Target housing'' is defined in section
401(17) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2681(17)). On March 6, 1996, the Disclosure
Rule was codified at 40 CFR 745, subpart F, and requires information
disclosure activities before a purchaser or lessee is obligated under a
contract to purchase or lease target housing.
    Title X amended TSCA to add a new subchapter entitled ``Title IV--
Lead Exposure Reduction.'' As defined in TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C.
2681(9)), LBP means:

``paint or other surface coatings that contain lead in excess of 1.0
milligrams per centimeter squared or 0.5 percent by weight or (A) in
the case of paint or other surface coatings on target housing, such
lower level as may be established by the Secretary of [HUD], as
defined in section 4822(c) of Title 42, or (B) in the case of any
other paint or surface coatings, such other level as may be
established by the Administrator [of EPA].''

This definition was codified as part of the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 6) at
40 CFR 745, subpart F, and as part of the Lead-based Paint Activities
Rule (Ref. 18) at 40 CFR 745, subpart L.
    TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering
LBP activities to ensure persons performing these activities are
properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that
contractors performing these activities are certified. On August 29,
1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that
govern LBP inspections, risk assessments, and abatements in target
housing and child-occupied facilities (COFs) (also referred to as the
LBP Activities Rule, codified at 40 CFR 745, subpart L) (Ref. 18). The
definition of ``child-occupied facility'' is codified at 40 CFR 745.223
for purposes of LBP activities. Regulations promulgated under TSCA
section 402(a) contain standards for performing LBP activities, taking
into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
    TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to promulgate regulations
covering renovation or remodeling activities in target housing, public
buildings constructed before 1978, and

commercial buildings that create LBP hazards. EPA promulgated final
regulations for target housing and COFs in the Lead Renovation, Repair
and Painting Rule, under TSCA section 402(c)(3) on April 22, 2008 (also
referred to as the RRP Rule, codified at 40 CFR 745, subpart E) (Ref.
19). The rule was amended in 2010 (75 FR 24802) (Ref. 20) to eliminate
a provision for contractors to opt-out of prescribed work practices and
in 2011 (76 FR 47918) (Ref. 21) to affirm the work practice
requirements for cleaning verification of renovated or repaired spaces,
among other things. For further information regarding lead and its
health effects, and federal actions taken to eliminate LBP hazards in
housing, see the background section of the RRP Rule.
    TSCA section 403 is a related authority to carry out
responsibilities for addressing LBP hazards under the Disclosure and
LBP Activities Rules. Section 403 required EPA to promulgate
regulations that ``identify . . . lead-based paint hazards, lead-
contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil'' for purposes of TSCA
Title IV and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992. LBP hazards, under TSCA section 401, are defined as conditions of
LBP and lead-contaminated dust and soil that ``would result'' in
adverse human health effects (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). TSCA section 401
defines lead-contaminated dust as ``surface dust in residential
dwellings'' that contains lead in excess of levels determined ``to pose
a threat of adverse health effects'' (15 U.S.C. 2681(11)). On January
5, 2001, EPA promulgated a final rule under TSCA sections 402 and 403
called the LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 4). The standards established under
TSCA section 403 are used to calibrate activities carried out under
TSCA section 402. As such, the utility of these standards should be
considered in the context of the activities to which they are applied.
    Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provisions were made for interested
States, territories, and Tribes to apply for and receive authorization
to administer their own LBP Activities and RRP programs. Requirements
applicable to State, territorial, and Tribal programs are codified in
40 CFR 745, subpart Q. As stated elsewhere in this document, EPA's
regulations are intended to reduce exposures and to identify and
mitigate hazardous levels of lead. Authorized programs must be ``at
least as protective of human health and the environment as the
corresponding Federal program,'' and must provide for ``adequate
enforcement.'' See 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2).
    HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) is codified in 24 CFR 35,
subparts B through R. The LSHR implements sections 1012 and 1013 of
Title X. Under Title X, HUD has specific authority to control LBP and
LBP hazards in federally-assisted target housing. The LSHR aims in part
to ensure that federally-owned or federally-assisted target housing is
free of LBP hazards (Ref. 22). Under the LSHR, when a child under age
six (6) with an elevated blood lead level (EBLL) is identified, the
``designated party'' and/or the housing owner shall undertake certain
actions.
    HUD amended the LSHR in 2017, lowering its standard for identifying
children with EBLLs from 20 [mu]g/dL to 5 [mu]g/dL, aligning its
standard with CDC's reference level. The amendments also included
revising HUD's ``Environmental Investigation Blood Lead Level'' (EIBLL)
to the EBLL, changing the level of investigation required for a housing
unit of a child with an EBLL to an ``environmental investigation'' and
adding a requirement for testing in other covered units when a child is
identified in a multiunit property. HUD may revisit and revise the
agency's EBLL via the notice and comment process, as provided by the
definition of EBLL in the amended rule, if it is appropriate to do so
in order to align with future changes to CDC's reference level. (Ref.
22).

C. Applicability and Uses of the DLHS

    The DLHS reviewed in this regulation support the Lead-based Paint
Activities and Disclosure programs, and apply to target housing (i.e.,
most pre-1978 housing) and COFs (pre-1978 non-residential properties
where children under the age of 6 spend a significant amount of time
such as daycare centers and kindergartens). Apart from COFs, no other
public and commercial buildings are covered by this rule. For further
background on the types of buildings to which lead program rules apply,
refer to the proposed and final LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 4).
    Within the scope of Title X, the DLHS support and implement major
provisions of the statute. They were incorporated into the requirements
and risk assessment work practice standards in the LBP Activities Rule;
the relationship between post-abatement clearance and the DLHS is
discussed in further detail elsewhere in this proposal. The DLHS
provide the basis for risk assessors to determine whether LBP hazards
are present. The objective of a risk assessment is to determine, and
then report, the existence, nature, severity, and location of LBP
hazards in residential dwellings and COFs through an on-site
investigation. If LBP hazards are found, the risk assessor will also
identify acceptable options for controlling the hazards in each
property. These options should allow the property owner to make an
informed decision about what actions should be taken to protect the
health of current and future residents. Risk assessments can only be
performed by certified risk assessors.
    The risk assessment entails both a visual assessment and collection
of environmental samples. The environmental samples include, among
other things, dust samples from floors and window sills which are sent
to a laboratory for analysis. When the lab results are received, the
risk assessor compares them to the DLHS. If the dust-lead loadings from
the samples are above the applicable DLHS, then a hazard is present.
Any hazards found are listed in a report prepared for the property
owner by the risk assessor.
    For the Disclosure Rule under section 1018 of Title X (42 U.S.C.
4852d), EPA and HUD have jointly developed regulations requiring a
seller or lessor of most pre-1978 housing to disclose the presence of
any known LBP and LBP hazards to the purchaser or lessee (24 CFR 35,
subpart A; 40 CFR 745, subpart F). Under these regulations, the seller
or lessor also must provide the purchaser or lessee any available
records or reports ``pertaining to'' LBP, LBP hazards and/or any lead
hazard evaluative reports available to the seller or lessor (40 CFR
745.107(a)(4)). Accordingly, if a seller or lessor has a report showing
lead is present in levels that would not constitute a hazard, that
report must also be disclosed. Thus, disclosure is required under
section 1018 even if dust and soil levels are less than the applicable
hazard standard. EPA notes, however, that with respect only to leases
of target housing, disclosure is not required in the limited
circumstance where the housing has been found to be LBP free by a
certified inspector (24 CFR 35.82; 40 CFR 745.101).

