[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24848-24862]
[DOCID:fr06my10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173; FRL-8823-6]
RIN 2070-AJ56

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and
Commercial Buildings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice of the Agency's intention to
regulate the renovation, repair, and painting of public and commercial
buildings under section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). This notice announces the commencement of proceedings to
propose lead-safe work practices and other requirements for renovations
on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings and to determine
whether lead-based paint hazards are created by interior renovation,
repair, and painting projects in public and commercial buildings. For
those renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings
that create lead-based paint hazards, EPA will propose regulations to
address these hazards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC;
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2010-0173. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Hans Scheifele, National Program
Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI--Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This document is directed to the public in general. However, this
document may be of particular interest to the following entities:
     Building construction (North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code 236), e.g., commercial building
construction, industrial building construction, commercial and
institutional building construction, building finishing contractors,
drywall and insulation contractors, painting and wall covering
contractors, finish carpentry contractors, other building finishing
contractors.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g.,
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors,
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of non-
residential buildings and dwellings, non-residential property managers.
     Facilities support services (NAICS code 561210).
     Other general government support (NAICS code 921) e.g.,
general services departments, government, public property management
services, government.

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others
in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. EPA's Lead-Bhased Paint Programs

    In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was
widespread among American children, affecting, at that time, as many as
3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of household dust
containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the
most common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health
and development of children living in as many as 3,800,000 American
homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead paint, or excessive
amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further
determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was
insufficient and enacted Title X of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also known as the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992) (``the Act''
or ``Title X''). Title X established a national goal of eliminating
lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible and
provided a leadership role for the Federal government in building the
infrastructure necessary to achieve this goal.
    Subsequently, President Clinton created the President's Task Force
on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Co-chaired
by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
and the Administrator of EPA, the Task Force consisted of
representatives from 16 Federal departments and agencies. The Task
Force set a Federal goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the
year 2010 (Ref. 1). In October 2001, President Bush extended the work
of the Task Force for an additional 18 months beyond its original
charter. Reducing lead poisoning in children was the Task Force's top
priority. Although more work remains to be done, significant progress
has been made towards reducing lead poisoning in children. The
estimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above 10
micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) declined from 4.4% between 1991 and
1994 to 1.4% between 1999 and 2004 (Ref. 25). More information on
Federal efforts to address lead poisoning, including the
responsibilities of EPA and other Federal Agencies under Title X, can
be found in Units III.A. and III.B. of the preamble to the 2006
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule (2006 Proposal)
(Ref. 3).
    The Act added a new title to TSCA entitled ``Title IV-Lead Exposure
Reduction.'' Most of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based
paint hazards can be found in this title, with section 402 of TSCA
being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out these
responsibilities. TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate
regulations covering lead-based paint activities to ensure that persons
performing these activities are properly trained, that training
programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these
activities are certified. These regulations must contain standards for
performing lead-based paint activities, taking into account
reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, EPA
promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern
lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments,
and abatements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (also
referred to as the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations) (Ref. 4).
``Target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing
constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to
reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. The Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations created a subset of public and commercial
buildings called child-occupied facilities, and defined them in terms
of the amount of time a young child might spend within them. These
regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain an
accreditation program for training providers and training and
certification requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk
assessors, project designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement
workers. Work practice standards for lead-based paint activities are
included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for
interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to apply for and
receive authorization to administer their own lead-based paint
activities programs.
    On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations were
amended to include a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA
accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA certification
(Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section
402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and
enforcing the lead-based paint activities requirements in unauthorized
States. The most recent amendment to the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations occurred on April 8, 2004, when notification requirements
were added to help EPA monitor compliance with the training and
certification provisions and

the abatement work practice standards (Ref. 6).
    Another of EPA's responsibilities under Title X is to require that
purchasers and tenants of target housing and occupants of target
housing undergoing renovation are provided information on lead-based
paint and lead-based paint hazards. As directed by TSCA section 406(a),
the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and EPA, in consultation with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly developed a
lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead
in Your Home (PYF) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was designed to be
distributed as part of the disclosure requirements of section 1018 of
Title X and TSCA section 406(b), to provide home purchasers, renters,
owners, and occupants with the information necessary to allow them to
make informed choices when selecting housing to buy or rent, or
deciding on home renovation projects. The pamphlet contains information
on the health effects of lead, how exposure can occur, and steps that
can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure during various
activities in the home.
    Pursuant to the authority provided in section 1018 of Title X, on
March 6, 1996, HUD and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiring
persons who are selling or leasing target housing to provide the PYF
pamphlet and information on known lead-based paint and lead-based paint
hazards in the housing to purchasers and renters (Ref. 8). These joint
regulations, codified at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part
745, subpart F, describe in detail the information that must be
provided before the contract or lease is signed and require that
sellers, landlords, and agents document compliance with the disclosure
requirements in the contract to sell or lease the property. Title X
does not provide for these requirements to be administered by States or
Tribes in lieu of the Federal regulations. Therefore, HUD and EPA are
responsible for administering and enforcing these disclosure
obligations.
    TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to promulgate regulations requiring
persons who perform renovations for compensation in target housing to
provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants of
the home being renovated. These regulations, promulgated on June 1,
1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (Ref. 9). The term
``renovation'' is not defined in the statute, but the regulation, at 40
CFR 745.83, defines a ``renovation'' as the modification of any
existing structure, or portion of a structure, that results in the
disturbance of painted surfaces. The regulations specifically exclude
lead-based paint abatement projects as well as small projects that
disturb 2 square feet or less of painted surface per component,
emergency projects, and renovations affecting components that have been
found to be free of lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the
regulations, by a certified inspector or risk assessor. These
regulations require the renovation firm to document compliance with the
requirement to provide the owner and the occupant with the PYF
pamphlet. TSCA section 404 also allows States to apply for, and receive
authorization to administer, the TSCA section 406(b) requirements.
    TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations that
identify, for the purposes of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous
levels of lead in paint, dust, and soil. EPA promulgated regulations
pursuant to TSCA section 403 on January 5, 2001, and codified them at
40 CFR part 745, subpart D (Ref. 10). These hazard standards define
lead-based paint hazards in target housing and child-occupied
facilities as paint-lead, dust-lead, and soil-lead hazards. A paint-
lead hazard is defined as any damaged or deteriorated lead-based paint,
any chewable lead-based painted surface with evidence of teeth marks,
or any lead-based paint on a friction surface if lead dust levels
underneath the friction surface exceed the dust-lead hazard standards.
A dust-lead hazard is surface dust that contains a mass-per-area
concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per square
foot ([mu]g/ft\2\) on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on interior windowsills
based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is bare soil that contains
total lead equal to or exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in a play
area or average of 1,200 ppm of bare soil in the rest of the yard based
on soil samples.

B. EPA's Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

    Section 402(c) of TSCA addresses renovation and remodeling. For the
stated purpose of reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection
with renovation and remodeling activities, section 402(c)(1) of TSCA
requires EPA to promulgate and disseminate guidelines for the conduct
of such activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous
levels of lead. In response to this statutory directive, EPA developed
the guidance document entitled ``Reducing Lead Hazards when Remodeling
Your Home'' in consultation with industry and trade groups (Ref. 11).
This document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling
stakeholders through the National Lead Information Center, EPA Regions,
and EPA's State and Tribal partners and is available at http://
www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf.
    Section 402(c)(2) of TSCA directs EPA to study the extent to which
persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling
activities are exposed to lead during such activities or create a lead-
based paint hazard regularly or occasionally. EPA conducted this study
in four phases. Phase I, the Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref.
12), evaluated the amount of leaded dust generated by various typical
renovation activities. Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood
Lead Study (Ref. 22), involved collecting data on blood lead and
renovation and remodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the
Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 14), was a retrospective
study focused on assessing the relationship between renovation and
remodeling activities and children's blood-lead levels. Phase IV, the
Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and
Repair) Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes
(Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals who
worked primarily in old historic buildings. More information on the
results of these peer-reviewed studies can be found in Unit III.C.1. of
the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3).
    Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise the regulations
promulgated under TSCA section 402(a), i.e., the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations, to apply to renovation or remodeling activities
in target housing, public buildings constructed before 1978, and
commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. Based
primarily on the four-phase study conducted under TSCA section
402(c)(2), EPA issued a proposed rule in January 2006 to cover
renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted
surfaces in target housing and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 3). In
the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that all such activities in
the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards
because available information indicated that all such activities create
dust-lead levels that exceed the hazard standards established under
TSCA section 403.
    After the 2006 Proposal was issued, EPA conducted a field study
entitled ``Characterization of Dust Lead Levels

