individuals and firms that perform lead-based paint inspections, lead
hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements must be certified by
EPA. EPA is proposing a similar, but not identical, regulatory scheme
for individuals and firms that perform renovations.
    EPA is proposing to require that all renovations regulated by this
rule be performed by a firm certified to perform renovations and
directed by a certified renovator. Although not required by the
proposed rule, if dust sampling were performed, it would also have to
be performed by a certified dust sampling technician, inspector, or
risk assessor on behalf of a certified firm. In order to become a
certified renovator, a person would have to either possess
certification as a lead-based paint abatement supervisor or worker, or
take an accredited renovator course. In order to perform dust sampling,
a person would have to possess certification as a lead-based paint
inspector or risk assessor, or take an accredited dust sampling
technician course. Certification based on a dust sampling technician
course would qualify the individual to conduct dust sampling as part of
a renovation, but not as part of a lead-based paint activity under 40
CFR part 745, subpart L. EPA renovator or dust sampling technician
certification would allow the certified individual to perform
renovations or dust sampling in any State or Indian Tribal area that
does not have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745,

subpart Q. Each of these requirements is discussed in greater detail in
the following sections.
    1. Firms--a. Firm responsibilities. Proposed Sec.  745.89(d)
describes the responsibilities of firms performing renovations or dust
sampling. These firms must ensure that all persons performing
renovation activities on behalf of the firm are either certified
renovators or have been trained and are directed by a certified
renovator in accordance with proposed Sec.  745.90. Firms must also
ensure that all persons performing dust sampling on behalf of the firm
are certified as either risk assessors, inspectors, or dust sampling
technicians. The firm is responsible for assigning a certified
renovator to each renovation performed by the firm and ensuring that
the certified renovator discharges all of the responsibilities
identified in proposed Sec.  745.90. The firm is also responsible for
ensuring that all renovations performed by the firm are performed in
accordance with the work practice standards in proposed Sec.  745.85.
Finally, EPA is proposing to amend Sec.  745.86 to require a firm to
retain and make available to EPA all records necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this proposal. These records would
have to include copies of training certificates for certified
renovators and dust sampling technicians used on projects, along with
signed and dated descriptions of how worker training activities, sign
posting, work area containment, waste handling, cleaning, and post-
renovation cleaning verification or clearance were conducted in
compliance with this subpart. These descriptions must include a
certification by the record preparer that the descriptions are complete
and accurate. To assist firms in complying with these recordkeeping
requirements, EPA has developed a simple form that firms could use to
ensure that they are maintaining all of the necessary records (Ref.
51). Use of this form would not be mandatory, firms could keep the
required records in any manner that they choose. EPA requests comment
on the utility and practicality of the sample recordkeeping form, which
EPA would make available on its internet site and from the National
Lead Information Center. EPA also requests comment on the recordkeeping
requirements in general, as well as information on the business records
typically kept by renovation firms that could be used to demonstrate
compliance with the training, certification, and work practice
requirements of this proposal.
    When multiple contractors are involved in a renovation, any
contractor who disturbs, or whose employees disturb, paint in excess of
the minor projects exception would be responsible for compliance with
all of the requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule and this
proposal. In this situation, renovation firms may find it advantageous
to decide among themselves which firm will be responsible for providing
pre-renovation education to the owners and occupants, which firm will
establish containment, and which firm will perform the post-renovation
cleaning and cleaning verification. For example, a general contractor
may be hired to conduct a multi-faceted project involving the large-
scale disturbance of paint, which the general contractor then divides
up among several subcontractors. In this situation, having the general
contractor discharge the obligations of the Pre-Renovation Education
Rule is likely to be the most efficient approach, since this only needs
to be done once. The general contractor can then provide the
subcontractors with copies of the signed acknowledgment form or proof
of mailing. With regard to containment, the general contractor may
decide that it is most cost-effective to establish one large work area
for the entire project. In this case, from the time that containment is
established until post-renovation cleaning verification occurs, all
general contractor and subcontractor personnel performing renovation
tasks within the work area would have to be certified renovators or
trained and directed by certified renovators in accordance with this
proposal. In addition, these personnel would be responsible for
ensuring the integrity of the containment barriers. The cleaning and
post-renovation cleaning verification could be performed by any
properly qualified individuals, without regard to whether they are
employees of the general contractor or a subcontractor. However, all
contractors involved in the disturbance of lead-based paint, or who
perform work within the work area established for the containment of
lead dust and debris, would be responsible for compliance with this
proposal, regardless of any agreements the contractors may have made
among themselves.
    EPA considered requiring renovation firms to provide notification
to EPA before commencing a renovation activity, in the same way that
abatement firms are currently required by 40 CFR 745.227(e)(4) to
notify EPA before commencing an abatement. This is not the preferred
option at this time because EPA believes that it would be unduly
burdensome for renovation firms, given the large number of renovations
that EPA estimates would be subject to this proposed regulation
annually. In addition, the processing of notifications would require a
significant resource commitment on EPA's part. However, notification
could improve EPA's ability to monitor compliance with work practice
requirements while renovations are ongoing. EPA requests comment on
whether notifications should be required for all renovation projects,
or whether they should be required for a subset of regulated
renovations, such as large-scale projects, projects in rental
properties, or projects in housing built before 1940. Suggestions for
how these categories could be identified are also requested. In
addition, EPA requests comment on whether a notification requirement
should be phased in over time, to allow the regulated community and EPA
to evaluate the effectiveness and the feasibility of such a
requirement.
    b. Initial certification. Firms that perform renovations covered by
this proposal would have to be certified by EPA. EPA is proposing to
add a definition of ``firm'' to 40 CFR 745.83 to make it clear that
this term includes persons in business for themselves, i.e., sole
proprietorships, as well as Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Firms covered by
this proposal include firms that typically perform renovations, such as
building contractors or home improvement contractors, as well as
property management companies or owners of multi-family housing
performing property maintenance activities that include renovations
within the scope of this proposal.
    EPA is proposing to use a process for certifying firms to perform
renovations that is similar to the process currently used to certify
firms to perform lead-based paint activities, such as inspections or
abatements, that are regulated by 40 CFR part 745, subpart L. This
proposal provides information about the certification and re-
certification process, establishes procedures for amending and
transferring certifications, and identifies clear deadlines.
    Under proposed Sec.  745.89(a), a firm wishing to become certified
to perform renovations would submit a complete ``Application for
Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm, along with the
correct certification fee. EPA intends to establish firm certification
fees in a separate rulemaking.
    Proposed Sec.  745.89(a) also sets out EPA's possible responses to
a firm certification application and gives the reasons why EPA would
choose a

particular response. Under this proposal, EPA would approve a firm's
initial application within 90 days of receipt if it is complete,
including the proper amount of fees, and if EPA determines that the
environmental compliance history of the firm, its principals, or its
key employees does not show an unwillingness or inability to comply
with applicable environmental statutes or regulations. If the
application is approved, EPA proposes to follow the current practice
under 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, of establishing the firm's
certification expiration date at 3 years from the date of EPA's
approval. EPA certification would allow the firm to perform renovations
covered by this section in any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745, subpart
Q. If the application was incomplete, EPA would notify the firm within
90 days of receipt that its application was incomplete, and ask the
firm to supplement its application within 30 days. If the firm did not
supplement its application within that period of time, or if EPA's
check into the compliance history of the firm revealed an unwillingness
or inability to comply with environmental statutes or regulations, EPA
would not approve the application and would provide the applicant with
the reasons for not approving the application. EPA would not refund the
application fees. A firm could reapply for certification at any time by
filing a new, complete application that included the correct amount of
fees.
    c. Re-certification. Under proposed Sec.  745.89(b), a certified
firm would maintain its certification by submitting a complete and
timely ``Application for Firms,'' noting that it is an application for
re-certification, and paying the required re-certification fee. With
regard to the timeliness of the application for re-certification, EPA
is proposing that if a complete application, including the proper fee,
is postmarked 90 days or more before the date the firm's current
certification expires, the application would be considered timely and
sufficient, and the firm's existing certification would remain in
effect until its expiration date or until EPA had made a final decision
to approve the re-certification application, or not, whichever occurred
later. If the firm submitted a complete re-certification application
fewer than 90 days before the date the firm's current certification
expired, EPA might be able to process the application and re-certify
the applicant before the expiration date, but this would not be
guaranteed. If EPA did not approve the re-certification application
before the existing application expired, the firm's certification would
expire and the firm would not be able to conduct renovations until EPA
approved its re- certification application. In any case, the firm's new
certification expiration date would be 3 years from the date the
existing certification expired.
    If the firm submitted an incomplete application for re-
certification, and EPA had not received all of the required information
and fees before the date the firm's current certification expired, or
if the firm did not submit its application until after its
certification expired, EPA would not approve the firm's re-
certification application. The firm could not cure any deficiencies in
its application package by postmarking missing information or fees by
its certification expiration date. All required information and fees
would have to be in EPA's possession as of the expiration date for EPA
to approve the application. If EPA did not approve the application, the
Agency would provide the applicant with the reasons for not approving
the re-certification application. Any fees submitted by the applicant
would not be refunded, but the firm could submit a new application for
certification, along with the correct amount of fees, at any time.
    As with initial applications, this proposal includes a description
of the actions EPA may take in response to an application for re-
certification and the reasons why EPA would take a particular action.
This section is identical to the proposed process for initial
applications, except that EPA will not require an incomplete
application to be supplemented within 30 days of the date EPA requests
additional information or fees. In the re-certification context, as
described in the preceding paragraph, the firm must make its
application complete by the date that its current certification
expires. There is no compelling reason to establish another deadline
for making an incomplete application complete.
    d. Amendments. Proposed Sec.  745.89(c) would require that a firm
amend its certification within 45 days whenever a change occurred to
information included in the firm's most recent application. If the firm
failed to amend its certification within 45 days of the date the change
occurred, the firm would not be authorized to perform renovations until
its certification was amended. Examples of amendments include a change
in the firm's name without transfer of ownership, or a change of
address or other contact information. To amend its certification, a
firm would be required to submit an application, noting on the form
that it was submitted as an amendment. The firm would be required to
complete the sections of the application pertaining to the new
information, and sign and date the form. The amendment would have to
include the correct amount of fees. Amending a certification would not
affect the validity of the existing certification or extend the
certification expiration date. EPA would issue the firm a new
certificate if necessary to reflect information included in the
amendment. Firm certifications are not transferable--if the firm is
sold, the new owner must submit a new initial application for
certification in accordance with Sec.  745.89(a).
    e. Suspension, revocation, or modification of certification. EPA is
also proposing, in Sec.  745.91, procedures for suspending, revoking,
or modifying a firm's certification. These procedures are identical to
the current procedures in place for suspending, revoking, or modifying
the certification of a firm that is certified to perform lead-based
paint activities.
    2. Individuals--a. Renovators and workers. EPA is proposing to
establish a new individual certification discipline for renovators. All
renovation activities covered by this proposal would have to be
performed by certified renovators, or by persons who have received on-
the-job training in lead-safe work practices from certified renovators.
The certified renovator assigned to a renovation would be responsible
for ensuring that the renovation is performed in compliance with the
work practice requirements of this proposal.
    Under the proposal, a certified renovator must:
     Perform the post-renovation cleaning verification
described in proposed Sec.  745.85(b).
     Perform or direct uncertified workers who perform all of
the work practices described in proposed Sec.  745.85(a).
     Provide training to uncertified workers on the lead-safe
work practices they will be using in performing their assigned tasks,
how to isolate the work area and maintain the integrity of the
containment barriers, and how to avoid spreading lead contamination
beyond the work area.
     Be physically present at the work site when the signs
required by proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work area
containment required by proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(2) is being
established, and while the work area cleaning required by proposed
Sec.  745.85(a)(4) is performed.

