Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, 1588-1636 [06-71]
Download as PDF
1588
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 745
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–7755–5]
RIN 2070–AC83
Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing new
requirements to reduce exposure to lead
hazards created by renovation, repair,
and painting activities that disturb leadbased 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 owneroccupied 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
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 (202) 564–8930. 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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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
https://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
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket, which is
located in the EPA Docket Center, is
(202) 566–0280.
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: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address:
TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
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:
(202) 566–0521; e-mail address:
wilson.mike@epa.gov.
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.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 airconditioning 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
§ 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.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 leadbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1589
no child under age 6 resides there. EPA
is proposing to phase in the
applicability of this proposal to all
rental target housing and owneroccupied 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 § 745.85 as
§ 745.84. EPA is also proposing to
amend newly designated § 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1590
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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-tomouth behavior (Ref. 3). Low levels of
lead in a child’s bloodstream can
interfere with growth and cause
cognitive impairment, permanent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 leadbased 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 leadbased paint hazards, and developing a
program to address exposure to leadbased 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 leadbased 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 leadbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1591
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 leadbased 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 0bedroom 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1592
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 leadbased 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 leadbased 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 dustlead hazard is surface dust that contains
a mass-per-area concentration of lead
equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per
square foot (µg/ft2) on floors or 250 µg/
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 (µg/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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1593
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 leadbased 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1594
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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, lowincome 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
(LEAP), the Lead Outreach program and
the Lead Technical Studies program.
HUD was also given regulatory
authority over some aspects of leadbased 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 https://www.hud.gov/offices/
lead/leadsaferule/index.cfm or by
calling (202) 755–1785, 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 leadbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 (µg/
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 µg/dL, to medical and
environmental interventions for
children with blood lead levels above 45
µg/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 leadbased 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
• 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 µg/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 µg/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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1595
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 shopvacuuming 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 µg/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 BloodLead 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
samples, 9.1% were above 10 µg/dL,
1.2% were above 25 µg/dL, and one
worker had a blood-lead concentration
greater than 40 µg/dL. The geometric
mean blood-lead concentration for all
workers was 4.5 µg/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 µg/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 leadbased 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 µg/dL
identified 320, or 6.9%, with elevated
blood lead levels that were attributable
to renovation and remodeling (Ref. 35).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 BloodLead 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 µg/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
µg/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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
results from Phase I and Phase III. The
Phase I results indicate that, where leadbased 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1597
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 leadbased 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 dustlead 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1598
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 Bloodlead 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 µg/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 leadbased 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 peerreviewed 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
other facilities that may contain leadbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 leadbased 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 0bedroom 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 µg/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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 leadbased 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 leadbased 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 leadbased 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 leadbased 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1599
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 owneroccupied 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1600
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 µg/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 µg/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 µg/
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 µg/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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 owneroccupant, 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 leadbased 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 PreRenovation 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 multibuilding 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 owneroccupied 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 owneroccupant 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1601
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 owneroccupied 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 owneroccupied 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, owneroccupants, including expectant mothers,
will be receiving a lead hazard
information pamphlet under the PreRenovation 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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1602
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 leadbased 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 leadbased 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.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1603
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
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1604
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 leadbased paint hazards offered by this
proposal. In addition, increasing the
exception size would make this
proposal inconsistent with the PreRenovation 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 PreRenovation 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 PreRenovation Education Rule
requirements. The term ‘‘interim
controls,’’ defined in 40 CFR 745.83 of
the proposal, means measures designed
to temporarily reduce exposure to leadbased 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 PreRenovation Education Rule would
enable public health organizations to
begin responding to an elevated bloodlead 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 leadpoisoned 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 § 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 PreRenovation 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
§§ 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 individuals and
firms that perform lead-based paint
inspections, lead hazard screens, risk
assessments, and abatements must be
certified by EPA. EPA is proposing a
similar, but not identical, regulatory
scheme for individuals and firms that
perform renovations.
EPA is proposing to require that all
renovations regulated by this rule be
performed by a firm certified to perform
renovations and directed by a certified
renovator. Although not required by the
proposed rule, if dust sampling were
performed, it would also have to be
performed by a certified dust sampling
technician, inspector, or risk assessor on
behalf of a certified firm. In order to
become a certified renovator, a person
would have to either possess
certification as a lead-based paint
abatement supervisor or worker, or take
an accredited renovator course. In order
to perform dust sampling, a person
would have to possess certification as a
lead-based paint inspector or risk
assessor, or take an accredited dust
sampling technician course.
Certification based on a dust sampling
technician course would qualify the
individual to conduct dust sampling as
part of a renovation, but not as part of
a lead-based paint activity under 40 CFR
part 745, subpart L. EPA renovator or
dust sampling technician certification
would allow the certified individual to
perform renovations or dust sampling in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program
authorized under 40 CFR part 745,
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
subpart Q. Each of these requirements is
discussed in greater detail in the
following sections.
1. Firms—a. Firm responsibilities.
Proposed § 745.89(d) describes the
responsibilities of firms performing
renovations or dust sampling. These
firms must ensure that all persons
performing renovation activities on
behalf of the firm are either certified
renovators or have been trained and are
directed by a certified renovator in
accordance with proposed § 745.90.
