[Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21691-21769]
[DOCID:fr22ap08-11]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 745

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Lead Hazard Information
Pamphlet; Notice of Availability; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8355-7]
RIN 2070-AC83

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final rule under the authority of section
402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (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. ``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
this 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. Child-
occupied facilities may be located in public or commercial buildings or
in target housing. This 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 these new renovation requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To
access the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select
``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID
number where indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the
instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or
access available documents. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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 Federal holidays. The telephone number of the
EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Mike Wilson, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), 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>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform
renovations of target housing or child-occupied facilities for
compensation or dust sampling. ``Target housing'' is defined in section
401 of TSCA as any housing constructed prior to 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 this 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
2 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. Child-occupied facilities may be located in
public or commercial buildings or in target housing. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction,
residential remodelers.
     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 residential
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
     Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
e.g., training providers.
     Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling
technicians.
    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 North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit III. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is issuing a final rule under the authority of section
402(c)(3) of the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address lead-based paint hazards
created by renovation, repair, and painting activities (hereinafter
also referred to as renovation activities or renovation projects) that
disturb lead-based paint in target housing and child-occupied
facilities. ``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
this 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. Child-
occupied facilities may be located in public or commercial buildings or
in target housing. This 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 these new renovation requirements.
    1. 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.
    Lead has been demonstrated to exert ``a broad array of deleterious
effects on multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of
action.'' This array of health effects, the evidence for which is
comprehensively described in EPA's Air Quality Criteria for Lead
document (Ref. 1), includes heme biosynthesis and related functions;
neurological development and function; reproduction and physical
development; kidney function; cardiovascular function; and immune
function. There is also some evidence of lead carcinogenicity,
primarily from animal studies, together with limited human evidence of
suggestive associations.
    Of particular interest for present purposes is the delineation of
lowest observed effect levels for those lead-induced effects that are
most clearly associated with blood lead less 10 [mu]g/dL in children
and/or adults and are, therefore, of greatest public health concern
(Ref. 1, at 8-60). As evident from 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 of
effects are currently clearly of greatest public health concern. Other
newly demonstrated immune and renal system effects among general
population groups are also emerging as low-level lead-exposure effects
of potential public health concern. (Ref. 1, at 8-60)
    The overall weight of the available evidence provides clear
substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated in young
children with blood lead concentrations in the range of 5-10 micrograms
per deciliter ([mu]g/dL), and possibly somewhat lower. Some newly
available analyses appear to show lead effects on the intellectual
attainment of preschool and school age children at population mean
concurrent blood-lead levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 [mu]g/dL.
A decline of 6.2 points in full scale IQ for an increase in concurrent
blood lead levels from 1 to 10 [mu]g/dL has been estimated, based on a
pooled analysis of results derived from seven well-conducted
prospective epidemiologic studies (Ref. 1, at E-9).
    Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations
between lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular
outcomes, including increased blood pressure and incidence of
hypertension. 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 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6
mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. (Ref. 1, at E-10).
    Both epidemiologic and toxicologic studies have shown that
environmentally relevant levels of lead affect many different organ
systems (Ref. 1, at E-8). Please see Ref. 1 for further information.
    The nervous system has long been recognized as a target of lead
toxicity, with the developing nervous system affected at lower
exposures than the mature system. While blood lead levels in U.S.
children ages 1 to 5 years have decreased notably since the late
1970's, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of
effects on the neurodevelopment of children at population mean
concurrent blood lead levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 [mu]g/dL
(Ref. 1, at E-9). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity
during childhood include sensory, motor, cognitive and behavioral
impacts. Investigating associations between lead exposure and behavior,
mood, and social conduct of children has been an emerging area of
research (see Ref. 1, at 6.2.6). Early studies indicated linkages
between lower-level lead toxicity and behavioral problems (e.g.,
aggression, attentional problems, and hyperactivity) in children.
    Effects of lead on neurobehavior have been reported with remarkable
consistency across numerous studies of various designs, populations
studied, and developmental assessment protocols. The negative impact of
lead on IQ and other neurobehavioral outcomes persist in most recent
studies following adjustment for numerous confounding factors including
social class, quality of caregiving, and parental intelligence.
Moreover, these effects appear to persist into adolescence and young
adulthood. Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have
been observed in some studies include 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. Associations between lead exposure and academic
achievement observed in the above-noted studies 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. 1, at 8-29).
    Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have
included effects on attention, executive functions, language, memory,
learning and visuospatial processing with attention and executive
function effects observed. The evidence for the role of lead in this
suite of effects includes experimental animal findings.These animal
toxicology findings provide strong biological plausibility in support
of the concept that lead may impact one or more of these specific
cognitive

functions in humans (Ref. 1, at 8-30). Further, lead-induced deficits
observed in animal and epidemiological studies, for the most part, have
been found to be persistent in the absence of markedly reduced
environmental exposures. It is additionally important to note that
there may be long-term consequences of such deficits over a lifetime.
Studies examining aspects of academic achievement related to lead
exposure indicate the association of deficits in academic skills and
performance, which in turn lead to enduring and important effects on
objective parameters of success in real life (Ref. 1, at 6-76).
    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. 1, at
4-42). 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.
    Paint that contains lead can pose a health threat through various
routes of exposure. House dust is the most common exposure pathway
through which children are exposed to lead-based paint hazards. Dust
created during normal lead-based paint wear (especially around windows
and doors) can create an invisible film over surfaces in a house.
Children, particularly younger children, are at risk for high exposures
of lead-based paint dust via hand-to-mouth exposure, and may also
ingest lead-based paint chips from flaking paint on walls, windows, and
doors. Lead from exterior house paint can flake off or leach into the
soil around the outside of a home, contaminating children's play areas.
Cleaning and renovation activities may actually increase the threat of
lead-based paint exposure by dispersing lead dust particles in the air
and over accessible household surfaces. In turn, both adults and
children can receive hazardous exposures by inhaling the dust or by
ingesting lead-based paint dust during hand-to-mouth activities.
    2. Statutory and regulatory background. 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. 2). 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 the CDC
level of concern declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1.6%
between 2003 and 2004. 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 Lead; 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 section402 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 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). 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. 5).
    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.
    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. 8). 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. These regulations were
promulgated on January 5, 2001, and codified at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart D (Ref. 9). 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.
    TSCA section 402(c) 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 entitledReducing Lead Hazards when Remodeling
Your Home in consultation with industry and trade groups (Ref. 10).
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.
    TSCA section 402(c)(2) 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.
11), evaluated the amount of leaded dust released 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.
    Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref.
12), involved collecting data on blood lead and renovation and
remodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood
Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 13.), 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 Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of
Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 14), 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.
    3. Summary of 2006 Proposal. TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to
revise the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations to apply to
renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that any
renovation activity that disturbs lead-based paint can create
significant amounts of leaded dust, that most activities created lead-
based paint hazards, and that some activities can be reasonably
anticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. Accordingly, on January
10, 2006, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering
renovation performed for compensation in target housing (Ref. 3). The
2006 Proposal contained requirements designed to address lead-based
paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities
that disturb lead-based paint. The 2006 Proposal included 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. The 2006 Proposal would have made the rule effective in
two stages. Initially, the rule would have applied to all renovations
for compensation performed in target housing where a child with an
increased blood lead level resided and rental target housing built
before 1960. The rule would also have applied to owner-occupied target
housing built before 1960, unless the person performing the renovation
obtained a statement signed by the owner-occupant that the renovation
would occur in the owner's residence and that no child under age 6
resided there. As proposed, the rule would take effect 1 year later in
all rental target housing built between 1960 and 1978 and owner-
occupied target housing built between 1960 and 1978. EPA also proposed
to allow interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes the
opportunity to apply for and receive authorization to administer and
enforce all of the elements of the new renovation provisions.
    4. Summary of 2007 Supplemental Proposal. EPA received
approximately 250 comments on its 2006 Proposal. These comments came
from a wide variety of commenters, including State and local
governments, industry groups, advocacy groups, renovation contractors,
training providers, and individuals. A significant number of these
commenters observed that the