     Regularly direct the work being performed by uncertified
persons to ensure that lead-safe work practices are being followed, the
integrity of the containment barriers is maintained, and dust or debris
is not spread beyond the work area.
     Be available, either on-site or by telephone, at all times
that renovations are being conducted.
     Have with them at the work site copies of their initial
course completion certificate and their most recent refresher course
completion certificate.
    In order to use the term ``renovator'' to cover the new proposed
certified discipline, EPA is proposing to revise the definition of the
term in 40 CFR 745.83 to describe what a renovator is and how a
renovator becomes certified. EPA is also proposing to modify the
existing Pre-Renovation Education Rule requirements to replace the word
``renovator'' with a reference to the firm performing the renovation
wherever the term appears. This is not intended to change the
requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule in any significant
way. The effect of this change is to make it clear that any person
associated with the firm performing the renovation, not necessarily the
certified renovator, may handle the firm's pre-renovation education
responsibilities.
    This proposal would not require everyone involved in performing a
regulated renovation project to be a certified renovator. To allow
maximum flexibility for firms undertaking these projects, EPA is
proposing to allow these firms to use uncertified workers to perform
renovation activities as long as they receive on-the-job training in
lead-safe work practices from a certified renovator. This training must
include instruction in the specific lead-safe work practices that these
workers will be responsible for performing. To ensure that renovations
are performed safely, this proposal would require a certified renovator
to be at the work site during critical phases of the renovation
activity to perform or direct uncertified workers who perform tasks
directly related to protecting homeowners and occupants from the
hazards of lead dust. These tasks include posting warning signs,
containing the work area, and cleaning the work site. The proposed
post-renovation cleaning verification requirements would have to be
performed by a certified renovator, they could not be delegated to an
uncertified worker.
    In addition, while the renovation project is ongoing, a certified
renovator would have to be present at the work site on a regular basis
in order to ensure that the uncertified workers are observing lead-safe
work practices and maintaining the integrity of the systems employed to
contain lead dust. When a certified renovator is not physically present
at the work site, the uncertified workers must be able to contact the
renovator immediately by telephone or other mechanism. Because these
workers would be allowed to work without formal training in protecting
children and other building occupants (OSHA requires these workers,
like all construction workers, to receive training in protecting
themselves and other workers from job hazards including lead), EPA
believes that the kind of limited supervision envisioned by OSHA's
competent person requirements or the EPA regulations pertaining to
lead-based paint abatement supervisors is not sufficient in this
situation. A walk around the job site once every shift is not enough to
ensure that the uncertified workers are following lead-safe work
practices at all times.
    EPA realizes that there may be other ways to achieve the goal of
maximizing flexibility for renovation firms while ensuring that all
persons involved in performing renovations have sufficient training and
oversight to perform their tasks in a safe manner. An option EPA
considered was a requirement that a certified renovator be physically
present at the work site at all times while regulated renovation
activities are ongoing. EPA believes that this approach would provide
less flexibility for renovation firms, but requests comment on whether
that is actually the case, and whether this approach would
significantly improve the quality of the work performed by uncertified
workers.
    Another way to provide flexibility for firms would be to prohibit
certified renovators from being assigned to more than one job at a
time, while not specifying when a certified renovator must be present
during renovations, except that only a certified renovator would be
permitted to perform the post-renovation cleaning verification step.
EPA requests comment on whether this approach would provide flexibility
and decrease costs for renovation firms without also decreasing the
amount of protection provided by these proposed regulations. Regardless
of the approach used, EPA anticipates that most renovation contractors
and property management companies will find that they achieve maximum
efficiency and flexibility by qualifying all of their permanent
employees who perform renovations as certified renovators.
    EPA considered an individual certification scheme similar to that
established for lead-based paint abatement activities, with a certified
supervisor and certified workers. EPA does not prefer this option
primarily because of the differences between renovation projects and
abatement projects. All abatement projects have the same purpose--to
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards. Renovation projects
that involve the disturbance of paint are performed for many different
reasons, using many different techniques. As a result, the training
required by EPA for renovators is necessarily limited to the common
elements of interest to EPA, which are the methods that a renovator can
use to limit the creation of lead dust, prevent it from spreading to
other parts of the dwelling, and properly clean it up afterwards. The
containment and clean-up methods that would be required by this
regulation are easy to understand and simple to use. A certified
renovator who has received accredited training in these subjects should
be able to communicate the principles of lead-safe renovation to others
with very little difficulty. In addition, during the SBREFA panel
process, discussed in greater detail in Unit VIII.C., the regulated
community expressed concern over training requirements, given the level
of employee turnover in the industry. Requiring certified renovators,
but allowing firms to use uncertified workers where necessary, is an
attempt to address this concern while still ensuring that everyone who
performs regulated renovations understands how to follow lead-safe work
practices.
    b. Dust sampling technicians. In 1999, in order to make accurate
dust testing for lead more available and affordable, Congress provided
EPA with funding for the development of a 1-day dust sampling
technician course. Congress also encouraged the Agency to promote the
recognition of this discipline. EPA completed the development of the
course, entitled ``Lead Sampling Technician Training Course,'' in July
of 2000. This course provides instruction on how to conduct a visual
assessment for deteriorated paint, collect samples for lead dust, and
interpret sample results.
    As discussed in Unit IV.E., some renovators or homeowners may
choose to perform dust clearance testing at the completion of
renovation activities instead of the post-renovation cleaning process
that EPA is proposing. Dust clearance testing after abatements must be
performed by a certified inspector or risk assessor in accordance with
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). If dust clearance
testing is to be performed after a renovation, it would also have to be
performed as

directed in Sec.  745.227(e)(8), but EPA is also proposing to allow
certified dust sampling technicians to perform the testing. This
proposal includes training and certification requirements for the dust
sampling technician discipline to help ensure the quality of initial
training, provide for periodic refresher training to keep dust sampling
technicians up to date regarding current regulatory and technical
protocols, and assist the public in the identification of qualified
individuals. Dust sampling technicians would not be subject to any
additional education or experience requirements beyond completion of an
accredited dust sampling technician course, nor would they be required
to pass a third-party certification examination. As with the other
certified disciplines, dust sampling technicians would be required to
obtain re-certification every 3 years.
    EPA has determined that accredited dust sampling technicians would
be qualified to perform the work described in this Unit for renovations
because the training curriculum provides clearance sampling instruction
that is equivalent to that presented in inspector and risk assessor
courses, in terms of time and quality.
    A certified dust sampling technician is responsible for collecting
dust samples, sending them to an EPA-recognized laboratory, and
comparing the results to the clearance levels in accordance with 40 CFR
745.227(e)(8). The certified dust sampling technician must also have
with them at the work site copies of their initial course completion
certificate and their most recent refresher course completion
certificate.
    c. Initial certification. Proposed Sec.  745.90 addresses renovator
and dust sampling technician certification. To become a certified
renovator, a person would have to successfully complete a renovator
course that has been accredited by EPA or by a State, Territorial, or
Tribal program authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. The
renovator course accreditation requirements are based on the joint EPA-
HUD model curriculum entitled Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, &
Painting. More information on the development of this curriculum and
the accreditation of renovator and dust sampling technician courses can
be found in Unit IV.D. The renovator course primarily covers how to
isolate and contain renovation projects so that leaded dust does not
escape, how to minimize the creation of leaded dust, and how to
properly clean up after a renovation project so that lead-based paint
hazards are not left behind. EPA is not proposing to require additional
education or work experience of persons wishing to become certified
renovators.
    To become a certified dust sampling technician, a person would have
to successfully complete a dust sampling technician training course
that has been accredited either by EPA or by a State, Territorial, or
Tribal program authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. The
dust sampling technician course primarily covers dust sampling
methodologies and clearance standards and testing. EPA is not proposing
to require additional education or work experience of persons wishing
to become certified dust sampling technicians.
    EPA renovator certification would allow the certified individual to
perform renovations covered by this section in any State or Indian
Tribal area that does not have a renovation program authorized under 40
CFR part 745, subpart Q. EPA dust sampling technician certification
would allow the certified individual to perform dust sampling covered
by this section in any State or Indian Tribal area that does not have a
renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q.
    Because EPA is not proposing any additional education or work
experience requirements, or a third-party examination similar to that
taken by inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor candidates, EPA
believes that there is little value in requiring candidates to apply to
EPA to receive their renovator or dust sampling technician
certification. Currently, the only certified discipline without
prerequisites in education or experience, or a third-party examination,
is the abatement worker. When candidates for worker certification apply
to EPA, EPA verifies that the copy of the training course certificate
submitted with the application is from an accredited training provider.
Without requiring renovators or dust sampling technicians to apply to
EPA for certification, under this proposal EPA would still receive
course completion information from course providers. With this
information, under the proposal EPA would be able to check to see if a
particular course completion certificate holder appeared on a course
completion list submitted by the training course provider identified on
the certificate. When EPA inspects a renovation job for compliance with
these proposed regulations, EPA will have the ability to verify, to the
same extent, the validity of a course completion certificate held by a
renovator or dust sampling technician at that job. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that a course completion certificate from an accredited
training provider serve as a renovator's or dust sampling technician's
certification. To facilitate compliance monitoring, EPA would require a
certified renovator or dust sampling technician to have a copy of the
course completion certificate at the job site.
    EPA also considered alternatives such as requiring renovator and
dust sampling technician candidates to apply to EPA for certification,
following the same procedures established for worker certification in
40 CFR 745.226. EPA also considered requiring a third-party examination
for persons wishing to become certified renovator or dust sampling
technicians. A third-party examination would be an additional check on
the adequacy of the training courses being offered, as well as an
independent assessment of how well a particular candidate retained the
information presented. On the other hand, a third-party examination
would significantly increase the burden of administration and the
expense of complying with these proposed regulations. EPA requests
comment on these options, as well as EPA's assessment of the costs and
burdens of these options.
    d. Re-certification. EPA is proposing to require that renovators
and dust sampling technicians who wish to remain certified take
refresher training every 3 years. This is consistent with the existing
re-certification interval for firms and for certified individuals under
40 CFR 745.226. In addition, EPA is proposing to require that the
refresher training course be half the length of the initial course.
This is also consistent with current practice for certified individuals
performing lead-based paint activities. If an individual does not take
a refresher course within 3 years of the date he or she completed the
initial course or the previous refresher course, that individual's
certification will expire on that date and that individual may no
longer serve as a certified renovator or dust sampling technician on a
renovation project regulated by this proposal. There would be no grace
period. To become certified again, the individual would have to take
another initial training course.
    EPA also considered an alternative of requiring certified
renovators to re-take the initial renovator course every 3 years. The
primary advantage to such an approach is that, eventually, renovator
course attendees would be a combination of experienced renovators and
persons new to the field. This would allow the experienced persons to
share helpful tips and lessons learned

