[Federal Register: January 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 6)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1587-1636]
[DOCID:fr10ja06-13]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 745

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-7755-5]
RIN 2070-AC83

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing new requirements to reduce exposure to lead
hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that
disturb lead-based paint. This action supports the attainment of the
Federal government's goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by
2010. The proposal would establish requirements for training renovators
and dust sampling technicians; certifying renovators, dust sampling
technicians, and renovation firms; accrediting providers of renovation
and dust sampling technician training; and for renovation work
practices. These requirements would apply in ``target housing,''
defined in section 401 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as
any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or
persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is
expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.
Initially the rule would apply to all renovations for compensation
performed in target housing where a child with an increased blood lead
level resides, rental target housing built before 1960 and owner-
occupied target housing built before 1960, unless, with respect to
owner-occupied target housing, the person performing the renovation
obtains a statement signed by the owner-occupant that the renovation
will occur in the owner's residence and that no child under age 6
resides there. EPA is proposing to phase in the applicability of this
proposal to all rental target housing and owner-occupied target housing
built in the years 1960 through 1977 where a child under age 6 resides.
This proposal is issued under the authority of TSCA section 402(c)(3).
EPA is also 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 renovation
provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2006. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by OMB on or before February 9, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0049, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available in the
on-line docket at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in the online docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA

Docket Center, EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket
Center Reading Room telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA
Docket Center, is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: Mike Wilson, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform
renovations of target housing for compensation or dust sampling. Target
housing is defined in section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed
prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to
reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.

 Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Building construction (NAICS 236), e.g., single family
housing construction, multi-family housing construction, residential
remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 238), e.g., plumbing,
heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering
contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry contractors,
drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and
terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS 531), e.g., lessors of residential
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS 611519), e.g.,
training providers.
     Engineering services (NAICS 541330) and building
inspection services (NAICS 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec.  745.82 of the
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

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

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is proposing new requirements to reduce the exposure to lead
hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that
disturb lead-based paint. This action supports the attainment of the
Federal government's goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by
2010. The proposal would establish requirements for training renovators
and dust sampling technicians; certifying renovators, dust sampling
technicians, and renovation firms; accrediting providers of renovation
and dust sampling technician training; and renovation work practices.
These requirements would apply in ``target housing,'' defined in TSCA
section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for
the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6
resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom
dwelling. Initially the rule would apply to all renovations for
compensation performed in target housing where a child with an
increased blood lead level resides; rental target housing built before
1960; and owner-occupied target housing built before 1960, unless the
person performing the renovation obtains a statement signed by the
owner-occupant that the renovation will occur in the owner's residence
and that no child under age 6 resides there. EPA is proposing to phase
in the applicability of this proposal to all rental target housing and
owner-occupied target housing built in the years 1960 through 1977
where a child under age 6 resides. This proposal is issued under the
authority of TSCA section 402(c)(3). EPA is also 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 renovation provisions.
    EPA is planning to incorporate the training, certification, and
accreditation requirements in this proposal, along with the proposed
work practice standards for renovations, into 40 CFR part 745, subpart
E. Subpart E currently contains the Pre-Renovation Education Rule
requirements. As discussed in Unit IV.B., the requirements in this
proposal would apply to renovations currently regulated by the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule. As a result, 40 CFR part 745, subpart E
would be a logical place to codify these requirements. In order to do
so, EPA is proposing to remove some existing sections from this subpart
and replace them with new sections.
    EPA is proposing to delete 40 CFR 745.84 because it is duplicative.
This section provides some details on submitting CBI and how EPA will
handle that information. However, comprehensive regulations governing
sensitive business information, including CBI under TSCA, are codified
in 40 CFR part 2. The regulations in 40 CFR part 2 set forth the
procedures for making a claim of confidentiality and describe the rules
governing EPA's release of information. Therefore, 40 CFR 745.84 is
superfluous. EPA is proposing to delete this section and redesignate
existing Sec.  745.85 as Sec.  745.84. EPA is also proposing to amend
newly designated Sec.  745.84 so as to place the responsibility for
carrying out the information distribution requirements on the firm
conducting the renovation rather than the certified renovator.
    EPA is also proposing to delete 40 CFR 745.88. This section
provides sample pamphlet acknowledgment statements and sample attempted
delivery certification statements. These statements may, but are not
required to, be used by renovators for the purpose of complying with
the recordkeeping requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule.
EPA is making available in the docket and on its Web page new sample
statements to assist renovation firms in complying with the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule as well

as the provisions of this proposal (Ref. 1). More information on the
recordkeeping requirements of this proposal can be found in Units
III.B. through III.D.

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

    These training, certification and accreditation requirements and
work practice standards are being proposed pursuant to the authority of
TSCA section 402(c)(3), 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), as amended by Title X of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550
(also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of
1992) (``the Act'' or ``Title X'') (Ref. 2). The Model State Program
and amendments to the regulations on the authorization of State and
Tribal programs with respect to renovators and dust sampling
technicians are being proposed pursuant to section 404 of TSCA, 15
U.S.C. 2684.

III. Introduction

A. Information on Lead, Health Effects, and History

    Lead is a soft, bluish metallic element mined from rock and found
in its natural state all over the world. Lead is virtually
indestructible, is persistent, and has been known since antiquity for
its adaptability in making various useful items. In modern times, it
has been used to manufacture many different products, including paint,
batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and gasoline. Through the 1940's,
paint manufacturers frequently used lead as a primary ingredient in
many oil-based interior and exterior house paints. Usage gradually
decreased through the 1950's and 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced
lead and as latex paints became more widely available.
    According to the Centers for Disease Control, there is no known
safe blood lead level (Ref. 3). Health effects associated with exposure
to lead and lead compounds include, but are not limited to,
neurotoxicity, developmental delays, hypertension, impaired hearing
acuity, impaired hemoglobin synthesis, and male reproductive impairment
(Refs. 3 and 4). Lead bioaccumulates, and it is difficult to remove
from blood and bones. Lead exposure in young children is of particular
concern because children absorb lead more readily than adults (Refs. 3
and 4). Children have a higher risk of exposure because of their more
frequent hand-to-mouth behavior (Ref. 3). Low levels of lead in a
child's bloodstream can interfere with growth and cause cognitive
impairment, permanent hearing and visual impairment, and other damage
to the brain and nervous system (Refs. 3 and 4). The effects of long-
term lead exposure or poisoning in children are well-documented: Higher
school failure rates and reductions in lifetime earnings due to
permanent loss of intelligence and increased social pathologies (Ref.
3).
    In large doses, lead can cause blindness, brain damage,
convulsions, and even death. Lead exposure before or during pregnancy
can affect fetal development and cause miscarriages, as lead can pass
from a pregnant woman's bloodstream to the developing child. There is
also some indication that lead exposure contributes to high blood
pressure and reproductive and memory problems in adults (Ref. 5).
According to EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), by
comparison to most other environmental toxicants, the degree of
uncertainty about the health effects of lead is quite low and it
appears that some effects, particularly changes in the levels of
certain blood enzymes as well as changes in aspects of children's
neurobehavioral development, may occur at blood levels so low as to be
essentially without a threshold (Ref. 6).
    Paint that contains lead can pose a health threat through various
routes of exposure. House dust is the most common exposure pathway
through which children are exposed to lead paint hazards. Dust created
during normal lead-based paint wear (especially around windows and
doors) can create an invisible film over surfaces in a house. Children,
particularly younger children, may also ingest lead-based paint chips
from flaking walls, windows, and doors. Lead from exterior house paint
can flake off or leach into the soil around the outside of a home,
contaminating children's play areas. Cleaning and renovation activities
may actually increase the threat of lead-based paint exposure by
dispersing lead dust particles in the air and over accessible household
surfaces. In turn, both adults and children can receive hazardous
exposures by inhaling the dust or by ingesting paint-dust during hand-
to-mouth activities.
    In the last 3 decades of the 20th century, various agencies of the
Federal government took independent actions to address lead exposure.
In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the use
of paint containing more than 0.06% lead by weight on toys, furniture,
and interior and exterior surfaces in housing and other buildings and
structures used by consumers (Ref. 7). Also in 1978, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued regulations to protect
general industry workers from lead exposure (Ref. 8). OSHA issued
regulations in 1993 to protect construction workers, including
abatement workers, from lead exposure (Ref. 9). In 1973, EPA issued
regulations designed to gradually reduce the amount of lead in leaded
gasoline (Ref. 10). EPA lowered the maximum levels of lead permitted in
public water systems in 1991 (Ref. 11). The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) set and lowered blood lead ``levels of concern''
several times, as new studies showed the impact of lead levels on
children's health (Ref. 12). (The level of concern is the level where
medical and environmental case management activities should be
implemented.) The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
began to abate lead hazards in public housing that was being renovated
or in structures occupied by a child with elevated blood lead levels.
These efforts, and those of State and local agencies and the private
sector, reduced the incidence of lead poisoning.
    In 1991, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) characterized lead poisoning as the ``number one
environmental threat to the health of children in the United States''
(Ref. 13, p. A-3). Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A
Statement By the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, identified
lead-based paint as the major source of high-dose lead poisoning in the
United States (Ref. 12, pp. 7-10). Although CPSC's ban on high lead
levels in residential paint was an important and necessary step in
reducing the number of lead-poisoned children, millions of houses still
contained old leaded paint.