proposal did not cover buildings where children under age 6 spend a
great deal of time, such as day care centers and schools. Commenters
noted that the risk posed to children from lead-based paint hazards in
schools and day care centers is likely to be equal to, if not greater
than, the risk posed from these hazards at home. These commenters
suggested that EPA expand its proposal to include such places, and
several suggested that EPA use the existing definition of ``child-
occupied facility'' in 40 CFR 745.223 to define the expanded scope of
coverage. EPA felt that these comments had merit, and, because adding
child-occupied facilities was beyond the scope of the 2006 Proposal, an
expansion of the 2006 Proposal was necessary to give this issue full
and fair consideration. Accordingly, on June 5, 2007, EPA issued a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2007 Supplemental Proposal)
to add child-occupied facilities to the universe of buildings covered
by the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 15).
    EPA proposed to use the definition of ``child-occupied facility''
from 40 CFR 745.223 with some modifications to make it consistent with
the statutory focus on children under age 6 and to better describe the
applicability of the term in target housing and in public or commercial
buildings. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal would apply all of the
accreditation, training, certification, work practice, and
recordkeeping requirements to renovations in child-occupied facilities
in the same way that the requirements would apply to renovations in
target housing. In addition, EPA proposed to extend the lead hazard
information distribution requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education
Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, to renovations in child-occupied
facilities. Specifically, EPA proposed that persons performing
renovations in child-occupied facilities in public or commercial
buildings would have to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to
the owner of the building and to the proprietor of the child-occupied
facility. In addition, general information about the renovation would
have to be provided to parents and guardians of children under age 6
using the child-occupied facility. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal
further provided that a lead hazard information pamphlet would have to
be provided to parents and guardians or made available upon request.
EPA received 12 comments on its 2007 Supplemental Proposal.
    5. 2007 Notice of Data Availability. After the 2006 proposal, two
new studies assessing hazards associated with renovation activities
were completed. On March 16, 2007, EPA announced the availability of
these new studies in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 16). EPA
requested comment on how these studies might inform provisions of the
final rule. EPA received nearly 100 comments in response to its notice.
Comments specifically on the studies are discussed below. Comments on
how the studies might affect the final rule are discussed along with
the provisions of the final rule in Unit III.E. of this preamble.
    a. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Activities. EPA conducted a field study (Characterization
of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities)
(the ``Dust Study'') to characterize dust lead levels resulting from
various renovation, repair, and painting activities (Ref. 17). 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. All of the jobs disturbed more than 2 square feet of lead-
based paint, so they would not have been eligible for the minor
maintenance exception from the 2006 Proposal. The renovation activities
were conducted by local professional renovation firms, using personnel
who received lead safe work practices training using the curriculum
developed by EPA and HUD, ``Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, and
Painting'' (Ref. 18). The activities conducted represented a range of
activities that would be permitted under the 2006 Proposal, including
work practices that are restricted or prohibited for abatements under
40 CFR 745.227(e)(6). 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 design of the Dust Study was peer-reviewed by experts in fields
related to the study. They reviewed the design and quality assurance
plan independently and provided written comments to EPA. The results of
this peer-review are summarized in Unit 2 of the Dust Study report
(Ref. 17). In addition, the record of this peer-review, which includes
the comments from the reviewers and EPA's responses, has been placed
into the public docket for this action.
    In the Dust Study, 12 different interior and 12 different exterior
renovation activities were performed at 7 vacant target housing units
in Columbus, Ohio, and 8 vacant target housing units (including four
apartments) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Three different interior and
three different exterior renovation activities were conducted at a
building representing a child-occupied facility, a vacant school in
Columbus. The presence of lead-based paint was confirmed by laboratory
analysis before a building was assigned a particular renovation
activity or set of activities. Before interior renovation activities
were performed, the floors and windowsills in the work area and
adjacent rooms were cleaned. In most cases, pre-work cleaning resulted
in dust lead levels on floors of less than 10 [micro]g/ft\2\; nearly
all floors were less than 40 [micro]g/ft\2\ before work started. Most
windowsills that would be used for later sampling were cleaned to dust
lead levels less than 250 [micro]g/ft\2\. In the few cases where that
level was not achieved on a windowsill needed for sampling, dust
collection trays were used. Interior renovation activities included the
following jobs:
     Making cut-outs in the walls.
     Replacing a window from the inside.
     Removing paint with a high temperature (greater than 1100
degrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.
     Removing paint with a low temperature (less than 1100
degrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.
     Removing paint by dry scraping.
     Removing kitchen cabinets.
     Removing paint with a power planer.
    To illustrate the impact of the containment plastic and the
specialized cleaning and cleaning verification protocol that would be
required by the 2006 Proposal, each activity was performed a minimum of
four times:
     With the plastic containment described in the 2006
Proposal followed by the cleaning protocol described in the proposal.
     With the plastic containment described in the 2006
Proposal followed by dry sweeping and vacuuming with a shop vacuum.
     With no plastic containment followed by the cleaning
protocol described in the 2006 Proposal.
     With no plastic containment followed by dry sweeping and
vacuuming with a shop vacuum.
    Dust samples were collected after the renovation work was
completed, after cleaning, and after cleaning verification. If a
building was being used again for the same job under different work

practices, or for a completely different job, the unit was recleaned
and retested prior to starting the next job. All buildings were cleaned
and tested after the last job.
    Geometric mean post-work, pre-cleaning floor dust lead levels in
the work room were as follows (in [micro]g/ft\2\):
     Cut-outs--422.
     Kitchen cabinet removal--958.
     Low temperature heat gun--2,080.
     Dry scraping--2,686.
     Window replacement--3,993.
     High temperature heat gun--7,737.
     Power planing--32,644.
    Power planing is an activity very similar to power sanding in which
a machine that operates at high speed generating large quantities of
dust is used.
    Where baseline practices, i.e., no containment, dry sweeping, and
vacuuming with a shop vacuum, were used, the geometric mean post-job
floor dust lead levels in the work room were as follows (in [micro]g/
ft\2\):
     Cut-outs--22.
     Kitchen cabinet removal--58.
     Low temperature heat gun--41.
     Dry scraping--66.
     Window replacement--135.
     High temperature heat gun--445.
     Power planing--450.
    The package of proposed rule requirements, i.e., containment,
specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification, resulted in the lowest
geometric mean dust lead levels in the work room at the end of a job.
These results were as follows (in [micro]g/ft\2\):
     Cut-outs--5.
     Kitchen cabinet removal--12.
     Low temperature heat gun--24.
     Dry scraping--30.
     Window replacement--33.
     High temperature heat gun--36.
     Power planing--148.
    Windowsill sample results were similar; the geometric mean dust
lead levels after renovation activities performed in accordance with
the proposed rule exceeded 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ only where power planing
or a high temperature heat gun were used. When baseline practices were
used, the geometric mean dust lead levels on the windowsills exceeded
250 [micro]g/ft\2\ for kitchen cabinet removal, window replacement,
high temperature heat gun use, and power planing.
    Exterior renovation activities performed as part of the study
included the following:
     Replacing a door and doorway.
     Replacing fascia boards, soffits, and other trim.
     Removing paint with a high temperature (greater than 1100
degrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.
     Removing paint with a low temperature (less than 1100
degrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.
     Removing paint by dry scraping.
     Removing paint with a needle gun.
     Removing paint with power sanding or grinding.
     Removing paint with a torch or open flame.
    For the exterior jobs, plastic sheeting was placed on the ground to
catch the debris and dust from the job, in accordance with the
requirements of the proposed rule. Additional plastic sheeting was laid
out beneath and beyond the ``proposed rule'' plastic. Trays to collect
dust and debris were placed on top of and underneath the ``proposed
rule'' plastic. Trays were also placed just outside of the ``proposed
rule'' plastic to assess how far the dust was spreading. A vertical
containment, as high as the work zone, was erected at the end of the
additional plastic.
    The use of the ``proposed rule'' plastic as a ground covering
captured large amounts of leaded dust. For all job types except
removing paint with a torch, there was a substantial difference between
the amount of lead captured by the ``proposed rule'' plastic and the
amount under the ``proposed rule'' plastic. Including both bulk debris
and dust, geometric mean lead levels in exterior samples from the
collection trays on top of the ``proposed rule'' plastic ranged from a
low of 60,662 [micro]g/ft\2\ for the door replacement activity to a
high of 7,216,358 [micro]g/ft\2\ for removing paint with a high
temperature heat gun. Geometric mean lead levels from the collection
trays under the ``proposed rule'' plastic ranged from a low of 32
[micro]g/ft\2\ for door replacement to 8,565 [micro]g/ft\2\ for
removing paint with a torch.
    This regulatory action was supported by the Dust Study discussed
above. Therefore, EPA conducted a peer review in accordance with OMB's
Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. EPA requested this
review from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Lead
Review Panel. The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed
by the EPA Administrator, was established under the Clean Air Act as an
independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC's comments on the
Dust Study, along with EPA's responses, have been placed into the
public docket for this action. More information on the CASAC
consultation process, along with background documents, is available on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/casac.htm.
    According to the peer review report, the CASAC Panel found
    . . .that the [Dust Study] was reasonably well-designed,
considering the complexity of the problem, and that the report
provided information not available from any other source. The study
indicated that the rule cleaning procedures reduced the residual
lead (Pb) remaining after a renovation more than did the baseline
cleaning procedures. Another positive aspect of the Dust Study was
that it described deviations from the protocol when they occurred.