after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities'' (Dust Study) to
better characterize dust-lead levels resulting from various renovation,
repair, and painting activities (Ref. 16). This study, completed in
January 2007, was designed to compare environmental lead levels at
appropriate stages after various types of renovation, repair, and
painting preparation activities were performed on the interiors and
exteriors of target housing units and child-occupied facilities. The
renovation activities were conducted by local professional renovation
firms, using personnel who received lead safe work practices training.
The activities conducted represented a range of renovation, repair, and
painting activities that would have been permitted under the 2006
Proposal, including work practices that are restricted or prohibited
under the final rule, such as the use of high-speed machines without
high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered exhaust control to
remove paint. Of particular interest was the impact of using specific
work practices that renovation firms would be required to use under the
proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the work area and
a multi-step cleaning protocol, as opposed to more typical work
practices. The Dust Study reinforced EPA's proposed finding that
typical renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based
paint create lead-based paint hazards.
    In April 2008, EPA issued the final Renovation, Repair and Painting
Rule (RRP Rule) under the authority of section 402(c)(3) of TSCA to
address lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and
painting activities that disturb lead-based paint in target housing and
child-occupied facilities (Ref. 17). The term ``target housing'' is
defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978,
except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any
child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or
any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under the RRP Rule, a child-occupied facility
is a building, or a portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978,
visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on at least
two different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period),
provided that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined
weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits
last at least 60 hours. The RRP Rule establishes requirements for
training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling
technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and
renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust
sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for
recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may
apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of
the elements of the RRP Rule.

C. Recent Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Developments

    Shortly after the RRP Rule was published, several petitions were
filed challenging the rule. These petitions were consolidated in the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On
August 24, 2009, EPA entered into an agreement with the environmental
and children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions
(Ref. 18). In this agreement, EPA committed to propose several changes
to the RRP Rule. EPA also agreed to commence rulemaking to address
renovations in public and commercial buildings, other than child-
occupied facilities, to the extent those renovations create lead-based
paint hazards. For these buildings, EPA agreed, at a minimum, to do the
following:
     Issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the exteriors
of public and commercial buildings other than child-occupied facilities
by December 15, 2011 and to take final action on that proposal by July
15, 2013.
     Consult with EPA's Science Advisory Board by September 30,
2011, on a methodology for evaluating the risk posed by renovations in
the interiors of public and commercial buildings other than child-
occupied facilities.
     Eighteen months after receipt of the Science Advisory
Board's report, either issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the
interiors of public and commercial buildings other than child-occupied
facilities or conclude that such renovations do not create lead-based
paint hazards.
    On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from several
environmental and public health advocacy groups requesting that the EPA
amend regulations issued under Title IV of TSCA (Ref. 20).
Specifically, the petitioners requested that EPA lower the Agency's
dust-lead hazard standards issued pursuant to section 403 of TSCA from
40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for floors and from 250 [mu]g/
ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for window sills. The petitioners also
asked EPA to modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR
745.103 and 745.223 from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million
(ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding
reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard. On
October 22, 2009, EPA granted this petition under section 553(e) of the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e) (Ref. 21). In granting
this petition, EPA agreed to commence the appropriate proceeding, but
did not commit to a particular schedule or to a particular outcome.
Because Congress gave the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) statutory authority to establish a lower level of lead in paint
for the purpose of the definition of the term ``lead-based paint'' in
target housing (see 15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), EPA agreed to work with HUD in
taking the appropriate action on the request pertaining to the
definition of the term ``lead-based paint.''

D. Information on Lead and Its Health Effects

    Lead is a soft, bluish metallic chemical element mined from rock
and found in its natural state all over the world. Lead is virtually
indestructible, is persistent, and has been known since antiquity for
its adaptability in making various useful items. In modern times, it
has been used to manufacture many different products, including paint,
batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and gasoline. Through the 1940's,
paint manufacturers frequently used lead as a primary ingredient in
many oil-based interior and exterior house paints. Usage gradually
decreased through the 1950's and 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced
lead and as latex paints became more widely available.
    1. Health effects in general. Lead bioaccumulates, and is only
slowly removed, with bone lead serving as a blood lead source for years
after exposure and may serve as a significant source of exposure. Bone
accounts for more than 90% of the total body burden of lead in adults
and 70% in children (Ref. 22). In comparison to adults, bone mineral
turns over much more quickly in children as a result of growth. Changes
in blood lead concentration in children are thought to parallel more
closely to changes in total body burden. Therefore, blood lead
concentration is often used in epidemiologic and toxicological studies
as an index of exposure and body burden for children.
    Lead is known for its ``broad array of deleterious effects on
multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action'' (Ref.
22, p. 8-24 and section 8.4.1). This array of health effects includes
effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological
development and function,

reproduction and physical development, kidney function, cardiovascular
function, and immune function. The weight of evidence varies across
this array of effects and is comprehensively described in the EPA Air
Quality Criteria for Lead (Criteria Document) (Ref. 22). There is also
some evidence of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies,
together with limited human evidence of suggestive associations (Ref.
22, sections 5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). Lead has also been classified as
a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (inorganic lead compounds), based on limited evidence in humans
and sufficient evidence in animals, and as reasonably anticipated to be
a human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (lead and
lead compounds) (Ref. 22, section 6.7.2). EPA considers lead a probable
carcinogen based on the available animal data (http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0277.htm (Ref. 22, p. 6-195)).
    This discussion is focused on those effects most pertinent to
ambient exposures, which, given the reductions in ambient lead levels
over the past 30 years, are generally those associated with individual
blood lead levels in children and adults in the range of 10 [mu]g/dL
and lower. These key effects include neurological, hematological, and
immune effects for children, and hematological, cardiovascular, and
renal effects for adults (Ref. 22, Tables 8-5 and 8-6, pp. 8-60 to 8-
62). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the
Criteria Document, ``neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovascular
effects in adults are among those best substantiated as occurring at
blood lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL (or possibly
lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public
health concern'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-60). At mean blood lead levels, in
children, on the order of 10 [mu]g/dL, and somewhat lower, associations
have been found with effects to the immune system, including altered
macrophage activation, increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels and
associated increased risk for autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 22,
sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6). A meta-analysis of numerous studies
estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10
[mu]g/dL) is associated with ~1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg)
increase in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in
diastolic pressure (Ref. 22, p. E-10). With respect to renal effects in
adults, increased risk for nephrotoxicity was observed at the lowest
lead exposure levels in epidemiological studies included in the
Criteria Document (Ref. 22, p. 8-49). Nephrotic effects were reported
among some adults with mean concurrent blood lead levels as low as 2 to
4 [mu]g/dL. ``More specifically, the newly available general population
studies have shown associations between blood Pb and indicators of
renal function impairment at blood-Pb levels extending below 10 [mu]g/
dL, with nephrotic effects having been reported among some adults with
mean concurrent blood-Pb levels as low as ~2 to 4 [mu]g/dL.'' (Ref. 22,
p. 8-49).
    The toxicological and epidemiological information available
``includes assessment of new evidence substantiating risks of
deleterious effects on certain health endpoints being induced by
distinctly lower than previously demonstrated lead exposures indexed by
blood lead levels extending well below 10 [mu]g/dL in children and/or
adults'' (Ref. 22, p. 8- 25). Some health effects associated with
individual blood lead levels extend below 5 [mu]g/dL, and some studies
have observed these effects at the lowest blood levels considered. With
regard to population mean levels, the Criteria Document points to
studies reporting ``lead effects on the intellectual attainment of
preschool and school age children at population mean concurrent blood-
lead levels [BLLs] ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 [mu]g/dL'' (Ref.
22, p. E-9).
    EPA notes that many studies over the past decade, in investigating
effects at lower blood lead levels, have utilized the CDC advisory
level or level of concern for individual children (10 [mu]g/dL). This
level has variously been called an advisory level or level of concern.
In addressing children's blood lead levels, CDC has stated,
``[s]pecific strategies that target screening to high-risk children are
essential to identify children with BLLs >= 10 [mu]g/dL'' (Ref. 1) as a
benchmark for assessment, and this is reflected in the numerous
references in the Criteria Document to 10 [mu]g/dL. Individual study
conclusions stated with regard to effects observed below 10 [mu]g/dL
are usually referring to individual blood lead levels. In fact, many
such study groups have been restricted to individual blood lead levels
below 10 [mu]g/dL or restricted to blood lead levels below levels that
are lower than 10 [mu]g/dL (e.g., the blood lead levels must be below 8
[mu]g/dL). EPA notes that the mean blood lead level for these groups
will necessarily be lower than the blood lead level below which they
are restricted, because the restricted blood lead level is the upper
end of the blood lead level range of the study.
    Threshold levels, in terms of blood lead levels in individual
children, for neurological effects cannot be discerned from the
currently available studies (Ref. 22, pp. 8-60 to 8-63). The Criteria
Document states, ``There is no level of lead exposure that can yet be
identified, with confidence, as clearly not being associated with some
risk of deleterious health effects'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-63). As discussed
in the Criteria Document, ``a threshold for lead neurotoxic effects may
exist at levels distinctly lower than the lowest exposures examined in
these epidemiologic studies'' (Ref. 22, p. 8- 67). Physiological,
behavioral and demographic factors contribute to increased risk of
lead-related health effects. Population groups potentially at risk,
sometimes also referred to as sensitive populations, include those with
increased susceptibility (i.e., physiological factors contributing to a
greater response for the same exposure), as well as those with greater
vulnerability (i.e., those with increased exposure such as through
exposure to higher media concentrations or resulting from behavior
leading to increased contact with contaminated media), or those
affected by socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health
care or low socioeconomic status (Ref. 22).
    Children are at increased risk of lead-related health effects due
to various factors that enhance their exposures (e.g., via the hand-to-
mouth activity that is prevalent in very young children, (Ref. 22,
section 4.4.3)) and susceptibility. While children are considered to be
at a period of maximum exposure around 18-27 months, recent
epidemiologic studies have found other blood lead measurements,
including concurrent blood lead levels or lifetime averages, to be
stronger predictors of lead-associated effects than peak blood lead
concentration (Ref. 22, pp. 6-60 and 6-61). The evidence ``supports the
idea that lead exposure continues to be toxic to children as they reach
school age, and [does] not lend support to the interpretation that all
the damage is done by the time the child reaches 2 to 3 years of age''
(Ref. 22, section 6.2.12). The following physiological and demographic
factors can further affect risk of lead-related effects in some
children.
     Children with particular genetic polymorphisms (e.g.,
presence of the d-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase-2 [ALAD-2] allele)
may have increased sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may be due to
increased susceptibility to the same internal dose and/or to increased
internal dose associated with same