Firms must also ensure that all persons
performing dust sampling on behalf of
the firm are certified as either risk
assessors, inspectors, or dust sampling
technicians. The firm is responsible for
assigning a certified renovator to each
renovation performed by the firm and
ensuring that the certified renovator
discharges all of the responsibilities
identified in proposed § 745.90. The
firm is also responsible for ensuring that
all renovations performed by the firm
are performed in accordance with the
work practice standards in proposed
§ 745.85. Finally, EPA is proposing to
amend § 745.86 to require a firm to
retain and make available to EPA all
records necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this
proposal. These records would have to
include copies of training certificates for
certified renovators and dust sampling
technicians used on projects, along with
signed and dated descriptions of how
worker training activities, sign posting,
work area containment, waste handling,
cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning
verification or clearance were
conducted in compliance with this
subpart. These descriptions must
include a certification by the record
preparer that the descriptions are
complete and accurate. To assist firms
in complying with these recordkeeping
requirements, EPA has developed a
simple form that firms could use to
ensure that they are maintaining all of
the necessary records (Ref. 51). Use of
this form would not be mandatory, firms
could keep the required records in any
manner that they choose. EPA requests
comment on the utility and practicality
of the sample recordkeeping form,
which EPA would make available on its
internet site and from the National Lead
Information Center. EPA also requests
comment on the recordkeeping
requirements in general, as well as
information on the business records
typically kept by renovation firms that
could be used to demonstrate
compliance with the training,
certification, and work practice
requirements of this proposal.
When multiple contractors are
involved in a renovation, any contractor
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
who disturbs, or whose employees
disturb, paint in excess of the minor
projects exception would be responsible
for compliance with all of the
requirements of the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule and this proposal. In
this situation, renovation firms may find
it advantageous to decide among
themselves which firm will be
responsible for providing pre-renovation
education to the owners and occupants,
which firm will establish containment,
and which firm will perform the postrenovation cleaning and cleaning
verification. For example, a general
contractor may be hired to conduct a
multi-faceted project involving the
large-scale disturbance of paint, which
the general contractor then divides up
among several subcontractors. In this
situation, having the general contractor
discharge the obligations of the PreRenovation Education Rule is likely to
be the most efficient approach, since
this only needs to be done once. The
general contractor can then provide the
subcontractors with copies of the signed
acknowledgment form or proof of
mailing. With regard to containment,
the general contractor may decide that
it is most cost-effective to establish one
large work area for the entire project. In
this case, from the time that
containment is established until postrenovation cleaning verification occurs,
all general contractor and subcontractor
personnel performing renovation tasks
within the work area would have to be
certified renovators or trained and
directed by certified renovators in
accordance with this proposal. In
addition, these personnel would be
responsible for ensuring the integrity of
the containment barriers. The cleaning
and post-renovation cleaning
verification could be performed by any
properly qualified individuals, without
regard to whether they are employees of
the general contractor or a
subcontractor. However, all contractors
involved in the disturbance of leadbased paint, or who perform work
within the work area established for the
containment of lead dust and debris,
would be responsible for compliance
with this proposal, regardless of any
agreements the contractors may have
made among themselves.
EPA considered requiring renovation
firms to provide notification to EPA
before commencing a renovation
activity, in the same way that abatement
firms are currently required by 40 CFR
745.227(e)(4) to notify EPA before
commencing an abatement. This is not
the preferred option at this time because
EPA believes that it would be unduly
burdensome for renovation firms, given
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1605
the large number of renovations that
EPA estimates would be subject to this
proposed regulation annually. In
addition, the processing of notifications
would require a significant resource
commitment on EPA’s part. However,
notification could improve EPA’s ability
to monitor compliance with work
practice requirements while renovations
are ongoing. EPA requests comment on
whether notifications should be
required for all renovation projects, or
whether they should be required for a
subset of regulated renovations, such as
large-scale projects, projects in rental
properties, or projects in housing built
before 1940. Suggestions for how these
categories could be identified are also
requested. In addition, EPA requests
comment on whether a notification
requirement should be phased in over
time, to allow the regulated community
and EPA to evaluate the effectiveness
and the feasibility of such a
requirement.
b. Initial certification. Firms that
perform renovations covered by this
proposal would have to be certified by
EPA. EPA is proposing to add a
definition of ‘‘firm’’ to 40 CFR 745.83 to
make it clear that this term includes
persons in business for themselves, i.e.,
sole proprietorships, as well as Federal,
State, Tribal, and local governmental
agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
Firms covered by this proposal include
firms that typically perform renovations,
such as building contractors or home
improvement contractors, as well as
property management companies or
owners of multi-family housing
performing property maintenance
activities that include renovations
within the scope of this proposal.
EPA is proposing to use a process for
certifying firms to perform renovations
that is similar to the process currently
used to certify firms to perform leadbased paint activities, such as
inspections or abatements, that are
regulated by 40 CFR part 745, subpart L.
This proposal provides information
about the certification and recertification process, establishes
procedures for amending and
transferring certifications, and identifies
clear deadlines.
Under proposed § 745.89(a), a firm
wishing to become certified to perform
renovations would submit a complete
‘‘Application for Firms,’’ signed by an
authorized agent of the firm, along with
the correct certification fee. EPA intends
to establish firm certification fees in a
separate rulemaking.
