[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30302-30355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14736]



[[Page 30301]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 745



Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 30302]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[OPPTS-62156; FRL-5791-9]
RIN 2070-AC63


Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA), as amended by the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992, also known as ``Title X,'' EPA is proposing a 
regulation to establish standards for lead-based paint hazards in most 
pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. This proposed 
regulation is a focal point of the Federal lead program and supports 
the implementation of regulations already promulgated and others under 
development which deal with worker training and certification, lead 
hazard disclosure in real estate transactions, requirements for lead 
cleanup under State authorities, lead hazard evaluation and control in 
Federally-owned and Federally-assisted housing, and U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants to assist in lead hazard 
abatement. In addition, today's action also proposes, under the 
authority of TSCA section 402, residential lead dust cleanup levels and 
amendments to dust and soil sampling requirements and, under the 
authority of TSCA section 404, amendments to State program 
authorization requirements. By supporting the implementation of the 
national lead program, this proposed regulation would help to prevent 
lead poisoning in children under the age of 6.

DATES: Written comments in response to this proposed rule must be 
received on or before September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear the docket control number OPPTS-
62156. All comments should be sent in triplicate to: OPPT Document 
Control Officer (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Rm. G099, East Tower, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    Comments and data may also be submitted electronically to: 
[email protected]. Follow the instructions under Unit X. of 
this document. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be 
submitted through e-mail.
    All comments which contain information claimed as CBI must be 
clearly marked as such. Three copies, sanitized of any comments 
containing information claimed as CBI, must also be submitted and will 
be placed in the public record for this rulemaking. Persons submitting 
information, any portion of which they believe is entitled to treatment 
as CBI by EPA, must assert a business confidentiality claim in 
accordance with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for each such portion. This claim must 
be made at the time that the information is submitted to EPA. If a 
submitter does not assert a confidentiality claim at the time of 
submission, EPA will consider this as a waiver of any confidentiality 
claim and the information may be made available to the public by EPA 
without further notice to the submitter.
    If requested, EPA will schedule public meetings where oral comments 
will be heard. EPA will announce in the Federal Register the time and 
place of any public meetings. Oral statements will be scheduled on a 
first come first served basis by calling the telephone number listed in 
the Federal Register notice that announces these meetings. All 
statements will be made part of the public record and will be 
considered in the development of the final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: 
National Lead Information Center's Clearinghouse, 1-800-424-LEAD(5323). 
For specific technical and policy questions contact: Jonathan Jacobson, 
(202) 260-3779; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    This overview identifies entities potentially affected by the rule, 
summarizes the proposed rule, describes the uses and key limitations of 
the proposal's scope, and provides a roadmap of the preamble.

A. Regulated Entities

    The following table identifies the entities that would be involved 
in the implementation of regulations that would be affected by today's 
proposal and the effect of the proposal on implementation of those 
regulations.

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of                       
            Category                   Entities       Effect of Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead abatement professionals      Workers,            Provides standards
                                   supervisors,        that risk        
                                   inspectors, risk    assessors would  
                                   assessors, and      use to identify  
                                   project designers   hazards and      
                                   engaged in lead-    evaluate         
                                   based paint         clearance tests; 
                                   activities          helps determine  
                                                       when certified   
                                                       professionals    
                                                       would be required
                                                       to perform       
                                                       abatements       
                                                                        
Training providers                Firms providing     Provides standards
                                   training services   that training    
                                   in lead-based       providers would  
                                   paint activities    have to teach in 
                                                       their courses    
                                                                        
HUD and other Federal agencies                        Proposed standards
 that own residential property                         identify hazards 
                                                       that Federal     
                                                       agencies would   
                                                       have to abate in 
                                                       pre-1960 housing 
                                                       prior to sale    
                                                                        
Property owners who receive       State and city      Proposed standards
 assistance through Federal        public housing      identify hazards 
 housing programs                  authorities,        that property    
                                   owners of multi-    owners would have
                                   family rental       to abate or      
                                   properties who      reduce as        
                                   receive project-    specified by     
                                   based assistance,   regulations      
                                   owners of rental    currently be     
                                   properties who      developed by HUD 
                                   lease units under   under authority  
                                   HUD's tenant-       of Title X,      
                                   based assistance    section 1012     
                                   program                              
                                                                        
Property owners                   Owner occupants,    Proposed standards
                                   rental property     identify hazards 
                                   owners, public      that would have  
                                   housing             to be disclosed  
                                   authorities,        under EPA/HUD    
                                   Federal agencies    joint regulations
                                                       promulgated under
                                                       Title X, section 
                                                       1018             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers likely to be affected by this action through 
implementation of the elements of the programs discussed in this 
proposal. To determine whether

[[Page 30303]]

you, your business, or your agency is affected, you should carefully 
examine the Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities at 40 CFR part 
745, subpart L and subpart Q and Lead-Based Paint Disclosure at 40 CFR 
part 745, subpart F and 24 CFR part 35, subpart H. The regulations 
covering evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards in HUD-
associated and Federally-owned housing are currently under development. 
Proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on June 7, 
1996 (61 FR 29169). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

B. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    1. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Standards. EPA is proposing the 
amendments in this document primarily under the authority of section 
403 of TSCA. Section 403 requires EPA to promulgate regulations that 
``identify . . . lead-based paint hazards, lead-contaminated dust and 
lead-contaminated soil'' for purposes of the entire Title X which 
includes Title IV of TSCA. Lead-based paint hazards, under TSCA section 
401, 15 U.S.C. 2681, are defined as of conditions of lead-based paint 
and lead-contaminated dust and soil that ``would result'' in adverse 
human health effects (15 U.S.C. 2681(10)). Lead-based paint hazards 
from all three sources apply to target housing (i.e., most pre-1978 
housing) and child-occupied facilities.
    The proposed standard for the paint component, called hazardous 
lead-based paint, is lead-based paint in poor condition. Paint in poor 
condition is defined as more than 10 square feet (ft2) of 
deteriorated paint on exterior components with large surface areas, 
more than 2 ft2 of deteriorated paint on interior components 
with large surface areas (e.g., walls, ceilings, floors), or 
deteriorated paint more than 10 percent of the total surface area of 
exterior or interior components with small surface areas (e.g., trim, 
baseboards). The proposed standards for dust-lead hazards are the 
average levels of lead in dust that equals or exceeds 50 micrograms per 
square foot (g/ft2) on uncarpeted floors and 250 
g/ft2 on interior window sills. The proposed 
standard for soil-lead hazards is the total lead that equals or exceeds 
2,000 parts per million (ppm) based on a yard-wide average soil-lead 
concentration rather than maximum or worst-case values.
    Although the proposed regulation does not require property owners 
to respond to the presence of lead-based paint hazards, EPA would 
recommend that appropriate measures should be taken, commensurate with 
the risk reduction achieved, to reduce or eliminate the hazards. Small 
amounts of hazardous lead-based paint can be addressed by repairing 
deteriorated paint. Larger amounts of hazardous lead-based paint should 
be abated, meaning that the paint can be removed from the component, 
the component can be replaced, or the paint can be enclosed.
    Dust-lead hazards should be addressed through intensive cleaning. 
If household surfaces are smooth and cleanable, regular household 
cleaning can probably maintain acceptably low levels of lead in dust in 
the absence of any event (e.g., remodeling project) that reintroduces 
large amounts of dust contaminated with lead. Soil-lead hazards should 
be eliminated. Currently available options include soil removal and 
permanently covering the soil (i.e., paving).
    In addition, this document proposes to identify a soil-lead level 
of concern of 400 ppm based on a yard-wide average, which represents a 
level at which risk should be communicated to the public as compared to 
the more active risk reduction measures recommended for hazards. This 
level will not be included in the regulation because it would impose no 
legally recognizable requirements on any person or entities subject to 
this regulation. Nevertheless, if a soil-lead hazard is not present, 
but lead in soil exceeds the level of concern, EPA recommends that low 
cost measures, which may be sufficient to reduce exposure, be 
implemented. These measures include but are not limited to covering 
bare soil, placement of washable doormats, more frequent washing of 
hands and toys, and access restrictions. Access restrictions should 
only be used if there are other parts of the yard that are available to 
the residents.
    EPA is planning to develop a guidance document to accompany the 
final regulation that will explain these recommended responses to lead-
based paint hazards and the soil-lead level of concern in greater 
detail.
    It is important to note that the proposed standards are intended to 
be used prospectively. That is, they should be used to identify 
properties that present risks to children before children are harmed. 
These standards would not be appropriate to use when identifying the 
sources of exposure for a lead-poisoned child. When a property is being 
evaluated in response to the identification of a lead-poisoned child, 
the risk assessor in cooperation of a local public health official 
should identify and consider all sources of lead exposure.
    The proposed TSCA section 403 standards are based on the best data 
and analytical tools currently available to the Agency. EPA expects 
that the standards may need to be modified over time as better tools 
and data become available. The Agency, however, believes that issuing 
standards now, even in the face of considerable uncertainty, is 
consistent both with the public's need for information from EPA and the 
statutory intent to develop standards with currently available 
information.
    In this document, EPA is also proposing amendments to the existing 
rules issued under TSCA sections 402 and 404, including: (1) 
Requirements for interpreting the results of sampling of lead materials 
for purposes of assessing risk; (2) clearance standards for cleaning up 
hazardous lead dust of 50 g/ft2 for uncarpeted 
floors, 250 g/ft2 for interior window sills, and 
800 g/ft2 for window troughs; (3) amendments to the 
dust and soil sampling locations in the risk assessment work practice 
standards at 40 CFR 745.227; (4) work practice standards for the 
management of soil removed during a soil abatement; and (5) amendments 
to the State and Tribal program authorization requirements under 40 CFR 
part 745, subpart Q.

C. Uses of the Standards

    The TSCA section 403 standards support implementation of key 
provisions of Title X which would require action with respect to lead-
based paint hazards by both private parties and the government, 
principally for EPA and programs under the auspices of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These provisions include 
eligibility criteria for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's (HUD) lead hazard control grant program (section 1011 of 
Title X), which authorizes grants to clean up lead-based paint hazards. 
In addition, Title X imposes certain requirements on owners of HUD-
associated housing (section 1012 of Title X) and Federal agencies 
selling residential properties they own to evaluate and control lead-
based paint hazards (section 1013 of Title X). Sellers and lessors of 
housing built before 1978 have obligations to disclose known lead-based 
paint and lead-based paint hazards prior to sale or rental (section 
1018 of Title X). Regulations also impose requirements to use certified 
workers for evaluation and cleanup of

[[Page 30304]]

lead-based paint hazards (section 402 of TSCA). These provisions are 
described in more detail in Unit VIII. of this preamble.
    EPA does note, however, that the regulations would not require 
private property owners to undertake hazard control actions when 
hazards are identified. Instead, EPA expects that concern about 
children's health, liability exposure and other market forces will 
provide incentive for property owners to take action voluntarily.
    In addition to their applicability within Title X, EPA anticipates 
that the TSCA section 403 regulations will have broader uses. The 
proposed regulations will play a significant role in public education, 
communicating the Agency's best judgment concerning the identification 
of lead-based paint hazards to property owners, State and local 
officials, tenants, and other decision-makers. EPA also expects that 
public and private institutions may incorporate the standards into 
State and local laws, housing codes, and lending and insurance 
underwriting standards.

D. Limitations of the Proposed Rule

    During the regulatory development process, it became clear that 
significant confusion and uncertainty exists about the requirements and 
purpose of the TSCA section 403 regulations. To address this confusion 
and uncertainty, EPA wishes to highlight the major limitations and 
other issues related to the scope and use of today's proposal.
    First, this proposal does not establish a new definition for lead-
based paint, defined by statute as paint with lead levels equal to or 
exceeding 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 
0.5 percent by weight (see section 302(c) of the Lead-Poisoning 
Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 4822(c) and TSCA section 401(9)). Under Title 
X, only the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has the 
authority to change the standard for lead-based paint in target housing 
(see TSCA section 401(9)). Title IV provides EPA the authority to 
change the standard only for lead-based paint in non-residential 
applications (e.g., public and commercial buildings, steel structures) 
(see TSCA section 401(9)). This proposal does not include any changes 
to this statutory definition.
    Second, the proposed standards are intended to identify lead-based 
paint hazards when the lead-based paint risk assessment is performed. 
Because the conditions of lead-based paint and the levels of lead in 
dust and soil are constantly changing, the results of the risk 
assessment communicate conditions at the time the measurements are 
taken and the observations made. The proposed standards do not address 
the potential for hazards to develop. EPA recognizes, however, that 
potential hazards (e.g., intact lead-based paint on a ceiling) may 
become actual hazards as conditions change over time. Periodic 
reevaluation of a property would enable a property owner to determine 
whether potential hazards have become actual hazards. Recommendations 
concerning reevaluation will be provided in a separate guidance 
document that EPA is planning to issue.
    Third, because the TSCA section 403 standards are established for 
the purposes of Title X and TSCA Title IV, they do not apply to housing 
and facilities occupied by children built during or after 1978, as well 
as some pre-1978 housing that is not included in the definition of 
target housing (e.g., 0-bedroom dwellings). EPA recognizes, however, 
that property owners and other decision-makers may be concerned about 
the presence of elevated levels of lead in dust and soil in housing and 
facilities occupied by children not covered by the standards. In such 
cases, EPA encourages these owners and decision-makers to use the 
standards to help determine whether actions should be taken to reduce 
risks to young children.
    Fourth, the proposed regulations do not set standards that can be 
used to identify housing that is free from risks associated with 
exposure to lead. Such standards would be difficult to define, 
unworkable in practice, and inconsistent with the intent of Title X. 
Virtually all target housing has some lead present in paint, dust, and/
or soil, which, under certain circumstances, may present risk to 
children. Furthermore, these risks often will depend on circumstances 
that may change quickly, such as the physical condition of the 
property. Thus, housing that presents minimal risks when examined may 
present substantial risks later.

E. Preamble Overview

    The remainder of this preamble consists of eleven units. Unit II. 
provides background information, including: a description of the 
residential lead-based paint problem; Title X as a legislative 
response; key aspects of the regulatory development process; and the 
Agency's general standard-setting approach. Unit III. is a section-by-
section review of the proposed regulatory provisions. Unit IV. presents 
EPA's interpretation of the statutory authority for the proposed TSCA 
section 403 standards, the Agency's policy basis for the proposed 
standards, and EPA's decisions for the proposed TSCA section 403 
standards. This unit includes a summary of the technical analyses 
conducted by the Agency to support these decisions. Unit V. discusses a 
range of issues that affected EPA's decision-making during the 
regulatory development process. Unit VI. presents EPA's rationale and 
decisions for requirements on comparing risk assessment sampling 
results to the TSCA section 403 standards. Unit VII. describes the 
Agency's rationale and decisions concerning clearance standards and 
other amendments to the TSCA section 402 regulations related to work 
practice standards and TSCA section 404 regulations concerning EPA 
authorization of State and Tribal programs. Unit VIII. describes the 
effect that today's proposal will have on other Title X regulations and 
programs, and Unit IX. discusses the relationship between the proposed 
regulations and other EPA programs. Unit X. provides information on the 
public record supporting this regulation (``the docket''). Unit XI. 
presents the bibliographic references cited in the preamble, which are 
also part of the docket. Unit XII. presents a summary of the regulatory 
assessment analyses and Agency determinations conducted in response to 
various Federal laws and Executive orders concerning the public health 
and economic impact of the proposed regulation.

II. Background

A. Nature of the Problem

    Elemental lead is a heavy, soft, and malleable bluish metal that 
has been used for thousands of years. Its favorable physical and 
chemical properties account for its versatility and extensive use in 
many common products including lead acid batteries, ammunition, 
chemicals (e.g., plastic stabilizers, pigments, and ceramic glazes), 
alloys (e.g., solder in piping and electronics), pipe/sheet lead, and 
radiation and cable sheathing. Centuries of mining, smelting, and use 
have released millions of tons of lead into the environment. With no 
known or foreseeable technology to render anthropogenic sources of 
environmental lead harmless, it remains ubiquitous in air, water, soil, 
dust, and in older homes and commercial structures. As a result, 
practically all people have some exposure to lead of anthropogenic 
origin.
    Lead affects virtually every system of the human body. Exposure to 
high doses of lead can cause coma, convulsions,

[[Page 30305]]

and even death. Exposure to low levels of lead can cause harm gradually 
and imperceptibly, with no obvious symptoms. In adults, chronic 
exposure to low levels of lead may cause memory and concentration 
problems, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and damage to the male 
reproductive system. Exposure to lead before or during pregnancy can 
alter fetal development and cause miscarriages. A more detailed 
description of the health effects of lead can be found in Chapter 2 of 
the Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and 
Soil, which can be found in the public record for this proposal (Ref. 
1).
    While potentially harmful to individuals of all ages, lead exposure 
is especially harmful to children. Their rapidly developing nervous 
systems are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead. In addition, 
children absorb a greater portion of the lead to which they are exposed 
than adults do. Excessive exposure to lead in children causes learning 
disabilities, lower intelligence, behavioral problems, growth 
impairment, permanent hearing and visual impairment, and other damage 
to the brain and nervous system.
    The concentration of lead in a child's blood is typically used as 
an index of lead exposure. As recent studies have identified previously 
unrecognized effects of exposure to lead at lower levels, there has 
been increasing concern about blood-lead levels once thought to be 
safe. Since 1975, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
have lowered the blood-lead level considered elevated for children from 
40 g/dl (micrograms per deciliter) to 10 g/dl (Ref. 
2). Although the scientific community has not been able to identify a 
threshold of exposure below which adverse health effects do not occur, 
the evidence of health effects below 10 g/dl is not 
sufficiently strong to warrant concern.
    Ingestion of lead-contaminated dust and soil through normal hand-
to-mouth activity appears to be the primary pathway of lead exposure to 
U.S. children under 6 years of age. (Refs. 3 and 4.), Dust is 
contaminated by lead when: lead-based paint deteriorates; lead-based 
paint is disturbed in the course of renovation, repair, or abatement 
activity; or lead is tracked into, blown into, or otherwise enters the 
home from soil in the yard or other external sources (e.g., workplace). 
Soil contaminated with lead from deterioration of exterior lead-based 
paint, industrial emissions, and/or deposition of lead from past use of 
leaded gasoline may be ingested directly or contribute to indoor levels 
of lead-contaminated dust when tracked into the home. Children may also 
be exposed to lead through the ingestion of lead-based paint chips from 
flaking walls, windows, and doors or from chewing on surfaces covered 
with lead-based paint. Other sources of lead exposure include, but are 
not limited to, lead-contaminated food and drinking water and 
occupational exposure to dust and airborne lead particles.
    Considerable progress has been made in reducing environmental lead 
levels. Concrete steps taken by the Federal government to eliminate 
sources of lead include the phase-out of leaded gasoline by EPA (40 CFR 
part 80) and the ban by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 
of the production and sale of lead-based paint for residential use in 
1978 (16 CFR part 1303). The CPSC action placed a maximum limit on the 
amount of lead in paint (0.06 percent by weight) for residential use, 
as well as for furniture and toys. In addition, EPA has implemented 
more stringent standards for lead in drinking water, and the domestic 
canning industry voluntarily eliminated the use of lead in solder to 
seal food cans (40 CFR parts 141 and 142).
    Consistent with these improvements, the percentage of children with 
elevated blood-lead levels has declined over the last 20 years. The 
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by 
the National Center for Health Statistics indicates that over the past 
2 decades the average child's blood-lead level has decreased from 12.8 
micrograms/deciliters (g/dl) to 2.8 g/dl (Ref. 5). 
According to NHANES III Phase 2, completed in 1994, approximately 
900,000 U.S. children of ages 1 to 5 years had blood-lead levels equal 
to or exceeding the 10 g/dl (Ref. 6).
    Excessive exposure to lead affects children across all socio-
economic strata and in all regions of the country. Children in poor 
inner-city families, however, are disproportionately affected because 
lead-based paint hazards are more prevalent in older housing and the 
overall ambient level of environmental lead from all sources tends to 
be higher in inner cities (Ref. 7). Studies indicate that children 
living in central cities are three to four times more likely to have 
blood-lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl than those 
outside central cities, with the highest prevalence in cities where 
populations exceed 1 million (Ref. 7).
    According to EPA's report on the HUD National Survey of Lead-Based 
Paint in Housing, 83 percent of privately-owned, occupied homes built 
before 1980, or 64.4 million homes, contain some lead-based paint (Ref. 
8). The likelihood, extent, and concentration of lead-based paint vary 
with the age of the building. Eighty-eight percent of privately-owned, 
occupied housing units constructed before 1940, 92 percent of units 
constructed between 1940 and 1959, and 76 percent of units constructed 
between 1960 and 1979 contain some lead-based paint (Ref. 8). Over 12 
million (or 19 percent) of these pre-1980 homes with some lead-based 
paint have children aged 7 years or younger in residence (Ref. 8). (The 
HUD National Survey presents results for children aged 7 years or 
younger; Title X, which was enacted after the survey was conducted, 
focuses upon children younger than 6 years.)
    All homes containing lead-based paint pose a potential future 
hazard to the occupants if the paint is not managed properly. Intact 
lead-based paint may deteriorate over time to create a hazardous 
condition. According to EPA's analysis of the HUD National Survey, 
about 19 percent of pre-1980 privately-owned units contained non-intact 
lead-based paint in 1989-90, which was defined at the time of the 
survey as greater than 5 square feet of peeling, chipping, or otherwise 
deteriorated paint (Ref. 8). Assuming that the percent of pre-1980 
homes with non-intact lead-based paint that have young children is the 
same as the percent of pre-1980 homes with some lead-based paint that 
have young children (19 percent), about four percent of pre-1980 homes 
in the United States contained both non-intact lead-based paint and 
young children.
    Based on the HUD National Survey, EPA estimates that 13 million or 
17 percent of pre-1980 privately-owned homes have ``elevated'' lead 
dust levels, which were defined at the time of the Survey as lead dust 
exceeding 200 g/ft2 on floors, 500 g/
ft2 on window sills, or 800 g/ft2 on 
window troughs (Ref. 8). Homes with non-intact lead-based paint were 
five times more likely to have elevated lead dust levels than homes 
with intact lead-based paint (Ref. 9).
    EPA's analysis of the HUD National Survey also estimates that 
approximately 16 million or 21 percent of privately-owned pre-1980 
housing units have soil-lead concentrations exceeding 400 ppm (Ref. 8). 
The prevalence of soil-lead levels exceeding 400 ppm varies greatly 
with the age of housing. Sixty percent of pre-1940 units, but only 
eight percent of 1940-1959 units and four percent of 1960-

[[Page 30306]]

1979 units have such soil-lead concentrations (Ref. 9).

B. Structure of Basic Legal Authorities

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-
550), enacted on October 29, 1992, contains 16 titles amending and 
extending a number of laws relating to housing and community 
development. Title X of this Act, entitled the ``Residential Lead-Based 
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992,'' contains five subtitles extending 
and establishing programs for reducing exposure to lead, principally, 
in paint and residential dust and soil. Provisions of Title X are 
codified in the United States Code (U.S.C.) at volume 42, section 4851 
and at various other sections of volume 42, as well as of volumes 12 
and 15.
    Subtitle A of Title X (codified at volume 42 U.S.C. 4852, and at 
various other sections of volumes 42 and 12) applies primarily to 
grants and other programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Subtitle B of Title X amends the 
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601, et. seq., by 
adding Title IV, which requires EPA to establish requirements for 
training and accreditation of contractors performing lead-based paint 
related work, issue the standards being proposed today, sponsor public 
education programs, establish programs for studying the effectiveness 
of lead-based paint hazard evaluation and control products, and 
establish a laboratory accreditation program. Subtitle C of Title X 
deals with worker protection and training under jurisdiction of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Subtitles D and E 
provide for research and reporting on various aspects of lead-based 
paint activities. These last three subtitles are codified at volume 42 
U.S.C. 4853 to 4856.
    An overview of the particular regulatory sections in the Subparts 
of Title X that relate to this proposed rule follows.
    1. EPA responsibilities. Under TSCA section 402 (15 U.S.C. 2682), 
EPA has promulgated regulations governing the training and 
certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-based paint 
activities, the accreditation of programs to train such individuals, 
and work practice standards for conducting lead-based paint activities. 
These regulations were published in the Federal Register of August 29, 
1996 (61 FR 45778) (FRL-5389-9), and are codified at 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart L. EPA will amend these regulations at a later date to address 
deleading in public and commercial buildings, and other structures, 
such as bridges.
    In conjunction with these activities, EPA developed specific 
guidelines under section 402(c)(1) for renovation and remodeling 
activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of 
lead (Ref. 10). Under TSCA section 402(c)(3), EPA is required to revise 
the certification and accreditation regulations under 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart L, to address renovation and remodeling activities that create 
lead-based paint hazards, after conducting a study of such activities.
    In conjunction with the TSCA section 402 rule, EPA, under TSCA 
section 404 (15 U.S.C. 2684), developed a Model State Program, which 
States and Indian Tribes are encouraged to reference and use as 
guidance to develop their own Federally-authorized lead-based paint 
activities programs. The regulations in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, 
include procedures for States and Indian Tribes to follow when applying 
to EPA for authorization to administer and enforce a State or Tribal 
training, accreditation, and certification program.
    Under TSCA section 406(a) (15 U.S.C. 2686(a)), EPA, HUD, and CPSC 
jointly released a lead hazard information pamphlet, Protect Your 
Family from Lead in Your Home (60 FR 39167, August 1, 1995) (FRL-4966-
6). The pamphlet is designed to educate families about the potential 
health risks associated with lead exposure and ways to avoid such 
exposure.
    Under TSCA section 406(b), EPA has promulgated a regulation to 
require persons performing renovation work for compensation in 
residential housing built before 1978 to provide owners and occupants 
with a lead hazard information pamphlet before renovation begins.
    Under Title X, section 1018 (42 U.S.C. 4852(d)), EPA and HUD have 
jointly developed regulations requiring a seller or lessor of most pre-
1978 housing to disclose the presence of any known lead-based paint or 
lead-based paint hazards to the purchaser or lessee (24 CFR part 35, 
subpart H; 40 CFR part 745, subpart F). Under these rules, the seller 
or lessor also must provide the purchaser or lessee any available 
records or reports pertaining to such paint or hazards and a copy of 
the lead hazard information pamphlet. Additionally, the seller must 
allow the purchaser 10 days to conduct an inspection or risk assessment 
for the presence of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. 
Finally, the sale or leasing contract must include certain disclosure 
and acknowledgment provisions, and real estate agents must ensure 
compliance with these standards.
    2. HUD responsibilities. In addition, to the joint regulations 
issued with EPA under section 1018 of Title X, HUD has a number of 
programs under its own authorities that will be affected by the rule.
    Under section 1011 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4852), HUD provides grants 
to State and local governments to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint 
hazards in pre-1978 housing that qualifies as affordable housing and is 
not Federally-assisted, Federally-owned, or public housing.
    Under Title X sections 1012 and 1013, HUD is required to establish 
lead-based paint hazard notification, evaluation, and reduction 
requirements for HUD-associated housing and Federally-owned housing 
under provisions codified at various parts of 42 U.S.C. These 
regulations, which HUD proposed on June 7, 1996 (61 FR 29170), will 
establish programmatic lead-based paint hazard notification, 
evaluation, and reduction requirements and will describe how these 
activities should be performed. The latter set of standards are based 
on the detailed HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing (hereinafter HUD Guidelines) (Ref. 11), 
which HUD developed under Title X section 1017 (42 U.S.C. 4852c), and 
on EPA's TSCA section 402 standards described above. The HUD Guidelines 
reflect input from housing, public health, and environmental 
professionals with broad experience in lead-based paint hazard 
identification and control.
    3. Other agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), CPSC, the Department of Labor, and other Federal agencies have 
contributed to the development of standards and other programs under 
Title X, including through their consultation with EPA and HUD. EPA, 
HUD, and CPSC jointly released the lead hazard information pamphlet in 
consultation with CDC. Under section 1031 of Title X (subpart C), OSHA 
promulgated interim final employee protection requirements for 
construction workers exposed to lead, which apply to lead-based paint 
activities in residential housing and other construction settings (29 
CFR 1926.62).

C. Regulatory Development Process

    EPA began development of the proposed rule immediately following 
enactment of Title X. The Agency quickly encountered significant 
challenges in its design and

[[Page 30307]]

implementation of the risk and economic analyses needed to guide 
selection of the standards. Recognizing the growing need for advice on 
this issue, EPA released an interim guidance document in July 1994 to 
provide public and private decision-makers with guidance on identifying 
and prioritizing lead-based paint hazards for control. The 
recommendations in the guidance represented the Agency's best judgment 
given the state of knowledge at the time. EPA subsequently published 
the interim guidance document in the Federal Register of September 11, 
1995 (60 FR 47248) (FRL-4969-6). The interim guidance will continue to 
serve as EPA's official policy until EPA promulgates final standards 
under TSCA section 403.
    The TSCA section 403 regulations are a significant component of the 
national lead-based paint hazard reduction program. As such, these 
regulations will likely have a broad impact on public health and 
housing. In light of these potential impacts as well as intense 
interest in this proposed rule expressed by a large number of 
stakeholders, EPA established a Dialogue Process to provide a forum 
where EPA could obtain input early in the rulemaking process from 
representatives of a range of groups that have an interest in the TSCA 
section 403 regulations. Interested parties included lead-poisoning 
prevention experts, environmental advocates, housing providers, the 
lead industry, State and local governments, the banking and insurance 
industries, and the lead risk assessment and abatement industry. EPA 
did not use the Dialogue Process to develop a consensus among the 
participants, but rather used the Process to gather individual points 
of view. Meetings were open to the public and a summary of each meeting 
was placed in the public record for this proposed rule (Refs. 12-16).
    EPA held five meetings using the Dialogue Process: October 19, 
1995; December 14, 1995; February 15, 1996; March 21, 1996; and 
November 12, 1997. The first four meetings focused on a range of policy 
and implementation issues for which EPA presented a range of potential 
options. Participants commented on these options and sometimes 
suggested options EPA had not previously considered. Dialogue Process 
participants also identified issues EPA had not presented to the group. 
The Dialogue Process did not address questions related to the risk 
analysis or the technical basis for the rule. These are important and 
difficult issues but were beyond the scope of the policy level input 
EPA was seeking from the Dialogue. The Agency, instead, presented its 
risk analysis document for an expedited peer review in August 1997. 
Comments provided by the reviewers can be found in the public record 
for this proposed rule. EPA will also ask its Science Advisory Board 
(SAB) to review the risk analysis during the public comment period for 
today's proposed rule. The SAB report will also be placed in the public 
record, and EPA will consider this report in its development of the 
final rule.
    At the final meeting, EPA staff presented a draft of the options 
for the proposed rule being recommended to senior Agency managers. This 
meeting provided an opportunity for interested parties to express their 
concerns about the current direction of the proposed rule and allowed 
EPA to address these concerns by clarifying the Agency's rationale or 
by seeking additional input. By addressing the concerns of interested 
parties in the proposal, EPA hopes to facilitate the process of 
finalizing the proposed regulations.
    In addition to the Dialogue Process, EPA staff met with the public 
in a variety of other forums to discuss issues related to the rule. 
These forums included conferences sponsored by trade associations, 
seminars sponsored by real estate groups (e.g., Owners and Managers 
Group of the Mid-Atlantic Region, Real Estate Board of New York) and 
legal publications (e.g., New York Law Journal), and meetings with 
interested parties. In most of these settings, EPA staff provided an 
update on the status of the rulemaking and responded to questions. 
Occasionally, EPA met with interested parties to obtain information on 
specific issues of concern. For example, Agency staff met with 
representatives of rental property owners to gauge owner response to 
the regulatory standards. In several instances, interested parties 
requested meetings with EPA to provide their perspective on specific 
regulatory and/or technical issues. EPA has placed a summary of all 
meetings between its staff and interested parties in the public record 
for this proposed rule (Ref. 17). EPA did not prepare summaries of 
presentations delivered at conferences and seminars.

D. General Approach to Standard Setting

    Before EPA could formulate and analyze options for the TSCA section 
403 standards, the Agency had to develop an overall approach for the 
rulemaking. EPA's standard-setting approach was based on the outcome of 
two decisions. The first decision was whether the Agency should develop 
uniform national standards or standards that are targeted (e.g., to 
specific communities or populations). The second decision was whether 
EPA should develop independent, media-specific standards or joint 
standards. This unit presents EPA's analysis of these issues and its 
decisions.
    1. Uniform, national standards, or targeted standards. The 
establishment of the standards in today's proposal required estimates 
of the relationship between environmental lead levels (from paint, 
dust, and soil) and their effects on the health of exposed children. 
This relationship is extremely complex, and is dependent upon numerous 
site-specific and child-specific factors. These estimates are more 
accurate on a smaller (residence or community) scale, where more site-
specific factors can be considered.
    A targeted approach to standard-setting (i.e., community- or 
resident-specific standards) would result in numerically different 
standards for each residence or community. Developing national 
standards, on the other hand, would produce the same numerical standard 
for all residences and communities, but with an attendant loss of 
accuracy. That is, national standards would be more protective at some 
locations and less protective at others because national standards 
would not account for community- or residence-specific factors.
    EPA decided, based on considerations of feasibility and ease of 
implementation, that national standards are the most appropriate 
regulatory approach. First, the data needed to establish standards at a 
smaller scale are neither collected under the Title X program nor 
available for communities nationwide. Much of the necessary residence-
specific data could be collected to establish residence-specific 
standards, but lead-based paint risk assessments would have to be 
broader in scope (i.e., include water sampling and sampling of other 
ambient environmental levels) and more costly than currently 
envisioned. Even then, residence-specific standards would not account 
for variability in exposure influenced by child-specific factors (e.g., 
hand-to-mouth behavior, hygiene, nutrition). Community-specific data 
would require new resource-intensive data collection efforts (e.g, 
patterns of soil contamination, water lead levels). In contrast, 
national data on lead in paint, dust, and soil are currently available.
    Second, uniform national standards are easier to implement. 
National standards provide a fixed basis of comparison for all homes. 
National standards can also be used to compare

[[Page 30308]]

properties and establish priorities. In contrast, with residence-
specific standards, there would be millions of standards. Such a 
regulation would be largely unworkable. Property owners and other 
decision-makers would not know what standard would apply until a hazard 
evaluation was conducted. Rental property owners who own multiple 
properties would be working with a different standard for each 
property. In addition, residence-specific standards would not help 
establish priorities because it would be extremely difficult to compare 
the relative needs of different properties.
    In making this decision, the Agency was also mindful that certain 
segments of the population have a higher incidence of elevated blood-
lead levels (e.g., some minority children in inner-city neighborhoods) 
and a case could be made for proposing more stringent standards for 
particular neighborhoods. However, estimates of the relationship 
between environmental lead levels and children's health effects are not 
sufficiently refined to distinguish relationships for particular 
subsets of the general population of children.
    In light of the recently released NHANES III, Phase 2 data, EPA 
considered an alternative option under which uniform standards would 
only be effective in higher risk communities. EPA, however, rejected 
this option because there is insufficient data to definitively identify 
these higher risk communities. In addition, the development of 
standards for higher risk communities would introduce significant 
complexities. First, EPA would have to establish criteria for 
identifying these communities. Second, the Agency would have to develop 
a set of standards for each category of community. Third, EPA would 
have to develop an approach for addressing neighborhoods that border on 
higher risk communities. As an alternative, the Agency believes that an 
effective and simpler approach to address vulnerable communities is 
through program implementation (e.g., training, education, and 
environmental justice grants).
    EPA also wishes to note that Congress envisioned that important 
elements of the Title X program would be delegated to the States. 
Accordingly, the Agency preferred to establish a simple, minimal set of 
standards that could easily be adopted by States and allow them to 
tailor the standards (i.e., by considering more site-specific factors), 
should they so choose. Consequently, States will have greater 
flexibility in establishing and implementing their programs while a 
national, baseline level of protection to children is maintained.
    Because the decision to set uniform national standards has a 
significant impact on the standard-setting process, EPA is interested 
in obtaining comment on this issue. The Agency would like specific 
input on how EPA should set standards that will ensure national 
resources are targeted commensurate with risk.
    2. Joint, media-specific standards vs. joint standards. The second 
issue that shaped EPA's standard-setting approach involves the fact 
that a child's total lead exposure is the sum of contributions from 
numerous sources, including paint, dust, soil, and others. 
Specifically, EPA had to decide whether to set separate, independent 
standards for paint, dust, and soil or to integrate the standards. 
Under the first option, EPA would establish the standard for each 
medium without considering the conditions in the other media. For 
example, the standard for soil would not be affected by the level of 
lead in dust. The soil standard would remain constant, regardless of 
whether dust lead levels were high or low. The chief advantage of this 
option is that the standards are simple to understand and use. The main 
disadvantage is that the standard for each medium may not correspond to 
total exposure and risk.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN98.000

    Under the second option, EPA would set standards to account for 
total lead exposure from all media. Under a joint standard, the 
standard for each medium would vary, depending on the conditions in the 
other media. For example, the Agency could graphically represent 
combinations of hazardous levels of lead in dust and soil with a 
downward sloping line. In this graph, shown in Figure 1, the horizontal 
axis could depict the level of lead in soil.

[[Page 30309]]

The vertical axis could depict the level of lead in dust. Any point on 
this chart, therefore, would illustrate a combination of lead dust and 
lead soil levels. The downward sloping line would intersect the 
horizontal axis at the point representing the highest acceptable level 
of lead in soil if there is no lead in dust. The line would intersect 
the vertical axis at the point representing the highest acceptable 
level of lead in dust if there were no lead in soil. All points above 
the line would be defined as hazardous. To incorporate the condition of 
paint into the joint dust and soil standards, the Agency, in theory, 
could establish two downward sloping lines: one for homes with no 
deteriorated lead-based paint and another for homes with deteriorated 
lead-based paint. The major advantage of the joint standards is that 
they better reflect the total exposure and risk. On the other hand, 
joint standards are more difficult to explain, understand, and use.
    Normally, EPA would tend to favor the approach that better reflects 
risk to human health. Certainly the joint standard approach described 
above would be the approach of choice in evaluating the environmental 
risks to a child in a specific house. In the context of this proposed 
rule, however, EPA has concluded that single, medium-specific standards 
would be far more workable than joint standards for many of the same 
reasons that national standards are more workable than targeted 
standards. First, media-specific standards provide a fixed basis of 
comparison for all homes and can be used to compare properties and 
establish priorities. Second, EPA believes that fixed numerical 
standards are more easily understood than standards that require an 
understanding of mathematical relationships. In addition, the Agency 
does not currently possess the analytical techniques necessary to 
relate dust loadings to soil concentrations, the measurement basis for 
the dust and soil standards. Consequently, EPA lacks a technical method 
to establish joint standards.