B. The Federal Lead-based Paint Program.

    1. Title X and the Federal goal. Primarily in response to this
persistent health threat, in 1992 Congress enacted Title X. Congress
found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American
children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under
age 6; that the ingestion of household dust containing lead from
deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the most common cause of
lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of
children living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered
by chipping or peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts of lead-
contaminated dust in their homes. Congress determined that the prior
Federal response to this crisis was

insufficient and established, in Title X, a national goal of
eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as
possible. Congress decided that the Federal government would take a
leadership role in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve
this goal.
    The stated purposes of Title X are:
     To develop a national strategy to build the infrastructure
necessary to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as
expeditiously as possible.
     To reorient the national approach to the presence of lead-
based paint in housing to implement, on a priority basis, a broad
program to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in the Nation's
housing stock.
     To encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead
poisoning by establishing a workable framework for lead-based paint
hazard evaluation and reduction and by ending the current confusion
over reasonable standards of care.
     To ensure that the existence of lead-based paint hazards
is taken into account in the development of Government housing policies
and in the sale, rental, and renovation of homes and apartments.
     To mobilize national resources expeditiously, through a
partnership among all levels of government and the private sector, to
develop the most promising, cost-effective methods for evaluating and
reducing lead-based paint hazards.
     To reduce the threat of childhood lead poisoning in
housing owned, assisted, or transferred by the Federal Government.
     To educate the public concerning the hazards and sources
of lead-based paint poisoning and steps to reduce and eliminate such
hazards.
(Ref. 2). To accomplish this ambitious goal, a number of agencies were
assigned specific responsibilities under Title X, including HUD, CDC,
OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), and EPA.
    The elimination of lead-based paint hazards in the nation's housing
remains an important goal for the Federal government. In 1997,
President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children in response to increased
awareness that children face disproportionate risks from environmental
health and safety hazards. Co-chaired by the Secretary of HHS and the
Administrator of the EPA, the Task Force consisted of representatives
from 16 Federal departments and agencies. The Task Force set a Federal
goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the year 2010. This
proposed rule is an important component of the Federal strategy for
achieving this goal. In October 2001, President Bush extended the work
of the Task Force for an additional 18 months beyond its original
charter (Ref. 14). Reducing lead poisoning in children was the Task
Force's top priority.
    Childhood lead exposure continues to be a major public health
problem among young children in the United States. Most children with
blood lead levels in excess of CDC's current level of concern have been
exposed to lead in non-intact paint, interior settled dust, and dust
and soil in and around deteriorating older housing (Ref. 15). The
nature and extent of the problems associated with residential lead-
based paint have been thoroughly investigated. Approximately 40% of all
U.S. housing units (about 38 million homes) have some lead-based paint.
Use of lead-safe work practices during renovation can advance the goal
of primary prevention of lead poisoning (Ref. 15).
    2. EPA's lead-based paint program. Under Title X, EPA is directed
to take actions that can be divided into 4 key categories:
     Establishing a training and certification program for
persons engaged in lead-based paint activities, accrediting training
providers, establishing work practice standards for the safe, reliable,
and effective identification and elimination of lead-based paint
hazards, and developing a program to address exposure to lead-based
paint hazards from renovation and remodeling activities.
     Ensuring that, for most housing constructed before 1978,
lead-based paint information flows from sellers to purchasers, from
landlords to tenants, and from renovators to owners and occupants.
     Establishing standards for identifying dangerous levels of
lead in paint, dust and soil.
     Providing information on lead hazards to the public,
including steps that people can take to protect themselves and their
families from lead-based paint hazards.
Each of these categories is discussed in more detail in the following
sections.
    a. Training and certification, accreditation, and work practice
standards. Title X added a new title to TSCA entitled ``Title IV Lead
Exposure Reduction.'' Most of EPA's responsibilities for addressing
lead-based paint hazards can be found in this title, with section 402
being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out these
responsibilities. TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate
regulations covering lead-based paint activities to ensure persons
performing these activities are properly trained, that training
programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these
activities are certified. These regulations must contain standards for
performing lead-based paint activities, taking into account
reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
    On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA
section 402(a) governing lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard
screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing (Ref. 16).
TSCA section 401 defines ``target housing'' as any housing constructed
prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides
or is expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons
with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. These regulations also
apply to ``child-occupied facilities,'' which are defined at 40 CFR
745.223 as buildings constructed before 1978, or portions of such
buildings, where children under age 6 are regularly present.
    TSCA section 402 defines lead-based paint activities in target
housing as inspections, risk assessments and abatements. The 1996
regulations cover lead-based paint activities in target housing and
child-occupied facilities, along with limited screening activities
called lead hazard screens. The regulations also established an
accreditation program for training providers and a certification
program for individuals and firms performing these activities.
    Training providers who wish to provide lead-based paint training
for the purposes of the Federal lead-based paint program must be
accredited by EPA. Implementing regulations at 40 CFR 745.225 describe
in detail the requirements for each course of study, how training
programs must be operated, and the process for obtaining accreditation.
Training programs must have a training manager with experience or
education in a construction or environmental field, and a principal
instructor with experience or education in a related field and
education or experience in teaching adults. Training programs must also
have adequate facilities and equipment for delivering the training. To
become accredited, an application for accreditation must be submitted
to EPA on behalf of the training program. The application must either
include the course materials and syllabus, or a statement that EPA
model

materials or materials approved by an authorized State or Tribe will be
used. The application must also include a description of the facilities
and equipment that will be used, a copy of the test blueprint for each
course, a description of the activities and procedures that will be
used during the hands-on skills portion of each course, a copy of the
quality control plan, and the correct amount of fees. If EPA finds that
the program meets the regulatory requirements, it will accredit the
training program for 4 years. To maintain accreditation, the training
program must submit an application and the correct amount of fees every
4 years.
    Individuals and firms that perform inspections, lead hazard
screens, risk assessments, or abatements in target housing or child-
occupied facilities must be certified. Certification requirements and
the process for becoming certified are described in 40 CFR 745.226. A
firm that wishes to become certified must submit an application, along
with the correct amount of fees, attesting that it will use only
certified individuals to perform lead-based paint activities and that
it will follow the work practice standards in 40 CFR 745.227. An
individual who wishes to become certified must take an accredited
training course in at least one of the certified disciplines:
Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abatement worker, and
abatement supervisor. The risk assessor, project designer, and
abatement supervisor disciplines have additional requirements for
education or experience in a construction or environmental field. The
inspector, risk assessor, and abatement supervisor disciplines also
require the applicant to pass a certification examination administered
by a third party.
    The regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, also contain work
practice standards for performing inspections, lead hazard screens,
risk assessments and abatements in target housing and child-occupied
facilities. The regulations contain specific requirements for
conducting paint sampling during an inspection and specify information
that must be gathered and samples that must be taken as part of a lead
hazard screen or risk assessment. The requirements for abatements are
also set forth in the regulations. When conducting abatements, an
occupant protection plan must be prepared by a certified supervisor or
project designer; certain work practices such as open-flame burning,
machine sanding or abrasive blasting without high-efficiency exhaust
control, dry scraping, and heat guns at high settings are prohibited;
and a visual inspection and dust clearance sampling must be performed
after the abatement is finished to ensure that the area is ready for
re-occupancy. Any samples collected during any of these regulated lead-
based paint activities must be analyzed by a laboratory recognized by
EPA as being capable of analyzing paint chips, dust, and soil for lead.
Requirements for inspection, lead hazard screen, risk assessment or
abatement reports are also described in this section.
    Recognizing the importance of States and Territories in achieving
the goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing, Congress
specifically directed EPA to establish a model State program and a
process for authorizing States to operate such programs in lieu of the
Federal program. Concurrently with the subpart L rulemaking in 1996,
EPA codified, at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, a model training and
certification program and a process for enabling States, Territories,
and Tribes to apply for authorization to administer their own lead-
based paint activity programs. Providing Indian Tribes with this
opportunity is consistent with EPA's Policy for the Administration of
Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations (Ref. 17). EPA also
provides grants under TSCA section 404 to States, Territories, and
Tribes to assist them in developing and administering these programs,
as well as programs implementing TSCA section 406(b), discussed in this
Unit.
    On June 9, 1999, the subpart L regulations were amended to include
a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for
individuals and firms seeking EPA certification (Ref. 18). These fees
were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires
EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based
paint activities requirements in unauthorized States. The most recent
amendment to the subpart L regulations occurred on April 8, 2004, when
notification requirements were added to help EPA monitor compliance
with the training and certification provisions and the abatement work
practice standards (Ref. 19).
    As of December 2005, 44 programs comprised of 39 States, 3 Tribes,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia were authorized to administer
lead-based paint activity programs. In the remaining jurisdictions,
where EPA is responsible for administering the subpart L regulations,
there were approximately 55 accredited training course providers, 1,300
certified firms, 500 certified inspectors, 1,400 certified risk
assessors, 60 certified project designers, 1,000 certified abatement
supervisors, and 2,800 certified abatement workers. EPA believes that,
in most areas of the country, there is an adequate supply of accredited
courses and certified firms and individuals available to meet the
demand for lead-based paint services. This is a significant part of the
national infrastructure necessary to achieve the goal of eliminating
lead-based paint hazards in housing.
    In addition, Congress directed EPA, in TSCA section 405, to
establish protocols, criteria, and minimum performance standards for
analysis of lead in paint, dust, and soil. TSCA section 405 further
directed EPA, in consultation with HHS, to develop a program to certify
qualified laboratories. The National Lead Laboratory Accreditation
Program (NLLAP) provides the public with a list of laboratories that
have met EPA requirements and demonstrated the capability to accurately
analyze paint chip, dust, or soil samples for lead. All laboratories
recognized by NLLAP must pass on-site audits conducted by one of the
two accrediting organizations currently participating in NLLAP, the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), and the American
Association for Laboratory Accreditation. Recognized laboratories must
also perform successfully on a continuing basis in the Environmental
Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) Program established by
NIOSH, AIHA, and EPA.
    b. Lead-based paint information for purchasers, renters, owners,
and occupants of target housing. Another of EPA's responsibilities
under Title X is to require that purchasers and tenants of target
housing and occupants of target housing undergoing renovation are
provided information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards.
As directed by TSCA section 406(a), CPSC, HUD, and EPA, in consultation
with CDC, jointly developed a lead hazard information pamphlet entitled
``Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home'' (``PYF'') (Ref. 20). The
availability of this pamphlet was announced on August 1, 1995 (Ref.
21). This pamphlet was designed to be distributed as part of the
disclosure requirements of section 1018 of Title X and TSCA section
406(b), to provide home purchasers, renters, owners, and occupants with
the information necessary to allow them to make informed choices when
selecting housing to buy or rent, or deciding on home renovation
projects. The pamphlet