with others and could have a positive impact on the overall quality of
the training delivered. On the other hand, longer training requirements
mean increased costs for the regulated community. In addition, with the
preferred option, certified renovators would always be permitted to
substitute an initial renovator course for a refresher course to allow
maximum flexibility, particularly if for some reason the person was
unable to attend a refresher course. EPA requests comment on this
option on whether 3 years is an appropriate interval for refresher
training, and whether refresher training should be required at all.
    e. Individuals certified to perform lead-based paint activities.
EPA is also proposing to allow individuals who are or who become
certified lead-based paint abatement supervisors or workers to act as
certified renovators. These persons would have to possess a current and
valid certification from EPA or an EPA-authorized State, Territorial,
or Tribal lead-based paint program. EPA has determined that the
training taken by candidates for supervisor or worker certification
meets or exceeds the proposed training requirements for renovators with
respect to many of the requirements of this proposal. Both disciplines
must receive training in lead-based paint hazard recognition and
control, as well as dust abatement and clean-up. However, the proposed
post-renovation cleaning verification process, discussed in Unit IV.E.,
and the use of test kits for paint testing is not currently being
taught in abatement supervisor or worker courses. EPA plans to develop
guidance documents on these processes, and amend the model curriculum
to cover them. EPA requests comment on whether an effective guidance
document would be sufficient to familiarize abatement supervisors and
workers with performing post-renovation cleaning verification and using
paint test kits, or whether another approach, such as requiring
certified supervisors or workers to take a renovator refresher course,
would allow the regulated community to make use of the workforce
already trained in lead-based paint hazard control, while ensuring that
this workforce understands how to perform the post-renovation cleaning
verification requirements and use test kits to test for lead-based
paint.
    Persons who are or who become certified lead-based paint inspectors
or risk assessors based on a certification issued either by EPA under
40 CFR 745.226 or by an authorized State or Tribal program would be
deemed under the proposal to be certified dust sampling technicians.
Certified inspectors and risk assessors are qualified to perform dust
sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or
abatements. This rule would also allow them to perform dust sampling
after renovation activities.
    f. Persons who have previously taken a course in Lead Safe Work
Practices or a Dust Sampling Technician course. For the purposes of
HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, many individuals have already taken HUD-
approved training in lead-safe work practices. In addition, many
individuals have taken a dust sampling technician course based on the
model developed by EPA. EPA is specifically requesting comment on
whether a streamlined certification process would be appropriate for
these individuals. For example, in promulgating the lead-based paint
activities certification requirements at 40 CFR 745.226, EPA allowed
persons who had previously taken worker training to become certified by
EPA as abatement workers without taking an accredited initial lead-
based paint worker course. Individuals could become certified as
workers by demonstrating that they had completed training (including
on-the-job training) in the conduct of lead-based paint activities and
completing an accredited worker refresher course. This option was only
available for a limited time. A similar process could be used for
individuals who have already taken lead-safe work practices training
and who wish to become certified renovators, or individuals who have
taken a dust sampling technician course and who wish to become
certified dust sampling technicians.
    g. Suspension, revocation, or modification of certification. EPA is
also proposing, in Sec.  745.89, procedures for suspending, revoking,
or modifying an individual's certification. These procedures are
identical to the current procedures in place for suspending, revoking,
or modifying the certification of an individual who is certified to
perform lead-based paint activities. However, EPA has added a sentence
to this provision to make it clear that renovator certification could
be suspended, revoked, or modified if the renovator does not ensure
that projects to which he or she is assigned are conducted in
accordance with the work practice requirements in this proposal.
    3. Training providers. EPA is proposing to amend the general
accreditation requirements of 40 CFR 745.225 to apply to training
programs that offer renovator or dust sampling technician courses for
certification purposes. The regulations describe training program
qualifications, quality control measures, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, as well as suspension, revocation, and modification
procedures. Proposed amendments to Sec.  745.225 would add specific
requirements for the renovator and dust sampling technician
disciplines. This proposal introduces minimum training curriculum,
training hour, and hands-on requirements for courses leading to
certification as a renovator or a dust sampling technician.
    The minimum curriculum requirements for an initial renovator course
are described in proposed Sec.  745.225(d)(6). The topics would include
the roles and responsibilities of a renovator; background information
on lead and its health effects; background on applicable Federal,
State, and local regulations and guidance; use of acceptable test kits
to test paint to determine whether it is lead-based paint; methods to
minimize the creation of lead-based paint hazards during renovations;
containment and clean-up methods; ways to verify that a renovation
project has been properly completed, including clean-up verification
and clearance testing; and waste handling and disposal. Hands-on
activities relating to renovation methods, containment and clean-up,
clean-up verification, and waste handling would be required in all
courses. Proposed Sec.  745.225(c)(6)(vi) would establish the minimum
length for an initial renovator course at 8 training hours, with 2
hours being devoted to hands-on activities. A training hour means at
least 50 minutes of actual learning, including, but not limited to,
time devoted to lecture, learning activities, small group activities,
demonstrations, evaluations, and hands-on experience.
    The minimum curriculum requirements for an initial dust sampling
technician course are described in proposed Sec.  745.225(d)(7). The
topics would include the roles and responsibilities of a dust sampling
technician; background information on lead and its adverse health
effects; background information on Federal, State, and local
regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and
renovation activities; dust sampling methodologies; clearance standards
and testing; and report preparation and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Sec.  745.225(c)(6)(vii) would establish the minimum length
for an initial dust sampling technician course at 8 training hours,
with 2 hours being devoted to hands-on activities.
    Accreditation would also be required for refresher training courses
for

renovators and dust sampling technicians. Refresher courses would
consist of, at a minimum, 4 hours of training. Topics covered would
have to include a review of the topics covered in the initial renovator
or dust sampling technician course, along with general lead-based paint
safety practices and technologies.
    EPA requests comment on whether all of the topics that should be
covered in the renovator and dust sampling technician courses are
included, and whether hands-on activities should be required. EPA also
requests comment on whether the specified training hour requirements
for the initial and refresher courses are sufficient or excessive. In
addition, EPA requests comment on whether minimum training hour
requirements should be specified for these courses. EPA is concerned
that such requirements may limit training provider flexibility without
offering a substantial contribution to the quality of training.
    Renovator and dust sampling technician courses, both initial and
refresher, could be taught in any language, but accreditation would be
required for each specific language the provider wished to present the
course in. All course materials and instruction for the course would
have to be in the language of the course. EPA is proposing to modify
Sec.  745.225(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that all lead-based paint courses
taught in different languages are considered different courses, and
accreditation must be obtained for each. To facilitate accreditation of
courses in languages other than English, EPA is proposing to require
that the training provider include in its application both the English
version as well as the non-English version of all training materials,
as well as a signed statement from a qualified, independent translator
that the translator has compared the non-English language version of
the course materials to the English language version and the
translation is accurate. This requirement would apply to any course for
which accreditation is sought, including lead-based paint activities
courses. Finally, to assist EPA in monitoring compliance with these
requirements, EPA is proposing to require that course completion
certificates include the language in which the course was taught.
    EPA is also proposing to modify the requirements for course
completion certificates to make it clear that the interim certification
expiration date applies only to initial lead-based paint activities
courses. The concept of interim certification is not applicable to
refresher courses, nor would it be applicable to the proposed
certification requirements for renovators or dust sampling technicians.
    Consistent with the existing accreditation requirements for lead-
based paint activities training programs, alternative training
techniques (e.g., video training, computer-based training) may be used
as a supplement to the hands-on skills assessment or as a substitute
for the lecture portion of the training course requirements. All
training programs, including those using alternative training methods,
would be required to meet minimum hourly requirements for hands-on
activities in their training courses. In addition, all training
programs would have to administer a course test and conduct a hands-on
skills assessment.
    As currently required for training providers who wish to offer
lead-based paint activities courses, training providers who would like
to provide courses leading to renovator or dust sampling technician
certification, or refresher training courses in those disciplines,
would have to apply to EPA for accreditation and pay an accreditation
fee. The application would have to include a description of the
facilities to be used for training, a description of the methods to be
used to present hands-on activities, the blueprint for the course test,
and the quality control plan. In addition, the proposal provides that
if the training provider will not be using EPA-recommended model course
materials, or course materials approved by an EPA-authorized State or
Tribal program, the application must include copies of all course
materials, including the agenda or syllabus.

D. Renovation Activities

    EPA is proposing to require that all renovations subject to this
rule be conducted in accordance with a defined set of work practice
standards. TSCA section 402(a)(1) directs EPA to promulgate regulations
that, among other things, contain standards for performing lead-based
paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and
safety. In revising those regulations to apply to renovation
activities, EPA is proposing more specific work practice standards for
firms performing renovations than are currently required for certified
firms conducting lead-based paint abatement activities regulated by 40
CFR part 745, subpart L. These more specific standards are necessary,
because unlike abatement firms, under this proposal renovation firms
would not be required to conduct clearance testing at the conclusion of
renovation activities. Clearance testing serves as a performance
standard under the abatement regulations, allowing firms flexibility
when establishing and cleaning a work area. Without such a performance
indicator for renovation it is necessary to more specifically describe
work practices and conditions at a work site in order to protect the
occupants and ensure that new lead-based paint hazards are not
introduced to the home. The proposed renovation work practices are
consistent with the joint EPA-HUD curriculum, Lead Safety for
Remodeling, Repair, & Painting (Ref. 52). EPA requests comment on the
work practice, cleaning, and cleaning verification requirements
discussed in greater detail in this Unit.
    1. Background. As was discussed in Unit III.B.3., HUD developed its
Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards
in Housing in response to a directive in Title X. The Guidelines
provide detailed, comprehensive technical information on how to
identify lead-based paint hazards in housing and how to control such
hazards safely and efficiently. The Guidelines were the result of The
HUD Lead-Based Paint Abatement Demonstration (FHA) that evaluated
various lead-based paint hazard control methodologies both for
effectiveness in reducing the lead hazard and for amount of lead dust
generated (Ref. 53), as well as a number of other research projects.
The Guidelines were developed in close consultation with EPA, CDC,
OSHA, several other Federal agencies, and numerous experts and
practitioners.
    While the primary purpose of the Guidelines is to provide guidance
to people involved in identifying and controlling lead-based paint
hazards in Federally assisted housing, they have also proven to be
useful in housing that has no connection with the Federal government.
The Guidelines have been accepted as the de facto standard for
evaluation and reduction of lead hazards. EPA's training and
certification program under TSCA sections 402 and 404 recognizes the
Guidelines and their recommendations. The Guidelines complement such
regulatory programs because they provide more complete work practice
recommendations and explain why certain measures are recommended.
    EPA relied on the Guidelines in developing draft technical
specifications for renovation, repair, and painting activities (Ref.
54). While the Guidelines are focused on work practices associated with
hazard reduction (permanent or temporary elimination of existing lead
hazards), they also provide detailed

