[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 196 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54422-54426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Parts 35, 36, and 37

[Docket No. FR-3482-N-05]
RIN 2501-AB57


Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing 
Receiving Federal Assistance; Notice of Additional Information and 
Analysis on Determination of No Significant Economic Impact on 
Substantial Number of Small Entities

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary--Office of Lead Hazard Control, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of additional information and analysis on determination 
of no significant economic impact on substantial number of small 
entities.

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

SUMMARY: This notice pertains to a proposed rule published by HUD in 
the Federal Register on June 7, 1996 that would implement sections 1012 
and 1013 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 
1992. The June 7, 1996 rule advised that HUD had determined that the 
proposed regulatory requirements would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. HUD continues to 
believe that this determination was correct. The Department is 
publishing this notice to provide the public with additional details 
regarding the reasons for this determination. HUD requests written 
public comment on this analysis of the impact of the rule on small 
entities, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

DATES: Comment due date. Comments on this notice must be received on or 
before November 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments to the 
Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, room 10276, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20410-0500. Comments should refer to the above docket number and title. 
A copy of each comment submitted will be available for public 
inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the 
above address. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Weitz, Office of Lead Hazard 
Control, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Telephone: (202) 755-1785, ext. 106 
(this is not a toll-free number). E-Mail: Stevenson__P.__W[email protected]. 
Hearing or speech-impaired persons may access the above telephone 
number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Need for and Objectives of the June 7, 1996 Proposed Rule

    The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act of 1971, as amended, 
directs the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to 
establish procedures to eliminate to the extent practicable lead-based 
paint hazards in federally associated housing. HUD issued implementing 
regulations in 1976 and made department-wide revisions in 1986, 1987, 
and 1988. In 1992, Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint 
Hazard Reduction Act, which was Title X of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992 (Title X). Sections 1012 and 1013 of Title X 
amend the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act to require specific 
new procedures for lead-based paint notification, evaluation, and 
hazard reduction activities in housing receiving Federal assistance 
(section 1012) and federally owned housing at the time of sale (section 
1013).
    In enacting Title X, the Congress found that low-level lead 
poisoning is widespread among American children, with minority and low-
income communities disproportionately affected; that, at low levels, 
lead poisoning in children causes IQ deficiencies, reading and learning 
disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, 
and behavior problems; and that the health and development of children 
living in as many as 3.8 million homes is endangered by chipping or 
peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in 
their homes.
    Among the stated purposes of Title X are to implement, on a 
priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint 
hazards in the Nation's housing stock; to ensure that the existence of 
lead-based paint hazards is taken into account in the development of 
Government housing policies and in the sale, rental, and renovation of 
homes and apartments; and to reduce the threat of childhood lead 
poisoning in housing owned, assisted, or transferred by the Federal 
Government.
    On June 7, 1996 (61 FR 29170), HUD published a proposed rule that 
would implement the requirements of Title X. The proposed rule set 
forth new requirements for lead-based paint hazard notification, 
evaluation, and reduction for federally owned residential property and 
housing receiving Federal assistance.
    The proposed rule took into consideration the substantial 
advancement of lead-based paint remediation technologies and the 
improved understanding of the causes of childhood lead poisoning by 
scientific and medical communities. Perhaps the most important results 
of research on this subject during the last 10-12 years have been (1) 
the finding that lead in house dust is the most common pathway of 
childhood lead exposure and (2) the measurement of the statistical 
relationship between levels of lead in house dust and lead in the blood 
of young children. The June 7, 1996 rule proposed to update the 
existing HUD regulations to reflect this knowledge, giving importance 
to procedures that identify and remove dust-lead hazards as well as 
chipping, peeling or flaking lead-based paint.
    The June 7, 1996 rule also proposed also to offer a consolidated, 
uniform approach to addressing lead-based paint hazards. Currently, 
each individual HUD program has a separate set of lead-based paint 
requirements incorporated into its program regulations. The

[[Page 54423]]

proposed regulation would consolidate the HUD lead-based paint 
regulations and would group requirements by type of housing assistance, 
rather than by individual program. For example, the rule contains 
sections that address single family mortgage insurance, multifamily 
mortgage insurance, project-based assistance, rehabilitation 
assistance, public housing, and tenant-based assistance.
    Moreover, the June 7, 1996 rule proposed to use a clear and 
consistent set of terms to specify notification, evaluation, and hazard 
reduction requirements. Organizing the requirements by the type of 
housing assistance and using new terminology will avoid subjecting 
properties receiving assistance from more than one program to 
inconsistent or redundant HUD lead-based paint requirements. These 
changes will also ease the burden on HUD clients in locating and 
understanding the applicable requirements and help ensure that lead 
hazards are identified and safely reduced.