exposure (Ref. 22, p. 8-71, sections 6.3.5, <IP_ADDRESS>, and 6.3.6).
     Some children may have blood lead levels higher than those
otherwise associated with a given lead exposure (Ref. 22, section
8.5.3) as a result of nutritional status (e.g., iron deficiency,
calcium intake), as well as genetic and other factors (Ref. 22, chapter
4 and sections 3.4, 5.3.7, and 8.5.3).
     Situations of elevated exposure, such as residing near
sources of ambient lead, as well as socioeconomic factors, such as
reduced access to health care or low socioeconomic status can also
contribute to increased blood lead levels and increased risk of
associated health effects from air-related lead (Refs. 23, 24).
     Children in poverty and black, non-Hispanic children have
notably higher blood lead levels than do economically well-off children
and white children, in general (Ref. 25).
    2. Neurological effects in children. Among the wide variety of
health endpoints associated with lead exposures, there is general
consensus that the developing nervous system in children is among the,
if not the, most sensitive. While blood lead levels in U.S. children
have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have
investigated and reported associations of effects on the
neurodevelopment of children with these more recent blood lead levels
(Ref. 22, chapter 6). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity
during childhood include neurophysiologic, motor, cognitive, and
behavioral impacts. Numerous epidemiological studies have reported
neurocognitive, neurobehavioral, neurophysiologic, and neuromotor
function effects in children with blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL
(Ref. 22, sections 6.2 and 8.4). As discussed in the Criteria Document,
``extensive experimental laboratory animal evidence has been generated
that (a) substantiates well the plausibility of the epidemiologic
findings observed in human children and adults and (b) expands our
understanding of likely mechanisms underlying the neurotoxic effects''
(Ref. 22, p. 8-25; section 5.3).
    Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have been
observed in epidemiological studies have included decrements in
intelligence test results, such as the widely used IQ score, and in
academic achievement as assessed by various standardized tests as well
as by class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16 and
pp. 8-29 to 8-30). As noted in the Criteria Document with regard to the
latter, ``[a]ssociations between lead exposure and academic achievement
observed in the studies noted in this section were significant even
after adjusting for IQ, suggesting that lead-sensitive
neuropsychological processing and learning factors not reflected by
global intelligence indices might contribute to reduced performance on
academic tasks'' (Ref. 22, pp. 8-29 to 8- 30). Further, neurological
effects in general include behavioral effects, such as delinquent
behavior (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.6 and <IP_ADDRESS>), sensory effects, such
as those related to hearing and vision (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.7 and
<IP_ADDRESS>), and deficits in neuromotor function (Ref. 22, p. 8-36).
    With regard to potential implications of lead effects on IQ, the
Criteria Document recognizes the ``critical'' distinction between
population and individual risk, identifying issues regarding declines
in IQ for an individual and for the population. The Criteria Document
further states that a ``point estimate indicating a modest mean change
on a health index at the individual level can have substantial
implications at the population level'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-77). As an
example, the Criteria Document states, ``although an increase of a few
mm Hg in blood pressure might not be of concern for an individual's
well-being, the same increase in the population mean might be
associated with substantial increases in the percentages of individuals
with values that are sufficiently extreme that they exceed the criteria
used to diagnose hypertension'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-77). A downward shift in
the mean IQ value is associated with both substantial decreases in
percentages achieving very high scores and substantial increases in the
percentage of individuals achieving very low scores (Ref. 22, p. 8-81).
For example, for a population mean IQ of 100 (and standard deviation of
15), 2.3% of the population would score above 130, but a shift of the
population to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% of the population
scoring above 130 (Ref. 22, pp. 8-81 to 8-82). ``For an individual
functioning in the low [IQ] range due to the influence of developmental
risk factors other than lead, a lead-associated [IQ] decline of several
points might be sufficient to drop that individual into the range
associated with increased risk of educational, vocational, and social
failure'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-77).
    Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have
included effects on attention, executive functions, language, memory,
learning, and visuospatial processing (Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.5,
and <IP_ADDRESS>), with attention and executive function effects associated
with lead exposures indexed by blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL
(Ref. 22, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8-30 to 8-31). The evidence for the
role of lead in this suite of effects includes experimental animal
findings (Ref. 22, section <IP_ADDRESS>; p. 8-31), which provide strong
biological plausibility of lead effects on learning ability, memory and
attention (Ref. 22, section 5.3.5), as well as associated mechanistic
findings.
    The persistence of such lead-induced effects is described in the
Criteria Document (e.g., Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.11, and 8.5.2).
The persistence or irreversibility of such effects can be the result of
damage occurring without adequate repair offsets or of the persistence
of lead in the body (Ref. 22, section 8.5.2). It is additionally
important to note that there may be long-term consequences of such
deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and achievement can have
``enduring and important effects on objective parameters of success in
real life,'' as well as increased risk of antisocial and delinquent
behavior (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16).
    Multiple epidemiologic studies of lead and child development have
demonstrated inverse associations between blood lead concentrations and
children's IQ and other cognitive-related outcomes at successively
lower lead exposure levels over the past 30 years (Ref. 22, section
6.2.13). For example, the overall weight of the available evidence,
described in the Criteria Document, provides clear substantiation of
neurocognitive decrements being associated in children with mean blood
lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL, and some analyses
indicate lead effects on intellectual attainment of children for which
population mean blood lead levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8
[mu]g/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2, 8.4.2, and <IP_ADDRESS>). Thus, while blood
lead levels in U.S. children have decreased notably since the late
1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of
effects on the neurodevelopment of children with blood lead levels
similar to the more recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 22, chapter
6).
    Children in minority populations and children whose families are
poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels (Ref.
25, at e376). Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 shows that the prevalence
of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 [micro]g/dL in children
aged 1 to 5 years has decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-
2004, which is an 84% decline (Ref. 25, at e377). However, the NHANES
data from