D. Limitations of the DLHS

    The proposed standards are intended to identify dust-lead hazards
when LBP risk assessments are performed. These standards, as were those
established in 2001, are for the purposes of Title X and TSCA Title IV,
and therefore they do not apply to housing and COFs built during or
after 1978, nor do they apply to pre-1978 housing that does not meet
the definition of target housing. See 40 CFR 745.61. These standards
cannot be used to identify housing that is free from risks from
exposure to lead, as risks are

dependent on many factors. For instance, the physical condition of a
property that contains LBP may change over time, resulting in an
increased risk of exposure. If one chooses to apply the DLHS to
situations beyond the scope of Title X, care must be taken to ensure
that the action taken in such settings is appropriate to the
circumstances presented in that situation, and that the action is
adequate to provide any necessary protection for children exposed.
    The DLHS do not require the owners of properties covered by this
proposed rule to evaluate their properties for the presence of dust-
lead hazards, or to take action if dust-lead hazards are identified.
Although these regulations do not compel specific actions to address
identified hazards, these standards are incorporated into certain
requirements mandated by State, Federal, Tribal, and local governments.
EPA acknowledges that if the proposed DLHS were set too low, the
effectiveness of these programs may be limited since resources for
hazard mitigation would be distributed more broadly, diverting them
from situations that present more serious risks. However, EPA does not
believe that the levels proposed today constrict these programs,
considering the demonstrated achievability of these levels (Ref. 11).
As such, these standards are appropriate for incorporation into the
various assessment and hazard control activities to which they apply.

E. Administrative Petition and Litigation

    On August 10, 2009, EPA received an administrative petition from
several environmental and public health advocacy groups requesting that
EPA amend regulations issued under Title IV of TSCA (Sierra Club et al.
2009) (Ref. 23). The petitioners requested that EPA lower the Agency's
DLHS issued pursuant to section 403 of TSCA, and the dust-lead
clearance levels issued pursuant to section 402 of TSCA, from 40 [mu]g/
ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for floors, and from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to
100 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for window sills; and to lower the definition
of LBP pursuant to section 401 of TSCA from 1 mg/cm\2\ and 0.5 percent
by weight, to 0.06 percent by weight with a corresponding reduction in
units of mg/cm\2\.
    On October 22, 2009, EPA responded to this petition pursuant to
section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e))
(EPA 2009) (Ref. 24). EPA agreed to commence an appropriate proceeding
on the DLHS and the definition of LBP in response to the petition, but
stated that it did not commit to a particular schedule or to a
particular outcome.
    In August 2016, administrative petitioners--joined by additional
citizen groups--filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking a court order finding that EPA had
unreasonably delayed in promulgating a rule to update the DLHS and the
definition of LBP under TSCA and directing EPA to promulgate a proposed
rule within 90 days, and to finalize a rule within six months. On
December 27, 2017, a panel majority of the Ninth Circuit granted the
writ of mandamus and ordered that EPA (1) issue a proposed rule within
ninety days of the date the decision becomes final and (2) issue a
final rule one year thereafter (Ref. 2). On March 26, 2018, the Panel
granted EPA's Motion for Clarification, specifying that the proposed
rule was due ninety days from the date of that order (Ref. 3).
    EPA is issuing this proposed rule in compliance with the Court's
order. Notably, the Court's majority decision suggested that EPA had
already determined that amending these regulations was necessary
pursuant to TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2687). However, EPA stated in its 2009
petition response that ``the current hazard standards may not be
sufficiently protective'' (Ref. 24) (emphasis added). With regard to
the definition of LBP, EPA had not even opined that the definition may
not be sufficiently protective. Rather, throughout the litigation, EPA
maintained that it would consider whether revision of the definition
was appropriate. Also, the sufficiency of the standards was not at
issue, as this mandamus petition was about timing, not substance and
EPA had not previously conducted the analyses required to reach a
conclusion under the statutory standard. It was not until EPA conducted
its own analyses--during this rulemaking process--that it was in a
position to express the preliminary conclusions that are set forward in
this proposal.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to lower the DLHS for floors from 40 [mu]g/ft\2\
to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\. EPA is proposing to lower the DLHS for window sills
from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\.
    EPA is proposing no changes to the current definition of LBP due to
insufficient information to support such a change.

A. Dust-Lead Hazard Standards

    1. Approach for reviewing the dust-lead hazard standards. As EPA
explained in the 2001 hazard standards rulemaking (66 FR 1206, 1207),
one of the underlying principles of Title X is to move the focus of
public and private sector decision makers away from the mere presence
of LBP, to the presence of LBP hazards, for which more substantive
action should be undertaken to control exposures, especially to young
children. Since there are many sources of lead exposure (e.g., air,
water, diet, background levels of lead), and since, under TSCA Title
IV, EPA may only account for risks associated with paint, dust and
soil, EPA continues to believe that non-zero hazard standards are
appropriate.
    Based on the language of sections 401, 402, and 403 of TSCA and the
purposes of Title X and its legislative history, EPA continues to
believe that it is a reasonable exercise of its discretion to set
hazard standards based on consideration of the potential for risk
reduction and whether such actions are achievable, and with
consideration given to the existing programs aimed at achieving such
reductions. This proposal is informed by the achievability of these
standards in relation to their application in lead risk reduction
programs. These considerations will vary within different regulatory
programs.
    In the 2001 LBP Hazards Rule, EPA first determined the lowest
candidate DLHS by using a 1-5% probability of an individual child
developing a BLL of 10 [mu]g/dL. EPA then took a pragmatic approach by
looking at numerous factors affected by the candidate standards and
prioritized protection from the greatest lead risks so as not to dilute
intervention resources.
    To develop this current proposal, EPA evaluated the relationship
between dust-lead levels and children's health, and considered the
achievability of the DLHS given the relationship between standards
established under TSCA section 403 and the application of those
standards in lead risk reduction programs. Consistent with the
establishment of the 2001 DLHS, EPA believes national standards are
still an appropriate regulatory approach because they facilitate
implementation and decrease uncertainty within the regulated community.
For further information, see the LBP Hazards Rule (Ref. 4).
    EPA's hazard standards should not be considered in isolation, but
must be contemplated along with the Agency's actions to address lead in
other media. It is anticipated that this proposal, especially in
conjunction with other federal actions on, would result in better
health outcomes for children. As described elsewhere in this proposal,
scientific advances made since the promulgation of the 2001 rule
clearly