The CASAC Panel also contended that the limited data from residential
housing units and child-occupied facilities included in the Dust Study,
most likely do not represent a statistically valid sample of housing at
the national level. They noted that there are aspects of the study that
would underestimate the levels of lead-loadings while other aspects of
the study would overestimate the loadings. EPA agrees that the Dust
Study is not nationally representative of all housing. EPA notes that
there are several reasons why this is the case, including the fact that
all of the housing studied was built during 1925 or earlier, and a
large number of the floors were in poor condition. A major purpose of
the Dust Study was to assess the proposed work practices. A
statistically valid sample of housing at the national level is not
needed to assess the work practices. If anything, the Dust Study is
conservative with respect to the age of housing because it studied
older houses and therefore is appropriate for assessing the
effectiveness of the work practices.
    In addition to the Dust Study which directly supported this
regulatory action, several other studies are discussed throughout the
preamble which may or may not have been peer reviewed.
    b. Lead-Safe Work Practices Survey Project. The National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB) conducted a survey that assessed
renovation and remodeling activities to measure levels of lead dust
generated by home improvement contractors (Ref. 19). The stated
objective of this survey, completed in November 2006, was to measure
the amount of lead dust generated during typical renovation and
remodeling activities and assess whether routine renovation and
remodeling activities increased lead dust levels in the work area and
on the property.
    The activities evaluated during the survey were selected in
consultation with remodeling contractors. NAHB believes that these
activities represent the most common jobs performed by renovation and
remodeling firms. The renovations were performed by professional
renovation and remodeling

contractors from each of the communities where the properties were
located. All of the workers who participated in this project had
previously attended and successfully completed the EPA/HUD curriculum
for Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting.
    According to the NAHB survey, anEPA-certified lead-based paint
inspector confirmed the presence of lead-based paint in all of the
properties considered for this survey. Previous inspection reports were
consulted if the inspections conformed to the HUD Guidelines for lead-
based paint inspections. Properties used in this survey included a
single family home in Illinois, two single-family homes and a duplex in
Connecticut, and an apartment above a storefront in Wisconsin.
    The NAHB survey evaluated the following activities:
     Wall and ceiling removal (demolition).
     Wall and ceiling modification.
     Window and door removal and/or replacement (no sanding).
     Window and door alteration (no sanding).
     Sanding on windows and doors.
     Kitchen or bath cabinet removal.
     Baseboard and stair removal.
     Surface preparation (sanding).
     Sawing into wood and plaster.
    Activities were performed in one of three ways: Using the work
practices presented in the EPA/HUD curriculum, using modified work
practices (one or more of the dust control or cleanup methods discussed
in the EPA/HUD curriculum), or routine renovation practices.
    Area air samples were collected before, during and after the work
activity. Personal breathing zone air samples were collected during the
work activity. Dust wipe samples were collected before work started and
after final clean-up. Dust wipe samples were routinely collected from
floors near the work activity and in some cases collected from a
windowsill and/or window well.
    In comparing the mean dust lead levels before the activities with
the mean dust lead levels after the activities, the NAHB concluded that
the renovation activities surveyed did not create new lead dust hazards
overall. However, even after clean-up was conducted, over half of the
60 individual renovation activities studied resulted in an increase in
dust lead levels on at least one surface. In most cases, the increase
was considerably greater than the regulatory dust-lead hazard standard
for that surface.
    6. Statutory finding and regulatory approach--TSCA section
402(c)(3) determination. TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise
the regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a), the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations, to apply to renovation or remodeling activities
that create lead-based paint hazards. EPA finds that renovation,
repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create
lead-based paint hazards. This finding is based upon EPA's
Environmental Field Sampling Study and corroborated by the Dust Study
and the NAHB survey (Refs. 11, 17, and 19).
    In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that any renovation
activity that disturbs lead-based paint can create significant amounts
of leaded dust, that most activities created lead-based paint hazards,
and that some activities can be reasonably anticipated to create lead-
based paint hazards. EPA's proposed conclusions were based upon the
results of the Environmental Field Sampling Study, which examined, on a
variety of components using a variety of tools and methods, activities
that EPA had determined were representative of the paint-disturbing
activities that typically occur during renovations. The activities
were:
     Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
     Window replacement.
     HVAC duct work.
     Demolition of interior plaster walls.
     Drilling into wood.
     Drilling into plaster.
     Sawing into wood.
     Sawing into plaster.
    Specifically, EPA proposed to conclude that all of the activities
studied in the Environmental Field Sampling Study, with the exception
of drilling into plaster, can create lead-based paint hazards. With
respect to drilling into plaster, where lead-based paint is present,
EPA proposed to conclude that this activity can reasonably be
anticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. The Environmental Field
Sampling Study found that, with the exception of drilling into plaster,
all renovation and remodeling activities, when conducted where lead-
based paint is present, generated lead loadings on floors at a distance
of 5 to 6 feet from the activity that exceeded EPA's dust-lead hazard
standard of 40 [micro]g/ft\2\. However, upon further review, it is
apparent that the study also found that drilling into plaster created
dust lead levels in the immediate vicinity of the activity that
exceeded the dust-lead hazard standard. Thus, all the activities
studied did in fact create lead-based paint hazards.
    The 2006 Proposal cited the other phases of the TSCA section
402(c)(2) renovation and remodeling study to support EPA's proposed
determination that any renovation, remodeling, or painting activity
that disturbs lead-based paint can be reasonably anticipated to create
lead-based paint hazards. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead
Study, found that children who live in homes where renovation and
remodeling activities were performed within the past year are 30% more
likely to have a blood lead-level that equals or exceeds 10 [mu]g/dL,
the level of concern established by CDC, than children living in homes
where no such activity has taken place recently. Phases II and IV of
the study, which evaluated worker exposures from renovation and
remodeling activities, provide additional documentation of the
significant and direct relationship between blood-lead levels and the
conduct of certain renovation and remodeling activities. Phase II found
a statistically significant association between increased blood lead
levels and the number of days spent performing general renovation and
remodeling activities, paint removal, and cleanup in pre-1950 buildings
in the past month. Phase IV of the study found that persons performing
renovation and remodeling activities in old historic buildings are more
likely to have elevated blood lead levels than persons in the general
population of renovation and remodeling workers.
    In light of EPA's proposed determination, the 2006 Proposal
included revisions to the existing Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations to extend them to renovation, remodeling, and painting
activities in target housing, with certain exceptions. In proposing to
extend these regulations to renovation, remodeling, and painting
activities in child-occupied facilities, the 2007 Supplemental Proposal
incorporated the proposed TSCA section 402(c)(3) determination.
    Since the 2006 Proposal, EPA conducted the Dust Study and NAHB
submitted the results of their survey. The results of the Dust Study
confirm that renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-
based paint create lead-based paint hazards. The Dust Study evaluated a
number of common renovation activities, including replacing windows,
removing kitchen cabinets, cutting into walls, and removing paint by
high and low temperature heat guns, power tools, and dry scraping. The
geometric mean post-work dust lead levels on work room floors ranged
from a low of 422 [micro]g/ft\2\, or 10 times the dust-lead hazard

standard for floors, for cut-outs, to a high of 32,644 [micro]g/ft\2\
for power planing. Thus, all of the activities evaluated in the Dust
Study created floor dust lead levels that exceeded 40 [micro]g/ft\2\,
one of the measures that, in 40 CFR 745.65, defines a lead-based paint
hazard. It is more difficult to evaluate the effect of disturbing lead-
based paint in the NAHB Survey, since the survey did not involve
collecting samples after work had been performed but before the post-
renovation cleaning had begun. Nevertheless, even after post-renovation
cleaning using a variety of methods, in more than half of the 60
experiments performed in this survey, the post-cleaning dust wipe
sample results for at least one surface showed an increase greater than
the TSCA section 403 hazard standard over pre-work levels. These
experiments showing increased dust lead levels cover the range of
activities evaluated in the NAHB Survey.
    Therefore, in this action, EPA is issuing its determination that
renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based
paint create lead-based paint hazards. Because the evidence shows that
all such activities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-
based paint hazards, EPA is modifying its proposed finding, which
distinguished between activities that create lead-based paint hazards
and those that can reasonably be anticipated to create lead-based paint
hazards, and instead concludes that renovation activities that disturb
lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. Indeed, no commenter
submitted data indicating that any renovation, repair, or painting
activity should be exempt from regulation because it does not create
lead-based paint hazards.
    EPA received a large number of comments on this proposed finding.
Many expressed support for EPA's determination that any renovation,
repair, or painting activity that disturbs lead-based paint creates
lead-based paint hazards. Some commenters, while expressing their
support for this determination, also opined that the regulatory dust-
lead hazard standards for floors and windowsills are too high. These
commenters argued that recent scientific evidence shows that children
experience adverse health effects at lower blood lead levels than
previously thought, and since EPA's regulatory dust-lead hazard
standards were set with reference to a blood lead level of 10 [mu]g/dL,
the CDC level of concern, the dust-lead hazard standards must be
lowered. EPA agrees that recent studies demonstrate that neurocognitive
effects occur at blood lead levels below the current CDC level of
concern. In fact, EPA's most recent Air Quality Criteria for Lead
document, issued in October, 2006, describes several epidemiologic
studies published in the last 5 years that observed significant lead-
induced IQ decrements in children with some effects observed at blood
lead levels of 5 [mu]g/dL and lower (Ref. 1). The document also notes
that other recent studies observed significant associations at low
blood-lead levels for other neurotoxicity endpoints in addition to IQ,
such as arithmetic and reading scores, attentional behavior, and
neuromotive function. However, EPA is not addressing the
appropriateness of the existing dust-lead hazard standards in this
rulemaking. The original hazard standards were set through a separate
rulemaking process under TSCA section 403 that allowed for input from
all of the parties that would be affected by the standards.
Furthermore, EPA is concerned that a full review of the available
evidence and other considerations affecting the hazard standards as
part of this rulemaking would result in a significant delay in
promulgating training, certification, and work practice standards for
renovation activities. EPA did not propose to modify the TSCA section
403 hazard standard levels in this rulemaking and has not undertaken
the significant analyses that would need to be performed in order to
establish different standards. Accordingly, EPA is not able, in this
final rule, to modify the regulatory hazard standard. In any event,
since EPA finds that renovation activities that disturb lead-based
paint create lead-paint hazards, lowering the hazard standard would not
affect EPA's finding.
    Some commenters objected to EPA's proposed determination that
renovation, repair, or painting activities that disturb lead-based
paint create lead-based paint hazards. Some commenters interpreted
EPA's statutory authority to regulate renovation and remodeling under
TSCA section 402(c)(3) as being limited to those renovation and
remodeling activities for which EPA can prove a link between the
activity and the blood lead action level established by CDC for public
health intervention. These commenters contend that the failure to prove
such a link means that renovation and remodeling activities do not
create lead-based paint hazards. This interpretation is not supported
by the plain language of the statute. TSCA section 402(c)(3) requires
EPA to regulate renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-
based paint hazards. The term ``lead-based paint hazard'' is defined in
TSCA section 401 as ``any condition that causes exposure to lead from
lead-contaminated dust . . . that would result in adverse human health
effects as established by the Administrator under this subchapter.''
TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations which
``identify, for purposes of this subchapter and the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, lead-based paint hazards,
lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil.'' The TSCA section
403 regulations define dust-lead hazards as levels that equal or exceed
40 [micro]g/ft\2\ of lead on floors or 250 [micro]g/ft\2\ of lead on
interior windowsills. Therefore, EPA interprets TSCA as directing it to
regulate renovation and remodeling activities if such activities create
dust lead levels that exceed the standards for dust-lead hazards
established under TSCA section 403. Again, the Environmental Field
Sampling Study, the Dust Study, and the NAHB survey all demonstrate
that renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based paint
create dust lead levels that exceed the hazard standards in 40 CFR
745.65.
    EPA also interprets the scientific evidence for a link between
renovations and the CDC blood lead action level differently than do
these commenters. 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. 13). 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
wet scraping/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping
significantly increased the risk of elevated blood lead levels. Some of
the commenters on this rule focused on Table 3-13 in the study report
and cited that as evidence that work performed by paid professional
renovators does not create a statistically significant risk of an
elevated blood-lead level in a resident child.EPA agrees that this
table, which presents the results of analyses using one of the sets of
models used to interpret study data, indicates that, with respect to
the persons performing the work, the only statistically significant
result associated with increased risk of