1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic black children aged 1 to 5 years
had higher percentages of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10
[micro]g/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%)
(Ref. 25). In addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same
period, the geometric mean blood lead level was significantly higher
for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 [micro]g/dL), compared with Mexican
Americans (1.9 [micro]g/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 [micro]g/dL)
(Ref. 25, at e377). For children aged 1 to 5 years from families with
low income, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2.4 [micro]g/dL
(Ref. 25, at e377). Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels
greater than 10 ug/dL and greater than or equal to 5 ug/dL were higher
for non-hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4%, respectively) than for Mexican
Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic whites (4.4%
and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 25). The ``analysis indicates that
residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black
are still major risk factors for higher lead levels'' (Ref. 25, at
e376).
    3. Adult health effects. As previously noted, the adult health
effects of lead exposure include negative impacts on renal and
cardiovascular function. While cardiovascular effects in adults are
well substantiated as occurring at blood lead levels as low as 5 to 10
[mu]g/dL (or possibly lower), newly-demonstrated renal system effects
among general population groups are also emerging as low-level lead
exposure effects of concern (Ref. 22, p. 8-60).
    Most studies in general adult and patient populations published
during the past two decades have observed associations between ``Pb
dose and worse renal function.'' (Ref. 22, p. 6-112) The cumulative
effect of higher blood lead levels from past exposure may be a factor
in the nephrotoxicity observed at current blood lead levels. However,
one study found associations between blood lead and concurrent serum
creatinine in participants whose peak blood lead levels were equal to
or less than 10 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 22, p. 6-112). ``The threshold for lead-
related nephrotoxicity cannot be determined based on current data, but
associations with clinically-relevant renal outcomes have been observed
in populations with mean blood lead levels as low as 2.2 [mu]g/dL''
(Ref. 22, p. 6-112). In addition, the available data are not sufficient
to determine whether the observed nephrotoxicity is related more to
such current blood lead levels, higher levels from past exposures, or
both (Ref. 22, p. 8-49). Some adult populations are at an even greater
risk for adverse health effects as a result of lead exposure. ``The
influence of an individual's health status on susceptibility to lead
toxicity has been demonstrated most clearly for renal outcomes.''
``Individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal
insufficiency are at increased risk of Pb-associated declines in renal
function, and indications of altered kidney function have been reported
at blood Pb levels ranging somewhat below 5 [mu]g/dL (Lin et al., 2001,
2003; Muntner et al., 2003; Tsaih et al., 2004).'' (Ref. 22 p. 8-72).
    Positive associations between lead exposure and increased blood
pressure have been observed in numerous studies. Epidemiologic studies
that have examined the effects of blood lead levels on blood pressure
have generally found positive associations, even after controlling for
confounding factors such as tobacco smoking, exercise, body weight,
alcohol consumption, and socioeconomic status (Ref. 22, p. 8-45).
Recent meta-analyses of these studies have reported robust,
statistically-significant, though small effect-size, associations
between blood-Pb concentrations and blood pressure. For example, the
meta-analysis of Nawrot et al. (2002) indicated that a doubling of
blood lead corresponded to a 1 mm Hg increase in systolic blood
pressure. Although this magnitude of increase is not clinically
meaningful for an individual, a population shift of 1 mm Hg is
important (Ref 22, p. 8-45). The majority of the more recent studies
employing bone lead level have also found a strong association between
long-term lead exposure and arterial pressure. ``Since the residence
time of Pb in blood is relatively short but very long in bone, the
latter observations have provided compelling evidence for the positive
relationship between Pb exposure and a subsequent rise in arterial
pressure in human adults.'' (Ref 22, p. 8-45)
    Studies also demonstrate a relationship between increased lead
exposure and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including increased
incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality
(Ref. 22, p. 6-154). ``Lead interference in calcium-dependent
processes, including ionic transport systems and signaling pathways
important in vascular reactivity may only represent the first step in
the cascade of Pb-induced physiological events that culminates in
cardiovascular disease. Lead alteration of endothelial cell response to
vascular damage, inducement of smooth muscle cell hyperplasia,
alteration of hormonal and transmitter systems regulating vascular
reactivity, and its clear role as promoter of oxidative stress suggest
mechanisms that could explain the Pb-associated increase in blood
pressure, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease noted in this
section'' (Ref. 22, p. 6-153).
    Current research does not definitively indicate whether health
impacts observed later in life are the result of current lead exposure
or exposure which occurred during early childhood or at some other time
in the past. The following excerpts from the Criteria Document
illustrate the uncertainties surrounding this issue:
     ``It could be that damage occurred during a circumscribed
period when the critical substrate was undergoing rapid development,
but that the high correlation between serial blood Pb levels impeded
identification of the special significance of exposure at that time.''
(Ref. 22, p. 8-73).
     ``While some observations in children as old as
adolescence indicate that exposure biomarkers measured concurrently are
the strongest predictors of late outcomes, the interpretation of these
observations with regard to critical windows of vulnerability remains
uncertain'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-74).
    4. Renovations in residential settings and elevated blood lead
levels. EPA's Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described more
fully in Unit III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, provides
ample evidence of a link between renovation activities and elevated
blood lead levels in resident children (Ref. 14). This peer-reviewed
study concluded that general residential renovation and remodeling is
associated with an increased risk of elevated blood lead levels in
children and that specific renovation and remodeling activities are
also associated with an increase in the risk of elevated blood lead
levels in children. In particular, removing paint (using open flame
torches, using heat guns, using chemical paint removers, and using wet
scraping/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping
significantly increased the risk of elevated blood lead levels.
    Three studies from New York support the findings of the Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study. In 1995, the New York State Department of
Health assessed lead exposure among children resulting from home
renovation and remodeling in 1993-1994. A review of the health
department records of children with blood lead levels equal to or
greater than 20 [mu]g/dL identified 320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood
lead levels that were attributable to renovation and remodeling (Ref.
26). An update to that study with data from environmental

investigations conducted during 2006-2007 in New York State (excluding
New York City) identified renovation, repair, and painting activities
as the probable source of lead exposure in 14% of 972 children with
blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 20 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 27). The
authors concluded that children living in housing undergoing
renovation, repair, and painting that was built before 1978, and
particularly before 1950, when concentrations of lead in paint were
higher, are at high risk for elevated blood lead levels. The final
study was a case-control study that assessed the association between
elevated blood lead levels in children younger than 5 years and
renovation or repair activities in homes in New York City (Ref. 28).
EPA notes that the authors show that when dust and debris was reported
(by respondents via telephone interviews) to be ``everywhere''
following a renovation, the children's blood lead levels were
significantly higher than those of the children at homes that did not
report remodeling work. On the other hand, when the respondent reported
either ``no visible dust and debris'' or that ``dust and debris was
limited to the work area,'' there was no statistically significant
effect on blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report
remodeling work. Although the study found only a weak and
nonsignificant link between a report of any renovation activity and the
likelihood that a resident child had an elevated blood-lead level, the
link to the likelihood of an elevated blood-lead level was
statistically significant for surface preparation by sanding and for
renovation work that spreads dust and debris beyond the work area. The
researchers noted the consistency of their results with EPA's Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 28, at 509).

III. Renovations in Public and Commercial Buildings

    In many respects, EPA's approach to determining whether and how to
regulate exterior renovations on public and commercial buildings and
whether and how to regulate interior renovations in public and
commercial buildings will be similar to the approach taken towards
renovation activities in and on target housing and child-occupied
facilities. Although the statutory directive under TSCA section
402(c)(3) is the same for all of these buildings, each type of building
may present a different level of exposure to occupants. In this ANPRM,
EPA is taking comment on the many considerations it must take into
account when revising the regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a)
to apply to those renovations that create lead-based paint hazards in
public and commercial buildings.
    An important consideration in determining how to regulate
renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings is that
these renovations can create lead-based paint hazards on and in target
housing and child-occupied facilities. Lead dust can travel in the
environment and has been shown to be readily tracked into homes and
other buildings. In fact, as discussed in Unit III.B.1. a substantial
proportion of interior dust is due to track-in activities.