contains information on the health effects of lead, how exposure can
occur, and steps that can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of
exposure during various activities in the home.
    Pursuant to the authority provided in section 1018 of Title X, on
March 6, 1996, HUD and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiring
persons who are selling or leasing target housing to provide the PYF
pamphlet and information on known lead-based paint and lead-based paint
hazards in the housing to purchasers and renters (Ref. 22). These joint
regulations, codified at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part
745, subpart F, describe in detail the information that must be
provided before the contract or lease is signed and require that
sellers, landlords, and agents document compliance with the disclosure
requirements in the contract to sell or lease the property. Title X
does not provide for these requirements to be administered by States or
Tribes in lieu of the Federal regulations. Therefore, HUD and EPA are
responsible for administering and enforcing these disclosure
obligations.
    TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to promulgate regulations requiring
persons who perform home renovations for compensation to provide a lead
hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants of target housing
being renovated. These regulations, promulgated on June 1, 1998, are
codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (Ref. 23). The term
``renovation'' is defined, at 40 CFR 745.83, as the modification of any
existing structure, or portion of a structure, that results in the
disturbance of painted surfaces. Lead-based paint abatement projects
are specifically excluded, as are small projects that disturb 2 square
feet (ft2) or less of painted surfaces, emergency projects,
and renovations affecting components that have been found to be free of
lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the regulations, by a
certified inspector or risk assessor. Like the regulations regarding
disclosure during sales or leases, these regulations require the
renovation firm to document compliance with the requirement to provide
the owner and the occupant with the PYF pamphlet. One important
difference from the disclosure requirements in section 1018 of Title X
is that TSCA section 404 allows States to apply for, and receive
authorization to administer, the TSCA section 406(b) requirements. Two
States are currently authorized to operate this program.
    c. Standards for lead in paint, dust, and soil. Another
responsibility assigned to EPA by Title X is the development of
standards for identifying dangerous levels of lead in paint, dust and
soil. These standards, promulgated pursuant to TSCA section 403 on
January 5, 2001 and codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart D, provide
various Federal agencies, including HUD, and State, local and Tribal
governments with uniform benchmarks on which to base decisions on
remedial actions to safeguard children and the public from lead-based
paint hazards (Ref. 24). These standards also allow certified
inspectors and risk assessors to easily determine whether a particular
situation presents a lead-based paint hazard and whether to recommend
remedial actions such as lead-based paint abatement, cleaning of dust,
or removal of soil. The standards define lead-based paint hazards in
target housing and child-occupied facilities as paint-lead, dust-lead,
and soil-lead hazards. A paint-lead hazard is defined as any damaged or
deteriorated lead-based paint, any chewable lead-based painted surface
with evidence of teeth marks, or any lead-based paint on a friction
surface if lead dust levels underneath the friction surface exceed the
dust-lead hazard standards. A dust-lead hazard is surface dust that
contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40
micrograms per square foot ([mu]g/ft2) on floors or 250
[mu]g/ft2 on interior window sills based on wipe samples. A
soil-lead hazard is bare soil that contains total lead equal to or
exceeding 400 parts per million ([mu]g/g) in a play area or average of
1,200 parts per million of bare soil in the rest of the yard based on
soil samples.
    d. Public outreach and education. Among other things, TSCA section
405(d) directs EPA, along with the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) and HUD, to sponsor public education and
outreach activities to increase public awareness of the health effects
of lead, the potential for exposures, the importance of screening
children for elevated blood lead levels, and measures that can be taken
to reduce or eliminate lead-based paint hazards. Accordingly, EPA has
worked to provide the public with information and increase public
awareness of such matters. To date, these activities have included web
site management, development of public outreach strategies, development
of partnership agreements, distribution of materials, participation in
national conferences and exhibits, and developing hazard information
documents (and other media, such as videos), as necessary to implement
Title X. EPA has collaborated closely with other Federal agencies and
its State, Tribal, and local government partners in developing outreach
campaigns targeted for the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program,
Little League Baseball, and Spanish-speaking populations. Recently, EPA
worked with the National Head Start Association to develop a lead
poisoning prevention campaign entitled ``Give Your Child a Chance of a
Lifetime.'' The campaign consisted of a number of lead awareness
documents, including a brochure for parents, fact sheets for Head Start
staff, and a curriculum for Head Start teachers. Lead awareness
outreach materials were provided to Head Start Centers in New York,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, and Los Angeles. The material was also
distributed at the National Head Start Association Training
Conferences. EPA has also been involved in developing model tool kits
of various educational tools to provide to partners, such as slogans
and graphic materials for public buses, trains, and mass transit
stations.
    EPA has used its authority under TSCA section 10 to award grants to
Tribes to support Tribal educational outreach and to conduct baseline
assessments of Tribal children's existing and potential exposure to
lead. In fiscal year 2005, EPA began a new targeted grant program aimed
at reducing the incidence of childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable
populations (Ref. 25). These grants are providing funding for proven or
innovative programs in areas with high rates of childhood lead
poisoning, and in areas where rates are unknown but other conditions
suggest high rates may exist.
    TSCA section 405(e) further directs EPA to establish, in connection
with HUD, CDC, other Federal agencies, and State and local governments,
a clearinghouse for information on lead-based paint and a hotline for
the public to use for questions and requests for information on lead-
based paint. This clearinghouse, the National Lead Information Center,
handles approximately 50,000 calls per year, and disseminates up to
500,000 documents per year to the public.
    3. Lead-based paint programs at other Federal agencies. In addition
to EPA, other Federal agencies have important roles in achieving the
goals of reducing or eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing,
as well as the national goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by
2010. Other agencies specifically assigned tasks in Title X include
HUD, CDC, and OSHA.
    The Federal agencies have long realized that they must work
together to develop and implement Federal strategies for addressing
lead-based

paint hazards in order to be efficient and effective. In 1989, HUD and
EPA formed an inter-agency task force to work through issues associated
with lead-based paint abatement. The Federal Interagency Lead Based
Paint Task Force has remained active throughout the years and continues
to meet on a quarterly basis. Participating agencies include the
Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Public Health
Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the National Institute for Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), ATSDR, CDC, CPSC, NIOSH, OSHA, HUD, and EPA.
This Task Force serves as an important forum for coordinating the
strategic plans of the Federal agencies who have responsibilities under
Title X or who have responsibilities for maintaining and disposing of
property that may contain lead-based paint.
    Title X assigned certain responsibilities to HUD. One of HUD's
functions is the administration of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control
Grant Program established by the Act. This program provides grants of
$1 million to $3 million to State and local governments for control of
lead-based paint hazards in privately-owned, low-income owner-occupied
and rental housing that is not receiving federal assistance. These
grants are also designed to stimulate the development of a trained and
certified hazard evaluation and control industry. Evaluation and hazard
control work funded by the program must be conducted by either
contractors who are certified by EPA or an EPA-approved State or Tribal
program, or by contractors trained in lead-safe work practices, in the
case of interim controls. Through these requirements, HUD hopes to
create infrastructure that will last beyond the life of the grant. In
awarding grants, HUD promotes the use of cost-effective approaches to
hazard control that can be replicated across the nation. Since 1993,
approximately $971 million has been awarded to over 200 local and State
jurisdictions across the country. The work approved to date will lead
to the control of lead-based paint hazards in more than 70,000 homes
where young children reside or are expected to reside. Other HUD lead
grant programs include the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration program,
the Lead Elimination Action Program (LEAP), the Lead Outreach program
and the Lead Technical Studies program.
    HUD was also given regulatory authority over some aspects of lead-
based paint hazard control. As noted previously, on March 6, 1996, HUD
and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiring the disclosure of
lead-based paint information during sale or lease transactions
involving target housing. The HUD disclosure regulations are codified
at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A. Subparts B through R of 24 CFR part 35
are known as the ``Lead Safe Housing Rule,'' initially promulgated on
September 15, 1999, and updated in June 2004 (Ref. 26). This rule was
designed to protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in
target housing that is being sold by the Federal government or receives
financial assistance from the government. The requirements generally
depend upon the level of assistance being provided, and may include
such things as inspections, risk assessments, abatement, paint
stabilization, or interim controls, which are temporary measures to
reduce potential exposure to lead-based paint hazards. The emphasis is
on reducing lead-based paint hazards, so, after paint is disturbed, a
visual assessment for surface dust, debris, and residue and dust
clearance testing is required to ensure that no dust lead hazards were
created or left in the work area or, for rehabilitation projects of
moderate or substantial scope, in the entire housing unit. More
information on the Lead Safe Housing Rule is available on the HUD
website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/leadsaferule/index.cfm or by

calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 104.
    Section 1017 of Title X required HUD to issue ``guidelines for the
conduct of federally supported work involving risk assessments,
inspections, interim controls, and abatement of lead-based paint
hazards.'' In response to this directive, HUD completed the Guidelines
for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing
(Guidelines), in June 1995 (Ref. 27). 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.
    Other core activities of HUD's lead-based paint program include
providing technical assistance to housing authorities, nonprofit
housing providers, local and State agencies, other Federal agencies,
housing developers, inspectors, real estate professionals, contractors
and financiers, and public health authorities; evaluating the hazard
reduction methods used in the grant program to measure their
effectiveness, cost and safety; and maintaining a community outreach
program in coordination with the other Federal agencies involved in
lead-based paint hazard reduction.
    CDC also provides significant funding for the prevention of
childhood lead poisoning. CDC provides funding to support State, city
and county programs in the areas of primary prevention, case management
and screening, surveillance, strategic partnerships, and program
evaluation. Since 2002, CDC has recommended that a blood lead level of
10 micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) be used as a threshold for
individual intervention (Ref. 28). Additional CDC recommendations
address the type and intensity of individual intervention strategies
that should be undertaken, depending upon the child's blood lead level.
These strategies range from nutritional and educational interventions,
along with more frequent testing, for a child with a blood lead level
of 10-14 [mu]g/dL, to medical and environmental interventions for
children with blood lead levels above 45 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 28). CDC has
established a national surveillance system for children with elevated
blood lead levels. In addition, CDC works with HUD and EPA to
coordinate outreach and education campaigns.
    OSHA is another agency with regulatory authority under Title X. As
directed by the Act, OSHA promulgated an interim final standard on May
4, 1993, which regulates lead exposures in the construction industry
(Ref. 9). This standard, codified at 29 CFR 1926.62, limits worker
exposures to 50 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air averaged over
an 8-hour workday. Employers must use a combination of engineering
controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure as much as
possible, using appropriate respiratory protection where necessary to
achieve the exposure limit. Employees must receive training on the
health effects of lead and how to limit exposure through proper work
practices and personal protective equipment. Exposure monitoring and
medical monitoring, including blood lead testing, are also required.
This standard remains in effect and OSHA retains the authority to
protect workers from occupational exposure to lead.
    Many Federal agencies have been working to reduce or eliminate
lead-based paint hazards in housing and to end childhood lead
poisoning. EPA, HUD, and other Federal agencies have been working for
many years on the problem of lead-based paint hazards that can be
created during renovation

and remodeling activities in housing. This rulemaking is an important
component of the Federal strategy for eliminating childhood lead
poisoning.

C. EPA Activities Related to This Rulemaking.

    TSCA section 402(c) addresses renovation and remodeling. For the
stated purpose of reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection
with renovation and remodeling activities, section 402(c)(1) requires
EPA to promulgate and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of such
activities which may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of
lead. In response to this statutory directive, EPA developed the
guidance document entitled Reducing Lead Hazards when Remodeling Your
Home in consultation with industry and trade groups (Ref. 29). This
document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling
stakeholders through the National Lead Information Center, EPA Regions,
and EPA's State and Tribal partners and is available at http://www.epa.gov/lead/rrpamph.pdf
.

    TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study the extent to which
persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling
activities are exposed to lead during such activities or create a lead-
based paint hazard regularly or occasionally. The terms ``renovation''
and ``remodeling'' are not defined by the statute. For assistance in
selecting the activities to be studied, and in otherwise defining the
scope of this study, EPA consulted with persons from national
committees, major trade industries, Federal and State governmental
agencies, academia, and medical institutions who were involved in lead
research and policy making. After receiving individual input from these
consultations and a meeting in April 1993, with a number of the
contacted individuals, EPA identified the following 11 categories of
renovation and remodeling activities with the potential for resulting
in exposure to lead:
     Paint removal.
     Surface preparation.
     Removal of large structures (demolition).
     Window replacement.
     Enclosure of exterior painted surfaces (i.e., siding).
     Carpet or other floor covering removal.
     Wallpaper removal.
     HVAC (central heating system) repair or replacement
including duct work.
     Repairs or additions resulting in isolated small surface
disruptions.
     Exterior soil disruption.
     Major renovation projects involving multiple target
activities.
    1. Renovation and remodeling study. The study itself was conducted
in 4 phases; each phase was peer reviewed and the results of the peer
reviews are discussed in the study reports (Refs. 30, 31, 32, and 37).
The approach and conclusions for each phase are summarized in this
Unit.
    a. Phase I. The approach taken for Phase I, Environmental Field
Sampling Study (Ref. 30), involved a series of case studies and
included data collection efforts for the following target activities:
     Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
     Removal of large structures, including demolition of
interior plaster walls.
     Window replacement.
     Carpet removal.
     HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work.
     Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions,
including drilling and sawing into wood and plaster.
Exterior siding, wallpaper removal, and exterior soil disruption were
excluded because the study design team and the individuals consulted in
the information-gathering phase generally considered these target
activities to be of secondary importance. The last category, repairs
resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, was represented by
drilling holes and sawing into wood and plaster covered with lead-based
paint.
    After the completion of each activity, dust samples were collected
within one foot of where the activity occurred and approximately 5 to 6
feet away from the location of the activity. Samples were collected in
a manner that excluded any contribution of pre-existing leaded dust at
the sample location (Ref. 30). With the exception of carpet removal and
drilling into plaster, the results from the samples taken within one
foot of the activity indicated that these activities produce lead
loadings on the floor that exceed the TSCA section 403 hazard standards
of 40 [mu]g/ft2 for lead in dust. EPA has already determined
that loadings exceeding this level can cause adverse health effects. In
the case of paint removal, the estimated average lead loading in a 6
foot by one foot area extending away from the activity was 42,900
[mu]g/ft2, or greater than 1,000 times the TSCA section 403
dust-lead hazard standard. For paint removal, window replacement, HVAC
work, demolition of interior plaster walls, and sawing into wood, the
samples taken 6 feet away from the activity also indicated lead
loadings at levels well in excess of the TSCA section 403 standard.
    This phase of the study also examined the effectiveness of two
popular cleaning methods, broom sweeping and shop-vacuuming, for
removing settled lead-dust. Although these data indicate that standard
broom sweeping or shop-vacuuming can remove a high percentage of the
dust (up to 99%), lead loadings nevertheless remained consistently
above the TSCA section 403 standard. In addition, the data show that
standard cleanup techniques sometimes disperse lead dust throughout the
work area, thereby increasing lead levels in areas more distant from
the work area. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that standard broom
sweeping or shop-vacuuming are not reliable or effective methods for
removing lead-based paint hazards created by typical renovation and
remodeling activities.
    Worker air-monitoring samples, indicating the degree of worker
inhalation exposure, were also collected during this phase of the
study. These data suggest that some renovation and remodeling
activities could result in worker exposure that exceeds OSHA's
permissible exposure limit (PEL) for lead of 50 [mu]g/m3.
OSHA's PEL is based on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), which is
an average exposure over one 8-hour shift. This study measured only
average exposures over the duration of a particular activity, which
would be equivalent to an 8-hour TWA for a worker only if it is assumed
that the monitored activity is performed for 8 hours in a day. However,
the worker exposure data generated in this study indicate that some
exposures are likely to be so high that conducting the activity for
only a short time would result in an 8-hour TWA that exceeds the OSHA
PEL. For example, worker exposures monitored during power sanding and
sawing into wood were so high that it is estimated that 45 minutes of
performing these activities would result in an exposure that exceeded
the PEL.
    b. Phase II. Phase II of the study, Worker Characterization and
Blood-Lead Study, continued to address worker exposure (Ref. 31). This
phase involved collecting data on blood samples and questionnaires from
585 renovation and remodeling workers from Philadelphia and St. Louis.
The questionnaire focused on demographic and background information
such as work history, work habits, and hobbies. Questionnaire data also
indicated that few renovation and remodeling professionals were using
respirators or high energy particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Blood
samples were collected from 581 of the 585 workers. Of these

samples, 9.1% were above 10 [mu]g/dL, 1.2% were above 25 [mu]g/dL, and
one worker had a blood-lead concentration greater than 40 [mu]g/dL. The
geometric mean blood-lead concentration for all workers was 4.5 [mu]g/
dL. A statistical model was developed and fit to the data that included
effects for variables potentially related to lead exposure, such as the
age of a worker's home; type of work usually performed by the worker;
and the amount of renovation and remodeling activity conducted recently
and over the worker's career. There were significant differences among
the worker groups. Drywall workers and painters had the highest
predicted blood-lead concentrations, and floor layers had the lowest.
In addition, there was a statistically significant correlation between
the number of days worked in pre-1950 buildings in the past month and
increases in blood-lead concentrations for general renovation and
remodeling work, paint removal, and cleanup, although the estimated
increase was very small, less than 1 [mu]g/dL for all activities (Ref.
38).
    c. Phase III. Phase III of the study, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-
Lead Study, was a retrospective study focused on assessing the
relationship between renovation and remodeling activities and
children's blood-lead levels (Ref. 32). This study demonstrated that
general residential renovation and remodeling is associated with an
increased risk of elevated blood lead levels (EBLs) in children and
that specific renovation and remodeling activities are also associated
with an increase in the risk of EBLs in children. In particular,
removing paint (using open flame torches, using heat guns, using
chemical paint removers, and wet scraping/sanding) and preparing
surfaces by sanding or scraping significantly increased the risk of
EBLs. Overall, these results agree with those from earlier phases of
the renovation and remodeling study--renovation and remodeling
activities that disturb lead-based paint increase the risk of exposure
to occupants. Additionally, children living in a residence while
renovation and remodeling was conducted were 30% more likely to have
EBLs than children who did not live in a residence during the time
renovation and remodeling was conducted.
    During the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process discussed
in greater detail in Unit VIII.C.6., questions were raised in
connection with this phase of the study (Ref. 33). Specifically, it was
noted that the effect shown in this phase of the study was somewhat
ambiguous in that several confounding factors may have contributed to
the blood lead levels. In addition, this phase yielded several
surprising results, including evidence of an increased risk of elevated
blood lead levels in homes that were built after 1978, the date lead-
based paint was banned, although the report did offer several
explanations for this result. While the study identified a correlation
between renovation and remodeling activities and elevated blood lead
levels in children, the Panel report states that there was no
statistically significant increased risk of elevated blood lead levels
(possibly because of the small sample size) when the study focuses
solely on work performed by apartment building owners, apartment
building staff or professional contractors. The Panel recommended that
EPA undertake additional analysis of the data from this phase of the
study to determine if a child was more likely to have an elevated blood
lead level if the renovation and remodeling was performed by a relative
or friend than if performed by a professional contractor or building
management staff (those subject to the rule). The results of EPA's
additional analysis, which focused on the relationship between who
performs renovation and remodeling activities and the odds of an
elevated blood lead level occurring in a resident child, have been
placed in the docket (Ref. 34). In homes where renovation and
remodeling activities had been performed, the analysis indicated the
following ordering of the five possible responses to the question of
who performed the renovation and remodeling, in order of highest to
lowest risk of increased odds of an elevated blood lead level:
     Relative or friend not in household.
     Paid professional.
     Owner or building superintendent.
     Head of household or spouse.
     Other person in household.
As discussed in the report from Phase III of the study, some possible
confounders were investigated, including the surface preparation
methods, and the size of the renovation jobs undertaken, but no obvious
solution was discovered.
    However, several studies corroborate the findings of the Phase III
study. In 1995, the New York State Department of Health assessed lead
exposure among children resulting from home renovation and remodeling
in 1993-1994. A review of the health department records of children
with blood lead levels equal to or greater than 20 [mu]g/dL identified
320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood lead levels that were attributable to
renovation and remodeling (Ref. 35). In addition, a case-control study
assessed the association between elevated blood lead levels in children
younger than 5 and renovation or repair activities in homes in New York
City. A statistically significant correlation between renovation and
repair work that involved preparing an interior surface for painting,
and work that spreads dust and debris throughout the home, increased
the risk of elevated blood lead levels for children in the study
population. Researchers noted that the consistency of their results
with EPA's Phase III study lends credibility to the conclusion that
home renovation or repair work involving interior paint preparation
constributes to a nontrivial proportion of elevated blood lead levels
in children (Ref. 36, at 509).
    d. Phase IV. Phase IV of the study, Worker Characterization and
Blood-Lead Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or
Historic Homes, was an extension of Phase II (Ref. 37). Where Phase II
examined lead exposure among a general population of renovation and
remodeling professionals, Phase IV focused on individuals who worked
primarily in old historic buildings. Phase IV explored lead exposure in
161 professional renovation and remodeling workers and 82 homeowners
who worked extensively in old houses. Each study participant provided a
blood sample for analysis and completed a detailed questionnaire
identical to the one used in Phase II.
    The results of Phase IV demonstrate that individuals who regularly
work in potentially high lead exposure settings, i.e., old houses, do
have a higher probability of an elevated blood-lead level than the
general population of renovation and remodeling professionals measured
in Phase II. Among these high-risk workers, 3 out of 161 had blood-lead
concentrations above 40 [mu]g/dL. Out of 82 homeowners who performed
renovation and remodeling activities while residing in their own
historic or pre-1940 home, 4 had blood-lead concentrations above 25
[mu]g/dL. The geometric mean blood-lead level for professionals was
significantly greater than for homeowners. Preparation for painting
and/or sanding of painted surfaces were the activities most
consistently associated with elevated blood-lead levels among study
participants.
    After evaluating the findings from all 4 phases of the study, EPA
concluded that the long-term exposure faced by the occupants should be
the most important consideration in determining the need for worker
training and certification. EPA is particularly concerned with the