III. Section-by-Section Review of the Proposed Rule

    This unit of the preamble provides a section-by-section explanation 
of the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations consist of five 
components: the proposed section 403 standards for lead-based paint 
hazards; amendments to the final section 402 regulations; amendments to 
the final section 404 regulations; and definitions for specific terms. 
The unit focuses on the proposed section 403 standards, the proposed 
amendments to the final section 402 regulations, and the amendments to 
the final section 404 regulation. The definitions are discussed in 
relation to the relevant proposed regulatory provisions. Furthermore, 
the definitions in proposed Sec. 745.63 that already exist in 40 CFR 
745.223 are not subject to public comment.

A. Proposed Section 403 Standards

    The TSCA section 403 standards consist of three parts: scope and 
applicability; the standards for lead-based paint hazards; and 
provisions for implementing the standards.
    1. Scope and applicability. The scope and applicability part of the 
standards, which is stated in proposed Sec. 745.61, would establish 
that the proposed standards would apply to target housing (i.e., most 
pre-1978 housing) and child-occupied facilities.
    This part of the proposed rule also makes it clear that the TSCA 
section 403 standards do not require the owner of properties covered by 
this proposed rule to evaluate his/her properties for the presence of 
lead-based paint hazards, or to take any action to control these 
conditions if one or more of them is identified.
    2. Standards for lead-based paint hazards. The proposed standards 
for lead-based paint hazards are codified in proposed Sec. 745.65. 
Proposed Sec. 745.65(a) states that hazardous lead-based paint includes 
lead-based paint in poor condition. Proposed Sec. 745.63 defines paint 
in poor condition as more than 10 square feet of deteriorated paint on 
exterior components with large surface areas, more than 2 square feet 
of deteriorated paint on interior components with large surface areas 
(e.g., walls, ceilings, floors), or deteriorated paint on more than 10 
percent of the total surface area of interior or exterior components 
with small surface areas (e.g., trim, baseboards). EPA is not proposing 
hazardous lead-based paint standards for accessible surfaces and 
friction and impact surfaces. The Agency, instead, has presented a 
range of options for these standards, which are discussed in Unit 
IV.D.2 and IV.D.3. of this preamble. EPA is seeking public comment on 
these options and will promulgate standards as part of the final rule 
based on these options and consideration of public input.
    Proposed Sec. 745.65(b) identifies dust-lead hazards in terms of 
lead loading and location. Lead loading is the quantity of lead present 
per unit of surface area (e.g., micrograms per square foot). The 
proposed dust-lead hazard standard is 50 g/ft2 for 
uncarpeted floors and 250 g/ft2 for interior window 
sills. The proposed rule does not include a dust-lead hazard standard 
for carpeted floors or for window troughs.
    Proposed Sec. 745.65(c) identifies soil-lead hazards in terms of 
lead concentration. Lead concentration is the relative content of lead 
within the soil measured in parts per million by weight. The proposed 
standard for soil-lead hazard is 2,000 ppm.
    3. Proposed requirements for implementing the standards. This part 
of the proposal describes the requirements for how a certified risk 
assessor would compare on-site observations and sampling results to the 
standards to determine whether lead-based paint hazards are present. 
The general requirements are in Sec. 745.69. EPA has incorporated the 
specific requirements, which are summarized in Table 1 below, into the 
work practice standards for lead-based paint activities found at 40 CFR 
745.227.
    Proposed Sec. 745.69 would establish that the determination 
requirements are applicable to the standards for lead-based paint 
hazards. It also states that the determination would have to be made by 
a certified risk assessor performing a risk assessment according to the 
risk assessment work practice standards. Third, the proposed 
regulations state that, for purposes of determining the presence of a 
dust-lead hazard, the risk assessor must compare the weighted 
arithmetic means of the samples to the applicable standard. For 
purposes of determining the presence of soil-lead hazards, the risk 
assessor must compare the arithmetic means of the samples to the 
applicable standard.

 Table 1.--Summary of Regulations for Determining the Presence of Lead- 
                           Based Paint Hazards                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type and Location of Hazard/Contamination              Method           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous lead-based paint: lead-based     Visual assessment for        
 paint in poor condition                    condition of paint; test    
                                            paint; assume all like      
                                            surfaces that have similar  
                                            painting history contain    
                                            lead-based paint if tested  
                                            component has lead-based    
                                            paint                       
                                                                        

[[Page 30310]]

                                                                        
Dust-lead hazard: uncarpeted floors        Compare weighted arithmetic  
 (single-family and sampled units and       mean lead loading of all    
 common areas in multi-family)              samples for uncarpeted      
                                            floors to the hazard        
                                            standard for floors         
                                                                        
Dust-lead hazard: interior window sills    Compare weighted arithmetic  
 (single-family and sampled units and       mean lead loading of all    
 common areas in multi-family)              samples for interior window 
                                            sills to the hazard standard
                                            for sills                   
                                                                        
Dust-lead hazard: uncarpeted floors        Assumed to be hazard if      
 (unsampled units and common areas in       hazard is present in any    
 multi-family)                              sampled unit or common area 
                                            of the same type            
                                                                        
Dust-lead hazard: interior window sills    Assumed to be hazard if      
 (unsampled units and common areas in       hazard is present in any    
 multi-family)                              sampled unit or common area 
                                            of the same type            
                                                                        
Soil-lead hazard                           Compare arithmetic mean of   
                                            dripline and mid-yard       
                                            samples to hazard standard  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec. 745.227(h) would establish the specific requirements 
for how to determine whether lead-based paint hazards are present. To 
determine whether hazardous lead-based paint is present, the risk 
assessor must test paint that is in poor condition. The paint on all 
surfaces with paint in poor condition need not be tested. The risk 
assessor, however, must assume that untested surfaces contain lead-
based paint if tested surfaces that have a similar painting history 
contain lead-based paint.
    To determine whether a dust-lead hazard is present, the risk 
assessor must compare the weighted mean (i.e., weighted average) of all 
single surface samples or all composite samples to the appropriate 
dust-lead hazard standard (i.e., uncarpeted floors, interior window 
sills).
    In multi-family housing, where risk assessors have the option not 
to collect dust samples in every residential unit or common area, the 
approach described in the previous paragraph applies to all sampled 
residential units and common areas where samples were collected. For 
residential units or common areas where samples are not collected, the 
risk assessor would have to make assumptions based on the results of 
sampled residential units and common areas. If at least one sampled 
residential unit or common area exceeds the hazard standard for a 
specific surface (i.e, floors, sills), then the risk assessor would 
have to assume that hazards exist on that surface in all unsampled 
residential units and common areas. It should be noted that risk 
assessors always have the option to collect samples from all units and 
common areas at a multi-family property.
    Proposed Sec. 745.227(h) also would establish the requirements for 
how to determine whether a soil-lead hazard is present. Under the 
proposal, the risk assessor must compare the mean of a composite sample 
from the dripline and a composite sample from the mid-yard for each 
residential building to the standards to determine whether a hazard is 
present. If the risk assessor collects more than one composite in 
either the dripline or the mid-yard for a building, he or she should 
compute the average of the composites from each area and use those 
averages to compute the average concentration for the dripline and the 
mid-yard.
    Proposed Sec. 745.63 defines the dripline and mid-yard. The 
dripline is the area within 3 feet surrounding the perimeter of a 
building. The mid-yard is the part of yard that lies halfway between 
the outermost edge of the dripline and property line or between the 
outermost edge of the dripline and the outermost edge of the dripline 
of another residential building on the same property. This approach 
applies to both properties with a single residential building and to 
those with more than one residential building.

B. Proposed Amendments to the Final Section 402 Regulations

    Today's action includes proposed amendments to the final TSCA 
section 402 work practice regulations for lead-based paint activities 
at 40 CFR 745.227. The proposed amendments would establish clearance 
standards for dust, limit reuse of abated soil, add a requirement for 
interpreting composite dust clearance samples, and change risk 
assessment and clearance sampling requirements to ensure compatibility 
between sampling results and the TSCA section 403 standards and section 
402 clearance standards. Unit IX. of this preamble discusses these 
amendments and the Agency's rationale and supporting analyses for its 
decisions.
    Today's action proposes to amend the abatement work practice 
standards at 40 CFR 745.227(e) by adding clearance standards for dust. 
A risk assessor performs clearance testing to evaluate the adequacy of 
post-abatement dust cleaning. The proposed clearance standards are 50 
g/ft2 for uncarpeted floors, 250 g/
ft2 for interior window sills, and 800 g/ft2 
for window troughs.
    Second, today's action includes a proposed amendment to the 
abatement work practice standards at 40 CFR 745.227(e) to prohibit the 
reuse of soil removed during an abatement as top soil in another 
residential yard or child-occupied facility. The current regulations do 
not provide any management controls for the soil.
    Third, today's proposal includes an amendment to the abatement work 
practice standards at 40 CFR 745.227(e) to add a requirement for 
interpreting composite dust samples for clearance. The current 
regulation does not differentiate between single surface samples and 
composite samples. The proposed amendment would require the risk 
assessor to compare the composite sample to the clearance standard 
divided by the number of subsamples in the composite. For example, if 
the composite contains four subsamples, the risk assessor would compare 
the composite to the clearance standard divided by four.
    Fourth, the Agency is proposing that the risk assessment work 
practice standards at 40 CFR 745.227 be amended to require that risk 
assessor collect dust samples from uncarpeted floors and interior 
window sills because EPA is proposing dust-lead hazard standards for 
uncarpeted floors and window sills. Today's proposal also includes an 
amendment to the abatement work practice standards at 40 CFR 745.227(e) 
to require that a risk assessor collect dust clearance samples from 
uncarpeted floors, window sills, and window troughs because EPA is 
proposing clearance standards for all three surfaces. The current risk 
assessment and abatement work practice standards require risk assessors 
to collect dust samples from windows without specifying the part of the 
window. The Agency is also proposing to amend the risk assessment work 
practice standards to change the

[[Page 30311]]

location of soil samples from the dripline and ``play area'' to the 
dripline and mid-yard.

C. Proposed Amendments to the Final Section 404 Regulations

    Today's action includes proposed amendments to the final TSCA 
section 404 States/Tribal program authorization regulations found at 40 
CFR part 745, subpart Q. These proposed amendments would require 
States/Tribes that are seeking program authorization and States/Tribes 
that already have applied for authorization and wish to retain it to 
incorporate lead-based paint hazard standards that are as protective as 
the Federal standards no later than their first report to EPA after 
years following the promulgation of the TSCA section 403 standards.
    States/Tribes seeking authorization for the first time would 
include their standards in their program application, the requirements 
for which are described in 40 CFR 745.320 to 40 CFR 745.325. Proposed 
amendments to Sec. 745.325, would explicitly clarify that lead-based 
paint hazard standards and implementation requirements are necessary 
components of the risk assessment work practice standards in 
Sec. 745.325(d)(2). States/Tribes seeking to retain program 
authorization would describe their standards in their regular report to 
EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 745.324(h).

IV. Development of this Proposed Rule

    This unit of the preamble presents EPA's analysis of its legal 
authority, and describes the Agency's policy basis, technical analyses, 
and decisions for the proposed section 403 standards. Section A 
discusses EPA's legal authority and policy basis for the standards. 
Section B discusses the technical analysis to support the development 
of the proposed standards for dust and soil. Section C presents EPA's 
analysis of the options for dust and soil standards and explains the 
Agency's decisions. Section D presents the analysis of the options for 
the paint hazard standard and explains the Agency's decisions. The 
standard for lead-based paint, as further explained below, is defined 
by statute and EPA is not modifying that standard in this proposed 
rule.

A. Authority for Today's Action

    1. Statutory mandate and related definitions. Section 403 of TSCA 
is the key statutory provision for today's proposed regulation. It 
requires EPA to identify three terms--lead-based paint hazards, lead-
contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil. For reasons explained 
below, EPA needs to first define lead-contaminated dust and soil before 
it may define lead-based paint hazards. These three terms and other 
definitions that help define them are found in both TSCA section 401 
(15 U.S.C. 2681) and in section 1004 of Title X (42 U.S.C. 4851b). 
Because the definitions in both of these sections are identical for 
practical purposes, the remainder of this preamble will cite the TSCA 
definitions. Below, EPA explains how the definitions affect the 
Agency's responsibilities in this proposed rule.

    TSCA section 401(10) defines ``lead-based paint hazard'' to mean 
any condition that causes exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust, 
lead-contaminated soil, lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or 
present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces 
that would result in adverse human health effects . . . [emphasis 
added].

Thus, there are three sources that may contribute to the existence of a 
lead-based paint hazard--lead-contaminated paint, lead-contaminated 
dust, and lead-contaminated soil.
    EPA interprets lead-contaminated paint to mean the same as ``lead-
based paint,'' which is defined by TSCA section 401(9) to mean paint or 
other surface coatings that contain lead in concentrations equaling or 
exceeding limits established under section 302(c) of the Lead Based 
Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4822(c)). Currently, this 
limit is lead content that equals or exceeds 1.0 milligrams per square 
centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5 percent by weight. EPA is not 
taking any action in this proposed rule to redefine lead-based paint.
    It must be emphasized that lead-based paint is not a risk-based 
term. It is only a benchmark that identifies material subject to the 
jurisdiction of various authorities of TSCA and Title X. Instead, the 
term ``lead-based paint hazard'' will identify those conditions of 
lead-based paint that would result in adverse health effects. The 
statutory language makes it clear that not all lead-based paint is to 
be considered a lead-based paint hazard. In fact, for lead paint to be 
a hazard it must, at least, be deteriorated or be present on friction 
or impact surfaces or on surfaces accessible for young children to 
mouth or chew. Deteriorated paint is defined in TSCA 401(3). Friction, 
impact, and accessible surfaces are defined in TSCA 401(2), (5) and 
(6).
    Lead-based paint hazards, furthermore, are not limited to the 
hazards from paint, alone, because they include conditions that cause 
exposure to residential lead-contaminated dust and soil, regardless of 
the source of lead. EPA is responsible in this proposed rule for 
identifying what constitutes lead-contaminated dust and soil. Both 
terms are limited to dust and soil in residences, in contrast to lead 
paint, which may be found in public and commercial buildings and in 
other structures, such as bridges or superstructures (e.g., water 
towers).
    Lead-contaminated dust means surface dust in residential dwellings 
that contains lead determined by EPA to pose a threat of adverse health 
effects in pregnant women or young children [emphasis added] (TSCA 
401(11)). Lead-contaminated soil means bare soil on residential 
property that contains lead that is determined to be hazardous to human 
health by EPA (TSCA 401(12)) [emphasis added].
    The lead-based paint hazard definition contains the overarching 
legal standard applicable to today's proposed regulation. In pertinent 
part, the definition means any condition that causes exposure to lead-
contaminated dust, soil, or paint that would result in adverse human 
health effects. To determine what constitutes lead-contaminated dust or 
soil, on the other hand, EPA interprets the statute to require a less 
rigorous level of certainty regarding the likelihood of adverse effects 
occurring to establish the standards.
    2. Statutory criteria for lead-contaminated dust and soil, and 
lead-based paint hazards. Given the definitions of lead-based paint 
hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil in TSCA 
section 401, EPA needs to establish standards for lead-contaminated 
dust and soil separately from lead-based paint hazards. Put simply, not 
all lead-contaminated dust or lead-contaminated soil (or lead-based 
paint) needs to be considered hazardous. In fact, as explained below, 
the definitions in TSCA section 401 support the Agency's adoption of a 
weight of evidence approach for setting the varying standards.
    To help differentiate between lead-contaminated dust and soil and 
lead-contaminated dust and soil that are lead-based paint hazards, and 
to alleviate the confusion created by this terminology, the Agency will 
generally refer to lead-contaminated dust and soil that meet the lead-
based paint hazard criteria as dust-lead hazards and soil-lead hazards. 
EPA will refer to the paint component of lead-based paint hazards as 
hazardous lead-based paint.
    a. Contamination standards. As indicated above, EPA believes that 
the term ``poses a threat,'' used to define

[[Page 30312]]

lead-contaminated dust, connotes a lower level of certainty regarding 
risk than the term ``would result in adverse effects,'' used to define 
lead-based paint hazard, and indicates that the standard for lead-
contaminated dust requires a lesser weight of evidence of harm. The 
level of certainty associated with the term ``hazardous to human 
health,'' which is used to define lead-contaminated soil, is less 
clear. The overall structure of the definitions in section 401, 
however, indicates parallel treatment for lead-contaminated dust and 
soil. EPA is, therefore, interpreting ``poses a threat'' and 
``hazardous to human health'' to be associated with the same level of 
evidence needed to determine risk.
    The terms ``lead-contaminated'' dust and soil, therefore, describe 
the universe of lead in soil and dust about which there may be some 
level of concern. Within this universe are levels of lead-contaminated 
dust and soil that result in lead-based paint hazards, which engender 
greater concern because there is greater certainty of risk of adverse 
human health effects. Identifying hazardous paint, dust, and soil, 
therefore, requires a greater weight of evidence of harm.
    The terms lead-contaminated dust and lead-contaminated soil, while 
necessary components of the definition of lead-based paint hazards, do 
not appear anywhere else in Title X. Thus, they have no direct effect 
on any activities subject to regulation under Title X. For example, no 
certification requirements are imposed for persons who remove lead-
contaminated soil, only soil associated with soil-lead hazards. EPA 
concludes from this observation that the purpose for identifying lead-
contaminated dust and soil separately from hazardous dust and soil is 
to identify levels of dust and soil contamination for which there are 
lower levels of certainty regarding adverse effects and general 
population concern, but about which owners and occupants of residential 
property should be aware. Individual owners and occupants may wish to 
make decisions based on the lesser level of certainty. To convey this 
message, EPA has decided to call the standards for lead-contaminated 
dust and soil, dust-lead and soil-lead ``levels of concern.'' EPA has 
decided that the levels of concern should be based solely on their 
potential to pose a threat to human health, without regard to whether 
taking action on these levels could result in significant risk 
reduction, or whether the resources that persons may choose to expend 
on dealing with dust and soil at these levels are commensurate with any 
potential risk reduction.
    Because the level of concern does not affect other activities under 
Title X or TSCA Title IV, EPA has decided not to include the levels of 
concern in the proposed regulation. Nevertheless, because the level of 
concern communicates important risk information to property owners and 
occupants, the Agency believes that it is important to include the 
levels of concern in the preamble and guidance that will accompany the 
rule. At this point, the Agency is only proposing to adopt in guidance 
a separate level of concern for lead in soil, which is discussed in 
detail in Unit IV of this preamble. The Agency has decided that there 
should not be a separate dust-lead level of concern, even in guidance, 
because EPA's analysis shows that dust-lead level of concern should be 
the same as the dust-lead hazard standard. The Agency believes, 
therefore, that having a separate dust-lead level of concern would not 
provide useful additional information to the public.
    EPA is interested in public input with respect to the inclusion of 
the levels of concern, particularly for soil, in the regulatory text of 
the document. Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on whether the 
absence of the soil-lead level of concern in the regulation would 
diminish the visibility of the level and reduce its usefulness as a 
risk communication tool, or whether the soil-lead level of concern 
would be treated as the de facto hazard standard if it were included in 
the regulation. EPA does not believe that the public should confuse the 
soil-lead level of concern in the guidance, with the soil-lead hazard 
standard in the regulation. As indicated above, the Agency is 
specifically interested in comments on this issue.
    b. Hazard standards. The determination of what constitutes lead-
based paint hazards--hazardous paint, dust, and soil--will require a 
more elaborate analysis. Clearly, the statutory criterion for hazard, 
``would result in adverse human health effects,'' means that lead-based 
paint hazards are associated with a higher level of risk than levels of 
concern. The challenge to the Agency is how to identify the higher 
level of risk.
    Based on the language of section 403, the purposes of Title X and 
its legislative history, and basic policy discussions explained below, 
EPA determined that it should identify this higher level of risk based 
on consideration of the potential for risk reduction of any action 
taken (considering uncertainties in the scientific evidence describing 
the risks) and whether such risk reductions are commensurate with the 
costs of those actions. This is commonly referred to as cost-benefit 
balancing.
    The use of the term ``would result'' in the statutory criteria --
``would result in adverse human health effects''--implies certainty of 
adverse outcome. This interpretation is supported the by legislative 
history discussed in the Senate Committee Report (National Affordable 
Housing Act Amendments of 1992, Report of the Committee on Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs, S. Rep. 102-332, 102d Cong., 2nd Sess., at 
112 (hereinafter ``Senate Report'')). The Senate Report states that 
Title X ``limits the definition of hazard, and thus the scope of the 
bill to actual hazards--conditions that cause [ ] exposure to lead . . 
. that would result in adverse human effects'' [emphasis added] (Senate 
report, page 112).
    Dealing with what would constitute an ``actual'' effect is the 
dilemma posed by the statutory language. EPA's interpretation of the 
broader Title X framework suggests that lead-based paint hazard 
standards should not be based on absolute certainty. If the EPA were to 
follow Congress' literal wording, available evidence would only allow 
the Agency to set unreasonably high dust, soil, or paint hazard 
standards. EPA does not believe that this is an appropriate formulation 
of Congressional intent. As stated in section 1103(3), one purpose of 
Title X is ``to encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead 
poisoning'' (emphasis added). To follow this directive, EPA needs to 
establish hazard standards that predict adverse health outcomes based 
on their environmental observations and measurements. Due to the large 
amount of variability in the relationship between environmental lead 
levels and blood-lead concentrations, it is not possible to state with 
certainty that a given set of environmental conditions would result in 
an actual adverse outcome. EPA, therefore, has not used an absolute 
certainty criterion but rather interprets the statute to require a 
level of certainty regarding risk that is higher than that used for the 
contamination standard--the ``level of concern.''
    It is possible, however, to state that there is a relatively high 
likelihood that an adverse outcome will occur. The dilemma the Agency 
faces in this case would be that hazards would be identified only at 
the very highest levels. Thus, for example, EPA could say that adverse 
effects ``would result'' only when an individual child has a 100 
percent probability of having a blood-

[[Page 30313]]

lead concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl. Using this 
100 percent probability criterion as the basis for setting hazard 
standards, however, would contribute little, if anything, to the 
statutory intent of preventing adverse effects. Moreover, the 
environmental lead levels associated with this probability level would 
be so high that they would likely apply to only a very small number of 
situations--for example, soil levels well over 5,000 ppm or dust lead 
levels well over 500 g/ft2. Children exposed to 
significantly lower levels could be subject to substantial risk that 
would be ignored in the national lead program. Therefore, EPA has 
elected not to use such a formulation.
    Accordingly, EPA examined the statute and its legislative history 
for guidance on how to select appropriate parameters for identifying 
lead-based paint hazards. Based on this analysis, the Agency concluded, 
for the following reasons, that the hazard standards should be based on 
a set of parameters identified by balancing the costs of reducing 
exposures to lead-based paint hazards with the benefits of avoiding 
adverse human health effects.
    First, the identification of lead-based paint hazards is linked 
with hazard reduction in many provisions of Title X, including sections 
1011(e)(8) and (9), 1012(a) and (e), and TSCA section 401(8) and (13). 
This linkage suggests that measures taken to reduce hazards should be 
consistent with the risks presented. The Senate Report, recognizing 
that many property owners would implement interim controls to respond 
to lead-based paint hazards, states that ``interim measures should be 
commensurate with the degrees of risk reported by the risk assessment'' 
(p. 115). The Report is most explicit in its discussion of lead-based 
paint hazard reduction in Federally assisted and insured housing, where 
it states that ``the response would correspond to the degree of danger 
and the benefit to be achieved'' (p. 117). Cost-benefit balancing is a 
reasonable method that can be used to assist EPA in setting hazard 
standards that would promote control activities that are commensurate 
with risk.
    Second, cost-benefit balancing is a useful method to examine the 
potential for adverse effects, the resource allocation that should be 
associated with reducing that potential, and methods of public 
protection when the available scientific evidence shows there is a wide 
range of uncertainty in the risks that may be associated with any 
particular levels. The Senate Report recognized that there is a wide 
range of responses applicable to lead-based paint and paint hazards 
depending on the degree of risk and the likelihood of risk reduction 
that could occur from any particular action. In particular, property 
owners can choose to reduce hazards through ``abatement'' (permanent 
elimination of hazards) or ``interim measures'' (temporary exposure 
reduction). See TSCA sections 401(1), (8), and (13). The Senate Report 
at 113-115 specifically refers to this wide range of applicable 
responses and the need to consider measures commensurate with the risk. 
The Senate Report at 113 states that housing owners

    will choose to abate or partially abate when they determine that 
it is cost effective for them to permanently eliminate the source of 
hazards.

Further, the Senate Report at 115 states that interim measures

    should be commensurate with the degree of risk reported by the 
risk assessment. Thus, where moderately elevated dust levels exist 
but there is little deterioration in the paint, an appropriate 
interim response might be limited to supercleaning leaded surfaces. 
Where children are present and paint is peeling, interim controls 
might require a more substantial effort and expense to prevent 
exposure from paint chips and dust.

    Given these standards, EPA believes that it is a reasonable 
interpretation of TSCA section 403 to identify the conditions that 
constitute lead-based paint hazards by considering the weight of 
evidence on the range of environmental lead levels that would result in 
particular blood lead levels, the adverse effects associated with those 
blood-lead concentrations, and potential ranges of risk reduction 
(reductions in blood-lead concentration) that would result from 
eliminating or controlling the levels.
    Several purposes of Title X also support the use of cost-benefit 
balancing for establishing the hazard standards. According to section 
1003(2) of Title X, one purpose of the statute is ``to implement, on a 
priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint 
hazards in the Nation's housing stock.'' The concept of priority-
setting inherently recognizes that resources are scarce, and that 
scarce resources are most effectively employed when decision-makers 
apply them to the worst problems first. To develop standards that are 
consistent with the need to set priorities, EPA factored in the 
resources needed to reduce risks, the benefits of controlling lead-
based paint hazards, and data on the presence of lead in residential 
paint, dust, and soil when selecting the proposed standards. Cost-
benefit analysis is a principal analytical tool available to the Agency 
to measure the effectiveness of using resources to reduce human health 
risks.
    Section 1003(3) of Title X also states that a purpose of the 
statute is ``to encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead 
poisoning by establishing a workable framework for lead-based paint 
hazard evaluation and reduction. . . .'' In developing today's 
proposal, EPA interprets the term ``workable'' to mean practical, 
usable, and realistic. First, a workable framework must be practical; 
that is, it should promote priority-setting, focusing resources on the 
most significant risks. Overly stringent standards that result in the 
identification of lead-based paint hazards in large segments of the 
housing stock would not be practical because they would not provide 
guidance to decision-makers on where to focus resources.
    Second, the standards must be usable by the intended audience. Risk 
assessors must be able to use the standards as a tool to evaluate 
properties quickly at a modest cost. The standards should not require 
extensive and costly environmental measurement. The meaning of the 
standards must be sufficiently simple for risk assessors to explain and 
property owners, residents, and other decision-makers to understand the 
significance of the findings of a risk assessment.
    Third, for a framework to be workable, it needs to be based on 
realistic goals, goals that are achievable with available resources and 
feasible with available technology. The standards for identifying lead-
based paint hazards, therefore, need to recognize resource and 
technological constraints. These standards, the primary function of 
which is to provide guidance and advice, risk being ignored by their 
intended audience and having no value if they are not practical, 
usable, and realistic.
    Section 1003(3) also refers to the Title X purpose of ``. . . 
ending the current confusion over reasonable standards of care.'' EPA 
interprets a ``reasonable'' standard to be one that requires exercise 
of judgment to balance the probability that harm will occur, and the 
magnitude and severity of that harm, against the adverse social and 
economic impacts on society of the action taken to reduce the harm. The 
reasonableness standard becomes more judgmental in the case of health 
risks of lead where, as a practical matter, all the scientific evidence 
is uncertain to some degree and EPA is forced to deal in probabilities 
that can vary over extreme ranges. Therefore, in evaluating a 
reasonable standard of care

[[Page 30314]]

under Title X, EPA will consider the various relationships among such 
factors as toxicity, exposure, the effectiveness of interventions, and 
the cost of interventions.
    EPA, further, believes that consideration of cost is consistent 
with the establishment of these lead standards. The purpose of the lead 
hazard standards is to protect the public health. To do this within the 
framework of Title X, however, requires the expenditure of scarce 
public and private resources. Ensuring that these resources are used in 
a manner that maximizes health protection means that EPA should 
establish lead hazard standards that direct resources to where the 
threats to public health are the greatest. EPA recognizes there are 
different ways in which the TSCA section 403 standards may be 
interpreted and, specifically, requests comment on whether it is 
appropriate for the Agency to use the cost-benefit analysis to develop 
the hazard standards for this rule.
    3. Policy basis for the standards--a. Dust-lead and soil-lead 
levels of concern. To implement its decision to treat the dust-lead and 
soil-lead levels of concern as risk communication tools, EPA is 
proposing that the soil and dust levels of concern should be associated 
with a blood-lead concentration of concern and a child's probability of 
exceeding that blood-lead concentration (exceedance probability). As 
noted previously, EPA is proposing to establish a soil-lead level of 
concern for use in guidance and not to include it in the proposed 
regulation.
    EPA used blood-lead concentration as the measure of human health 
risk, because it is the most widely used index of human lead exposure 
and risk. By exceedance probability, EPA means an individual child's 
risk or probability of having a blood-lead concentration that equals or 
exceeds a specified concentration. For example, if the blood-lead 
concentration of concern is 10 g/dl, an exceedance probability 
of one percent means that a child has a one percent chance of having a 
blood-lead concentration that equals or exceeds 10 g/dl.
    An exceedance probability is needed because the relationship 
between lead in the environment and blood-lead concentration is 
characterized by a great deal of variability due to several factors, 
including differences among children in behavior and nutrition. The 
measurement of lead in the environment and in blood is also subject to 
a significant degree of variation. It is not possible, therefore, to 
link a specific level of lead in the environment (e.g., soil) to a 
specific blood-lead concentration with absolute certainty. Rather, a 
specific level of lead in the environment is associated with a 
distribution of blood-lead concentrations.
    The distribution, which can be thought of as a curve drawn on a 
graph, represents the range of blood-lead concentrations and the 
relative probability that each blood-lead concentration would actually 
occur. A distribution is described by three parameters: the form (i.e., 
shape) of the distribution (e.g., normal distribution or ``bell'' 
curve, log normal distribution); a measure of central tendency (e.g., 
mean or average); and a measure of variability or spread (e.g., 
standard deviation) around the measure of central tendency. With these 
three parameters, the probability of exceeding any blood-lead 
concentration can be calculated. For further discussion of standard 
deviation, please see Matlack, Statistics for Public Policy and 
Management (Ref. 18).
    b. Dust-lead and soil-lead hazard standards. Having presented its 
rationale, above, for using cost-benefit balancing to help develop the 
proposed dust and soil-lead hazard standards, EPA now explains its 
intent to use cost-benefit balancing in the hazard standard-setting 
process.
    It is important to note that the Agency's analyses for dust and 
soil began with an examination of quantitative estimates based on 
various modeling techniques. These techniques allow the Agency to 
arrive at a range of options on which the Agency exercises its 
administrative judgment. Thus, the quantitative modeling is used as a 
tool to derive the boundaries of the Agency's inquiry, not as the sole 
basis for decisions.
    Furthermore, the Agency wishes to note that it employed a normative 
analysis to support the selection of the dust-lead and soil-lead hazard 
standards. A normative analysis estimates costs and benefits based on 
the assumption that individuals will make perfectly rationale decisions 
in response to the standards. That is, all individuals who should 
conduct risk assessments will do so, and all individuals will undertake 
appropriate interventions in response to hazards identified by the risk 
assessment. This normative analysis also assumes that no action is 
being taken in the absence of the standards. In reality, hazards will 
not be identified in many homes because risk assessments will not be 
performed. Even if hazards are identified, interventions may not be 
performed or interventions different from those assumed in the analysis 
may be performed. In addition, risk assessments and hazard control 
interventions are currently being conducted.
    EPA used a normative analysis for two reasons. First, as a 
practical matter, it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate 
expected costs and benefits associated with the standards. Such 
estimates would require data on the current level of risk assessment 
and abatement, which is not available, and the Agency to predict how 
property owners and other decision-makers will respond to the 
standards. Second, the objective of the analysis is to provide 
estimates that allow Agency decision-makers to compare costs and 
benefits. Although the normative analysis is likely to overestimate 
actual costs and benefits, EPA believes that the relative balance of 
costs and benefits estimated by the analysis is unlikely to be very 
different from the relative balance of actual costs and benefits. 
Therefore, the Agency can use these estimates to evaluate various 
options for the dust and soil standards.
    With respect to the paint component of the proposed regulation, 
data limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the costs and benefits 
of the options considered in this proposal. Data that definitively 
relate deteriorated paint to blood-lead concentration are not 
available, preventing the Agency from estimating the benefits of these 
options. EPA could not estimate the costs of these options because the 
Agency's decision regarding deteriorated lead-based paint focused on 
the area of deterioration on individual components whereas the 
available data provide information on the amount of deteriorated paint 
in an entire residence. Consequently, EPA's decisions with respect to 
the options for the paint component involve a more qualitative judgment 
on the part of the Agency.
    As part of its economic analysis of the proposed rule, EPA 
developed estimates of the costs and benefits of repairing or abating 
deteriorated lead-based paint. The preamble presents these estimates in 
Unit X. The data limitations identified above as well as other 
analytical constraints described in Unit X, however, restrict the 
usefulness and call into question the reliability of these estimates in 
characterizing the proposed regulatory standards for paint.
    While Title X provides no guidance on how to undertake cost-benefit 
balancing, the legislative history of TSCA provides a useful and 
pertinent explanation of the concept. The House Report on TSCA (H. Rep. 
1341, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 13-15, 32)

[[Page 30315]]

acknowledges that cost-benefit balancing for regulation is not precise 
but, instead, requires the exercise of judgment by the decision-maker. 
It involves the balancing of the probability that harm will occur, and 
the magnitude and severity of that harm, against the cost of the 
proposed action to reduce that harm. In other words, cost-benefit 
balancing involves a weighing of the risks to be reduced by response 
actions and the costs of these actions.
    The TSCA House Report emphasizes that cost-benefit balancing does 
not require a formal quantitative analysis under which a monetary value 
is assigned to risks that may be reduced by regulation or the costs to 
society. This is because precise values often cannot be assigned to 
such risks and costs. Accordingly, cost-benefit balancing is 
appropriately used to establish a range of options for the hazard 
standards. Using this approach, the Agency then selects its preferred 
options based on consideration of relevant factors, including the 
weight of the evidence of harm, assumptions and tools that underlie 
EPA's analysis, as well as other factors, including health 
protectiveness and total costs.
    Cost-benefit balancing involves a two-step process: evaluation of 
risk and risk-reduction (i.e., benefit), followed by consideration of 
the resources needed to achieve varying degrees of risk reduction. 
Below, EPA explains first the concept of evaluating risk and risk 
reduction, then the concept of evaluating how to balance risk reduction 
(benefit) with costs.
    With respect to risk, the TSCA House Report states that: ``. . 
.risk is measured not solely by the probability of harm, but instead 
includes elements both of probability of harm and severity of harm and 
those elements may vary in relation to each other'' [emphasis added]. 
Determining risk becomes more judgmental in the case of health and 
environmental risks covered by EPA in cases where the scientific 
evidence on hazard and exposure contains a high degree of uncertainty 
and variability encompassing numerous relationships among elements of 
risk, including consideration of the severity and probability of harm 
resulting from the different types of exposure that may occur. Because 
of the uncertainty in all of these estimates, there are generally no 
definitive answers as to what the risk may be. Therefore, in evaluating 
risk, EPA considers various factors, including the strength of the 
evidence on toxicity (for example, actual cases of harm from 
epidemiology studies or results of high-dose animal tests), the type 
and magnitude of effects that are predicted to occur (for example, 
severe effects or more subtle ones), and estimates of the numbers of 
individuals exposed and the levels of exposure based on mechanistic and 
statistical models.
    Once the risk is evaluated, with the attendant uncertainties in 
hazard evaluation and the variations in exposure probability, the next 
step is to consider the costs of the regulatory action. The probability 
and severity of harm (in this case, a range of children's health 
effects) are weighed against the impact of any action EPA proposes to 
take to evaluate whether the costs are commensurate with risk 
reduction. There is, however, no set way to apply EPA's chosen approach 
for this rulemaking to balancing costs and risk reduction. To 
illustrate this point, the Agency provides the following examples. 
Where standards would require the high expenditure of resources, the 
level of risk reduction (considering both the toxicity of lead and the 
probabilities of exposure) and the strength of evidence should be 
correspondingly high. On the other hand, if the costs of standards are 
relatively low, the level of risk reduction and the strength of the 
evidence could be less compelling.
    Today's proposed rule takes this balancing into account in 
proposing both soil and dust hazard standards. The determination on 
soil standards considers the fact that relatively high costs would be 
incurred to abate residential soils. Consequently, under a cost-benefit 
balancing concept, before selecting an option associated with high 
costs, EPA would want a greater measure of confidence that the standard 
would result in a higher level of risk reduction. Because the cost of 
reducing risk from residential dust is relatively low, EPA could select 
a dust-lead hazard standard that would not result in as much risk 
reduction.
    Finally, EPA believes that this type of analysis is an appropriate 
way to deal with the problems caused by lead in paint and residential 
dust and soil. Lead is a substance for which there is no clear evidence 
that there is a level of exposure below which there is no risk. It is 
clear, however, that there is some level of lead where the use of 
scarce resources to reduce exposure to lead is warranted. EPA 
recognizes that resources needed to address risks from lead-based paint 
hazards are limited and would like to set standards to target responses 
to these hazards so that the highest risks will be addressed first. In 
contrast, spending valuable resources engaging in cleanup activities to 
achieve little or no reduction in risk would not be a reasonable 
approach.