A. Definitions of ``Public Building'' and ``Commercial Building''

    While the term ``target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401,
TSCA Title IV does not provide definitions for the terms ``public
building'' and ``commercial building.'' The issue of the buildings that
could and should be covered by these terms was raised, but not
conclusively resolved, in the rulemaking to establish the existing
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations.
    As discussed previously, EPA promulgated the final Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) in 1996 (Ref. 4).
These regulations cover lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard
screens, risk assessments, and abatements. The regulations include
training and certification requirements for individuals and firms,
accreditation requirements for lead-based paint training providers, and
work practice standards designed in accordance with the statutory
directive to ensure that lead-based paint activities are conducted
safely, reliably and effectively. As initially proposed in 1994, one
set of requirements for the training and certification of contractors
and the accreditation of training programs, as well as specific work
practice standards would have applied to lead-based paint activities
conducted in target housing and public buildings (Ref. 29). The 1994
proposal would have defined public buildings to include all buildings
generally open to the public or occupied or visited by children, such
as stores, museums, airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals, and
government buildings, as well as schools and day-care centers. In the
final rule, EPA decided to focus on buildings frequented by children
and, thus, established a subset of the buildings EPA had intended to
define as public. This subset is called ``child-occupied facilities''
and it is delineated terms of the frequency and duration of visits by
particular children (Ref. 4).
    EPA continues to believe that it is important to emphasize the
deleterious effects of lead exposure on young children, a sub-
population that has long been identified as being particularly
susceptible to the adverse effects of lead. However, it is also
important to address exposures for other sensitive sub-populations,
such as women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant in the
future. In addition, as discussed in Unit II.D. of this preamble, a
growing body of scientific literature documents lead's adverse effects
on older children and adults at lower levels of exposure than
previously documented. As a result, EPA does not believe that the
options considered in this rulemaking should be limited to those
buildings or situations where young children are likely to be exposed.
EPA intends to evaluate all of the available information on hazards,
exposures, and risk to determine which renovations TSCA requires EPA to
regulate and how TSCA requires EPA to regulate them.
    While TSCA Title IV does not define ``public building'' or
``commercial building,'' a definition of ``public and commercial
building'' was provided in TSCA Title II. TSCA Title II addresses the
management of asbestos-containing building materials in school
buildings and the training and accreditation (or certification) of
persons who perform asbestos inspections or design or conduct asbestos
abatement in public or commercial buildings. Because the primary focus
of TSCA Title II is primary and secondary schools, and ensuring that
asbestos-containing building materials in such schools are properly
managed, primary and secondary schools are specifically excluded from
the definition of the term ``public and commercial building'' in TSCA
section 202. However, the rest of the definition signals Congress's
intention for EPA to interpret the term broadly, because a public and
commercial building is defined as ``any building'' other than a school
building or a ``residential apartment building'' of fewer than 10
units. EPA's regulatory definition of ``public and commercial
building'' at 40 CFR part 763, Subpart E, Appendix C, Asbestos Model
Accreditation Plan, provides examples of the types of buildings
covered, including industrial and office buildings, government-owned
buildings, colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches,
preschools, stores, warehouses and factories. Notwithstanding the
differences in focus between TSCA Title II and Title

IV, EPA believes that a similar broad approach to interpreting ``public
building'' and ``commercial building'' is warranted in this rulemaking.
Of course, EPA must still determine which renovations in which
buildings create lead-based paint hazards.
    One other factor must be considered in interpreting the terms
``public building'' and ``commercial building.'' In 1978, the CPSC
banned the use of paint containing more than 0.06% lead by weight on
toys, furniture, and interior and exterior surfaces in housing and
other buildings and structures used by consumers (Ref. 30). However,
this ban specifically exempted ``[i]ndustrial (and commercial) building
and equipment maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety
marking coatings.'' It is likely that Congress was thinking of this
ban, and the exemption, when it limited rulemaking authority in TSCA
section 402(c)(3) to public buildings built before 1978, but applied no
such limitation to commercial buildings.
    With this in mind, EPA requests comment, information and data from
the public on the types of buildings that should be considered ``public
buildings'' or ``commercial buildings.'' Specifically, EPA asks
commenters to consider the following questions:
    1. What types of buildings should be considered to be public
buildings? What types should be considered to be commercial buildings?
Should outbuildings and structures on the property be included in
either category as they are in respect to target housing? Why?
    2. What types of building classifications should be considered?
Should the criteria for classifying buildings include the presence of
young children, pregnant women, or population density? Is it possible
to categorize buildings based on the contractors and the workforce
renovating them (i.e., do different contractors perform renovations in
different types of public and commercial buildings, or do such work
differently)? Is it possible to classify public and commercial
buildings using building codes, zoning, or other characteristics?
Should various classifications of buildings be treated differently with
regard to required work practices, cleaning methods, and reoccupancy
criteria?
    3. Some public or commercial buildings are mixed-use buildings,
with residences, schools and/or child care facilities in the buildings.
If portions of the buildings are residences that are target housing
(i.e., the building was constructed before 1978 and the residences are
not otherwise exempt), how should such buildings, or particular
portions of them, be addressed in this rulemaking?
    4. Every four years, the Department of Energy (DOE) collects
information on the stock of commercial buildings in the United States,
their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy
consumption and expenditures. For the purposes of this survey, the
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), commercial
buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floor
space is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or
agricultural. This survey includes building types that might not
traditionally be considered commercial, such as schools, correctional
institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. More
information on the CBECS can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
cbecs/. DOE also collects data every four years on buildings used for
manufacturing activities. The Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
(MECS) collects data on buildings used by the manufacturing sector,
defined by NAICS codes 31 to 33. The MECS data does not include
information on building vintage. More information on MECS can be found
at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html. What other
information is available on the ages, types, sizes, and other
characteristics of public and commercial buildings in the United
States? In particular, what data are available on the age, types,
sizes, and other characteristics of public or commercial buildings not
included in the CBECS or MECS?
    Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 2003 American Housing Survey,
there are 77,888,000 target housing units. ``Target housing'' is
defined under section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed before
1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities
(unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. EPA estimates that there are 97,000
child-occupied facilities (COFs), as defined at 40 CFR 745.83. By
comparison, according to DOE's CBECS data, there are 2,826,000
commercial buildings constructed prior to 1980. This includes building
types such as schools and buildings used for religious worship, so
there is some double-counting with the target housing and COFs figures
described in this paragraph. According to DOE's MECS there are 368,000
manufacturing buildings, but this includes post-1978 buildings because
MECS does not indicate the age of the buildings. EPA is not aware of
data on the number of agricultural buildings.
    The estimates from the CBECS and MECS data provide an indication of
the relative magnitude of different building types, but at this time
should not be considered reflective of the number of buildings that
would be affected by a future EPA regulation. The number of buildings
affected by an EPA regulation will depend on how EPA ultimately decides
to define public and commercial buildings and the scope of the
regulation within that definition. Aside from the number of structures,
the characteristics of public and commercial buildings may differ from
target housing and COFs, including the prevalence of lead-based paint;
the frequency, type, and size of renovation work performed; and the
baseline renovation work practices used. EPA is seeking information in
this notice on all of these characteristics.

B. Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Public and Commercial Building
Renovations

    1. Leaded dust and debris created by exterior renovations. The Dust
Study, as described in Unit II.B., demonstrated that renovations on the
exteriors of target housing and child-occupied facilities create an
enormous amount of leaded dust that can contaminate soil in the
vicinity. Including both bulk debris and dust created by these
renovations, geometric mean lead levels in exterior samples from
collection trays placed on top of the containment plastic covering the
adjacent ground ranged from a low of 60,662 [mu]g/ft\2\ for door
replacement to a high of 7,216,358 [mu]g/ft\2\ for removing paint with
a high temperature heat gun (Ref. 16). EPA requests public comment on
the extent to which this study should inform EPA's determination on
lead-based paint hazards created by exterior renovations on public and
commercial buildings, especially considering that some of the exterior
renovations in the Dust Study were performed on a school building,
which represents one type of public buildings.
    Studies have demonstrated that exterior dust and soil that contains
lead will contaminate interior building areas when dust and soil is
tracked inside on the shoes and clothing of building occupants and
visitors and through air exchange. In one study, a regression analysis
was used to investigate those factors that were most statistically
significantly associated with lead loadings in dust samples taken from
residential carpets (Ref. 29). The study found that soil-lead
concentration, the practice of removing shoes before entering, and the
use of walk-off mats at entrances were all statistically