Proposed § 745.89(a) also sets out
EPA’s possible responses to a firm
certification application and gives the
reasons why EPA would choose a
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1606
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
particular response. Under this
proposal, EPA would approve a firm’s
initial application within 90 days of
receipt if it is complete, including the
proper amount of fees, and if EPA
determines that the environmental
compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees does
not show an unwillingness or inability
to comply with applicable
environmental statutes or regulations. If
the application is approved, EPA
proposes to follow the current practice
under 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, of
establishing the firm’s certification
expiration date at 3 years from the date
of EPA’s approval. EPA certification
would allow the firm to perform
renovations covered by this section in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program
authorized under 40 CFR part 745,
subpart Q. If the application was
incomplete, EPA would notify the firm
within 90 days of receipt that its
application was incomplete, and ask the
firm to supplement its application
within 30 days. If the firm did not
supplement its application within that
period of time, or if EPA’s check into
the compliance history of the firm
revealed an unwillingness or inability to
comply with environmental statutes or
regulations, EPA would not approve the
application and would provide the
applicant with the reasons for not
approving the application. EPA would
not refund the application fees. A firm
could reapply for certification at any
time by filing a new, complete
application that included the correct
amount of fees.
c. Re-certification. Under proposed
§ 745.89(b), a certified firm would
maintain its certification by submitting
a complete and timely ‘‘Application for
Firms,’’ noting that it is an application
for re-certification, and paying the
required re-certification fee. With regard
to the timeliness of the application for
re-certification, EPA is proposing that if
a complete application, including the
proper fee, is postmarked 90 days or
more before the date the firm’s current
certification expires, the application
would be considered timely and
sufficient, and the firm’s existing
certification would remain in effect
until its expiration date or until EPA
had made a final decision to approve
the re-certification application, or not,
whichever occurred later. If the firm
submitted a complete re-certification
application fewer than 90 days before
the date the firm’s current certification
expired, EPA might be able to process
the application and re-certify the
applicant before the expiration date, but
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
this would not be guaranteed. If EPA
did not approve the re-certification
application before the existing
application expired, the firm’s
certification would expire and the firm
would not be able to conduct
renovations until EPA approved its recertification application. In any case,
the firm’s new certification expiration
date would be 3 years from the date the
existing certification expired.
If the firm submitted an incomplete
application for re-certification, and EPA
had not received all of the required
information and fees before the date the
firm’s current certification expired, or if
the firm did not submit its application
until after its certification expired, EPA
would not approve the firm’s recertification application. The firm could
not cure any deficiencies in its
application package by postmarking
missing information or fees by its
certification expiration date. All
required information and fees would
have to be in EPA’s possession as of the
expiration date for EPA to approve the
application. If EPA did not approve the
application, the Agency would provide
the applicant with the reasons for not
approving the re-certification
application. Any fees submitted by the
applicant would not be refunded, but
the firm could submit a new application
for certification, along with the correct
amount of fees, at any time.
As with initial applications, this
proposal includes a description of the
actions EPA may take in response to an
application for re-certification and the
reasons why EPA would take a
particular action. This section is
identical to the proposed process for
initial applications, except that EPA
will not require an incomplete
application to be supplemented within
30 days of the date EPA requests
additional information or fees. In the recertification context, as described in the
preceding paragraph, the firm must
make its application complete by the
date that its current certification
expires. There is no compelling reason
to establish another deadline for making
an incomplete application complete.
d. Amendments. Proposed § 745.89(c)
would require that a firm amend its
certification within 45 days whenever a
change occurred to information
included in the firm’s most recent
application. If the firm failed to amend
its certification within 45 days of the
date the change occurred, the firm
would not be authorized to perform
renovations until its certification was
amended. Examples of amendments
include a change in the firm’s name
without transfer of ownership, or a
change of address or other contact
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information. To amend its certification,
a firm would be required to submit an
application, noting on the form that it
was submitted as an amendment. The
firm would be required to complete the
sections of the application pertaining to
the new information, and sign and date
the form. The amendment would have
to include the correct amount of fees.
Amending a certification would not
affect the validity of the existing
certification or extend the certification
expiration date. EPA would issue the
firm a new certificate if necessary to
reflect information included in the
amendment. Firm certifications are not
transferable--if the firm is sold, the new
owner must submit a new initial
application for certification in
accordance with § 745.89(a).
e. Suspension, revocation, or
modification of certification. EPA is also
proposing, in § 745.91, procedures for
suspending, revoking, or modifying a
firm’s certification. These procedures
are identical to the current procedures
in place for suspending, revoking, or
modifying the certification of a firm that
is certified to perform lead-based paint
activities.
2. Individuals—a. Renovators and
workers. EPA is proposing to establish a
new individual certification discipline
for renovators. All renovation activities
covered by this proposal would have to
be performed by certified renovators, or
by persons who have received on-thejob training in lead-safe work practices
from certified renovators. The certified
renovator assigned to a renovation
would be responsible for ensuring that
the renovation is performed in
compliance with the work practice
requirements of this proposal.
Under the proposal, a certified
renovator must:
• Perform the post-renovation
cleaning verification described in
proposed § 745.85(b).
• Perform or direct uncertified
workers who perform all of the work
practices described in proposed
§ 745.85(a).
• Provide training to uncertified
workers on the lead-safe work practices
they will be using in performing their
assigned tasks, how to isolate the work
area and maintain the integrity of the
containment barriers, and how to avoid
spreading lead contamination beyond
the work area.
• Be physically present at the work
site when the signs required by
proposed § 745.85(a)(1) are posted,
while the work area containment
required by proposed § 745.85(a)(2) is
being established, and while the work
area cleaning required by proposed
§ 745.85(a)(4) is performed.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• Regularly direct the work being
performed by uncertified persons to
ensure that lead-safe work practices are
being followed, the integrity of the
containment barriers is maintained, and
dust or debris is not spread beyond the
work area.
• Be available, either on-site or by
telephone, at all times that renovations
are being conducted.
• Have with them at the work site
copies of their initial course completion
certificate and their most recent
refresher course completion certificate.
In order to use the term ‘‘renovator’’
to cover the new proposed certified
discipline, EPA is proposing to revise
the definition of the term in 40 CFR
745.83 to describe what a renovator is
and how a renovator becomes certified.
EPA is also proposing to modify the
existing Pre-Renovation Education Rule
requirements to replace the word
‘‘renovator’’ with a reference to the firm
performing the renovation wherever the
term appears. This is not intended to
change the requirements of the PreRenovation Education Rule in any
significant way. The effect of this
change is to make it clear that any
person associated with the firm
performing the renovation, not
necessarily the certified renovator, may
handle the firm’s pre-renovation
education responsibilities.