information relevant to renovation (i.e., containment, and cleaning).
In addition, the Guidelines have a useful section devoted to routine
building maintenance. While the activities considered in this section
are often small-scale, and do not encompass the wide range of potential
renovation work projects, they were extremely helpful in formulating
work practice standards that are intended to be scalable based upon the
activity being performed.
    EPA's draft technical specifications were developed in September
1998 with the assistance of the National Center for Lead Safe Housing
(now known as the National Center for Healthy Homes) in consultation
with a group of technical experts. The specifications described the
precautions needed to ensure that lead-contaminated dust and debris are
minimized, controlled and properly cleaned up. The technical
specifications themselves were developed to be applicable both to
contractors and to homeowners who perform these activities without the
aid of a contractor. However, the specifications document itself was
not intended for use by the general public or contractors; it was
developed to provide background information and serve as a reference
for EPA to prepare technical materials, including a training
curriculum.
    Following completion of the draft technical specifications, EPA
began development of a model renovation training curriculum. In
September 2000, EPA completed development of the curriculum Minimizing
Lead-Based Paint Hazards During Renovation, Remodeling, and Painting
(Ref. 55). The model curriculum was developed with the assistance of a
review panel of representatives from state regulatory programs, lead
advocacy groups, renovation contractors, EPA, HUD, and NIOSH. The
course was developed to provide strategies to reduce or eliminate the
introduction of hazards that occur when lead-based paint is disturbed.
The curriculum was revised, in consultation with HUD, and renamed Lead
Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting in July 2003 (Ref. 52). The
revised curriculum is one of several courses approved for training
purposes under HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule. The course represented a
major Agency effort to protect public health from lead-based paint
hazards associated with renovation and repainting activities, and was
intended to be a model training curriculum for future regulations. Upon
completion of the course, EPA made the model curriculum publicly
available and encouraged renovation contractors to voluntarily obtain
training.
    This proposal presents basic work practice standards derived from
the model training course, draft technical manual, and the Guidelines,
among other sources. These practices provide standards as to how the
work must be done in order to protect occupants from lead hazards.
While the standards provide basic requirements for occupant protection,
site preparation, and clean-up, the course provides more complete
guidance on how activities should be carried out and why certain
measures are recommended.
    EPA requests comment on whether there may be situations where some
or all of these proposed lead safe work practices are not necessary.
For example, where housing is not occupied during the renovation
process, some or all of the lead safe work practice requirements may
not be necessary. In those cases, cleanup and cleaning verification may
be sufficient. The Agency requests comment on the requirements that
should apply in unoccupied housing, and also on whether there should be
differential requirements for other situations.
    2. Proposed work practice standards--a. Occupant protection. Under
proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(1), work areas must be clearly defined with
signs warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation
activities to remain outside of the work area. These signs must be
posted before beginning the renovation and must remain in place until
the renovation has been completed and the work area has been verified
to have been adequately cleaned. If warning signs have been posted in
accordance with HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (24 CFR 35.1345(b)(2)) or
OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62(m)), additional
signs are not required by this proposal.
    b. Containing the work area. Under proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(2), a
firm must contain the work area so that no visible dust or debris
leaves the work area while the renovation is being performed.
Containment refers to methods of preventing leaded dust from
contaminating objects in the work area and from migrating beyond the
work area. It includes everything from the simple use of disposable
plastic drop cloths to the sealing of openings with plastic sheeting.
When planning a renovation project, special consideration should be
given to determining the type of work site preparation necessary to
prevent dust and debris from leaving the work area.
    Renovation projects generate varying amounts of leaded dust, paint
chips, and other lead-contaminated materials depending on the type of
work, area affected, and work methods used. Repairing a small area of
damaged drywall is likely to generate less lead-contaminated dust and
debris than sanding a large area in preparation for painting. Because
of this variability, the size of the area that must be isolated and the
containment methods used will vary from project to project. Large
renovation projects could involve one or more rooms and potentially
encompass an entire home or building, while small projects may require
only a minimal amount of containment. The necessary work area
preparations will depend on the size of the surface(s) being disturbed,
the method used in disturbing the surface, and the building layout. The
certified renovator assigned to a renovation would weigh all of these
factors in determining the appropriate work area size and preparation
level for that particular situation. For example, repairing a small
area of damaged drywall would probably require a smaller work area and
minimal preparation while demolition work would probably require a
larger work area and extensive preparation in order to prevent the
migration of dust and debris from the work area. The certified
renovator is responsible for weighing all of these factors and
designing a system of containment that ensures that no dust and debris
leaves the work area. EPA is proposing to define the term ``work area''
as the area that the certified renovator establishes to contain all of
the dust and debris generated by a renovation, based on the certified
renovator's evaluation of the extent and nature of the activity and the
specific work practices that will be used.
    i. Interior renovations. At a minimum, interior work area
preparations must include removing or covering all objects in the work
area, closing and covering all forced air HVAC ducts in the work area,
closing all windows in the work area, closing and sealing all doors in
the work area, and covering the floor surface, including installed
carpet, with taped-down plastic sheeting in the work area. Doors within
the work area that must 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. Alternatively, the paths
used to reach the exterior of the home must be covered with plastic
sheeting or other impermeable material to prevent the

spread of lead contaminated dust and debris outside the work area.
    ii. Exterior renovations. For exterior projects, work area
preparations must include, at a minimum, covering the ground with
plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending out
from the edge of the structure a sufficient distance to collect falling
paint debris, 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. For
example, if the renovation involves sanding a 5-foot by 5-foot area of
paint on the third floor of a building, and that side of the building
is only 40 feet long, all doors and windows on that side of the third
floor must be closed, as well as all of the doors and windows on that
side of the second and first floors. In situations where other
buildings are in close proximity to the work area, or where the work
area abuts a property line, the firm performing the renovation may have
to take extra precautions in containing the work area to ensure that
dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate other
buildings or migrate to adjacent property. In addition, doors within
the work area that must 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.
    iii. Prohibited practices. Under the current regulations for lead-
based paint abatement activities, certain practices are prohibited in
40 CFR 745.227(e)(6). These practices are open flame burning or
torching of lead-based paint; machine sanding, grinding, abrasive
blasting, or sandblasting of lead-based paint except when done with
HEPA exhaust control; dry scraping of lead based-paint except around
electrical outlets or for any area no more than 2 ft2 in any
one room, hallway, or stairwell, or for any area no more than 20
ft2 on exterior surfaces; and operating a heat gun at 1100
degrees Fahrenheit or higher.
    Unlike with abatement, EPA is proposing to allow the use of these
practices during renovation activities. The Agency understands that,
because these practices are commonly used during renovation work,
prohibiting such practices could make certain jobs, such as preparing a
surface for new painting, extremely difficult, if not impossible. For
example, contractors indicated there may be no practical way to restore
old and historic millwork other than open flame burning, and that
prohibiting dry scraping and sanding would cause many problems because
wet sanding tends to raise the grain of wood surfaces preventing a
smooth finish which consumers demand. The Agency believes that proper
training, in combination with appropriate containment and cleanup
requirements, is safe, effective, and reliable in preventing the
introduction of new lead-based paint hazards. EPA is seeking comment
regarding the prohibition of these practices, and specifically whether
different prohibitions should apply to interior and exterior
renovations.
    Although EPA is proposing to allow the use of these practices,
other Federal, State, and local requirements may govern these practices
and renovations in general. Persons performing renovations should check
to see whether other regulations, including the OSHA regulations at 29
CFR 1926.62, apply to their projects.
    c. Waste from renovations. Renovation projects can generate a
considerable amount of waste material. Lead-contaminated building
components and work area debris must be handled carefully to prevent
the release of lead-contaminated dust and debris. EPA is concerned that
allowing the storage of lead-contaminated waste where it may be
accessible to residents and others could cause a lead-based paint
hazard. Therefore, under proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(3) a firm would be
required, at the conclusion of each work day, to 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, transporting lead-based paint waste in uncovered
vehicles is a possible source of releases in the form of paint chips or
dust. The proposal would require renovation firms transporting lead-
based paint waste from a work site to contain the waste to prevent
identifiable releases, e.g., inside a plastic garbage bag.
    In a policy issued on July 31, 2000, EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) clarified that both homeowners and contractors can be eligible
for the hazardous waste exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) for lead-
based paint wastes generated from renovation and remodeling activities
in households, including single and multiple residences. This
conclusion was based on the fact that both the definition of
``household waste'' in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) and the Agency's criteria for
determining the scope of the exclusion focus on the type of waste
generated and the place of generation rather than the identity of the
waste generator. Therefore, under this clarification, lead-based paint
waste may be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfill units, as
long as those wastes are generated during abatement or renovation and
remodeling activities in households (Ref. 56).
    On June 18, 2003, EPA amended its regulations to provide an
additional option for disposal of this waste (Ref. 57). Having
clarified that lead-based paint waste generated through abatements and
renovation and remodeling activities in residential settings could be
disposed of in municipal solid waste landfill units, EPA also wanted to
offer the option of disposing of this waste in construction and
demolition (C&D) landfills. Accordingly, EPA amended 40 CFR 258.2 to
add definitions for ``construction and demolition (C&D) landfill'' and
``residential lead-based paint waste'' and to amend the definition of
``municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit.'' The primary purpose of
these amendments was to allow a C&D landfill to accept residential
lead-based paint waste without becoming a municipal solid waste
landfill unit and having to comply with RCRA requirements for such
units.
    When disposing of waste from renovation activities, the certified
renovator should follow all applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements.
    d. Cleaning the work area. Under proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4), a
firm would be required to clean the work area to remove visible dust,
debris or residue, as well as dust particles too small to be seen by
the naked eye. All renovation activities that disturb painted surfaces
can produce dangerous quantities of leaded dust. Because very small
particles of leaded dust are easily absorbed by the body when ingested
or inhaled, a small amount can create a health hazard for young
children. Unless this dust is properly removed, renovation and
remodeling activities are likely to introduce new lead-based paint
hazards. Therefore, careful cleaning is required. Improper cleaning can
increase the cost of a project considerably because additional cleaning
may be necessary during post-renovation cleaning verification. Although
it may not be possible to remove all leaded dust generated by the
renovation, it is possible to reduce it below levels that EPA has
determined to be hazardous.
    The proposal specifies that, upon completion of renovation
activities, all paint chips and debris must be picked up. Protective
sheeting must be misted and folded dirty side inward, using care to
trap any remaining dust. Sheeting