significant predictors of dust-lead loading in carpets. Dust and soil
samples collected during the study were screened to include only
particles smaller than 150 microns, because these particles were
considered more likely to appear on a child's hand (Ref. 31).
    EPA possesses data on the transport of leaded dust and debris
resulting from exterior renovations. In EPA's Dust Study, measured lead
dust and debris were found up to 18 feet from the exterior work area,
and the average distance traveled by lead dust and debris was 10.81
feet (Ref. 16). However, it is important to keep in mind that exterior
vertical containment was used where necessary during the Dust Study to
ensure that leaded dust and debris did not contaminate adjacent
properties, and this limited the distance leaded dust and debris could
travel. Nevertheless, the Dust Study demonstrates that individuals
residing in and visiting nearby properties could be exposed to leaded
dust and debris created by exterior renovations when vertical
containment or other containment measures are not used. Renovation
firms or building owners and managers may not specifically consider the
potential for these exposures on nearby properties when designing and
performing renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial
buildings.
    Numerous studies have found elevated soil lead levels in
residential areas surrounding residential and public and commercial
buildings that have been demolished. In one study of a major building
demolition, lead dust was found to travel up to 20 kilometers from the
demolition site (Ref. 32). While EPA recognizes that this situation
involves whole building demolition, the Agency expects that partial
demolition and similar renovation activities would be expected to
release similar types of lead-based paint dust particles with the
ability to travel long distances and contaminate soil and other
horizontal surfaces such as streets, playgrounds and other surfaces
with which children could come into contact. Another study (Ref. 33)
found increased levels of lead in alleys up to 100 meters from row
house demolition. These lead levels were observed despite the fact that
water wetting was used during demolition and debris removal to reduce
the amount of dust released. In another study, abrasive blasting of a
bridge was found to deposit 50% of the removed lead-based paint beyond
300 yards of the operation with a four mile per hour wind. This study
indicates that current abrasive methods have the demonstrated potential
to contaminate the surrounding environment and have the potential to
create lead-based paint hazards (Ref. 34).
    There are data on the maintenance of bridges and structures (such
as water towers) that could be used to determine the extent of
transport of lead dust resulting from exterior renovations. Paints on
many of these steel structures contain up to 60-70% lead by weight
(Ref. 35). Of particular interest are studies of the impacts of
renovating these structures in urban areas or near schools. Evidence
from steel structures suggests that exterior public and commercial
building renovations can result in significant health impacts for
children and others in close proximity to the renovation, repair and
painting work.
    Given these considerations, EPA requests public comment,
information, and data, especially peer-reviewed studies, on the
following topics:
    a. What information is available on dust-lead and soil-lead levels
generated by exterior renovations on public and commercial buildings?
To what extent is the data from the Dust Study relevant? EPA is aware
of information on the content of lead in urban and rural soils, and
other settings, such as near highways. Is there more information on the
content of lead in soil or what concentrations of lead are currently
found in soil that EPA could use to evaluate the risk of human and
environmental lead exposure from the renovation of public and
commercial buildings?
    b. To what extent will dust drift from exterior renovations,
especially on public and commercial buildings, onto neighboring
properties? Would this, for instance, resemble modeling plumes from
smelters?
    c. How far will lead-containing dust and debris travel from the
exterior of properties undergoing renovation? What factors will
influence the travel of lead dust? Such factors might include
particular renovation practices, the time of year, wind conditions,
ground cover (e.g., asphalt, concrete, dirt, vegetation), average
precipitation, or the height and concentration of surrounding
structures.
    d. To what extent can the data on building demolition or steel
structure maintenance be used to predict the extent to which dust and
debris travel from exterior public and commercial building renovations?
    e. To what extent will exterior dust from the exterior renovation
of public and commercial buildings be tracked into the interior of
buildings being renovated or other buildings? To what extent will lead-
based paint dust enter these buildings through open windows, doorways
and air exchange?
    f. What actions can a contractor take to prevent transportation of
lead dust from exterior renovations or to prevent the lead dust from
entering the environment?
    2. Leaded dust and debris generated by interior renovations in
public and commercial buildings. In determining which renovations in
target housing and child-occupied facilities create lead-based paint
hazards for the 2008 RRP Rule, EPA relied heavily on two Agency studies
that evaluated dust-lead levels generated by renovations. One of these
studies, the Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 12), Phase I of
the study conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2), evaluated the amount
of leaded dust generated by the following activities:
     Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
     Removal of large structures, including demolition of
interior plaster walls.
     Window replacement.
     Carpet removal.
     HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work.
     Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions,
including drilling and sawing into wood and plaster.
The dust lead levels generated by abrasive sanding were evaluated
through a literature survey. The results of the literature survey
included both residential buildings and public or commercial buildings.
The rest of the evaluated activities were performed as part of the
study in residential buildings.
    EPA also relied heavily on the Dust Study (Ref. 16) to promulgate
the final RRP Rule. The Dust Study evaluated the dust-lead and soil-
lead levels generated by the following activities in and on an
unoccupied school building and/or unoccupied target housing:
     Making cut-outs in the walls.
     Replacing a window from the inside.
     Removing paint with high and low temperature heat guns.
     Removing paint by dry scraping.
     Removing paint with a power planer.
     Removing kitchen cabinets.
    EPA requests public comment, information, and data, particularly
peer-reviewed studies, on the dust-lead levels that are generated by
renovations on the interiors of non-residential buildings. EPA also
requests comment on the extent to which these two EPA studies should
inform EPA's determination on lead-based paint hazards created by
renovations in the interiors of public and commercial

buildings, especially considering that some of the renovations in the
Dust Study were performed in a school building.
    3. Other evidence of lead-based paint hazards. While EPA primarily
relied on the two studies described in section III.B.2. to determine
that renovations in and on target housing and child-occupied facilities
create lead-based paint hazards, EPA also looked at the available
evidence for a relationship between renovations and blood lead levels.
In particular, EPA considered the results of the other three phases of
the study conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2). Phase II, the Worker
Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 13), involved collecting
data on blood lead and renovation and remodeling activities from
workers. Notably, half of the renovations studied occurred in
commercial buildings and half occurred in residential housing. Thus,
this study provides evidence of a relationship between commercial
building renovation activities and worker blood lead levels. Phase IV,
the Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and
Remodeling) Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic
Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals
who worked primarily in old historic buildings.
    EPA also relied on the evidence presented by Phase III of the TSCA
section 402(c)(2) study, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref.
14), which documented a relationship between renovation and remodeling
activities and the blood-lead levels of resident children. This
evidence of a relationship is corroborated by New York studies also
discussed in II.D.4.
    EPA also considered several studies conducted by the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that assessed
worker exposure and transport of lead dust from renovation activities
(Refs. 36 and 37). For example, one study done at the University of
California, Berkeley, assessed lead-based paint exposures of workers
during exterior renovation work on campus buildings (Ref. 37).
Estimated average exposures during dry manual sanding, dry manual
scraping, power finish sanding, and power finish sanding with bag would
exceed the permissible exposure limit (PEL) within an 8-hr period.
Estimated average exposures for power sanding with HEPA exhaust, flame
burning, wet manual sanding, and wet scraping would be below the PEL.
Although it resulted in relatively low worker exposures, flame burning
was among the tasks associated with the higher lead levels in air and
settled dust levels in nearby areas (Ref. 37).
    Lead-based paint is defined by TSCA as paint with lead levels equal
to or exceeding 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm\2\) or 0.5%
by weight (TSCA section 401(9) (15 U.S.C. 2681(9))). However, OSHA
states in 29 CFR 1926.62 that if lead is present in the workplace in
any quantity the employer is required to make an initial determination
of whether any employee's exposure to lead exceeds the action level (30
ug/m3) averaged over an 8 hour day. This position is supported by the
following interpretations:

    OSHA's role is to protect workers from health and safety
hazards, including exposure to harmful levels of lead, whatever the
source. Accordingly, for all tasks governed by OSHA's Lead in
Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62) involving paints having any
level of lead, employers must comply with the assessment measures
and any applicable protections of that standard.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27319.

    The lead-in-construction standard was intended to apply to any
detectable concentration of lead in paint, as even small
concentrations of lead can result in unacceptable employee exposures
depending upon on the method of removal and other workplace
conditions. Since these conditions can vary greatly, the lead-in-
construction standard was written to require exposure monitoring or
the use of historical or objective data to ensure that employee
exposures do not exceed the action level. Historical data may be
applied to all construction tasks involving lead. Objective data was
intended to apply to all tasks other than those listed under
paragraph 1926.62(d)(2) of the standard.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_
table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22701.

    EPA requests public comment, as well as additional information and
data, particularly peer-reviewed studies, on the relationship between
renovations in and on public and commercial buildings and blood lead
levels in workers, building occupants, and visitors. EPA also requests
public comment on the extent to which these blood-lead studies can
inform EPA's determination on lead-based paint hazards created by
public and commercial building renovations.

C. Prevalence of Leaded Paint and Lead Levels in Leaded Paint in and on
Public and Commercial Buildings

    An important consideration in determining which renovations create
lead-based paint hazards and how best to address those hazards is
likely to be the prevalence of leaded paint disturbed and the level of
lead in that paint. In issuing the 2008 RRP Rule covering renovations
in target housing and child-occupied facilities, EPA relied heavily on
two surveys sponsored by HUD. The first, the National Survey of Lead
and Allergens in Housing, was a representative sampling of housing
units where children could reside for lead-based paint, lead-based
paint hazards, and allergens (Ref. 38). This survey provided valuable
information on the prevalence of and levels of lead in lead-based paint
in target housing. A similar survey, the First National Environmental
Health Survey of Childcare Centers, was conducted in licensed child-
care centers and included sampling for lead in paint, lead-based paint
hazards, allergens, and pesticides (Ref. 39).
    EPA requests public input on these issues related to the presence
of leaded paint in and on public and commercial buildings:
    1. What information and data are available on the prevalence of
leaded paint? What information and data are available on the levels of
lead (concentration or percentage of total) in such paint? Does the
prevalence or lead level differ by building age, component or type
(e.g., interior or exterior; doors and windows, trim or walls; wood
substrate or metal substrate)?
    2. What information and data are available on the trends in
prevalence and lead levels over time?
    3. What available data would help EPA estimate the likelihood that
a public or commercial building contains lead-based paint? Are there
factors that should be considered other than the year in which it was
constructed?
    4. What voluntary consensus standards or other guidelines or
specifications affect the prevalence of leaded paint and the levels of
lead in such paint?
    5. What federal, state, and local laws, regulations, or ordinances
affect the prevalence of leaded paint and the lead levels in such
paint?
    6. What information is available on the current manufacture and
import of lead-based paint for commercial building use?