demonstrate that exposure to low levels of lead result in adverse
health effects. Moreover, since CDC has stated that no safe level of
lead in blood has been identified, the reductions in children's BLLs as
a result of this rule would help reduce the risk of adverse cognitive
and developmental effects in children.
    2. Technical Analyses and Standard Selection. The analyses that EPA
developed to inform this regulation were specifically designed to model
potential health risks that might accrue to the subpopulation, children
living in pre-1940 and pre-1978 housing, impacted by this proposal and
the specific regulatory decision under consideration (dust-lead hazard
standards). As described in EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) that
accompanies this proposal, EPA notes that different program offices
estimate exposures for different populations, different media, and
under different statutory requirements and thus different models or
parameters may be a better fit for their purpose. As such, the approach
and modeling parameters chosen for this rulemaking should not
necessarily be construed as appropriate for or consistent with the
goals of other EPA programs (Ref. 5).
    When interpreting the results of Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic (IEUBK) modeling, it is important to recognize that the
IEUBK was developed, calibrated and validated for site-specific risk
assessments. The model and input parameters have been the subject of
multiple Science Advisory Board Reviews, workshops and publications in
the peer reviewed literature (Ref. 5). EPA's Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) determined that adjustments to the
input parameters used for site-specific evaluations would be desirable
to better reflect considerations specific to this national rulemaking.
OCSPP's adjustments were made to support this rulemaking based on peer-
reviewed data sources such as EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook and
analysis for EPA's Office of Water (Ref. 5). While the agency believes
that these adjustments are appropriate to support this rulemaking, this
rulemaking and its supporting analyses should not be interpreted to
recommend adjustments that vary from EPA's Office of Land and Emergency
Management's IEUBK guidance for site-specific analyses.
    Reducing childhood lead exposure is an EPA priority, and today's
proposal is one component of EPA's broad effort to reduce children's
exposure to lead. While no safe level of lead in blood has been
identified (Ref. 7), the reductions in children's blood-lead levels
resulting from this rule are expected to reduce the risk of adverse
cognitive and developmental effects in children. TSCA Section 403
required EPA to promulgate regulations that ``identify . . . lead-based
paint hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil'' for
purposes of TSCA Title IV and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992. LBP hazards, under TSCA section 401, are defined
as conditions of LBP and lead-contaminated dust and soil that ``would
result'' in adverse human health effects (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). TSCA
section 401 defines lead-contaminated dust as ``surface dust in
residential dwellings'' that contains lead in excess of levels
determined ``to pose a threat of adverse health effects'' (15 U.S.C.
2681(11)).
    In the TSD, EPA models the risk of adverse health effects
associated with lead dust exposures at differing potential candidate
standards for dust levels (17 scenarios) in children living in pre-1940
and pre-1978 housing, as well as associated potential health effects in
this subpopulation. Candidate standards that prioritize reducing floor
dust loadings over sill dust loadings have the biggest impact on
exposure because of the greater likelihood and magnitude of children's
exposure (floors take up more square footage of the housing unit and
children spend more of their time in contact with the floor rather than
the sills.) For example, a candidate standard of 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for
floors and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills is likely to be less
effective than a standard of 10 or 20 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250
[micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills.
    EPA reported potential effects at the 50th and 97.5th percentile of
the affected subpopulation, and made comparisons with multiple metrics,
in relation to the CDC reference level of 5 [micro]g/dL and the
previous CDC level of concern of 10 [micro]g/dL. Specifically, EPA
evaluated which candidate dust-lead standards could approximate 97.5%
of the modeled subpopulation of children being below the CDC reference
level. EPA's modeling showed that this value was only reached at
background dust-lead levels. However, modeling did show that at dust-
lead levels of 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors and
window sills, respectively, greater than 90% of the modeled children
were below the CDC reference level, while at the current standards,
about 80% of children were below this level. EPA feels more confident
in potential health gains from candidate standards that compare
favorably on multiple metrics. Outcome metrics and comparison values
are summarized at tables 7-1 and 7-2 of the TSD.
    As expected, as the dust-lead levels were decreased, incremental
decreases to BLL and adverse health effects were seen at all points
below the current standard. Furthermore, the non-linear nature of the
modeled relationships discussed in the TSD mean that greater changes
were seen with greater incremental reductions and smaller changes were
seen when changes were closer to the original dust-lead standard. These
trends, in combination with the sources of uncertainty in the modeling
(discussed in Chapter 8 of the TSD) and the fact that the uncertainty
is propagated through the Economic Analysis (EA) that relies on the
TSD, make it difficult to identify a clear cut-point or a clear
alternative for consideration. EPA does note, however, that the results
of the EA show that in each of the scenarios examined the quantified
benefits outweighed the quantified costs. In selecting a primary
proposal, EPA considers that the HUD study shows that for many of the
LHC grantees that use existing lead hazard control practices, dust-lead
levels as low as 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors and
window sills, respectively, were achievable.
    EPA is proposing standards of 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors and window sills respectively. Based on the
experiences of the LHC grantees EPA has tentatively concluded that the
petitioned candidate standard of 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors and 100
[micro]g/ft\2\ on window sills is achievable. EPA also notes that all
candidate standards evaluated in EPA's economic analysis have positive
net benefits and the petitioned candidate standard generally had the
highest net benefits across the scenarios analyzed. In choosing the
proposed standards, EPA gave significant weight to both the health
outcomes identified in the TSD and technically achievability, since
these standards will likely be applied in certain lead risk reduction
programs, and considering achievability is consistent with the overall
statutory goal of decreasing lead exposures to children. However, all
standards more stringent than the current standard incrementally
improve health outcomes above the existing standards, and the
differences among candidate standards are small (see TSD Table 7-2).
EPA notes that no non-zero lead level, including background, can be
shown to eliminate health risk entirely, so it is appropriate for EPA
to consider factors beyond health effects only in choosing the
standard. Also, achievability itself is not a bright line concept; in
general, as standards