used to isolate contaminated rooms from non-contaminated rooms must
remain in place until after the cleaning and removal of other sheeting;
this sheeting must then be misted and removed last. Removed sheeting
must be either 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. The walls, starting from the ceiling and working
down to the floor, would have to be vacuumed with a vacuum equipped
with a HEPA filter or wiped with a damp cloth. The proposal would
require that all remaining surfaces and objects in the work area,
including floors, furniture and fixtures, be thoroughly vacuumed with a
vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter. When cleaning carpets, the HEPA-
equipped vacuum must be equipped with a beater bar to aid in dislodging
and collecting deep dust and lead from carpets. The beater bar must be
used on all passes on the carpet face during dry vacuuming. Where
feasible, floor surfaces underneath a rug or carpeting must also be
thoroughly vacuumed with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. This cleaning step is
intended to remove as much dust and remaining debris as possible.
    EPA requests comment on whether the rule should allow the use of
vacuums other than vacuums equipped with HEPA filters. HEPA filters
were first developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission during World
War II to capture microscopic radioactive particles that existing
filters could not remove. HEPA filters have the ability to capture
particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency. Particles both larger
and smaller than 0.3 microns are easier to catch. Thus, HEPA filters
capture these particles with 100% efficiency. Available information
indicates that lead particles generated by renovation activities range
in size from over 20 microns to 0.3 microns or less (Ref. 58). It has
been suggested that vacuums not equipped with HEPA filters fail to
capture smaller lead particles, and that these vacuums are more likely
to recirculate these particles to the air instead. EPA is concerned
that the unintended release of lead particles into the air during
cleaning activities may not only cause unintended dust lead hazards in
the work area, but that it could impact other areas of the dwelling
unit. EPA requests comment on whether there are other vacuums that have
the same efficiency at capturing the smaller lead particles as HEPA-
equipped vacuums, along with any data that would support this
performance equivalency and whether this performance specification is
appropriate for leaded dust cleanup. EPA also requests comment on
whether the rule should allow other types of vacuums in addition to
HEPA-equipped vacuums, given that the OSHA Lead in Construction
standard, at 29 CFR 1926.62(h)(4), requires that vacuums be equipped
with HEPA filters where vacuums are used.
    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.
    These special cleaning methods and procedures are typically not
standard operating procedure for general home improvement contractors.
Therefore, this proposal seeks to train renovators and establish work
practice standards that renovators must follow to ensure no lead-based
paint hazards are introduced as a result of a renovation.
    When cleaning following an exterior renovation, under the proposal
all paint chips and debris must be picked up. Protective sheeting used
for containment must be misted with water. All sheeting must be folded
carefully from the corners or ends to the middle to trap any remaining
dust. The sheeting must be disposed of as waste.
    EPA invites comment on all aspects of its proposed work practice
standards. EPA is especially interested in studies showing the
effectiveness of each component of its proposed work practices, as well
as the effectiveness of these components in combination. As noted in
the Draft Economic Analysis for this proposed rule, discussed in
greater detail in Unit VIII.A., the Agency assumes that the specified
combination of warning signs, containment barriers, cleaning measures,
and the post-renovation cleaning verification process discussed in the
next section, taken together, will result in lead dust levels at or
below the dust-lead hazard standards established at 40 CFR 745.65(b).
The available data, however, does not support a quantitative assessment
of the independent efficiency of each of these measures.

E. Cleaning Verification

    1. Background. The goal of this proposed rule is to ensure that
lead-based paint hazards are not created and left behind after
residential renovations. To achieve this goal, EPA has outlined
training requirements to provide renovators with information and
techniques on how to minimize the lead dust they produce during
renovation activities and the appropriate methods for cleaning the work
area after a renovation has been completed. The Agency has also
proposed a series of work practice standards that must be followed
during renovations. In addition, to achieve the goal of ensuring that
residential renovations do not increase exposure to lead-based paint
hazards, EPA has determined that additional cleaning verification
procedures are necessary.
    However, requiring dust clearance sampling after each renovation
project, as is done for abatements, would be problematic for several
reasons. Dust clearance sampling, which is required after abatements,
may be very expensive. The costs can be attributed to two major
factors: the cost of trained personnel to collect the samples and the
cost of the laboratory analysis. EPA estimates the cost of three dust
samples to be approximately $160 to collect and analyze. If EPA were to
require dust clearance sampling after every renovation project, it
would make up a significant portion of the cost of smaller projects.
More information on the costs of dust clearance sampling can be found
in Unit VIII.A. and in EPA's draft economic analysis of the impacts of
this proposal (Ref. 59). In addition, dust clearance sampling takes a
great deal of time. Laboratory results may not be available for several
days, during which time the work area cannot be re-occupied.
    On the other hand, a visual inspection, while less expensive and
less time-consuming than dust clearance sampling, does not provide
sufficient assurance that the renovation activities have not increased
the potential for exposure to lead-based paint hazards. Recent studies
indicate that visual inspection alone is not a reliable and effective
method for identifying the presence of a lead-based paint hazard after
cleaning (Ref. 60).
    In addition, one of the significant difficulties associated with
requiring clearance after renovation projects is the difference in
focus and scope between abatement projects and renovations. The purpose
of an abatement project is to permanently eliminate lead-based paint
and lead-based paint hazards. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to
require an assurance that the abatement firm has, in fact, eliminated
these hazards. However, renovations may be performed for many reasons,
most of which have nothing to do with

eliminating lead-based paint hazards. Moreover, if clearance using dust
wipes were required after every renovation job, it could have the
effect of holding the renovation firm responsible for abating all dust-
lead hazards, including such hazards that may have existed in the area
before the renovation commenced. During the public meetings in 1998 and
1999, as well as during the SBREFA panel process, discussed in Unit
VIII.C., contractors pointed out that, if post-renovation clearance
sampling were required, the contractors would have to protect
themselves by collecting pre-renovation dust samples, to ensure that
they would not be held liable for pre-existing hazards. EPA understands
this concern and has attempted to address it by finding an alternative
to dust clearance sampling. The goal of this proposal is to ensure any
potential lead-based paint hazards created during the actual renovation
project are cleaned up by the renovation firm. EPA requests comment on
all of the available methods for achieving this goal, including visual
inspections, dust clearance testing, and the proposed post-renovation
cleaning verification process described below. EPA also requests
comment on whether any cleanup verification is necessary, given the
proposed cleaning requirements described above.
    2. Disposable Cleaning Cloth/White Glove Study. EPA began looking
for an alternative to dust clearance sampling that would be quick,
inexpensive, reliable, and easy to perform. EPA conducted a series of
studies using commercially available disposable cleaning cloths to
determine whether variations of a ``white glove'' test could serve as
an effective alternative to dust clearance sampling. White disposable
cleaning cloths were used to wipe windowsills and wipe floors, then
examined to determine whether dust was visible on the cloth. This
determination was made by visually comparing the cloth to a
photographic standard that EPA developed to correlate to a level of
contamination that is below the dust lead hazard standard in 40 CFR
745.65(b). Cloths that matched the standard were considered to have
achieved ``white glove.''
    Initial studies focused on dry, or electrostatic, disposable
cleaning cloths (dry cloths). These cloths were used to wipe a
windowsill or a section of floor until a cloth had achieved ``white
glove.'' Then, dust samples were collected to determine whether the
windowsill or floor had also achieved clearance. These studies were
conducted both in vacant buildings, where the amount of leaded dust on
the surfaces was uncontrolled and no pre-cleaning was done, and in a
controlled laboratory setting. The results of these studies indicate
that dry cloths are most effective in predicting clearance through the
``white glove'' test when the initial lead levels are between 40 [mu]g/
ft2 and 200 [mu]g/ft2.
    EPA then began looking at wet disposable cleaning cloths (wet
cloths) as a means to improve the effectiveness of dry cloths. In a
controlled setting, the effectiveness of various combinations of dry
cloths and wet cloths were tested, using a leaded dust loading of 1,600
[mu]g/ft2. The first protocol tested used only dry cloths--
after ``white glove'' was achieved, the surface was wiped with two more
dry cloths. This protocol led to a false negative error rate of 30%,
meaning that in 30% of the cases, ``white glove'' was achieved, but
dust sampling indicated that the surface lead levels exceeded 40 [mu]g/
ft2. This procedure was performed again, and followed by one
wiping with a wet cloth. With this protocol, all 12 of the tests
performed resulted in levels below the clearance standard, or a false
negative error rate of 0%. Finally, the original dry cloth protocol was
used, until ``white glove'' was achieved, and then followed by one
mopping with a wet cloth. This simplified protocol achieved a false
negative error rate of 10%.
    The promising results of this controlled study led to a field test
of three potential protocols: Dry cloths to ``white glove,'' dry cloths
to ``white glove'' followed by one wet cloth, and wet cloths to ``white
glove.'' This field test was performed in vacant housing units. Lead
levels were determined before testing began, but no cleaning was
performed. The results of this field test were as follows: On floors,
91.5% of the surfaces that achieved ``white glove'' using only dry
cloths also achieved clearance, while 97.3% of the floors that achieved
``white glove'' using only wet cloths also achieved clearance. In
addition, 10 of the 11 floors where ``white glove'' was not achieved
using dry cloths, and 20 of the 21 floors where ``white glove'' was not
achieved using wet cloths, achieved clearance anyway. Unexpectedly, the
protocol using dry cloths to ``white glove'' followed by one wet cloth
was the least successful protocol--the false negative error rate for
this protocol was nearly 20%. Windowsills were also tested during this
part of the study, but only the all-dry-cloth protocol and the all-wet-
cloth protocol were used. For the dry cloth protocol, 96.4% of the
sills that achieved ``white glove'' also achieved clearance, and the
one sill that did not achieve ``white glove'' still passed clearance.
For the wet cloth protocol, all of the sills that achieved ``white
glove'' also achieved clearance, as did the four sills that did not
reach ``white glove.''
    The floors in the housing units tested in this portion of the study
were in vacant buildings that had high levels of accumulated lead that
was often encrusted on the surface as part of a hard, gummy layer. In
the case where false negative results were seen, it was primarily due
to the moisture from the wet cloth loosening lead after the ``white
glove'' was achieved with the wet cloth.
    The final report for these studies and the earlier studies,
entitled Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential
Housing, underwent an external peer review process. The final report,
including the Quality Assurance Project Plan, the photographic
comparison standards, the comments from the peer reviewers, and EPA's
response to the comments from the peer reviewers, has been placed into
this docket (Ref. 61). EPA also requests comments on the conclusions
drawn from this study, as well as on the study itself. EPA is
particularly interested in information or data on the Agency's
conclusions that this approach is practical and provides reliable
information on removal of lead hazards and that renovators will be able
to use a reference card to properly assess when ``white glove'' is
achieved.
    3. Steps for cleaning verification. Based on these study results,
EPA is not proposing to require dust clearance sampling after any
renovations. Instead, for interior renovations, EPA is proposing to
require an additional post-cleaning verification step following the
visual inspection. This step involves wiping the interior windowsills
and floors with a wet disposable cleaning cloth and, if necessary, a
dry disposable cleaning cloth, and comparing it to a cleaning
verification card that EPA will develop and distribute. A prototype of
this card has been placed in the docket (Ref. 62). The purpose of this
step is to verify that horizontal surfaces where dust will settle have
been adequately cleaned. The specific post-renovation cleaning
verification requirements are proposed as follows.
    a. Visual inspection. A certified renovator must perform a visual
inspection to determine whether visible dust, debris, or residue is
still present in the work area. If such dust, debris, or residue is
present, these conditions must be eliminated. If the renovation
involved is an interior renovation, these conditions must be eliminated
by re-cleaning the work area as directed in proposed Sec.
745.85(a)(4). After an