D. Typical Renovation Activities and Building Management Practices for
Public and Commercial Buildings

    In making the determination which renovation activities in and on
public and commercial buildings create lead-based paint hazards, EPA
must evaluate information on the typical renovations performed and the
typical practices used in performing these renovations. EPA is also
interested in types of lead-

paint containing building components that may be reused during a
renovation of a public or commercial building. EPA encourages the
public to submit comments, information, and data relating to these
considerations.
    1. What types of renovations are typically performed in and on
public and commercial buildings, and how often is each type performed?
What is the span or range, both typical and extreme, in size and
duration of each type of renovation job?
    2. Do renovation firms or the building owners or managers typically
assess whether the paint the renovation firms will disturb during a
renovation job in or on a public or commercial building contains lead?
To what extent are there patterns in their making such assessments?
Before hiring a renovation firm to perform a renovation, or performing
a renovation using building maintenance staff, do public and commercial
building owners or managers assess whether leaded paint is present?
What methods and procedures are currently employed by contractors or
building owners/managers to assess whether paint contains lead?
    3. Do building owners or managers typically provide notice of the
lead content of building paint to renovation firms, building occupants
or the public? What triggers these notifications? Do renovation firms
or building owners/managers typically provide advance notice of
renovation activities to building occupants or the public? To what
extent are there patterns in their making such notifications?
    4. Do renovation firms typically separate renovation work areas
from other areas of the building or grounds to limit access and
minimize the spread of dust, chips, and debris? How often are the
following practices used to accomplish this separation, and to what
extent are there patterns in their using such practices? To what extent
have renovation firms or the public building owners or managers
assessed the efficacy of these separation practices on the projects
where they are used, and what are the results of such assessments?
     Restricting access of other building occupants or the
public into or around the building during renovation through warning
signs and/or barriers.
     Closing the windows of the building during exterior
renovations and the windows of other buildings adjacent to the work
area.
     Placing plastic on the ground to capture the falling chips
and paint dust during exterior renovations.
     Avoiding exterior renovation work during windy conditions.
     Shutting off the ventilation system and sealing the supply
and return grills during interior renovation.
     Sealing off the work area (establishing a work area
containment system) for interior renovations.
     Maintaining negative pressure in the work area with
respect to the adjacent areas during interior renovations.
     Follow OSHA housekeeping provisions specified in the OSHA
lead standards at 29 CFR 1926.62 or 29 CFR 1910.1025, or practice good
housekeeping in the work area.
    5. What clean-up practices do renovation firms typically follow
during and after renovation activities in and on public and commercial
buildings? How often are brooms used? How often is wet cleaning or
mopping performed? How often is vacuuming performed, and, in
particular, how often are shop vacuums used, and how often are high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums used?
    6. How often is dust wipe testing for leaded dust performed after
renovations in public and commercial buildings? How often is soil
tested for lead after renovations on public and commercial buildings,
especially after exterior renovations? Do renovation firms or building
owners/managers use any other methods to assess lead levels in dust or
soil remaining after renovations? Are the results of these tests or
assessments used to determine whether the work area may be re-occupied
by other building occupants or visited by the public?
    7. What routine cleaning procedures do the owners and managers of
public and commercial buildings follow, apart from renovation projects?
How often are these procedures followed? Are there differences in
cleaning procedures and or frequencies between older (e.g., pre-1978)
buildings and newer (e.g., post-1977) buildings?
    8. To what extent are building components that contain lead-based
paint reused? To what extent are reused components tested for lead-
based paint before reuse?
    9. To what extent are measures taken to avoid the release of lead
dust during the installation and use of reused lead-contaminated
building materials (such as paint removal techniques)?
    10. What information is available on the scale and types of new
renovation and repair projects on public and commercial buildings?

E. Renovation Waste

    Waste from building renovations can create lead-contaminated waste.
Lead-contaminated waste from the renovation of residences, regardless
of who generates the waste, is excluded from the Subtitle C Hazardous
Waste Regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) (Ref. 40). This includes waste from the renovation of single
family homes, apartment buildings, public housing, and military
barracks. This waste may be disposed of in a municipal solid waste
landfill or in a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill. However
this exclusion does not apply to lead-contaminated waste generated from
public and commercial building renovations. That waste must be managed
in accordance with the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations. Given this
regulatory status, EPA requests public comment, information, and data
responsive to the following questions:
    1. What information is available on current practices for the
cleanup, handling, and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes after
public and commercial building renovations?
    2. Can you provide information and data on the amount of waste from
renovation activities in public and commercial buildings that a
contractor might currently manage as RCRA Hazardous Waste? What
materials are typically included in this waste?
    3. To what extent (i.e. quantities) is lead-contaminated waste from
public and commercial building renovations recycled? What information
is available on the methods and practices currently in use for
recycling such wastes?
    4. To what extent (i.e. quantities) are lead-containing building
components and other waste removed from public and commercial buildings
during renovations reused? What information is available on the methods
and practices currently employed for reusing such components?
    5. Other than RCRA, what federal, state or local statutes,
regulations, ordinances, or protocols govern the cleanup, handling,
disposal, and reuse of lead-contaminated waste from public and
commercial building renovations?
    6. What measures are typically taken to avoid the release of leaded
dust during the removal and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes from
public and commercial building renovations?

F. The Renovation Workforce in Public and Commercial Buildings

    In determining which public and commercial building renovations
create lead-based paint hazards and in designing safe, reliable, and
effective work practice standards to address those lead-based paint
hazards, EPA must take into account the typical renovation workforce
for public and commercial buildings. Accordingly, EPA seeks

public comment and data to help inform the Agency's understanding of
this workforce.
    1. What kinds of contractors perform renovations in and on public
and commercial buildings? How often is building maintenance staff used
to perform renovations in and on public and commercial buildings? What
differences are there in the size or type of projects typically
conducted by contractors vs. building maintenance staff?
    2. When hiring a contractor to perform a renovation, how often do
building owners/managers check to see whether the personnel who will be
performing the renovation have been trained in lead-safe work
practices, i.e., work practices designed to minimize the creation of
leaded dust and debris, control the spread of such dust and debris, and
properly clean up this dust and debris after the renovation has been
completed? How often do building owners and managers train (either
personally or through consultants) building maintenance staff in lead-
safe work practices? What kind of lead-safe work practices training do
contractor employees or building maintenance staff typically receive?
    3. How often do building owners/managers or renovation contractors
hire consultants trained to evaluate lead-based paint and lead-based
paint hazards, architects, engineers, or others, to assess the
renovation work area before work begins? How often do building owners/
managers or renovation contractors hire consultants trained in lead-
safe work practices, lead-based paint inspection, lead risk assessment,
and/or lead project design to assist them in designing and conducting
renovation projects? What are the patterns for the use of such
consultants in these various situations?
    4. Who typically provides health, safety, and environmental
oversight during renovation projects in public and commercial
buildings--the building owner, the building manager, the construction
contractor, or another party? Are other specially qualified individuals
involved in the oversight of renovation projects? Are interior and
exterior renovations handled differently in this respect?
    5. Typically, do contractors who perform renovations in public and
commercial buildings also perform renovations in residential buildings?
Are the same work practices followed in both settings? To what extent
are the contractor employees the same from job to job? How likely is it
that an employee used to perform a public or commercial building
renovation will have received the training required by the 2008 RRP
Rule for renovation work in target housing and child-occupied
facilities? Do renovation contractors in public and commercial
buildings typically establish and enforce standard renovation work
practice procedures for their employees?