decrease, more and more target housing units will find it challenging
to achieve dust lead levels below the standard. Practicability is an
important component of achievability.
    While EPA is proposing standards of 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and window sills respectively, EPA is
encouraging public comment on the full range of candidate standards
analyzed in the TSD as alternatives to the proposal, including the
option not to change the current standard. EPA is also specifically
requesting comment on an option that would reduce the floor dust
standard but leave the sill dust standard unchanged (e.g., 20 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for floors and 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills, or 10
[micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ for window sills),
since reducing floor dust lead has the greatest impact on children's
health. Comments are also sought on EPA's tentative conclusion that a
standard of 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors and
window sills is achievable, and what changes, if any, including
laboratory analytic standard would be necessary to achieve that
standard. EPA particularly welcomes data on the achievability of any of
the candidate standards analyzed for this proposal.
    As mentioned in Unit I.D., EPA worked with HUD OLHCHH to survey the
office's LHC grantees to assess the achievability of candidate DLHS
(Ref. 11). Survey results showed that reductions in clearance levels to
10 [mu]g/ft\2\ of lead in floor dust and to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ of lead in
dust on window sills were shown to be technically achievable using
existing cleaning practices. As explained in the survey final report,
clearance testing results were collected from 1,552 housing units and
included 7,211 floor samples and 4,893 window sill samples. The data
were analyzed to determine the percentage of samples cleared at or
below various levels. For floors, 72% of samples showed dust-lead
levels at or below 5 [micro]g/ft\2\, 85% were at or below 10 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 90% were at or below 15 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 94% were at or below
20 [micro]g/ft\2\. For window sills, 87% of samples showed dust-lead
levels at or below 40 [micro]g/ft\2\, 91% were at or below 60 [micro]g/
ft\2\, 96% were at or below 80 [micro]g/ft\2\, and 97% were at or below
100 [micro]g/ft\2\ (Ref. 11).
    The specific purpose of the LHC programs is to assist ``states,
cities, counties/parishes, Native American Tribes, or other units of
local government in undertaking comprehensive programs to identify and
control lead-based paint hazards in eligible privately owned rental or
owner-occupied housing populations.'' (Ref. 25). Funded activities must
be conducted by LBP certified individuals (Ref. 25). Since most of the
LHC grantees use commercial firms in their area, HUD OLHCHH believes
that the grantees are conducting a large percentage of these activities
and are therefore representative of the regulated community.
    Ninety-eight of those grantees completed the survey, giving
information from housing units in which lead hazard control activities
took place from 2010 through 2012, for a total dataset of 1,552 housing
units (Ref. 11). Of those housing units, ``[a]lmost half were detached
single family homes, while less than 20% were apartments. Almost all
were built before 1960, and over three quarters before 1940.'' (Ref.
11). ``The most common methods used included various types of cleaning
as well as sealing of floors, [and] sills . . . Overlaying or replacing
flooring . . . were less common. It was further found that the stated
reductions in . . . standards for floors and sills are generally
feasible using the more common methods (cleaning and sealing)
exclusively.'' (Ref. 11).
    Section 402(a) of TSCA requires EPA to promulgate regulations that
``shall contain standards for performing lead-based paint activities,
taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.'' To that
end, as part of the Lead-based Paint Hazards Rule, EPA established
clearance levels as ``40 [micro]g/ft\2\ for floors and 250 [micro]g/
ft\2\ for window sills,'' the same as the DLHS in that rulemaking. See
40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii). After conducting LBP abatements, EPA's
regulations require a certified inspector or risk assessor to sample
the abated area. If the sample results show dust-lead loadings equal to
or exceeding the applicable clearance level, ``the components
represented by the failed sample shall be recleaned and retested.'' See
40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(vii). In other words, the abatement is not
complete until the dust-lead loadings in the work area are below the
clearance levels.
    EPA is not proposing to change the post-abatement clearance levels
in 40 CFR 745, subpart L today, but EPA recognizes that, in other lead
regulatory programs, the DLHS are tightly linked to post-abatement
clearance. As discussed elsewhere in this proposal, HUD uses the
standards proposed here in their clearance regulations and lead hazard
control grant requirements. EPA considered how this approach would
impact partner agencies when evaluating candidate standards, and
selected standards that accord with achievability studies and partner
program implementation. While EPA is not proposing to change the
clearance standards today, EPA does intend to review the clearance
levels at a later date.
    In addition to ensuring that stakeholders can achieve the lower
dust-lead loadings proposed in this rule, it is important to assess
whether those dust-lead loadings are reliably detectable by
laboratories. The National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program
(NLLAP) is an EPA program that defines the minimum requirements and
abilities that a laboratory must meet to attain EPA recognition as an
accredited lead testing laboratory. EPA established NLLAP to recognize
laboratories that demonstrate the ability to accurately analyze paint
chips, dust, or soil samples for lead. If, as a result of lowering the
DLHS, laboratories recognized by the NLLAP program were unable to
accurately measure dust samples at those lower levels, then
stakeholders would be unable to use those laboratories in conducting
activities required by EPA's LBP program. Notably, as mentioned
elsewhere in this document, HUD has already required these lower dust-
lead levels of their OLHCHH's lead hazard control grantees in a recent
policy guidance revision (Ref. 26). All the laboratories used by the
approximately 120 lead hazard control grantees (the number varies over
time as grants begin and end) have established the required minimum
reporting limit and minimum detection limit for the dust-lead loadings
on floors and for window sills proposed today. EPA acknowledges that
the laboratories used by OLHCHH's lead hazard control grantees do not
represent all of the laboratories accredited under EPA's NLLAP program.
In order to continue to be accredited if the DLHS for floors is
reduced, all NLLAP laboratories will need to reach a reporting limit
not greater than half of the level established (i.e., 5 [mu]g/ft\2\ for
a floor DLHS standard of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\). However, given that 100% of
the laboratories used by these grantees were using laboratories with
reporting limit not greater 5 [mu]g/ft\2\, there is no technological
barrier to reducing the current standard to the petitioned candidate
standard. The dust samples analyzed by the laboratories were collected
by the grantees. A quantitative review of dust sampling results from 51
grants where clearance was attempted in one of the housing units
treated in the April 13, 2017, to May 14, 2018, period under each grant
found that 80% (41) of the units passed floor clearance at HUD's
clearance level of <10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for these grants on the first
attempt. All units that failed floor clearance on the