B. Technical Analyses

    To support the development of dust and soil lead levels of concern, 
as well as for the hazard standards, EPA requires a tool to relate lead 
in the environment to blood-lead concentration. As will be further 
explained below, EPA has chosen two types of models to be used for this 
purpose: a mechanistic model and a statistical model based on empirical 
data. A mechanistic model simulates the human body's response to lead 
that is ingested or inhaled. Because biological processes that 
mechanistic models are designed to simulate are not completely 
understood, these models are typically limited in their predictive 
capability. The components of the processes that are understood have to 
be simplified and digested into a series of mathematical equations 
resulting in another source of error. The data that are used as inputs 
into these models may not be truly representative and may contain gaps.
    Alternatively, EPA could use observational data to estimate the 
relationship between environmental lead and blood lead. Two national 
data sets are available to the Agency. EPA has national blood-lead data 
from Phase 2 of the third National Health and Nutrition Examination 
Survey (NHANES III) (Ref. 6) and national data on levels of lead in 
dust and soil and condition of paint from the National Survey of Lead-
Based Paint in Housing, conducted from 1989-1990 by the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (Ref. 19). These data sets, however, 
are not linked. That is, there is no direct observation between blood-
lead in NHANES and the environmental levels in the HUD survey. 
Therefore, these data sets cannot be used in combination to estimate 
the relationship between lead in dust and soil and blood-lead 
concentration.
    In light of limited data and imperfect models, the Agency cannot 
rely on any single approach to specify the true relationship between 
lead in dust and soil and blood lead. EPA, therefore, used several 
tools to derive differing estimates of the relationship. The 
mechanistic model used for the various analyses in this proposed rule 
is the Agency's Integrated Environmental Uptake and Biokinetic (IEUBK) 
model. EPA also conducted several analyses for this rule using data 
from the Rochester Lead-in-Dust study, which contains data for 
children's blood-lead concentrations and dust and soil-lead levels in 
their environment (Ref. 20). These tools will be discussed further 
below in the sections where they are used.

[[Page 30316]]

    The Agency wishes to note that the differing estimates of the 
relationship between environmental lead and blood-lead concentration do 
not bound the range of options available to EPA for the proposed rule. 
The true relationship between blood-lead and dust and soil-lead could 
be stronger or weaker than the estimates used in this proposed rule.
    1. Dust-lead and soil-lead levels of concern. This section of the 
preamble presents the Agency's rationale for its choice of 10 
g/dl as the blood-lead concentration of concern, and for its 
choice of the appropriate exceedance probability of one to five 
percent. EPA then explains how it identified the dust and soil-lead 
levels at which the Agency reasonably expects an individual child would 
have a probability of approximately one to five percent of having a 
blood-lead concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl.
    a. Blood-lead concentration of concern. EPA has determined that the 
weight of scientific evidence, as discussed below, shows that 10 
g/dl is a reasonable level of concern for childhood blood lead 
under the applicable statutory standard of ``poses a threat.'' EPA 
disagrees that the term ``poses a threat'' suggests that the lead 
levels of concern should be based on any non-zero risk (zero-risk 
basis). Zero risk equates to a blood-lead concentration of zero because 
there is no known health effects threshold for lead. EPA, however, 
proposes to reject the zero risk basis for dust and soil-lead levels of 
concern for several reasons. First, although some data suggest that 
adverse health effects occur at the lowest observed levels, only a 
small number of children with such low blood-lead concentrations have 
been examined. Furthermore, the health effects at the lowest levels of 
exposure are small and subtle, making it difficult to associate effects 
with any single factor. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence at 
these lowest levels to state that there is a level of risk that 
warrants national public concern. Second, standards based on zero risk 
would not serve as a useful communication tool because lead is 
ubiquitous in the environment and there is no practical way to 
eliminate exposure. Third, EPA believes that zero risk-based standards 
were not the intent of Congress. If any level of lead in dust and soil 
constitutes contamination or a hazard, there would be no need for EPA 
to identify these conditions.
    Having rejected zero as the blood-lead concentration basis for dust 
and soil-lead levels of concern, EPA had to identify an alternative 
blood-lead concentration. Numerous human epidemiological and clinical 
studies, as well as animal toxicological and in vitro studies indicate 
clear signs of toxicity across a wide range of exposures. While the 
results of human studies are not uniform, and there is inevitably 
uncertainty regarding the precise nature and persistence of effects at 
low levels, these studies are predominately similar in their overall 
findings. Furthermore, there is consensus within the expert medical 
community that even low levels of lead exposure warrant public health 
concern.
    As listed below, numerous health effects, many of them 
neurological, have been related to blood-lead concentrations down to 
levels of at least 10-15 g/dl:
    1. Altered synthesis of heme as indicated by inhibitions in the 
enzymes delta-aminolevulinate dehydrase, pyrimidine-5-nucleotidase, and 
red blood cell ATPase, and accumulations of the heme precursor, 
erythrocyte protoporphyrin in red blood cells. (e.g., Refs. 21-29).
    2. Reduction in vitamin D hormone synthesis in children (e.g., Ref. 
30).
    3. Alterations of brain electrical activity in children (e.g, Refs. 
31-37).
    4. Altered nerve conduction in auditory pathway and decreased 
hearing acuity in children (e.g., Refs. 34 and 38).
    5. Delays in cognitive development and slower sensory-motor 
development during infancy (e.g., Refs. 39-41).
    6. Other neurobehavioral impacts (e.g., IQ deficits) in children 
(e.g., Refs. 42-48).
    7. Decreased stature or growth in young children (e.g., Refs. 49-
51).
    8. Decreased ability to maintain steady posture in children (e.g., 
Ref. 52).
    9. Reduced gestational age and reduced weight at birth, associated 
with maternal and cord blood-lead concentrations (e.g., Refs. 53 and 
54).
    10. Increased blood pressure in adults (e.g., Refs. 5 and 55).
    While it is possible that some of these effects are reversible 
(e.g., altered heme synthesis), or have unclear medical or functional 
implications (e.g., altered brain electrical activity), the Agency 
believes that the collective impact of these effects on diverse 
physiological functions and organ systems of young children with blood-
lead concentrations as low as 10 g/dl are clearly adverse. 
This conclusion is consistent with the findings of other EPA reports, 
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention in their 1991 statement Preventing Lead 
Poisoning in Young Children, and the National Academy of Sciences in 
their 1993 report Measuring Lead Exposure in Infants, Children, and 
Other Sensitive Populations.
    U.S. EPA's 1986 Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (Ref. 56) 
concluded that for children: (1) The collective impact of the effects 
at blood-lead concentrations above 15 g/dl represents a clear 
pattern of adverse effects worthy of avoidance; (2) at levels of 10-15 
g/dl there appears to be a convergence of evidence of lead-
induced interference with a diverse set of physiological functions and 
processes, particularly evident in several independent studies showing 
impaired neurobehavioral function and development; and (3) the 
available data do not indicate a clear threshold at 10-15 g/
dl, but rather suggest a continuum of health risks approaching the 
lowest levels measured. The health effects below this range are less 
well substantiated.
    In reviewing the information presented in the 1986 Air Quality 
Criteria Document and Addendum, EPA's CASAC concluded various effects 
starting at blood-lead concentrations around 10-15 g/dl or 
even lower in young children ``may be argued as becoming biomedically 
adverse'' (Ref. 57). After reviewing the 1990 Supplement to the 
Addendum (Ref. 58), as well as a staff position paper of EPA's Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Ref. 59), CASAC concluded that 
blood-lead concentrations above 10 g/dl clearly warrant 
avoidance, especially for the development of adverse human health 
effects in sensitive populations. The Committee concluded ``that EPA 
should seek to establish an air standard which minimizes the number of 
children with blood-lead concentrations above a target value of 10 
g/dl. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee recognizes 
that there is no discernible threshold for several lead effects and 
that biological changes can occur at lower levels'' (p. 1, Ref. 57).
    In their 1991 Statement, CDC revised the action level for the lead 
screening and intervention program from 25 g/dl set in 1985 to 
10 g/dl and stated that ``the scientific evidence showing that 
some adverse effects occur at blood-lead concentrations at least as low 
as 10 g/dl in children has become so overwhelming and 
compelling that it must be a major force in determining how we approach 
childhood lead exposure'' (p. 1, Ref. 2). While CDC does not specify 
which of the many effects associated with low-level lead exposure are 
individually considered adverse, the following discussion indicates 
that the collective impact of the different effects

[[Page 30317]]

poses risks that should be avoided (pp. 9-10, Ref. 2):

    Blood-lead concentrations as low as 10 g/dl, which do not 
cause distinctive symptoms, are associated with decreased intelligence 
and impaired neurobehavioral development (Refs. 60-61). Many other 
effects begin at these low blood-lead concentrations, including 
decreased stature or growth (Refs. 49, 50, and 51), decreased hearing 
acuity (Ref. 38), and decreased ability to maintain a steady posture 
(Ref. 52). Lead's impairment of the synthesis of the active metabolite 
1,25-(OH)2 vitamin D is detectable at blood-lead 
concentrations of 10-15 g/dl. Maternal and cord blood-lead 
concentrations of 10-15 g/dl appear to be associated with 
reduced gestational age and reduced weight at birth (Ref. 62). Although 
researchers have not yet completely defined the impact of blood-lead 
concentrations <10 g/dl on central nervous system function, it 
may be that even these levels are associated with adverse effects that 
will be clearer with more refined research.

CDC recommends that community-wide interventions (e.g., outreach and 
education, surveillance) should be considered by appropriate agencies 
if many children have blood-lead concentrations that equal or exceed 10 
g/dl (Ref. 2).
    The National Academy of Sciences agreed with the CDC assessment of 
the existing studies and data, noting that blood-lead concentrations 
around 10 g/dl are associated with disturbances in early 
physical and mental growth and in later intellectual functioning and 
academic achievement (Ref. 63).
    For purposes of this proposed rule, EPA is establishing 10 
g/dl as the blood-lead concentration of concern. This decision 
is based on EPA's review of the scientific evidence and earlier Agency 
findings that a number of health effects begin to manifest themselves 
at blood levels of 10-15 g/dl and that the collective impact 
of these effects poses risks that should be avoided. EPA chose the 
level at the lower end of this range to provide an adequate margin of 
safety. EPA decided not to establish a level lower than 10 g/
dl because the evidence indicates that health effects at lower levels 
of exposure are less well substantiated, based on a limited number of 
studies, a limited number of children, and observation of subtle 
molecular changes that are not currently thought to be sufficiently 
significant to warrant national concern.
    b. Exceedance probability. Unlike EPA's choice of the blood-lead 
concentration, where there is a body of scientific literature to guide 
the decision-making process, there is no scientific evidence to assist 
the Agency in selecting the appropriate exceedance probability. EPA's 
decision for this value is, instead, guided by judgment about levels of 
risk that are achievable and consistent with the statutory criteria.
    EPA looked at several options for an appropriate exceedance 
probability. The Agency rejected the lowest possible probability, which 
is zero, because it is unachievable. The Agency's risk analysis 
demonstrated that a very small percentage of children would have blood-
lead concentrations equaling or exceeding 10 g/dl even if 
there were no lead-based paint and lead-contaminated soil and dust, 
because other sources of exposure (e.g., air, water, diet, and 
background levels of lead) remain (Ref. 1).
    At the other end of the range considered by EPA was an exceedance 
probability of 10 percent. With this distribution of risk, a child 
would have a 1.6 percent chance of having a blood-lead concentration 
exceeding 15 g/dl and a less than one percent chance of having 
a blood-lead concentration exceeding 20 g/dl, the level at 
which CDC recommends medical intervention. The Agency rejected this 
probability as presenting risks above the threshold that the dust and 
soil-lead levels of concern are supposed to communicate.
    Consequently, the Agency determined that the range of probabilities 
between one and five percent would be consistent with the statutory 
criterion for level of concern, ``pose a threat.'' Given the data and 
analytical tools available to EPA, the Agency determined that, as a 
practical matter, one percent is not distinguishable from five percent. 
This overlap is due to the uncertainty and variability related to any 
effort to associate levels of lead in the environment to blood-lead 
concentrations and limited data.
    As a result of exposure to levels of lead in dust and soil 
associated with these probabilities, a child would have a relatively 
small chance of having a blood-lead concentration equal to or exceeding 
10 g/dl. The Agency considers this small chance of exceeding 
the blood-lead concentration of concern to be consistent with ``pose a 
threat.'' Consequently, EPA is proposing to include in guidance a level 
of concern where the levels of lead in dust and soil are associated 
with a one to five percent probability that a child would have a blood-
lead concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl.
    In seeking comment on this decision, EPA is interested in obtaining 
any information that would provide additional support for its decision 
or support the selection of another option.
    c. Characterizing individual risk. EPA identified several 
alternative tools to support the development of the dust and soil-lead 
levels of concern: (1) The Agency's IEUBK model; (2) a ``multimedia'' 
model based on the data from the Rochester Lead-in-Dust study; and (3) 
a performance characteristics analysis of the Rochester data. The IEUBK 
model was not used to examine dust lead levels because the model uses 
dust-lead concentration and, as explained in Unit V. of this preamble, 
EPA has decided to propose a loading standard for dust. Conversely, the 
multimedia model based on the Rochester data was used only for dust. It 
uses dripline soil lead measurements rather than yard-wide average and, 
therefore, EPA chose not to use it to examine the levels of concern for 
lead in soil in this proposal. EPA used the performance characteristic 
analysis of the Rochester data for both the dust and soil-lead levels 
of concern.
    d. Dust analyses. EPA conducted two analyses to support development 
of the dust-lead level of concern: an analysis that used the multimedia 
model based on the Rochester data and a performance characteristics 
analysis of the Rochester data. The multimedia model was developed 
specifically to support the development of options for this proposed 
rule. It is a regression model that relates environmental lead levels 
in dust and soil observed at a residence to the blood-lead 
concentration measured for a child living at the residence. Regression 
analysis is a statistical technique used to estimate the dependence of 
one variable upon others, in this case the dependence of a child's 
blood lead level on the environmental lead levels measured in and 
around his or her home. For a detailed discussion of regression 
analysis please see Matlack, Statistics for Public Policy and 
Management (Ref. 18).
    EPA decided to use the data from the Rochester Lead-in-Dust Study 
as the basis for the multimedia model for the following reasons: (1) 
Dust on all surfaces that are being considered for the TSCA section 403 
standards were measured for lead in the Rochester Study; (2) the 
Rochester Study includes dust-lead loadings from wipe sampling and the 
TSCA section 403 dust standard is expected to be based on dust-lead 
loading from wipe sampling; and, (3) the selection of homes and 
children in the Rochester Study, although targeted, was more random and 
more representative of a general population

[[Page 30318]]

than is the case with other recent epidemiological studies of lead 
exposure in urban environments where lead-based paint is a significant 
source of lead in dust and soil.
    The multimedia model can be used to predict an average blood-lead 
concentration for an individual child who is exposed to a given set of 
environmental-lead levels. A constant empirical estimate of variability 
is applied to this average to estimate a distribution of blood-lead 
concentrations. In statistical terminology, this estimate of 
variability is referred to as the geometric standard deviation (GSD), a 
type of ``standard deviation'' that is used for log normal 
distributions. The GSD in this case characterizes biological and 
behavioral variability in blood lead for a given set of environmental 
exposures. The predicted distribution can then be used to estimate the 
probability of a child exceeding a specified blood-lead concentration 
for a given level of environmental exposure.
    Because, in this case, EPA was interested in determining the 
environmental-lead levels that would result in a one to five percent 
probability of an individual having a blood-lead concentration equal to 
or exceeding 10 g/dl, the Agency started with the specified 
range of probabilities of a child having a blood-lead concentration 
equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl and calculated the level of lead 
in dust needed to predict this distribution.
    The Agency selected a GSD of 1.6 for use in the multimedia model, 
consistent with the default value used in the IEUBK model. This value 
was based upon the GSDs calculated for various sites after differences 
in site-specific dust and soil-lead measurements were removed. In this 
way, the GSD reflects the behavioral and biological variability in 
children as well as repeat sampling variability, sample location 
variability, and analytical error. Because EPA is using the multimedia 
model to predict a blood lead distribution for a fixed level of lead in 
the environment, it is appropriate to use a GSD that accounts for these 
sources of variability but not differences in environmental lead 
levels. Median GSDs, weighted by sample size within subgroups defined 
by age, dust-lead concentration, and soil-lead concentration were 
estimated as 1.69 for Midvale, Utah, 1.53 for the Baltimore data from 
the Urban Soil Lead Demonstration Project, and 1.60 for Butte, Montana 
(see section 4.2.2, Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake 
Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children). Given these results, the Agency 
believes that 1.6 is a reasonable value for the GSD in this 
application.
    EPA presents a more detailed description of the multimedia model in 
the Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and 
Soil, which can be found in the public record for this proposal (Ref. 
1).
    The multimedia model yielded the following results. The levels of 
lead in dust on uncarpeted floors associated with an individual child 
having from a one to five percent chance of having a blood-lead 
concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl range from near 
zero to 6.7 g/ft2, depending on the dust-lead 
loadings on window sills and the concentration of lead in soil. The 
range for dust loadings on window sills is from near zero to 74 
g/ft2 depending on dust-lead loadings on floors and 
the concentration of lead in soil. The results of this analysis are 
presented in Chapter 5 of the Agency's risk analysis document (Ref. 1).
    These values are far below current clearance standards in both EPA 
guidance and HUD Guidelines and some are near or below background 
levels. These results depend on the model that has been fitted to the 
Rochester data. If the model changes by including different variables 
or selecting a different shape or form, the results could be higher or 
lower. Therefore, an alternative approach that does not depend on a 
model was also employed to estimate the levels of lead in dust 
associated with a one to five percent probability of a child having a 
blood-lead concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl.
    The non-modeling approach or performance characteristics analysis 
of the Rochester data utilizes the concept of negative predictive value 
(NPV), which, in this case, is defined as the probability of a child 
having a blood-lead concentration below a specified level given that 
the observed environmental lead level is below a hypothetical standard. 
EPA used the performance characteristics analysis to estimate the dust 
loading on uncarpeted floors and interior window sills that would yield 
an NPV from 95 percent to 99 percent with a blood-lead concentration 
equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl. This range of NPVs is 
equivalent to a one to five percent chance of having a blood-lead 
concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl.
    Table 2 below illustrates how NPV is computed. Homes in the 
Rochester study are classified into four categories according to two 
factors: (1) whether or not environmental-lead levels measured at the 
home were below or above the example standard, and (2) whether or not 
the home had a child with a blood-lead concentration above or below 10 
g/dl. Using the notation presented in Table 2, the sum a + c 
is the number of homes with environmental-lead levels below an example 
option for the standards. The NPV is the ratio c/(a + c) and is the 
portion of these homes that do not contain a child with a blood-lead 
concentration at or above 10 g/dl. An NPV close to one 
suggests that almost all of the children living in homes with 
environmental-lead levels below the example standards have blood-lead 
concentrations less than 10 g/dl. An NPV close to zero 
suggests that very few of the children living in homes with 
environmental-lead levels below the example standards have blood-lead 
concentrations less than 10 g/dl.
    The performance characteristics analysis yielded the following 
results. For uncarpeted floors, dust-lead loadings ranged from 50 
g/ft2 to 400 g/ft2 depending on 
the dust-lead loading on interior window sills and the soil-lead 
concentration. For interior window sills, dust-lead loadings ranged 
from 100 g/ft2 to 800 g/ft2 
depending on the dust-lead loading on uncarpeted floors and the soil-
lead concentration. These ranges are significantly higher than the 
ranges yielded by the multimedia approach (Ref. 64).

  Table 2.--Definition of Negative Predictive Value Based on Empirical  
                    Data from Lead Exposure Studies*                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Media Standard            
 Blood-Lead Concentration Target ---------------------------------------
              Level                   Below Media         Above Media   
                                       Standard            Standard     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At/Above 10 g/dl         a                   b                 
Below 10 g/dl            c                   d                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In the table above, the letter ``a'' represents the number of children 
  who have a blood-lead concentration above a given blood-lead standard 
  and who live in a residence with an environmental lead level below a  
  standard for that environmental medium. Letters ``b,'' ``c,'' and     
  ``d'' represent similar counts. From these counts the negative        
  predictive value (the probability of a resident child having a low    
  blood-lead concentration given that the observed levels of lead in the
  environmental media are below the standard at the residence) is       
  calculated as c/(a + c).                                              

    There are also limitations in the use of the performance 
characteristics model. Like the multimedia model, this approach is 
based on data collected from a single city which may not be 
representative of the nation and has not been subjected to rigorous 
review. In addition, the NPVs associated with some options are based on 
small sample sizes, which reduces the reliability of the estimate. It 
is also important to note

[[Page 30319]]

that the NPV is purely descriptive and not based on any assumptions 
about the true distribution of children's blood-lead concentrations. It 
merely describes the characteristics of a given data set.
    e. Soil analyses. EPA also used two analyses to support development 
of the soil-lead level of concern: an analysis that used the IEUBK 
model and one that used the performance characteristics analysis of the 
Rochester data. The IEUBK model is a simulation model that estimates 
the uptake pathways of environmental lead and the body's biological 
response to environmental lead levels to predict a child's body burden 
of lead. The model considers exposure (i.e., levels of lead in dust, 
soil, air, water, and diet), intake (i.e., rates of ingestion and 
inhalation), uptake (i.e., absorption in the lung and gut), and 
biokinetics (i.e., movement through the blood and tissues and 
elimination). The model predicts a geometric mean (i.e., a type of 
average) blood-lead concentration for children exposed at the specified 
environmental lead levels. An assumed geometric standard deviation 
(GSD) is then applied to estimate the distribution of blood-lead 
concentrations from which a probability of exceeding a specified blood-
lead concentration can be derived. As was the case with the multimedia 
model analysis for dust, a GSD of 1.6 was assumed for this analysis.
    EPA chose to use the IEUBK model to support this rule because it is 
the Agency's most rigorously developed and thoroughly reviewed model 
for childhood lead exposure. This model has historically been used in 
other Agency programs and is the currently recommended tool for site-
specific evaluations in the CERCLA (Superfund) and RCRA corrective 
action programs. Also, an earlier version of the model was peer-
reviewed and found acceptable as a tool for setting air lead standards 
by EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory 
Board (Ref. 57). The IEUBK model was calibrated using environmental-
lead and blood-lead data from two western communities: Midvale, UT, a 
suburb of Salt Lake City (Ref. 65), and East Helena, MT, a small town 
outside of the State capitol at Helena (Ref. 66). Subsequent 
evaluations have shown that the IEUBK model provides reasonable 
descriptions of other sites, including urban sites (Ref. 67). The most 
current version, Version 0.99d, of the IEUBK model was used in the TSCA 
section 403 risk assessment.
    The IEUBK model yielded the following results. Soil-lead 
concentrations generally at or below 500 parts per million (ppm) will 
result in a one to five percent probability that a child will have a 
blood-lead concentration that equals or exceeds 10 g/dl 
depending on the level of lead in dust. The results of this analysis 
are presented in Chapter 5 of the Agency's risk analysis document (Ref. 
1).
    Of course, there are inherent uncertainties in any model that 
simulates extremely complex relationships such as that between 
environmental lead and blood lead. Not all of the relevant 
physiological factors are thoroughly understood and others are 
necessarily simplified. Also, there is child-to-child variability in 
factors related to both exposure and biokinetic response (e.g., hand-
to-mouth activity, nutritional status). While the IEUBK model 
application attempts to address these through selection of the GSD, it 
is expected that deviations from the predicted blood-lead distributions 
would most likely manifest themselves at the extremes, or ``tails,'' of 
the distribution.
    Recognizing that such uncertainties exist, the Agency choose to 
also make use of a non-modeling approach with data from the Rochester 
study. A performance characteristics analysis was conducted, as was 
described earlier for dust. The analysis yielded the following results. 
Soil-lead concentrations ranged from 200 ppm to 1,500 ppm depending on 
dust-lead loadings on uncarpeted floors and interior window sills and 
the exceedance probability. The wide range of soil-lead levels is 
largely the result of a small number of data points.
    2. Dust-lead and soil-lead hazard standards. As discussed in 
section A of this unit, EPA believes it is reasonable to use cost-
benefit balancing to develop a range of viable options for the dust and 
soil hazard standards. The risk reduction achieved as a result of 
interventions designed to control or eliminate hazards constitutes the 
benefits of the hazard standard. Dust interventions reduce risk by 
reducing dust-lead levels. Soil interventions reduce risk both by 
reducing soil-lead levels and by reducing lead contamination of 
household dust.
    To estimate benefits, the Agency built on the analysis used to 
support development of the dust and soil-lead levels of concern. EPA 
used the models that relate environmental lead to blood lead to 
estimate the current or baseline distribution of blood-lead 
concentrations for young children and the predicted blood-lead 
distribution following hazard control interventions implemented in 
response to the standards. Risk reduction, quantified in terms of 
avoided health effects, is measured by looking at the change in blood-
lead distributions. EPA's normative economic analysis calculated 
benefits by assigning a dollar value to the avoided adverse health 
effects and compared these benefits to the costs of hazard control 
interventions.
    Before presenting the detailed description of the analysis, EPA 
wishes to highlight two issues that the public should consider when 
reviewing this proposed regulation. First, the Agency's analysis 
estimates the benefits of primary prevention. Primary prevention is the 
term used to characterize actions taken to protect people that have not 
yet been exposed to a hazard. In this analysis, baseline risk is the 
level of risk that the Agency would expect children to experience in 
the absence of lead hazard control (i.e., risk associated with exposure 
to current conditions). The post-intervention risk is the level of risk 
that children, who have had no previous exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards, are expected to experience with these controls in place. In 
essence, the analysis estimates the level of risk prevented rather than 
the level reduced. Where hazards are controlled, the exposure to lead-
based paint hazards never occurs.
    The analysis does not estimate the benefits of secondary 
prevention, the term used to characterize actions taken to protect 
people already exposed to a hazard. Primary prevention is thought to be 
more effective than secondary prevention because, with primary 
prevention, children's risk remains at the pre-exposure level. With 
secondary prevention, risk does not drop to pre-exposure levels because 
lead that is stored in bone tissue continues to be released into blood 
for some period of time even after environmental levels decline.
    Many of the available exposure studies focus on the impacts of 
secondary prevention, relating environmental lead to blood lead prior 
to and after hazard control interventions. Because the subjects in 
these studies have had prior exposure, the magnitude of the risk 
reduction is smaller than estimated in EPA's analysis, which focuses on 
children who have not had previous exposure.
    Second, the majority of the benefits estimated by EPA are derived 
from avoided IQ point loss resulting from prevented exposure to lead. 
The dollar value placed on these benefits is a tool to assist EPA in 
comparing costs and benefits for purposes of this proposed rule. It is 
not in any sense a real value of the risk reduction or an Agency 
standard for other actions. There are

[[Page 30320]]

plainly many benefits that are not measured in the analysis because EPA 
lacks the tools and or data or because some benefits are subjective in 
nature. On the other hand, EPA assigns risk reduction value to 
fractional losses of an IQ point--tenths and even hundredths of a 
point, and it is unclear the extent to which such small changes affect 
quality of life of a single individual. By this combination of 
underestimating and overestimating dollar values of potential risk 
reduction benefits, EPA hopes to arrive at some reasonable range of 
values that can be used to inform decision-making.
    a. Estimating risk reduction. EPA's risk analysis that was 
conducted to support this proposed rule provides a methodology for 
measuring risk reduction (i.e., declines in blood-lead concentrations). 
Under this methodology, EPA estimates the current national distribution 
of blood-lead concentrations for the population of children ages one to 
two. The Agency then uses this methodology to predict future changes in 
the blood-lead distribution resulting from the implementation of hazard 
interventions and expected changes in the nation's housing stock.
    EPA used two models to estimate blood-lead concentrations: the 
IEUBK model and an empirical model based on the Rochester data. The 
empirical model is based on the multimedia model, which was described 
earlier in this unit. In order for the multimedia model to be used for 
national estimates, it was necessary to modify it to employ 
environmental measures from the HUD National Survey (Refs. 8-9 and 19). 
The resulting modified model is termed the empirical model. For a full 
explanation of the differences between the multimedia model and the 
empirical model, please see Chapter 5 of the Agency's risk analysis 
document (Ref. 1). As noted above, the multimedia model could not be 
used to support the development of the soil-lead of concern. The Agency 
is requesting comment on the use of the empirical model to support 
development of the soil-lead hazard standard.
    To estimate the national distribution of blood-lead concentrations, 
EPA had to run the empirical model with nationally representative data 
on lead in dust and soil. The Agency used the HUD National Survey, 
which is recognized as the leading source of data on environmental lead 
levels in residential environments. The design and findings of the HUD 
National Survey have been peer-reviewed and published in several 
government reports.
    For each house in the National Survey, EPA estimated the average 
blood-lead concentration by using the HUD data on dust lead and soil 
lead as inputs into the empirical and IEUBK models. EPA then applied 
the GSD of 1.6 to estimate a geometric mean blood-lead concentration 
for each home to derive a distribution of blood-lead concentrations for 
each home. An estimate of the baseline national distribution of blood-
lead concentrations was constructed by aggregating the distributions 
from each home using population weights based on the 1993 American 
Housing Survey (Ref. 68), adjusted to the 1997 population of children 
(aged 1 to 2 years). EPA then scaled the estimated national baseline 
distribution using the blood-lead data from NHANES.
    EPA used the following process to estimate the national blood-lead 
distribution associated with each option for dust and soil hazard 
standards. The soil and dust levels for each home in the survey were 
compared to a set of hazard standard options for dust and soil. For 
each set of options, the dust-lead level was adjusted down to reflect 
implementation of a dust control intervention if the dust-lead level 
exceeded the option for dust. If the soil-lead level exceeded the 
option for soil, both the soil and dust lead levels were adjusted down 
to reflect implementation of a soil control intervention. If a level 
did not exceed an option, no adjustments to the data were made. Once 
this comparison was made, the adjusted data were run through both 
models to obtain an estimated blood-lead concentration predicted by the 
model. The GSD of 1.6 was then applied to generate the blood-lead 
distribution for each HUD survey home. The blood-lead distributions for 
all homes in the survey were then aggregated using the same weights as 
in the baseline analysis described previously.
    The use of the IEUBK model to estimate the risk reduction 
associated with various options for the dust-lead hazard standard 
merits additional explanation. As noted earlier, the IEUBK model could 
not be used to develop options for the dust-lead level of concern 
because the dust standards are in terms of loading and the IEUBK model 
uses dust concentration as its input. How, then, can the IEUBK model be 
used to analyze options for the dust-lead hazard standard? In contrast 
to the dust-lead level of concern, where a model that directly relates 
a dust-loading value to a distribution of blood-lead concentrations is 
needed, analysis of the options for the dust-lead hazard standard 
requires a model to estimate changes in the blood-lead distribution for 
the population of young children. EPA is able to do this with the IEUBK 
model by using the model with the HUD National Survey data.
    The HUD National Survey data contain both dust-lead loading and 
concentration data for each home. To establish the baseline 
distribution of blood-lead concentrations, EPA used the dust-lead 
concentration value for each home as input for the IEUBK model. To 
estimate the blood-lead distribution associated with a set of hazard 
standard options for dust and soil, EPA identified the homes that would 
exceed the paint, dust (loading), and/or soil standards. For these 
homes, the analysis assigned a post-intervention dust-lead 
concentration based upon the post-intervention soil concentration and 
the presence or absence of deteriorated paint. The analysis then used 
these assigned dust-lead concentrations as input to the IEUBK model to 
generate post-intervention blood-lead distributions for each of the 
homes. For the homes where no standard was exceeded, the measured dust-
lead concentration from the HUD survey was used. The details of the 
procedure used to assign post-intervention dust-lead concentrations are 
fully explained in Chapter 6 of the Agency's risk analysis document 
(Ref. 1). The Agency is requesting comment on the use of this 
application of the IEUBK model to support development of a dust-lead 
loading hazard standard.
    While all young children could be affected by exposure to lead, the 
population of interest for this analysis was U.S. children aged 1 to 2 
years. The selection of this age range as the population of interest 
derived from the following general observations: the central nervous 
system is rapidly developing in this age range, making it highly 
susceptible to the effects of lead; synaptic density of the frontal 
lobe of the brain peaks in a child's second year, and synaptic 
development can be disrupted or delayed as a result of lead exposure; 
the existence of a relationship between blood-lead concentration 
measured at 1 to 2 years of age and IQ scores measured later in life; 
blood-lead concentration tends to peak in this age range, due to an 
increased ability to absorb lead; and, hand-to-mouth activity is high 
in this age range, thereby increasing the potential for ingesting lead-
contaminated dust, soil, and paint.
    b. Estimating costs and benefits. The normative economic impact 
analysis estimates the benefits and costs associated with a broad range 
of options for hazard standards. Benefits and costs are estimated over 
a 50-year time frame.

[[Page 30321]]

Net benefits are computed by subtracting the costs from the benefits 
for each option and discounting each to the present using a three 
percent rate.
    The benefits include a value for each of three health outcomes 
associated with declines in blood-lead concentration: avoided IQ points 
lost; avoided incidence of IQ below 70; and avoided incidence of blood-
lead concentrations exceeding 20 g/dl. The costs include the 
expenditures on the hazard control interventions implemented by 
property owners and other decision-makers in response to the standards. 
Interventions include dust cleaning, interior and exterior paint repair 
and abatement, and soil abatement.
    The underlying engine of the normative economic analysis is the 
``birth trigger'' model. The chief feature of this model is the 
assumption that property owners do not undertake hazard control actions 
until a young child who could be harmed by the hazard is present. The 
timing of testing and intervention, therefore, is governed by the birth 
rate. In the first year of a model run, the model randomly assigns the 
arrival of a child to some of the 284 homes in the HUD National Survey 
data set. In homes where a child's arrival is predicted to occur, the 
model uses the risk analysis methodology to estimate a post-
intervention blood-lead distribution for that home. In the other homes, 
interventions are not undertaken, regardless of the environmental 
conditions, and there is no change from the baseline blood-lead 
distribution. Using the risk analysis methodology, the blood-lead 
distributions for each home in the survey are aggregated to develop a 
new national blood-lead distribution after the first year. The Agency 
compares the post-intervention blood-lead distribution in each year to 
the baseline blood-lead distribution to compute the reduction in blood-
lead concentrations associated with the option being evaluated. The 
analysis is then repeated for each of the following years through year 
50.
    The operation of the model in each of the subsequent years differs 
from the initial year in two respects. First, the analysis determines 
whether interventions need to be repeated. For example, paint repairs 
are assumed to last 4 years, and therefore need to be repeated to 
maintain their effectiveness. Second, the weights assigned to each home 
in the survey, which reflect the proportion of the national housing 
stock represented by that sample home, change to reflect ongoing 
changes in the housing stock. With each passing year, new homes are 
built and old homes are destroyed. In fact, the modernization of the 
housing stock results in ``natural'' interventions as older homes that 
have lead-based paint are replaced by new homes that do not.
    The analysis then converts the change in blood-lead concentrations 
into the three health endpoints: avoided lost IQ points, avoided 
incidence of IQ below 70, and avoided incidence of blood-lead 
concentrations above 20 g/dl. The term ``avoided'' is the 
difference in health measures between the baseline scenario which 
assumes no intervention activity and post-intervention scenarios, each 
of which assumes a different combination of lead hazard standard 
options and hence intervention activities.
    To estimate the economic value of avoiding lost IQ points, the 
analysis must first convert changes in blood-lead concentration to 
changes in IQ. The analysis then assigns a monetary value to the IQ 
point loss by using an estimate of the foregone lifetime income due to 
IQ point loss. The computation of IQ point loss is based on an average 
decrease of 0.257 IQ points per increase of one g/dl in blood-
lead concentration (Ref. 48).
    IQ affects income through ability, education, and labor force 
participation. The estimation procedure, therefore, has two major 
steps. First the present value of the earnings stream of an average 
newborn is estimated. Second, available economic literature was used to 
estimate the percentage increase in lifetime earnings one would expect 
from a one point increase in IQ. Based on this procedure, the analysis 
assigns a value of $8,346 per IQ point lost (1995 dollars) (Refs. 48, 
69-71).
    EPA's estimate of the incidence of IQ score less than 70 is based 
on results in a paper by Wallsten and Whitfield (1986) on the 
relationship between reduced IQ scores and blood-lead concentration 
(Ref. 72). The economic value of avoiding cases of IQ less than 70 is 
approximated by using avoided special education costs. As defined, 
these education costs are incurred from age 7 through age 18.
    Avoided cases of blood-lead concentration exceeding 20 g/
dl is obtained directly by comparing the distribution of post-
intervention blood-lead concentrations with the baseline distribution 
of blood-lead concentrations. The monetary value was approximated by 
using avoided compensatory education costs. In this case, the education 
costs are assumed to be incurred from age 7 through age 9. In addition, 
there are medical monitoring and intervention costs associated with 
children who have blood-lead concentrations that exceed 20 g/
dl (Refs. 2, 73, and 74).
    Benefits accrue over time as hazard control interventions are 
conducted, reducing children's exposure to lead in paint, dust, and 
soil. All benefit estimates are discounted to the present using an 
annual rate of three percent. Total benefits are the sum of benefits 
calculated for each year or cohort of children protected and represent 
the present value of the stream of benefits from the hazard controls.
    The costs in this normative analysis are principally the costs of 
conducting interventions designed to control lead-based paint hazards. 
Interventions assumed to be are conducted only in those media (i.e., 
paint, dust, soil) where hazards are identified. For example, if lead 
levels in the soil exceed the hazard standards, then the soil will be 
removed and replaced with ``clean'' soil, but there will not be an 
interior paint intervention in response to elevated levels of lead in 
soil. Some interventions, however, include dust cleaning even if no 
dust hazard has been identified initially because the intervention may 
increase levels of lead in dust.
    For purposes of this normative analysis, EPA identified six hazard 
control interventions. These interventions include paint repair or 
abatement of interior paint and exterior paint and a single 
intervention each for soil and dust. It was assumed that abatement of 
interior and exterior paint hazards occur when deteriorated lead-based 
paint is extensive. Paint repair occurs when deteriorated lead-based 
paint is present but not extensive. Soil intervention activities occur 
when the soil-lead concentration exceeds the soil standard. Dust hazard 
control occurs when the floor dust-lead loading exceeds the floor dust-
lead standard, the window sill-lead loading exceeds the window sill 
dust-lead standard, or when it is required to accompany another 
intervention type, such as abatement of interior paint or soil removal. 
Some of the intervention actions result in permanent control of lead 
hazards; others need to be repeated periodically to maintain their 
effectiveness. According to the methodology, non-permanent 
interventions are repeated as necessary in a home until the child is 6 
years of age.
    Drawing on a variety of sources, EPA obtained unit cost estimates, 
that is cost per intervention per home, for the six hazard control 
interventions identified for the analysis (Refs. 75-79). EPA also 
obtained cost estimates for hazard evaluation activities (Refs. 80-83). 
The Agency developed separate cost

[[Page 30322]]

estimates for single- and multi-family housing units, by adjusting the 
single-family unit cost estimates to reflect the smaller size of multi-
family units and the smaller yards (per unit) of multi-family units. 
Table 3 below summarizes these costs for single-family and multi-family 
housing.