II. Public Involvement in Rulemaking

    Because of the magnitude of the changes required in HUD's lead-
based paint regulations and the potential impact of these changes, 
public involvement was important to the proposed rulemaking process 
(and remains important in the final rule stages). The three main 
avenues for public involvement in the development of the proposed rule 
were the development of the 1995 HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and 
Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (HUD Guidelines), the 
recommendations from the Task Force on Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction and Financing (Task Force), and three meetings with HUD 
clients to seek comment on the implementation of Title X. In addition 
to these three methods of public involvement, there was, of course, the 
opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule itself.
    The HUD Guidelines were mandated by section 1017 of Title X and are 
intended to help property owners, government agencies and private 
contractors sharply reduce children's exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards, without adding unnecessarily to the cost of housing. They were 
developed by housing, public health and environmental professionals 
with broad experience in lead-based paint hazard identification and 
control. Over 50 individuals from outside the Government have 
participated in the writing and review of the Guidelines, which form 
the basis for many of the lead-based paint hazard evaluation and 
reduction methods described in the rule.
    The Task Force on Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction and Financing 
(Task Force) was mandated by section 1015 of Title X to address 
sensitive issues related to lead-based paint hazards in private 
housing, including standards of hazard evaluation and control, 
financing, and liability and insurance for rental property owners and 
hazard control contractors. The Task Force submitted its 
recommendations, Putting the Pieces Together: Controlling Lead Hazards 
in the Nation's Housing, to then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner in 
July 1995. Many if not most of the Task Force members represented small 
entities. Members of the Task Force included representatives from 
Federal agencies, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the 
Federal National Mortgage Association, the building and construction 
industry, landlords, tenants, primary lending institutions, private 
mortgage insurers, single family and multifamily real estate interests, 
nonprofit housing developers, property liability insurers, public 
housing agencies, low-income housing advocacy organizations, lead-
poisoning prevention advocates and community-based organizations 
serving communities at high-risk for childhood lead poisoning. The Task 
Force report was an important contribution to the development of the 
proposed rule.
    Prior to the development of the proposed rule, the Department held 
three meetings with HUD clients on the potential implications of Title 
X on HUD programs. The meetings involved HUD constituents, grantees, 
and field staff of the Offices of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), 
Community Planning and Development (CPD), and Housing, as well as 
advocacy and tenant representatives. Participants shared their thoughts 
on several Title X issues including: Risk assessment and interim 
controls, hazard reduction activities during the course of 
rehabilitation, occupant notice of hazard evaluation and reduction 
activities, and responding to children with elevated blood-lead levels. 
Additional written comments were accepted from participants after the 
meetings.
    Under the authority of Title X, HUD published the June 7, 1996 
proposed rule in the Federal Register, requesting comments on or before 
September 5, 1996. Of the 93 comments, more than a third came from 
agencies of State or local government: community development agencies, 
public housing authorities, planners, mayors, health departments and 
other organizations directly or indirectly involved with federally 
assisted programs involving housing. Comments were also received from 
groups representing the housing and community development industry, 
hospitals, physicians or health agencies, lead poisoning prevention 
advocacy groups, broadly based environmental groups, and law firms or 
legal aid organizations. Housing developers, consultants or experts on 
some aspect of the rule, standards-setting entities, and a bank, a 
secondary mortgage market organization, a coalition of tenant action 
groups, a child welfare group, and an advocacy group representing 
industries that manufacture or use lead also submitted comments. Few 
commenters spoke explicitly to the concerns of small entities.