elevated blood lead levels was work performed by a relative or friend
not in the household. Work performed by professional renovators was
associated with an increased risk of an elevated blood lead level, but
the association was not statistically significant. As explained more
fully in a memorandum summarizing additional analyses of the data from
this study (Ref. 20), this table does not indicate that professional
contractors were not responsible for creating lead exposure hazards.
Rather, it indicates that renovation activities performed by
professional contractors are no more or less hazardous than renovation
activities performed by most of the other categories of persons
identified in the survey responses collected as part of the study. It
is also important to note that, while these commenters focus on a
blood-lead level of 10 [mu]g/dL as a threshold, this level is not and
has not been considered by CDC or EPA as a threshold for adverse
effects.
    One commenter also dismissed the two studies from New York that EPA
cited as supporting 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. 21). The commenter noted that this
study suffered from a number of limitations, including the fact that it
was not a case-control study; i.e., the group of children with elevated
blood lead levels attributed to renovation and remodeling was not
compared with a similar group of households that had not undergone
renovation during the period. EPA agrees that this is an important
limitation of this study. However, with respect to the other
limitations noted by this commenter, the authors of the report felt
that most of these limitations would likely result in an
underestimation of the burden of lead exposure associated with
renovation and remodeling.
    The other study cited by EPA as supporting the Wisconsin Childhood
Blood-Lead Study conclusions 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. 22).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 blood lead levels were significantly higher
than 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. 13, at 509). EPA
notes that this confirms that keeping visible dust and debris contained
to the work area is important for limiting children exposures to lead
dust, rather than providing substantial arguments for the effectiveness
of visual inspection.
    In sum, EPA's finding that renovation and remodeling activities
create lead-based paint hazards is not dependent upon establishing a
correlation between such activities and elevated blood lead levels.
Rather, it rests on the fact that, as demonstrated by EPA's
Environmental Field Sampling Study, EPA's Dust Study, and by the NAHB
Survey, such activities create lead-based paint hazards as defined by
EPA regulations. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is no scientific
support for establishing a relationship between elevated blood lead
levels in children and renovation activities. While EPA interprets
these studies as supporting such a relationship and believes these
studies further support its finding, it is not a determinative factor.
    b. EPA's approach to this final rule. Given EPA's determination
that renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-
based paint create lead-based paint hazards, TSCA section 402(c)(3)
directs EPA to revise the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations to
apply to these activities. EPA does not interpret its statutory mandate
to require EPA to apply the existing TSCA section 402(a) regulations to
renovations without change. By using the word ``revise,'' and creating
a separate subsection of the statute for renovation, EPA believes that
Congress intended that EPA make revisions to those existing regulations
to adapt them to a very different regulated community. As discussed
below, there are significant differences between renovations and
abatements. Accordingly, this final rule does not merely expand the
scope of the current abatement requirements to cover renovation and
remodeling activities. Rather, EPA has carefully considered the
elements of the existing abatement regulations and revised them as
necessary to craft a rule that is practical for renovation, remodeling
and painting businesses and their customers, taking into account
reliability, effectiveness, and safety as directed by TSCA section
402(a). Specifically, the Agency concludes that the training,
containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification requirements in this
final rule rule achieve the goal of minimizing exposure to lead-based
paint hazards created during renovation, remodeling and painting
activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
    In taking safety into account, EPA looked to the statutory
directive to regulate renovation activities that create lead-based
paint hazards. Although there is no known level of lead exposure that
is safe, EPA does not believe the intent of Congress was to require
elimination of all possible risk arising from a renovation. Nor does
TSCA explicitly require EPA to eliminate all possible risk from lead,
nor would it be feasible to do so since lead is a component of the
earth. Rather, it directs EPA to regulate renovation and remodeling
activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Given that the trigger
for regulating renovation and remodeling activities is the creation of
lead-based paint hazards--which EPA has identified in a separate
rulemaking pursuant to TSCA section 403--EPA believes taking safety
into account in this context is best interpreted with reference to
those promulgated hazard standards. If taking safety into account
required a more stringent standard, as suggested by some commenters,
the potential would be created for a scheme under which any renovation
activities found not to create hazards are not regulated at all,
whereas renovation activities found to create hazards trigger
requirements designed to leave the renovation site cleaner than the
unregulated renovations. EPA's interpretation is supported by the broad
Congressional intent that the section 403 hazard standards apply for
purposes of subchapter IV of TSCA. It is also consistent with EPA's
approach in its abatement regulations, which require post-abatement
cleaning to dust-lead

clearance levels that are numerically equal to the TSCA section 403
hazard standards levels. It would be anomalous to impose a more
stringent safety standard in the renovation context than in the
abatement context, where the express purpose of the regulated
activities is to abate lead-based paint hazards. Therefore, in taking
into account safety, this final rule regulates renovation and
remodeling activities relative to the TSCA section 403 hazard standard,
with the purpose of minimizing exposure to such hazards created during
renovation and remodeling activities.
    Additionally, EPA has interpreted practicality in implementation to
be an element of the statutory directive to take into account
effectiveness and reliability. In particular, EPA believes that given
the highly variable nature of the regulated community, the work
practices required by this rule should be simple to understand and easy
to use. EPA is very aware that this regulation will apply to a whole
range of individuals from day laborers to property maintenance staff to
master craftsmen performing a whole range of activities from simple
drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath
renovations to building additions and everything in between. Work
practices that are easy and practical to use are more likely to be
followed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore,
more likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to
lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities.
    One of the biggest challenges facing EPA in revising the TSCA
section 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations is how to
effectively bridge the differences between abatement and renovation and
remodeling while acknowledging that many of the dust generating
activities are the same. Abatements are generally performed in three
circumstances. First, an abatement may be performed in the residence of
a child who has been found to have an elevated blood lead level.
Second, abatements are performed in housing receiving HUD financial
assistance when required by HUD's Lead-Safe Housing Rule. Third, state
and local laws and regulations may require abatements in certain
situations associated with rental housing. Typically, when an abatement
is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are
temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement has been
demonstrated to have been properly completed through dust clearance
testing. Carpet in the housing is usually removed as part of the
abatement because it is difficult to demonstrate that it is free of
lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been replaced
during the abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in order to
achieve clearance. Abatements have only one purpose--to permanently
eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards.
    On the other hand, renovations are performed for a myriad of
reasons, most having nothing to do with lead-based paint. Renovations
involve activities designed to update, maintain, or modify all or part
of a building. Renovations may be performed while the property is
occupied or unoccupied. If the renovation is performed while the
property is occupied, the occupants do not typically relocate pending
the completion of the project.
    Further, performing abatement is a highly specialized skill that
workers and supervisors must learn in training courses accredited by
EPA or authorized States, Territories, and Tribes. In contrast, EPA is
not interested in teaching persons how to be painters, plumbers, or
carpenters. Rather, EPA's objective is to ensure that persons who
already know how to perform renovations perform their typical work in a
lead-safe manner.
    Nevertheless, as pointed out by some commenters, abatement and
renovation have some things in common. For example, as noted by one
commenter, window replacement may be performed as part of an abatement
to remove the lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards on the
existing window, or it may be performed as part of a renovation
designed to improve the energy efficiency of the building. In many
cases, the window replacement as abatement and the window replacement
as renovation will generate the same amount of leaded dust.
    Another consideration is that while renovation activities
undoubtedly create lead-based paint hazards, without results from dust
wipe samples collected immediately before the renovation commences,
there is no way to tell what portion of the lead dust remaining on the
surface was contributed by the renovation. In addition, as a practical
matter, once dust-lead hazards commingle with pre-existing hazards,
there is no functional way to distinguish between those created by the
renovation activity and any pre-existing dust-lead hazards. However,
the Dust Study shows that the combination of training, containment,
cleaning and cleaning verification required by this rule is effective
at reducing dust lead levels below the dust-lead hazard standard. While
the requirements of this rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary
benefit of removing some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, these
requirements are designed to effectively clean-up the lead-based paint
hazards created during renovation activities without changing the scope
of the renovation activity itself. The intent of this final rule is not
to require cleanup of pre-existing contamination.
    For example, the rule does not require cleaning of dust or any
other possible lead sources in portions of target housing or child-
occupied facilities beyond the location in and around the work area.
Nor does this rule require the replacement of carpets in the area of
the renovation or the refinishing or sealing of uncarpeted floors. The
approach in this final rule is designed to address the lead-based paint
hazards created during the renovation while not requiring renovators to
remediate or eliminate hazards that are beyond the scope of the work
they were hired to do.
    In addition, EPA has made a concerted effort to keep the costs and
burdens associated with this rule as low as possible, while still
providing adequate protection against lead-based paint hazards created
by renovation activities. Indeed, as part of this rulemaking EPA has,
as directed by TSCA section 2(c), considered the environmental,
economic, and social impact of this rule. Nonetheless, many commenters
expressed concerns over the potential unintended consequences of this
rulemaking. These commenters argued that atoo-burdensome rule will
result in more renovations by noncompliant renovators, and more do-it-
yourself renovations, both of which are likely to be more hazardous
than renovations by certified professional renovation firms using
certified renovators who follow the work practice requirements of the
rule. These commenters were also concerned about deferred property
maintenance which can be hazardous for many reasons, including lead-
based paint issues. For example, one commenter pointed out that a
renovation project that replaces old lead-based paint covered windows
with new ones that have no lead-based paint may, as a by-product,
reduce lead hazards, and the rule should not work to discourage this
activity.
    On the other hand, one commenter argued that increased do-it-
yourself activity is an unlikely byproduct of this rule because
consumers are not only opting to hire or not hire contractors based on
factors such as cost, convenience, and perceived quality, but,