first attempt passed on the second attempt. All (51) of the units
passed the window sill clearance at the clearance level of < 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\ for these grants on the first attempt. The dust-lead sample
analyses were conducted by a total of 28 laboratories located in 24
states within a total of 12 laboratory firms. The grants were awarded
to 49 state or local governments in 16 states (Ref. 27).
    In consideration of the factors discussed in this preamble, EPA is
proposing to change the DLHS from 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 250 [micro]g/
ft\2\ to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors and window
sills, respectively. EPA recognizes that this rulemaking does not
address all hazards presented by lead. The DLHS alone cannot solve the
lead problem. They are part of a broader program designed to educate
the public and raise public awareness, empower and protect consumers,
and provide helpful technical information that professionals can use to
identify and control lead hazards.
    In 2001, EPA concluded that standards that are too stringent may
afford less protection to these children by diluting the resources
available to address hazards in these communities. While EPA recognizes
that BLLs have declined since the promulgation of the 2001 rule and
that mitigation costs per child are generally low (see Refs. 8, 12, and
28), this concept is still applicable given BLL trends today. As
described in the Key Federal Programs to Reduce Childhood Lead
Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts document, national
data suggest disparities persist among communities due to factors such
as race, ethnicity, and income (Ref. 17). In 2013-2016, the 95th
percentile BLL of children ages 1 to 5 years in families with incomes
below poverty level was 3.0 [micro]g/dL (median is 0.9 [mu]g/dL,) and
among those in families at or above the poverty level it was 2.1
[micro]g/dL (median is 0.7 [mu]g/dL), a difference that is
statistically significant. In 2011-2014, 2.2% of children in families
below the poverty level had a BLL at or above 5 [mu]g/dL, compared to
0.6% of children in families at or above the poverty level. The 97.5th
percentile in 2013-2016 is 3.3 [mu]g/dL, a slight decrease from the
value for 2011-2014 (Ref. 28).
    EPA is proposing these new standards to complement other federal
actions aimed at reducing lead exposures for all children. EPA also
believes that the standards would continue to inform where intervention
resources should be directed for children with higher exposures. These
are the lowest levels that EPA believes are reliably achievable using
existing lead-hazard control practices and that are aligned with the
clearance levels required under certain HUD grant programs. As such,
these levels provide greater uniformity across the federal government
than the other options considered and provide consistency for the
regulated and public health communities. EPA is requesting comment on
the achievability and appropriateness of the proposed DLHS. EPA also
seeks comment on other levels that are described and evaluated in the
TSD (Ref. 5) and the EA (Ref. 12), including taking comment on keeping
the DLHS at the current levels.
    4. Effect of this change on EPA and HUD Programs. a. EPA Risk
Assessments. As stated earlier in this preamble, EPA's risk assessment
work practice standards provide the basis for risk assessors to
determine whether LBP hazards are present in target housing and COFs.
As part of a risk assessment, dust samples are taken from floors and
window sills to determine if dust-lead levels exceed the hazard
standards. Results of the sampling, among other things, are documented
in a risk assessment report which is required under the LBP Activities
Rule (Ref. 18). In addition to the sampling results, the report must
describe the location and severity of any dust-lead hazards found and
describe interim controls or abatement measures needed to address the
hazards. Under this proposed rule, risk assessors would compare dust
sampling results for floors and window sills to the new, lower DLHS.
Sampling results above the new hazard standard would indicate that a
dust-lead hazard is present on the surfaces tested. EPA expects that
this would result in more hazards being identified in a portion of
target housing and COFs that undergo risk assessments. The proposed
rule does not change any other risk assessment requirements.
    b. EPA-HUD Disclosure Rule. Under the Disclosure Rule (Ref. 6),
prospective sellers and lessors of target housing must provide
purchasers and renters with a federally approved lead hazard
information pamphlet and disclose known LBP and/or LBP hazards. The
information disclosure activities are required before a purchaser or
renter is obligated under a contract to purchase or lease target
housing. Records or reports pertaining to LBP or LBP hazards must be
disclosed, including results from dust sampling regardless of whether
the level of dust lead is below the hazard standard. For this reason, a
lower hazard standard would not result in more information being
disclosed because property owners would already be disclosing results
that show dust-lead below 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ on floors or below 250
[micro]g/ft\2\ on window sills. However, a lower hazard standard may
prompt a different response on the lead disclosure form, i.e., that a
lead-based paint hazard is present rather than not, which would occur
when a dust-lead level is below the current standard but at or above a
lower final standard.
    c. Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. To avoid confusion
about the applicability of this proposed rule, EPA notes that revising
the DLHS will not trigger new requirements under the existing RRP Rule.
The existing RRP work practices are required where LBP is present (or
assumed to be present), and are not predicated on dust-lead loadings
exceeding the hazard standards. The existing RRP regulations do not
require dust sampling prior to or at the conclusion of a renovation
and, therefore, will not be directly affected by a change to the DLHS.
    d. HUD Requirements for Federally-assisted or Federally-owned
housing. Under sections 1012 and 1013 of Title X, HUD established LBP
hazard notification, evaluation, and reduction requirements for certain
pre-1978 HUD-assisted and federally-owned target housing, known as the
Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR). See 24 CFR 35, subparts B-R. The
programs covered by these requirements range from supportive housing
services to foreclosed HUD-insured single-family insured housing to
public housing. For programs where hazard evaluation is required, the
DLHS provide criteria to risk assessors for identifying LBP hazards in
residences covered by these programs. For programs that require
abatement of LBP hazards, the DLHS are used to identify residences that
contain dust-lead hazards as part of determining where abatement will
be necessary.
    e. HUD Guidelines. The HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and
Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing were developed in 1995
under section 1017 of Title X. They provide detailed, comprehensive,
technical information on how to identify LBP hazards in residential
housing and COFs, and how to control such hazards safely and
efficiently. The Guidelines were revised in 2012 to incorporate new
information, technological advances, and new Federal regulations,
including EPA's LBP hazard standards. If EPA were to finalize changes
in the DLHS, HUD would plan to revise Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on
risk assessment and Chapter 15 on clearance based on those changes.
    f. LSHR Clearance Requirements. While this proposed rule would not
change the clearance levels under EPA's regulations, it would have the
effect of

changing the clearance levels that apply to hazard reduction activities
under HUD's LSHR. The LSHR requires certain hazard reduction activities
to be performed in certain federally-owned and assisted target housing
including abatements, interim controls, paint stabilization, and
ongoing LBP maintenance. Hazard reduction activities are required in
this housing when LBP hazards are identified or when maintenance or
rehabilitation activities disturb paint known or presumed to be LBP.
The LSHR's clearance regulations, 24 CFR 35.1340, specify requirements
for clearance of these projects (when they disturb more than de minimis
amounts of known or presumed lead-based painted surfaces, as defined in
24 CFR 35.1350(d)), including a visual assessment, dust sampling,
submission of samples for analysis for lead in dust, interpretation of
sampling results, and preparation of a report. Clearance testing of
abatements and non-abatements is required by 24 CFR 35.1340(a) and (b),
respectively.
    The LSHR's clearance regulations cross-reference different
regulatory provisions to establish clearance levels for abatements than
for non-abatement activities. The LSHR clearance regulations for both
abatements and non-abatement activities, at 24 CFR 35.1340(d), cross-
reference the standards, at 24 CFR 35.1320(b), to be used by risk
assessors for conducting clearance; in turn, the standards at 24 CFR
35.1320(b) cross-reference EPA's DLHS at 40 CFR 745.227(h). In
addition, the LSHR clearance regulations for abatements, at 24 CFR
35.1340(a), which set forth that clearance must be performed in
accordance with EPA regulations, cross-reference EPA's clearance
standards for abatements at 40 CFR 745.227(e). Currently, the EPA's
DLHS and dust-lead clearance standards for abatements are the same, so
cross-referencing different EPA regulatory provisions, at 40 CFR
745.227(e) and (h), has had no effect on hazard reduction activities
under the LSHR.
    The LSHR clearance regulations for non-abatement activities, at 24
CFR 35.1340(b) do not cross-reference EPA's clearance standards at 40
CFR 745.227(e). Only EPA's DLHS at 40 CFR 745.227(h) are referenced at
24 CFR 1340(d) as the clearance standards for non-abatement activities,
because EPA does not have its own clearance standards for them.
Accordingly, if this rule is finalized as proposed, non-abatement
activities under the LSHR would continue to be cleared using the EPA's
DLHS.
    EPA's LBP activities regulations on work practice requirements, at
40 CFR 745.65(d), specify that clearance requirements applicable to LBP
hazard evaluation and hazard reduction activities are found in both the
LSHR, at 24 CFR 35, subpart R, and EPA regulations at 40 CFR 745,
subpart L. For abatements covered by both agencies' regulations, the
LSHR regulations, at 24 CFR 35.145 and 35.1340(a), require clearance
levels following abatement of LBP or LBP hazards to be at least as
protective as EPA's clearance levels for abatements at 40 CFR
745.227(e).
    If this rule is finalized as proposed, EPA's resultant DLHS would
be lower than EPA's clearance standards for abatements, and according
to HUD, abatements under HUD's LSHR would be cleared using the EPA's
DLHS.