III. Proposed Rule Requirements

    The June 7, 1996 rule proposed to establish the following types of 
lead-based paint requirements: (1) Distribution of a lead hazard 
information pamphlet, (2) notice to occupants of evaluation and hazard 
reduction activities, (3) evaluation of lead-based paint hazards, (4) 
reduction of lead-based paint hazards, (5) ongoing monitoring and 
reevaluation, and (6) response to a child with an elevated blood lead 
level.
    Lead hazard information pamphlet. The June 7, 1996 rule proposed to 
require the distribution of the EPA brochure entitled, ``Protect Your 
Family From Lead in Your Home'' to all existing tenants or owner-
occupants who have not already received it in compliance with the lead-
based paint disclosure rule (24 CFR part 35, subpart H). Since the 
disclosure rule was effective in the fall of 1996, HUD expects that 
most tenants will have already received the pamphlet when the final 
rule is issued and becomes effective late in 1999 (see discussion of 
effective date below).
    Resident Notice. The June 7, 1996 rule, in accordance with Title X, 
proposed to require that occupants of rental housing receiving Federal 
assistance be provided written notice of risk assessments, paint 
inspections, or hazard reduction activities required by this regulation 
and undertaken at the property. This was proposed as a new requirement 
in HUD regulations. The required notice following risk assessment or 
inspection provides information to occupants about the nature, scope, 
and results of the evaluation and a name and phone number to contact 
for more information or for access to the actual evaluation

[[Page 54424]]

reports. Notices to tenants regarding hazard reduction activities must 
contain information about the treatments performed and the location of 
any remaining lead-based paint. HUD anticipates that owners and others 
affected by the new lead-based paint hazard control regulations may 
require guidance on how to prepare a summary of hazard evaluation and 
reduction activities. For this reason, HUD is considering providing a 
``model summary'' in the final rule that will describe the information 
that should be made available to tenants when lead-based paint 
activities are conducted.
    Evaluation. The June 7, 1996 rule, in accordance with Title X, 
proposed to establish two main types of evaluation procedures: A lead-
based paint inspection, which is a surface-by-surface investigation to 
determine the presence of lead-based paint on painted surfaces of a 
dwelling, typically through the use of a portable X-ray fluorescence 
(XRF) analyzer; and a risk assessment, which is an on-site 
investigation to determine and report the existence, nature, severity, 
and location of lead-based paint hazards, which, in accordance with 
Title X, include dust-lead and soil-lead hazards as well as 
deteriorated lead-based paint, as well as lead-based paint on friction, 
impact and chewable surfaces. A risk assessment includes limited dust 
wipe sampling or other environmental sampling techniques, 
identification of hazard reduction options, and a report explaining the 
results of the investigation. In some housing programs, the proposed 
rule calls for a visual assessment instead of a lead-based paint 
inspection or risk assessment. A visual assessment does not require 
environmental sampling but requires the visual examination of interior 
and exterior painted surfaces for signs of deterioration. The June 7, 
1996 rule proposed to require different types of evaluation for 
different types of housing assistance programs and different ages of 
housing. The differences in the requirements largely reflect the extent 
of Federal involvement in the property or the availability of funding.
    Existing HUD lead-based paint regulations require a visual 
inspection for defective paint surfaces and, in some cases, testing of 
and abatement of any lead-based paint on chewable paint surfaces. These 
methods are similar in kind to the visual assessment and paint testing 
requirements under the proposed rule.
    In order to ensure that evaluation activities are properly 
conducted, the June 7, 1996 rule proposed to require risk assessors and 
paint inspectors to be trained and certified professionals in 
accordance with EPA requirements.
    Hazard reduction activities. Three types of hazard reduction 
activities were discussed in the June 7, 1996 proposed rule: Abatement, 
which is a set of measures designed to permanently eliminate lead-based 
paint or lead-based paint hazards through removal, permanent enclosure 
or encapsulation, replacement of components, or removal or covering of 
lead-contaminated soil; interim controls, which are designed to reduce 
temporarily human exposure to lead-based paint hazards through repairs, 
maintenance, painting, temporary containment, specialized cleaning, and 
ongoing monitoring; and paint repair, which is removal of deteriorated 
paint and repainting. Specialized cleanup is required after all these 
activities, and clearance dust testing is required after abatement and 
interim controls.
    As with the requirements for evaluation, the June 7, 1996 rule 
proposed to require different types of hazard reduction activities for 
different types of housing assistance programs and different periods of 
construction. In the case of public housing, abatement of lead-based 
paint and lead-based paint hazards is required during the course of 
modernization under the current regulation. Under the June 7, 1996 
proposed rule, the public housing requirements would remain essentially 
the same, with the additional requirement of interim controls to reduce 
identified lead-based hazards before scheduled abatement can occur.
    Ongoing maintenance and reevaluation. If temporary hazard reduction 
measures are used and there is a continuing financial relationship 
between HUD and the residential property, the June 7, 1996 rule 
proposed generally to require that owners conduct an annual check to 
identify any new deteriorated paint and to ensure that prior hazard 
reduction treatments are still intact. If there is new deteriorated 
paint, it is to be repaired; if old treatments are failing, they are to 
be fixed. For some housing programs, the June 7, 1996 rule proposed to 
require that a certified risk assessor conduct a reevaluation of the 
property at specified intervals to identify any reaccumulation of lead-
contaminated dust.
    Response to a child with an elevated blood lead level. In some HUD 
programs, existing regulations use the presence of a child under age 
seven with an elevated blood lead level (EBL) as a trigger to initiate 
testing for and abatement of lead-based paint on chewable surfaces. The 
June 7, 1996 rule proposed to change the cutoff age from seven to six, 
to conform to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). The rule also proposed to change the response 
requirement to a risk assessment and interim controls of any identified 
lead-based paint hazards, and to change the definition of an elevated 
blood lead level for the purposes of this rule from equal to or 
exceeding 25 micrograms per deciliter (g/dL) to 20 g/
dL for a single venous test or of 15-19 g/dL in two 
consecutive venous tests taken 3 to 4 months apart. This definitional 
change was made in consultation with CDC.