even more importantly, their own proclivity towards performing
renovation work. According to the commenter, the fact that the work
practices required by this rule may result in slight cost increases is
unlikely to motivate homeowners to perform their own renovations. This
commenter also felt that the sooner that protective approaches become
the accepted standard of care for renovation work by contractors
receiving compensation, the sooner do-it-yourselfers and the do-it-
yourself literature and training supports will adopt the same
protective approaches.
    It is difficult to determine with any amount of certainty whether
this final rule will have unintended consequences. However, EPA agrees
that it is important to minimize disincentives for using certified
renovation firms who follow the work practices required by this rule.
EPA also agrees that practicality is an important consideration. Given
the relatively low estimated overall average per-job cost of this final
rule, which is $35, and the relatively easy-to-use work practices
required by this final rule, EPA does not expect the incremental costs
associated with this rule to be a determinative factor for consumers.
However, that relatively low cost has resulted in part from EPA's
efforts to contain the costs of this rule in order to avoid creating
disincentives to using certified renovation firms, and EPA has viewed
the comments received with those considerations in mind.
    With respect to the comment regarding the standard of care for do-
it-yourselfers, EPA also plans to conduct an outreach and education
campaign aimed at encouraging homeowners and other building owners to
follow work practices while performing renovations or hire a certified
renovation firm to do so.
    7. Summary of the final rule. This section summarizes the final
rule in general terms. For more information, consult Unit III. below,
which describes each provision in detail, discusses any changes from
the proposal, and reviews the comments received.
    a. Definitions and scope. This final rule applies to renovations
for compensation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. TSCA
section 401 defines ``target housing'' as any housing constructed prior
to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities
(unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is
expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. This rule contains the
following definition of ``child-occupied facility'':
    Child-occupied facility'' means a building, or 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. Child-occupied facilities may include, but are not limited
to, day care centers, preschools and kindergarten classrooms. Child-
occupied facilities may be located in target housing or in public or
commercial buildings. With respect to common areas in public or
commercial buildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the
child-occupied facility encompasses only those common areas that are
routinely used by children under age 6, such as restrooms and
cafeterias. Common areas that children under age 6 only pass
through, such as hallways, stairways, and garages are not included.
In addition, with respect to exteriors of public or commercial
buildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the child-occupied
facility encompasses only the exterior sides of the building that
are immediately adjacent to the child-occupied facility or the
common areas routinely used by children under age 6.

    TSCA does not define the terms ``renovation'' or ``remodeling,''
but this final rule builds upon the definition of ``renovation''
already established by the regulations promulgated under TSCA section
406(b). This rule defines ``renovation'' as follows:
    ``Renovation'' means the modification of any existing structure, or
portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces,
unless that activity is performed as part of an abatement as defined by
this part (40 CFR 745.223). The term renovation includes (but is not
limited to): The removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or
painted components (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface
restoration, window repair, surface preparation activity (such as
sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint
dust)); the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings,
plumbing, windows); weatherization projects (e.g., cutting holes in
painted surfaces to install blown-in insulation or to gain access to
attics, planing thresholds to install weather-stripping), and interim
controls that disturb painted surfaces. A renovation performed for the
purpose of converting a building, or part of a building, into target
housing or a child-occupied facility is a renovation under this
subpart. The term renovation does not include minor repair and
maintenance activities.
    This final rule excludes some of the same projects that are
excluded by the TSCA section 406(b) regulations, such as lead-based
paint abatement projects and renovations affecting components that have
been found to be free of lead-based paint. To be eligible for the
latter exception, the components must be determined to be free of lead-
based paint by a certified inspector or risk assessor, or by a
certified renovator using an EPA-approved test kit. Emergency projects
would continue to be exempt from the lead hazard information
distribution requirements, but the clean-up after the project must meet
the requirements of this regulation, and compliance with the training,
certification, warning sign, and containment requirements of this
regulation is required to the extent practicable. Minor maintenance
projects that disturb no more than 6 square feet of painted surface per
room for interiors or no more than 20 square feet of painted surface
for exteriors are also exempt, so long as no work practices prohibited
or restricted by this final rule are used, the renovation does not
involve window replacement and there is no demolition of painted areas.
Finally, this regulation contains an exception for renovations in
owner-occupied target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant
woman resides, so long as the housing does not meet the definition of
``child-occupied facility.'' To claim this exception, the renovation
firm must obtain, before beginning the renovation, a signed statement
from the owner of the housing that states that the person signing is
the owner of the housing to be renovated, that he or she resides there,
that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that the
housing is not a child-occupied facility, and that the owner
understands that the renovation firm will not be required to use the
work practices contained in this rule.
    b. Pre-Renovation Education Rule. As described in greater detail in
a separate notice published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA
has developed a new renovation-specific lead hazard information
pamphlet intended for use in fulfilling the requirements of the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart E. This final rule
requires firms performing renovations for compensation in target
housing and child-occupied facilities to distribute this new pamphlet
before beginning renovations to the owners and occupants of target
housing, owners of public or commercial buildings that contain a child-
occupied facility, and the proprietor of the child-occupied facility,
if different, and to provide general information on the renovation