exterior work area passes the visual inspection, the project has been
properly completed and the warning signs may be removed. After an
interior work area passes the visual inspection, the cleaning of each
windowsill and uncarpeted floor within the work area must be verified
as discussed in this Unit.
    b. Interior windowsills. For interior renovations, after the work
area has been cleaned and has passed the visual inspection, a certified
renovator must wipe each interior windowsill (also known as a stool) in
the work area with a wet disposable cleaning cloth. All wet cloths used
in the post-renovation cleaning verification process must be at least
damp to the touch, and must remain so during the process. After wiping
each windowsill with a wet cloth, the certified renovator must compare
the cloth to the cleaning verification card. If the cloth matches the
card, that windowsill has passed the post-renovation cleaning
verification. If the cloth does not match the card, that windowsill
must be re-cleaned in accordance with proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4)(ii).
After the windowsill has been re-cleaned, the certified renovator must
wipe that windowsill with a new wet cloth, or the same one folded so
that an unused surface is exposed, and compare it to the cleaning
verification card. If the cloth matches the card, that windowsill has
passed. If not, the windowsill must be re-cleaned again and left to
dry.
    To perform this verification on a windowsill, the certified
renovator must wait for one hour after the surface has been re-cleaned
or until the surface has dried, whichever is longer. Then, the
certified renovator must wipe the windowsill with a dry disposable
cleaning cloth and compare it to the cleaning verification card. This
process must be repeated until a dry cloth, or a folded section of a
dry cloth, that has wiped the windowsill matches the cleaning
verification card. At that point, that windowsill has passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification process. Each windowsill in the work
area must pass the post-renovation cleaning verification process.
    EPA considered requiring that certified renovators repeat the
process of cleaning and then wiping with a wet disposable cleaning
cloth until each windowsill and each section of uncarpeted floor within
the work area achieved post-renovation cleaning verification with a wet
cloth. The disposable cleaning cloth studies suggest that it is
possible that some floors may never achieve verification with a wet
cloth. Verification on floors that are in poor condition or floors with
built-up layers of grime may be particularly difficult. In the second
field study of disposable cleaning cloths, there were 21 floors that
did not achieve ``white glove,'' even after 15 separate wipings with a
fresh wet cloth. However, 20 of these floors passed clearance through
dust sampling.
    Therefore, for each windowsill and for those sections of the floor
that did not achieve post-renovation cleaning verification using the
wet cloths, EPA is proposing to require that after the second re-
cleaning, the surface be allowed to dry, and then a dry disposable
cleaning cloth verification process be performed. The dry cloth may be
less likely to dissolve additional layers of built-up grime, which may
have contributed to the phenomenon of floors passing clearance, but not
achieving ``white glove'' with the wet cloths. In addition, lead dust
trapped in built-up layers of grime is not likely to be the result of a
current renovation activity.
    c. Floors. After the windowsills in the work area have passed the
post-renovation cleaning verification, a certified renovator must wipe
the floor surfaces in the work area with a wet disposable cleaning
cloth. Wiping of floors must be done with an application device
consisting of a long handle and a head to which the wet cloth is
attached. This will help the certified renovator apply fairly constant
pressure over the floor surface. Again, the wet cloth must remain at
least damp to the touch throughout this process. During the field
studies, the cloths tended to dry out as they were used over large
areas, or on more porous floor surfaces. As the cloths dry out, they
pick up less dust. To ensure that the cloths remained damp during the
field studies, the persons performing the wiping were directed to use
each wet cloth on no more than 40 ft2 of floor area (Ref.
63). EPA is proposing to require the same for the purposes of post-
renovation cleaning verification, but requests comment on whether this
is an appropriate size cut-off. If the floor surface in the work area
exceeds 40 ft2, the certified renovator would divide the
floor surface into sections, each section being less than 40
ft2, and perform the post-renovation cleaning verification
on each section separately.
    If the wet cloth used to wipe a particular section of floor matches
the cleaning verification card, that section has passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification. If, however, on the first wiping of a
section of the floor surface, the wet cloth does not match the cleaning
verification card, the surface of that section of the floor must be re-
cleaned in accordance with proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4)(ii). After re-
cleaning, the renovator must wipe that section of the floor again using
a new wet cloth. If the wet cloth matches the cleaning verification
card, that section of the floor has passed. If the wet cloth does not
match the verification card, that section of the floor must be re-
cleaned as directed in proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4)(ii) and left to dry.
    For those sections of the floor that did not achieve post-
renovation cleaning verification using the wet cloths, the certified
renovator must wait for 1 hour after the floor has been re-cleaned or
until the floor has dried, whichever is longer. Then, the certified
renovator must wipe those sections of the floor with a dry disposable
cleaning cloth and compare it to the cleaning verification card. This
wiping must also be performed using an application device with a long
handle and a head to which the dry cloth is attached. This process must
be repeated until a dry cloth that has wiped all of the sections of the
floor that have not yet passed verification matches the cleaning
verification card. At that point, the entire floor has passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification process and the warning signs may be
removed.
    EPA believes that adherence to this post-renovation cleaning
verification protocol, in combination with the proposed training,
containment, and cleaning requirements is a safe, reliable and
effective system of ensuring that renovation activities do not result
in an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In the
great majority of cases, windowsills and floors that achieve post-
renovation cleaning verification will also pass dust clearance
sampling. EPA specifically requests comment on the elements of the
proposed protocol, especially with regard to their efficacy and
utility. EPA also requests comments on whether the reliability of the
cleaning verification would be improved if it were performed by an
individual who had not previously participated in the renovation
activity, for example, another certified renovator in the renovation
firm.
    d. Carpets. As a final step in the renovation process, EPA is
proposing that after containment is removed, the work area be
thoroughly cleaned. For floors, the proposal would require vacuuming
with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. When cleaning carpets, the vacuum would
have to be equipped with a beater bar to aid in dislodging and
collecting leaded dust. EPA believes that use of the HEPA-equipped
vacuum

equipped with a beater bar to dislodge dust and debris is the most
effective cleaning practice for carpets, and that an effective cleaning
verification method for carpets is not available. EPA is not proposing
that the ``white glove'' cleaning verification protocol be used on
carpets after they have been cleaned using a HEPA-equipped vacuum
equipped with a beater bar. EPA did not verify use of the ``white
glove'' protocol on carpets. In addition, there are questions about the
validity of dust clearance sampling on carpeted floors, even though
such sampling is required by EPA after abatements and by HUD after
interim controls. In its final rule for hazard and clearance standards
for the Title X program (Ref. 24), the Agency included standards for
carpeted floors, even though the proposed floor standards would have
applied only to bare floors (Ref. 64). The Agency initially was
concerned that there was a lack of data on the relative performance of
sampling methods for carpets, given that various studies had used
different sampling techniques (e.g., the Baltimore Repair and
Maintenance Study's ``BRM'' vacuum (Ref. 65), the Comprehensive
Abatement Performance Pilot Study's ``Blue Nozzle'' vacuum (Ref. 66),
and standard dust wipes). Additionally, the Agency did not have
adequate data on the effectiveness of carpet cleaning techniques that
would be needed to establish a dust clearance level for carpeted
floors. Consequently, there were problems establishing a dust lead
level on a wipe that would independently indicate that the carpet had
been sufficiently cleaned. This problem was exacerbated by the wide
variety of carpet types and conditions that would likely be encountered
in residential units.
    The Agency changed its position in the final lead hazard standards
rule as a result of commenters' concerns that many housing units
contained carpeting and that, without a standard, such units could not
be assessed for the presence of lead hazards from floor dust. Based
upon data available to the Agency at that time (Ref. 67), EPA estimated
that approximately 54 million housing units built prior to 1978
contained some wall-to-wall carpeting and, of these, 47 million had
such carpeting in living rooms and 46 million in bedrooms (i.e., rooms
in which children reside and play frequently). Agreeing with these
concerns, the Agency determined that the floor standards (using dust
wipes) should apply to both bare and carpeted floors in order that all
floors would be addressed in lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and
abatements.
    In making this determination, EPA did not specifically consider the
question of whether both the hazard and the clearance floor standards
should apply to carpeted floors. Because the hazard and clearance
standards were numerically equal, even though they served different
purposes and uses, EPA chose to apply both standards to carpeted and
uncarpeted floors.
    The decision to apply the clearance standard to carpeted floors
ultimately had little consequence, given the context in which clearance
standards are used--namely, to ensure that sufficient cleanup has been
performed after an abatement. Typically, in abatement situations,
carpets that are in poor condition or are known to be highly
contaminated are removed and disposed of. Where carpets are not
replaced, they are cleaned according to specified criteria (Ref. 27).
In general, carpets are acknowledged to be potential traps of leaded
dust and great care is taken to replace or thoroughly clean them in
order to ensure that, once the abatement is concluded, the housing unit
is cleanable so that the benefits of the abatement will continue as
long as routine cleaning is performed. Consequently, EPA believes that
it is this special attention to carpets that ensures that they are
sufficiently clean, rather than reliance upon only a post-abatement
wipe clearance sample.
    e. Optional use of clearance testing. Some renovators or homeowners
may choose to perform clearance at the completion of renovation
activities instead of the post-renovation cleaning verification
described in proposed Sec.  745.85(b). If so, dust sampling for
clearance would have to be performed by a certified inspector, risk
assessor, or dust sampling technician, who would be responsible for
collecting dust samples, sending them to an EPA-recognized laboratory,
and comparing the results to the clearance levels in accordance with 40
CFR 745.227(e)(8). EPA recommends that the renovation work area be re-
cleaned if the home fails the clearance test. It is a good idea to
specify in the renovation contract who is responsible for this re-
cleaning if the home fails the clearance test. EPA welcomes comment on
this part of the proposal.

F. State Renovation Model Program and Authorization Process

    Recognizing the importance of EPA's State partners in achieving the
goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing, Congress
specifically directed EPA to establish model State programs and a
process for authorizing States to operate lead-safe programs in lieu of
the Federal program. As it did in the regulations at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart L, for lead-based paint activities, the Agency is also seeking
to provide Federally recognized Indian Tribes the opportunity to apply
for and receive program authorization similar to that available to
States. Providing Indian Tribes with this opportunity is consistent
with EPA's Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on
Indian Reservations (Ref. 17).
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing 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 subpart E, as amended. States, Territories and Tribes may
choose to administer and enforce just the existing requirements of
subpart E, the pre-renovation education elements, or all of the
requirements of the proposed subpart E, as amended. Under this
proposal, EPA would not authorize a State, Territorial, or Tribal
program that sought only the authority to administer and enforce the
training, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements
of this proposal, and not the pre-renovation education provisions of
subpart E. Because this proposal allows and encourages renovation firms
to use the existing pamphlet acknowledgment process to obtain
information about occupant age and rental status, in order to determine
whether the property would be covered by these regulations, and because
the pre-renovation education provisions are an integral part of
ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make informed
decisions about renovation practices in their homes, EPA believes that
authorizing States, Territories, and Tribes to administer all of the
regulations applicable to renovations is the best approach. However,
some States have already been authorized to administer and enforce the
existing pre-renovation education provisions in 40 CFR part 745,
subpart E. EPA believes that those States should be able to continue
administering their pre-renovation education programs without being
required to add the training, certification, accreditation, and work
practice elements of this proposal. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
allow all States, Territories and Tribes to apply for authorization to
administer and enforce only the pre-renovation education requirements
of 40 CFR part 745, subpart E. Because there are no authorized
jurisdictions in the opposite position, no existing State, Territorial,
or Tribal program will have to choose