This proposal would not require
everyone involved in performing a
regulated renovation project to be a
certified renovator. To allow maximum
flexibility for firms undertaking these
projects, EPA is proposing to allow
these firms to use uncertified workers to
perform renovation activities as long as
they receive on-the-job training in leadsafe work practices from a certified
renovator. This training must include
instruction in the specific lead-safe
work practices that these workers will
be responsible for performing. To ensure
that renovations are performed safely,
this proposal would require a certified
renovator to be at the work site during
critical phases of the renovation activity
to perform or direct uncertified workers
who perform tasks directly related to
protecting homeowners and occupants
from the hazards of lead dust. These
tasks include posting warning signs,
containing the work area, and cleaning
the work site. The proposed postrenovation cleaning verification
requirements would have to be
performed by a certified renovator, they
could not be delegated to an uncertified
worker.
In addition, while the renovation
project is ongoing, a certified renovator
would have to be present at the work
site on a regular basis in order to ensure
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
that the uncertified workers are
observing lead-safe work practices and
maintaining the integrity of the systems
employed to contain lead dust. When a
certified renovator is not physically
present at the work site, the uncertified
workers must be able to contact the
renovator immediately by telephone or
other mechanism. Because these
workers would be allowed to work
without formal training in protecting
children and other building occupants
(OSHA requires these workers, like all
construction workers, to receive training
in protecting themselves and other
workers from job hazards including
lead), EPA believes that the kind of
limited supervision envisioned by
OSHA’s competent person requirements
or the EPA regulations pertaining to
lead-based paint abatement supervisors
is not sufficient in this situation. A walk
around the job site once every shift is
not enough to ensure that the
uncertified workers are following leadsafe work practices at all times.
EPA realizes that there may be other
ways to achieve the goal of maximizing
flexibility for renovation firms while
ensuring that all persons involved in
performing renovations have sufficient
training and oversight to perform their
tasks in a safe manner. An option EPA
considered was a requirement that a
certified renovator be physically present
at the work site at all times while
regulated renovation activities are
ongoing. EPA believes that this
approach would provide less flexibility
for renovation firms, but requests
comment on whether that is actually the
case, and whether this approach would
significantly improve the quality of the
work performed by uncertified workers.
Another way to provide flexibility for
firms would be to prohibit certified
renovators from being assigned to more
than one job at a time, while not
specifying when a certified renovator
must be present during renovations,
except that only a certified renovator
would be permitted to perform the postrenovation cleaning verification step.
EPA requests comment on whether this
approach would provide flexibility and
decrease costs for renovation firms
without also decreasing the amount of
protection provided by these proposed
regulations. Regardless of the approach
used, EPA anticipates that most
renovation contractors and property
management companies will find that
they achieve maximum efficiency and
flexibility by qualifying all of their
permanent employees who perform
renovations as certified renovators.
EPA considered an individual
certification scheme similar to that
established for lead-based paint
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1607
abatement activities, with a certified
supervisor and certified workers. EPA
does not prefer this option primarily
because of the differences between
renovation projects and abatement
projects. All abatement projects have the
same purpose--to permanently eliminate
lead-based paint hazards. Renovation
projects that involve the disturbance of
paint are performed for many different
reasons, using many different
techniques. As a result, the training
required by EPA for renovators is
necessarily limited to the common
elements of interest to EPA, which are
the methods that a renovator can use to
limit the creation of lead dust, prevent
it from spreading to other parts of the
dwelling, and properly clean it up
afterwards. The containment and cleanup methods that would be required by
this regulation are easy to understand
and simple to use. A certified renovator
who has received accredited training in
these subjects should be able to
communicate the principles of lead-safe
renovation to others with very little
difficulty. In addition, during the
SBREFA panel process, discussed in
greater detail in Unit VIII.C., the
regulated community expressed concern
over training requirements, given the
level of employee turnover in the
industry. Requiring certified renovators,
but allowing firms to use uncertified
workers where necessary, is an attempt
to address this concern while still
ensuring that everyone who performs
regulated renovations understands how
to follow lead-safe work practices.
b. Dust sampling technicians. In 1999,
in order to make accurate dust testing
for lead more available and affordable,
Congress provided EPA with funding for
the development of a 1–day dust
sampling technician course. Congress
also encouraged the Agency to promote
the recognition of this discipline. EPA
completed the development of the
course, entitled ‘‘Lead Sampling
Technician Training Course,’’ in July of
2000. This course provides instruction
on how to conduct a visual assessment
for deteriorated paint, collect samples
for lead dust, and interpret sample
results.
As discussed in Unit IV.E., some
renovators or homeowners may choose
to perform dust clearance testing at the
completion of renovation activities
instead of the post-renovation cleaning
process that EPA is proposing. Dust
clearance testing after abatements must
be performed by a certified inspector or
risk assessor in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR
745.227(e)(8). If dust clearance testing is
to be performed after a renovation, it
would also have to be performed as
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1608
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
directed in § 745.227(e)(8), but EPA is
also proposing to allow certified dust
sampling technicians to perform the
testing. This proposal includes training
and certification requirements for the
dust sampling technician discipline to
help ensure the quality of initial
training, provide for periodic refresher
training to keep dust sampling
technicians up to date regarding current
regulatory and technical protocols, and
assist the public in the identification of
qualified individuals. Dust sampling
technicians would not be subject to any
additional education or experience
requirements beyond completion of an
accredited dust sampling technician
course, nor would they be required to
pass a third-party certification
examination. As with the other certified
disciplines, dust sampling technicians
would be required to obtain recertification every 3 years.