results from Phase I and Phase III. The Phase I results indicate that,
where lead-based paint is present, activities that are routinely
performed as part of renovation and remodeling activities can create
significant amounts of leaded dust, which, if not effectively contained
and cleaned up, could pose hazards to the occupants. Phase III
corroborated this finding by identifying a statistically significant
link between activities that are routinely performed as part of
renovation and remodeling projects and an increased risk of an elevated
blood lead level in children.
    Finally, TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise the
regulations under TSCA section 402(a) to apply the regulations to
renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. In determining which contractors are engaged in such
activities, EPA must use the results of its renovation and remodeling
study and consult with representatives of labor organizations, lead-
based paint activities contractors, persons engaged in remodeling and
renovation, and experts in lead health effects. If EPA determines that
a particular category of contractors engaged in renovation or
remodeling need not be certified, EPA must publish an explanation of
the basis for that determination.
    2. Public consultation. EPA began the consultation process required
by TSCA section 402(c)(3) with two public meetings. Participants
included representatives from renovation, remodeling and painting
contractors, national contractor associations, apartment management
companies, realtors, labor organizations, training providers, lead
poisoning prevention advocacy groups, other Federal agencies and
States. The meetings were held on December 7, 1998 and on March 8,
1999. EPA presented the results of its renovation and remodeling study
at the first meeting. The remainder of that meeting and all of the
second meeting involved discussion of various aspects of the existing
abatement regulations and how they might fit into a renovation and
remodeling rule. Topics discussed included applicability, accreditation
of training providers, certification of individuals, and work practice
standards (setup, occupant protection, clean-up, clearance, and
restricted practices). Transcripts of these meetings have been placed
in the public docket for this action (Refs. 39 and 40).
    In addition, on November 23, 1999, EPA's Small Business Advocacy
Chairperson convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under
section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA). In addition to the chairperson, the Panel consisted of the
Director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    Before beginning pre-panel discussions with OMB and SBA, EPA held
three conference calls with potential Small Entity Representatives
(SERs) to obtain feedback on the options and alternatives for a
renovation and remodeling regulation. The Review Panel held an outreach
meeting with Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on December 3, 1999.
Eleven SERs, representing small painting, decorating, finishing,
remodeling and renovation contractors, as well as multi-family housing
owners and training providers, and four trade association
representatives participated in the meeting. The Panel solicited
comments from the SERs on the options presented by EPA, as well as
EPA's cost estimates for these options. Several SERs submitted written
comments to EPA following this meeting. More information on the Review
Panel Process, including the recommendations of the panel, can be found
in Unit VIII.C. The Panel's report, along with background information
provided to panel members and SERs, has been placed in the public
docket for this action (Ref. 33).
    EPA also held a 2-day meeting with its State partners to discuss
lead-based paint program issues. Most of the time on the agenda for
this meeting, held in September 2000, was devoted to discussing how the
existing abatement regulations might be modified to apply to renovation
and remodeling projects. A summary of this meeting has been placed in
the public docket for this action (Ref. 41).
    In May 2003, EPA hosted a series of conference calls to discuss
additional issues related to renovation and remodeling. Two calls were
held with State and local government agency representatives as well as
a State legislator. Two separate calls included representatives from
renovation and remodeling contractors and contractor associations,
realtors and realtor associations, and apartment owner and manager
associations. These calls focused on the relationship between lead-
based paint hazard evaluation and control activities and renovations.
Summaries of these calls have been placed in the public docket for this
action (Refs. 42, 43, 44, and 45).
    EPA has co-sponsored several national lead conferences, at which
the Agency met with representatives of State and Tribal governments to
discuss renovation issues, among other issues. Examples include:
     June 2000, EPA 4th National Lead Conference - Washington,
DC.
     December 2000, National Lead Grantee Conference (HUD/CDC/
EPA) - Atlanta, GA.
     May 2001, EPA 5th National Lead Conference - New Orleans,
LA.
     June 2003, EPA 6th National Lead Conference - San Antonio,
TX.
     June 2004, National Lead and Healthy Homes Grantee
Conference (HUD/CDC/EPA) - Orlando, FL.

IV. Proposed Requirements for Renovation Activities

A. TSCA Section 402(c)(3) Determination

    As discussed in Unit III.B., TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to
promulgate regulations to ensure that persons who perform lead-based
paint activities are properly trained through accredited training
programs and that contractors performing these activities are
certified. The regulations must also contain work practice standards
for lead-based paint activities, taking into account reliability,
effectiveness, and safety. Regulations governing lead-based paint
activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities were
promulgated in 1996 and codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L. TSCA
section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise these regulations to apply to
renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint
hazards.
    As discussed previously, the renovation and remodeling study
conducted under TSCA section 402(c) found that the following renovation
and remodeling activities, when conducted where lead-based paint is
present, generated lead loadings on floors that exceeded the TSCA
section 403 dust-lead hazard standard:
     Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
     Window replacement.
     HVAC duct work.
     Demolition of interior plaster walls.
     Drilling into wood.
     Sawing into wood.
     Sawing into plaster.
Because these activities cause lead dust to be deposited on floors in
excess of the dust-lead hazard standard for floors, EPA proposes to
conclude that these activities create lead-based paint hazards. In
addition, based on the results of the Phase I study, EPA

proposes to conclude that drilling into plaster, where lead-based paint
is present, can reasonably be anticipated to create lead-based paint
hazards. Moreover, EPA believes that certain cleanup methods are not
effective or reliable in reducing the lead levels below the hazard
standard.
    These proposed conclusions are supported by the results of other
phases of the renovation and remodeling study. Phase III, Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-lead Study, found that children who live in homes where
renovation and remodeling activities were performed within the past
year are 30% more likely to have a blood lead-level that equals or
exceeds 10 [mu]g/dL, the level of concern established by CDC, than
children living in homes where no such activity has taken place
recently.
    Phases II and IV of the study, which evaluated worker exposures
from renovation and remodeling activities, provide additional
documentation of the significant and direct relationship between blood-
lead levels and the conduct of certain renovation and remodeling
activities. Phase II found a statistically significant association
between increased blood lead levels and the number of days spent
performing general renovation and remodeling activities, paint removal,
and cleanup in pre-1950 buildings in the past month. Phase IV of the
study found that persons performing renovation and remodeling
activities in old historic buildings are more likely to have elevated
blood-lead levels than persons in the general population of renovation
and remodeling workers.
    Based on the results of Phases I through IV of the renovation and
remodeling study, EPA proposes to conclude that any renovation activity
that disturbs lead-based paint can create significant amounts of leaded
dust. EPA reaches this proposed conclusion because the study examined
renovation activities on a variety of components using a variety of
tools and methods, and discovered that each activity that disturbed
lead-based paint caused lead dust in amounts that created or could
reasonably be anticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. EPA
believes that the activities studied are representative of the paint-
disturbing activities that typically occur during renovations. EPA
requests comment on its proposed conclusions drawn from the Phase I
through IV studies, as well as on the studies themselves. EPA also
invites commenters to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and
data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assess the results of
exposure to renovation, repair and painting activities in housing or
other facilities that may contain lead-based paint.
    EPA is therefore proposing to revise existing regulations to extend
training, certification, and work practice requirements to certain
renovation and remodeling projects in target housing. It is not EPA's
intention to merely expand the scope of the current abatement
requirements to cover renovation and remodeling activities. Rather, EPA
has carefully considered the elements of the existing abatement
regulations and revised them as necessary to craft a proposal that is
practical for renovation and remodeling businesses and their customers,
while taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety as
directed by TSCA section 402(a).
    In addition, EPA is considering whether some or all of these
proposed provisions should be incorporated into the abatement
regulations. In particular, the Agency is requesting comment about
allowing the use of the workplace practices in this proposal in lieu of
the prohibition of certain workplace practices in the abatement
regulations. Also, the Agency is requesting comment about allowing
cleaning verification in lieu of clearance testing in the abatement
regulations. If the Agency were to change the abatement regulations, it
could incorporate the regulatory language in this proposal (i.e., allow
abatement firms the option of following the workplace practice
standards in the proposed 40 CFR 745.85(a) in lieu of the workplace
practice standards in the abatement rule, and allow abatement firms the
option of following the cleaning verification procedure in the proposed
40 CFR 745.85(b) in lieu of the clearance testing requirements) in the
abatement rule. Comments are invited on whether changes should be
proposed to the abatement regulations and, if so, the nature of these
changes.
    EPA also requests comment on potential unintended consequences of
this proposal. For example, the costs of this proposed rule, which
renovation firms are likely to pass on to consumers in whole or in
part, may cause some homeowners to perform some renovation projects
themselves rather than hire a professional. More information on the
costs and benefits of this proposal can be found in Unit VIII.A. EPA
has made a concerted effort to keep the costs as low as possible, while
still providing adequate protection against lead-based paint hazards
created by renovation activities. Homeowners who choose to perform
their own renovation projects are not likely to have taken formal
training in lead-safe work practices, so they may not be familiar with
the methods they should use to prevent lead exposures for themselves
and their children. However, in the absence of this proposed
regulation, EPA believes that most contractors and building management
staff will not receive formal training in lead-safe work practices
either. In addition, building owners may choose to defer maintenance as
a result of the increased renovation costs attributable to this
proposal. EPA requests comment on the likelihood that there will be
more do-it-yourself renovation projects or deferred maintenance, and
information or data on what that might mean in terms of health impacts,
as well as other potential consequences of this proposal.