              Table 3.--Hazard Evaluation and Control Costs             
                     (Per activity in 1995 dollars)                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Multi-family (per
            Activity                 Single-Family           unit)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk assessment                   456                 235               
Interior paint repair             437                 437               
Interior paint abatement          6,587               4,687             
Exterior paint repair             807                 182               
Exterior paint abatement          45,706              12,275            
Dust cleaning                     391                 262               
Soil removal (dripline;           2,046               399               
 nonhazardous waste)                                                    
Soil removal (mid-yard;           7,878               777               
 nonhazardous waste)                                                    
Soil removal (both areas;         9,008               901               
 nonhazardous waste)                                                    
Soil removal (dripline;           3,443               541               
 hazardous waste)                                                       
Soil removal (mid-yard;           16,486              1,351             
 hazardous waste)                                                       
Soil removal (both areas;         19,013              1,617             
 hazardous waste)                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of intervention for a specific residence are a function 
of when a residence is evaluated, the environmental lead conditions in 
the residence, and the length of time that an intervention is effective 
(duration). The arrival of a child determines when a hazard evaluation 
will be conducted. The choice of intervention activities depends on the 
environmental lead conditions in each medium. The frequency with which 
interventions need to be repeated depends on the duration of the 
intervention. Costs for a residence accrue over time as interventions 
are repeated.
    For example, paint abatement is assumed to have a duration of 20 
years. Therefore, if post-intervention conditions are to be maintained 
because a child under age 6 is present, paint abatement is assumed to 
be repeated 20 years after the initial intervention, and again 40 years 
after the initial paint abatement. Costs incurred after the first year 
are discounted back to the present using an annual discount rate of 
three percent. The total cost estimate is the sum of the discounted 
cost of hazard controls conducted each year.
    In estimating costs of each hazard standard option, the model 
assumes that either a lead hazard screen (for single-family units 
without deteriorated lead-based paint) or a risk assessment (all other 
units) is performed. Testing is done at the time the arrival of a child 
is expected and testing is not repeated for a unit.
    The analysis' computation of net benefits is the difference between 
the total benefits estimate and the total cost estimate. Net benefits 
are an indicator of the societal gains from hazard controls.
    When interpreting the results of EPA's analysis, it is important to 
consider a number of limitations, qualifications, and uncertainties 
which affect both the estimates of benefits and costs.
    With respect to benefits, issues are associated with the 
methodology used to estimate baseline and post-intervention blood-lead 
concentrations and with efforts to place a monetary value on IQ points 
lost. There are important concerns with respect to the cost analysis as 
well.
    There are four areas of concern with respect to the methodology 
used to estimate blood-lead distributions. The first area is associated 
with the HUD National Survey data. These include limited numbers of 
environmental samples taken at each housing unit, the sampling of only 
284 houses to represent the nation's pre-1978 housing stock, the age of 
the study, and use of a dust collection device other than the wipe 
collection method being adopted by the TSCA section 403 proposal.
    The limited number of environmental samples can result in the 
mischaracterization of dust and soil-lead levels at a home in the 
survey. Combined with the small number of homes sampled, 
mischaracterization of dust and soil-lead levels can result in large 
errors in EPA's estimates. The age of the study can also introduce 
error because environmental-lead levels have most likely changed since 
the data were collected in 1989-1990. The use of a dust collection 
device other than wipe samples required the development of an equation 
to convert these values to wipe-equivalent values which introduces 
additional error into the estimates. The introduction of error into the 
estimates contributes to overall uncertainty in the analytical results.
    A second and significant source of uncertainty is the paucity of 
data with respect to the effectiveness of hazard control activities at 
reducing exposures to lead in paint, dust, and soil. For example, EPA's 
estimate of the effectiveness of interventions on dust-lead loading is 
based on a limited number of studies. The Agency's estimate of 
effectiveness of interventions on dust-lead concentrations is, in part, 
based on limited data and, in part, based on the best judgment of 
Agency scientists. Due to the lack of data about the effectiveness of 
interim controls to reduce exposure to lead in soil, the Agency did not 
include these interventions in its analysis. The Agency would, however, 
be interested in any data the public may have concerning the 
effectiveness of interim controls that address exposure to lead in 
soil.
    Third, uncertainty is introduced by using NHANES III, Phase 2 data 
to calibrate the national distribution of baseline blood-lead 
concentrations. While the national representation of NHANES III results 
is widely accepted, some possible limitations in using these data 
include ignoring any seasonality effects on blood-lead concentrations 
and any further decline in concentrations that may have occurred since 
1994.
    Fourth, the two models are sources of uncertainty. The limitations 
of the IEUBK model were discussed previously in this preamble. The 
empirical model shares the limitations of the multimedia model 
discussed previously.
    Questions regarding the value of IQ points fall into two 
categories: the relationship between blood-lead changes and IQ point 
changes and the monetary value assigned to IQ point losses.
    There are two significant limitations involved in assigning a 
monetary value to IQ point losses. The first concerns the

[[Page 30323]]

ability to assign value to fractional losses of an IQ point. The 
analysis assigns value to tenths and even hundredths of an IQ point 
which may not be of much significance at the individual level. The 
second concerns the value of IQ points across the range. The analysis 
assigns equal value to any IQ point change; the value of an IQ dropping 
from 140 to 135 is treated the same as an IQ dropping from 80 to 75. In 
contrast, it is possible that the value of a point may vary depending 
where in the range the point is lost.
    On the other hand, the Agency notes that there are a range of other 
health effects (e.g., neurological, developmental, and others) that are 
not considered in its economic analysis (see Appendix B of the Risk 
Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil) (Ref. 
1). Declines in children's lead exposures will also reduce the 
incidence of these effects. In addition, the economic analysis does not 
include the benefits of secondary prevention (benefits obtained by 
reducing environmental and blood-lead levels in a child already living 
in a contaminated environment). Consequently, the value associated with 
avoided IQ losses in the economic analysis can reasonably be considered 
to serve as a surrogate for benefits associated with these other 
effects. Therefore, to the extent that IQ-related benefits may be 
overestimated due to the two limitations discussed above, the non-
valued benefits associated with these other effects would tend to 
mitigate such overestimates.
    With respect to the estimate of costs, there are several sources of 
uncertainty. EPA's analysis identifies only a few of the dozens of 
responses that property owners and other decision-makers could 
undertake. The costs for these activities are based on current data and 
could change as competition among providers increases or new 
technologies are developed. The frequency with which temporary measures 
need to be repeated, which also affects costs, depends on assumptions 
the Agency made about the duration of the measures' effectiveness. 
These assumptions, in turn, are based upon judgments and extrapolations 
from limited data.
    c. Results. This section of the preamble discusses the results of 
EPA's normative economic analysis of the options for dust and soil-lead 
hazard standards. Before presenting the results, however, the Agency 
believes that it is important to consider two issues when interpreting 
these results.
    First, undue emphasis should not be placed on the estimates for 
total costs and benefits. As noted earlier, the costs and benefits 
estimated by the normative analysis are likely to overstate the actual 
costs and benefits associated with the standards. The Agency's analysis 
also assumes that technologies and costs will remain unchanged over the 
50-year modeling horizon. Over time, as new technologies develop, costs 
may decline. In addition, many health benefits were not included in the 
analysis because either the relationship between exposure and the 
magnitude of health effects is unknown or because the benefits cannot 
be monetized.
    Estimates of costs and benefits associated with the standards are 
also heavily influenced by the number of homes estimated to exceed any 
standard option. The estimated number of homes is based on the HUD 
National Survey. Although this Survey is the best nationally 
representative data on residential lead, it is characterized by several 
shortcomings that were described earlier. Among the most significant of 
these is the small sample size, which, as was noted, can introduce 
errors into EPA's estimates. For example, only seven homes in the 
Survey have soil that exceeds 2,000 ppm. Based on the age, location, 
and other characteristics of these homes, EPA estimates that these 
seven homes represent 2.5 million homes nationally which yields $9 
billion in soil intervention costs over the 50-year model period. If 
HUD conducted another survey, it is possible that only three homes in 
the survey, representing 1 million homes nationally, exceed 2,000 ppm, 
reducing costs by 60 percent. Benefits would also be lower because 
fewer children would be protected. It is also possible that 10 homes in 
the survey, representing 3 million homes nationally, exceed 2,000 ppm, 
resulting in higher costs and benefits.
    By providing these explanations, EPA does not intend to dismiss the 
costs associated with this proposed rule. Although the expected costs 
associated with the standards are likely to be significantly less than 
costs estimated by the normative analysis, these costs would probably 
still be substantial. That is why the Agency considered costs in 
evaluating options for the hazard standards and in selecting a 
preferred option. It should be remembered, however, that these 
activities will protect millions of children who will live in abated 
homes over the next 50 years. As was noted earlier, EPA's analysis did 
not focus on children already exposed to excessive levels of lead but 
on children who have not been born. In the absence of the standards and 
assuming other exposures to lead remain unchanged, approximately 10 
million children are estimated to have elevated blood-lead levels over 
the next 50 years. Of these, one million are estimated to have levels 
that require medical attention (Chapter 5, Ref. 83).
    Second, the results obtained using each model should be evaluated 
individually to compare performance of the options. Options should not 
be compared across models. The models represent two fundamentally 
different approaches to estimating the relationship between dust and 
soil-lead and blood-lead which are not comparable: one is mechanistic 
and the other empirical. As explained above, the two models also use 
different data for input. The IEUBK model uses dust-concentration data 
from the HUD survey to estimate baseline blood-lead and assumed dust-
concentrations to estimate post-intervention blood-lead concentrations. 
The empirical model uses dust-loading data from the HUD survey to 
estimate baseline blood-lead and assumed dust-loadings to estimate 
post-intervention blood-lead. This difference is one reason why the 
IEUBK model-based analysis estimates greater risk reduction than the 
empirical model-based analysis.
    The objective of the analyses is to provide EPA with a tool to 
compare options in terms of relative costs and benefits of each option, 
not to develop precise absolute estimates of costs and benefits. 
Despite the limitations and uncertainties noted here and in previous 
sections of this unit, EPA believes that the results for options within 
each model can be compared. The limitations may affect the estimates of 
absolute costs and benefits, but these limitations should have similar 
effects on the estimates for each option. Therefore, the impact of the 
limitation and uncertainties on the relative performance of each 
option, in terms of net benefits, estimated by each model should be 
small, except where noted in the discussion below.
    Tables 4 and 5 below present the results of the IEUBK-based 
analysis for a range of dust and soil hazard standard options. Table 4 
presents the costs, benefits, and net benefits for actions taken in 
response to the specified options for dust standards; it does not 
include any soil interventions. Because the IEUBK model does not 
include a parameter for sill dust, it was used only to analyze floor 
dust options. Table 5 presents figures relating to soil standards; it 
does not include any dust interventions. Neither table includes any 
testing or risk assessment costs, nor costs or benefits of paint 
interventions.

[[Page 30324]]



   Table 4.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Dust-Lead Hazard Standard Alone (Using the IEUBK   
                                                     Model)*                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of Homes            IEUBK Model Results (50-years; $Billion)         
 Floor Dust Options (g/   Exceeding Option  -----------------------------------------------------------
              ft2)                    (Millions)             Costs              Benefit           Net Benefit   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50                                21                  12                  73                  61                
100                               19                  10                  59                  48                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint and   
  soil interventions, or any risk assessment costs.                                                             


   Table 5.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Soil-Lead Hazard Standard Alone (Using the IEUBK   
                                                     Model)*                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of Homes            IEUBK Model Results (50-years; $Billion)         
        Soil Option (ppm)           Exceeding Soil   -----------------------------------------------------------
                                   Option (Millions)         Costs              Benefit           Net Benefit   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500                               11.8                42                  149                 107               
1,000                             5.8                 28                  92                  65                
1,200                             4.7                 25                  82                  57                
1,500                             3.2                 16                  63                  47                
2,000                             2.5                 9                   45                  36                
2,500                             1.5                 6                   30                  24                
3,000                             0.7                 4                   19                  15                
3,500                             0.7                 4                   19                  15                
4,000                             0.7                 4                   19                  15                
4,500                             0.3                 1                   6                   6                 
5,000                             0.2                 0.4                 4                   4                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint and   
  dust interventions, or any risk assessment costs.                                                             

    Total benefits increase as options become increasingly stringent, 
ranging from $59 billion to $73 billion for dust and from $4 billion to 
$149 billion for soil. Total benefits are a function of the number of 
children (which is directly related to the number of homes) affected by 
an option and the amount of risk reduction predicted for each child. 
Furthermore benefits increase at an increasing rate because, as dust 
and soil-lead levels decline, the number of homes at given 
environmental lead levels increases more quickly. For example, moving 
from a soil standard of 5,000 ppm to 4,500 ppm increases the number of 
homes exceeding the standard from about 200,000 to about 300,000 (an 
increase of about 100,000 housing units), while moving from 1,000 ppm 
to 500 ppm increases the number of homes exceeding the standard from 
about 5.8 million to 11.8 million (an increase of about 6 million 
housing units).
    The rate also increases because the changes in blood-lead 
concentration predicted by the IEUBK model are greater for a given 
change in dust and soil-lead levels at lower dust and soil-lead levels. 
The increasing strength of this relationship between environmental lead 
and blood lead is sufficient to overcome the smaller changes between 
baseline and post-intervention dust and soil-lead levels that occur as 
the standard options become more stringent. For example, the assumed 
change in soil-lead level for a home that has a soil-lead concentration 
of 2,500 ppm is 2,350 ppm (the assumed post-intervention concentration 
is 150 ppm). The assumed change for a home that has a soil-lead 
concentration of 500 ppm is only 350 ppm.
    Total costs also increase as options become increasingly stringent, 
ranging from $10 billion to $12 billion for dust and $400 million to 
$42 billion for soil. Total costs are mainly a function of unit costs 
(costs for a single intervention) and the number of homes affected. For 
dust, unit costs ($391 for single-family homes and $262 for multi-
family units) are the same regardless of the standard being evaluated. 
For soil, unit costs vary depending on the part of the yard (e.g., 
dripline, mid-yard) being addressed by the abatement and on whether the 
removed soil has to be managed as hazardous waste under regulations 
found at 40 CFR part 260 to 40 CFR part 270. The unit cost is lower for 
lower soil-lead levels (below 2,000 ppm) because the removed soil does 
not have to be managed as hazardous waste. Table 3 above presents the 
complete range of unit costs for soil removal. As is the case for 
benefits, total costs increase as the standard options become more 
stringent because more homes exceed each optional standard.
    Unit cost should not be confused with average cost per residence. 
Unit cost is the cost per intervention per residence. Average cost is 
the cost per residence over the entire 50-year modeling horizon and 
takes into account factors such as the need to repeat interventions 
(dust), averaging a range of unit costs (soil), and discounting (both 
dust and soil). Because the duration of dust intervention effectiveness 
is limited if the underlying source of lead is not eliminated, dust 
cleaning may have to be repeated, raising the average cost per 
residence. Average cost for soil abatement per residence will reflect a 
mix of soil intervention costs which vary depending on the area of the 
yard addressed and the type of disposal required. Interventions 
performed in the future are discounted back to the present. For 
example, the present value of a dust cleaning performed in a single-
family house 40 years from now would be approximately $120 assuming a 
three percent discount rate.
    Because total benefits increase at a faster rate than total costs, 
net benefits also increase as options become increasingly stringent, 
ranging from $41 billion to $61 billion for dust and $4 billion to $107 
billion for soil. The increase in net benefits is relatively constant 
as the dust standards become more stringent. For soil, net benefits 
increase slowly from 5,000 ppm to 3,000

[[Page 30325]]

ppm and increase more quickly from 3,000 ppm to 500 ppm. Net benefits 
increase because total benefits are increasing at a faster rate than 
total costs. This result is primarily explained by the relationship 
between lead in dust and soil and blood-lead which strengthens as dust 
and soil-lead levels decline under the IEUBK model.
    Given the large number of residences at the lower baseline dust and 
soil-lead levels and the small changes in these levels that would 
result from interventions, the results of the analysis for the more 
stringent options are extremely sensitive to the assumed relationship 
between dust and soil-lead and blood lead. If the true relationship is 
slightly weaker, total and net benefits could be significantly lower.
    Tables 6 and 7 below present the results of the empirical model-
based normative analysis for a range of possible dust and soil hazard 
standard options. Table 6 presents the costs, benefits, and net 
benefits for actions taken in response to the specified options for 
dust standards; it does not include any soil interventions. Table 7 
presents figures relating to soil standards; it does not include any 
dust interventions. Neither table includes any testing or risk 
assessment costs, nor costs or benefits of paint interventions.
    Total benefits increase as options become increasingly stringent, 
ranging from $25 billion to $36 billion for dust and $1 billion to $36 
billion for soil. As is the case in the IEUBK model-based analysis, the 
rate at which benefits increase rises as the stringency of the options 
increase, because more homes are affected (and more children are 
protected). The rate at which benefits increase, however, is tempered 
somewhat because the relationship between dust and soil-lead and blood-
lead remains relatively constant across the range of options 
considered. The increasing number of children protected by more 
stringent standards is counterbalanced by decreasing risk reduction 
predicted for children living in homes with low dust and soil-lead 
levels because the smaller changes between baseline dust and soil-lead 
levels and post-intervention levels at lower baseline levels equate to 
smaller changes in blood-lead concentration. Costs are the same as in 
the IEUBK-based analysis because the models are used only to calculate 
benefits.

                 Table 6.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Dust-Lead Hazard Standard Alone (Using the Empirical Model)*                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Option (g/ft2)                        Number of Homes                 Empirical Model Results (50-years; $Billion)           
------------------------------------------------------------    Exceeding Option    --------------------------------------------------------------------
             Floor Dust                     Sill Dust              (Millions)                Costs                 Benefit              Net Benefit     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50                                   100                     34                      19                     36                     17                   
50                                   250                     21                      12                     34                     22                   
100                                  250                     19                      10                     32                     22                   
50                                   500                     16                      9                      31                     22                   
100                                  500                     14                      8                      28                     21                   
100                                  1,000                   11                      6                      25                     19                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint and soil interventions, or any risk assessment
  costs.                                                                                                                                                


 Table 7.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Soil-Lead Hazard Standard Alone (Using the Empirical 
                                                     Model)*                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of Homes          Empirical Model Results (50-years; $Billion)       
        Soil Option (ppm)           Exceeding Soil   -----------------------------------------------------------
                                   Option (Millions)         Costs              Benefit           Net Benefit   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500                               11.8                42                  36                  -6                
1,000                             5.8                 28                  22                  -6                
1,200                             4.7                 25                  19                  -7                
1,500                             3.2                 16                  14                  -1                
2,000                             2.5                 9                   10                  2                 
2,500                             1.5                 6                   5                   -0.2              
3,000                             0.7                 4                   3                   -1                
3,500                             0.7                 4                   3                   -1                
4,000                             0.7                 4                   3                   -1                
4,500                             0.3                 1                   1                   1                 
5,000                             0.2                 0.4                 1                   0.5               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint and   
  dust interventions, or any risk assessment costs.                                                             

    Net benefits for dust range from $17 billion to $22 billion. Of the 
six combinations of dust standard options evaluated, net benefits are 
relatively constant for all the combinations except the most and least 
stringent. For the four other options, benefits and costs increase at 
approximately the same rate, resulting in little change in net 
benefits. Net benefits for soil range from $-7 billion to $2 billion, 
approaching maximum levels near 5,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm. Below 2,000 
ppm, net benefits decrease because total benefits increase at a slower 
rate than total costs. The increased number of children protected at 
more stringent standards is offset by a smaller predicted reduction in 
risk at lower environmental levels.
    As stated above, the results presented in this section show the 
estimated costs, benefits, and net benefits associated with a range of 
dust standards resulting from dust interventions only and with a range 
of soil standards resulting from soil interventions only. These are the 
estimates EPA used in its decision-making process when selecting the 
preferred options for the proposed dust-lead and soil-lead hazard 
standards. These single-medium estimates enable the Agency to attribute 
costs, benefits, and net benefits to the interventions in

[[Page 30326]]

a specific medium and allowed EPA to compare options when developing 
the media-specific standards.
    The Agency, however, believes that it would be useful for the 
public to examine the estimates of costs, benefits, and net benefits 
for dust and soil interventions combined. Table 8 presents the 
estimates developed by the IEUBK model-based approach for a range of 
floor dust standards assuming a sill dust standard of 250 g/
ft2 and a soil standard of 2,000 ppm. Table 9 presents the 
estimates developed by the IEUBK model-based approach for a range of 
soil standards assuming a floor dust standard of 50 g/ft2 
and a sill dust standard of 250 g/ft2. Table 10 
presents the estimates developed by the empirical model-based approach 
for a range of floor and window sill dust standards assuming a soil 
standard of 2,000 ppm. Table 11 presents the estimates developed by the 
empirical model-based approach for a range of soil standards assuming a 
floor dust standard of 50 g/ft2 and a sill dust 
standard of 250 g/ft2. The estimates presented in 
these tables are based on the Agency's economic analysis.
    It is important to note that the costs and benefits for the 
combined dust and soil standards in tables 8 through 11 are less than 
the sum of the costs and benefits for the corresponding media-specific 
dust and soil standards presented in tables 4 through 7. This 
difference occurs because soil abatements are assumed to include dust 
cleaning. Therefore, the estimate of benefits derived from addressing 
soil hazards alone includes some benefit from dust cleaning, which is 
also included in the estimate of dust benefits alone. When EPA 
estimates the benefits for the combined dust and soil standards, dust 
cleaning that would be triggered by either proposed standard is only 
counted once. The overlapping dust benefit, however, accounts for only 
a small part of the overall benefit of the proposed dust standard. Many 
homes that exceed the proposed dust standard do not exceed the proposed 
soil standard; therefore, only a dust cleaning would be performed in 
these homes and benefits derived from establishing a dust hazard 
standard would not be double counted.
    EPA wishes to reiterate that the estimates presented in Tables 8 
through 11 are presented for informational purposes only and were not 
used to guide Agency decision-making for this proposal. The Agency 
requests comments on this alternate approach for presenting benefits, 
costs, and net benefits.

  Table 8.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Dust-Lead Hazard Standard Options (Using the IEUBK  
                                                     Model)*                                                    
                               (assumes a soil-lead hazard standard of 2,000 ppm)                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of Homes            IEUBK Model Results (50 years; $Billion)         
 Floor Dust Options (g/   Exceeding Dust or -----------------------------------------------------------
              ft2)                    Soil Option                                                               
                                      (Millions)             Costs              Benefit           Net Benefit   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50                                18                  19                  108                 89                
                                                                                                                
100                               16                  18                  95                  77                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint       
  interventions, or any risk assessment costs.                                                                  



  Table 9.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Soil-Lead Hazard Standard Options (Using the IEUBK  
                                                     Model)*                                                    
  (assumes dust-lead hazard standards of 50 g/ft2 for floors and 250 g/ft2 for window sills)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of Homes            IEUBK Model Results (50 years; $Billion)         
                                   Exceeding Dust or -----------------------------------------------------------
        Soil Option (ppm)            Soil Options                                                               
                                      (Millions)             Costs              Benefit           Net Benefit   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500                               22                  50                  193                 143               
1,000                             19                  38                  150                 112               
1,200                             19                  35                  142                 106               
1,500                             18                  26                  124                 98                
2,000                             18                  19                  108                 89                
2,500                             18                  17                  95                  78                
3,000                             18                  16                  86                  70                
3,500                             18                  16                  86                  70                
4,000                             18                  16                  86                  70                
4,500                             17                  12                  75                  62                
5,000                             17                  12                  73                  61                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint       
  interventions, or any risk assessment costs.                                                                  



                Table 10.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Dust-Lead Hazard Standard Options (Using the Empirical Model)*               
                                                   (assumes a soil-lead hazard standard of 2,000 ppm)                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Option (g/ft2)                        Number of Homes                 Empirical Model Results (50 years; $Billion)           
------------------------------------------------------------ Exceeding Dust or Soil --------------------------------------------------------------------
             Floor Dust                     Sill Dust          Options (Millions)            Costs                 Benefit              Net Benefit     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50                                   100                     28                      27                     43                     16                   

[[Page 30327]]

                                                                                                                                                        
50                                   250                     18                      19                     39                     19                   
100                                  250                     16                      18                     37                     19                   
50                                   500                     14                      17                     36                     19                   
100                                  500                     12                      15                     33                     18                   
100                                  1,000                   10                      14                     30                     16                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint interventions, or any risk assessment costs.  



     Table 11.--Estimated Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for Soil-Lead Hazard Standard Options (Using the    
                                                Empirical Model)*                                               
  (assumes dust-lead hazard standards of 50 g/ft2 for floors and 250 g/ft2 for window sills)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of Homes          Empirical Model Results (50 years; $Billion)       
                                   Exceeding Dust or -----------------------------------------------------------
        Soil Option (ppm)            Soil Options                                                               
                                      (Millions)             Costs              Benefit           Net Benefit   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500                               22                  50                  55                  5                 
1,000                             19                  38                  47                  9                 
1,200                             19                  35                  45                  10                
1,500                             18                  26                  42                  16                
2,000                             18                  19                  39                  19                
2,500                             18                  17                  36                  19                
3,000                             18                  16                  35                  19                
3,500                             18                  16                  35                  19                
4,000                             18                  16                  35                  19                
4,500                             17                  12                  33                  21                
5,000                             17                  12                  33                  21                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: Rows may not add due to rounding. This table does not include estimated costs or benefits of paint       
  interventions, or any risk assessment costs.                                                                  

C. Agency Decisions for Dust and Soil Standards

    This section of the preamble presents EPA's decisions regarding the 
dust and soil standards. These decisions are based on the 
interpretation of, and the conclusions drawn from, the results of the 
normative analysis presented in the previous section of the preamble. 
The interpretations and conclusions are discussed in the context of the 
explanations for the specific decisions made by the Agency. The public 
should refer back to the previous section for a more complete treatment 
of the analytical results.
    When considering the impacts of the proposed standards for dust and 
soil, the public should understand that properties will be evaluated by 
comparing these standards to average dust and soil-lead levels measured 
by a risk assessor, not worst-case or maximum values. As noted in Unit 
VI. of this preamble, the use of the average value is the most 
reasonable approach in the absence of specific detailed information 
about exposure.
    1. Dust-lead hazard. EPA has decided to propose 50 g/
ft2 as the dust-lead hazard standard for uncarpeted floors 
and 250 g/ft2 for interior window sills. According 
to the empirical model-based analysis, the results of which are 
summarized in Table 6, four of six combinations of options for floor 
and window sill standards have net benefits in the maximum range (i.e., 
$21 to $22 billion). One combination (100 g/ft2 for 
floors, 1,000 g/ft2 for sills) provides 
significantly less risk reduction relative to cost; and one combination 
(50 g/ft2 for floors, 100 g/ft2 
for sills) provides little additional benefit but costs increase 
significantly. Incremental benefits are less than one third the 
incremental costs and an additional 11 million homes would fall under 
the standard. EPA, therefore, considers that this lower standard for 
sills is associated with increased costs without commensurate attendant 
benefits.
    Of the four combinations where net benefits are in the maximum 
range, the proposed option is the most protective in terms of the 
amount of risk reduction yielded. The other three options, though less 
costly, also provide less risk reduction. The decrease in both costs 
and benefits as the combination of floor and sill options become less 
stringent are roughly the same (between $5 billion and $6 billion), 
resulting in little change in net benefits.
    EPA decided to propose the 50 g/ft2 and 250 
g/ft2 standards respectively for floors and sills 
because the Agency prefers to select the most protective of the four 
combinations where net benefits are in the maximum range. Selecting the 
most protective combination of dust-lead hazard standards is especially 
important when considered in combination with the soil and paint 
standards being proposed or considered today. It will help protect 
children who are exposed to lead in soil at concentrations between the 
level of concern and the hazard level by mitigating exposure in one of 
the pathways by which children are exposed to lead in soil.
    The Agency did not consider a floor standard option less than 50 
g/ft2 because, in its risk analysis, EPA's best 
estimate is that the post intervention-

[[Page 30328]]

dust lead loading is the lower of the pre-intervention dust-loading or 
40 g/ft2. This is the Agency's best estimate of 
dust levels that would remain after controlling sources of lead and 
thoroughly cleaning the residence. It is based on an analysis of data 
from several abatement studies which is more fully discussed in Chapter 
6 of the Agency's risk analysis. In light of this estimate, it would be 
impractical to set the standard for floors lower than 40 g/
ft2 because little or no risk reduction is likely to be 
achieved for homes that had dust-lead loadings at or below 40 
g/ft2. If new data become available before 
promulgation of the final rule that show that even lower post-
intervention dust-lead loadings can be achieved, EPA would consider 
establishing a more stringent dust-lead hazard standard.
    EPA's decision on the floor standard is further supported by the 
results of the IEUBK model-based normative analysis, summarized in 
Table 4, which show that the net benefits for the proposed floor 
standard are greater than those for a less stringent standard; net 
benefits estimated by this analysis increase from $48 billion for 100 
g/ft2 to $61 billion for the proposed 50 
g/ft2 standard. The IEUBK model was not used to 
analyze sill options because the model does not contain a sill 
parameter.
    EPA reiterates that this normative cost-benefit analysis has been 
undertaken for comparative purposes only and does not mean to imply 
that billions of dollars will be spent on lead dust cleanup. These 
costs are put into better perspective when it is understood that the 
cost per residence of dust cleaning is less than $600 per affected 
residence over a 50-year period in 1995 dollars. In making this 
decision, EPA recognizes that the proposed standard could result in 
dust hazard interventions in perhaps as many as 20 million homes. 
Although this is a very large number of homes, the cost of intensive 
dust cleaning is relatively low for individual residences.
    2. Dust-lead level of concern. As noted earlier, EPA has decided 
not to include a level of concern in the proposed regulations. The 
Agency has further decided not to include a dust-lead level of concern 
that is distinct from the dust-lead hazard standard in accompanying 
guidance. This decision is based on the fact that there is significant 
overlap between the results of the analysis for the level of concern 
and the dust-lead hazard standards. According to the performance 
characteristics analysis, the range for the level of concern is 50 to 
400 g/ft2 for uncarpeted floors and 100 to 800 
g/ft2 for interior window sills. The hazard 
standards of 50 g/ft2 for floors and 250 
g/ft2 for sills are within these ranges. Because it 
would make no sense for the level of concern to be higher than the 
hazard standard according to the Agency's policy framework, the level 
of concern for floors could not be higher than 50 g/
ft2, the lowest level of concern shown by the Agency's 
analyses. EPA's analysis therefore suggests that the dust-lead level of 
concern and the dust-lead hazard level for floors should be the same. 
In light of this result, the Agency has decided that including a dust-
lead level of concern in guidance would serve no practical purpose.
    For window sills, it is possible to have a level of concern as low 
as 100 g/ft2, which is lower than the hazard level. 
For several reasons, however, EPA has decided not to use this level in 
guidance. First, the performance characteristics analysis of the 
Rochester data show that there is no difference in risk between 100 
g/ft2 and 250 g/ft2. Due to the 
high correlation between lead in dust on window sills and lead in dust 
on floors and a small sample size, risk does not change as sill dust-
lead levels vary when accounting for floor dust-lead levels (Ref. 64). 
Second, there is a high degree of variability in dust-lead loading 
measurements, varying from day-to-day and from location-to-location on 
the same surface. In light of the small difference in risk and the high 
degree of variability in measuring dust levels, having a level of 
concern for window sills in accompanying guidance would introduce 
unnecessary complexity into EPA's program.
    3. Soil-lead level of concern. EPA is proposing not to include a 
soil-lead level of concern in the regulation. The Agency, instead, is 
requesting comment on including 400 ppm as the soil-lead level of 
concern. As discussed above, the IEUBK model indicates that soil-lead 
concentrations associated with the risk level of concern are generally 
at or below 500 ppm and the performance characteristics analysis 
yielded a range of 200 ppm to 1,500 ppm. Thus, the range of soil-lead 
levels from 200 ppm to 500 ppm is supported by the results of both 
analyses. Lacking technical criteria to select one level from this 
range as the proposed soil-lead level of concern in accompanying 
guidance, the Agency determined that it should choose 400 ppm because 
it is both within this range and consistent with the soil screening 
level used by EPA's Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs (Ref. 
84) and EPA's current guidance on lead-based paint hazards (60 FR 
47248). It is clear from all the evidence that this level ``poses a 
threat of adverse health effects.'' The analysis, above, shows there is 
a one to five percent chance that individual children exposed to this 
soil level could have a blood-lead level equal to or exceeding 10 
g/dl, although the Agency could not say that adverse health 
effects ``would result'' from these levels.
    4. Soil-lead hazard. As explained in Unit II. of this preamble, 
this public health decision requires consideration of the potential 
risks to children that may occur at levels equal to or lower than the 
chosen hazard level. At the same time, EPA believes that consideration 
of costs is necessary to ensure that the hazard standard promotes 
priority-setting and supports the establishment of a workable national 
hazard evaluation and control program. To arrive at a proposed soil-
lead hazard level, EPA sought a level at which the Agency had 
sufficient confidence in the likelihood of harm (i.e., greater than the 
level of concern) and that the cost of abatement seemed warranted to 
achieve the associated level of risk reduction.
    Based on the Agency's analysis and judgment, EPA has decided to 
propose 2,000 ppm as the soil-lead hazard standard. This decision is 
based on the following reasons. First, the results of the empirical 
model-based normative analysis (summarized in Table 7) show that net 
benefits are positive and near the maximum level at 2,000 ppm. The 
IEUBK normative model-based analysis (summarized in Table 4b) shows 
positive and significantly higher net benefits at concentrations up to 
2,000 ppm than for soil-lead concentrations above 2,000 ppm. Positive 
net benefits indicate that the cost of soil abatement at this 
concentration is less than the benefits associated with risk reduction 
for the population as a whole. Because both analyses show positive net 
benefits at 2,000 ppm, EPA is confident that this level represents a 
reasonable public health policy choice for today's proposal.
    As stated previously, EPA conducted the normative cost-benefit 
analysis for purposes of comparing options. Undue emphasis should not 
be placed on the total costs and benefits estimated by each analysis. 
It is probably more useful, therefore, to consider what the Agency's 
analysis and decision implies for the average property. According to 
EPA's analysis, the average cost of soil abatement for a residence at 
2,000 ppm is about $3,600. The analyses show that cost is commensurate 
with risk reduction at this concentration because the value of risk 
reduction in terms of avoided adverse health effects is greater than 
the cost. It is important to recognize, however, that the benefits

[[Page 30329]]

account not only for the child immediately protected when the abatement 
is performed but also for children who may reside in that residence in 
the future. The comparison of estimated costs and benefits for an 
individual property is also an average. For some homes, costs could be 
higher than benefits. EPA's decision, however, is based on the overall 
benefit to society which accounts for benefits for future generations 
of children and for the average child.
    Second, outside of its use in the economics model, the IEUBK model 
predicts significant risk to children at this soil-lead concentration 
under virtually all exposure scenarios. At 2,000 ppm in soil, the model 
estimates a mean blood lead level in the range of 11-16 g/dl, 
depending upon the assumed concentration of lead in house dust (100-
1,400 ppm in this case). This range corresponds to approximately 55 to 
80 percent equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl and 9 to 30 percent 
exceeding 20 g/dl.
    Third, data from a number of epidemiological studies show that 
between 40 and 50 percent of the children living in certain communities 
with soil-lead concentrations at the 2,000 ppm level have blood-lead 
concentrations equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl and that 10 
percent of children have blood-lead concentrations equal to or 
exceeding 20 g/dl (Ref. 85).
    In reaching its decision, EPA rejected more stringent options for 
several reasons. First, although the IEUBK model-based analysis shows 
higher net benefits for more stringent standards, the results of the 
IEUBK model-based analysis at relatively low soil-lead concentrations 
(e.g., 500 ppm) are very sensitive to assumptions in both the analysis 
and the model. As noted above, a significant proportion of these 
benefits are associated with changes in dust concentration which are 
affected by both the HUD National Survey data and EPA's assumptions 
about post-intervention dust concentrations. The results are also very 
sensitive to the assumed relationship between soil-lead and blood-lead 
concentrations in the IEUBK model. Because of the larger number of 
homes at lower soil-lead concentrations (e.g., 11.8 million  
500 ppm versus 2.5 million  2,000 ppm) and the smaller 
reductions in environmental lead levels that can be achieved at the 
lower concentrations, a slight change in the relationship between soil-
lead and blood-lead concentrations can produce significantly different 
net benefits. Consequently, it is questionable whether risk reduction 
would be commensurate with costs and lower soil-lead concentrations.
    Second, the Agency's analysis did not consider the role that 
interim controls can play in reducing risks at lower soil-lead 
concentrations. Interim controls were not considered because EPA lacks 
data to estimate the effectiveness of these controls. The Agency 
believes that at lower soil-lead concentrations, interim measures can 
interfere with exposure pathways and reduce risk and that these 
measures may be more cost effective than abatement at lower 
concentrations.
    Third, EPA is concerned that more stringent standards would not 
meet the priority-setting goals the Agency believes are appropriate for 
the Title X program. Based on the soil-lead data in the HUD National 
Survey, EPA estimates that 4.7 million homes would exceed 1,200 ppm and 
nearly 12 million homes would exceed 500 ppm, two options considered by 
the Agency. Scarce resources potentially would have to be allocated 
across more communities and would be diverted away from interventions 
needed to respond to both deteriorated interior and exterior lead-based 
paint. The proposed 2,000 ppm standard will help focus resources for 
soil abatement on significantly fewer properties (i.e., 2.5 million).
    In proposing 2,000 ppm as the soil-lead hazard standard, EPA does 
not wish to communicate a lack of concern about risks that exists below 
this soil-lead concentration. In fact, the Agency recognizes that there 
could be substantial risk below 2,000 ppm. The IEUBK model predicts 
risk to children under a variety of exposure scenarios. At 1,200 ppm in 
soil, the model estimates a mean blood lead level in the range of 8 to 
11 g/dl, depending upon the assumed concentration of lead in 
house dust (100 to 850 ppm in this case). This range of mean blood-lead 
concentrations corresponds to a range of approximately 30 to 60 percent 
exceeding 10 g/dl and 2 to 10 percent exceeding 20 g/
dl. As noted above, however, the Agency believes that it is not 
appropriate to set a more stringent uniform national soil-lead hazard 
standard because costs may not be commensurate with risk reduction and 
resources would not be adequately focused. The Agency further thinks 
that measures undertaken in response to the proposed soil-lead level of 
concern in the accompanying guidance and dust hazard standards will 
help protect children exposed to soil-lead concentrations between 400 
ppm and 2,000 ppm. It should be noted that abatement at levels below 
2,000 ppm may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis depending on local 
conditions.
    EPA also considered a less stringent standard of 5,000 ppm. This 
option has several advantages. First, consistent with the priority-
setting concept of Title X and the need to apply scarce resources 
effectively, as noted in Unit IV.A.2.b, this option would focus on 
properties that present the greatest risk to young children. Second, it 
would affect relatively few homes (i.e., an estimated 200,000 units 
based on data from the HUD National Survey). Because fewer homes would 
be affected, the estimated cost associated with this option, as shown 
in Tables 5 and 7, is significantly lower than the cost of the 
preferred option ($0.4 billion for 5,000 ppm vs. $9 billion for 2,000 
ppm), thus reducing the impact of the rule on properties and 
communities. In fact, according to the empirical model-based approach, 
the net benefits are about the same for 5,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm. Third, 
this level would be consistent with EPA's interim guidance document on 
lead-based paint hazards (60 FR 47248). Some argue that the adoption of 
a more stringent soil hazard standard -- given the substantial costs of 
soil abatement -- may influence the decisions or actions of owners of 
target housing in unintended ways. The Agency is interested in 
receiving comments on how the hazard standard may influence owners, the 
number of clean-ups or interventions, and whether the hazard standard 
would influence housing availability. In discussions at EPA's dialogue 
process, many interested parties stated that the guidance was a 
workable approach that should be adopted in the regulation.
    This option, however, is characterized by several important 
disadvantages. First, the IEUBK model predicts, and the epidemiological 
data show, that a substantial number of children who are exposed to 
soil with lead levels between 2,000 ppm and 5,000 ppm have moderately 
to highly elevated blood lead levels. Furthermore, interim controls 
would be relied upon to address risks from soil-lead concentrations up 
to 5,000 ppm under this option. It is important to consider that 
interim controls, which may successfully mitigate risks at lower soil 
lead concentrations, do not eliminate the lead source. Rather, they 
serve to reduce exposure by limiting the accessibility of the soil and 
the consequent inadvertent ingestion or tracking of the soil into a 
home (where it can contribute lead to interior dust). As the soil lead 
concentration increases, however, it is more likely that even if 
accessibility of the soil were reduced,

[[Page 30330]]

significant risk would remain. In the case of track-in, the Agency is 
concerned that even a relatively small amount of high-lead-
concentration soil can re-contaminate interior dust and reintroduce a 
dust-lead hazard. Second, although, as stated above, costs may be lower 
at 5,000 ppm, the IEUBK model-based approach shows that net benefits 
also decrease by $32 billion when increasing the standard from 2,000 
ppm to 5,000 ppm. Furthermore, the empirical model-based approach shows 
that, while net benefits are about the same for both options, benefits 
decline by $9 billion when the standard increases from 2,000 ppm to 
5,000 ppm.
    In light of the results of EPA's formal cost-benefit analysis, the 
risk predictions of the IEUBK model, and the risk to young children 
documented by the epidemiological data, EPA decided that 2,000 ppm was 
a more appropriate option for today's proposal. In reaching this 
decision, EPA was mindful of the impacts that the costs of soil 
abatement could have on individual properties and communities. 
Consideration of costs and their impacts was the primary reason why EPA 
selected 2,000 ppm rather than a more stringent option (e.g., 1,200 
ppm). Moreover, EPA would have selected 2,000 ppm as its preferred 
option even if the Agency had relied only on the empirical model and 
epidemiological data as some stakeholders have suggested. The results 
of the empirical model-based analysis show that both the 2,000 ppm 
option and the 5,000 ppm option are equivalent in terms of net 
benefits. The benefits at 2,000 ppm, however, are substantially higher 
because, as the epidemiological data shows, there is substantial risk 
to children exposed to lead in soil at concentrations between 2,000 ppm 
and 5,000 ppm.
    EPA notes that it does not anticipate that setting the soil-lead 
hazard standard at 2,000 ppm would adversely impact individuals who 
previously relied voluntarily on the guidance. First, EPA has no 
information to suggest that many property owners have performed soil 
abatements. Second, it is very likely that properties where soil 
abatements were performed would now have soil-lead concentrations well 
below 2,000 ppm and even below 400 ppm, the soil-lead level of concern. 
This conclusion is based on the fact that when soil is removed, it is 
replaced by ``clean'' soil--soil that has a very low lead 
concentration.