EPA has determined that accredited
dust sampling technicians would be
qualified to perform the work described
in this Unit for renovations because the
training curriculum provides clearance
sampling instruction that is equivalent
to that presented in inspector and risk
assessor courses, in terms of time and
quality.
A certified dust sampling technician
is responsible for collecting dust
samples, sending them to an EPArecognized laboratory, and comparing
the results to the clearance levels in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8).
The certified dust sampling technician
must also have with them at the work
site copies of their initial course
completion certificate and their most
recent refresher course completion
certificate.
c. Initial certification. Proposed
§ 745.90 addresses renovator and dust
sampling technician certification. To
become a certified renovator, a person
would have to successfully complete a
renovator course that has been
accredited by EPA or by a State,
Territorial, or Tribal program authorized
by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart
Q. The renovator course accreditation
requirements are based on the joint
EPA-HUD model curriculum entitled
Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, &
Painting. More information on the
development of this curriculum and the
accreditation of renovator and dust
sampling technician courses can be
found in Unit IV.D. The renovator
course primarily covers how to isolate
and contain renovation projects so that
leaded dust does not escape, how to
minimize the creation of leaded dust,
and how to properly clean up after a
renovation project so that lead-based
paint hazards are not left behind. EPA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
is not proposing to require additional
education or work experience of persons
wishing to become certified renovators.
To become a certified dust sampling
technician, a person would have to
successfully complete a dust sampling
technician training course that has been
accredited either by EPA or by a State,
Territorial, or Tribal program authorized
by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart
Q. The dust sampling technician course
primarily covers dust sampling
methodologies and clearance standards
and testing. EPA is not proposing to
require additional education or work
experience of persons wishing to
become certified dust sampling
technicians.
EPA renovator certification would
allow the certified individual to perform
renovations covered by this section in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program
authorized under 40 CFR part 745,
subpart Q. EPA dust sampling
technician certification would allow the
certified individual to perform dust
sampling covered by this section in any
State or Indian Tribal area that does not
have a renovation program authorized
under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q.
Because EPA is not proposing any
additional education or work experience
requirements, or a third-party
examination similar to that taken by
inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor
candidates, EPA believes that there is
little value in requiring candidates to
apply to EPA to receive their renovator
or dust sampling technician
certification. Currently, the only
certified discipline without
prerequisites in education or
experience, or a third-party
examination, is the abatement worker.
When candidates for worker
certification apply to EPA, EPA verifies
that the copy of the training course
certificate submitted with the
application is from an accredited
training provider. Without requiring
renovators or dust sampling technicians
to apply to EPA for certification, under
this proposal EPA would still receive
course completion information from
course providers. With this information,
under the proposal EPA would be able
to check to see if a particular course
completion certificate holder appeared
on a course completion list submitted
by the training course provider
identified on the certificate. When EPA
inspects a renovation job for compliance
with these proposed regulations, EPA
will have the ability to verify, to the
same extent, the validity of a course
completion certificate held by a
renovator or dust sampling technician at
that job. Therefore, EPA is proposing
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that a course completion certificate from
an accredited training provider serve as
a renovator’s or dust sampling
technician’s certification. To facilitate
compliance monitoring, EPA would
require a certified renovator or dust
sampling technician to have a copy of
the course completion certificate at the
job site.
EPA also considered alternatives such
as requiring renovator and dust
sampling technician candidates to apply
to EPA for certification, following the
same procedures established for worker
certification in 40 CFR 745.226. EPA
also considered requiring a third-party
examination for persons wishing to
become certified renovator or dust
sampling technicians. A third-party
examination would be an additional
check on the adequacy of the training
courses being offered, as well as an
independent assessment of how well a
particular candidate retained the
information presented. On the other
hand, a third-party examination would
significantly increase the burden of
administration and the expense of
complying with these proposed
regulations. EPA requests comment on
these options, as well as EPA’s
assessment of the costs and burdens of
these options.
d. Re-certification. EPA is proposing
to require that renovators and dust
sampling technicians who wish to
remain certified take refresher training
every 3 years. This is consistent with
the existing re-certification interval for
firms and for certified individuals under
40 CFR 745.226. In addition, EPA is
proposing to require that the refresher
training course be half the length of the
initial course. This is also consistent
with current practice for certified
individuals performing lead-based paint
activities. If an individual does not take
a refresher course within 3 years of the
date he or she completed the initial
course or the previous refresher course,
that individual’s certification will
expire on that date and that individual
may no longer serve as a certified
renovator or dust sampling technician
on a renovation project regulated by this
proposal. There would be no grace
period. To become certified again, the
individual would have to take another
initial training course.
EPA also considered an alternative of
requiring certified renovators to re-take
the initial renovator course every 3
years. The primary advantage to such an
approach is that, eventually, renovator
course attendees would be a
combination of experienced renovators
and persons new to the field. This
would allow the experienced persons to
share helpful tips and lessons learned
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
with others and could have a positive
impact on the overall quality of the
training delivered. On the other hand,
longer training requirements mean
increased costs for the regulated
community. In addition, with the
preferred option, certified renovators
would always be permitted to substitute
an initial renovator course for a
refresher course to allow maximum
flexibility, particularly if for some
reason the person was unable to attend
a refresher course. EPA requests
comment on this option on whether 3
years is an appropriate interval for
refresher training, and whether refresher
training should be required at all.