B. Scope of Proposed Regulation

    1. Housing units that would be covered. EPA is proposing to amend
the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, that implement
TSCA section 406(b) to add training and certification requirements, as
well as work practice standards, for certain renovations performed for
compensation in target housing. The proposed amendments would apply to
renovations performed within housing units as well as renovations
performed in common areas in multi-unit housing. The TSCA section
406(b) regulations, also referred to as the Pre-Renovation Education
Rule, currently require persons performing renovations for compensation
in all target housing to provide owners and occupants with a lead
hazard information pamphlet that discusses lead-based paint and lead-
based paint hazards. In delineating the scope of today's proposal, EPA
is using many of the definitions and exemptions used in the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule. For example, the term ``target housing'' is
defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978,
except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any
child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or
any 0-bedroom dwelling. EPA is not proposing to modify this definition
in any way.
    EPA is proposing to make the requirements contained in this
proposal effective in two major stages. In the first stage, the
proposed requirements would apply to renovation projects performed for
compensation in:
     All target housing where the firm performing the
renovation obtains information indicating that a child under age 6
resides there, if the child has a blood-lead level greater than or
equal to 10 [mu]g/dL or a State or local government level of concern,
if lower, or the firm does not provide the owners and occupants with
the opportunity to

inform the firm that a child under age 6 with such a blood-lead level
resides there;
     All owner-occupied target housing built before 1960,
unless the firm performing the renovation obtains a statement signed by
the owner that the renovation will occur in the owner's residence and
no child under age 6 resides there; and
     All rental target housing built before 1960.
The second stage would extend the proposed requirements to:
     All owner-occupied target housing, unless the firm
performing the renovation obtains a statement signed by the owner that
the renovation will occur in the owner's residence and no child under
age 6 resides there; and
     All rental target housing.
The second stage would take effect 1 year after the first stage takes
effect.
    For each stage, the requirements of the rule would only apply to
those renovations that meet the proposed definition of renovation
discussed in Unit IV.B.3. and do not qualify for the exceptions
discussed in Unit IV.B.4.
    The purpose of this regulation is to prevent the creation of new
lead-based paint hazards from renovation activities in housing where
children under age 6 reside. To achieve the goal of eliminating
childhood lead poisoning by 2010, it is important to focus society's
resources on the activities that have the greatest impact on the
population at greatest risk.
    According to the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing,
24% of the housing constructed between 1960 and 1978 contains lead-
based paint (Ref. 46). In contrast, 69% of the housing constructed
between 1940 and 1959, and 87% of the housing constructed before 1940
contains lead-based paint. The results of this survey indicate that
there is a much greater likelihood of disturbing lead-based paint
during a renovation that occurs in a home built before 1960 than in a
home built after that date. EPA seeks comment on these facts and how
these facts should affect the regulatory requirements under TSCA
section 402(c)(3), which requires EPA to apply regulations issued under
section 402(a) to renovations in target housing that create lead-based
paint hazards.
    Although most homes built between 1960 and 1978 do not contain
lead-based paint, EPA remains concerned about the risks presented to
those children under age 6 who reside in one of the homes that does.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to phase in coverage of those homes after 1
year. As discussed in more detail in this Unit, EPA believes that
during this phase in period it will be possible to develop test kits
that are able to identify more accurately those homes that do not
contain lead-based paint at regulated levels.
    As discussed in Unit IV.B.4.a., EPA is proposing to exempt
renovations that affect only components that have been determined to be
free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or
in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. In addition to a
determination by a certified inspector or risk assessor, EPA is also
proposing to allow the use of EPA-recognized test kits to determine
whether the components to be affected are free of regulated lead-based
paint. Accurate test kits represent a relatively simple and inexpensive
way to identify where lead-based paint is present and assist homeowners
and renovation firms in determining where lead-safe work practices
should be followed.
    Research on the use of these kits for testing lead in paint has
been published by NIST (Ref. 47). The research to date shows that, in
general, there are test kits currently available which, when used by a
trained professional, can reliably determine that regulated lead-based
paint is not present by virtue of a negative result, but which cannot
reliably determine that regulated lead-based paint is present. These
kits typically are sensitive to lead at levels below the Federal
standards that define lead-based paint, and therefore are prone to a
large number of false positive results (i.e., a positive result when
regulated lead-based paint is, in fact, not present). The NIST research
found that false positive rates range from 42% to 78%.
    These false positive rates mean that the currently-available test
kits are not an effective means of identifying the 76% of homes built
between 1960 and 1978 that do not contain regulated lead-based paint.
EPA believes that the sensitivity of test kits could be adjusted for
paint testing so that the results from the kits reliably correspond to
one of the two Federal standards for lead-based paint, 1.0 mg/
cm2 and 0.5% by weight. EPA also believes that this can be
accomplished in the near future and is planning to conduct research to
further the development of test kits that accurately identify both the
presence and absence of lead in paint at levels that exceed the Federal
standards. EPA's goals for this research are to develop a kit that can
reliably be used by a person with minimal training, is inexpensive
(under $2 per test), provides results within an hour, and is
demonstrated to have a false positive rate of no more than 10% and a
false negative rate at 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight of less
than 5%. This research effort is consistent with one of the stated
purposes of Title X, ``to mobilize national resources expeditiously,
through a partnership among all levels of government and the private
sector, to develop the most promising, cost-effective methods for
evaluating and reducing lead-based paint hazards.''
    EPA is confident that improved test kits meeting EPA's research
goals can be available within the next 3 years. Based on the proposed
effective dates for the initial stage of this rule, discussed in
greater detail in Unit VI., the improved test kits should be available
within 1 year after the initial stage of the rule becomes effective in
all jurisdictions. EPA is therefore proposing to extend the
requirements of this proposal to rental housing built between 1960 and
1978, as well as owner-occupied homes built between 1960 and 1978 where
a child under age 6 resides, 1 year after the requirements become
effective for such homes built before 1960. This staged approach will
initially address the renovations that present the greatest risks to
children under age 6, i.e., the renovations that are most likely to
disturb lead-based paint, while allowing additional time for the
development of improved test kits before phasing in the applicability
of the rule to newer rental target housing and newer owner-occupied
target housing where children under age 6 reside.
    It is EPA's expectation that the improved test kits will be
available before the effective date of the requirements that apply to
rental housing built between 1960 and 1978, as well as owner-occupied
homes built between 1960 and 1978 where a child under age 6 resides. If
it appears that these improved test kits will not be available by that
effective date, EPA will consider delaying the effective date for the
requirements that apply to rental housing built between 1960 and 1978,
as well as owner-occupied homes built between 1960 and 1978 where a
child under age 6 resides. EPA requests comment on whether EPA should
wait to finalize the proposed second stage of this regulation until the
new kits are commercially available nationwide. Waiting would ensure
that the improved test kits are available before renovation firms must
comply with the training, certification, and work practice requirements
of this proposal for renovations in housing that is more likely than
not to be free of regulated lead-based paint. The proposed rule, by
allowing the use of test kits in pre-1960 housing to determine the
absence of lead-based paint, provides an incentive

for improved test kits. In addition, an established deadline for
coverage of homes built between 1960 and 1978 provides an even greater
incentive for the private sector to pursue improved test kits.
    Although EPA is proposing to extend the effective date for housing
built between 1960 and 1978 for an additional year, EPA remains
concerned about children under age 6 residing in these homes if the
children have increased blood lead levels. In many cases where a blood
level in excess of the applicable level of concern has been identified,
intervention by State and local public health officials should ensure
that further exposure to lead is minimized. However, to prevent the
possibility that an unregulated renovation activity will contribute to
continuing exposures to lead for children with increased blood lead
levels, EPA is proposing to include in the first stage of this proposal
all target housing built before 1978 where a child under age 6 with a
blood lead level that equals or exceeds the CDC level of concern, or a
lower State or local government level of concern, resides. (As is
discussed in Unit IV.B.4., renovations that only affected components
that had been determined to be lead-based paint free would be exempt
from the requirements of this proposal.)
    The existing Pre-Renovation Education Rule requires renovators to
inform owners and occupants of target housing of the potential risks
from renovation projects by providing them with the PYF pamphlet.
Persons performing renovations covered by the existing regulations must
already either obtain a signed acknowledgment from the owner indicating
that the pamphlet has been received, or a certificate of mailing
indicating that the pamphlet was mailed at least 7 days before the
renovation. EPA has developed a sample acknowledgment form that
renovators could use not only to record the owner's receipt of the lead
hazard information pamphlet, but to obtain additional information on
the housing to be renovated and its residents (Ref. 1). This would
enable renovation firms to satisfy their current obligations under the
Pre-Renovation Education Rule and assist them in complying the
requirements of this proposal. EPA seeks comment on this sample from, a
copy of which is available in the docket for this proposed rule and on
the Agency's Web page.
    a. Target housing constructed between 1960 and 1978 where a child
under age 6 with an increased blood lead level resides. As discussed in
this Unit of the preamble, EPA is proposing that this rule take effect
in two major stages. EPA is proposing that the first stage include
renovations performed for compensation in target housing constructed
between 1960 and 1978 where a child under age 6 with a blood lead level
that equals or exceeds the CDC level of concern (10 [mu]g/dL), or a
lower State or local government level of concern, resides. For the
purposes of this proposal, children reside in the primary residences of
their custodial parents, foster parents, and legal guardians. In
addition, this proposal considers housing where a child lives and
sleeps most of the time as the child's residence, even if this housing
is not the residence of the child's legal custodians. This means that a
child may have more than one residence, but it will ensure that the
primary residences of all children under age 6 are covered by either
stage one or stage two of this proposal, if they reside in target
housing.
    EPA recognizes that the renovation firm is not likely to have
access to information on the blood lead levels of resident children.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to require only that the renovation firm
offer the owners and occupants of target housing built between 1960 and
1978 the opportunity to inform the firm that 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 in the housing to be
renovated. This opportunity could be as simple as a statement on the
form used to acknowledge receipt of the information pamphlet, or, if
the pamphlet is mailed, a note included in the mailing asking the
recipient to inform the renovation firm if 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, is in residence. Tenant
notifications required for renovations in common areas could include a
similar note. EPA's sample acknowledgment form incorporates a statement
to this effect (Ref. 1).
    EPA will not require the renovation firm to presume that 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 in
housing to be renovated, if the renovation firm does not receive any
information from the owner or occupant. EPA requests comment on how a
renovation firm could obtain this information if it is unable to obtain
a signed statement from the owner.
    b. Owner-occupied target housing where a child under age 6 resides.
EPA is also proposing to include, in the first stage of this
rulemaking, renovation projects performed for compensation in all
owner-occupied target housing built before 1960, unless the firm
performing the renovation obtains a statement signed by the owner that
the renovation will occur in the owner's residence and that the housing
is not the primary residence of a child under age 6. The primary
residences of children under age 6 living in target housing constructed
between 1960 and 1978 would be covered in the second stage of this
proposed regulation.
    The sample acknowledgment form developed by EPA will assist
renovation firms in obtaining a written statement from owner-occupants
as to whether a child under age 6 resides in the housing to be
renovated (Ref. 1). In many cases, EPA anticipates that the presence of
this statement on the form will prompt a discussion between the
homeowner and the renovation firm on the information in the lead hazard
information pamphlet as well as the lead-safe work practices that would
be required by this proposal. A homeowner without children under age 6
in residence who subsequently chooses not to have the renovation firm
follow lead-safe work practices will be making an informed decision in
these circumstances.
    If the renovator is unable to obtain an acknowledgment form from
the owner-occupant, and instead meets the requirements of the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule by a certificate of mailing indicating that
the pamphlet was mailed at least 7 days before the renovation, the
renovator would have to assume that a child under age 6 resided in the
housing to be renovated and would have to perform the renovation in
accordance with the applicable work practice standards of this
proposal.
    Subsequent purchasers of the housing will also be able to make
informed decisions as a result of the regulations promulgated under
section 1018 of Title X and codified at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and
40 CFR part 745, subpart F. These regulations, briefly summarized in
Unit III.B.2.b., would not ordinarily require a seller, in the absence
of specific knowledge of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards,
to disclose information about renovation projects to a purchaser.
However, the informational pamphlet that the seller must provide
includes information about potential lead-based paint hazards on
residential property and recommends that purchasers obtain a lead-based
paint inspection or risk assessment on property they are interested in
buying. A risk assessment would identify any dust-lead hazards on the
property, whether created by a

