Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations using products and methods known to be reliable and effective Ref. 21. In the 2018 proposal for the 2019 DLHS
Rule Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of LeadBased Paint, 83 CFR 30889, July 2, 2018, EPA acknowledged that if the DLHS were set too low, the effectiveness of the LBP Activities program may be harmed if the abatement projects became overly expensive and time consuming due to issues of achievability Ref. 23. That same concern for achievability applies to EPAs decision on which DLCL to set in this rulemaking.
EPA received several comments during the public comment period suggesting that EPA promulgate DLCL
lower than the proposed levels at 10 mg/
ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills, while a subset of commenters specifically requested lowering the DLCL to 5 mg/ft2 for floors and/or to 40
mg/ft2 for window sills. A few commenters also noted that lower levels for DLCL have been shown to be feasible by the survey of lead hazard control grantees conducted by HUDs Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes OLHCHH also known as the HUD Clearance Survey Ref. 24.
As noted in the final 2019 DLHS Rule and the DLCL proposal, according to the HUD Clearance Survey reduction in the federal clearance standard for floors from 40 mg/ft2 to 10 mg/ft2, a reduction in the federal clearance standard for windowsills from 250 mg/ft2 to 100 mg/
ft2 . . . are all technically feasible using the methods currently employed by OLHCHH LHC grantees to prepare for clearance even though, at the time the survey took place, the levels that projects had to be cleared to were the original DLCL of 40 mg/ft2 and 250 mg/
ft2, respectively Ref. 24. Additionally, according to public comments, a state department of health and a nongovernmental organization believe that most NLLAP-recognized laboratories or those within their state are capable of testing the clearance levels as proposed.
Therefore, the final DLCL of 10 mg/ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ft2 on window sills are shown to be achievable using available products and methods that are effective and reliable in permanently eliminating LBP hazards. To the extent commenters argue that lower options, particularly for sills, are also achievable, such an argument does not necessitate selecting the lower options because the primary design of the DLCL is to demonstrate permanent elimination of the dust-lead hazards, which EPA finds is achieved by clearance levels of 10 mg/
ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills. For further information on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jan 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

HUD Clearance Survey, see the preamble to the 2019 DLHS Rule Ref.
3.
In addition to the specific criteria of reliability, effectiveness, and safety, the 2001 LBP Hazards rulemaking considered the DLCL in the broader context of Title X, and selected DLCL
that are compatible with a workable framework for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and reduction Ref. 21. To this end, EPA chose DLCL that were consistent with the DLHS in part to ensure they were as easy as possible to understand and implement Ref. 21.
EPA maintains the concern for consistency between the DLCL and DLHS for this rulemaking. During the public comment period several commenters expressed concern over the discrepancy between the 2019 DLHS
and the 2001 DLCL Ref. 22. The commenters explained that this inconsistency in the levels created confusion and leads to ethical concerns of clearing a home with post-abatement levels higher than the 2019 revised DLHS. A few commenters urged EPA to quickly finalize as proposed to, in part, fix the mismatch between the DLHS and the DLCL. Compounding the potential for such confusion is the fact that, as indicated in the 2019 DLHS Rule and described in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble, HUD cross-references EPAs DLHS for clearance work practices under HUDs LSHR. This means that if EPA chose a different DLCL than the DLHS, a segment of the regulated community would have had two sets of clearance levels to consider.
The selected DLCL of 10 mg/ft2 on floors and 100 mg/ft2 on window sills will mitigate this confusion within the regulated community.
As stated previously in this preamble, EPA wanted to act as expeditiously as possible to update the DLCL in recognition of the updated DLHS for floors and window sills. EPA believes it has reasonably focused this rulemaking to revise the DLCL so that attaining these levels demonstrates elimination of dust-lead hazards under the revised 2019 standards. When finalizing DLCL
of 10 mg/ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills, as discussed above, the EPA considered the achievability of these levels, how the lower dust-lead loadings can be reliably detected by laboratories, the effectiveness of these levels, and consistency with the revised 2019 standards and across the Federal Government. For further information on the public comments received and a more comprehensive version of EPAs response to comments related to this final action can be found in the
PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

989

Response to Comments document Ref.
22.
B. Technical Analysis The Technical Support Document that accompanies this final rule evaluated the 2001 DLCL, the background dustlead level, and the five DLCL options 15 mg/ft2 for floors and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills; and 10 mg/ft2 for floors, and 40 mg/ft2, 60 mg/ft2, 80 mg/ft2 and 100 mg/ft2 for window sills with values between background lowest and the 2001 DLCL highest. The methods for estimating exposure and health impacts utilized for the 2019 DLHS rulemaking are reflected in the Technical Support Document for this rule to analyze the DLCL options. The various components of the model and input parameters used in the Technical Support Document for the DLHS and this rulemaking have been the subject of multiple Science Advisory Board Reviews, workshops and publications in the peer review literature Ref. 12, 26. The analysis outlined in the 2019 DLHS Rule was used in that rulemaking to identify conditions that would result in adverse health effects. Where the DLHS are used to identify conditions that would result in adverse health effects, the DLCL must demonstrate that those conditions identified by the DLHS have been eliminated. Therefore, the health impact analysis for the DLCL is less central to the decision-making for this rule than it was to the 2019 DLHS Rule. Regardless, EPA must understand the impact on public health when selecting the DLCL
in order to inform the Economic Analysis.
The analyses that EPA developed and presented in both the Technical Support Document for the 2019 DLHS Rule and the Technical Support Document accompanying this final rule, were specifically designed to model potential health effects that might accrue to the subpopulation, i.e., children living in pre-1940 and pre-1978 housing. EPA
notes that its different program offices estimate exposures for different populations, different media, and under different statutory requirements and thus different models or parameters may be a better fit for their purpose. As such, the approach and modeling parameters chosen for this rulemaking should not necessarily be construed as appropriate for or consistent with the goals of other EPA programs Ref. 12.
In its evaluation, EPA estimated blood lead levels and IQ changes as a proxy for changes in cognitive function in children, six and under, exposed longterm to these analyzed dust-lead loading levels. As also reflected in the 2019
DLHS Rule, EPA generated two different
E:FRFM07JAR1.SGM

07JAR1