and the pamphlet to, or make it available to, parents or guardians of
children under age 6 using the child-occupied facility. This can be
accomplished by mailing or hand-delivering the general information on
the renovation and the pamphlet to the parents and guardians or by
posting informational signs containing general information on the
renovation in areas where the signs can be seen by the parents or
guardians of the children frequenting the child-occupied facility. The
signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or
information on how interested parents or guardians can review a copy of
the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to
the parents or guardians. For renovations in the common areas of multi-
unit target housing, similar notification options are available to
firms. They must provide tenants with general information regarding the
nature of the renovation by mail, by hand-delivery, or by posting
signs, and must also make this new pamphlet available upon request.
Firms must maintain documentation of compliance with these
requirements.
    c. Training, accreditation, and certification. This final rule
contains training requirements leading to certification for
``renovators''--individuals who perform and direct renovation
activities--and ``dust sampling technicians''--individuals who perform
dust sampling not in connection with an abatement. Requirements for
each of these courses of study are described in detail, and a hands-on
component is required. Training providers who wish to provide training
to renovators and dust sampling technicians for Federal certification
purposes must apply for and receive accreditation from EPA following
the same procedures that training providers who offer lead-based paint
activities training now use to become accredited by EPA. Providers of
renovation training must follow the same requirements for program
operation as training providers who offer lead-based paint activities
training. For example, renovation training programs must have adequate
facilities and equipment for delivering the training, a training
manager with experience or education in a construction or environmental
field, and a principal instructor with experience or education in a
related field and education or experience in teaching adults. To become
accredited to provide training for renovators and dust sampling
technicians, a provider must submit an application for accreditation to
EPA. The application must include the following items:
     The course materials and syllabus, or a statement that EPA
model materials or materials approved by an authorized State or Tribe
will be used.
     A description of the facilities and equipment that will be
used.
     A copy of the test blueprint for each course.
     A description of the activities and procedures that will
be used during the hands-on skills portion of each course.
     A copy of the quality control plan.
     The correct amount of fees.
    Training programs that submit a complete application and meet the
requirements for faculty, facilities, equipment, and course and test
content will be accredited for 4 years. To maintain accreditation, the
training program must submit an application and the correct amount of
fees every 4 years. EPA is not establishing the required fees in this
rulemaking. EPA intends to publish a proposed fee schedule for public
comment shortly. Accredited renovation training programs must also
comply with the existing notification and recordkeeping requirements
for lead-based paint activities training programs at 40 CFR
745.225(c)(13) and 40 CFR 745.225(i), respectively, by notifying EPA
before and after providing renovation training and by maintaining
records of course materials, course test blueprints, information on how
hands-on training is delivered, and the results of the students' skills
assessments and course tests.
    Each renovation project covered by this final rule must be
performed and/or directed by an individual who has become a certified
renovator by successfully completing renovator training from an
accredited training provider. The certified renovator is responsible
for ensuring compliance with the work practice standards of this final
regulation. The certified renovator must perform or direct certain
critical tasks during the renovation, such as posting warning signs,
establishing containment of the work area, and cleaning the work area
after the renovation. These and other renovation activities may be
performed by workers who have been provided on-the-job training in
these activities by a certified renovator. However, the certified
renovator must be physically present at the work site while signs are
being posted, containment is being established, and the work area is
being cleaned after the renovation to ensure that these tasks are
performed correctly. Although the certified renovator is not required
to be on-site at all times, while the renovation project is ongoing, a
certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work being
performed by other workers to ensure that the work practices are being
followed. When a certified renovator is not physically present at the
work site, the workers must be able to contact the renovator
immediately by telephone or other mechanism. In addition, the certified
renovator must perform the post-renovation cleaning verification. This
task may not be delegated to workers with on-the-job training. To
maintain certification, a renovator must successfully complete an
accredited renovator refresher training course every 5 years.
    Renovations must be performed by certified firms. The certification
requirements for renovation firms are identical to the certification
requirements for firms that perform lead-based paint activities, except
that renovation firm certification lasts for 5 years instead of 3
years.A firm that wishes to become certified to perform renovations
must submit an application, along with the correct amount of fees,
attesting that it will assign a certified renovator to each renovation
that it performs, that it will use only certified or properly trained
individuals to perform renovations, and that it will follow the work
practice standards and recordkeeping requirements in this regulation.
EPA will certify any firm that meets these requirements unless EPA
determines that the environmental compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees demonstrates an unwillingness or
inability to maintain compliance with environmental statutes or
regulations. To maintain certification, the firm must submit an
application and the correct amount of fees every 5 years. As noted
above, EPA will establish the required fees in a subsequent rulemaking.
    d. Work practice standards. This final rule contains a number of
work practice requirements that must be followed for every covered
renovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. These
requirements pertain to warning signs and work area containment, the
restriction or prohibition of certain practices (e.g., high heat gun,
torch, power sanding, power planing), waste handling, cleaning, and
post-renovation cleaning verification. The firm must ensure compliance
with these work practices. Although the certified renovator is not
required to be on-site at all times, while the renovation project is
ongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the
work being performed by other workers to ensure that the work practices
are being

followed. When a certified renovator is not physically present at the
work site, the workers must be able to contact the renovator
immediately by telephone or other mechanism.
    i. Warning signs and work area containment. Before beginning a
covered renovation, the certified renovator or a worker under the
direction of the certified renovator must post signs outside the area
to be renovated warning occupants and others not involved in the
renovation to remain clear of the area. In addition, the certified
renovator or a worker under the direction of the certified renovator
must also contain the work area so that dust or debris does not leave
the area while the work is being performed. At a minimum, containment
for interior projects must include:
     Removing or covering all objects in the work area with
plastic or other impermeable material.
     Closing and covering all forced air HVAC ducts in the work
area with plastic or other impermeable material.
     Closing all windows in the work area.
     Closing and sealing all doors in the work area with
plastic or other impermeable material.
     Covering the floor surface, including installed carpet,
with taped-down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in the
work area 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation
or a sufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater.
Doors within the work area that will be used while the job is being
performed must be covered with plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material in a manner that allows workers to pass through while
confining dust and debris to the work area. In addition, all personnel,
tools, and other items, including the exterior of containers of waste,
must be free of dust and debris when leaving the work area. There are
several ways of accomplishing this. For example, tacky mats may be put
down immediately adjacent to the plastic sheeting covering the work
area floor to remove dust and debris from the bottom of the workers'
shoes as they leave the work area, workers may remove their shoe covers
(booties) as they leave the work area, and clothing and materials may
be wet-wiped and/or HEPA-vacuumed before they are removed from the work
area.
    At a minimum, containment for exterior projects must include:
     Covering the ground with plastic sheeting or other
disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter
of surfaces undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to collect
falling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless the property line
prevents 10 feet of such ground covering.
     Closing all doors and windows within 20 feet of the
outside of the work area on the same floor as the renovation and
closing all doors and windows on the floors below that area.
    In certain situations, such as where other buildings are in close
proximity to the work area, when conditions are windy, or where the
work area abuts a property line, the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified renovator performing the
renovation may have to take extra precautions to prevent dust and
debris from leaving the work area as required by the regulation. This
may include erecting a system of vertical containment designed to
prevent dust and debris from migrating to adjacent property or
contaminating the ground, other buildings, or any object beyond the
work area. In addition, doors within the work area that will be used
while the job is being performed must be covered with plastic sheeting
or other impermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass
through while confining dust and debris to the work area.
    ii. Waste management. The certified renovator or a worker trained
and directed by a certified renovator must, at the conclusion of each
work day, store any collected lead-based paint waste from renovation
activities under containment, in an enclosure, or behind a barrier that
prevents release of dust and debris and prevents access to the waste.
In addition, the certified renovator or a worker under the direction of
the certified renovator transporting lead-based paint waste from a work
site must contain the waste to prevent identifiable releases. With
regard to the lead-based paint waste generated by renovations in
housing units, Unit IV.D.2. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal
describes how a clarification of the hazardous waste exclusion in 40
CFR 261.4(b)(1) means that residential lead-based paint waste may be
disposed of in municipal solid waste landfill units, as long as the
waste is generated during abatement or renovation and remodeling
activities in households. Also discussed in the preamble to the 2006
Proposal is a subsequent amendment to the waste regulations promulgated
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that allows
construction and demolition (C&D) landfills to accept residential lead-
based paint waste.
    iii. Cleaning. This final rule contains a number of specific
cleaning steps that the certified renovator or a worker under the
direction of the certified renovator must follow after performing a
covered renovation. Upon completion of renovation activities, all paint
chips and debris must be picked up. Protective sheeting must be misted
and folded dirty side inward. Sheeting used to isolate the work area
from other areas must remain in place until after the cleaning and
removal of other sheeting; this sheeting must be misted and removed
last. Removed sheeting must either be folded and taped shut to seal or
sealed in heavy-duty bags and disposed of as waste.
    After the sheeting has been removed from the work area, the entire
area must be cleaned, including the adjacent surfaces that are within 2
feet of the work area. The walls, starting from the ceiling and working
down to the floor, must be vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum or wiped with a
damp cloth. This final rule requires that all remaining surfaces and
objects in the work area, including floors, furniture and fixtures, be
thoroughly vacuumed with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. When cleaning carpets,
the HEPA vacuum must be equipped with a beater bar to aid in dislodging
and collecting deep dust and lead from carpets. Where feasible, floor
surfaces underneath area rugs must also be thoroughly vacuumed with a
HEPA vacuum.
    After vacuuming, all surfaces and objects in the work area, except
for walls and carpeted or upholstered surfaces, must be wiped with a
damp cloth. Uncarpeted floors must be thoroughly mopped using a 2-
bucket mopping method that keeps the wash water separate from the rinse
water, or using a wet mopping system with disposable absorbent cleaning
pads and a built-in mechanism for distributing or spraying cleaning
solution from a reservoir onto a floor.
    For cleaning following an exterior renovation, this final rule
requires all paint chips and debris to be picked up. Protective
sheeting must be misted and folded dirty side inward. Removed sheeting
must be either folded and taped shut to seal or sealed in heavy-duty
bags and disposed of as waste.
    iv. Post-renovation cleaning verification. This final rule requires
a certified renovator to perform a visual inspection of the work area
after the cleaning steps outlined in the previous subsection. This
visual inspection is for the purpose of determining whether dust,
debris, or other residue is present in the work area. If dust, debris,
or other residue remains in the work area, the dust, debris, or other
residue must be