B. The Definition of Lead-Based Paint

    As noted in Unit II.D., EPA has neither opined nor concluded that
the definition of LBP may not be sufficiently protective. In response
to the administrative petition (Ref. 24) and throughout the litigation,
EPA maintained that it would consider whether revision to the
definition of LBP was appropriate. The definition of LBP is
incorporated throughout EPA's LBP regulations, and application of this
definition is central to how EPA's LBP program functions. EPA believes
that accounting for feasibility and health effects would be appropriate
when considering a revision. Given the current, significant data gaps
presented below and the new approaches that would need to be devised to
address them, EPA lacks sufficient information to conclude that the
current definition requires revision or to support any specific
proposed change to the definition of LBP. EPA is requesting comment on
this proposal, and especially on any new available data on the
technical feasibility of a revised definition of LBP or analysis of the
relationship between levels of lead in paint, dust and risk of adverse
health effects.
    1. Scope and applicability of the definition of lead-based paint.
The definition of LBP reviewed in this proposal supports the LBP
activities regulations, Disclosure regulations, and the RRP
regulations, and currently applies to target housing and COFs. The
definition of LBP helps LBP inspectors identify where LBP may be
located, and helps risk assessors identify where LBP hazards are
located and where LBP activities may be appropriate. It is the
definition lessors and sellers must consider when disclosing LBP
information about their properties, and it is the definition renovators
must consider when evaluating applicability of the RRP program.
    2. Limitations of the Definition of Lead-Based Paint. The
definition of LBP is intended to identify LBP for the purposes of Title
X and TSCA Title IV. This definition should not be used to identify
paint that poses a risk of lead exposure, as risks are dependent on a
number of factors. If one chooses to apply the definition of LBP to
situations beyond the scope of Title X, care must be taken to ensure
that the action taken in such settings is appropriate to the
circumstances presented.
    3. Analyses needed to evaluate whether a revision to the definition
of LBP is appropriate. Evaluating whether revising the definition of
LBP is appropriate requires analyzing levels of lead in paint that are
lower than what was examined previously by EPA and other federal
agencies. More information is needed to establish a statistically valid
causal relationship between concentrations of lead in paint (lower than
the current definition) and dust-lead loadings which cause lead
exposure. Additionally, it is important to understand how capabilities
among various LBP testing technology would be affected under a possible
revision to the definition.
    a. Relationship among lead in paint, environmental conditions, and
exposure. EPA would need to further explore the availability and
application of statistical modeling approaches that establish robust
linkages between the concentration of lead in paint below the current
definition and floor dust and BLL before EPA could develop a
technically supportable proposal to revise the definition of LBP. To
that end, EPA is coordinating with HUD to evaluate available data and
approaches. Efforts suggest that most available empirical data and
modeling approaches are only applicable at or above the current LBP
definition (0.5% and 1 mg/cm\2\). It should be noted that EPA developed
a model to estimate lead-based dust loadings from renovation activities
in various renovation scenarios in 2014 and a similar model was
developed in 2011 by Cox et al. However, the underlying data that
supported EPA's 2014 model for LBP was EPA's 2007 dust study, which
included concentrations of lead in paint ranging from 0.8% to 13% by
weight. The data that supported Cox et al. 2011 ranged from 0.7 to 13.2
mg/cm\2\ (converted to approximately 0.6% to 31% by weight) of lead in
paint (Ref. 29) (Ref. 30) (Ref. 31). Given the range of concentrations
that support these models are well above the petitioners' requested
concentration of lead in paint,

there would be significant uncertainty associated with using these
models to make predictions regarding lead in paint at concentrations an
order of magnitude below the current definition.
    EPA has conducted a preliminary literature search for studies that
co-report lead concentrations in paint and dust in order to identify
available data to support modeling approaches (Ref. 29). Among other
things, EPA is looking to the literature to establish statistically
valid associations between LBP and lead in dust. If such an
association, appropriate for applications contemplating lead in paint
at low concentrations, is found, EPA could use such information to
estimate concentrations of lead in paint and household dust.
Alternatively, EPA would likely need to consider generation of new data
if data or modeling approaches are not identified, since, as discussed
elsewhere in this document, EPA believes there is significant
uncertainty associated with estimating dust-lead loadings for levels of
lead in paint up to an order of magnitude lower than levels in the
current definition using the existing models (Ref. 29), Cox et al.
(Ref. 30). EPA expects to need to develop an approach to estimate dust-
lead from lower levels of lead in paint so that EPA could estimate
incremental blood lead changes and associated health effects changes as
described in the existing dust-lead approach. This may involve
conducting laboratory or field studies to characterize the relationship
between LBP and dust-lead at lower levels of lead in paint (<0.5%)
(Ref. 29).
    b. Feasibility. EPA lacks sufficient information to support a
change to the definition of LBP with respect to feasibility.
Significant data gaps prevent the Agency from evaluating and
subsequently determining that a change to the existing definition is
warranted. For instance, it is currently unknown whether portable field
technologies utilized in EPA's LBP activities and RRP programs, as well
as HUD's LSHR, perform reliably at significantly lower concentrations
of lead in paint.
    Portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) LBP analyzers are the primary
analytical method for inspections and risk assessments in housing
because they can be used to quickly, non-destructively and
inexpensively determine if LBP is present on many surfaces. These
measurements do not require destructive sampling or paint removal.
Renovation firms may also hire inspectors or risk assessors to conduct
XRF testing to identify the presence of LBP. When using XRF technology,
the instrument exposes the substrate being tested to electromagnetic
radiation in the form of X-rays or gamma radiation. In response to
radiation, the lead present in the substrate emits energy at a fixed
and characteristic level. The emission is called ``X-Ray
Fluorescence,'' or XRF (Ref. 32).
    XRF Performance Characteristic Sheets (PCS) have been developed by
HUD and/or EPA for most commercially available XRF analyzers (XRFs). In
order to comport with the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control
of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing, an XRF instrument that is used
for testing paint in target housing or pre-1978 COFs must have a HUD-
issued XRF PCS. XRFs must be used in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions and the PCS. The PCS contains information about XRF
readings taken on specific substrates, calibration check tolerances,
interpretation of XRF readings, and other aspects of the model's
performance. For every XRF analyzer evaluated by EPA and/or HUD, the
PCS defines acceptable operating specifications and procedures. The
ranges where XRF results are positive, negative or inconclusive for
LBP, the calibration check tolerances, and other important information
needed to ensure accurate results are also included in the PCS. An
inspector and risk assessor must follow the XRF PCS for all LBP
activities, and only devices with a posted PCS may be used for LBP
inspections and risk assessments (Ref. 32).
    XRF analyzers and their corresponding PCS sheets were developed to
be calibrated with the current definition of LBP. Therefore, these
instruments would need to be re-evaluated to determine the capabilities
of each instrument model available on the market to meet a potentially
revised definition of LBP, and the corresponding PCS sheet would need
to be amended accordingly. If, as a result of a revision to the
definition of LBP, the use of XRFs suddenly became unavailable, the
effectiveness of the LBP activities regulations would be severely
harmed. Since these instruments are the primary analytical method for
inspections and risk assessments performed pursuant to the LBP
activities regulations, EPA would need to understand how a potential
revision to the definition of LBP would affect the ability of the
regulated community to use this technology.
    When conducting renovations, contractors must determine whether or
not their project will involve LBP, and thus fall under the scope of
the RRP regulations under 40 CFR 745, subpart E, or in certain
jurisdictions, authorized State and Indian Tribal programs under
subpart Q (see Unit III.C). Under the RRP rule, renovators have the
flexibility to choose among four strategies: Use (1) a lead test kit,
(2) an XRF instrument, (3) paint chip sampling to indicate whether LBP
is present; or (4) assume that LBP is present and follow all the work-
practice requirements. For those using lead test kits, only test kits
recognized by the EPA can be used for this purpose. EPA-recognized lead
test kits used for the RRP program were evaluated through EPA's
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program or by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. ETV was a public-private
partnership between EPA and nonprofit testing and evaluation
organizations that verified the performance of innovative technologies.
ETV evaluated the reliability of the technology used for on-site
testing of LBP at the regulated level, under controlled conditions in a
laboratory. ETV ended operations in early 2014. EPA would need to
evaluate lead test kits using ETV-equivalent testing for a potential
revision of the definition of LBP. This would allow EPA to evaluate the
reliability of test kits for testing LBP under controlled conditions at
levels lower than the current LBP definition, so contractors can
continue to use this important tool in compliance with the RRP
regulations.
    The regulated community uses XRF analyzers for inspections and risk
assessments, and lead test kits to determine the presence of LBP during
renovations. In consideration of any potential revised definition of
LBP, EPA would need to fully understand the repercussions of such a
revision on these portable field technologies in order to ensure the
technological feasibility of any new revision. The methods EPA would
need to employ to do so would involve complex processes that include
evaluating the potential ability of XRF analyzers to detect LBP at
lower levels than the current definition, the ability to recalibrate
PCS sheets for each available model of XRF analyzer, and re-evaluating
lead test kits under controlled conditions in a laboratory. EPA
currently lacks sufficient information to support such an undertaking.