D. Hazardous Lead-Based Paint

    This section of the preamble presents EPA's proposed standard for 
deteriorated lead-based paint. It also presents options for addressing 
lead-based paint on friction and impact surfaces and lead-based paint 
on surfaces accessible for chewing and mouthing by young children. The 
Agency, however, is not proposing standards for lead-based paint on 
friction, impact, and accessible surfaces, but is, instead, asking for 
public comments on the options presented below.
    For any type of hazardous lead-based paint, the paint must be lead-
based according to the statutory definition (i.e., 1 mg/
cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight). Determination of whether the 
paint is lead-based is made by a certified inspector or risk assessor 
based on testing results. EPA is developing a separate guidance 
document that will address paint sampling.
    1. Deteriorated lead-based paint. To meet the statutory requirement 
to identify hazardous lead-based paint, EPA must determine those 
conditions of deteriorated lead-based paint which would result in 
adverse human health effects.
    Exposure to deteriorated lead-based paint can result in adverse 
human health effects, based on the fact that children can be exposed to 
lead through several pathways when lead-based paint is deteriorated and 
that studies document an association between children's blood-lead 
concentrations and the presence of deteriorated lead-based paint. EPA, 
however, is unaware of any data that would allow the Agency to more 
specifically relate conditions of deterioration (e.g., levels of lead 
in paint, minimum area of deteriorated lead-based paint) to blood-lead 
concentration. The Agency, therefore, has chosen to propose a standard 
for deteriorated paint using the criteria for paint condition in Table 
5.3 of the HUD Guidelines (Ref. 11) for the reasons discussed below.
    Exposure to lead from deteriorated lead-based paint can occur in 
three ways. First, children who exhibit pica, a hunger for substances 
not fit for food, may eat paint chips (Ref. 86). Second, deteriorated 
interior lead-based paint can contaminate household dust which may be 
inadvertently ingested by children through normal hand-to-mouth 
behavior. Third, deteriorated exterior lead-based paint can contaminate 
residential soil which can also be inadvertently ingested by children. 
Soil, in turn, can be tracked into a residence, contaminating the 
household dust.
    These three scenarios have been demonstrated in various studies 
that used stable isotopes of lead as tracers (see, e.g., Refs. 87 and 
89). Basically, this technique relies upon the fact that the isotope 
ratios of lead ores vary by deposit. Consequently, lead-containing 
products, such as lead-based paints and leaded gasolines, can have 
unique ratios of the stable isotopes in the lead. Comparison of the 
isotope ratios in these products to those of environmental media and 
blood can in some cases identify categories of products as the source 
of lead in the environmental media and/or lead in the blood.
    Rabinowitz (1987) reports use of this technique to investigate the 
specific sources and pathways of lead exposure in three cases of 
chronic, high-level lead poisoning (blood-lead concentrations of 120, 
83, and 66 g/dl) (Ref. 90). In each case, blood, feces, and 
the child's home environment (paint, dust, and soil) were sampled and 
analyzed. All of the children had deteriorated paint present in their 
homes. Additionally, a series of environmental samples were collected 
and analyzed to characterize background lead throughout the city.
    In the first two cases, the isotopic composition of the blood 
(indicative of chronic exposure) and the feces (indicative of exposure 
during the preceding day) were nearly identical. In the first case, 
they resembled the paint sample from the child's bedroom wall (which 
was similar to the exterior soil). In the second case, they closely 
matched the lead in window sill paint, but not the kitchen wall or 
garden soil. In the third case, the blood lead was close to that of the 
paint in the child's bedroom, which was believed to be the source of 
his chronic exposure, whereas the fecal lead appeared to be similar to 
fallout from current automobile emissions in the area. While such data 
do present some ambiguities, they are consistent with paint being the 
proximate or remote source of the child's lead exposure and the 
author's conclusion that, in cases of severe lead poisoning, the lead 
in the child's blood and feces closely resembles lead in paint on an 
accessible surface. Additionally, based upon isotopic comparisons 
between household dust and urban soils, the study also concluded that: 
(1) In the absence of lead-based paint, the leads in urban soils and 
household dust have nearly the same isotopic composition, and (2) lead-
based paint, when present, can be responsible for 20 to 70 percent of 
lead in household dust and much of the lead in yard soil.
    Yaffe, et al. presented two cases which also included measurement 
of the isotopic ratios of lead in blood, paint, dust, and soil (Ref. 
89) . In both cases, it was unlikely that direct ingestion of paint 
chips was the cause of the elevated blood-lead

[[Page 30331]]

concentrations. This was based on the facts that: (1) There was no 
indication that the children were pica-prone based upon interviews with 
the children and their parents, and (2) higher than exhibited blood-
lead concentrations would be expected if paint chips were being 
ingested, given the very high lead levels in the paint.
    The first case involved 10 children with blood-lead concentrations 
from 28 to 43 g/dl. The isotopic ratios of the children's 
blood lead were similar, suggesting a common set of lead exposures. 
These ratios were quite similar to those of soil samples collected 
around the house and interior dust samples. The close agreement between 
the average isotopic ratios of exterior paint samples and the soils 
near the house suggested that the soil was contaminated by the exterior 
paint, which was badly deteriorated.
    The second case involved twin 2-year old males with blood-lead 
concentrations of 37 and 43 g/dl. The isotopic ratios of the 
twins' blood lead were similar to the soil in their side yard and in 
the back yard of a nearby house where they often played. These soils 
had similar ratios to adjacent exterior walls. This suggests that the 
lead in the soils was primarily derived from the weathering of nearby 
painted surfaces and that the contaminated soil was a significant 
source of the twins' exposure. The interior dust sample lead was not 
similar to the exterior soil or the twins' blood lead. Such cases, 
where soil or dust becomes contaminated by deteriorating paint, 
demonstrate the need for a paint standard as well as soil and dust 
standards. Lacking a paint standard, the paint can continue to re-
contaminate soil and dust, rendering abatement and control measures 
directed at those two media ineffective.
    The scientific literature also includes several studies that have 
identified a statistically significant relationship between 
deteriorated paint and children's blood-lead concentrations. One study 
suggests that infant blood-lead concentrations are a function of paint 
deterioration and lack of maintenance of the residence (Ref. 91). In 
this study, housing was classified as deteriorated if the exterior was 
not well maintained or had peeling paint, as observed from the street. 
For infants at 12 to 18 months old, geometric mean blood-lead 
concentrations were twice as high in deteriorated housing (33 
g/dl) than in housing graded as satisfactory (15 g/
dl).
    Another study identified statistically significant correlations 
between the presence of both deteriorated interior and exterior lead-
based paint and children's blood-lead concentrations (Ref. 92). 
Presence of peeling exterior paint was among the most influential 
factors explaining the blood-lead concentrations of 2-year olds. It 
should be noted, however, that lead levels in paint were not reported 
in the paper. Therefore, it is not certain that the results of this 
study actually represent deteriorated lead-based paint.
    Analysis of data from the Rochester Lead-in-Dust Study performed to 
support this rule's comprehensive risk analysis also shows a 
relationship between deteriorated lead-based paint and children's 
blood-lead concentrations. The empirical model, which explicitly 
incorporated pica behavior, yielded a significant positive relationship 
between deteriorated paint and children's blood-lead concentrations 
(Ref. 1).
    Analysis of the HUD National Survey data suggests that deteriorated 
lead-based paint is indirectly linked to elevated blood-lead 
concentrations in young children through lead in household dust and 
residential soil (Refs. 8-9, and 19). Of those homes with interior 
lead-based paint, 34 percent with non-intact paint had elevated dust 
lead levels (i.e., elevated in comparison to HUD's dust clearance 
levels at the time the survey was conducted) compared to 18 percent of 
homes with intact paint. Of those homes with exterior lead-based paint, 
53 percent of homes with non-intact paint had elevated dust lead levels 
compared to 12 percent with intact paint. Although correlation analysis 
cannot be used to prove causation, EPA believes that it is reasonable 
to conclude that the lead in the deteriorating paint is a significant 
source of the lead in the dust and soil.
    Based on its analysis of existing studies and data, EPA believes 
that deteriorated paint is a significant source of lead exposure for 
young children through direct ingestion and through contamination of 
dust and soil. To promote priority setting and the establishment of a 
workable program, EPA thinks that the standard for deteriorated lead-
based paint should exclude small amounts of deterioration. From a 
common sense perspective, it seems that there should be lower exposure 
and risk from lead-based paint where there are lesser amounts of 
deteriorated lead-based paint. There would be fewer paint chips to 
contribute lead to dust and fewer paint chips available for direct 
ingestion.
    Because there are no data to directly relate the degree of 
deterioration to blood-lead, EPA was unable to perform an analysis to 
specify a minimal area of deterioration that would be considered a 
hazard. The Agency therefore has decided to propose the conditions of 
deterioration used currently in the 1995 HUD Guidelines. The HUD 
Guidelines define lead-based paint in poor condition as more than 2 
square feet of deteriorated lead-based paint on any large interior 
architectural component (e.g., floors, walls, ceilings, doors, etc.), 
more than 10 square feet of deteriorated lead-based paint on any large 
exterior architectural component (e.g., siding), or deteriorated lead-
based paint on more than 10 percent of the surface area of any small 
architectural component constitutes hazardous lead-based paint.
    The Agency decided to use the criteria in the HUD Guidelines for 
two reasons. First, these criteria are becoming the de facto industry 
standard. They are being considered for incorporation into model 
housing and building codes and by State officials for adoption as State 
standards. Second, EPA decided that relatively small thresholds are 
needed to be protective, because the area of deterioration has the 
potential to increase over time and because the presence of even small 
amounts of deterioration can present a significant risk to children who 
exhibit pica for paint. The Agency wishes to emphasize that while areas 
of deteriorated paint that fall below the threshold would not be 
considered a hazard, property owners should try to keep paint intact, 
especially paint known to be lead-based, because of the risk to some 
children.
    EPA cannot quantify the cost savings of including a minimum area of 
deteriorated lead-based paint. The Agency presumes, however, based on 
the available data, the minimum area threshold would reduce the number 
of paint interventions that may be undertaken while still providing 
protection to populations of concern. For example, according to the HUD 
National Survey, of the estimated 15 million homes currently in the 
housing stock that have deteriorated lead-based paint, 11 percent have 
less than 5 square feet of deteriorated paint and 36 percent have less 
than 10 square feet of deterioration (Ref. 93). With a de minimis level 
in place, millions of homes would not be identified as having hazardous 
deteriorated paint. It is important to note, however, that the 
presentation of these data is only intended to provide a frame of 
reference. They are not comparable to the criteria in the HUD 
Guidelines because these criteria are component-based and the data in 
the HUD National Survey apply to the aggregate area of deteriorated 
paint in the entire residence.

[[Page 30332]]

    EPA considered two other options for identifying the conditions 
where deteriorated lead-based paint would be defined as a hazard. One 
alternative involved combining surface area with the levels of lead in 
paint. This approach is based on the assumption that the hazard 
presented by an area of highly concentrated deteriorated lead-based 
paint is greater than the hazard presented by an equal area of 
deteriorated paint with a lower concentration of lead. Although this 
assumption is technically appealing, EPA has no basis for establishing 
the appropriate combinations of area and lead loadings. Furthermore, 
the Agency believes that this approach would be overly complex and 
costly to implement because it would require significantly more paint 
testing.
    The second alternative involved measuring the aggregate amount of 
deteriorated lead-based paint at an entire residence, as was measured 
in the HUD National Survey, rather than on individual architectural 
components, as is provided for in the HUD Guidelines. The advantage of 
this approach would be that the aggregate amount of deteriorated lead-
based paint at an entire residence may be a better indicator of risk 
than the amount of deteriorated paint on individual components. EPA, 
however, has no data to support this assumption or to select a minimum 
area. In addition, this approach may be more expensive to implement 
because it could require the risk assessor to test all deteriorated 
paint on all individual components to determine whether the aggregate 
area of deteriorated lead-based paint exceeds the threshold. In 
contrast, the component-based approach would be less expensive because 
it would require the risk assessor to test deteriorated paint on only 
those components where the deterioration exceeds the area threshold. 
Furthermore, the component-based approach is consistent with paint 
abatement activities, which addresses hazards on individual components.
    In light of the uncertainty associated with EPA's decision, the 
Agency is seeking comment on several issues related to the deteriorated 
lead-based paint hazard standard. First, EPA is interested in any data 
the public may have that would enable the Agency to better characterize 
the relationship between the amount of deteriorated lead-based paint 
and health risk. Second, EPA requests comments on the surface area 
hazard thresholds included in the proposed standard. Third, the Agency 
is seeking comment on whether the proposed component-based area 
threshold is better than an aggregate residence-based threshold.
    2. Friction and impact surfaces. Title IV of TSCA specifically 
identifies lead-based paint on friction and impact surfaces as a 
potential type of hazardous lead-based paint because the repeated 
rubbing and impacts may generate fine particles of lead-containing 
paint that can contaminate household dust. TSCA section 401 defines 
friction surfaces as surfaces that are subject to abrasion or friction 
including certain window, floor, and stair surfaces. Impact surfaces 
are surfaces subject to damage by repeated impacts such as certain 
parts of a door frame.
    The data linking lead-based paint on friction and impact surfaces 
with lead in dust, however, are limited and inconclusive. Analysis of 
the HUD grantee data shows that there are many instances where lead-
based paint on friction and impact surfaces and low dust-lead levels 
may be found in the same residence (Ref. 94). These data were collected 
from homes undergoing hazard evaluation and control under lead hazard 
control grants awarded by HUD under authority of section 1011 of Title 
X. In fact, of the windows with lead-based paint in good condition, 65 
percent had dust-lead levels below the HUD clearance level. These data 
suggest, contrary to the conventional wisdom, that lead-based paint on 
friction and impact surfaces does not necessarily result in elevated 
levels of lead in household dust. Even if elevated levels of lead in 
dust are identified, it is not clear that lead-based paint on friction 
and impact surfaces is the source of the lead. In light of the 
uncertainties and contradictory evidence, EPA considered several 
alternatives for addressing these surfaces.
    When reviewing these alternatives, the public should be mindful 
that the options for lead-based paint on friction and impact surfaces 
are designed to address exposure through ingestion of dust contaminated 
with lead. Lead-based paint is always a hazard when it is in poor 
condition, regardless of its location in a residence. The paint in poor 
condition critierion is designed to address exposure through direct 
ingestion of paint chips.
    Option 1. Under this alternative, EPA considered identifying any 
lead-based paint on a friction or impact surfaces as a lead-based paint 
hazard. The Agency considered this option because it is the approach 
taken in EPA's July 1994 guidance. The major advantage of this option 
is that it is designed to address a source of dust contamination.
    On the other hand, the data show that surfaces that have lead-based 
paint in good condition do not necessarily generate elevated levels of 
lead in dust (Ref. 94). This option is also inconsistent with several 
of the statutory precepts (i.e., priority-setting, establishing a 
workable framework) because it would result in widespread paint testing 
and/or costly responses even where dust-lead hazards are not present.
    Option 2. Under the second option, EPA considered identifying 
abraded lead-based paint on friction and impact surfaces as hazardous 
lead-based paint. The point of this option is that it identifies a 
condition, abrasion, associated with the generation of leaded dust, 
thus overcoming the chief deficiency of the first option. It shares the 
advantage of option one in that it is designed to address a source of 
dust contamination.
    On the other hand, this option is characterized by several 
disadvantages. It would identify friction or impact surfaces as a 
hazard regardless of the dust-lead levels present in the residence. 
Without a dust-lead hazard, there appears to be no pathway of exposure. 
Even if a dust-lead hazard is present, there is no certainty that the 
friction and impact surfaces are the source of the lead. As with option 
one, this option would result in paint testing and/or costly responses 
in many older homes because of the high prevalence of abraded paint, 
even if there is no evidence that these surfaces are contributing to 
elevated levels of lead in dust.
    Option 3. Under the third option, EPA would not identify lead-based 
paint on friction and impact surface as hazardous lead-based paint. A 
risk assessor should evaluate the levels of lead in dust and determine 
whether a dust-lead hazard is present in the residence. If so, the 
property owner or other decision-maker has the option to clean dust, 
which may provide only short-term control of the hazard, or to address 
the sources of lead in the dust, including friction and impact 
surfaces, which would provide long-term control. The purpose of this 
option is to address the immediate exposure source for children, which 
is lead in the dust, and to provide flexibility to property owners 
regarding how to control hazards.
    This option has several disadvantages. First, this option is not 
designed to address the source of lead but rather the exposure pathway. 
A second disadvantage is that this option depends on dust-lead 
measurements, which are highly variable, to determine whether there is 
a problem. If a risk assessor

[[Page 30333]]

obtains an atypically low dust measurement, he/she might not identify 
friction and impact surfaces as a potential source of contamination. 
Third, it fails to address directly a component that was specifically 
identified in the statute.
    For today's proposal, EPA has decided not to include a standard for 
friction and impact surfaces. None of the three options is clearly 
preferable. The first two options are designed to address sources of 
lead. The primary pathway of exposure, however, is lead dust, and, it 
makes little sense to burden a system with potential replacement of 
components if there is no serious dust exposure.
    The third option overcomes these disadvantages, providing an 
incremental and flexible approach that indicates response actions where 
there is an exposure pathway (i.e., presence of dust) and allows 
decision-makers to choose the most cost-effective response (i.e, 
repeated dust cleaning or component replacement). On the other hand, 
this option fails to set a separate standard for surfaces of concern 
that were specifically identified in the statute. Because this option 
relies exclusively on dust loading measurements, which are highly 
variable, it may fail to identify sources of hazards and may not be 
adequately protective.
    In light of the concern about friction and impact surfaces and the 
uncertainties and contradictory data, EPA requests comment on the three 
options presented above. EPA would also be interested in other 
approaches for addressing lead-based paint on friction and impact 
surfaces.
    3. Surfaces accessible for chewing or mouthing. TSCA section 403 
also requires EPA to identify the conditions under which exposure to 
intact lead-based paint on surfaces accessible for chewing or mouthing 
by young children would result in adverse human health effects. Chewing 
on surfaces covered by lead-based paint can result in the ingestion of 
a relatively large amount of lead, leading to an acutely high exposure. 
Unlike pica, which is not considered normal behavior and occurs in a 
relatively small percentage of the population, the chewing or mouthing 
of hard surfaces is a normal part of a child's teething process.
    The available data with respect to prevalence of mouthing or 
chewing of accessible surfaces are mixed. Radiological examinations of 
the children with high blood-lead concentrations (mean blood-lead 
concentration was 56 g/dl) showed that 13 of 90 children (14 
percent) had evidence of paint chip ingestion (Ref. 95). The study 
notes, however, that the transit time of ingested material through a 
child's digestive system ranges from several hours to several days. 
Because the half-life of lead in blood is 30 days, radiographs will 
reveal only a small percentage of children who have elevated blood-lead 
concentrations due to the ingestion of a single paint chip.
    On the other hand, data from HUD's lead hazard control grant 
recipients show that the prevalence of chewing accessible surfaces is 
extremely low. In the nearly 1,900 homes assessed, evidence of chewing 
on accessible surfaces was found in 21 residences (1.1 percent). The 
number of homes with accessible surfaces, however, was not determined. 
Window sills were the most frequently chewed component. The data show, 
however, that tooth marks were found on window sills in only 18 
residences (one percent) (Ref. 96).
    In developing today's proposal, EPA considered several options for 
addressing intact lead-based paint on accessible surfaces.
    Option 1. Under the first option, EPA considered identifying 
characteristics of a component's accessibility. These characteristics 
would include the dimensions of a component as well as its orientation 
(e.g., horizontal components such as sills, vertical components such as 
rail spindles) and location (e.g., height of component). This approach 
would limit the number of surfaces which might be considered hazards to 
those which could potentially be chewed or mouthed. This approach, 
however, would significantly change the scope of risk assessments as 
currently defined at 40 CFR 745.227(d). In addition, the Agency lacks 
data to support the choice of specific criteria. Therefore, the Agency 
does not consider this an appropriate option.
    Option 2. Under the second option, EPA considered not adopting a 
separate standard for surfaces accessible for chewing or mouthing. 
Hazardous lead-based paint would exist only if lead-based paint on the 
component were determined to be in poor condition. This approach would 
avoid requiring property owners to expend resources to address 
accessible surfaces when, in the vast majority of situations, these 
surfaces are not likely to be chewed or mouthed. This approach, 
however, would do nothing to address the infrequent, but often serious 
problem of children chewing or mouthing accessible surfaces, unless and 
until that actively resulted in significant deterioration of the 
surface.
    Option 3. Under the third option, EPA would identify lead-based 
paint on accessible interior window sills because these are the 
surfaces most likely to be chewed according to the available data. EPA 
would propose to define accessible interior window sills as interior 
window sills that are no higher than 5 feet from the floor, a height 
that can be reached by a child when standing on the floor or on a chair 
or sofa. By targeting these surfaces, hazard intervention (e.g., 
covering or replacing the component) would be more cost-effective than 
an approach that identified lead-based paint on any accessible surface 
as a hazard. This option also has the advantage of being easy to 
implement, because specific surfaces (e.g., window sills) are easy to 
identify. On the other hand, it would result in interventions where, in 
the vast majority of cases, children do not need to be protected.
    EPA's decision requires the Agency to balance an event (i.e., 
chewing of interior window sills) that has a low probability of 
occurring with the high probability of serious harm when the event does 
occur. By not establishing a hazard standard for accessible surfaces, 
option two gives greater weight to the event's low probability. In 
contrast, option three is more focused on the adverse outcome 
associated with chewing of paint on these surfaces. Because neither of 
these two options is clearly preferable, EPA is not selecting a 
preferred option for today's proposal. Instead the Agency is seeking 
comment on options two and three. In particular, the Agency would be 
interested in input on three issues: (1) How to balance the low 
probability of chewing with the high probability of serious harm if 
chewing occurs; (2) low cost alternatives to sill replacement (e.g., 
paint removal); and (3) the effectiveness of guidance to property 
owners to temporarily cover sills when a child who demonstrates a 
propensity to chew resides in the unit. EPA also invites the public to 
submit data on the prevalence of chewing on accessible surfaces.

V. Other Issues Affecting Standards Development and Selection

    During the regulatory development process, EPA encountered a range 
of issues that affect the scope and structure of today's proposal and 
the implementation of the standards.

A. Applicability of the Standards

    Two factors affect the applicability of the proposed standards for 
lead-based paint hazards: the statutory language and the scope of the 
Agency's supporting analyses. With respect to the statutory language, 
the term ``lead-based paint hazards'' refers to target housing in most 
sections of Title X and TSCA

[[Page 30334]]

Title IV. TSCA section 402 also uses the term in reference to public 
and commercial buildings and structures (e.g, water towers, bridges). 
The statutory definitions of lead-contaminated dust and soil, however, 
refer only to residential property, showing that the applicability of 
the dust and soil standards differs from the applicability of the paint 
standards. The Agency's analyses are based on data for residential 
exposure, thereby raising questions regarding whether the standards 
being proposed today would be appropriate for non-residential 
environments. This section of the preamble explores the applicability 
issue and the Agency's decision, first, with respect to the paint 
component of the standards and second, with respect to the dust and 
soil standards.
    1. Paint. The definitions in TSCA section 401 do not explicitly 
identify the applicability of hazardous lead-based paint. The 
definition of lead-based paint hazard refers to deteriorated lead-based 
paint and lead-based paint on friction, impact, and accessible 
surfaces. The reference to deteriorated lead-based paint does not 
identify specific types of properties, nor do the definitions of 
friction, impact, and chewable surfaces. As noted above, however, the 
term ``lead-based paint hazard'' is used in context of target housing. 
The definition of deleading in TSCA refers to lead-based paint and 
lead-based paint hazards and, in doing so, extends the scope of lead-
based paint hazards to non-residential properties as well. The 
statutory language, therefore, shows that the paint standard should be 
applicable to target housing, public and commercial buildings, and 
structures.
    EPA, however, has no data on children's exposure to lead in paint 
in non-residential environments. The Agency, therefore, believes that 
the paint standards being proposed today should apply to target 
housing. The Agency has also decided to propose that the paint 
standards apply to child-occupied facilities. Although EPA lacks data 
on exposure in child-occupied facilities, the Agency believes that 
children face potentially equivalent risks from lead-based paint 
hazards in schools and day-care centers as they do at home. EPA based 
its decision to apply the same training, certification and work 
practice standards to both target housing and child-occupied facilities 
in the final TSCA section 402 regulation on the same argument.
    In the absence of environmental and exposure data for other types 
of properties, the Agency has decided not to propose paint standards 
that are applicable to other types of public buildings, commercial 
buildings, and structures at this time. EPA believes, however, that 
this limitation should not have any meaningful impact on the regulation 
and its ability to protect human health. Lead-based paint encompasses 
lead-based paint hazards and lead-based paint is defined. Because the 
applicability of the proposed standard for hazardous lead-based paint 
is more limited than that required in the statutory language, the 
Agency is specifically requesting comment on this decision.
    2. Dust and soil. In contrast to paint, the statutory language is 
more limited in defining the applicability of the dust and soil 
standards. In TSCA section 401, the statute specifically identifies 
lead-contaminated dust and soil in terms of ``dust in residential 
dwellings'' and ``bare soil on residential real property.'' TSCA 
section 403 states that EPA should identify lead-based paint hazards 
for purposes of Title X and TSCA Title IV which focus on a specific 
subset of residential property, namely target housing which includes 
most pre-1978 housing. The statutory language shows that the dust and 
soil standards should apply to target housing.
    EPA has decided, however, to interpret residential more broadly and 
to propose that the dust and soil standards should apply to child-
occupied facilities as well as to target housing. This decision is 
based on the same rationale for applying the paint standards to child-
occupied facilities. As argued in the preamble to the final TSCA 
section 402 regulation, the Agency believes that children face 
potentially equivalent risks from lead-based paint hazards in schools 
and day-care centers as they do at home. In fact, some children spend 
more time in a particular classroom, day-care room, or outdoor ``play 
area'' then they might spend in a single room or yard at home.
    Failure to apply the dust and soil standards to child-occupied 
facilities would leave a significant gap in the work practice standards 
for risk assessments and abatements at child-occupied facilities. 
Without dust and soil standards for child-occupied facilities, risk 
assessors would not be able to determine whether dust-lead and soil-
lead hazards are present at these facilities. Because abatements are 
defined as actions designed to permanently eliminate lead-based paint 
hazards, owners of these facilities would be unable to determine what 
activities constitute abatement and when certified firms and 
individuals are required to perform these activities.
    In light of EPA's decision to propose applying the dust and soil 
standards more broadly than a literal reading of the statute would 
suggest, the Agency is seeking comment on this aspect of the 
regulation. Specifically, EPA would be interested in any disadvantages 
associated with this decision and in alternative approaches that would 
provide as much protection to children.
    3. Child-occupied facilities. Because child-occupied facilities are 
often located within larger facilities where children would have 
limited or no access, the applicability of the hazard standards to 
these facilities requires further explanation. The definition of child-
occupied facilities found at 40 CFR 745.227 helps clarify the 
applicability of the hazard standards to child-occupied facilities. 
First, a child-occupied facility must have been constructed prior to 
1978. Second, a child-occupied facility is a building or portion of a 
building visited regularly by children age 6 and under. The definition 
provides several examples including day care centers, pre-schools, and 
kindergarten classrooms. By limiting the meaning of a child-occupied 
facility to the portion of a building where a child regularly visits, 
the definition limits the applicability of the paint, dust, and soil-
lead hazard standards to the same portion of a building. For example, 
the soil standard would apply only to that portion of the area outside 
the building designated for use by children age 6 and under.
    Several examples may help illustrate how the hazard standards apply 
to child-occupied facilities. The first example is a day care center at 
a manufacturing facility. There is a separate entrance to the center 
and a fenced playground area adjoining the center. In this case, the 
center (interior rooms and outside area making up the center), not the 
entire plant is the child-occupied facility. Paint and dust samples 
would be taken from the rooms in the day care center, and soil samples 
would be taken from within the fenced playground. Hazard interventions 
should be limited to those areas. The second example is a stand-alone 
pre-school (i.e., the pre-school occupies the entire structure). In 
this case, the standards would apply to the entire property. The third 
example is a kindergarten at a public or private school which has a 
yard for recess designated for use by children age 6 and under. In this 
case, the paint and dust standards would apply to the kindergarten 
classrooms and the soil standard would apply to the school yard 
designated for use by the kindergarten children (i.e., except for the 
portions of

[[Page 30335]]

the property such as the front lawn of the school that are not 
designated for use by children age 6 and under). As a final example, a 
day care center is located within a public or private high school. The 
school has several outside recreational areas, none of which are 
designated for regular use by children who attend the day care center. 
The day care consists of a class room, which is now divided into two 
main rooms. In this scenario, the hazard standards only apply to the 
interior area because the outside areas would not be defined as part of 
the child-occupied facility.