IV. Impact on Small Entities

    The entities that would be most affected by the requirements 
proposed in the June 7, 1996 rule are owners of housing and State and 
local housing and community development agencies and tribally 
designated housing entities that administer some HUD housing programs. 
Also affected would be the firms that perform the specialized lead-
based paint activities called for by Title X, such as lead-based paint 
inspections, risk assessments, and abatement supervision. The analysis 
that follows focuses primarily on private owners, because they would be 
most directly affected by the cost of compliance and may not always be 
able to obtain adjustments of subsidy levels to amortize such costs. 
Contractors certified to perform lead-based paint activities would 
experience increased demand, especially for limited paint inspections, 
risk assessments, clearance examinations, and supervision of interim 
controls.
    HUD estimates that approximately one million dwelling units owned 
by private entities or local, State or tribal housing agencies would be 
affected by the proposed rule during the first year after it is 
effective. During later years, additional units would be added to the 
coverage as phase-in provisions become effective and new properties are 
brought into the stock of HUD-associated housing. After four years, the 
number of affected units is expected to total approximately 1.7 
million. This analysis does not include units owned by Federal 
agencies. Estimates are drawn from the Regulatory Impact Analysis of 
the proposed rule and are based on program data and the American 
Housing Survey.
    The Department estimates that approximately three-fourths of the 
affected dwelling units would be owned by entities considered to be 
small, using the Small Business Administration definition of less than 
$5 million in total revenues per year. However, because

[[Page 54425]]