C. State Authorization

    Pursuant to TSCA section 404, a provision was made for interested
States, territories and Tribes to apply for and receive authorization
to administer their own LBP Activities programs, as long as their
programs are at least as protective of human health and the environment
as the Agency's program

and provides adequate enforcement. The regulations applicable to State,
territorial and Tribal programs are codified at 40 CFR 745, subpart Q.
As part of the authorization process, States, territories and Tribes
must demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the LBP
Activities Rule. Over time, the Agency may make changes to these
requirements. To address the changes proposed in this rule and future
changes to the LBP Activities Rule, the Agency is proposing to require
States, territories and Tribes to demonstrate that they meet any new
requirements imposed by this rulemaking. The Agency is proposing to
provide States, territories and Tribes up to two years to demonstrate
that their programs include any new requirements that EPA may
promulgate. A State, territory or Tribe would have to indicate that it
meets the requirements of the LBP Activities program in its application
for authorization or, if already authorized, a report it submits under
40 CFR 745.324(h) no later than two years after the effective date of
the new requirements. If an application for authorization has been
submitted but not yet approved, the State, territory or Tribe must
demonstrate that it meets the new requirements by either amending its
application, or in a report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h) no later
than two years after the effective date of the new requirements. The
Agency believes that the proposed requirements allow sufficient time
for States, territories and Tribes to demonstrate that their programs
contain requirements at least as protective as any new requirements
that EPA may promulgate.

IV. Request for Comment

    EPA is requesting comment on its proposal to lower the DLHS for
floor dust to 10 [micro]g/ft\2\ and for window sill dust to 100
[micro]g/ft\2\. EPA is requesting comment on the achievability and
appropriateness of the proposed DLHS in these ranges. EPA is requesting
comments on all aspects of this proposal, including all options
presented in the EA and the TSD that accompanies this proposal. EPA is
requesting comment on whether it has properly characterized the
neurodevelopmental effects of lead in children. EPA specifically
requests additional studies that support the quantification and
monetization of these neurodevelopmental effects in the Agency's
analyses. EPA also seeks comment on four other alternatives discussed
in the EA, including maintaining the DLHS at the current levels.
    EPA is proposing no changes to the definition of LBP due to
insufficient information to support such a change. EPA is requesting
comment on this proposal to make no change to the definition of LBP.
    EPA is requesting comment on its proposal to provide States,
territories and Tribes up to two years to demonstrate that their
programs include any new requirements that EPA may promulgate.
    EPA is also requesting comment on methods, models and data used in
the EA and the TSD that accompany this proposal. (1) The agency
provided a preliminary assessment of how this hazard standard may
potentially affect other units in target housing and child occupied
facilities in the Appendix B of the Economic Analysis. The agency is
seeking information--e.g., data, scholarly articles--that will allow
the agency to refine this assessment and determine whether the effect
on the target housing and child occupied facilities should be included
in the primary benefit and cost estimates presented in the analysis.
(2) The agency is seeking information that will allow the agency to
refine their current approach on assessing uncertainties associated
with the benefit and cost estimates. (See page ES-8 of the Executive
Summary of the EA for more specific requests).
    In addition to the areas on which EPA has specifically requested
comment, EPA requests comment on all other aspects of this proposed
rule.

V. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Public Law 102-550, Title X--Housing and Community Development
Act, enacted October 28, 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or ``Title X'') (42 U.S.C.
4851 et seq.).
2. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A Community Voice v.
EPA, No. 16-72816, Opinion. December 27, 2017.
3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A Community Voice v.
EPA, No. 16-72816, Order. March 26, 2018.
4. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL-6763-5).
5. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Technical Support
Document for Residential Dust-lead Hazard Standards Rulemaking
Approach taken to Estimate Blood Lead Levels and Effects from
Exposures to Dust-lead. June 2018.
6. HUD, EPA. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based
Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule.
Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996) (FRL-5347-9).
7. CDC. CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in ``Low Level Lead Exposure
Harms Children: A Renewed Call of Primary Prevention.'' June 7,
2012. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/acclpp/cdc_response_lead_exposure_recs.pdf.
8. CDC. Blood Lead Levels in Children Aged 1-5 Years--United States,
1999-2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 62 No. 13,
April 5, 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6213.pdf.
9. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Lead (Final Report,
Jul 2013). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-10/075F, 2013. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=255721.
10. HHS, National Toxicology Program. NTP Monograph: Health Effects
of Low-Level Lead. 2012. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf.
11. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. Lead Hazard
Control Clearance Survey. October 2015. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/CLEARANCESURVEY_24OCT15.PDF.
12. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis
of the Proposed Rule to Revise the TSCA Dust-lead Hazard Standards.
June 2018.
13. CDC. Lead Poisoning in Children (February 2011). https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/LeadPoisoningChildren.html.
14. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of
Toxicology and Human Health Sciences. Lead--ToxFAQsTM CAS
#7439-92-1, August 24, 2016. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts13.pdf.
15. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook Chapter 5 Soil and Dust Ingestion
(2017 update). https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
16. Zartarian, V., Xue, J., Tornero-Velez, R., & Brown, J. (2017).
Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives,
125(9),<PHONE_NUMBER>09. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
17. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Key Federal Programs to Reduce Childhood Lead
Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts. November 2016.
https://