e. Individuals certified to perform
lead-based paint activities. EPA is also
proposing to allow individuals who are
or who become certified lead-based
paint abatement supervisors or workers
to act as certified renovators. These
persons would have to possess a current
and valid certification from EPA or an
EPA-authorized State, Territorial, or
Tribal lead-based paint program. EPA
has determined that the training taken
by candidates for supervisor or worker
certification meets or exceeds the
proposed training requirements for
renovators with respect to many of the
requirements of this proposal. Both
disciplines must receive training in
lead-based paint hazard recognition and
control, as well as dust abatement and
clean-up. However, the proposed postrenovation cleaning verification process,
discussed in Unit IV.E., and the use of
test kits for paint testing is not currently
being taught in abatement supervisor or
worker courses. EPA plans to develop
guidance documents on these processes,
and amend the model curriculum to
cover them. EPA requests comment on
whether an effective guidance document
would be sufficient to familiarize
abatement supervisors and workers with
performing post-renovation cleaning
verification and using paint test kits, or
whether another approach, such as
requiring certified supervisors or
workers to take a renovator refresher
course, would allow the regulated
community to make use of the
workforce already trained in lead-based
paint hazard control, while ensuring
that this workforce understands how to
perform the post-renovation cleaning
verification requirements and use test
kits to test for lead-based paint.
Persons who are or who become
certified lead-based paint inspectors or
risk assessors based on a certification
issued either by EPA under 40 CFR
745.226 or by an authorized State or
Tribal program would be deemed under
the proposal to be certified dust
sampling technicians. Certified
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
inspectors and risk assessors are
qualified to perform dust sampling as
part of lead hazard screens, risk
assessments, or abatements. This rule
would also allow them to perform dust
sampling after renovation activities.
f. Persons who have previously taken
a course in Lead Safe Work Practices or
a Dust Sampling Technician course. For
the purposes of HUD’s Lead Safe
Housing Rule, many individuals have
already taken HUD-approved training in
lead-safe work practices. In addition,
many individuals have taken a dust
sampling technician course based on the
model developed by EPA. EPA is
specifically requesting comment on
whether a streamlined certification
process would be appropriate for these
individuals. For example, in
promulgating the lead-based paint
activities certification requirements at
40 CFR 745.226, EPA allowed persons
who had previously taken worker
training to become certified by EPA as
abatement workers without taking an
accredited initial lead-based paint
worker course. Individuals could
become certified as workers by
demonstrating that they had completed
training (including on-the-job training)
in the conduct of lead-based paint
activities and completing an accredited
worker refresher course. This option
was only available for a limited time. A
similar process could be used for
individuals who have already taken
lead-safe work practices training and
who wish to become certified
renovators, or individuals who have
taken a dust sampling technician course
and who wish to become certified dust
sampling technicians.
g. Suspension, revocation, or
modification of certification. EPA is also
proposing, in § 745.89, procedures for
suspending, revoking, or modifying an
individual’s certification. These
procedures are identical to the current
procedures in place for suspending,
revoking, or modifying the certification
of an individual who is certified to
perform lead-based paint activities.
However, EPA has added a sentence to
this provision to make it clear that
renovator certification could be
suspended, revoked, or modified if the
renovator does not ensure that projects
to which he or she is assigned are
conducted in accordance with the work
practice requirements in this proposal.
3. Training providers. EPA is
proposing to amend the general
accreditation requirements of 40 CFR
745.225 to apply to training programs
that offer renovator or dust sampling
technician courses for certification
purposes. The regulations describe
training program qualifications, quality
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1609
control measures, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, as well as
suspension, revocation, and
modification procedures. Proposed
amendments to § 745.225 would add
specific requirements for the renovator
and dust sampling technician
disciplines. This proposal introduces
minimum training curriculum, training
hour, and hands-on requirements for
courses leading to certification as a
renovator or a dust sampling technician.
The minimum curriculum
requirements for an initial renovator
course are described in proposed
§ 745.225(d)(6). The topics would
include the roles and responsibilities of
a renovator; background information on
lead and its health effects; background
on applicable Federal, State, and local
regulations and guidance; use of
acceptable test kits to test paint to
determine whether it is lead-based
paint; methods to minimize the creation
of lead-based paint hazards during
renovations; containment and clean-up
methods; ways to verify that a
renovation project has been properly
completed, including clean-up
verification and clearance testing; and
waste handling and disposal. Hands-on
activities relating to renovation
methods, containment and clean-up,
clean-up verification, and waste
handling would be required in all
courses. Proposed § 745.225(c)(6)(vi)
would establish the minimum length for
an initial renovator course at 8 training
hours, with 2 hours being devoted to
hands-on activities. A training hour
means at least 50 minutes of actual
learning, including, but not limited to,
time devoted to lecture, learning
activities, small group activities,
demonstrations, evaluations, and handson experience.
The minimum curriculum
requirements for an initial dust
sampling technician course are
described in proposed § 745.225(d)(7).
The topics would include the roles and
responsibilities of a dust sampling
technician; background information on
lead and its adverse health effects;
background information on Federal,
State, and local regulations and
guidance that pertains to lead-based
paint and renovation activities; dust
sampling methodologies; clearance
standards and testing; and report
preparation and recordkeeping
requirements. Proposed
§ 745.225(c)(6)(vii) would establish the
minimum length for an initial dust
sampling technician course at 8 training
hours, with 2 hours being devoted to
hands-on activities.
Accreditation would also be required
for refresher training courses for
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1610
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
renovators and dust sampling
technicians. Refresher courses would
consist of, at a minimum, 4 hours of
training. Topics covered would have to
include a review of the topics covered
in the initial renovator or dust sampling
technician course, along with general
lead-based paint safety practices and
technologies.