there is a very large number of affected entities owning only a small 
number of dwelling units, over 96 percent of the affected ownership 
entities would be considered small. HUD estimates that there would be 
approximately 120,000 ownership entities affected by the proposed rule 
four years after the effective date, of which about 116,000 would be 
considered small entities. Estimates of the average rental revenue per 
unit and per property are based on a study for HUD of HUD-insured 
multifamily rental housing by Abt Associates, Inc., program data, and 
the American Housing Survey.
    HUD estimates that the average cost of complying with the proposed 
rule during the first year in which a dwelling unit becomes subject to 
the rule would vary from 1 to 6 percent of rental revenue, depending on 
the program, with an overall weighted average of about 5 percent. If 
one excludes public housing from this analysis, the overall average for 
private-sector owners is about 4.5 percent. Estimates of the average 
cost of compliance are drawn from the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
    This estimated average cost as a percentage of rental revenue may 
be somewhat misleading, however, unless one takes into account several 
considerations. First, many affected entities would have dwelling units 
that would not be subject to the proposed rule. No units built after 
1977 are subject to the rule. Units with zero bedrooms (e.g., 
efficiencies, studios, and single-room occupancy units) are exempt. 
Dwelling units are also exempt if they have already been inspected and 
found to have no lead paint, or if all lead-based paint has been 
removed; these conditions will pertain to many public housing 
developments. Second, in the case of units with tenant-based rental 
assistance, the rule applies only to units occupied by families with 
children of less than six years of age. Finally, it should be noted 
that if a unit has no deteriorated paint or no lead-based paint hazards 
(depending on the housing program), no hazard reduction is required. 
Owners can minimize the cost effect of the rule through good 
maintenance of paint surfaces and careful cleanup at turnover. For all 
of these reasons, the total annual rental revenue for affected small 
entities may substantially exceed the total annual rental revenue 
associated with just those units subject to the rule.
    It is also important to note that average regulatory costs per unit 
include activities such as paint repair and, in some cases, window 
replacement, which may be substantially offset by associated market 
benefits (such as the increased value of the property). HUD estimates 
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis that subtracting these market 
benefits from regulatory costs would reduce the net cost by 20 percent.
    The estimated compliance cost is a combination of a one-time, 
first-year cost plus much lower ongoing costs. After the initial effort 
to evaluate and control hazards, the owner need only engage in ongoing 
lead-based paint maintenance activities that merely require that paint 
surfaces be kept in an intact condition, using safe work practices to 
assure that repainting does not contaminate the unit or cause lead 
exposure to the occupants. The Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
proposed rule estimated that health benefits associated with paint 
repair and dust hazard removal will endure for at least four years. 
More recent data from the HUD evaluation of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Control Grant Program indicate that the duration of benefits may be at 
least five years. If the one-time regulatory costs of the HUD rule are 
closely associated with a maintenance cycle, then it may be appropriate 
to estimate costs as a percentage of revenue over five years. In this 
case, the annual percentage impact associated with the rule would be 
reduced by 80 percent, or to an overall average of less than one 
percent for affected units.

V. Description of Alternatives and Minimization of Economic Impact

    The specificity of the statute left HUD with no alternative to 
issuing an implementing regulation. However, in developing the June 7, 
1996 proposed rule, HUD considered several alternative policies related 
to minimizing the burden of the rule on grantees, property owners and 
other parties responsible for complying with its requirements. Other 
alternatives were suggested by commenters on the proposed rule. In many 
cases, the public comments on the proposed rule articulated the issues 
discussed within the Department and at meetings with interested 
parties.
    Effective date. One consideration pertained to the effective date 
of the rule when issued as a final rule. On the one hand, an early 
effective date for the final rule (such as 30 or 60 days after 
publication) seemed appropriate because the health of young children 
was at stake and the rule was delayed relative to the statutory 
requirement. On the other hand, HUD was aware that property owners, 
State and local agencies and other responsible parties needed time to 
prepare for compliance. Therefore, HUD proposed that the final rule not 
be effective until one year after publication. Also, commenters on the 
June 7, 1996 proposed rule urged HUD to make it clear that projects for 
which financing had been committed prior to the effective date of the 
final rule should not have to be redesigned or refinanced in midstream. 
In addition to the phase-in period of one year, the June 7, 1996 rule, 
in accordance with the statute, proposed to provide a more extended 
phase-in period for housing receiving project-based assistance that was 
constructed after 1960. For some housing, this phase-in would last for 
9 years after publication of the final rule.
    Stringency of requirements in relation to amount of Federal 
assistance and nature of program. The Department recognized that the 
statute and the legislative history indicated a desire on the part of 
Congress to make the stringency of requirements reasonable in relation 
to the amount of Federal assistance, the type and size of property, and 
the nature of the program. In developing the June 7, 1996 proposed 
rule, HUD considered various ways to achieve this goal and concluded 
with three important policies: (1) Multifamily properties receiving no 
more than $5,000 per unit per year in project-based assistance and all 
single family properties receiving project-based assistance were to 
have less stringent requirements than multifamily properties receiving 
more than $5,000; (2) housing receiving no more than $5,000 per unit in 
Federal rehabilitation assistance were to have much less stringent 
requirements than those receiving more than $5,000; and (3) the 
requirements for housing occupied by families with tenant-based rental 
assistance would apply only to units occupied by families with children 
of less than 6 years of age. By proposing to apply the rule narrowly to 
tenant-based rental assistance programs, HUD has mitigated some of the 
cost and burden on small businesses, while still realizing significant 
benefits by targeting units that house families with young children.
    De minimis area of deteriorated paint. In an attempt to make the 
requirements of the rule as cost-effective as possible, the Department 
proposed a certain area of deteriorated paint that had to be present 
before treatment was required under the rule. This ``de minimis'' was 
drawn from the HUD Guidelines, where it was established as a way to 
focus resources on the highest priority hazards while maintaining 
effectiveness in hazard reduction. The de minimis areas were as 
follows: More than 10 square feet on an exterior wall; more than two 
square feet on a component with a large surface area other than an