G. Exposure Considerations

    In determining which public and commercial building renovations
create lead-based paint hazards and in fashioning reliable, safe, and
effective work practices for those renovations, EPA must consider the
exposures of building occupants and visitors. To help inform EPA's
decision-making, EPA requests public comment, information, and data,
particularly relevant peer-reviewed studies, related to exposures.
    1. What are the pathways for exposure in each type of public or
commercial building?
    2. While the Agency has developed research-based daily activity
patterns for general use in its analyses for children and adults, none
of the patterns distinguish activities based on the character or
ownership of the buildings where activities occur (Ref. 41). What data
or studies are available that would assist EPA in estimating the amount
of time that any particular individual will spend in public and
commercial buildings and what portion of that time will be in a
building containing leaded paint or lead-based paint hazards? What data
or studies exist that characterize the range or distribution of time
spent by typical individuals? How much variation in exposure exists in
exposure by typical people?
    3. What information and data are available on occupancy rates
(e.g., number of people, days per year of occupancy), exposed
population (e.g., demographic characteristics, reason for being in the
building (working, visiting, etc.)), and time-activity patterns of
occupants of each type of public or commercial building?
    4. How often are public and commercial buildings assessed to
determine the presence, distribution and extent of lead-based paint?
    5. To what extent will people other than renovation workers, such
as other building occupants, visitors, passers-by, and occupants of
nearby buildings, be exposed to leaded dust and debris created by
public and commercial building renovations? For instance, when
scaffolding is installed, how likely are dust and debris to waft down
to passersby or to fill the ambient air? To what extent do scaffolding
enclosures affect the dispersion of the dust and debris?
    6. What information is available on the number of potentially-
exposed occupants of buildings undergoing renovations or buildings
recently renovated, the duration of the occupants' exposure per work
day, and the number of days or hours exposed per year during and after
exterior and interior renovations? To what extent are these exposure
rates affected by the scheduling of the renovations, e.g., to what
extent are renovations conducted during shifts or days when few regular
occupants of the buildings are present (typically nights and weekends)?
    7. What information and data are available on the proximity of
residential properties to public or commercial buildings? What is the
distribution of distances of residences, schools and childcare
facilities from public or commercial buildings? In particular, to what
extent are public or commercial buildings mixed-use buildings, with
residences, schools and/or child care facilities in the buildings? What
information and data are available on the correlation between the
distribution of distances of residences, schools and day care
facilities from public or commercial buildings and average incomes of
communities or neighborhoods? For example, many low income communities
are in mixed-use neighborhoods.
    8. What information and data are available on the demographics of
mixed-use neighborhoods?
    9. For low income communities in mixed-use neighborhoods,
particularly those in which the housing stock is primarily pre-1978,
how should EPA consider multiple exposures from both residential
buildings and public and commercial buildings?
    10. Do communities in mixed-use neighborhoods have higher burdens
of lead exposure? What factors should EPA consider in assessing the
extent to which renovations in and on public and commercial buildings
contribute to disproportionate impacts?
    11. What studies and other sources of information are available on
the frequency of use or effectiveness of work practices designed to
prevent other building occupants and visitors and persons in nearby
buildings from being exposed to leaded dust and debris created by
renovations in and on public and commercial buildings?
    12. To what extent have recent building renovations or
constructions installed reused building materials that are coated with
lead-based paint? To what extent have installers abated or used
techniques to eliminate worker or occupant exposure to lead from these
materials?

    13. To what extent do green building certification systems
encourage the reuse of lead-contaminated building materials? To what
extent do these systems encourage lead abatement of reused materials?

IV. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for
this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards (February 2000).
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health
Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A Statement by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention August 2005).
3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006).
4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities: Final Rule. Federal
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996).
5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final
Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999).
6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-based Paint
Abatement Activities Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR
18489, April 8, 2004).
7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From
Lead in Your Home (EPA-747-K-99-001, June 2003).
8. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), USEPA. Lead;
Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR
9064, March 6, 1996).
9. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation
of Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 29907, June
1, 1998).
10. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001).
11. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-
K-97-001, September 1997).
12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-
96-007, May 1997).
13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
(EPA747-R-96-006, May 1997).
14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA
747-R-99-002, March 1999).
15. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
of R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes
(EPA747-R-99-001, March 1999).
16. USEPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007).
17. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final
Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008).
18. USEPA, Sierra Club, etc. Settlement. (August, 2009).
19. USEPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping
Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 55506, October 28, 2009).
20. Sierra Club, etc. Petition to Lower Dust Lead Hazard Standard.
(2009)
21. USEPA. Response to Petition on Dust Lead Hazard Standard
(October, 2009).
22. USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006).
23. USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-02/001F (May 2003).
24. USEPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005a. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (2005).
25. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J.
Brody, Kathleen L. Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown.
``Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S.
Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.'' Pediatrics 2009, Vol. 123,
No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009.
26. HHS, PHS, CDC. ``Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels
Attributed to Home Renovation and Remodeling Activities--New York,
1993-1994.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-
1123, January 3, 1997).
27. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Related
to Home Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities--New York State,
2006-2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (58(03); 55-58,
January 30, 2009).
28. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B.
Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ``Is Home Renovation or Repair a
Risk Factor for Exposure to Lead Among Children Residing in New York
City?'' Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005.
29. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities:
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 45872, September 2, 1994).
30. CPSC. Federal Register (42 FR 44199, September 1, 1977, as
amended at 43 FR 8515, March 2, 1978).
31. Roberts, J.W., D.E. Camann, and T.M. Spittler. ``Reducing Lead
Exposure from Remodeling and Soil Track-In in Older Homes.'' In:
Proceedings, Annual Meeting--Air and Waste Management Association.
Publication No. 91-134.2. (1991a).
32. Stefani D, D. Wardman, T. Lambert. The Implosion of the Calgary
General Hospital: Ambient Air Quality Issues. J Air Waste Manag
Assoc. 2005 Jan; 55(1):52-9.
33. Farfel M.R., A.O. Orlova, P.S. Lees, C. Rohde, P.J. Ashley, J.
Chisolm. ``A Study of Urban Housing Demolition as a Source of Lead
in Ambient Dust on Sidewalks, Streets, and Alleys.'' Environ Res.
2005 Oct; 99(2):204-13. Epub 2004 Dec 15.
34. Snyder, M.K. and D. Bendersky. ``Removal of Lead Based Bridge
Paints.'' Midwest Research Institute. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 265 for the Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, December 1983.
35. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Department of
the Attorney General. Rhode Island Lead Nuisance Abatement Plan
(September 14, 2007).
36. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Health Hazard Evaluation; Vermont Housing & Conservation Board. HETA
98-0285-2989 Montpelier, Vermont (December 2005).
37. NIOSH. Health Hazard Evaluation; University of California,
Berkley. HETA 99-0113-2853 Berkeley, California (July
2001).
38. HUD. National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, Volume I:
Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31,
2002).
39. HUD. First National Environmental Health Survey of Child Care
Centers, Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report. (July 15,
2003).
40. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A.
Cotsworth, Director, ``Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by
Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based Paint Activities Conducted
in Households'' (July 31, 2000).
41. USEPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report) EPA/600/P-95/
002F a-c (1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes to
the document that were made in response to comments received by EPA
during that review have been documented in the docket as required by
the Executive Order.
    Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements,
and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider
in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other
review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do
not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on
this document, you may include any comments or information that you
have regarding the various other review requirements.
    In particular, EPA is interested in any information that would help
the Agency to assess the potential impact of a rule on small entities
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to
consider environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997); or to consider human health or environmental effects on minority
or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    EPA specifically requests information and data to facilitate its
analyses in the following two areas:

    a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly interested in receiving
comments and information about the various characteristics of
potentially impacted small entities that would facilitate the
Agency's evaluation of the number of firms that might experience an
impact from a rulemaking in this area, as well as an assessment of
the potential size of that impact on small entities. In commenting
or providing information about small entities that might be impacted
by a rulemaking in this area, please note that the phrase ``small
entities'' encompasses small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. In the analysis the Agency
expects to perform under the RFA, these entities are specifically
defined in sections 601(3)-(5) of the RFA. The definitions for
``small business'' are codified in the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines
small business by category of business using the NAICS-Codes.
(http://www.sba.gov/regulations/121/201.htm) Small business default
definitions can be found on SBA's internet site at http://
www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html. A ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is ``a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than
50,000.'' A ``small organization'' is any ``not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.''
    b. Environmental Justice. EPA is particularly interested in
receiving comment and information about potential impacts--both
benefits and costs--on the human health or environmental conditions
in minority or low-income populations. Such information would
facilitate the Agency's consideration of environmental justice
during the development of the proposed rule.

    This information will be used in the identification and evaluation
of options for the proposed rule, and will inform the analyses that the
Agency intends to prepare for the proposed rule. Any comments on this
topic should be submitted to the Agency in the manner specified under
ADDRESSES. The Agency will consider such comments during the
development of any subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate
steps to address any applicable requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substance, Lead poisoning,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 22, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-10097 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P