B. Dust Issues

    1. Loading vs. concentration. Title X provides the legal basis for 
selecting the levels of lead that constitute dust-lead hazards. The 
statute, however, does not stipulate the measurement basis for the dust 
standards. Two different measures are commonly used to characterize the 
lead level in dust: loading and concentration. Lead concentration (or 
mass concentration) is a measure of how much lead is present in a given 
amount of dust and can be expressed in either micrograms of lead per 
gram of dust (g/g) or, equivalently, in parts per million 
(ppm) by weight. Lead loading or area concentration, a measure of how 
much lead is present on a surface of given area, is expressed in mass 
of lead per area of surface sampled (typically, g/ft2 
or g/m2).
    The two measures also differ in the way environmental sampling is 
conducted. Dust-lead loading data can be obtained through either wipe 
sampling or vacuum sampling. Concentration data are usually obtained 
through vacuum sampling. In wipe sampling, a wet wipe (e.g., baby wipe) 
is used to collect dust from a surface with known area. Through 
laboratory analysis, the total lead picked up by the wipe is measured 
and compared to the surface area to calculate the dust-lead loading. 
Because the wipe sampling only measures the mass of the lead and not 
the total mass of the dust, the concentration of lead in the dust 
cannot be determined. In a wipe test, the mass of the dust is combined 
with the mass of the wipe which is typically unknown. Therefore, it is 
not possible to isolate the mass of the dust and compute the 
concentration.
    In vacuum sampling, a specialized vacuum cleaner is used to collect 
dust from a surface with known area. Through laboratory analysis, the 
amount of lead picked up by the vacuum can be measured and compared to 
the surface area to calculate loading. Laboratory analysis also can 
yield the concentration measure because the only material in the sample 
is the dust (including the lead). It is, therefore, possible to obtain 
both the total mass of the dust (including the lead), and the mass of 
the lead alone. Concentration is calculated by dividing the mass of the 
lead by the total mass of the dust.
    Ideally, EPA would favor the use of both loading and concentration 
data to characterize hazards and to identify appropriate response 
actions. Two examples help illustrate the value of using two measures. 
In the first example, a risk assessor finds high dust-lead loadings 
both in house A and in house B. Dust-lead concentration is high in 
house A, but low in house B. Without the concentration data, the risk 
assessor would treat both houses the same. With the concentration data, 
the risk assessor would be able to conclude that house A, with the high 
dust-lead concentration, has an on-going source of lead that needs to 
be identified and controlled. In house B, high loading combined with 
low concentration may indicate the presence of excessive dust that 
could be addressed through routine housecleaning. This example shows 
how the additional information provided by the concentration data 
allows the risk assessor to differentiate between two residences that 
have similar dust-lead loadings.
    In the second example, a risk assessor finds high dust 
concentrations in both house X and house Y; the dust-lead loadings are 
high in X and low in Y. The concentration data suggest the presence of 
an on-going source of lead that should be identified and addressed. The 
loading data, however, indicate that only house X currently has a dust-
lead hazard. Cleaning, the recommended control measure for dust-lead 
hazards, would likely be an effective risk reduction intervention in 
house X but probably would not be necessary at present in house Y. This 
example shows how the additional information provided by dust-lead 
loading data allows the risk assessor to differentiate between two 
houses that have similar dust-lead concentrations.
    Although EPA acknowledges that both loading and concentration data 
would be valuable to a risk assessor, the Agency recognizes that 
setting standards based on both measures might impede implementation of 
hazard evaluation on a large scale (i.e., in the nation's housing). 
Currently, wipe sampling is the method that most risk assessors use. In 
contrast, few risk assessors are skilled in vacuum sampling (the method 
required for obtaining concentration data). Furthermore, vacuum samples 
require significantly more time to collect because the equipment needs 
to be cleaned between samples, resulting in higher costs for risk 
assessments. EPA, therefore, believes that a standard based on loading 
alone is more workable than a standard that uses both measures. For 
those risk assessors that use vacuum sampling or other methods of dust 
sampling, the Agency is planning to provide guidance on the use and 
interpretation of concentration data.
    2. Surfaces. To date, Federal, State, and local agencies have 
traditionally tested for the presence of lead in dust on three 
horizontal surfaces: uncarpeted floors, interior window sills, and 
window troughs. The HUD Guidelines provide clearance levels for these 
three surfaces to evaluate post-abatement cleanup. EPA included these 
clearance levels in its 1994 guidance on lead-based paint hazards. In 
addition, 25 States currently have, are revising, or are promulgating 
standards for floors, sills, and troughs. The State standards are 
largely based on the HUD Guidelines and EPA's guidance (Ref. 97).
    Although Title IV does not explicitly require it as part of the 
TSCA section 403 rule, EPA had to determine for which surfaces it would 
propose dust-lead hazard standards. EPA considered several factors in 
its decision. First, the Agency wanted to include surfaces that would 
enable risk assessors to adequately characterize risk. Second, it 
wanted to minimize the amount and complexity of sampling required in 
order to reduce the cost of risk assessments. Third, EPA did not want 
to deviate significantly from current approaches unless there was 
adequate justification.
    Analyses performed by the Agency show that the dust on floors, 
sills, and troughs are highly correlated (Refs. 98 and 99). Of the 
three surfaces, however, the scientific literature suggests that floor 
dust-lead loadings are the dust-lead measure most relevant to childhood 
lead exposure. The child plays on the floor, thereby coming in contact 
with any settled dust containing lead. Lead dust loadings on sills and 
troughs are also significant measures but explain less of the variation 
in blood-lead concentrations (Ref. 100). For some data sets, lead dust 
loadings on sills are a better predictor of blood-lead concentrations 
than lead-dust loadings in troughs, while the opposite is true for 
other data sets (Ref. 101). In addition, sills and troughs are 
themselves highly correlated (Ref. 102).
    Based on these data and analyses, the Agency has determined that 
standards should be proposed for floors and either sills or troughs. 
Proposing standards both for sills and troughs does not improve a risk 
assessor's ability to

[[Page 30336]]

characterize risk sufficiently to justify the additional expense for 
sampling and analysis of both surfaces. EPA has decided to propose dust 
standards for sills but not troughs for two reasons. First, sills are 
easier to sample than troughs. Second, lead in troughs may be caused by 
direct deposits from exterior sources and therefore be less 
representative of typical interior levels than lead on sills. The 
Agency wishes to note that this approach is not intended to imply 
indifference to dust-lead levels in troughs. In fact, EPA is including 
a dust-lead clearance standard for troughs (discussed in Unit VIII. of 
this preamble) to ensure that troughs are adequately cleaned as part of 
a dust cleaning intervention.
    EPA recognizes that its proposal not to establish dust levels for 
window troughs represents a departure from the interim guidance. That 
guidance, however, did not attempt to identify risk-based dust-lead 
levels. Rather, it adopted the HUD clearance levels for floors, window 
sills, and window troughs and suggested that they be used to identify 
``hazards'' until the Agency was able to assess the risks from dust-
lead on the various surfaces. Today's proposal is based upon these new 
analyses and presents standards for those surfaces that appear to 
adequately characterize a child's exposure to dust, namely floors and 
interior window sills.
    The EPA requests comment on this difference. In particular, EPA 
requests comments on the impact of not having window trough dust levels 
on the accuracy, complexity, and cost of risk assessments. EPA also 
requests any new data or analysis concerning the relationships between 
dust on floors, sills, and troughs and childhood blood-lead 
concentrations that could help the Agency in setting hazard standards 
for window troughs.
    3. Carpeted floors. Today's proposal does not include dust 
standards (contamination, hazard, or clearance) for carpeted floors. 
EPA made this decision because the Agency is unaware of adequate data 
that could be used to establish a statistical relationship between dust 
lead on carpeted floors and children's blood-lead concentrations. In 
the absence of a statistical relationship between children's blood-lead 
concentrations and dust lead on carpeted floors, EPA cannot estimate 
the level of risk and risk reduction that would be associated with 
various levels of dust-lead in carpeted floors. The Agency, therefore, 
is unable to select hazard standards that meet the statutory and policy 
criteria. Furthermore, EPA does not have adequate data on the 
effectiveness of carpet cleaning that would be needed to establish a 
dust clearance level for carpeted floors. When the data necessary to 
establish dust standards on carpeted floors become available, EPA plans 
to analyze them expeditiously and amend the regulations being proposed 
today to add standards for carpeted floors.
    Because many residences built prior to 1978 have carpeted floors, 
EPA recognizes that the lack of standard for carpeted floors is a 
significant limitation on today's proposal. The Agency is therefore 
requesting comment on the impact of not including standards for 
carpeted floors. EPA would also be interested in any information or 
data that would help it establish such standards.
    4. Emergency dust level. During the regulatory development process, 
several interested parties urged EPA to establish an emergency dust 
level as part of the TSCA section 403 rule (Ref. 13). Two purposes for 
an emergency level have been articulated. First, this level could be 
used to help property owners and other decision-makers set priorities 
for implementing hazard control interventions. Second, an emergency 
dust level could be used by local public health authorities to 
recommend or require specific drastic and immediate actions, such as 
removal of a child or immediate environmental intervention where dust 
levels exceeded the emergency threshold.
    EPA believes that, while these goals are worthwhile, an emergency 
dust level is not needed either for priority-setting or for mandating 
specific actions. Priorities for intervention should be based on the 
``worst-first'' approach where residences with the highest levels of 
lead are targeted for earliest response action. Furthermore, because 
response actions should be taken in all houses with hazards, EPA does 
not believe that its national program should establish a further 
priority for action. Such priorities should vary by location, 
occupants, housing availability, and other local factors.
    With respect to mandating specific drastic and immediate actions, 
EPA believes that such a response to a lead-based paint hazard would be 
appropriate if exposure to very high levels of lead in dust presents an 
acute health risk, and drastic and immediate action is the only way to 
prevent further harm to the health of resident children. Although EPA 
is concerned about continuous exposure to very high levels of lead in 
dust, health threats in the United States today usually occur due to 
chronic rather than acute exposure to dust. In addition, drastic action 
should be taken in response to other important findings, such as an 
elevated child blood-lead concentration. The dust hazard standard 
should be sufficient for inducing prompt action by property owners or 
other decision-makers and providing adequate protection to child 
occupants.
    In the event that EPA obtains information justifying the need for 
an emergency standard, the Agency has explored several approaches for 
setting an emergency dust standard. Under one approach, EPA would 
derive an emergency standard by applying a multiplier (e.g., 10) to the 
dust-lead hazard level. Although this approach is easy to understand, 
there is no direct link to severe human health risk. The second 
approach bases the emergency standard on dust levels found in the homes 
of children who have received medical treatment for lead poisoning. EPA 
believes that the second approach would be preferable because the level 
would be associated with exposure and risk. It has, however, several 
disadvantages. Many cases of severe lead poisoning result from 
ingestion of paint chips and not necessarily from dust ingestion (Ref. 
95). In addition, dust measurements may have been obtained weeks or 
months after the blood-lead concentration was measured and may not 
reflect dust-lead levels that were present when the exposure occurred. 
For these reasons, the Agency's attempts to develop emergency dust 
levels using the second approach have not been successful. Thus, EPA 
lacks sufficient data to associate levels of lead in dust with specific 
cases of medically-managed lead poisoning. Nevertheless, EPA believes 
that this approach is the best currently available for setting an 
emergency dust-lead level.
    The Agency is seeking comment on the issue of an emergency dust 
standard. The Agency is interested in comments concerning the need for 
an emergency dust standard, given the ready availability of blood-lead 
data. The Agency also seeks comments on whether and how an emergency 
standard would be used, including whether immediate responses are 
needed because lead from dust usually causes harm through chronic 
rather than acute exposures. In addition, EPA requests any data, 
analysis, or approach that would help the Agency set an appropriate 
emergency standard if the need for such a standard could be justified.

C. Soil Issues

    1. Dual standards for soil-lead level of concern. During the 
Dialogue Process,

[[Page 30337]]

several interested parties suggested that EPA should establish two 
standards for soil-lead level of concern: a more stringent standard for 
``play areas'' and a less stringent standard for other areas in a 
residential yard (Ref. 15). This suggestion was based on the hypothesis 
that there is less contact between children and the soil in ``non-play 
areas,'' resulting in lower exposure and risk. Proponents of this 
suggestion also cited EPA's July 14, 1994 guidance which established a 
separate advisory level for soils on non-residential property and where 
use by children is less likely. EPA wishes to note that the separate 
advisory level (2,000 ppm) presented in the 1994 guidance is intended 
for use at non-residential property and that the more stringent level 
(400 ppm) applies to all residential property, including ``non-play 
areas.''
    The parties that proposed this option expressed two concerns about 
a single, more stringent standard for soil-lead level of concern 
applying to the whole yard. First, response costs would increase 
because interim controls (i.e., soil cover), the recommended response 
for the lower tier soil level in the guidance, would have to be applied 
to larger areas. Second, because it may not be feasible to install and 
maintain soil cover, property owners would have to perform full soil 
abatement, the response recommended for soil-lead hazards in order to 
provide adequate protection.
    EPA rejected proposing separate soil-lead levels of concern for 
``play areas'' and ``non-play areas'' on residential property for two 
reasons. First, the cost concern is based on this option because it is 
based on an incorrect interpretation of soil-lead level of concern. As 
noted in Unit II. of this preamble, the presence of a soil-lead level 
of concern does not trigger any regulatory requirements or legal 
obligation. The soil-lead level of concern is a risk communication 
tool. It is, therefore, appropriate that owners and occupants be aware 
of any soil on property where the lead concentration exceeds this level 
regardless of its location. If owners and occupants are aware of the 
presence of soil-lead level of concern, they can take actions to reduce 
exposure to children. Such actions can include applying soil cover and 
preventing children from playing in areas of a yard where lead levels 
equal or exceed the level of concern.
    Second, EPA believes that it is infeasible to distinguish between 
``play areas'' and ``non-play areas'' in many yards. Indicators of 
where children play, such as playground equipment, are not always 
present. In the Rochester study, ``play areas'' could not be identified 
at more than half the residences in the data set (Ref. 20). Even when 
such equipment is present, children's outdoor activity is not 
necessarily limited to that location. In addition, play patterns may 
change when a new family assumes occupancy following turnover of a 
residence. Nevertheless, the Agency recognizes that, at some 
residences, direct exposure to soil occurs mainly around play 
equipment. EPA believes, however, that it is more appropriate to 
address this issue in its sampling guidance by providing advice to risk 
assessors on where to collect soil samples. This issue is discussed 
further in Unit VII. of this preamble.
    In light of the interest expressed by some stakeholders in a 
separate level of concern for ``play areas,'' EPA is seeking public 
comment on this issue. In particular, the Agency would like input on 
(1) a workable approach for identifying ``play areas'' that addresses 
the problems discussed above and (2) the technical basis for 
establishing a separate soil-lead level of concern. The available data 
and analytical tools enable the Agency to assess risk from soil on 
residential property but not in specific parts of a yard. EPA would 
also like the public to comment on whether a separate level of concern 
for ``play areas'' would be necessary if the soil-lead level of concern 
appears only in guidance and not in the regulation.
    Another interested party suggested that the standard for soil-lead 
level of concern should apply to all ``play areas'' and to ``non-play 
areas'' only where lead levels in household dust continuously exceed 
the dust hazard standard (Ref. 17). This option is predicated on the 
assumption that the exposure pathway for ``non-play areas'' is track-in 
lead which would be measured through interior dust sampling. If there 
is no dust hazard, this party reasoned, then the lead in the ``non-play 
area'' soil does not present a health threat.
    EPA rejected proposing this option for three reasons. First, EPA is 
not aware of any data that link exposure pathways to location of soil. 
Therefore, the Agency cannot assume that track-in contamination of 
household dust is the only pathway associated with ``non-play area'' 
soil. Second, as noted above, EPA believes that it is infeasible to 
distinguish between ``play areas'' and ``non-play areas'' in many 
yards. Third, the proposed dust standards are lead loading standards, 
which reflect a combination of the amount of dust present and the 
concentration of lead in that dust. The amount of dust on an interior 
surface at any particular time can be extremely variable and can depend 
upon cleaning procedures used in a residence and the length of time 
between cleaning and the collection of the dust sample. Also, the rate 
of soil entry into the home can vary depending upon such factors as the 
use of doormats and residents' preferences regarding leaving windows 
open. Given these variables, the Agency does not believe that a low 
interior dust-lead loading measurement at the time of a risk assessment 
could reasonably ensure that soil in any specific area of a yard 
(including ``non-play areas'') does not present a risk of concern to 
children.
    2. De minimis area of bare soil. The definition of lead-
contaminated soil in section 401 refers to bare soil which is not 
defined by the statute. Bare soil, as defined by HUD in its proposed 
regulations under sections 1012/1013 of Title X (61 FR 29206, June 7, 
1996) is ``soil not covered by grass, sod, or other live ground covers, 
or by wood chips, gravel, artificial turf, or similar covering. Bare 
soil includes sand.'' EPA considered whether this definition is 
sufficient for the TSCA section 403 rule. Specifically, the Agency 
considered whether the rule should include a minimum (i.e., de minimis) 
area of bare soil as part of the lead hazard criteria.
    The inclusion of a de minimis area of bare soil is based on two 
assumptions. First, there is a relationship between the amount of soil 
cover and exposure to lead in the soil. In yards with very small 
amounts of bare soil, it is presumed that exposure would be low. 
Second, a de minimis value would help target resources by eliminating 
the need to evaluate soil or respond to contamination or hazards for 
properties where there is only a small amount of bare soil. For 
example, the HUD Guidelines instruct risk assessors to sample yards 
that have at least 9 square feet of bare soil, with no de minimis in 
the ``play area'' (Ref. 11).
    EPA considered three options for a bare soil de minimis area. Under 
the first option, EPA would adopt the de minimis area from the HUD 
Guidelines. Although, this approach is consistent with existing 
guidance, it would require risk assessors to measure the size of 
individual patches of bare soil. It also does not account for 
differences in lot size. Under the second approach, EPA would define 
the de minimis in terms of bare soil as a percent of the whole yard. 
The risk assessor would measure the percentage of bare soil using a 
specified technique (e.g., the line transect method used by soil 
conservationists to assess the erosion potential of cropland soil) 
(Ref. 103). This option was designed to simplify the process of 
measuring the area of bareness and to account for differences in yard 
size. Under the third

[[Page 30338]]

option, EPA would not include a de minimis area of bare soil in the 
proposed regulations.
    EPA decided not to include a de minimis area for bare soil because 
the disadvantages of each of the two approaches for establishing a de 
minimis outweighed the advantages. The de minimis used in the HUD 
Guidelines does not account for differences in yard size; 9 ft2 
outside of the ``play area'' may be insignificant in a suburban yard 
but large for the back yard of an urban row house. Although a 
percentage-based de minimis would account for different yard sizes, EPA 
has no analysis or data that relate the amount of bare soil to risk 
and, therefore, no basis upon which to select the de minimis. 
Furthermore, there is no existing government or consensus percentage-
based standard that EPA could adopt.
    EPA also believes that a de minimis area of bare soil provides 
little benefit. First, information provided by an experienced risk 
assessor suggests that very few properties would be excluded using the 
de minimis in the HUD Guidelines (Ref. 104). Second, the incremental 
cost of including soil testing in a risk assessment is small. Third, if 
a soil-lead hazard is present, the property owner or other decision-
maker should take action to control the hazard and this action should 
address all soil where lead levels exceed the hazard standard whether 
or not it is bare.
    3. Covered soil. Although Title IV of TSCA restricts the standard 
for soil-lead hazards to bare soil, EPA is concerned that the presence 
of soil cover, such as grass, may not reduce exposure to lead 
sufficiently. Consequently, it may be prudent to test covered soil to 
determine whether a soil-lead hazard exists.
    The Agency, therefore, recommends that covered soil be tested in 
cases where the risk assessor has reason to believe that the level of 
lead in soil may constitute a soil-lead hazard. Factors that the risk 
assessor should consider include high soil-lead levels in bare sections 
of the yard where soil sampling was conducted, the presence of high 
dust-lead levels in a home that has no lead-based paint, the presence 
of children with elevated blood-lead levels in the community, high 
soil-lead levels in neighboring yards, the presence of nearby 
industrial sources, the presence of a nearby steel structure such as a 
bridge or highway overpass, and the past use of the property. It is 
important to note that testing of covered soil is only a 
recommendation. The standards being proposed under TSCA section 403 do 
not apply to covered soil, and the testing of covered soil is not 
required by the regulations promulgated under authority of TSCA section 
402 at 40 CFR 745.227(d) as amended by today's proposal.
    4. Soil-lead level of concern standard becoming de facto hazard 
standard. Interested parties expressed concern about the potential 
confusion over the two standards for soil. Specifically, some parties 
feared that the standard for soil-lead level of concern could become 
the de facto hazard standard for soil, leading to soil abatement at 
millions of homes.
    EPA believes, however, that there is no basis for this concern. 
First, as proposed in today's action, the level of concern will appear 
only in guidance, not in the rule.
    Second, the Agency will clearly explain the differences between the 
two levels in its public outreach documents and education efforts. The 
two standards are based on different criteria and have different 
purposes. The level of concern is a tool to communicate risk and is 
based on an individual child having a one to five percent probability 
of equaling or exceeding a blood-lead concentration of 10 g/
dl. Thus, EPA believes that soils with lead levels that exceed the 
level of concern present a level of risk to children of sufficient 
concern that a variety of actions should be considered to reduce 
exposure (e.g., soil cover, door mats, hand and toy washing). The 
standard for a soil-lead hazard, in contrast, is based on greater 
certainty regarding probability of harm. The presence of a hazard 
indicates that the cost of intensive controls (e.g., soil removal) is 
commensurate with the level of risk reduction that could be achieved.
    Third, EPA's 1994 guidance on lead-based paint hazards contains 
multiple levels for soil, and yet there is no evidence that the public 
thinks that abatement is the recommended action at 400 ppm, the lower 
level in the guidance.

D. Sample Collection and Analysis

    Numerical standards for lead in paint, dust, and soil have little 
significance in the absence of information about how the samples were 
collected and analyzed. In order for the sampling results to be useful, 
they must be reliable. Several conditions have to be met to consider 
sampling results reliable. First, assurances are needed that the 
individual who collected the samples has the appropriate training and 
expertise. These individuals must be familiar with specific 
requirements regarding sample collection and handling. They also must 
be skilled in sampling techniques and able to make critical subjective 
judgments about the number and location of samples to collect. For 
example, if a risk assessor fails to measure the area of a dust wipe 
sample accurately, the results will be invalid. Sample handling is also 
important because contamination of samples can invalidate results.
    Second, reliability of sampling results is dependent upon the 
quality of laboratory analysis. Laboratories must adhere to strict 
quality assurance and quality control procedures to ensure that samples 
are analyzed properly. These procedures address, among other things, 
contamination of samples and the calibration of laboratory instruments. 
Contamination of samples can have a significant effect on sampling 
results and invalidate them. Similarly, laboratory instruments that are 
out of calibration can yield erroneous results.
    EPA has several options for ensuring that the sampling results are 
reliable and are comparable to standards. Under the first option, the 
Agency could tie the standards to specific methods. This approach has 
the advantage that it uses methods known to EPA to be reliable and 
effective. The major disadvantage is that it references specific 
technologies. As technologies change, the Agency would have to amend 
the rule to reflect these changes. Referencing specific technologies in 
a regulation could also stifle technological innovation.
    Alternatively, under a second option, EPA could adopt an approach 
that relies on the performance of its training and certification 
program for workers and contractors and its accreditation program for 
laboratories and only specify the type of samples to be collected and 
analyzed. Under this approach, EPA would assume that compliance with 
applicable (i.e., Federal, State, Tribal) certification standards for 
workers and contractors and laboratory accreditation through the 
National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) ensures that 
samples are being collected, handled, and analyzed in a manner that the 
results can be reliably compared to the TSCA section 403 standards.
    EPA has decided to propose tying the TSCA section 403 standards to 
risk assessments conducted according to the risk assessment work 
practice standards found at 40 CFR 745.227. This approach assures that 
samples can be reliably compared to the TSCA section 403 standards 
while more easily accommodating technological change than an approach 
that references specific technologies.
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing that the determination of whether in-
situ

[[Page 30339]]

paint on a specific component is lead-based shall be made by a 
certified risk assessor. If confirmatory laboratory analysis is 
necessary, paint chip samples must be analyzed by a laboratory 
recognized by EPA as proficient for paint analysis. A certified risk 
assessor shall determine whether the paint is in poor condition based 
on visual observation. Dust-lead loadings shall be determined from wipe 
samples collected from uncarpeted floors, interior window sills, and 
window troughs by a certified risk assessor and analyzed by a 
recognized laboratory. Soil-lead concentrations shall be determined 
from samples collected by a certified risk assessor and analyzed by a 
recognized laboratory.

VI. Requirements for Interpreting Sampling Results

    Under this proposal, to determine whether lead-based paint hazards 
are present at a residence, a risk assessor would have to compare his/
her measurements and observations to the hazard and level of concern 
standards in this proposed rule. Unit IV. of this preamble presented 
the proposed lead-based paint hazard standards. Regulations promulgated 
by EPA as part of the TSCA section 402 training and certification rule, 
at 40 CFR 745.227, establish work practice standards for risk 
assessments. Neither the proposed lead-based paint hazard standards nor 
the work practice standards, however, prescribe how a risk assessor 
should compare his/her measurements and observations with the proposed 
standards. Therefore, under authority of TSCA section 403, EPA is 
proposing implementation requirements that will prescribe how a risk 
assessor should compare his/her measurements and observations to the 
proposed standards. This unit of the preamble presents these proposed 
requirements and the Agency's rationale for its decisions.

A. Paint

    According to the regulations at 40 CFR 745.227(d), the risk 
assessor identifies and tests all painted surfaces that are in poor 
condition (i.e., where deteriorated paint exceeds the proposed minimum 
surface area requirements) and are determined to have a distinct 
painting history to determine whether the paint is lead-based. EPA is 
proposing that results of this sampling be interpreted in the following 
manner. If the testing confirms that the paint is lead-based, then 
lead-based paint in poor condition on that component and other like 
components with a similar painting history is considered hazardous 
lead-based paint. This approach for interpreting the paint sampling is 
based on inductive logic; if the tested component is covered with lead-
based paint, then other like components with similar painting histories 
are covered with lead-based paint. This approach is consistent with the 
HUD Guidelines (Ref. 11).
    Risk assessors have the option of using composite samples rather 
than single surface samples. Because composite samples provide an 
average level of lead, low values on some surfaces may mask the 
presence of lead-based paint on other surfaces. EPA is, therefore, 
proposing to adopt the approach recommended in the HUD Guidelines that 
the standard for lead-based paint (1 mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent 
by weight) be divided by the number of subsamples in the composite 
(Ref. 11). For example, if a composite sample contains five subsamples, 
the risk assessor would compare the results to a standard of 0.2 mg/
cm2 or 0.1 percent by weight. Using this approach, it is 
mathematically impossible for the composite to pass when any single 
subsample exceeds the 1 mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight 
standard for lead-based paint.
    It is important to note the composite paint sampling is essentially 
a negative screen. It can be used to demonstrate that lead-based paint 
is not present, but cannot be used to identify which component has 
lead-based paint if the results indicate that lead-based paint is 
present. If a composite sample shows that lead-based paint is present, 
the risk assessor would need to take single surface samples to identify 
the specific component(s) that contains lead-based paint.

B. Dust

    1. Single-family housing. Risk assessors can take two kinds of dust 
samples: single surface samples which yield a result for the specific 
surface that was sampled; or composite samples which yield an average 
result that applies to all the surfaces that were sampled. The 
interpretation of the composite sample is straightforward. The risk 
assessor compares the result of the composite sample to the standard 
for dust-lead hazards. For single surface samples and multiple 
composite samples, EPA is proposing that the risk assessor should 
compare the average, weighted by the number of subsamples in each 
sample, to the standard for dust-lead hazard. Under this approach each 
single surface sample would have a weight of one.
    The Agency is proposing this approach because, in the absence of 
information on the amount of exposure that occurs in each location, the 
average of single surface samples reasonably reflects a child's typical 
exposure to lead in dust. This same rationale was used to design the 
methodology for the Agency's risk analysis. Because average exposure 
was used to estimate risk and choose the standard, it is appropriate to 
adopt a consistent approach for interpretation of dust samples. Using a 
weighted average gives the subsamples in a composite the same weight as 
single surface samples and better reflects average exposure to lead in 
dust.
    EPA recognizes that averaging single surface samples yields the 
same numerical result as a composite sample, and that this might serve 
as a disincentive to conduct single surface sampling. The Agency 
believes, however, that single surface sampling can yield valuable 
information that can help a risk assessor identify sources of 
contamination and/or recommend hazard control strategies that target 
particular parts of a home. For example, single surface sampling may 
show that dust-lead levels are well above the hazard standard in the 
entry hall of a home but below the standard elsewhere. Using the 
averaging approach, if the entry hall levels are sufficiently high, the 
risk assessor would determine that there is a dust-lead hazard. By 
interpreting the results of the single surface samples, however, the 
risk assessor may be able to determine the source of the dust 
contamination is exterior soil or dust tracked-into the entry hall and 
not interior paint. In addition, the risk assessor may recommend that 
dust cleaning be focused on the entry hall, rather than the whole 
house. Whether the information provided by single surface samples 
justifies the cost will be a site-specific decision.
    2. Multi-family housing--a. Dwelling units. In multi-family 
housing, a risk assessor would use the approach for single-family homes 
to interpret the results of sampling in each unit where samples were 
collected. There is an additional issue that must be addressed in 
multi-family housing because the sampling guidance, which is based on 
the HUD Guidelines, will provide several approaches to the risk 
assessor for collecting dust samples from a limited number of units. 
Because no dust samples would be collected from many units under these 
approaches, the risk assessor would have to make assumptions about dust 
levels in units that are not sampled. This issue does not apply to 
buildings that contain from two to four units because the risk assessor 
would have to collect samples in all units.

[[Page 30340]]

    EPA considered three alternatives for identifying dust-lead hazards 
in units that are not sampled in multi-family housing.
    Option 1. Under option one, the risk assessor would assume that 
dust-lead hazards are present in all unsampled units if dust-lead 
hazards are identified in at least one sampled unit. The risk assessor 
would assume that unsampled units do not contain lead-based paint 
hazards only if no dust-lead hazards are identified in the sampled 
units. In other words, a sampled unit where dust-lead hazards is 
present would represent all unsampled units.
    Option 2. Under this option, the risk assessor could refine 
assumptions about unsampled units if he/she could establish a pattern 
for units that have dust-lead hazards. For example, testing results may 
show that only first floor units have dust-lead hazards and soil-lead 
exceeds the level of concern on the property. The risk assessor could 
conclude from this information that the dust is being contaminated by 
the soil and that this pathway of contamination applies only to first 
floor units. Therefore, only unsampled first floor units should be 
assumed to have dust-lead hazards.
    Option 3. This option applies only to risk assessors who use random 
sampling to select units for testing. The random sampling protocol is 
based on the specification that the number of sampled units provides 95 
percent confidence that fewer than 5 percent of all units in the 
building(s) (or 50 units, whichever is less) contain dust-lead hazards 
if no sampled units have hazards. Under this option, the risk assessor 
could randomly test a sufficient number of additional units to achieve 
the same specification when some units originally tested have hazards.
    The Agency selected the first option for the proposed rule. 
Although EPA recognizes that some unsampled units would be identified 
as having dust-lead hazards even if dust levels in those units are 
below the proposed standards, it is not possible to determine which 
unsampled units would have hazards in the absence of additional data. 
The only protective approach, therefore, is to assume that all 
unsampled units have hazards.
    Because this approach may identify some units that do not have 
dust-lead hazards as having hazards, EPA would encourage property 
owners, who are faced with this situation, to test the dust in units 
that were not initially sampled. This additional information would 
allow the risk assessor to determine whether dust hazards are actually 
present in these units. In light of the cost of testing and possible 
cleaning in a large number of units, the property owner may consider 
focusing attention first on units where young children are present. 
Dust testing and cleaning at other units could wait until unit 
turnover.
    EPA is not proposing the two other options because they are 
unlikely to be practical or useful. Option 2 would not be beneficial 
because, given the variability of dust loading levels, risk assessors 
would probably not be able to identify patterns of hazard. Option 3 
offers little value because there is a high probability that an 
additional unit would fail requiring the risk assessor to conduct dust 
testing in even more units. In the end, the risk assessor would likely 
test dust in nearly all the units.
    Because the proposed approach for interpreting the results of dust 
testing in multi-family housing is not optimal (i.e., it may falsely 
identify some units as having dust-lead hazards), the Agency is seeking 
comment on this issue. Specifically, EPA would be interested in an 
alternative approach and the data and rationale used to support an 
alternative. The Agency is also interested in comment on the two 
options it considered but rejected.
    b. Common areas. The same approach for interpreting dust samples 
would apply to common areas. For common areas that can be grouped 
together such as hallways, the risk assessor could test dust from a 
random, targeted, or worst-case sample if there are a sufficient number 
of areas. The risk assessor would assume that dust-lead hazards are 
present in the unsampled common areas if a dust-lead hazard is present 
in at least one of the sampled common areas. For common areas that 
cannot be grouped together (e.g., entry lobbies, basement laundry 
rooms), the risk assessors would treat each area as a separate dwelling 
unit and collect dust samples from all such areas. The risk assessor 
would interpret the dust sample results for each area according to the 
requirements for single-family homes described above.

C. Soil

    EPA is proposing that the interpretation of soil samples would use 
techniques similar to those employed for the interpretation of dust 
samples. The risk assessor would compare the average concentration of 
the dripline and mid-yard composites to the soil-lead hazard standard. 
If the risk assessor collects more than one dripline or mid-yard 
composite sample, he/she would first compute the average concentration 
in the dripline and/or in the mid-yard and then compute the average of 
the dripline and mid-yard concentrations. The approach of using the 
average concentration is based on the rationale stated above for the 
interpretation of dust samples. Risk assessors would use the above 
approach for each building in a multi-family housing development and 
compare the average for all buildings to the soil-lead hazard standard.
    The use of sampling data, however, should not be limited to 
determining whether a hazard exists. Soil samples can provide valuable 
information to the risk assessor about the location and extent of soil 
contamination, which can help the assessor design a targeted control 
strategy. For example, a risk assessor may determine, based on the 
average of the dripline composite sample and mid-yard composite sample, 
that a yard exceeds the soil-lead hazard standard. The individual 
composite samples may show, however, that the soil in the dripline is 
above the hazard standard but the mid-yard soil is not. This 
information enables the risk assessor to design a strategy that focuses 
controls for soil solely in the dripline. Examining the results of 
individual composite samples would be especially valuable in a multi-
family housing development where focusing soil intervention on 
relatively small areas can reduce the costs of intervention 
significantly.
    In addition, as EPA will detail in the guidance document on using 
the hazard standards, the Agency recommends that when the remediation 
strategy is developed, that areas with highest lead levels be addressed 
first. For example, if dripline soil is 3,500 ppm and mid-yard soil is 
500 ppm (i.e., yard-wide average of 2,000 ppm), the strategy to reduce 
average levels below 2,000 ppm should rely first on removing the highly 
contaminated soil at the dripline rather than on covering the 
moderately contaminated soil at the mid-yard.

VII. Amendments to TSCA Section 402 Regulations

    This unit of the preamble presents proposed amendments to the work 
practice standards for risk assessments and abatements promulgated 
under the authority of TSCA section 402 at 40 CFR 745.227 along with 
EPA's rationale for its decisions. These amendments would include the 
establishment of dust clearance standards, management controls for soil 
removed during an abatement, and changes to existing dust and soil 
sampling provisions. EPA did not include clearance standards as part of 
the original TSCA section 402 rule because the Agency thought that it 
was more appropriate to establish these

[[Page 30341]]

standards together with the TSCA section 403 hazard standards. 
Amendments to the sampling provisions are necessary because the work 
practice standards were developed prior to the TSCA section 403 
regulations. Therefore several previously developed sampling provisions 
are not compatible with the hazard standards proposed in this rule. EPA 
is proposing management controls for soil removed during an abatement 
because of concern that soil removed from one yard could be disposed of 
in the yard of another residential property or child-occupied facility.
    When EPA finalizes the regulations being proposed today, the Agency 
will also issue conforming amendments to the section 402 regulations to 
ensure consistency in terminology between the regulations. These 
conforming amendments will most likely focus on references to the terms 
lead-contaminated dust and lead-contaminated soil which are not 
included in today's proposal.

A. Clearance Standards

    Under the authority of section 402 of TSCA, EPA is proposing 
clearance standards for dust in today's proposed rule. Clearance 
standards are used by certified individuals to evaluate the adequacy of 
the cleanup performed in residences at the completion of abatement. 
According to the practices prescribed at 40 CFR 745.227, a certified 
risk assessor or inspector must collect dust samples and have them 
analyzed by an accredited laboratory following the cleanup to assure 
that the cleanup reduced dust-lead levels to the levels prescribed in 
today's proposal. If the clearance levels are not met, the cleanup and 
testing process must be repeated until the clearance standards are met. 
Although clearance testing is not required following implementation of 
interim controls (e.g., paint repair), the Agency strongly recommends 
such testing to ensure that the residence has been adequately cleaned.
    TSCA section 402 establishes three criteria for performing lead-
based paint activities: reliability, effectiveness, and safety. EPA is 
reluctant to propose an approach that mandates a specific technology. 
In fact, the Agency wants to promote technological innovation that 
could result in less costly products and practices that are equally or 
more effective.
    Consequently, EPA is proposing that these criteria should apply to 
numerical dust lead clearance levels. Under this approach, the Agency 
would be establishing standards that are achievable using products and 
methods known to be reliable and effective. Specifically, EPA has 
decided to base the clearance standards on the performance of the 
cleanup method recommended in the HUD Guidelines which is currently 
considered state of the art. This method involves a combination of a 
wet wash with an all-purpose or lead-specific cleaner and HEPA 
vacuuming. Although clearance standards are based on dust-lead levels 
achievable using this method, the standard does not require this 
method. Any cleanup method would be satisfactory as long as the 
clearance standard is met. This approach ensures that the cleanup was 
reliable and effective while providing an incentive for entrepreneurs 
to develop less costly technologies that can meet the standard.
    EPA considers safety, for purposes of clearance, to be a level of 
lead in dust that is a associated with the risk level of concern (i.e., 
a one to five percent probability that a child will have a blood-lead 
concentration equal to or exceeding 10 g/dl). As is the case 
with a clearance standard that is effective and reliable, a safe 
clearance standard would not prescribe a specific cleaning technology; 
any technology would be acceptable as long as it is able to reduce 
dust-lead loadings to ``safe'' levels.
    The clearance standards must also be evaluated within the broader 
context of Title X and its purposes. In particular, EPA must select 
clearance standards that are compatible with the development of a 
workable framework for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and 
reduction.
    1. Clearance standard for floors and sills. The available field 
data documenting experience with the cleaning protocol recommended in 
the HUD Guidelines do not identify obvious candidates for clearance 
standards (Ref. 105). Instead, use of the protocol yields a range of 
dust loadings. It should be noted that these data were collected under 
the controlled conditions associated with field studies. In practice, 
higher post-cleanup dust-lead levels should be expected.
    EPA's analysis of data from HUD demonstration projects and five 
State and local programs shows that the median dust-lead loading for 
floors after the first clearance test was 25 g/ft2 
with a 90th percentile loading of 187 g/ft2. The 
median dust-lead loading for interior window sills was 33 g/
ft2 and the 90th percentile was 475 g/
ft2. These data show that there is significant overlap among 
the dust-lead loadings achievable using the HUD cleaning protocol and 
the levels of lead in dust associated with the risk level of concern 
and the dust-lead hazard level.
    EPA has decided, therefore, to propose clearance standards that are 
the same as the dust-lead hazard standard, 50 g/ft2 
for uncarpeted floors and 250 g/ft2 interior window 
sills. This decision as based primarily on choosing standards that are 
consistent with the available data and that are as easy as possible to 
understand and implement. The other option considered was to select a 
clearance standard that is lower than the hazard standard.
    EPA is concerned that separate clearance and hazard standards would 
be difficult for property owners and other decision-makers to 
understand. Especially troublesome are post-cleanup dust loadings that 
exceed clearance standard but not the hazard standard. Recleaning would 
be required in response to the clearance test, but no action would be 
indicated if the same loading was measured prior to intervention. 
Although this situation would be technically justifiable because hazard 
and clearance standards serve different purposes (indicator of risk vs. 
indicator of cleaning adequacy), it may seem to be inconsistent to 
owners and other decision-makers and make the standards difficult to 
understand. This situation is avoided by having both the hazard and 
clearance standards set at the same dust-lead loading.
    Another argument that has been made to support separate hazard and 
clearance standards is to provide a margin that allows for 
reaccumulation of lead in dust following the cleanup. In the absence of 
this margin, there is a concern that a residence could have a dust-lead 
hazard soon after hazard control interventions were performed. The 
field data show, however, that in most circumstances reaccumulation 
will not result in the immediate reappearance of a dust-lead hazard 
because the majority of residences would be cleaned to levels well 
below clearance (Ref. 105).
    2. Clearance standard for window troughs. The Agency considered two 
alternatives for window trough clearance standards: 800 g/
ft2, the standard in the HUD Guidelines; and a ``no-
visible'' dust standard. The first option has the advantage that it is 
consistent with existing practice, ensures that troughs will be 
adequately cleaned, and meets the statutory criteria. The ``no-
visible'' clearance standard does not require follow-up dust testing of 
the trough. Although, data suggest that troughs have been adequately 
cleaned if there is no visible dust and debris in the window troughs 
and the clearance standards for uncarpeted floors and interior window 
sills are met, these data were collected when there

[[Page 30342]]

was a trough clearance standard that had to be met (Ref. 105). In the 
absence of a clearance standard, there is no assurance that troughs 
would be cleaned as well. EPA, therefore, has decided to propose 
adopting the existing HUD clearance level for troughs. Although this 
option would require trough sampling, it is expected that the 
incremental cost for clearance sampling would be $5 to $10 depending on 
the number of composite samples taken.
    3. Interpretation of dust clearance samples. The work practice 
standards at 40 CFR 745.227 already include a provision for 
interpreting dust clearance samples, which states that if a clearance 
sample fails, all components represented by the failed sample shall be 
recleaned. This provision, however, does not differentiate between 
single surface samples and composite samples. Because composite samples 
provide an average level of lead, low values on some surfaces may mask 
the presence of lead levels that exceed clearance standards on other 
surfaces. In fact, EPA's analysis of empirical clearance testing data 
shows that there is a 57 percent chance that a composite sample would 
pass clearance even if any individual subsample would have failed the 
clearance test using the clearance standard (i.e., false passing) (Ref. 
105). False passing introduces the possibility that a post-abatement 
cleanup would be judged to be adequate when, in fact, it was not. There 
are no ``false failures'' for composite samples under this approach 
(Ref. 105). Consequently, EPA developed and analyzed two options for 
amending the requirements at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8) to include separate 
provisions for interpreting the results of composite dust clearance 
samples.
    Option 1. The first option is the most stringent. Under this 
option, the risk assessor would divide the clearance standard by the 
number of subsamples in the composite. For example, if a composite 
floor sample contained four subsamples, the risk assessor would compare 
the loading from the composite sample to 12.5 g/ft2 
(i.e., the floor clearance standard divided by four). This approach is 
analogous to that being proposed above for interpretation of composite 
paint samples. Using this approach, it is mathematically impossible for 
the composite to pass when any single subsample exceeds the 1 mg/
cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight standard for lead-based paint. 
It would, however, introduce the possibility of a composite sample 
failing clearance even if all the subsamples would have passed 
clearance individually (i.e., false failure), leading to additional 
clean up activities that may not be necessary. EPA's analysis of the 
empirical data shows that there is an 18 percent chance of having a 
false failure (Ref. 105).
    Option 2. The second option is a middle ground approach between 
using the clearance standard for single surfaces samples and option 
one. Under this option, the risk assessor would compare the result of 
composite dust clearance samples to twice the value of the clearance 
level calculated in option one. That is, the risk assessor would 
compare the composite sample lead loading to 2CS/n, where CS is the 
clearance standard for single surface samples and n is the number of 
sub-samples in the composite. EPA's analysis of the empirical data 
shows that under this option there is a 5 percent chance of failing 
clearance when all subsamples pass individually and a 22 percent chance 
of passing clearance when at least one of the subsamples would have 
failed clearance.
    EPA selected option one for the proposed amendment because it 
provides the best balance of safety, effectiveness, and reliability. 
The false failure error probability for option one, 18 percent, is 
lower than the false passing probability (57 percent) using single 
surface clearance standards. Moving from option one to option two, the 
improvement in false failure probability, which declines from 18 
percent to 5 percent, is smaller than the decline in false passing 
probability, which increases from zero percent under option one to 22 
percent under option 2. The Agency specifically asks for comment on 
this approach.