renovation performed without lead-safe work practices or some other
activity.
    c. Rental target housing. Also in the first stage of this
rulemaking, the proposed requirements would apply to all rental target
housing built before 1960, regardless of whether a child under age 6
resides there. The second stage would extend the requirements to all
rental target housing.
    The proposal would apply to target housing that is currently being
rented, as well as target housing being offered for rent and target
housing that the owner intends to offer for rent. Renovations to
prepare target housing for the rental market would have to be performed
in accordance with this proposal. Unlike in owner-occupied housing,
occupants who are tenants have far less control over renovation
projects in their housing than occupants who are owners. EPA believes
that, in most cases, the owner of housing, or the owner's agent, enters
into contracts for renovation services, not the tenant. The owner has
control over who performs the project and how it is conducted. In
addition, renovations in rental housing often occur between tenants,
when the housing is vacant and it is not known whether the next tenants
will include a child under age 6. Therefore, requiring proper training
and work practices in rental housing is necessary to protect the tenant
occupants. Finally, applying the requirements of this proposal only to
rental housing where children under age 6 reside could foster
discrimination in the rental market against families with children
under age 6. Although it is not the preferred option, EPA requests
comment on whether this proposal should apply only to rental target
housing where children under age 6 reside.
    This proposal avoids placing responsibility on the renovation firm
for determining whether a child under age 6 resides in a particular
housing unit; the renovation firm would be responsible, however, for
determining whether the housing unit is rental target housing. EPA
considered holding the renovation firm responsible for making both
determinations. However, it may be very difficult in many situations
for the renovation firm to find objective proof that a child under age
6 does or does not reside in a particular housing unit. Because this
proposal does not cover, for example, the residences of relatives that
provide occasional care for a child, the mere presence of toys or other
signs indicating the presence of a child under age 6 would not be a
sufficient basis for deciding that the requirements of this proposal
apply.
    In contrast, EPA does not believe that determining whether housing
is rental target housing presents the same level of difficulty for
renovators. Contractors are already responsible, under the TSCA section
402(a) regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, as well as under the
Pre-Renovation Education Rule, for determining whether a unit of
housing is target housing. This involves determining whether the
housing was built before 1978 and whether it is housing for the elderly
or housing for persons with disabilities. EPA believes that, in many
cases, it is obvious to the renovation firm that housing is target
housing, and it will be relatively easy to determine that the housing
is rental housing. Multi-unit buildings or multi-building complexes are
likely to be rental housing, unless the name of the property includes
the words ``condominium'' or ``co-operative.'' In any event, the
renovation firm remains ultimately responsible for making this
determination. It should be noted that, during the first stage of this
proposed rule, the renovation firm would be responsible for determining
whether the housing was built before 1960.
    EPA requests comment on whether renovation firms should be able to
assume that no child under age 6 resides in owner-occupied housing. The
identification of the residences of children under age 6 could be
addressed in the same way that EPA is proposing to address children
with increased blood lead levels during the first phase of the rule's
applicability, discussed in Unit IV.B.1.a. If the renovation firm
determined that the renovation activities would occur in owner-
occupied housing, the firm could offer the owner-occupant the
opportunity to inform the firm that a child under age 6 resides in the
housing. If the owner-occupant did not provide the firm with any
information on children in residence, the firm could assume that no
child under age 6 resided in the housing, and the provisions of this
proposal would not apply. EPA does not prefer this approach because
children under age 6 could be put at risk unintentionally through mis-
directed mail, or a misunderstanding on the part of the owner-occupant
as to the information sought by the renovation firm.
    d. Owner-occupied multi-unit housing. With respect to condominiums
and cooperatives, EPA requests comment on whether to require that all
renovations conducted in the common areas, such as hallways or
stairways, of multi-unit buildings, as well as renovations conducted on
the exteriors of such buildings, be conducted in accordance with the
proposed training, certification and work practice requirements,
regardless of whether the individual units are owner-occupied.
Currently, the proposal would allow all the owners of such multi-unit
owner-occupied buildings to certify that no children under age 6 reside
in the individual units, in which case renovators would not be required
to comply with the proposed work practice standards in common areas.
However, it is likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, to
secure the signatures of all of the owners of the individual units,
attesting to the fact that no child under age 6 resides in any of the
units of the building. If all of the owners do not so attest,
renovations in common areas would have to be conducted in accordance
with this proposal. The signatures of the building managers would not
be sufficient, because there may be children in residence that are
unknown to the building managers.
    e. Owner-occupied target housing where a pregnant woman resides.
EPA also requests comment on the appropriateness of applying the
provisions of this rule to owner-occupied target housing where an
expectant mother resides, in addition to owner-occupied housing where a
child under age 6 resides. If this option were included in the rule,
and no children under age 6 resided in the housing to be renovated, the
renovation firm would not be required to use the work practices in this
proposal unless the renovation firm collected a statement from the
owner-occupant indicating that a woman residing in the housing was
pregnant or thought she might be pregnant. Fetuses exposed to lead in
the womb may be born prematurely and have lower birth weights. In
addition, the transplacental transfer of lead in humans is well
documented, and infants are generally born with a lead body burden
reflecting that of the mother (Ref. 4). Therefore, covering the
residences of pregnant women under this regulation would provide
additional protection for vulnerable populations. However, owner-
occupants, including expectant mothers, will be receiving a lead hazard
information pamphlet under the Pre-Renovation Education Rule that will
enable them to make educated choices about renovation activities in
their residences.
    2. Other options considered. EPA considered a range of other
alternatives to defining the universe of housing that would be covered
by this regulation. The primary alternative EPA considered was a
single-staged regulation that would cover all renovations in rental

target housing and owner-occupied target housing where a child under
age 6 resides. This option is not preferred at this time. As discussed
in this section, EPA is proposing to phase in coverage of housing built
between 1960 and 1978 to allow time to develop an accurate, but simple
and inexpensive, means for determining whether the affected components
in a particular housing unit built within this time frame are free of
regulated lead-based paint (the determination whether a component is
lead-based paint free is discussed more fully in Unit IV.B.4.a.). EPA
solicits comment on this option.
    EPA also considered a single-staged regulation that would cover all
renovations in rental target housing built before 1960 and owner-
occupied target housing built before 1960 where a child under age 6
resides. This option is not preferred at this time because 24% of the
target housing built between 1960 and 1978 contains lead-based paint. A
regulation that excludes those homes would not cover the residents of
those homes, particularly the children residing in those homes, from
potential lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities. It
should be noted that the Phase I study, which demonstrated lead dust
loadings from renovation activities in target housing, did not
differentiate housing by age. The measured lead loadings in that study
represent an average. In the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing (Ref. 46), a paint lead loading exceeding 10 mg/cm2
was detected in 3% of the homes constructed between 1960 and 1978,
compared to 14% of the homes constructed between 1940 and 1959, and 55%
of the homes constructed before 1940. Further analysis of the data
found that, although there were fewer homes built between 1960 and 1978
that contained lead-based paint, the average lead concentration of
paint on windows and on exterior walls, doors, and trim was higher in
housing built between 1960 and 1978 than in housing built between 1950
and 1960 (Ref. 48). EPA's preferred option takes into account the fact
that most target housing built between 1960 and 1978 does not contain
lead-based paint by phasing in coverage of those homes after improved
test kits are expected to be available. EPA requests comment on the
option of limiting this proposal to housing built before 1960, and on
other options tied to the age of the housing and the likelihood that
the housing contains lead-based paint.
    EPA also considered proposing a rule limited to the provision of
information and certification, training, and accreditation
requirements. The rationale for such a limited rule would be that
individuals, if provided information on the health effects of lead
exposure and renovation work practices that minimize leaded dust
creation and release, would be able to choose whether or not to request
that a firm performing a renovation use lead-safe work practices.
Individuals wishing to employ a renovation firm that would use lead-
safe work practices would be assured by the certification, training,
and accreditation provisions that a firm certified by EPA would employ
persons trained in the use of lead-safe work practices. This is not the
preferred option because EPA believes that a voluntary program of lead-
safe work practice compliance would not provide sufficient protection
from lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities.
Nevertheless, the Agency invites comment on this option.
    Finally, EPA considered covering all renovations in target housing
without providing an exclusion for target housing where children under
age 6 do not reside. A child under age 6 may spend a significant amount
of time in housing that is not his or her primary residence, for
example, in the home of a babysitter. In addition, a child that moved
into housing shortly after a renovation performed without lead-safe
work practices took place would be exposed to lead dust from the
renovation. This is not the preferred option at this time because the
proposed option provides a more focused targeting of resources on the
population most at risk. EPA specifically requests comment on applying
the requirements of this proposal without the exclusion for target
housing where children under age 6 do not reside.
    3. Activities that would be covered. This proposal, like the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule, would only apply to persons who perform
renovations for compensation. This includes owners of rental property
and their employees, as well as paid employees of home improvement
companies, residential property management companies, State and local
government agencies, and non-profits. With regard to the renovation
activities that would be covered by this regulation, EPA is proposing
to cover the same universe of activities that is already regulated
under the Pre-Renovation Education Rule--essentially, activities that
modify an existing structure and that result in the disturbance of
painted surfaces. All types of repair, remodeling, modernization, and
weatherization projects would be covered, including projects performed
as part of another Federal, State, or local program, if the projects
meet the definition of ``renovation'' codified in 40 CFR 745.83. The
regulated community has had years of experience in applying this
definition, as well as the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.82.
    EPA considered and requested public comment on various approaches
to defining the term ``renovation'' for the Pre-Renovation Education
Rule, including options modeled on a definition in the TSCA asbestos
regulations, the construction tasks identified by OSHA in its Lead in
Construction Standard, and by the use of Standard Industrial Codes (SIC
codes) as a means of defining the subject universe (Ref. 49). The
majority of the public comments EPA received in response to its
proposal involved the definition of this term. In response to the
public comments, EPA crafted a definition that borrows from other
sources but focuses on the activities of greatest concern to EPA,
activities that disturb lead-based paint (Ref. 23). This definition
also covers virtually all of the activities in the renovation and
remodeling study that created lead-based paint hazards. Conversely, EPA
does not believe that this definition is overbroad, i.e., it does not
capture a significant number of renovation activities that are not
capable of creating lead-based paint hazards. All of the activities
monitored in EPA's renovation and remodeling study which involved the
disturbance of lead-based paint created or could reasonably be
anticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. The study evaluated
common renovation activities likely to disturb lead-based paint,
including demolition of structures containing lead-based paint, removal
of fixtures containing lead-based paint (window replacement), sawing
and drilling into materials containing lead-based paint, and sanding
lead-based paint. Because all of these activities are capable of
creating lead-based paint hazards, a definition of ``renovation'' that
is primarily based on the disturbance of lead-based paint is well-
tailored to regulate the activities of concern.
    As noted previously, the Phase I study excluded exterior siding
installation, wallpaper removal, and exterior soil disruption because
the study design team and the individuals consulted in the information-
gathering phase generally considered these target activities to be of
secondary importance. EPA has no quantitative information on the lead
dust loadings generated during such activities in target housing.
However, to the extent that these activities disturb paint, these
activities would be covered by this proposal.