removed by re-cleaning and another visual inspection must be performed.
    When an exterior work area passes the visual inspection, the
renovation has been properly completed and the warning signs may be
removed. When an interior work area passes the visual inspection, an
additional cleaning verification step is required. A certified
renovator assigned to the renovation project must use disposable
cleaning cloths to wipe the windowsills, countertops, and uncarpeted
floors in the work area. These cloths must then be compared to a
cleaning verification card. For each cloth that matches or is lighter
than the cleaning verification card, the corresponding windowsill,
countertop, or floor area is considered to have passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification. In contrast to the 2006 Proposal,
this final rule limits this requirement to two wet cloths and one dry
cloth. After the first dry cloth, that surface will be considered to
have passed post-renovation cleaning verification. When all
windowsills, countertops, and floor areas in the work area have passed
post-renovation cleaning verification, the warning signs may be
removed. More information on the post-renovation cleaning verification
procedure and the underlying studies can be found in Unit IV.E. of the
preamble to the 2006 Proposal and in Unit III.E.7. of this preamble.
    In contrast to the 2006 Proposal, this final rule does not allow
dust clearance sampling in lieu of post-renovation cleaning
verification, except in cases where the contract between the renovation
firm and the property owner or another Federal, State, Territorial,
Tribal, or local regulation requires dust clearance sampling by a
certified sampling professional and requires the renovation firm to
clean the work area until it passes clearance.
    e. State, Territorial, and Tribal programs. This final rule also
contains provisions for interested States, Territories, and Tribes to
apply for and receive authorization to administer their own renovation,
repair and painting programs in lieu of the proposed regulation.
States, Territories and Tribes may choose to administer and enforce
just the existing requirements of subpart E, the pre-renovation
education elements, the training, certification, accreditation, work
practice, and recordkeeping requirements of this final rule, or both.
EPA will use the same process used for lead-based paint activities
programs, along with proposed specific renovation program elements, to
authorize State, Territorial, and Tribal programs.
    States, Territories, and Tribes seeking authority to administer and
enforce renovation programs must obtain public input and then submit an
application to EPA. Applications must contain a number of items,
including a description of the State, Territorial, or Tribal program,
copies of all applicable statutes, regulations, and standards, and a
certification by the State Attorney General, Tribal Counsel, or an
equivalent official, that the applicable legislation and regulations
provide adequate legal authority to administer and enforce the program.
The program description must demonstrate that the State, Territorial,
or Tribal program is at least as protective as the Federal program and
that it provides for adequate enforcement.
    To be eligible for authorization to administer and enforce
renovation programs, State, Territorial, and Tribal renovation programs
must contain certain minimum elements that are very similar to the
minimum elements required for lead-based paint activities programs. In
order to be authorized, State, Territorial, or Tribal programs must
have procedures and requirements for the accreditation of training
programs, the training of renovators, and the certification of
renovators or renovation firms. At a minimum, the program requirements
must include accredited training for renovators and procedures and
requirements for re-certification. State, Territorial, and Tribal
programs applying for authorization are also required to include work
practice standards for renovations that ensure that renovations are
conducted only by certified renovators or renovation firms and that
renovations are conducted using work practices at least as protective
as those of the Federal program.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    These training, certification and accreditation requirements;
State, Territorial, and Tribal authorization provisions; and work
practice standards are being promulgated under the authority of TSCA
sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684,
2686, and 2687, and in a manner that is consistent with TSCA section
2(c), 15 U.S.C. 2601(c).

III. Provisions of this Final Rule

    This unit describes the specific provisions of the final regulation
and discusses the major comments received.

A. Scope of the Final Rule

    EPA is amending the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart E (the ``Pre-Renovation Education Rule''), that implement TSCA
section 406(b) to add training and certification requirements, as well
as work practice standards, for certain renovation, repair, and
painting projects performed for compensation in target housing and in
child-occupied facilities.
    1. Buildings covered--a. Target housing. The requirements of this
final rule apply to renovations performed for compensation within and
on the exteriors of target housing units, including renovations
performed for compensation in common areas, such as hallways,
stairways, and laundry and recreational rooms, in multi-unit target
housing. 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.
    Several commenters were concerned about the exclusion of 0-bedroom
dwellings from the definition of ``target housing.'' These commenters
noted that this effectively excludes a significant subset of housing
where children live, particularly studio or efficiency apartments and
certain low-income housing such as single-room occupancy hotels. One
commenter stated that, in his city, at least 400 families with more
than 700 children live in single-room occupancy hotels, and these
hotels constitute some of oldest housing in their city. Other
commenters were concerned about the exclusion of housing for the
elderly (or persons with disabilities) unless any child under age 6
resides or is expected to reside in such housing. These commenters
suggested that EPA not exempt such housing because children may be
present for a substantial amount of time. One commenter noted that,
because some children spend 40 or more hours per week at their
grandparents' home, eliminating housing for the elderly from the rule
would place an inordinate number of young children at risk. Another
commenter observed that unless the building is reserved for elderly
residents only, the likelihood of children living in a multi-unit
building and being exposed to lead hazards in common areas is high.
    EPA understands and shares the concerns of these commenters.
However, these exclusions were established by Congress in Title X. The
exclusions and limitations in the exclusions appear consistent with a
focus on housing where children under age 6 reside. Nonetheless, EPA
does wish to point out that this regulation and other existing TSCA
regulations

cover activities in common areas that are accessible to residents of
target housing units. Thus, renovations in common areas in a building
built before 1978 that contains both housing units reserved for the
elderly and regular housing units would be covered by this rule. In
addition, as described more fully in Unit III.G. of this preamble,
States, Territories and Tribes may choose to develop and implement
their own lead renovation, repair, and painting programs. Such programs
may be more stringent than this Federal regulation and could,
therefore, cover 0-bedroom dwellings or housing for the elderly.
    Finally, one commenter questioned the existing definition
of``multi-family housing'' in 40 CFR 745.83, which defines the term as
a ``housing property consisting of more than four dwelling units.'' The
commenter referred to the definition of ``multi-family dwelling'' in 40
CFR 745.223 which does not limit the term to a specific number of
units, and questioned why smaller multi-family housing such as duplexes
should not be included in the definition in 40 CFR 745.83. This
commenter and others contended that it is important to cover common
areas, including building exteriors, in all multi-unit target housing.
In response to these commenters, EPA is deleting the definition of
``multi-family housing'' from 40 CFR 745.83 because the term is not
used in this final rule. This final rule covers renovations in common
areas, including building exteriors, of multi-unit buildings regardless
of the number of units contained in the building. In addition, the
deletion of this definition will also make it clear that the existing
Pre-Renovation Education Rule provisions also apply to the same
renovations covered by this final rule.
    b. Child-occupied facilities. The certification, training,
recordkeeping, and work practice standards of this final rule also
apply to renovations for compensation in child-occupied facilities. As
discussed in the preamble to the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, numerous
commenters on the 2006 Proposal requested that EPA cover child-occupied
facilities under this regulation and suggested that EPA use the
existing definition of ``child-occupied facility'' in 40 CFR 745.223.
In response, the 2007 Supplemental Proposal included a definition of
``child-occupied facility'' that was based upon the existing
definition, with modifications to make it consistent with the
provisions of the 2006 Proposal. EPA also proposed to modify the
definition to clarify, for child-occupied facilities located in public
or commercial buildings, which portions of the building would be
considered part of the child-occupied facility for purposes of this
rulemaking. EPA received several comments suggesting modifications to
the proposed definition, but (with the exception of one small
clarification) EPA is retaining the proposed definition for the reasons
discussed below. The final rule's definition of ``child-occupied
facility'' is as follows:
    ``Child-occupied facility'' means a building, or portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same
child, under 6 years of age, on at least 2 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. Child-
occupied facilities may include, but are not limited to, day care
centers, preschools and kindergarten classrooms. Child-occupied
facilities may be located in target housing or in public or commercial
buildings. With respect to common areas in public or commercial
buildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the child-occupied
facility encompasses only those common areas that are routinely used by
children under age 6, such as restrooms and cafeterias. Common areas
that children under age 6 only pass through, such as hallways,
stairways, and garages are not included. In addition, with respect to
exteriors of public or commercial buildings that contain child-occupied
facilities, the child-occupied facility encompasses only the exterior
sides of the building that are immediately adjacent to the child-
occupied facility or the common areas routinely used by children under
age 6.
    EPA added the introductory clauses ``with respect to common areas''
and ``with respect to exteriors of'' to the sentences describing the
applicability of the rule to common areas and exteriors of public or
commercial buildings because EPA was concerned that people would be
confused about the area defined by the term ``child-occupied facility''
in those situations.
    Most of the commenters on the 2007 Supplemental Proposal expressed
support for including child-occupied facilities within the universe of
buildings covered by this rulemaking. Several commenters requested that
EPA provide a more clear definition of public buildings that contain
child-occupied facilities or additional examples of such facilities.
However, EPA is not aware of additional examples that could be included
in the definition to make the applicability of this rule clearer. One
commenter believed that a definition based upon the amount of time a
child spends at a facility would be unworkable.
    EPA disagrees with the comment that a time-based definition of
child-occupied facility is unworkable. A time-based definition has been
a part of the Lead-based Paint Activities Program under TSCA section
402(a) for more than 10 years and EPA is not aware of any significant
implementation difficulties. As initially proposed in 1994, the Lead-
based Paint Activities Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) would have
contained one set of requirements for the training and certification of
contractors and the accreditation of training programs, as well as
specific work practice standards that would have applied to lead-based
paint activities conducted in target housing and public buildings (Ref.
23). A different set of requirements would have applied to lead-based
paint activities conducted in commercial buildings and on bridges and
other structures. 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. During the comment period, a significant majority
of commenters expressed the concern that applying these regulations to
activities in all of the buildings that EPA would consider public would
result in significant costs without a comparable reduction in lead-
based paint exposures for children under age 6, the population most
vulnerable to lead exposures. Many of these commenters recommended that
EPA focus its attention on buildings that are frequented by children,
rather than on buildings that may be briefly visited by children.
    In response to these comments, EPA established, in the final rule,
a subset of the buildings EPA had intended to define as public. This
subset, called ``child-occupied facilities,'' was delineated in terms
of the frequency and duration of visits by children (Ref. 4). These
primarily consist of public buildings where young children receive care
or instruction on a regular basis, such as child care centers and
kindergarten classrooms. The Agency's decision to define child-occupied
facilities as a sub-category of public buildings was based on one of
the key objectives of the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations,
which was to