B. Amendments to Sampling Requirements

    1. Risk assessment and clearance dust sampling. As stated above, 40 
CFR 745.227(d) requires risk assessors to collect dust samples from 
windows without specifying whether the samples should be collected from 
window sills, window troughs, or other surfaces. EPA adopted this 
general approach when promulgating the 402 regulation because the TSCA 
section 403 standards, which would specify hazard standards for only 
certain surfaces, were not yet in place. In the absence of standards, 
the decision on where to collect samples was left to risk assessors, 
based on their experience and training.
    Because EPA is now proposing dust-lead hazard standards for window 
sills but not for troughs, risk assessors would only need to collect 
dust samples from window sills; dust samples for windows troughs would 
not be necessary. EPA, therefore, is proposing to amend 40 CFR 
745.227(d)(5) and 40 CFR 745.227(d)(6) to specify that dust samples be 
collected from window sills for risk assessment.
    Because EPA is proposing clearance standards for window sills and 
troughs, risk assessors would need to collect dust samples from both 
surfaces. EPA, therefore, is proposing to amend 40 CFR 
745.227(e)(8)(v)(A) and 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(v)(B) to specify that dust 
samples be collected from both interior window sills and window troughs 
for clearance sampling.
    2. Soil sampling. A third sampling provision that requires amendent 
is the location of soil sampling. Currently, 40 CFR 745.227(d) requires 
the risk assessor to collect soil samples from the dripline and the 
``play area.'' The rationale for specifying these two locations was 
that the ``play area'' was most representative of a child's exposure to 
lead in soil and the dripline represents the worst-case exposure to 
lead in soil. Additional review of this issue during development of 
today's proposal, however, suggests that these sampling locations 
should be changed to the dripline and the middle of the yard.
    EPA is proposing this amendment, because the Agency believes that, 
in the absence of site-specific information about a child's play 
pattern, a child's exposure to lead in soil is best reflected by the 
average soil-lead level in a yard. First, it is the Agency's judgment 
that it is not feasible for risk assessors to improve on this average 
exposure assumption for many properties. Indicators of where children 
play, such as playground equipment, are not always present. Even when 
such equipment is present, children's outdoor activity is not 
necessarily limited to that location. Additionally, play patterns may 
change when a new family assumes occupancy following sale of a 
residence, a time when many risk assessments may occur, due to the 
opportunity provided to buyers under section 1018 of Title X.
    Second, the data show that the average of composite samples taken 
from the dripline and the mid-yard provides a reasonable estimate of 
yard-wide soil-lead levels. Lead concentrations are often distributed 
in predictable patterns, with the largest differences in lead levels 
found between the soil around the building perimeter (i.e., the 
dripline) and the mid-yard soil. For example, the median concentration 
in the dripline in the HUD National Survey is 448 ppm while the mean 
mid-yard concentration is 204 ppm (Ref. 8).
    Two factors explain this pattern. Dripline soil may be contaminated 
by deteriorating exterior lead-based paint. For properties that do not 
have exterior

[[Page 30343]]

lead-based paint, it has been suggested that exterior wall surfaces 
capture lead aerosol particles (from the past combustion of leaded 
gasoline), which in turn wash off and accumulate in the soils around 
buildings (Ref. 106).

C. Management Controls for Soil

    Under the abatement work practice standards, there are no 
management controls for soil that is removed during an abatement. At 
the final Dialogue Process meeting, stakeholders expressed concern that 
this soil could be reused improperly (e.g., as topsoil at another 
residential property) (Ref. 16). EPA agrees that the lack of management 
controls for abated soil is a significant gap in the regulatory 
framework. To respond to this issue, the Agency identified two options.
    Under the first option, EPA would propose that the reuse of removed 
soil as topsoil at another residential property or child-occupied 
facility be prohibited. This option addresses the most egregious misuse 
of removed soil but may not adequately deal with other potential 
abuses. The second option would involve the development of 
comprehensive management controls. Comprehensive controls would ensure 
that soil removals are safe, reliable, and effective. Development of 
such controls, however, could further delay the rule.
    EPA chose the first option. It addresses the worst abuse and can be 
done without further delaying the rule. The Agency will examine this 
issue further and determine whether more comprehensive controls are 
required. If so, these controls would be proposed as a separate 
amendment to the soil abatement work practice standards. To assist EPA 
in its examination of this issue, EPA is interested in obtaining 
comment on the types of practices that should be prohibited and on the 
types of controls that should be considered.

VIII. Effect of TSCA Section 403 Standards on Other Title X 
Regulations and Programs

    The term ``lead-based paint hazard'' is used throughout Title X. As 
a result, TSCA section 403 standards will affect the implementation of 
other Title X programs. This unit of the preamble describes the impact 
of the proposed standards on the other Title X programs.

A. HUD Programs

    1. HUD grants. Under section 1011 of Title X, HUD issues grants for 
the evaluation and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in privately 
owned, low-income housing. Once today's proposal has been promulgated, 
clearance testing would have to be conducted following abatements 
performed with grant funding.
    2. Requirements for Federally-assisted or Federally-owned housing. 
Under sections 1012 and 1013 of Title X, HUD is establishing lead-based 
paint hazard notification, evaluation, and reduction requirements for 
certain pre-1978 HUD-associated and Federally-owned (prior to sale to 
the public) housing. The programs covered by these requirements range 
from HUD-owned housing to single-family insured housing. For programs 
where hazard evaluation is required, the TSCA section 403 standards, 
when finalized, will provide criteria to risk assessors for identifying 
lead-based paint hazards in residences covered by these programs. For 
programs that require abatement of lead-based paint hazards, the TSCA 
section 403 standards shall be used to identify residences that contain 
lead-based paint hazards to determine where abatement will be 
necessary.
    HUD proposed regulations under 1012 and 1013 on June 7, 1996 (61 FR 
29170) that reflected EPA's lead-based paint hazard guidance. HUD is 
required to incorporate the TSCA section 403 standards, or more 
stringent standards, directly into its final rule or to cross-reference 
the standards.
    3. 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 lead-based paint hazards posed 
by paint, dust, and soil in residential housing and how to control such 
hazards safely and efficiently. Although the TSCA section 403 standards 
will have no regulatory impact on the Guidelines, the Guidelines will 
be revised periodically to incorporate new information, technological 
advances, and new Federal regulations, including EPA's lead-based paint 
hazard standards.
    Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on risk assessment would need to be 
updated to incorporate the standards for lead-based paint hazards. For 
example, the discussion of the following topics would need to be 
revised: hazard levels for deteriorated paint, dust (for both risk 
assessment and screening of dwellings in good condition), and bare 
soil; and interpretation of sampling results. The clearance standards 
in Chapter 15 also would need to be revised to be consistent with the 
TSCA section 403 standards.
    4. Real estate disclosure requirements. On March 6, 1996 (61 FR 
9064) (FRL-5347-9), pursuant to section 1018 of Title X, HUD and EPA 
jointly issued regulations requiring sellers or lessors of most pre-
1978 housing to disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and 
lead-based paint hazards and provide the potential purchaser or lessee 
with a copy of the pamphlet, Protect Your Family from Lead in Your 
Home. In addition, sellers must provide a 10-day period to buyers to 
conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based 
paint and lead-based paint hazards. Sellers and lessors must also 
include warning language in sales contracts (24 CFR part 35, subpart H; 
40 CFR part 745, subpart F).
    To date, owners have relied on EPA's guidance for advice about 
conditions that may be considered lead-based paint hazards. By 
establishing regulatory standards for lead-based paint hazards, the 
TSCA section 403 rule will provide criteria for triggering certain 
disclosure by property owners. Furthermore, because the TSCA section 
403 standards will be based on a comprehensive analysis of the most 
recent data and research available, they will offer buyers and lessees 
a better tool for interpreting risk assessment reports provided by 
property owners. As part of EPA's outreach efforts in this area, the 
Agency is planning to provide guidance on how to use the TSCA section 
403 standards to interpret sampling results in risk assessment reports. 
Disclosure of the presence of lead-based paint is unaffected by the 
TSCA section 403 standards.

B. EPA Programs

    1. Training, accreditation, and certification requirements and work 
practice standards. Under TSCA section 402(a), EPA issued a regulation 
on August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45778), at 40 CFR part 745 requiring 
individuals engaged in lead-based paint activities in target housing 
and child-occupied facilities to be trained; these individuals and 
contractors engaged in the same activities to be certified; and 
training programs to be accredited. These regulations also contain work 
practice standards for performing lead-based paint activities, 
including risk assessments, taking into account reliability, 
effectiveness, and safety.
    The most significant impact of the TSCA section 403 standards on 
the training and certification programs concerns the determination of 
when certified workers and contractors are required to perform 
abatements. According to the training and certification regulations at 
40 CFR 745.223, abatement is defined as the permanent elimination of 
lead-based paint hazards, and must be performed by certified 
individuals and contractors

[[Page 30344]]

unless it is performed by the property owner in an owner-occupied 
residence (40 CFR 745.220(b)). By identifying lead-based paint hazards, 
the TSCA section 403 regulations help owners determine when work needs 
to be performed by certified individuals and contractors.
    Today's action also contains proposed changes to the TSCA section 
402 regulations. These changes include: the establishment of clearance 
standards for dust; amendments related to risk assessment and clearance 
sampling for dust, and sampling for soil; management controls for 
abated soil; and amendments changing the references to the lead-based 
paint hazard guidance to the TSCA section 403 regulations when final. 
The final TSCA section 403 regulations and the accompanying amendments 
to TSCA section 402 will necessitate changes to EPA's model training 
curricula in the areas of hazard standards, related underlying advances 
in scientific and technical information, risk assessment sampling, 
interpretation of sampling results, approaches for hazard control, and 
clearance standards.
    2. State Programs. In conjunction with the TSCA section 402 
regulations described above, EPA adopted procedures for States and 
Indian Tribes to follow when applying to EPA for authorization to 
administer and enforce a State or Tribal lead-based paint program (40 
CFR 745.324). EPA considers standards for lead-based paint hazards and 
soil-lead level of concern, dust-lead clearance standards, and 
associated requirements for sampling and interpreting sampling results 
to be an integral part of the work practice standards for risk 
assessments and abatements. Therefore, EPA is proposing amendments to 
subpart Q that would require States and Tribes to establish standards 
and requirements that are as protective as the Federal standards being 
proposed today.
    States and Tribes that apply for authorization following the date 
that is 2 years after promulgation of the rule would have to 
demonstrate, as part of their application for program authorization, 
that their standards are as protective as the Federal standards. 
Today's proposed amendment would require all other States and Tribes 
that wish to retain authorization to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction 
that their standards are as protective as the Federal standards within 
2 years of the promulgation of the rule. To minimize the reporting 
burden, these States and Tribes would apply to retain authorization as 
part of their reports to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 745.324(h).
    As a general matter, States and Tribes that apply to obtain or 
retain authorization that incorporate the same standards or standards 
that are more stringent than the Federal standards will meet the ``as 
protective as'' criteria. States and Indian Tribes that incorporate 
less stringent standards would have to provide analytical support and 
other documentation demonstrating that their standards are ``as 
protective as'' the Federal standards. For example, a State or Tribe 
may demonstrate that a higher soil-lead hazard standard could be ``as 
protective as'' the Federal standard because most of the lead found in 
the soil is less bioavailable than lead considered by the Agency. EPA 
plans to develop specific guidance on the types of analysis and 
documentation that a State or Tribe would need to provide to make such 
a demonstration.
    3. Real estate disclosure requirements. EPA and HUD jointly 
developed these requirements. The effects of the TSCA section 403 lead 
hazard standards on real estate disclosure requirements were discussed 
previously in reference to the HUD programs.
    4. Public outreach programs. EPA, in conjunction with HUD and other 
Federal agencies, has developed various public education programs, such 
as the National Lead Information Center and outreach campaigns 
targeting housing providers, health care professionals, the media, 
persons involved in real estate transactions, and the general public. 
When promulgated, the TSCA section 403 standards will play a 
significant role in this public education. Information regarding these 
standards will communicate the Agency's best judgment concerning the 
identification of lead-based paint hazards to property owners, State 
and local officials, tenants, and other decision-makers. To assist in 
this education, the Agency will be developing materials specifically 
addressing the TSCA section 403 standards, including a fact sheet and 
questions and answers bulletin. In addition, some existing outreach 
materials will be modified to discuss the TSCA section 403 standards or 
to reference materials with such discussion.

IX. Relationship of TSCA Section 403 Standards to Other EPA 
Programs

    Because lead exposures occur through all media, a variety of EPA 
programs, in addition to the TSCA Title IV program, address residential 
lead contamination and lead in soil. The Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates as hazardous certain wastes containing 
lead, including some wastes that may be generated during lead-based 
paint activities. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and the RCRA 
corrective action programs clean up lead released into the environment. 
EPA's Indoor Air program also seeks to reduce contamination of the 
indoor environment by substances including lead. This unit describes 
the relationships between the proposed TSCA section 403 standards and 
each of these EPA programs.

A. RCRA Hazardous Waste Requirements

    Wastes generated by lead-based paint hazard reduction activities 
may be regulated as ``hazardous wastes'' under RCRA Subtitle C. Wastes 
may be considered hazardous waste by virtue of being specifically 
listed as hazardous or by exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous 
waste. Lead-bearing wastes from lead-based paint activities are not 
listed wastes. Such wastes, however, may exhibit the hazardous 
characteristics of toxicity (40 CFR 261.24), corrosivity (40 CFR 
261.22), or ignitability (40 CFR 261.21). They are unlikely, due to 
lead content, to exhibit the other hazardous characteristic of 
reactivity (that is, be capable of easily generating explosive or toxic 
gas, especially when mixed with water, or be unstable and undergo 
violent change without detonating).
    Under the toxicity characteristic, wastes or media (e.g., soil) 
contaminated with wastes are hazardous for lead if, after applying the 
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) to a sample, the 
waste produces an extract with a concentration of lead equal to or 
exceeding 5 milligrams per liter (5 ppm). Corrosive hazardous waste is 
waste that has a pH less than or equal to 2 (highly acidic) or greater 
than or equal to 12.5 (highly basic), or that can corrode steel at a 
certain rate. Unneutralized waste from the use of caustic or acidic 
paint strippers may be corrosive hazardous waste. Ignitable hazardous 
waste generally includes liquids with flash points less than 140  deg.F 
(60  deg.C), flammable solids, compressed gases, and oxidizers. Wastes 
generated by the use of certain solvents for paint stripping may be 
ignitable hazardous waste.
    When promulgated, TSCA section 403 standards will not affect the 
determination of whether wastes or soil containing lead are hazardous 
under RCRA. Moreover, there is no direct relationship between the 
approaches used to identify a TSCA section 403 lead-based paint hazard 
and a RCRA

[[Page 30345]]

characteristic hazardous waste. The TSCA section 403 standards are 
based on an exposure scenario involving the ingestion of lead-
contaminated dust or soil by young children. In contrast, the level at 
which wastes contaminated with lead are considered hazardous under the 
RCRA toxicity characteristic is based upon an analysis using a scenario 
involving the consumption of ground water contaminated by waste 
constituents leaching from a landfill receiving municipal waste.
    The potential applicability of RCRA hazardous waste regulations and 
the associated compliance costs, however, have informed the development 
of the proposed TSCA section 403 soil-lead hazard standard. As 
discussed in Unit IV. of this preamble, when developing TSCA 
regulations, EPA considered both risk reduction and cost in selecting 
the proposed soil-lead hazard standard. Because the costs of managing 
excavated lead-contaminated soil as hazardous waste are significantly 
higher than the cost of managing this material as non-hazardous waste, 
identifying this material as hazardous waste would approximately double 
the cost of abatement and was a factor in the selection of the proposed 
standard.

B. CERCLA Response Actions and RCRA Corrective Actions

    Under CERCLA, the Federal government may undertake or compel 
responsible parties to cleanup hazardous substance releases. Because 
lead is a CERCLA hazardous substance, these response actions may 
address lead contamination in soil and other environmental media. 
Likewise, soil, sediment, or other media contaminated with lead may be 
considered a RCRA hazardous waste (as described above) and RCRA 
hazardous waste management facilities undergoing corrective action may 
be required to remediate such contamination. The CERCLA and RCRA 
cleanup programs have similar purposes, but address different types of 
sites: whereas RCRA regulates permitted hazardous waste treatment, 
storage, and disposal facilities, CERCLA generally governs abandoned or 
uncontrolled industrial sites (but may also be applied to residential 
or commercial properties).
    To assist the regulators responsible for CERCLA responses and RCRA 
corrective actions, EPA has developed soil screening levels (SSLs) for 
various hazardous constituents, including lead. The SSL for lead is 400 
ppm, based on risk analysis using the IEUBK model with a residential 
scenario (Ref. 84). The SSL is not a cleanup standard. It neither 
triggers the need for response actions nor defines unacceptable levels 
of soil contamination. Instead, it helps Federal and State regulators 
identify and define lead-contaminated areas that require further study.
    Where soil-lead concentrations at CERCLA sites or RCRA corrective 
action facilities are below the SSL, no further response action or 
study of such contamination is generally warranted. Where contaminant 
concentrations equal or exceed the SSL, however, further investigation, 
but not necessarily cleanup, is warranted. These further investigations 
often involve site characterization and the application of the IEUBK 
model using site-specific data for sites that include residential 
property. Federal and State regulators use the results of these 
investigations to determine the need for remediation and, if necessary, 
to analyze remedial options and establish site-specific preliminary 
remediation goals (PRGs) at CERCLA sites and at RCRA corrective action 
facilities.
    The TSCA section 403 standards are defined for largely different 
purposes and audiences. Unlike CERCLA responses and RCRA corrective 
actions, residential lead hazard reduction activities often occur 
without government oversight. The TSCA section 403 standards are 
intended for use by any person involved in identifying and addressing 
lead-based paint hazards, including homeowners, rental property owners, 
tenants, contractors, government housing programs, and Federal, State, 
and local regulators. The proposed TSCA section 403 standards are 
designed to provide practical advice widely applicable to residential 
property. Expensive, residence-specific investigations would not be 
required. Rather, when promulgated, the standards could be used for 
millions of homes throughout the nation to evaluate properties quickly 
at modest cost.
    In addition, the criteria used to select hazard control methods 
differ under TSCA section 403, RCRA, and CERCLA. Under CERCLA, for 
example, preference is given to ``treatment [methods] which permanently 
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity or mobility'' of the 
hazardous constituents regardless of risk (CERCLA section 121(b)). 
Likewise, under RCRA, hazardous waste must be treated to meet stringent 
standards prior to land disposal. TSCA does not have any similar 
preferences for permanent treatment. Furthermore, Title X recognizes 
the important role of temporary control measures (i.e, interim 
controls).
    In summary, the TSCA section 403 standards should not affect the 
selection of cleanup remedies at CERCLA response actions or RCRA 
corrective action facilities. The TSCA section 403 standards are being 
developed for different purposes and audiences. They will provide 
generic guidance that can be used at millions of widely varying sites 
throughout the nation. Owners of properties with lead-based paint 
hazards should undertake permanent or interim measures to control these 
hazards. In contrast, the site-specific investigations that occur under 
CERCLA and RCRA allow risk and cleanup levels to be narrowly tailored 
to the individual site with a preference for permanent solutions. Thus, 
the action levels, cleanup goals, and remedies selected at CERCLA and 
RCRA sites may differ from those being proposed in today's action.

C. Indoor Air Activities

    The Indoor Environment Division of EPA's Office of Air and 
Radiation seeks to reduce indoor air pollution through a variety of 
educational and other non-regulatory means. The Indoor Air Program 
incorporates lead-based paint concerns in its outreach to owners and 
occupants of residential, public, and commercial buildings, even though 
lead-based paint concerns are not its primary focus and the inhalation 
of air containing lead-contaminated dust is not the major pathway of 
childhood lead exposure. The Indoor Air Program will reference and 
discuss section 403 standards in its efforts to help building owners 
and occupants properly identify and respond to lead-based paint hazards 
and other indoor air problems.

X. Public Record and Electronic Submissions

    The official record for this proposed rule has been established 
under docket control number OPPTS-62156 (including comments and data 
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this 
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which 
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for 
inspection from 12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The official record is located in the TSCA 
Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC. The record now includes:
    1. ``Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, 
and Soil,'' Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    2. The economic analysis.
    3. Materials related to the Dialogue Process and other public 
meetings

[[Page 30346]]

(contained in Dockets OPPTS-62148, OPPTS-62151, OPPTS-62151A, and 
OPPTS-62151B).
    4. Support documents, reports, and published literature cited in 
this report, including all the references listed in Unit XI. of this 
preamble.
    5. Published literature and all other references cited in all 
relevant documents.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at 
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an 
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in 
electronic form must be identified by the docket control number OPPTS-
62156. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at 
many Federal Depository Libraries.

XI. References

    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1997. Risk 
Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil. 
Volumes I and II. EPA 747-R-97-006.
    2. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. October 1991. 
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A Statement by the Centers 
for Disease Control.
    3. Lepow, M.L., et al. 1975. ``Investigations into Sources of Lead 
in the Environment of Urban Children.'' Environmental Research. 10:415-
426.
    4. Rabinowitz M., A. Leviton, H. Needleman; D. Bellinger, and C. 
Waternaux. 1985. ``Environmental correlates of infant blood lead levels 
in Boston.'' Environmental Research. 38(1):96-107.
    5. Pirkle, J.L., D.J. Brody, E.W. Gunter, R.A. Kramer, D.C. 
Paschal, K.M. Flegal, and T.D. Matte. 1994. ``The Decline in Blood Lead 
Levels in the United States: The National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Surveys (NHANES).'' Journal of the American Medical 
Association. 272(4):284-291.
    6. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 21, 
1997. ``Update: Blood Lead Levels-U.S., 1991-1994.'' Morbidity and 
Mortality Weekly Report. 46(7):141-145.
    7. Brody, D.J., J.L. Pirkle, R.A. Kramer, K.M. Flegal, T.D. Matte, 
E.W. Gutiter, and D.C. Paschal. 1994. ``Blood Lead Levels in the U.S. 
Population: Phase I of the Third National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988 to 1991).'' Journal of the 
American Medical Association. 272(4):277-283.
    8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics. April 1995. Report on the National Survey of 
Lead Based Paint in Housing - Base Report. EPA 747-R-95-003.
    9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics. April 1995. Report on the National Survey of 
Lead Based Paint in Housing - Appendix II: Analysis. EPA 747-R-95-005.
    10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Reducing Lead 
Hazards When Remodeling Your Home. EPA 747-R-94-002.
    11. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. June 1995. 
HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint 
Hazards in Housing.
    12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 403 Dialogue 
Process Meeting Summary. October 19, 1995.
    13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 403 Dialogue 
Process Meeting Summary. December 14, 1995.
    14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 403 Dialogue 
Process Meeting Summary. February 15, 1996.
    15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 403 Dialogue 
Process Meeting Summary. March 21, 1996.
    16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 403 Dialogue 
Process Meeting Summary. November 12, 1997.
    17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Meeting Summary for 
meeting with Lead Industries Association. November 21, 1996.
    18. Matlack, William. 1980. Statistics for Public Policy and 
Management. Duxberry Press, pp. 310-338.
    19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1995. Report on the 
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing. Appendix I: Design and 
Methodology. EPA 747-R95-004.
    20. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1995. The 
Relation of Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Blood Lead Levels Among 
Urban Children. Volumes I and II. Final report to U.S. HUD from the 
University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY and The 
National Center for Lead Safe Housing, Columbia, MD.
    21. Roels, H.A., J-P Buchet, and R. Lauwerys, et al. 1976. ``Impact 
of Air Pollution by Lead on the Heme Biosynthetic Pathway in School-age 
Children.'' Archives of Environmental Health. 31:310-316.
    22. Piomelli, S., C. Seaman, and D. Zullow, et al. 1982. 
``Threshold for Lead Damage to Heme Synthesis in Urban Children.'' 
Proceedings of National Academy of Science. 7:3335-3339.
    23. Marcus, A.H. and J. Schwartz. 1987. ``Dose-response Curves for 
Erythrocyte Protoporphyrin vs Blood Lead: Effects of Iron Status.'' 
Environmental Research. 44:221-227.
    24. Rabinowitz, M.B., A. Leviton, and H. Needleman. 1986. 
``Occurrence of Elevated Protoporphyrin Levels in Relation to Lead 
Burden in Infants.'' Environmental Research. 39:253-257.
    25. Hernberg, S., J. Nickanes, and Mellin, et al. 1970. 
``-Aminolevulinic Acid Dehydrase as a Measure of Lead 
Exposure.'' Archives of Environmental Health. 21:140-145.
    26. Secchi, G.C., L. Alessio, and G. Cambiaghi. 1973. ``Na+/K+-
ATPase Activity of Erythrocyte Membranes: in Urban Populations Not 
Occupationally Exposed to Lead.'' Archives of Environmental Health. 
27:399-400.
    27. Wada, O., K. Takeo, Y. Yano, T. Ono, and M. Nagahashi. 1976. 
``Delta-aminolevulinic Acid Dehydratase in Low Level Lead Exposure.'' 
Archives of Environmental Health. July-August. 31(4):211-5.
    28. Angle, C.R. and M.S. McIntire. 1978. ``Low Level Lead and 
Inhibition of Erythrocyte Pyrimidine Nucldeotidase.'' Environmental 
Research. 17:296-302.
    29. Valentine, W.N. and D.E. Paglia. 1980. ``Erythrocyte disorders 
of purine and pyrimidine metabolism.'' Hemoglobin. 4(5-6):669-81.
    30. Rosen, J. 1995. ``Adverse Health Effects if Lead at Low 
Exposure Levels; Trends in the Management of Childhood Lead 
Poisoning.'' Toxicology. 97:11-17.
    31. Benignus, V.A., D.A. Otto, K.E. Muller, and K.J. Seiple. 1981. 
``Effects of Age and Body Lead Burden on CNS Function in Young Children 
II: EEG Spectrum.'' Electroencephalography and Clinical 
Neurophysiology. 52:240-248.
    32. Otto, D.A., V. A. Benignus, K.E. Muller, and C.N. Barton. 1981. 
``Effects of Age and Body Lead Burden on CNS Function in Young Children 
I: Slow Cortical Potentials.'' Electroencephalography and Clinical 
Neurophysiology. 52:229-239.
    33. Otto, D., V. Benignus; K. Muller; C. Barton; K. Seiple; J. 
Prah, and S. Schroeder. 1982. ``Effects of Low to Moderate Lead 
Exposure on Slow Cortical Potentials in Young Children: Two Year 
Follow-Up Study.'' Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Teratology. November-
December. 4(6):733-737.
    34. Otto, D., G. Robinson, S. Baumann, S. Schroeder, P. Mushak, D. 
Kleinbaum, and L. Boone. October 1985. ``5-Year Follow-Up Study of 
Children with Low-to-Moderate Lead Absorption: Electrophysiological 
Evaluation.'' Environmental Research. 38(1):168-86.
    35. Robinson, G.S., S. Baumann, and D. Kleinbaum, et al. 1985. 
``Effects of Low to Moderate Lead Exposure on

[[Page 30347]]

Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials in Children: Environmental Health 
Document 3.'' Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe. pp. 
177-182.
    36. Winneke, G. and U. Kraemer. 1984. ``Neuropsychological Effects 
of Lead in Children: Interactions with Social Background Variables.'' 
Neuropsychobiology. 11:195-202.
    37. Baumann, S., D. Otto, G. Robinson, S. Schroeder, and C. Barton. 
1987. ``The Relationship of Late Positive ERPs, Age, Intelligence and 
Lead Absorption in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Children.'' Current 
Trends in Event-Related Potential Research (EEG Supplement). 40:617-23.
    38. Schwartz, J. and D.A. Otto. 1987. ``Blood Lead, Hearing 
Thresholds, and Neurobehavioral Development in Children and Youth.'' 
Archives of Environmental Health. 42:153-160.
    39. Bellinger, D.C., A. Leviton, and C. Waternaux, et al. 1987a. 
Longitudinal Analyses of Prenatal and Postnatal Lead Exposure and Early 
Cognitive Development.'' New England Journal of Medicine. 316:1037-
1043.
    40. Dietrich, K.N., K.M. Kraft, and R. Shukla, et al. 1987b. ``The 
Neurobehavioral Effects of Early Lead Exposure.'' Monographs of the 
American Association of Mental Deficiency. 8:71-95.
    41. Ernhart, C.B., A.W. Wolf, and M.J. Kennard, et al. 1986. 
``Intrauterine Exposure to Low Levels of Lead: The Status of the 
Neonate.'' Archives of Environmental Health. 41:287-291.
    42. McMichael, A.J., P.A. Baghurst, and N.R. Wigg, et al. 1988. 
``Port Pirie Cohort Study: Environmental Exposure to Lead and 
Children's Abilities at the Age of Four Years.'' New England Journal of 
Medicine. 319:468-476.
    43. Fulton, M., G. Raab, G. Thomson, D. Laxen, R. Hunter, and W. 
Hepburn. 1987. ``Influence of Blood Lead on the Ability and Attainment 
of Children in Edinburgh.'' Lancet. 1:1221-1226.
    44. Landsdown, R., W. Yule, and M.A. Urbanowicz, et al. 1986. ``The 
Relationship Between Blood Lead Concentrations, Intelligence, 
Attainment and Behavior in a School Population: The Second London 
Study.'' International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health. 
57:225-235.
    45. Yule, W., R. Landsdown, I. Millar, and M. Urbanowicz. 1981. 
``The Relationship Between Blood Lead Concentration, Intelligence, and 
Attainment in School Population: A Pilot Study.'' Developments in 
Medical Child Neurology. 23:567-576.
    46. Schroeder, S.R., B. Hawk, D. Otto, P. Mushak, and R.E. Hicks. 
1985. ``Separating the Effect of Lead and Social Factors in IQ.'' 
Environmental Research. 91:178-183.
    47. Hawk, B.A., S.R. Schroeder, and G. Robinson, et al. 1986. 
``Relation of Lead and Social Factors to IQ of Low-SES Children: A 
Partial Replication.'' American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 91:178-
183.
    48. Schwartz, J. 1994. ``Low-Level Lead Exposure and Children's IQ: 
A Meta-Analysis and Search for a Threshold.'' Environmental Research. 
65:42-55.
    49. Schwartz, J., C. Angle, and H. Pitcher. 1986. ``The 
Relationship Between Childhood Blood Lead and Stature.'' Pediatrics. 
77:281-288.
    50. Bornschein, R. L.; Grote, J.; Mitchell, T., Succop. P. A.; 
Dietrich, K. N.; Kraft, K. M.; Hammond, P. B. 1989. ``Effects of 
Prenatal Lead Exposure on Infant Size at Birth.'' In: Smith, M. A.; 
Grant, L.D.; Sors, A. I., eds. Lead Exposure and Child Development: An 
International Assessment. Lancaster, United Kingdom: Kulwer Academic 
Publishers.
    51. Shukla, R., K.N. Dietrich, R.L. Bornschein, O. Berger, and P.B. 
Hammond. 1991. ``Lead Exposure and Growth in the Early Preschool Child: 
A Follow-Up Report from the Cincinnati Lead Study.'' Pediatrics. 
88(5):886-92.
    52. Bhattacharya, A., R. Shukla., R. Bornschein, K. Dietrich, and 
J.E. Kopke. 1988. ``Postural Disequilibrium Quantification in Children 
with Chronic Lead Exposure: A Pilot Study.'' Neurotoxicology. 9(3):327-
40.
    53. McMichael, A.J., G.V. Vimpani, and E.F. Robertson, et al. 1986. 
``The Port Pirie Cohort Study: Maternal Blood Lead and Pregnancy 
Outcome.'' Pediatrics. 89(4):740-742.
    54. Moore, M.R., A. Goldberg, and S. Pocock, et al. 1982. ``Some 
Studies of Maternal and Infant Lead Exposure in Glasgow.'' Scotland 
Medical Journal. 27:113-122.
    55. Pocock, S.J., A.G. Shaper, D. Ashby, T. Delves, and T.P. 
Whitehead. 1984. ``Blood Lead Concentration, Blood Pressure, and Renal 
Function.'' British Medical Journal. 289(6449):872-4.
    56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Air Quality 
Criteria Document for Lead. Research Triangle Park, NC. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA 600/8-83-028F.
    57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 1990. Report of 
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on its Review of the OAQPS 
Lead Staff Paper and the ECAO Air Quality Criteria Document Supplement. 
EPA-SAB-CASAC-90-002.
    58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Air Quality 
Criteria for Lead: Supplement to 1986 Addendum. Office of Research and 
Development. EPA/600-8-89/049F.
    59. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 
December 1990. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Lead: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. (OAQPS Staff 
Paper.) EPA-450/2-89-022.
    60. Davis, J.M. and D.J. Svendsgaard. 1987. ``Lead and Child 
Development.'' Nature. 329:297-300.
    61. Mushak, P., J.M. Davis, A.F. Crocetti, and L.D. Grant. October 
1989. ``Prenatal and Postnatal Effects of Low-Level Lead Exposure: 
Integrated Summary of a Report to the U.S. Congress on Childhood Lead 
Poisoning.'' Environmental Research. 50(1):11-36.
    62. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry. 1988. The Nature & Extent of Lead 
Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Report to Congress.
    63. National Academy of Sciences. 1993. Measuring Lead Exposure in 
Infants, Children, and Other Sensitive Populations.
    64. Battelle Memorial Institute. Memorandum to Todd Holderman, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. September 3, 1997.
    65. University of Cincinnati. July 1990. Midvale Community Lead 
Study: Final Report.
    66. Lewis and Clark County Health Department, Montana Department of 
Health and Environmental Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1986. East 
Helena, Montana: Child Lead Study, Summer 1983. Final Report.
    67. Hogan K, Elias R, Marcus A, White P. 1995. ``Assessment of the 
USEPA IEUBK Model Prediction of Elevated Blood Lead Levels.'' The 
Toxicologist 15:36.
    68. Bureau of the Census, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. February 1995. American Housing Survey for the United 
States in 1993. Current Housing Reports No. H150/93.
    69. Salkever, David. 1995. ``Updated Estimates of Earnings Benefits 
from Reduced Exposure of Children to Environmental Lead,'' 
Environmental Research. 70:1-6.
    70. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1993. Money Income of Households, 
Families, and Persons in the United States: 1992, Current Population 
Reports, Consumer Income, Series P60-184.
    71. U.S. Department of Education. 1993. Digest of Education 
Statistics.

[[Page 30348]]

    72. Wallston, T.S. and R.G. Whitfield. 1986. Assessing the Risks to 
Young Children of Three Effects Associated with Elevated Blood-Lead 
Levels. Report by Argonne National Laboratory. Report No. ANL/AA-32. 
Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards.
    73. American Academy of Pediatrics. 1996. ``Treatment Guidelines 
for Lead Exposure in Children,'' Pediatrics, 96(1):55-160.
    74. Kakalik, J. et al. 1981. The Cost of Special Education. Rand 
Corporation Report N-1791-ED.
    75. Hometech. 1996. Remodeling and Renovation Cost Estimator.
    76. Means, R.S. 1996. Repair and Remodeling Cost Data.
    77. Santucci, Robert, cost consultant to the National Center for 
Lead-Safe Housing and president of Urban Restoration Corporation, North 
Carolina, personal communication with Chris Paciorek, Abt Associates 
Inc., July 1996.
    78. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 
Administration and Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 1997. 
American Housing Survey for the United States in 1995.
    79. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 
Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Poisoning Prevention. 1996. Regulatory 
Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule on Lead-Based Paint: Requirements 
for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
in Federally-Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal 
Assistance. Prepared by ICF Incorporated.
    80. Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing Task Force. 
July 1995. Putting the Pieces Together: Controlling Lead Hazard in the 
Nation's Housing.
    81. National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. SpecMaster Database, 
provided to Chris Paciorek, Abt Associates by Jonathan Wilson, NCLSH, 
December 1995.
    82. National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. Undated. Creating a 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Policy: A Practical, Step-by-Step 
Approach for Nonprofit Housing Organizations. Technical Assistance 
Bulletin 2.
    83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Economic Analysis 
of TSCA Section 403: Hazard Standards.
    84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 14, 1994. Soil 
Screening Guidance.
    85. Battelle Memorial Institute. Memorandum to Jonathan Jacobson 
and Todd Holderman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 10, 
1997.
    86. Stedman's Medical Dictionary. 1976. William and Wilkin Company, 
Baltimore. p. 1087.
    87. Rabinowitz, M.B. and G.W. Wetherill. 1972. ``Identifying 
Sources of Lead Contamination by Stable Isotope Techniques.'' 
Environmental Science Technology. 6(8):705-709.
    88. Manton, W.I. July-August 1977. ``Sources of Lead in Blood: 
Identification by Stable Isotopes.'' Archives of Environmental Health. 
32(4)149-59.
    89. Yaffe, Y., C.P. Flessel, J.J. Wesolowski, A. del Rosario, G.N. 
Guirguis, V. Matias, J.W. Gramlich, W.R. Kelly, T.E. Degarmo, and G.C. 
Coleman. 1983. ``Identification of lead sources in California children 
using the stable isotope ratio technique.'' Arch Environmental Health. 
July-August 38(4):237-45.
    90. Rabinowitz, M.B. 1987. ``Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometry in 
Childhood Lead Poisoning.'' Biological Trace Element Research. 12:223-
229.
    91. Clark, C.S., R.L. Bornschein, P. Succop, S.S. Que Hee, P.B. 
Hammond, and B. Peace. 1985. ``Condition and Type of Housing as an 
Indicator of Potential Environmental Lead Exposure and Pediatric Blood 
Lead Levels.'' Environmental Research. 38:46-53.
    92. Green, T. and C.B. Ernhart. 1991. ``Prenatal and Preschool Age 
Lead Exposure: Relationship with Size.'' Neurotoxicology and 
Teratology. 13:417-427.
    93. Battelle Memorial Institute. Memorandum to Janet Remmers, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. April 4, 1996.
    94. National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. Memorandum to Dave 
Jacobs and Steve Weitz, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. July 1, 1997.
    95. McElvaine, M.D., et al. 1992. ``Prevalence of Radiographic 
Evidence of Paint Chip Ingestion Among Children with Moderate to Severe 
Lead Poisoning, St. Louise, Missouri, 1989 through 1990.'' Pediatrics. 
89(4):740-742.
    96. National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. May 1997. Data tables 
based on November 1996 data for HUD Evaluation of Lead Hazard Control 
Programs provided to Jonathan Jacobson, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    97. National Conference of State Legislatures. August 1997. Lead 
Poisoning Prevention. Directory of State Contracts, 1997-1998.
    98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 31, 1996. 
Statistical Evaluation of the Relationship Between Blood Lead and Dust 
Lead Based on Pre-Intervention Data from R&M Study. Final Report to 
U.S. EPA from Battelle, Contract No. 68-D2-0139.
    99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 22, 1996. 
Statistical Evaluation of the Relationship Between Blood Lead and Dust 
Lead Based on Pre-Intervention Data from the Rochester Lead-in-Dust 
Study. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 
Battelle, Contract No. 68-D2-0139.
    100. Bornschein, R.L., P.A. Sucoop, K.M. Kraft, C.S. Clark, B. 
Peace, and P.B. Hammond. 1987. ``Exterior Surface Dust Lead, Interior 
House Dust Lead and Childhood Lead Exposure in an Urban Environment.'' 
In Trace Substances in Environmental Health. XX. Proceedings of 
University of Missouri's 20th Annual Conference, June 1996 (D.D. 
Hemphill, Ed.), pp. 322-332, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
    101. Lanphear, B.P., M. Emond, D.E. Jacobs, M. Wesetzonan, M. 
Tanner, N.L. Winter, B. Yakis, and S. Eberly. 1995. ``A Side-by-Side 
Comparison of Dust Collection Methods for Sampling Lead-Contaminated 
House Dust.'' Environmental Research. 68:114-123.
    102. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Analyses of 
Pathways of Residential Lead Exposure in Children. Peer Review Draft. 
April 27.
    103. Dickey, E.C., P.J. Jasa, and D.P. Shelton. 1986. Estimating 
Residue Cover. NebGuide G86-793. University of Nebraska, Institute of 
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
    104. Connor, Patrick, Connor Environmental Services, personal 
communication with Jonathan Jacobson, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. August 15, 1996.
    105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 3, 1997. 
Analysis of Lead Dust Clearance Testing. Peer Review Draft.
    106. Mielke, H.W. 1994. ``Lead in New Orleans Soils: New Images of 
an Urban Environment.'' Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 16(3-
4):123-128.
    107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1985. Costs and 
Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline: Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Policy Analysis, Economic Analysis Division.
    108. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1986. Reducing 
Lead in Drinking Water: A Benefit Analysis. Prepared by U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy

[[Page 30349]]

 Planning and Evaluation, Draft Final Report.