 Conversely, the Phase I study did include HVAC duct work, but it is
possible that, in some cases, this work would not involve the
disturbance of paint, and would, therefore, not be covered by this
proposal. EPA requests comment on whether exterior siding projects,
wallpaper removal, and exterior soil disruption or other activities
should be excluded from this proposal or whether HVAC duct work should
be specifically included. EPA is particularly interested in any data
regarding the lead loadings generated by these activities that would
support their exclusion or inclusion, and other activities that should
be considered in the same manner.
    The panel convened by EPA pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act recommended that the Agency consider exempting certain specialty
contractors (e.g., plumbing, electrical) from the rule. More
information on this panel and its recommendations can be found in Unit
VIII.C.6.e. EPA is not proposing to exempt such work per se, but
requests comment on whether any category of specialty contractor should
be excluded from this proposal, along with data that would support the
exclusion of a particular category of contractor.
    In some circumstances, a renovation, as that term is defined in
this proposal, may constitute only a portion of a larger residential
renovation and remodeling project. The certification, training, and
work practice elements of this proposal would only be applicable during
the portion of a project that involves the disturbance of painted
surfaces. For example, adding a room to an existing home may require
the demolition of an existing wall to provide access to the room. In
this case, the only portion of the project that involves disturbing
painted surfaces may be the demolition of the existing wall. A
certified firm and a certified individual would be needed to establish
the required work area, demolish the wall, perform the required clean-
up, and verify that the area has been properly cleaned. If the
remainder of the project, the construction of the new room, does not
involve the disturbance of existing painted surfaces, then the
requirements of this proposal would not apply to that portion of the
project. Painters who disturb a large area of painted surface with
surface preparation activities, such as sanding, would be performing a
regulated renovation under this proposal. Merely painting prepared
surfaces does not generally disturb existing paint, so a painter who
prepares surfaces by sanding and then paints the prepared surfaces
would be able to choose whether to perform required cleaning and
cleaning verification activities before or after the prepared surface
is painted.
    4. Exceptions--a. Components free of regulated lead-based paint.
EPA is proposing to continue to exempt renovations that only affect
painted components that have been determined, by a certified inspector
or risk assessor, to be free of paint or other surface coatings that
contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by
weight. This determination may be made as part of a lead-based paint
inspection of an entire housing unit or building, or on a component-by-
component basis.
    EPA is also proposing to exempt renovations that only affect
painted components that have been demonstrated to be free of regulated
lead-based paint through the use of an EPA-recognized test kit by a
certified renovator. EPA intends to recognize those test kits that have
a very low probability of false negative responses, because an
incorrect negative result may lead to the creation of lead-based paint
hazards through uncontrolled renovation activities. More specifically,
for paint containing lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/
cm2 or 0.5% by weight, EPA intends to recognize kits that
have a demonstrated probability (with 95% confidence) of a negative
response less than or equal to 5% of the time. In addition, as soon as
the improved test kits discussed in Unit IV.B.1. are generally
available, EPA intends to recognize only those test kits that have a
demonstrated probability of a false positive response of no more than
10% to lead in paint at levels below the regulated level. EPA believes
that limiting recognition to kits that result in a relatively-low rate
of false positives would benefit the consumer by reducing the number of
times that the training and work practice requirements of this
regulation are followed in the absence of regulated lead-based paint.
These performance parameters would have to be validated by a laboratory
independent of the kit manufacturer, using ASTM International's E1828,
Standard Practice for Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of
Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint (Ref. 50) or an
equivalent validation method. The instructions for use of any
particular kit would have to conform to the results of the validation,
and the certified renovator must follow the manufacturer's instructions
when using the kit. EPA requests comment on whether these standards are
reasonably achievable and sufficiently protective. EPA is also
soliciting suggestions on how to conduct the kit recognition process.
    As required by the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, if the renovation
firm relies on a determination by a certified inspector or risk
assessor that affected components are free of paint or other surface
coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/
cm2 or 0.5% by weight, the renovation firm must obtain a
copy of the written determination before the renovation begins and keep
it for no less than 3 years from the date the renovation is completed.
If a test kit is used, the renovation firm must keep records
documenting the use of the kit, including the name of the kit, who used
the kit, and the results, for no less than 3 years from the completion
date of the renovation.
    To assist renovation firms in determining whether a particular
project is eligible for this exception, EPA is proposing to
incorporate, in 40 CFR 745.83, the definition of the term ``component
or building component'' from 40 CFR 745.223.
    b. Minor maintenance. This regulation would also retain the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule exception in 40 CFR 745.82(a)(1) for minor
maintenance activities that disturb 2 ft2 or less of painted
surface per component. As discussed in the preamble to the final Pre-
Renovation Education Rule, this exception was primarily designed as a
means for distinguishing between renovation activities and routine
maintenance activities (Ref. 23, p. 29911). Because this exception for
small surface area disturbances has acted as a surrogate for routine
maintenance activities in the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, EPA is
proposing to apply this exception to the requirements of this
regulation.
    The stakeholders participating in the various meetings EPA has held
on renovation issues have had varying opinions of this exception. In
general, property owners and managers favored this exception because it
would remove routine, minor maintenance activities from the scope of
the rule. Renovation firms thought it would have little impact on the
jobs that they typically do. Advocacy organizations did not favor this
exception because small projects can also create lead-based paint
hazards. EPA requests additional comment on the appropriateness of this
exception as a surrogate for routine building maintenance activities,
and suggestions for alternate or additional surrogates.
    Although EPA believes that increasing the size of the exception
from 2 ft2 to 5 or 10 ft2 would reduce the number
of renovations covered by this proposed rule, EPA does not have enough

information to estimate the number of renovations that would be
affected by such a change. EPA is concerned that increasing the size of
the exception, particularly for interior projects, would reduce the
protections against lead-based paint hazards offered by this proposal.
In addition, increasing the exception size would make this proposal
inconsistent with the Pre-Renovation Education Rule and likely cause
confusion among the regulated community, because renovation firms have
been implementing the 2 ft2 exception for a number of years.
    Finally, HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, at 20 CFR 35.1350(d),
includes ``de minimis'' levels of 2 ft2 per room for
interior projects and 20 ft2 on exterior surfaces. If less
than this amount of painted surface is disturbed, HUD's lead-safe work
practice requirements do not apply. EPA's lead-based paint abatement
regulations also use these as small project exceptions, at 40 CFR
745.65(d). EPA requests comment on incorporating these size limitations
into this proposal and is particularly interested in any data regarding
the number of renovations that would be affected by a change in the
mirror maintenance exception and any data that would support a change
in this exception.
    c. Emergency projects. EPA is proposing to retain the emergency
project exception of the existing Pre-Renovation Education Rule. Under
that exception, renovators are not required to provide a lead hazard
information pamphlet to owners and occupants of target housing that is
undergoing emergency renovation operations. In general, stakeholders
participating in EPA's renovation meetings favored an exception for
emergency projects. This proposal would retain that exception, but
would require that the emergency renovation operations be performed in
compliance with the work practice standards to the extent practicable.
    EPA is proposing to modify the language of the exception to clarify
that interim control projects performed on an expedited basis in
response to an elevated blood lead level finding in a resident child
qualify for the emergency project exemption from the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule requirements. The term ``interim controls,'' defined in
40 CFR 745.83 of the proposal, means measures designed to temporarily
reduce exposure to lead-based paint hazards. Some interim control
projects, such as the repair of damaged areas of paint, are renovations
as defined in 40 CFR 745.83, and are subject to the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule and would also be covered by this proposed regulation.
Others, such as specialized cleaning, may not involve the disturbance
of paint, and would therefore not be covered by either regulation.
    EPA is concerned that local public health organizations may be
delayed in responding to a lead-poisoned child if the owner of the
building where the child resides is not available to acknowledge
receipt of the PYF pamphlet before an interim control project begins.
The Pre- Renovation Education Rule allows persons performing
renovations to mail a copy of the pamphlet to the owner, but the
mailing must occur at least 7 days before the project begins. Exempting
these types of projects from the Pre-Renovation Education Rule would
enable public health organizations to begin responding to an elevated
blood-lead level immediately, without significantly affecting the flow
of information to the population at risk. Organizations that intervene
in these cases typically provide a great deal of lead-based paint
hazard information to the family of the lead-poisoned child. EPA is
proposing to limit this provision of the emergency project exception to
interim control projects that are performed as a direct response to a
lead-poisoned child. EPA requests comment on whether a time limit
should be placed on projects qualifying for this exception, whether
only projects performed within a certain amount of time after a lead-
poisoned child has been identified should be exempt, and, if so, what
period of time would be adequate for these purposes.
    EPA also understands that there may be emergency situations where
compliance with the training, certification, and work practice
requirements of this proposal is not practicable. In general, the
proposed phase-in period for the regulatory requirements proposed in
Sec.  745.81 should be more than sufficient to allow enough persons to
be trained and certified to provide an adequate supply of certified
entities available for emergency renovation operations. An important
reason for creating the emergency exception to the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule was to allow property managers to respond quickly to
problems such as a broken water pipe in an apartment even if the
occupant is away from the premises. EPA anticipates that most property
management companies who do their own maintenance will find it
advantageous to have a trained and certified renovator on staff to
perform renovations, so there should be no reason why these entities
would not be able to comply with the training and certification
requirements on all renovations. Likewise, EPA knows of no reason why
firms performing emergency renovation operations would not be able to
follow the clean-up procedures specified in this proposal after
emergency repairs have been made. In fact, in the vast majority of
cases, persons performing emergency renovation projects should be able
to comply with all of the work practice requirements of this proposal.
However, because there may be situations where it is not feasible to
post warning signs or contain the work area before responding to the
emergency, EPA is proposing to add a statement to the section
describing this exemption to make it clear that the work practice
requirements, the recordkeeping requirements, and the training and
certification requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  745.85, 745.86,
745.89, and 745.90 apply to the extent practicable.

C. Training, Certification, and Accreditation

    Under the regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, both