prevent lead exposures among young children. The Agency reasoned that
children face an equal, if not greater, risk from lead-based paint
hazards in schools and day care centers as they do at home. Indeed, EPA
was concerned that children could spend more time in a particular
classroom or day care room in a given day or week than they might spend
in a single room in their homes. With respect to the type of building
covered, this regulation will operate in much the same way as the Lead-
based Paint Activities Regulations. In most cases, office buildings
without child care facilities, museums, stores, airports, and
restaurants will not be covered by this rule. Although there may be
large numbers of children present at any given time in these kinds of
buildings, individual children are not likely to be there often enough
and long enough to qualify the building as a child-occupied facility.
    Some commenters appeared to be confused about whether the
definition of ``child-occupied facility'' covers housing where informal
or unpaid care is provided, such as the homes of relatives and
neighbors. Whether or not a building is a child-occupied facility does
not depend upon whether the owner or operator of the child-occupied
facility is somehow compensated for the child's presence. Indeed, the
first sentence of the definition makes this clear in stating that a
child-occupied facility is a ``building, or portion of a building,
constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child . . .''
The word ``visited'' is very broad, it includes visits to a relative's
house or a neighbor's house as well as visits to a child-care facility
or school.
    Except in owner-occupied target housing, as discussed below, the
firm performing the renovation is responsible for determining whether a
building is a child-occupied facility. This can be accomplished in any
number of ways. A stand-alone child care center is likely to have a
name that suggests that it provides child care, and the center's status
as a child-occupied facility should be obvious upon entering the
center. Child care centers in office buildings are likely to have
informational signs posted and the centers are likely to be identified
in the building directory. Elementary schools are likely to have
kindergarten classrooms. The renovation firm should inquire about the
presence of a child-occupied facility when contracting to perform
renovation services in a public or commercial building. However, a
statement by the building owner or manager that there is no child-
occupied facility in the building may not be relied upon in the face of
evidence to the contrary.
    Several commenters felt that EPA had inappropriately limited the
space encompassed by achild-occupied facility in a public or commercial
building. These commenters thought that EPA should follow the approach
used for common areas in multi-family housing. Under this approach, the
rule would cover renovations for compensation in all areas normally
accessible to the children using the child-occupied facility. However,
children under age 6 are likely to spend less time in the hallways and
stairways of public or commercial buildings than they do in common
areas in the buildings where they live. It is also likely that children
under age 6 walking to and from a child care center in an office
building, or to and from a classroom in a school building, will be
closely supervised and will not be permitted to walk through active
renovation work sites. Although some exposure is possible in these
areas, they are more akin to general public and commercial buildings
that children may enter but where they are not expected to spend
significant amounts of time than to the exposures associated with
child-occupied facilities, and EPA's hazard standards are applicable to
residents and residential-type settings. In addition, EPA is concerned
that application of this final rule to all common areas of public or
commercial buildings that may house a child-occupied facility in a
small portion of the building would likely result in minimal benefit to
the children at a potentially large cost.
    c. Other public or commercial buildings. A number of commenters
noted that TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to address renovation or
remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards not only in
target housing, but also in public buildings constructed before 1978,
and commercial buildings. Most of these commenters, commenting on the
2006 Proposal, expressed the greatest concern over EPA's failure to
address buildings where young children spend significant amounts of
time, or child-occupied facilities. However, a handful of commenters
argued that EPA also needed to address other public and commercial
buildings under the renovation, repair, and painting program.
    TSCA section 402(c)(3) provides authority for EPA to regulate
renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. EPA has, by regulation under TSCA section 403, identified
lead-based paint hazards for purposes of Title IV. These hazard
standards were developed by evaluating exposure patterns and hazard
information for young children and taking into account costs and
benefits. They are only applicable in target housing and child-occupied
facilities, places where young children are likely to be present for
significant periods of time. Although EPA realizes that lead exposure
for older children and adults can result in adverse health effects,
effects which are discussed in chapter 5 of the Final Economic Analysis
for the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (``Final Economic
Analysis'') (Ref. 24), EPA has not evaluated the exposure and hazard
information for these groups in the same way that it has for young
children. EPA has not evaluated the potential adverse health effects
and associated them with a specific level of surface dust that will
result in a blood lead level in an older child or an adult that is
likely to cause a particular adverse effect. Nor has EPA evaluated the
potential health effects to young children from the less frequent
exposures that might arise in public and commercial buildings that are
not child-occupied facilities. At this time, EPA does not have
sufficient information with which to conclude that renovation and
remodeling activities in buildings not frequented by young children,
e.g., public or commercial buildings that are not child-occupied
facilities, create lead-based paint hazards because EPA's TSCA section
403 hazard standards only apply to target housing and child-occupied
facilities. EPA has no hazard standards to apply in other situations.
Thus, this rule, like the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, only
applies in target housing and child-occupied facilities.
    2. Activities covered--a. Renovations for compensation. This rule,
like the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, only applies to persons who
perform renovations for compensation. As discussed in the preamble to
the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, for the purposes of this regulation,
compensation includes pay for work performed, such as that paid to
contractors and subcontractors; wages, such as those paid to employees
of contractors, building owners, property management companies, child-
occupied facility operators, State and local government agencies, and
non-profits; and rent for target housing or public or commercial
building space.
    Although the owner of rental property may not be compensated for
maintenance and repair work at the time that the work is performed,
tenants generally pay rent for the right to

occupy rental space as well as for maintenance services in that space.
Thus, renovations performed by renovation contractors and their
employees in target housing or child-occupied facilities are covered,
as are renovations by owners of rental target housing or child-occupied
facilities, if the child-occupied facility leases space.
    Renovations in target housing or in child-occupied facilities are
covered if they are performed by employees of the renovation
contractor, the building owner, the building manager, a State or local
government agency, a non-profit organization, or the child-occupied
facility operator, and the employees receive wages or other
compensation for the work performed. Child care payments, in and of
themselves, are not considered compensation for renovations. An
agreement to provide child care in exchange for a payment is not a
contract for building maintenance services in the same way that a lease
or other agreement between a landlord and a tenant generally is.
    One commenter requested that EPA consider payments for child care
to be compensation for renovations. A number of other commenters
expressed a general concern over the fact that EPA was not proposing to
cover do-it-yourself renovations in owner-occupied target housing. Some
of these commenters cited research or observations suggesting that
improperly performed renovations by homeowners, relatives, or friends
are equally likely, if not more likely, to cause elevated blood lead
levels as renovations performed by professional contractors. The most
commonly cited study for this proposition was the Wisconsin Childhood
Blood-Lead Study, commissioned by EPA as Phase III of the Renovation
and Remodeling Study performed pursuant to TSCA section 402(c)(2). As
described more fully in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, in homes
where renovation and remodeling activities had been performed, the
analysis of the results of the Wisconsin Study indicated the following
ordering of the five possible responses to the question of who
performed the renovation and remodeling, in order of highest to lowest
risk of increased odds of an elevated blood lead level:
     Relative or friend not in household.
     Paid professional.
     Owner or building superintendent.
     Head of household or spouse.
     Other person in household.
    As discussed in the preamble to the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, EPA
does not believe that child-care payments represent compensation for
renovations in the same way that rent is. Furthermore, as discussed in
the Final Economic Analysis, the overwhelming majority of child-
occupied facilities covered by this final rule are located in target
housing. Some of that housing is rental target housing, and renovations
in rental target housing are covered by this final rule regardless of
whether a child-occupied facility is present. With respect to child-
occupied facilities located in owner-occupied target housing and do-it-
yourself renovations in owner-occupied target housing in general, EPA
believes that it would be inconsistent with Congressional intent to
cover these renovations.
    EPA has previously determined that Congress was most concerned with
the certification and training of contractors, not homeowners. In the
preamble to the proposed Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, EPA
reviewed section 1021 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, the section that added Title IV to TSCA, and
determined that the emphasis under section 402 of TSCA ought to be the
certification and training of contractors, not homeowners (Ref. 23). In
its review, EPA declared that TSCA section 402(c)(3), the section under
which this final rule is being issued, shows that Congressional ``focus
was on the need to regulate contractors doing renovation and remodeling
activities, and not homeowners doing renovation and remodeling of their
own homes'' (Ref. 23). Specifically, TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA
to revise the TSCA section 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations to apply to renovation and remodeling activities. In so
doing, EPA is to determine ``which contractors are engaged in such
activities.'' TSCA section 402(c)(3) (emphasis added). EPA thus
interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and
renovation activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to
contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners.
    With respect to do-it-yourself renovations in child-occupied
facilities in target housing, as stated above, although payment is
received in exchange for childcare, EPA does not consider this to be a
contract for building maintenance. As discussed in the previous
paragraph, Congress intended to cover renovation contractors, not
homeowners who perform renovations on their own homes.
    However, as previously discussed, EPA intends to conduct an
outreach and education campaign designed to encourage homeowners and
other building owners to follow lead-safe work practices while
performing renovations or hire a certified renovation firm to do so.
    b. Definition of ``renovation.'' The universe of renovation
activities covered by this rule is virtually identical to the
renovation activities already regulated under the Pre-Renovation