[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.__Weitz@hud.gov.
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