EPA requests comment on whether all
of the topics that should be covered in
the renovator and dust sampling
technician courses are included, and
whether hands-on activities should be
required. EPA also requests comment on
whether the specified training hour
requirements for the initial and
refresher courses are sufficient or
excessive. In addition, EPA requests
comment on whether minimum training
hour requirements should be specified
for these courses. EPA is concerned that
such requirements may limit training
provider flexibility without offering a
substantial contribution to the quality of
training.
Renovator and dust sampling
technician courses, both initial and
refresher, could be taught in any
language, but accreditation would be
required for each specific language the
provider wished to present the course
in. All course materials and instruction
for the course would have to be in the
language of the course. EPA is
proposing to modify § 745.225(b)(1)(ii)
to clarify that all lead-based paint
courses taught in different languages are
considered different courses, and
accreditation must be obtained for each.
To facilitate accreditation of courses in
languages other than English, EPA is
proposing to require that the training
provider include in its application both
the English version as well as the nonEnglish version of all training materials,
as well as a signed statement from a
qualified, independent translator that
the translator has compared the nonEnglish language version of the course
materials to the English language
version and the translation is accurate.
This requirement would apply to any
course for which accreditation is sought,
including lead-based paint activities
courses. Finally, to assist EPA in
monitoring compliance with these
requirements, EPA is proposing to
require that course completion
certificates include the language in
which the course was taught.
EPA is also proposing to modify the
requirements for course completion
certificates to make it clear that the
interim certification expiration date
applies only to initial lead-based paint
activities courses. The concept of
interim certification is not applicable to
refresher courses, nor would it be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
applicable to the proposed certification
requirements for renovators or dust
sampling technicians.
Consistent with the existing
accreditation requirements for leadbased paint activities training programs,
alternative training techniques (e.g.,
video training, computer-based training)
may be used as a supplement to the
hands-on skills assessment or as a
substitute for the lecture portion of the
training course requirements. All
training programs, including those using
alternative training methods, would be
required to meet minimum hourly
requirements for hands-on activities in
their training courses. In addition, all
training programs would have to
administer a course test and conduct a
hands-on skills assessment.
As currently required for training
providers who wish to offer lead-based
paint activities courses, training
providers who would like to provide
courses leading to renovator or dust
sampling technician certification, or
refresher training courses in those
disciplines, would have to apply to EPA
for accreditation and pay an
accreditation fee. The application would
have to include a description of the
facilities to be used for training, a
description of the methods to be used to
present hands-on activities, the
blueprint for the course test, and the
quality control plan. In addition, the
proposal provides that if the training
provider will not be using EPArecommended model course materials,
or course materials approved by an
EPA-authorized State or Tribal program,
the application must include copies of
all course materials, including the
agenda or syllabus.
D. Renovation Activities
EPA is proposing to require that all
renovations subject to this rule be
conducted in accordance with a defined
set of work practice standards. TSCA
section 402(a)(1) directs EPA to
promulgate regulations that, among
other things, contain standards for
performing lead-based paint activities,
taking into account reliability,
effectiveness, and safety. In revising
those regulations to apply to renovation
activities, EPA is proposing more
specific work practice standards for
firms performing renovations than are
currently required for certified firms
conducting lead-based paint abatement
activities regulated by 40 CFR part 745,
subpart L. These more specific
standards are necessary, because unlike
abatement firms, under this proposal
renovation firms would not be required
to conduct clearance testing at the
conclusion of renovation activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Clearance testing serves as a
performance standard under the
abatement regulations, allowing firms
flexibility when establishing and
cleaning a work area. Without such a
performance indicator for renovation it
is necessary to more specifically
describe work practices and conditions
at a work site in order to protect the
occupants and ensure that new leadbased paint hazards are not introduced
to the home. The proposed renovation
work practices are consistent with the
joint EPA-HUD curriculum, Lead Safety
for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting (Ref.
52). EPA requests comment on the work
practice, cleaning, and cleaning
verification requirements discussed in
greater detail in this Unit.
1. Background. As was discussed in
Unit III.B.3., HUD developed its
Guidelines for the Evaluation and
Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in
Housing in response to a directive in
Title X. The Guidelines provide
detailed, comprehensive technical
information on how to identify leadbased paint hazards in housing and how
to control such hazards safely and
efficiently. The Guidelines were the
result of The HUD Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Demonstration (FHA) that
evaluated various lead-based paint
hazard control methodologies both for
effectiveness in reducing the lead
hazard and for amount of lead dust
generated (Ref. 53), as well as a number
of other research projects. The
Guidelines were developed in close
consultation with EPA, CDC, OSHA,
several other Federal agencies, and
numerous experts and practitioners.
While the primary purpose of the
Guidelines is to provide guidance to
people involved in identifying and
controlling lead-based paint hazards in
Federally assisted housing, they have
also proven to be useful in housing that
has no connection with the Federal
government. The Guidelines have been
accepted as the de facto standard for
evaluation and reduction of lead
hazards. EPA’s training and certification
program under TSCA sections 402 and
404 recognizes the Guidelines and their
recommendations. The Guidelines
complement such regulatory programs
because they provide more complete
work practice recommendations and
explain why certain measures are
recommended.
EPA relied on the Guidelines in
developing draft technical specifications
for renovation, repair, and painting
activities (Ref. 54). While the Guidelines
are focused on work practices associated
with hazard reduction (permanent or
temporary elimination of existing lead
hazards), they also provide detailed
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
information relevant to renovation (i.e.,
containment, and cleaning). In addition,
the Guidelines have a useful section
devoted to routine building
maintenance. While the activities
considered in this section are often
small-scale, and do not encompass the
wide range of potential renovation work
projects, they were extremely helpful in
formulating work practice standards
that are intended to be scalable based
upon the activity being performed.