XII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Agency submitted this proposed action to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866, 
entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
and any changes made during that review have been documented in the 
public record. OMB has determined that this proposed action is 
``economically significant,'' because this proposed rule may result in 
behavioral changes that involve increased expenditures by owners of 
target housing and child-occupied facilities, with a potential annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Although the 
establishment of the standards contained in this proposed rule do not, 
in and of themselves, mandate any action, the Agency recognizes that 
the existence of the hazard standards may influence the decisions or 
actions of owners of target housing.
    The Agency believes that, in establishing the standards, it is 
appropriate to consider the potential costs and benefits associated 
with the possible actions that an owner could or might take based on 
the hazard standard. The Agency has therefore prepared an economic 
analysis which assumes that a risk assessment would be conducted in all 
target housing at the time a newborn enters the home, that the owners 
of the target housing would respond to all identified hazards, and that 
no activities would occur in the absence of the 403 standards.
    The Agency recognizes, however, that risk assessments will not be 
conducted in all target housing, nor will all the owners of target 
housing respond to all identified hazards. In addition, intervention 
activities are occurring and will continue to occur, even in the 
absence of the 403 standards. Consequently, EPA believes that this 
analysis overestimates the potential costs and benefits associated with 
the non-mandatory intervention activities related to the establishment 
of the proposed standards. Furthermore, EPA used other assumptions in 
the analysis (e.g., the use of a birth trigger for testing and hazard 
intervention activities, and the use of a 3 percent discount rate), 
that can potentially affect the relative balance of costs and benefits. 
These assumptions are summarized below in the discussion of the 
Agency's sensitivity analyses, which are presented in Chapter 7 of the 
Agency's economic analysis.
    This analysis is contained in a document entitled Economic Analysis 
of Proposed Lead Hazard Standards (Ref. 83), and is available as a part 
of the public record for this action. The analysis was used by the 
decision-makers to help in the selection of the hazard standards 
proposed in this document. The following summary of the economic 
analysis presents the benefits, costs, and net benefits for those 
activities that could be potentially related to the establishment of 
the lead hazard standards (i.e., related to lead-based paint hazard 
interventions, as well as the costs of conducting risk assessments to 
evaluate homes for lead-based paint hazards). The Agency presents costs 
and benefits for paint interventions separately because they did not 
affect the Agency's evaluations and decisions regarding dust and soil. 
As discussed in Unit IV. of this preamble, EPA did not use the economic 
analysis of the paint component of the proposed regulation in selecting 
the preferred option for the paint standard due to data limitations. 
EPA presents the costs of conducting risk assessments separately 
because these costs are the same for all dust and soil standard options 
and, therefore, did not affect the Agency's decision-making on the 
standards.
    In general, the economic analysis is designed to provide 
comparisons of different standards, and does not attempt to predict 
precisely how much remediation of residential lead-based paint hazards 
will occur as a result of promulgating these standards. The economic 
analysis compares alternative standard options in terms of their net 
benefits. Net benefits are based on the benefits of risk reduction 
minus the costs of control activities needed to achieve the reduction 
in risk. The benefit categories all measure health effects resulting 
from childhood lead exposure. The analysis calculates net benefits for 
a wide range of alternative standards, including the proposed section 
403 hazard levels.
    The total costs (estimated over a 50-year span, and discounted at 3 
percent) for setting the proposed dust and soil standards, which are 
based on the proposed standard of 50 g/ft2 for 
floor dust, 250 g/ft2 for window sill dust and 
2,000 ppm for soil, are estimated to be $19 billion, while the total 
estimated benefits are $108 billion using the IEUBK model and $39 
billion using the empirical model, resulting in estimated net benefits 
of $89 billion using the IEUBK model and $19 billion using the 
empirical model. For paint interventions, the estimated total cost is 
$20 billion, with total estimated benefits of $59 billion using the 
IEUBK model and $5 billion using the empirical model, resulting in 
estimated net benefits of $39 billion using the IEUBK model and -$15 
billion using the empirical model. The total estimated costs for 
testing are $14 billion, and the Agency did not estimate any benefits 
for potential testing activities. About 25.4 million homes are 
projected to exceed one or more of the standards, and the Agency 
projected approximately 43.8 million children would experience reduced 
exposure to household lead in soil, dust, and paint.
    1. Dust and soil analysis. The monetized benefits estimated over 
the 50-year modeling period for the proposed TSCA section 403 standards 
of 50 g/ft2 floor dust, 250 g/ft2 
window sill dust, and 2,000 ppm soil are $39 billion from the empirical 
model and $108 billion from the IEUBK model. These estimates are based 
on the following assumptions: that all owners of target housing will 
conduct a risk assessment to identify lead hazards at the time when a 
newborn child enters the home; that these owners will respond to all 
identified lead hazards; and that no intervention activities will occur 
in the absence of the 403 standards.
    As would be expected, alternative dust and soil standards that are 
more stringent than these are estimated to produce additional benefits. 
Changes in stringency affect the benefits differently depending upon 
the model used. For the empirical model, benefits fall within a fairly 
tight range of $30 to $47 billion, when options range from 1,000 to 
5,000 ppm for soil, from 50 to 200 g/ft2 for floor 
dust, and 100 to 500 g/ft2 for window sill dust. 
For the IEUBK model, the range of benefits over these alternative 
options is wider, from approximately $73 billion to $150 billion.
    The costs for the proposed TSCA section 403 standards of 50 
g/ft2 floor dust, 250 g/ft2 
window sill dust, and 2,000 ppm soil (estimated over the 50-year 
modeling period and discounted at 3 percent) are $19 billion. This 
represents the costs of interventions to reduce soil and dust-lead 
levels in response to these standards. EPA estimates costs 
independently of the two models (i.e., IEUBK, empirical). Costs, 
therefore, are the same for both analytical approaches. Alternative 
dust and soil options that are more stringent than the proposed 
standards are estimated to have higher costs. Changes in stringency 
ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 ppm for soil, 40 to 200 g/ft2 
for

[[Page 30350]]

floor dust, and 100 to 500 g/ft2 for window sill 
dust, produce a range of costs from about $12 billion to about $38 
billion.
    The net benefits of the proposed TSCA section 403 standards for 
dust and soil are shown in Table 12 below. Net benefits have been used 
to evaluate alternative lead hazard levels. The estimated net benefits 
for the proposed standards of 50 g/ft2 for floor 
dust, 250 g/ft2 for window sill dust, and 2,000 ppm 
for soil are $19 billion (using the empirical model for blood lead) or 
$89 billion (using the IEUBK model).
    Table 12 also provides an indication of the net benefits 
corresponding to a range of options for the proposed lead hazard 
standards. Using the empirical model, the net benefits appear to be 
near the maximum at 2,000 ppm and 5,000 ppm. At the same time, net 
benefits decrease (in fact become negative) with more stringent soil 
options under the empirical model.

                      Table 12.--Net Benefits from Hazard Options Varying around the Proposed Standard: Point Estimates and Ranges*                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Hazard Standard                                       Net Benefits ($Billions)          
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Floor Dust (g/    Window Sill Dust                                                                        
                                              ft2)              (g/ft2)           Soil (ppm)            IEUBK Model          Empirical Model   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of Soil Options                50                      250                     500                    143                    5                    
                                     50                      250                     2,000                  89                     19                   
                                     50                      250                     5,000                  61                     21                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
Range of Floor Dust Options          50                      250                     2,000                  89                     19                   
                                     100                     250                     2,000                  77                     19                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
Range of Sill Dust Options           50                      100                     2,000                  N/A                    16                   
                                     50                      250                     2,000                  N/A                    19                   
                                     50                      500                     2,000                  N/A                    19                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Net Benefits do not include the costs and benefits of paint interventions, nor testing costs. The models paint intervention costs (over 50 years       
  discounted at 3 percent) are $20 billion. Paint intervention benefits (over 50 years discounted at 3 percent) are $59 billion with the IEUBK Model and
  $5 billion with the empirical model. Testing costs (over 50 years discounted at 3 percent) are approximately $14 billion. As explained in Unit IV. of 
  this preamble, the net benefit estimates generated by the IEUBK model-based approach and the empirical model-based approach are not comparable.       

The IEUBK model, on the other hand, suggests that maximum net benefits 
occur at more stringent options, and decline with less stringent ones. 
Net benefits do not vary substantially under either model across the 
range of dust options evaluated.
    Given overall modeling uncertainties, and the fact that both models 
suggest that net benefits are positive in the 2,000 ppm soil range, the 
proposed soil and dust standards appear to provide a reasonable 
combination of national values that will tend to maximize the net 
benefits of performing interventions to protect children from exposure 
to lead from these sources. In addition to the relative net benefits, 
each hazard standard was evaluated in terms of number of children 
protected. Under the proposed option, it is estimated that the number 
of children with blood-lead concentrations equal to or exceeding 10 
g/dl would decline by 2 to 6 million over 50 years and the 
number of children with blood-lead concentrations equal to or exceeding 
20 g/dl would decline by 300,000 to 700,000 in the same 
timeframe (estimated by the empirical-model based analysis and the 
IEUBK-model based analysis respectively) (Ref. 83).
    2. Paint analysis. EPA used the available data on deterioration 
from the HUD National Survey to estimate costs and benefits associated 
with repairing or abating deteriorated paint. The Survey reports only 
the total deterioration in each residence, whereas the proposed hazard 
standard for paint is based on the amount of deterioration per 
component in a residence. Because of this difference, as noted in Unit 
IV. of this preamble, the Agency was unable to use this analysis in 
selecting a preferred option. In summary, the empirical model-based 
analysis estimates benefits of $5 billion and the IEUBK model-based 
analysis estimates benefits of $59 billion. The costs for paint 
interventions are estimated to be $20 billion yielding net benefits for 
paint of $-15 billion using the empirical model-based analysis and $39 
billion using the IEUBK model-based analysis. For the following 
reasons, however, the reliability and usefulness of these estimates for 
characterizing the economic impacts of the proposed standard for 
deteriorated lead-based paint is significantly limited due to 
differences in approach and data used. It is also inappropriate to 
compare the results of each analytical approach.
    First, as previously noted, the determination of where paint 
interventions occur is based on the HUD National Survey, which reports 
deterioration for an entire residence. The proposed standard, however, 
is based on the amount of deterioration per component. There is no way 
to relate the two measurements.
    Second, the lack of data to relate quantitatively deteriorated 
paint to blood-lead concentration limits EPA's ability to measure 
benefits associated with direct ingestion of lead-based paint. Both 
modeling approaches (i.e., IEUBK-based and empirical-based) predict 
benefits based only on the presence or absence of deteriorated paint. 
Thus, each model's estimate of benefits remains unchanged regardless of 
the amount of deterioration present.
    Third, under the empirical model-based analysis, only interior 
paint abatement, which is accompanied by dust cleaning, yields dust-
related benefits. The analysis does not predict any dust-related 
benefit for interior paint repair or exterior paint repair or 
abatement. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the Agency's risk analysis, EPA 
used data from several abatement studies to estimate the impact of dust 
cleaning on dust-lead loading when sources of dust-lead contamination 
were abated. In contrast, the Agency has no basis for estimating the 
impact of source control alone on dust-lead loading. It is likely, 
however, that other paint interventions would reduce dust-lead loading. 
Thus, the empirical model-based analysis probably underestimates the 
dust-related benefits of paint intervention.

[[Page 30351]]

    3. Testing costs. EPA estimates that the costs of conducting risk 
assessment to test target housing for the presence of lead-based paint 
hazards is $14 billion. The analysis assumes that each target housing 
unit will be tested at the time a newborn enters the home. Testing 
costs are the same for all hazard standard options. Likewise, the 
testing costs cannot be assigned to one medium or another because 
testing costs assume that each of the three media (paint, dust, and 
soil) are addressed.
    4. Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. The economic analysis 
addresses the robustness of results by reporting model outcomes when 
each of several different parameters or assumptions are changed. The 
parameters considered are the discount rate and the value of an IQ 
point. In addition, the assumption that avoiding small losses of IQ 
(i.e., less than one point) provides an economic benefit was examined. 
The first parameter analyzed is discount rate. In the base model, a 
rate of 3 percent is used. In the sensitivity analysis, 7 percent is 
used because this is the value recommended in the January 11, 1996 OMB 
Guidance entitled Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under 
Executive Order No. 12866. When the discount rate is 7 percent, model 
results at each possible standard option change from the base model in 
the following way: costs decrease, benefits decrease substantially 
more, and net benefits decrease. Following from these changes, the 
options at which net benefit would be maximized are less stringent in a 
7 percent discount regime than in a 3 percent discount regime. Benefits 
decrease more than costs because they would be realized over a much 
longer time horizon, the economically productive lifetime of affected 
individuals. Costs for actions to protect a given individual would be 
incurred before the sixth birthday.
    The second parameter tested is the value of an IQ point. The base 
model uses an IQ point value of $8,346, based on recently published 
analyses (Ref. 69). As an alternative, benefits were calculated using 
an IQ point value of $6,847, from earlier EPA analyses (Refs. 109 and 
110). The total cost calculated would be the same under each 
assumption, because this parameter does not affect costs. The benefits 
and net benefits, however, for all options would be lower when the 
alternative, smaller IQ value is used, because over 95 percent of total 
benefits are due to changes in IQ. The effect on benefits is small 
enough, however, that there is no effect on which the standard would 
maximize net benefits in the IEUBK model, and the empirical model-based 
analysis predicts only a small decrease of stringency of the window 
sill dust standard. Thus, the choice of standard is not sensitive to 
the use of this revised value of an IQ point.
    The third issue EPA examined in the sensitivity analysis was the 
effect of the value of small IQ point differences. The Agency's 
analysis assumes that a difference in average blood-lead levels between 
two populations, no matter how small that difference is and regardless 
of the magnitude of blood-lead levels involved, is associated with a 
corresponding difference in average IQ scores. In the cost-benefit 
analysis performed for these standards, the Agency is essentially 
comparing the blood-lead distributions that would occur between two 
populations: one with the TSCA section 403 standards versus one without 
the 403 standards. Furthermore, the analysis relies on the empirical 
finding that a difference in average IQ scores between two populations, 
again no matter how small, is associated with a difference in average 
lifetime earnings. Note that it is not possible to say that for any 
pair of individuals that a difference in blood-lead will necessarily 
reflect a difference in IQ scores or lifetime earnings. The available 
research, however, does demonstrate that such differences do occur on 
the average for groups of individuals.
    Notwithstanding the fact that the risk assessment and benefit-cost 
analysis were constrained to address population average changes, it was 
recognized that there might be an interest in considering the 
contribution to those population average changes made by subgroups in 
the population whose particular blood-lead and IQ point improvements 
might be considered small. An analysis was therefore performed and 
presented in section 7.3.1 of the Economic Analysis to try to 
characterize the portion of the total benefits from IQ improvements 
that were contributed by that portion of the population having 
improvements of less than 1 IQ point. The computational considerations 
involved in doing that analysis were discussed in detail there. That 
special analysis showed that, at the proposed standards (window sill 
dust at 250 g/ft2; floor dust at 50 g/
ft2; soil at 2,000 ppm), the contribution of these small IQ 
point improvements in the population, contributed 30 percent of the 
value of the IQ point benefits under the IEUBK model and 90 percent of 
the IQ point benefits under the empirical model.
    The Agency, however, recognizes that the methodology used for this 
sensitivity analysis is preliminary in nature and should not be relied 
upon for decision-making purposes. More importantly, the Agency is not 
aware of any technical basis or rationale for not including the 
benefits associated with small IQ changes.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. As previously discussed, this proposed rule 
does not, in and of itself, mandate any action, or directly impose any 
costs. The Agency does, however, recognize that the existence of the 
hazard standards may influence the decisions or actions of owners of 
target housing, and has therefore considered the potential costs and 
benefits associated with the possible actions that an owner could or 
might take based on the hazard standard. The Agency also involved 
potentially affected entities, including representatives of small 
businesses (e.g., owners of multi-housing and rental properties), and 
State/Tribal and local governmental agencies, in an extensive 
``dialogue'' process, which is discussed in more detail in Unit II. of 
this preamble, as well as other mechanisms of communication.
    In addition, although other regulations implementing other sections 
of Title X will use or reference the hazard standards that are proposed 
in this document, the impacts of those regulations on small entities 
are evaluated in the context of those regulations. To date, EPA has 
promulgated regulations under sections 402, 404, 406, and 1018. For 
each of these regulations, EPA evaluated the potential impacts on small 
entities in compliance with the RFA.
    Information relating to this determination will be provided to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration upon 
request, and is included in the docket for this proposal. Any comments 
regarding the economic impacts that this proposed regulatory action may 
impose on small entities should be submitted to the Agency at the 
address listed above.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and Executive Order 12875

    Although the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) and Executive Order 12875, 
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 
1993), do not apply to this proposed rule, the Agency believes that its 
consideration of the

[[Page 30352]]

potential costs and benefits of those non-mandatory activities that 
could be potentially related to the establishment of the lead hazard 
standards, i.e., activities related to lead-based paint hazard 
interventions and risk assessments, as well as its discussions with 
State and Tribal governments, address these requirements. The UMRA 
requirements in sections 202 and 205 do not apply to this proposed 
rule, because this action does not contain any ``Federal mandates'' or 
impose any ``enforceable duty'' on State/Tribal, or local governments 
or on the private sector. The requirements in section 203 do not apply 
because this proposed rule does not contain any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In 
addition, since this is not a discretionary act containing an unfunded 
mandate, no consultation is required under the Executive Order.
    Nevertheless, the Agency recognizes that the existence of the 
hazard standards may influence the decisions or actions regarding the 
intervention activities undertaken by State/Tribal or local governments 
as potential owners of child-occupied facilities, even if those actions 
are not mandated by this or any other EPA regulation. The Agency 
therefore believes that it is important to consider the potential 
impacts of this proposed rule on State/Tribal or local governments. It 
is, of course, difficult to predict whether or what intervention 
activities might be undertaken by State/Tribal or local governments as 
a result of the establishment or existence of the proposed hazard 
standards, but the Agency does not believe that the analysis needs to 
differentiate between ownership in considering the potential costs 
related to the possible intervention activities. Therefore, since the 
Agency considered the potential costs and benefits associated with 
possible intervention activities in selecting the proposed hazard 
standards, the Agency has also considered the potential costs that 
might be experienced by State/Tribal or local governments. Intervention 
activities in child-occupied facilities, because a much larger number 
of children are involved, will naturally result in greater benefits, 
increasing the ratio between costs and benefits significantly.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed regulatory action does not contain any information 
collection requirements that require additional approval by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Specifically, States and Tribes with authorized 
programs under 40 CFR part 745, subpart L will still need to 
demonstrate their standards for identifying lead-based paint hazards 
and soil-lead level of concern, and clearance standards for dust, in 
the reports that they submit to EPA under 40 CFR 745.324(h). This 
reporting requirement is contained in the regulations implementing TSCA 
sections 402(a) and 404, for which the Information Collection Request 
(ICR) has already been approved by OMB under control number 2070-0155 
(EPA ICR No. 1715). As a part of the economic analysis, EPA also re-
examined this ICR and determined that the burden estimates provided in 
the ICR would not change as a result of the promulgation of the 
standards proposed. Because there are no new information collection 
requirements to consider, or any changes to the existing requirements 
that might impact the existing burden estimates, additional OMB review 
and approval under the PRA is not necessary.
    Under the PRA, ``burden'' means the total time, effort, or 
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information subject to OMB approval under 
the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 
OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial publication in 
the Federal Register, are maintained in a list at 40 CFR part 9.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to EPA at the 
address provided in the ``ADDRESSES'' section, with a copy to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Please remember to include the ICR number in 
any correspondence. The final rule will respond to any comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has considered 
environmental justice-related issues with regard to the potential 
impacts of this proposed action on the environmental and health 
conditions in low-income and minority communities. The Agency's 
analysis found that non-white households are more likely to live in 
housing with lead-based paint hazards, and their children are expected 
to realize greater reductions in blood-lead levels if these hazards are 
mitigated. As a result, non-white households are expected to bear more 
of the costs of responding to the section 403 standards but also 
receive more of the benefits. Lower- and upper-income households face 
roughly the same response costs and are expected to receive the same 
blood-lead reductions. Lower-income households would have to forego a 
larger share of their income to respond to the section 403 standards 
(Ref. 83).

F. Executive Order 13045

    This proposed rule is subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because OMB has determined that this is 
an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866 (see section A. of this unit), and the Agency has reason to 
believe that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this 
action may have a disproportionate affect on children. In accordance 
with section 5(501) of Executive Order 13045, the Agency has evaluated 
the environmental health or safety effects of lead-based paint on 
children in the selection of the hazard standards contained in this 
proposed rule. The results of this evaluation are contained in the 
``Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil'' 
(Ref. 1), which is summarized and discussed in Unit IV. of this 
preamble; a copy has been placed in the docket for this action. 
Futhermore, the proposed regulation would help to prevent lead 
poisoning

[[Page 30353]]

among young children by supporting the implementation of the national 
lead program. Because exposure to lead in paint, dust, and soil is 
mostly limited to children under the age of 6, young children are, in 
fact, the primary beneficiaries of this proposed rule, as well as the 
program.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed regulatory action does not involve any technical 
standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary 
consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) directs EPA to 
use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless 
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA invites public 
comment on this conclusion.

List of Subjects in Part 745

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Lead-based paint, 
Lead poisoning, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 26, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 745 be amended as 
follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2615, 2681-2692 and U.S.C. 
4852d.

    2. By adding new subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D--Lead-Based Paint Hazards
Sec.
745.61    Scope and applicability.
745.63    Definitions.
745.65    Lead-based paint hazards.
745.69    Determining whether lead-based paint hazards are present.

Subpart D--Lead-Based Paint Hazards


Sec. 745.61   Scope and applicability.

    (a) This subpart identifies lead-based paint hazards.
    (b) The standards for lead-based paint hazards apply to target 
housing and child-occupied facilities.
    (c) Nothing in this subpart requires any person to evaluate the 
property(ies) for the presence of lead-based paint hazards or to take 
any action to control these conditions if one or more of them is 
identified.


Sec. 745.63   Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this subpart.
    Arithmetic mean means the algebraic sum of data values divided by 
the number of data values (e.g., the sum of the concentration of lead 
in several soil samples divided by the number of samples).
    Certified risk assessor means an individual who has been trained by 
an accredited training program, as defined by Sec. 745.223, and 
certified by EPA pursuant to Sec. 745.226 or by an authorized State or 
Tribal program to conduct risk assessments. A certified risk assessor 
also samples for the presence of lead in dust and soil for the purposes 
of abatement clearance testing.
    Child-occupied facility means a building, or portion of a building, 
constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, 6 years 
of age or under, on at least two different days within any week (Sunday 
through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least 
3 hours and the combined weekly visit lasts at least 6 hours, and the 
combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 
facilities may include, but are not limited to, day-care centers, 
preschools, and kindergarten classrooms.
    Deteriorated paint means paint that is cracking, flaking, chipping, 
peeling, or otherwise separating from the substrate of a building 
component.
    Interior window sill means the portion of the horizontal window 
ledge that protrudes into the interior of the room.
    Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings that contain 
lead equal to or exceeding 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 
percent by weight.
    Lead-based paint hazard means hazardous lead-based paint, a dust-
lead hazard, or a soil-lead hazard as described in Sec. 745.65.
    Paint in poor condition means more than 10 square feet of 
deteriorated paint on exterior components with large surface areas; or 
more than 2 square feet of deteriorated paint on interior components 
with large surface areas (e.g., walls, ceilings, floors, doors); or 
more than 10 percent of the total surface area of the component is 
deteriorated on interior or exterior components with small surface 
areas (e.g., window sills, baseboards, soffits, trim).
    Risk assessment means an on-site investigation to determine the 
existence, nature, severity, and location of lead-based paint hazards, 
and the provision of a report by the individual or the firm conducting 
the risk assessment, explaining the results of the investigation and 
options for reducing lead-based paint hazards.
    Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except 
housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any one or 
more children age 6 years or under resides or is expected to reside in 
such housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-
bedroom dwelling.
    Weighted arithmetic mean means the arithmetic mean of sample 
results weighted by the number of subsamples in each sample. Its 
purpose is to give influence to a sample relative to the number of 
subsamples it contains. A single surface sample is comprised of a 
single subsample. A composite sample may contain from two to four 
subsamples. The weighted arithmetic mean is obtained by summing for all 
samples, the product of the sample's result multiplied by the number of 
subsamples in the sample, and dividing the sum by the total number of 
subsamples contained in all samples. For example, the weighted 
arithmetic mean of a single surface sample containing 60 g/
ft2, a composite sample (3 subsamples) containing 100 
g/ft2, and a composite sample (4 subsamples) 
containing 110 g/ft2 is 100 g/
ft2. This result is based on the equation 
[60+(3*100)+(4*110)]/8.
    Wipe sample means a sample collected by wiping a representative 
surface of known area with an acceptable wipe material (e.g., moist 
towelette).


Sec. 745.65   Lead-based paint hazards.

    (a) Hazardous lead-based paint. Hazardous lead-based paint is lead-
based paint in poor condition.
    (b) Dust-lead hazard. A dust-lead hazard is dust that contains lead 
equal to or exceeding 50 g/ft2 on uncarpeted floors 
or 250 g/ft2 on interior window sills based on wipe 
samples.
    (c) Soil-lead hazard. A soil-lead hazard is bare soil that contains 
total lead equal to or exceeding 2,000 parts per million.

[[Page 30354]]

Sec. 745.69   Determining whether lead-based paint hazards or a soil-
lead level of concern are present.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the following:
    (1) Determining whether hazardous lead-based paint is present.
    (2) Determining whether a dust-lead hazard is present on:
    (i) Uncarpeted floors.
    (ii) Interior window sills.
     (3) Determining whether a soil-lead hazard is present.
    (b) Work practice standards. Determinations of the presence of 
lead-based paint hazards or a soil-lead level of concern must be made 
by a certified risk assessor conducting a risk assessment according to 
the applicable work practice standards at Sec. 745.227(d) and (h).
    (c) Use of standards. (1) To determine whether a dust-lead hazard 
is present, a certified risk assessor must compare the weighted 
arithmetic means of uncarpeted floor dust samples and interior window 
sill samples to the applicable standards in Sec. 745.65.
    (2) To determine whether a soil-lead hazard is present, a certified 
risk assessor must compare the arithmetic mean of soil samples to the 
applicable standard in Sec. 745.65.
    3. In Sec. 745.223, by alphabetically adding the following 
definitions to read as follows:


Sec. 745.223   Definitions.

*      *      *      *      *
    Arithmetic mean means the algebraic sum of data values divided by 
the number of data values (e.g., the sum of the concentration of lead 
in several soil samples divided by the number of samples).
*      *      *      *      *
    Common area group means a group of common areas that are similar in 
design, construction, and function. Common area groups include, but are 
not limited to hallways, stairwells, and laundry rooms.
*      *      *      *      *
    Concentration means the relative content of a specific substance 
contained within a larger mass, such as the amount of lead (in 
micrograms per gram or parts per million by weight) in a sample of dust 
or soil.
*      *      *      *      *
    Dripline means the area within 3 feet surrounding the perimeter of 
a building.
*      *      *      *      *
    Interior window sill means the portion of the horizontal window 
ledge that protrudes into the interior of the room.
*      *      *      *      *
    Loading means the quantity of a specific substance present per unit 
of surface area, such as the amount of lead in micrograms contained in 
the dust collected from a certain surface area divided by the surface 
area in square feet or square meters.
*      *      *      *      *
    Mid-yard means an area of a residential yard approximately midway 
between the outermost edge of the dripline of a residential building 
and the nearest property boundary or between the outermost edges of the 
driplines of a residential building and another building on the same 
property.
*      *      *      *      *
    Residential building means a building containing one or more 
residential dwellings.
*      *      *      *      *
    Weighted arithmetic mean means the arithmetic mean of sample 
results weighted by the number of subsamples in each sample. Its 
purpose is to give influence to a sample relative to the number of 
subsamples it contains. A single surface sample is comprised of a 
single subsample. A composite sample may contain from two to four 
subsamples. The weighted arithmetic mean is obtained by summing for all 
samples, the product of the sample's result multiplied by the number of 
subsamples in the sample, and dividing the sum by the total number of 
subsamples contained in all samples. For example, the weighted 
arithmetic mean of a single surface sample containing 60 g/
ft2, a composite sample (3 subsamples) containing 100 
g/ft2, and a composite sample (4 subsamples) 
containing 110 g/ft2 is 100 g/
ft2. This result is based on the equation 
[60+(3*100)+(4*110)]/8.
    Window trough means, for a typical double-hung window, the portion 
of the exterior window sill between the interior window well (or stool) 
and the frame of the storm window. If there is no storm window, the 
window trough is the area that receives both the upper and lower window 
sashes when they are both lowered. The window trough is sometimes 
referred to inaccurately as the window ``well.''
    Wipe sample means a sample collected by wiping a representative 
surface of known area with an acceptable wipe material (e.g., moist 
towelette).
    4. In Sec. 745.227, by revising paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(5), (d)(6) 
introductory text, (d)(7), (d)(8)(i), (e)(7)(i), (e)(8)(v)(A), 
(e)(8)(v)(B), and (e)(8)(vii), by redesignating paragraphs (d)(11) as 
paragraph (d)(12) and paragraph (h) as paragraph (i), and by adding 
paragraphs (d)(11), (e)(8)(viii) and (h) to read as follows:


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

*    *    *    *    *
    (d)  *    *    *
    (4) Each surface with deteriorated paint, which is determined, 
using documented methodologies, to be in poor condition and to have a 
distinct painting history shall be tested for the presence of lead. 
Each interior window sill determined, using documented methodologies, 
to have a distinct painting history, shall also be tested for the 
presence of lead in paint.
    (5) In residential dwellings, dust samples (either composite or 
single-surface samples) from the interior window sill(s) and floor 
shall be collected in all living areas where one or more children, age 
6 and under, are most likely to come into contact with dust.
    (6) For multi-family dwellings and child-occupied facilities, the 
samples required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall be taken. In 
addition, interior window sill and floor dust samples (either composite 
or single-surface samples) shall be collected in the following 
locations:
  *    *    *    *    *
    (7) For child-occupied facilities, interior window sill and floor 
dust samples (either composite or single-surface samples) shall be 
collected in each room, hallway, or stairwell utilized by one or more 
children, age 6 and under, and in other common areas in the child-
occupied facility where the certified risk assessor determines one or 
more children, age 6 and under, are likely to come into contact with 
dust.
    (8)  *    *    *
    (i) Mid-yard areas where bare soil is present; and
*    *    *    *    *
    (11) The certified risk assessor shall determine whether lead-based 
paint hazards are present according to paragraph (h) of this section.
*    *    *    *    *
    (e)  *    *    *
    (7)  *    *    *
    (i) If the soil is removed: (A) The soil shall be replaced by soil 
that has a level of lead less than 400 ppm.
    (B) The soil that is removed shall not be used as top soil at 
another residential property or child-occupied facility.

[[Page 30355]]

*    *    *    *    *
    (8)  *    *    *
    (v)  *    *    *
    (A) After conducting an abatement with containment between abated 
and unabated areas, one dust sample shall be taken from one interior 
window sill and window trough (if available) and one dust sample shall 
be taken from the floors of no less than four rooms, hallways, or 
stairwells within the containment area. In addition, one dust sample 
shall be taken from the floor outside the containment area. If there 
are less than four rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the 
containment area, then all rooms, hallways, or stairwells shall be 
sampled.
    (B) After conducting an abatement with no containment, two dust 
samples shall be taken from no less than four rooms, hallways, or 
stairwells in the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility. One 
dust sample shall be taken from one interior window sill and window 
trough (if available) and one dust sample shall be taken from the floor 
of each room, hallway, or stairwell selected. If there are less than 
four rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the residential dwelling or 
child-occupied facility, then all rooms, hallways, or stairwells shall 
be sampled.
*      *      *      *      *
    (vii) The certified inspector or risk assessor shall compare the 
residual lead level (as determined by the laboratory analysis) from 
each single surface dust sample with applicable clearance levels for 
lead in dust on floors, interior window sills, and window troughs or 
from each composite dust sample with the applicable clearance levels 
for lead in dust on floors, interior window sills, and window troughs 
divided by the number of subsamples in the composite sample. If the 
residual lead level in a single surface dust sample equals or exceeds 
the applicable clearance level or if the residual lead level in a 
composite dust sample equals or exceeds the applicable clearance level 
divided by the number of subsamples in the composite sample, all the 
components represented by the failed sample shall be recleaned and 
retested.
    (viii) The clearance levels are 50 g/ft2 for 
uncarpeted floors, 250 g/ft2 for interior window 
sills, and 800 g/ft2 for window troughs.
*    *    *    *    *
    (h) Determinations. (1) Hazardous lead-based paint is present on:
    (i) All components that have paint in poor condition and that are 
determined to contain lead-based paint.
    (ii) All components that have paint in poor condition and that are 
similar to and have a similar painting history to a tested component 
that contains lead-based paint.
    (2) A dust-lead hazard is present on:
    (i) Uncarpeted floors and interior window sills when the weighted 
arithmetic mean lead loading for all single surface or composite 
samples of uncarpeted floors and interior window sills are equal to or 
greater than 50 g/ft2 for uncarpeted floors and 250 
g/ft2 for interior window sills;
    (ii) Uncarpeted floors or interior window sills in an unsampled 
residential dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling, if a dust-lead 
hazard is present on uncarpeted floors or interior window sills, 
respectively, in at least one sampled residential unit on the property.
    (iii) uncarpeted floors or interior window sills in an unsampled 
common area in a multi-family dwelling, if a dust-lead hazard is 
present on uncarpeted floors or interior window sills, respectively, in 
at least one sampled common area in the same common area group on the 
property.
    (3) A soil-lead hazard is present when the arithmetic mean lead 
concentration from a composite sample (or arithmetic mean of composite 
samples) from the dripline and a composite sample (or arithmetic mean 
of composite samples) from the mid-yard for each residential building 
on a property is equal to or greater than 2,000 parts per million.
    5. In Sec. 745.325, by revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iii), by 
redesignating (d)(2)(iv) and (d)(2)(v) as (d)(2)(v) and (d)(2)(vi), 
respectively, and by adding paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e), to read as 
follows:


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

*    *    *    *    *
    (d)  *  *  *
    (2)  *  *  *
    (iii) Risk assessments consist of at least:
    (A) An assessment, including a visual inspection, of the physical 
characteristics of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility;
    (B) Environmental sampling for lead in paint, dust, and soil;
    (C) Environmental sampling requirements for lead in paint, dust, 
and soil that allow for comparison to the lead-based paint hazard 
standards established or revised by the State or Indian Tribe pursuant 
to paragraph (e) of this section; and
    (D) A determination of the presence of lead-based paint hazards 
made by comparing the results of visual inspection and environmental 
sampling to the lead-based paint hazard standards established or 
revised by the State or Indian Tribe pursuant to paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (iv) The program elements required in Sec. 745.325(d)(2)(iii)(C) 
and (D) shall be adopted in accordance with the schedule for the 
demonstration required in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (v)  *  *  *
*    *    *    *    *
    (e) The State or Indian Tribe must demonstrate that it has lead-
based paint hazards standards, and clearance standards for dust, that 
are at least as protective as the standards in Sec. 745.227 as amended 
on [Insert date of promulgation of the final rule]. A State or Indian 
Tribe with such a section 402 program approved before [Insert date 2 
years following date of promulgation of the final rule] shall make this 
demonstration no later than the first report submitted pursuant to 
Sec. 745.324(h) after [Insert date 2 years following date of 
promulgation of the final rule]. A State or Indian Tribe with such a 
program submitted but not approved before [Insert date 2 years 
following date of promulgation of the final rule] may make this 
demonstration by amending its application or in its first report 
submitted pursuant to Sec. 745.324(h). A State or Indian Tribe 
submitting its program on or after [Insert date 2 years following date 
of promulgation of the final rule] shall make this demonstration in its 
application.

[FR Doc. 98-14736 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F