ptfceh.niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/files/
key_federal_programs_to_reduce_childhood_lead_exposures_and_eliminate
_associated_health_impactspresidents_508.pdf.
18. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9).
19. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7).
20. EPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions
in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal
Register (75 FR 24802, May 6, 2010) (FRL-8823-7).
21. EPA. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal
Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL-8881-8).
22. HUD. Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of
Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and
Housing Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood
Lead Levels; Final Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 4151, January 13,
2017) (FR-5816-F-02).
23. Sierra Club et al. Letter to Lisa Jackson RE: Citizen Petition
to EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead Standards. August 10, 2009.
24. EPA. Letter in response to citizen petition under section 553(e)
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). October 22,
2009.
25. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. Lead-Based
Paint Hazard Reduction. FR-6200-N-12. Section I.A.1. June 19, 2018.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/spm/gmomgmt/grantsinfo/fundingopps/fy18lbphr.
26. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. OLHCHH
Policy Guidance 2017-01 Rev 1. Revised Dust-Lead Action Levels for
Risk Assessment and Clearance. February 16, 2017. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/LeadDustLevels_rev1.pdf.
27. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. First-Round
Clearance Results from Sample of Grants Active as of April 13, 2017.
May 24, 2018.
28. CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey: Questionnaires, Datasets, and Related
Documentation. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/Default.aspx.
Accessed May 30, 2018.
29. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Definition of
Lead-Based Paint Considerations. June 2018.
30. Cox et al. (2011). Improving the Confidence Level in Lead
Clearance Examination Results through Modifications to Dust Sampling
Protocols. Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 8, No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI103469.
31. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Revised Final
Report on Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Activities. November 13, 2007. https://www.epa.gov/lead/revised-final-report-characterization-dust-lead-levels-after-renovation-repair-and-painting.
32. HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes. Guidelines
for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in
Housing. Second Edition, July 2012.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The Agency prepared
an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action, which is available in the docket (Ref. 12).

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). Details on the estimated costs
of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not directly impose an information collection
burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under 24 CFR 35, subpart A
and 40 CFR 745, subpart F, sellers and lessors must already provide
purchasers or lessees any available records or reports ``pertaining
to'' LBP, LBP hazards and/or any lead hazard evaluative reports
available to the seller or lessor. Accordingly, a seller or lessor must
disclose any reports showing dust-lead levels, regardless of the value.
Thus, this action would not result in additional disclosures. Because
there are no new information collection requirements to consider under
the proposed rule, or any changes to the existing requirements that
might impact existing ICR burden estimates, additional OMB review and
approval under the PRA is not necessary.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. The small
entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses that are lessors of residential buildings and dwellings (who
may incur costs for lead hazard reduction measures in compliance with
the HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule or environmental investigations
triggered by a child with an EBLL); residential remodelers (who may
incur costs associated with additional cleaning and sealing in houses
undergoing rehabilitation subject to the HUD Lead-Safe Housing Rule)
and abatement firms (who may also incur costs associated with
additional cleaning and sealing). The Agency has determined that this
rule would impact 39,000 to 44,000 small businesses; 38,000 to 42,000
have cost impacts less than 1% of revenues, 1,000 to 2,000 have impacts
between 1% and 3%, and approximately 100 have impacts greater than 3%
of revenues. Details of the analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action are presented in the EA, which is
available in the docket (Ref. 12).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The total estimated
annual cost of the proposed rule is $66 million to $119 million per
year (Ref. 12), which does not exceed the inflation-adjusted unfunded
mandate threshold of $154 million.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. States
that have authorized LBP Activities programs must demonstrate that they
have DLHS at least as protective as the standards at 40 CFR 745.227.
However,

authorized States are under no obligation to continue to administer the
LBP Activities program, and if they do not wish to adopt new DLHS they
can relinquish their authorization. In the absence of a State
authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribes that have
authorized LBP Activities programs must demonstrate that they have DLHS
at least as protective as the standards at 40 CFR 745.227. However,
authorized Tribes are under no obligation to continue to administer the
LBP Activities program, and if they do not wish to adopt new DLHS they
can relinquish their authorization. In the absence of a Tribal
authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on
children. (Ref. 5)
    The primary purpose of this rule is to reduce exposure to dust-lead
hazards in target housing where children reside and in target housing
or COFs. EPA's analysis indicates that there will be approximately
78,000 to 252,000 children affected by the rule (Ref. 12).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Target housing, Child-occupied facility,
Housing renovation, Lead, Lead poisoning, Lead-based paint, Renovation,
Hazardous substances.

    Dated: June 22, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R, is proposed to be
amended as follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

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. In Sec.  745.65 paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  745.65   Lead-based paint hazards.

* * * * *
    (b) Dust-lead hazard. A dust-lead hazard is surface dust in a
residential dwelling or child-occupied facility that contains a mass-
per-area concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 10 [micro]g/ft\2\
on floors or 100 [micro]g/ft\2\ on interior window sills based on wipe
samples.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  745.227 paragraph (h)(3)(i) is revised to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) In a residential dwelling on floors and interior window sills
when the weighted arithmetic mean lead loading for all single surface
or composite samples of floors and interior window sills are equal to
or greater than 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for
interior window sills, respectively;
* * * * *
0
4. Section 745.325 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  745.325   Lead-based paint activities: State and Tribal program
requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Revisions to lead-based paint activities program requirements.
When EPA publishes in the Federal Register revisions to the lead-based
paint activities program requirements contained in subpart L of this
part:
    (1) A State or Tribe with a lead-based paint activities program
approved before the effective date of the revisions to the lead-based
paint activities program requirements in subpart L of this part must
demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section in a report
that it submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h) but no later than 2 years
after the effective date of the revisions.
    (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a lead-
based paint activities program submitted but not approved before the
effective date of the revisions to the lead-based paint activities
program requirements in subpart L of this part must demonstrate that it
meets the requirements of this section either by amending its
application or in a report that it submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h)
of this part but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the
revisions.
    (3) A State or Tribe submitting its application for approval of a
lead-based paint activities program on or after the effective date of
the revisions must demonstrate in its application that it meets the
requirements of the new lead-based paint activities program
requirements in subpart L of this part.

[FR Doc. 2018-14094 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P