[[Page 54426]]

exterior wall (such as interior walls, ceilings, floors and doors); or 
more than 10 percent of the total surface area on an interior or 
exterior component with a small surface area including, but not limited 
to window sills, baseboards, and trim. Comments on this proposal were 
mixed. Some commenters found it difficult to understand and put in 
practice, indicating that people would spend too much time measuring 
the exact areas of deteriorated paint instead of focusing on making 
housing lead safe. Others welcomed the proposal as a reasonable way to 
target hazard reduction resources. Data on the frequency with which 
deteriorated paint occurs in housing at levels above the de minimis are 
limited, making it difficult to confidently estimate its cost effect.
    Qualifications. Another subject of concern to HUD was the 
qualifications of individuals performing the hazard evaluation and 
reduction activities required by the rule. The proposed rule would 
require that lead-based paint inspections, risk assessments, clearances 
and abatements be performed by people certified in accordance with EPA 
regulations and that workers conducting interim controls be supervised 
by a certified abatement supervisor. Recognizing, however, that 
certified individuals may not be readily available in some parts of the 
country, HUD provided in the proposed rule that the Secretary could 
establish temporary qualifications requirements that would help to meet 
scarcities. Also, the proposed rule would allow dust and soil testing 
by persons employed by local housing agencies that are trained but not 
certified. Two commenters felt that it would be a mistake to allow 
uncertified individuals take dust and soil tests, indicating that this 
appeared to be an avoidance of the certification law established by EPA 
regulations. Some commenters felt that it was unnecessary to require 
that interim controls workers be supervised by a certified abatement 
supervisor, suggesting that such workers could simply be trained in 
safe work practices.
    Prescriptiveness. Another important topic is the prescriptiveness 
of the methods and standards described in the June 7, 1996 proposed 
rule. Several commenters on the proposed rule were concerned that the 
proposed requirements were too detailed with regard to technical 
methods and standards and that there was the potential for rigidity in 
the rule that would inhibit adoption of technological improvements. 
Others urged greater deference to State, tribal or local regulations. 
There are several areas where HUD could reduce prescriptiveness, 
especially for lead-based paint inspections, risk assessments and 
reevaluations.
    Options to provide greater flexibility. In a similar vein, several 
commenters urged that HUD allow greater flexibility in ways to meet the 
goals of the rule. In particular, it was suggested that options be 
provided, such as the standard treatments recommended by the Task Force 
on Lead-Based Hazard Reduction and Financing as an option to conducting 
a risk assessment and interim controls. Such options would allow owners 
to select the procedure that is most cost-effective for them to achieve 
the goal of lead-based paint hazard control.
    Avoidance of duplication. The June 7, 1996 proposed rule was 
written with careful consideration of existing regulations developed by 
other Federal agencies, States, Indian tribes and localities. To 
minimize duplication and avoid confusion, HUD has explicitly stated 
that this rulemaking does not preclude States, Indian tribes or 
localities from conducting a more protective procedure than the minimum 
requirements set out in the proposed rule. Similarly, if more than one 
requirement covers a condition or activity, the most protective method 
shall apply. HUD has worked and continues to work closely with the EPA 
and CDC to ensure that regulations from two or more Federal agencies 
are consistent and not duplicative. Wherever possible, HUD has 
referenced relevant requirements established by EPA.

VI. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, HUD continues to believe that the 
proposed regulatory requirements described in the June 7, 1996 rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. HUD welcomes written comments on this analysis, 
especially comments addressing issues that may impact small entities 
and are not addressed in this notice. Comments must be identified as 
responses to this analysis and must be filed by the deadline for 
comments. The Director of HUD's Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization has sent a copy of this analysis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Dated: October 4, 1998.
David E. Jacobs,
Director, Office of Lead Hazard Control.
[FR Doc. 98-27274 Filed 10-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P