between adding more program responsibilities or relinquishing its
authorization.
    For the purpose of authorizing State, Territorial, and Tribal
programs, EPA is proposing to use the existing procedures codified in
40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, with the amendments of this proposal
setting forth the specific elements that would be required of a program
seeking authorization to administer and enforce the training,
certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements of this
proposal. In accordance with the current process for authorization,
States, Territories and Tribes may not choose only to administer, but
not enforce, the provisions of subpart E, nor may they selectively
choose to administer and enforce only the accreditation or
certification provisions, but not the work practice standards, for
renovations.
    States, Territories, and Tribes seeking authority to administer and
enforce the provisions of this proposal must obtain public input, then
submit an application to EPA. Existing 40 CFR 745.324 describes the
process for applying for authorization. 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. In this case, the Federal program consists of the requirements
for training, certification, and accreditation and the work practice
standards in this proposal.
    To be eligible for authorization to administer and enforce the
training, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements
of this proposal, EPA is proposing to require that State, Territorial,
and Tribal renovation programs contain certain minimum elements. These
minimum elements would be very similar to the minimum elements
currently codified in 40 CFR 745.326(a) for lead-based paint
activities. In order to be authorized, State, Territorial, or Tribal
programs would have to have procedures and requirements for the
accreditation of training programs, which could be as simple as
procedures for accepting training provided by an EPA-accredited
provider, or a provider accredited by another authorized State,
Territorial, or Tribal program. Procedures and requirements for the
certification of renovators would also be necessary. At a minimum,
these must include a requirement that certified renovators have taken
accredited training, and procedures and requirements for re-
certification. State, Territorial, and Tribal programs applying for
authorization would also be required to establish work practice
standards for renovations that ensure that renovations are conducted
only by certified renovation firms and the renovations are conducted
using lead-safe work practices at least as protective as those of the
Federal program. As is the current practice with lead-based paint
activities, EPA will not require State, Territorial, or Tribal programs
to certify both firms and individuals that perform renovations. States,
Territories and Tribes may choose to certify either firms or
individuals, so long as the individuals that perform the duties of
renovators are required to take accredited training.
    EPA encourages States, Territories, and Tribes that may be
considering establishing their own renovation programs to keep
reciprocity in mind as they move forward. The benefits to be derived
from reciprocity arrangements with the Federal program and other
authorized jurisdictions include a potential cost-saving from reducing
duplicative activity and the development of a professional renovation
workforce more quickly, thus providing maximum flexibility to State,
Territorial, or Tribal residents. In addition, the Agency encourages
States, Territories and Tribes to consider the use of existing
certification and accreditation procedures as they develop their
programs. These existing programs need not be limited to lead-based
paint. For example a State may choose to add lead-safe renovation
requirements to their existing contractor licensing programs.

V. New Renovation-Specific Pamphlet

    The existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, require
each person who performs for compensation a renovation of target
housing to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and
occupants of such housing prior to commencing the renovation. The term
``pamphlet'' is defined at 40 CFR 745.83 to mean, in part, the EPA
pamphlet developed under TSCA section 406(a) for use in complying with
this and other regulations under TSCA Title IV and Title X. Until
recently, the only pamphlet developed under TSCA section 406(a) was
Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home (Ref. 20). EPA has now
developed another pamphlet more specific to lead dust hazards created
during renovation activities to be distributed to occupants before
these activities commence. EPA intends to announce in a future Federal
Register notice the availability of this new pamphlet, entitled Protect
Your Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting (the ``RRP''
pamphlet) for notice and comment.
    The RRP pamphlet is very similar to the original PYF pamphlet in
that both pamphlets contain information on lead human health effects,
human exposure pathways, lead testing, and the location of additional
information resources (Ref. 68). However, after careful analysis of
available research data related to lead-based paint and renovation
activities, EPA has decided to place more emphasis on potential hazards
caused by disturbing lead-based paint during renovation activities.
This new emphasis offers the public additional information regarding
lead-safe work practices which can greatly reduce the creation and
release of leaded dust. Because the RRP pamphlet was developed
specifically to inform the public about the potential lead hazards that
can be caused by renovation activities, EPA is proposing to require the
RRP pamphlet to be handed out prior to renovation activities instead of
the PYF pamphlet. This pamphlet contains information on lead-based
paint hazards specific to renovation activities, as well as information
on how to select a renovation firm.
    As an alternative to the RRP pamphlet, an authorized State or
Tribal program could distribute an alternate pamphlet that had been
reviewed and approved by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 745.326. The
alternate pamphlet would have to contain renovation-specific
information similar to that in the RRP pamphlet, would have to meet the
content requirements prescribed by TSCA section 406(a), and would have
to be in a format that was readable to the diverse audience of housing
owners and occupants in that State or Tribe.
    EPA therefore proposes to amend the definition of ``pamphlet'' in
40 CFR 745.83 to refer specifically to the RRP pamphlet. The effect of
this amendment would be to require that renovators who are required
under 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, to distribute an information
pamphlet, distribute the RRP pamphlet rather than the PYF pamphlet.
    In addition, to maintain consistency among the Federal, State, and
Tribal pre-renovation notification program requirements, EPA proposes
to amend 40 CFR 745.326 to require authorized State or Tribal programs
to use the RRP pamphlet or create and distribute an

alternate pamphlet. Alternate pamphlets would be required to contain
renovation-specific information similar to that in Protect Your Family
from Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting, meet the content
requirements prescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA, and be in a format
that is readable to the diverse audience of housing owners and
occupants in that State or Tribe.

VI. Effective Dates

A. Requirements for Renovation Activities

    Interested States, Territories and Indian Tribes could begin
applying for authorization of renovation programs from EPA as soon as
the final rule is promulgated. Also, after the final rule is
promulgated, providers of courses that cover lead-safe work practices
for renovations could continue to offer these courses, but they would
not be permitted to advertise these courses for EPA certification
purposes until they receive accreditation from EPA.
    EPA would begin accepting training provider accreditation
applications for renovator and dust sampling technician initial and
refresher courses 1 year after promulgation of a final rule. The reason
for the delay is to provide interested States, Territories and Indian
Tribes 1 year to develop, or begin developing, renovation-specific work
practice standards and accreditation, training, and certification
programs. EPA believes the nation's experience in implementing the
lead-based paint activities program regulations at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart L should help everyone involved, including States, Territories,
Tribes, the regulated community, and EPA, move more quickly towards
implementing renovation programs. Thus, EPA is not proposing to make
training programs for the federal program wait 2 years before they can
receive accreditation, as EPA did for the subpart L regulations. On the
other hand, EPA is concerned about the duplication of effort that could
occur, and the additional costs that could be incurred by the regulated
community, if EPA begins accrediting training providers and certifying
firms in jurisdictions that are also working towards implementing their
own programs. Training providers, firms, and individuals working in
such jurisdictions could end up having to become accredited or
certified by both EPA and the State, Territory or Tribe within a fairly
short period of time. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of
developing State, Territorial, or Tribal programs and getting them
authorized within a year after EPA promulgates a final rule. EPA also
requests comment on ways to avoid multiple accreditations and
certifications in jurisdictions that are unable to receive
authorization for their programs within the first year after EPA
promulgates a final rule. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether
any implementation delay is necessary, given that EPA accreditation and
certification would be valid in any State or Indian Tribal area that
does not have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745,
subpart Q.
    Firm certification applications would be accepted by EPA starting 6
months after EPA begins accepting training provider accreditation
applications, or 18 months after the promulgation date of the final
rule. The work practice standards would become effective 2 years after
the promulgation date of the final rule, at which time all covered
renovations would have to be performed in accordance with those
standards by certified renovators and trained workers.
    As discussed in Unit IV.B., EPA is proposing to initially apply the
training, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements
of this proposal to pre-1960 rental target housing, pre-1960 owner-
occupied target housing where a child under age 6 resides, and any
target housing where a child under age 6 with a blood lead level that
equals or exceeds 10 [mu]g/dL, or any lower State or local government
level of concern, resides. Those requirements would apply 1 year later
to rental target housing built between 1960 and 1978, and owner-
occupied target housing built between 1960 and 1978 where a child under
age 6 resides. Allowing for the time given to interested States,
Territories and Tribes to develop programs, the first phase of this
regulation would be fully effective 2 years after the date of
promulgation of a final rule. The second phase of this regulation would
take effect 3 years after a final rule is promulgated.

B. Renovation-specific Pamphlet

    EPA is also proposing to phase in the requirement to use the new
RRP pamphlet discussed in Unit V. For the purpose of complying with the
Federal Pre-Renovation Education Rule, in the first 6 months after this
regulation is promulgated, persons performing renovations could
distribute either the PYF or the new RRP pamphlet. After 6 months, only
the RRP pamphlet could be used to comply with the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule in jurisdictions where the Federal program is in effect.
    However, EPA recognizes that approved State, Territorial, and
Tribal Pre-Renovation Education programs, or jurisdictions developing
programs, may need time to amend their programs and either adopt the
RRP pamphlet or develop and obtain approval for an alternate pamphlet.
EPA has worked with the existing State programs to develop an
acceptable time frame for meeting the new requirements. In doing so,
EPA identified three potential non-Federal program categories: (1)
Programs authorized prior to the effective date of the final rule, (2)
potential new programs with an application submitted but not approved
prior to the effective date of the final rule, and (3) potential new
programs that might apply after the effective date of the final rule.
The time frame for compliance for each category is set forth in
proposed 40 CFR 745.326(b)(3).
    In sum, such programs authorized prior to the effective date of the
final rule would demonstrate compliance in the first Sec.  745.324(h)
report submitted at least 2 years after the effective date of the final
rule. Potential new programs with an application submitted but not
approved prior to the effective date of the final rule would
demonstrate compliance in the first Sec.  745.324(h) report submitted
at least 2 years after the effective date of the final rule or by
amending their application to comply with this amendment. Potential new
programs that might apply after the effective date of the final rule
would be required to demonstrate compliance with the amendment at the
time of their application to EPA for program approval.

VII. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this proposed rule and placed in the public docket that
was established under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. For
information on accessing the docket, refer to the ADDRESSES unit at the
beginning of this document.
    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Sample
acknowledgment form. (2005).
    2. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title
X) (Public Law 102-550).
    3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public
Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A Statement by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (August 2005).
    4. HHS, PHS, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Lead (July 1999).

