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

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