    5. USEPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD). Air Quality
Criteria for Lead, First External Review Draft (EPA/600/R-05/144aA,
December 2005)
    6. USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System; Lead and compounds
(inorganic) (CASRN 7439-92-1) (July 8, 2004).
    7. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Federal Register (42 FR
44199, September 1, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 8515, March 2, 1978).
    8. U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). Final Standard for Occupational Exposure to
Lead. Federal Register (43 FR 52952, November 14, 1978).
    9. USDOL, OSHA. Lead Exposure in Construction; Interim Final
Rule.Federal Register (58 FR 26590, May 4, 1993).
    10. USEPA. Control of Lead Additives in Gasoline; Final Rule.
Federal Register (38 FR 33734, December 6, 1973).
    11. USEPA. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. Federal
Register (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991).
    12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public
Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A Statement by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (October 1991).
    13. Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. Preventing Childhood
Lead Poisoning: The First Comprehensive National Conference; Final
Report. (October 6, 7, 8, 1991).
    14. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards (February 2000).
    15. HHS, PHS, CDC. Preventing Lead Exposure in Young Children: A
Housing Based Approach to Primary Prevention of Lead Poisoning:
Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention (October 2004).
    16. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities: Final Rule. Federal
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996).
    17. USEPA. EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations (November 8, 1984).
    18. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule.
Federal Register (64 FR 31092, June 9, 1999).
    19. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Activities and Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR
18489, April 8, 2004).
    20. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead in
Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June 2003).
    21. USEPA. Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; Notice of
Availability. Federal Register (60 FR 39167, August 1, 1995).
    22. HUD, USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-
Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule.
Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996).
    23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before
Renovation of Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR
29908, June 1, 1998).
    24. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001).
    25. USEPA. Targeted Grants to Reduce Childhood Lead Poisoning;
Notice of Funds Availability. Federal Register (69 FR 69913, December
1, 2004).
    26. HUD. Requirements for Notification, Evaluation, and Reduction
of Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing Receiving Federal Assistance and
Federally Owned Residential Property Being Sold (Lead Safe Housing
Rule); Final Rule, Conforming Amendments and Corrections. Federal
Register (69 FR 34262, June 21, 2004).
    27. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based
Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995).
    28. HHS, PHS, CDC. Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young
Children (March 2002).
    29. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-
K-97-001, September 1997).
    30. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-
007, May 1997).
    31. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA
747-R-96-006, May 1997).
    32. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-
99-002, March 1999).
    33. USEPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on
the Lead-based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and
Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000).
    34. McMillan Associates. Response to SBREFA Panel Recommendations
for Further Analysis of Existing Phase III Data (August 6, 2001).
    35. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels
Attributed to Home Renovation and Remolding Activities--New York, 1993-
1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January
3, 1997).
    36. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B.
Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ``Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk
Factor for Exposure to Lead Among Children Residing in New York City?''
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine.
Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005).
    37. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of
R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes (EPA
747-R-99-001, March 1999).
    38. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling
Activities; Final Summary Report (EPA 747-S-00-001, January 2000).
    39. USEPA. TSCA Section 402(c) Lead Exposure Reduction Stakeholder
Meeting for the Proposed Renovation and Remodeling Rule (December 7,
1998).
    40. USEPA. Round Table Discussion of TSCA Section 402(c) Lead
Exposure Reduction Proposed Renovation and Remodeling Rule (March 8,
1999).
    41. USEPA. Lead Programs Meeting, Meeting Summary (September 25-26,
2000).
    42. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with State, Local, and Tribal
Government Representatives (May 1, 2003).
    43. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with State, Local, and Tribal
Government Representatives (May 15, 2003).
    44. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with Industry Stakeholders (May 9,
2003).
    45. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with Industry Stakeholders (May
29, 2003).
    46. HUD. National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, Volume
I: Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31,
2002).

    47. NIST. Spot Test Kits for Detecting Lead in Household Paint, a
Laboratory Evaluation (NISTIR 6398, May 2000).
    48. USEPA. Estimates of Concentration of Lead in Paint by Age of
Housing (October 2005).
    49. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before
Renovation of Target Housing; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (59 FR
11108, March 9, 1994).
    50. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Evaluating the
Performance Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for
Lead in Paint (E 1828-01).
    51. USEPA. Draft Recordkeeping Checklist for Firms (December 2005).
    52. USEPA, HUD. Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, and Painting
(EPA 747-B-03-001/2, July 2003).
    53. HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. The HUD Lead-
Based Paint Abatement Demonstration (FHA) (August 1991).
    54. USEPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Lead
Dust Minimization Work Practices for Renovation, Remodeling and
Repainting; Draft Technical Manual (September 29, 1998).
    55. USEPA. Minimizing Lead-Based Paint Hazards During Renovation,
Remodeling, and Painting (September 2000).
    56. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth
A. Cotsworth, Director, ``Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by
Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based Paint Activities Conducted in
Households'' (July 31, 2000).
    57. USEPA, OSW. Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills: Disposal of Residential Lead-based Paint Waste; Final Rule.
Federal Register (68 FR 36487, June 18, 2003).
    58. Choe, K., Trunov, M., Grinshpun, S.A., Willeke, K., Harney, J.,
Trakumas, S., Mainelis, G., Bornschein, R., Clark, S. and Friedman, W.
Particle settling after Lead-Based Paint Abatement Work and Clearance
Waiting Period, American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
61(6):798-807 (2001).
    59. USEPA, OPPT. Draft Economic Analysis for the Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule (December 2005).
    60. National Center for Healthy Housing. An Evaluation of the
Efficacy of the Lead Hazard Reduction Treatments Prescribed in Maryland
Environmental Article 6-8 (April 30, 2002).
    61. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in
Residential Housing (September 2005).
    62. USEPA. Draft Cleaning Verification Card (2005)
    63. USEPA, OPPT. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the
Field Study; Appendix A - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Using
the Dry Electrostatic Cloth and Mop to Collect Lead Dust (July 12,
2004).
    64. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead;
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998).
    65. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Repair and Maintenance
Study in Baltimore: Pre-Intervention Findings. (EPA 747-R-95-012,
August 1996).
    66. USEPA. Comprehensive Abatement Performance Pilot Study, Volume
1: Results of Lead Data Analyses (EPA 747-R-93-007, February 1995).
    67. U.S. Census Bureau. Current Housing Reports, Series H150/97,
American Housing Survey for the United States (1997).
    68. USEPA. Protect Your Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair,
& Painting (2005).
    69. USEPA. Proposed ICR amendment for rulemaking entitled ``Lead;
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule'' (December
2005).
    70. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint,
Dust, and Soil (EPA 747-R-97-006, June 1998).
    71. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint,
Dust, and Soil: Supplemental Report (EPA 747-R-00-004, December 2000).
    72. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Clearance
Examinations Following Lead Hazard Reduction Activities in Single-
Family Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities (E 2271-05).
    73. ASTM International. Standard Guide for Evaluation, Management,
and Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E 2052-99).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this
proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f)(1) of the Executive Order because EPA estimates that it will have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly,
this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made based on
OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for this
rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.
    As required by the Executive Order, EPA also submitted a draft
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
proposed rulemaking. This analysis is contained in a document entitled
Draft Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program Proposed Rule (Draft Economic Analysis) (Ref. 59). The Agency
is conducting additional analyses with other assumptions for baseline
activities than those that were used in the Agency's Draft Economic
Analysis to estimate the potential costs and benefits of the proposed
rule. Information about these new analyses is available in the docket,
and, once completed, the revised Economic Analysis will also be
available in the docket. The additional analyses are expected to change
the estimated potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule. A copy
of this Economic Analysis is available in the docket for this action,
and is briefly summarized here.
    1. Options evaluated. EPA evaluated a number of options in the
development of the proposed rule. All options address target housing,
which is defined in section 401 of TSCA as housing constructed before
1978, except housing for the elderly and persons with disabilities,
unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing, or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Option A applies to renovation,
repair, and painting projects performed for compensation in all rental
target housing and owner-occupied target housing built before 1978
where a child under age 6 resides. Option B has 2 phases. The first
phase applies to rental target housing built before 1960, and owner-
occupied target housing units built before 1960 where a child under age
6 resides, plus all housing units built before 1978 where a child with
a blood lead level that equals or exceeds applicable levels of concern
resides. The second phase, which takes effect a year after the first
phase, applies to all the housing units covered by Option A. Option C
also has 2 phases. The first phase applies to all rental housing built
before 1950, and owner-occupied housing units built before 1950 where a
child under age 6 resides, plus all housing units built before 1978
where a child with a blood lead level that equals or exceeds applicable
levels of concern

resides. The second phase, which takes effect a year after the first
phase, applies to all the housing units covered by Option A. Option D
covers the same housing units at the same times as Option B, but
differs from Options A, B, and C in that they allow a certified
renovator flexibility in selecting appropriate work practices for each
individual job, while Option D does not provide such flexibility. The
proposed rule is Option B.
    2. Number of events and individuals. As shown in the Draft Economic
Analysis, the number of renovation, repair, and painting events covered
by the rule varies across regulatory options in Phase 1 as a result of
the different time periods addressed by the options. The number of
events covered in Phase 2 is the same for all options because the
housing units regulated are the same, i.e., pre-1978 units. Because not
all housing units built before 1978 have lead-based paint, not all
events need to use lead-safe work practices. The number of events with
lead-safe work practices in Phase 2 is smaller than in Phase 1 for all
but Option C, despite the increase in housing units covered by Phase 2
under Options B, C, and D. The number of events requiring lead-safe
work practices is smaller because the accuracy of lead paint test kits
(in terms of detecting the presence or absence of regulated lead-based
paint) is expected to have improved by Phase 2. Under the proposed
rule, in Phase 1 there would be 4.8 million events in housing where
lead-safe work practices are used due to the rule. Slightly more than
4.9 million individuals reside in these housing units, including
729,000 children under age 6. In Phase 2, the proposed rule would cover
4.4 million such events in units housing nearly 5.8 million
individuals, including 855,000 children under age 6.
    3. Benefits. The Draft Economic Analysis describes the estimated
benefits of the proposed rulemaking in qualitative and quantitative
terms. Benefits result from the prevention of adverse health effects
attributable to lead exposure. These health effects include several
illnesses as well as impaired cognitive function in adults and
children.
    There are not sufficient data at this time to quantify some of the
potential benefits of reducing exposure to lead. EPA's Draft Economic
Analysis estimates the benefits of avoiding selected health effects in
children and adults.
    The Agency considered the potential benefits to both children and
adults because studies indicate that they are both adversely affected
by exposures to lead in dust from renovation and remodeling activities.
As stated in Unit III.B., one of the purposes of Title X is the
elimination of lead-based paint hazards in target housing. EPA
considered the potential benefits to children separately from adults,
because a focus of Title X is the reduction in the threat of childhood
lead poisoning. The Agency specifically seeks comment on its
consideration of potential benefits to both adults and children, as
well as comments and information about the potential uncertainties
associated with the adult health effects considered and the magnitude
of those uncertainties.
    4. Costs. The Draft Economic Analysis estimates the potential costs
of complying with this proposed rule including training costs,
certification costs, and work practice costs. As indicated previously,
the Agency is conducting additional analysis that could change the
estimated potential costs of the proposed rule. This new analysis will
be added to the docket as soon as it is complete. In the Draft Economic
Analysis, training costs will be incurred for renovators, who will
perform or direct the performance of key tasks during renovations, and
workers, who may perform renovation tasks under the direction of
renovators. Persons who are not currently certified as lead-based paint
abatement supervisors or workers and who wish to become certified
renovators would be required to take an accredited 8-hour renovator
course. Currently certified abatement supervisors and workers would
merely need to familiarize themselves with this proposal's work
practice and cleaning verification requirements. Training for
renovation workers under this proposal would consist of informal, on-
the-job training by a renovator. Renovators not otherwise certified
would be required to take a 4-hour refresher course every 3 years to
maintain their certification. Firms performing renovations will have to
be certified by EPA or an EPA-authorized State, Tribal, or Territorial
program. Certified firms would have to be re-certified every 3 years.
    The work practice requirements of this proposal cover 3 general
categories of activities: Containing the work area, cleaning up the