EPA’s draft technical specifications
were developed in September 1998 with
the assistance of the National Center for
Lead Safe Housing (now known as the
National Center for Healthy Homes) in
consultation with a group of technical
experts. The specifications described
the precautions needed to ensure that
lead-contaminated dust and debris are
minimized, controlled and properly
cleaned up. The technical specifications
themselves were developed to be
applicable both to contractors and to
homeowners who perform these
activities without the aid of a contractor.
However, the specifications document
itself was not intended for use by the
general public or contractors; it was
developed to provide background
information and serve as a reference for
EPA to prepare technical materials,
including a training curriculum.
Following completion of the draft
technical specifications, EPA began
development of a model renovation
training curriculum. In September 2000,
EPA completed development of the
curriculum Minimizing Lead-Based
Paint Hazards During Renovation,
Remodeling, and Painting (Ref. 55). The
model curriculum was developed with
the assistance of a review panel of
representatives from state regulatory
programs, lead advocacy groups,
renovation contractors, EPA, HUD, and
NIOSH. The course was developed to
provide strategies to reduce or eliminate
the introduction of hazards that occur
when lead-based paint is disturbed. The
curriculum was revised, in consultation
with HUD, and renamed Lead Safety for
Remodeling, Repair, & Painting in July
2003 (Ref. 52). The revised curriculum
is one of several courses approved for
training purposes under HUD’s Lead
Safe Housing Rule. The course
represented a major Agency effort to
protect public health from lead-based
paint hazards associated with
renovation and repainting activities, and
was intended to be a model training
curriculum for future regulations. Upon
completion of the course, EPA made the
model curriculum publicly available
and encouraged renovation contractors
to voluntarily obtain training.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
This proposal presents basic work
practice standards derived from the
model training course, draft technical
manual, and the Guidelines, among
other sources. These practices provide
standards as to how the work must be
done in order to protect occupants from
lead hazards. While the standards
provide basic requirements for occupant
protection, site preparation, and cleanup, the course provides more complete
guidance on how activities should be
carried out and why certain measures
are recommended.
EPA requests comment on whether
there may be situations where some or
all of these proposed lead safe work
practices are not necessary. For
example, where housing is not occupied
during the renovation process, some or
all of the lead safe work practice
requirements may not be necessary. In
those cases, cleanup and cleaning
verification may be sufficient. The
Agency requests comment on the
requirements that should apply in
unoccupied housing, and also on
whether there should be differential
requirements for other situations.
2. Proposed work practice
standards—a. Occupant protection.
Under proposed § 745.85(a)(1), work
areas must be clearly defined with signs
warning occupants and other persons
not involved in renovation activities to
remain outside of the work area. These
signs must be posted before beginning
the renovation and must remain in place
until the renovation has been completed
and the work area has been verified to
have been adequately cleaned. If
warning signs have been posted in
accordance with HUD’s Lead Safe
Housing Rule (24 CFR 35.1345(b)(2)) or
OSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard
(29 CFR 1926.62(m)), additional signs
are not required by this proposal.
b. Containing the work area. Under
proposed § 745.85(a)(2), a firm must
contain the work area so that no visible
dust or debris leaves the work area
while the renovation is being
performed. Containment refers to
methods of preventing leaded dust from
contaminating objects in the work area
and from migrating beyond the work
area. It includes everything from the
simple use of disposable plastic drop
cloths to the sealing of openings with
plastic sheeting. When planning a
renovation project, special
consideration should be given to
determining the type of work site
preparation necessary to prevent dust
and debris from leaving the work area.
Renovation projects generate varying
amounts of leaded dust, paint chips,
and other lead-contaminated materials
depending on the type of work, area
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1611
affected, and work methods used.
Repairing a small area of damaged
drywall is likely to generate less leadcontaminated dust and debris than
sanding a large area in preparation for
painting. Because of this variability, the
size of the area that must be isolated and
the containment methods used will vary
from project to project. Large renovation
projects could involve one or more
rooms and potentially encompass an
entire home or building, while small
projects may require only a minimal
amount of containment. The necessary
work area preparations will depend on
the size of the surface(s) being
disturbed, the method used in
disturbing the surface, and the building
layout. The certified renovator assigned
to a renovation would weigh all of these
factors in determining the appropriate
work area size and preparation level for
that particular situation. For example,
repairing a small area of damaged
drywall would probably require a
smaller work area and minimal
preparation while demolition work
would probably require a larger work
area and extensive preparation in order
to prevent the migration of dust and
debris from the work area. The certified
renovator is responsible for weighing all
of these factors and designing a system
of containment that ensures that no dust
and debris leaves the work area. EPA is
proposing to define the term ‘‘work
area’’ as the area that the certified
renovator establishes to contain all of
the dust and debris generated by a
renovation, based on the certified
renovator’s evaluation of the extent and
nature of the activity and the specific
work practices that will be used.
i. Interior renovations. At a minimum,
interior work area preparations must
include removing or covering all objects
in the work area, closing and covering
all forced air HVAC ducts in the work
area, closing all windows in the work
area, closing and sealing all doors in the
work area, and covering the floor
surface, including installed carpet, with
taped-down plastic sheeting in the work
area. Doors within the work area that
must be used while the job is being
performed must be covered with plastic
sheeting or other impermeable material
in a manner that allows workers to pass
through, while confining dust and
debris to the work area. In addition, all
personnel, tools, and other items,
including the exterior of containers of
waste, must be free of dust and debris
when leaving the work area.
Alternatively, the paths used to reach
the exterior of the home must be
covered with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material to prevent the
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1612
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
spread of lead contaminated dust and
debris outside the work area.
ii. Exterior renovations. For exterior
projects, work area preparations must
include, at a minimum, covering the
ground with plastic sheeting or other
disposable impermeable material
extending out from the edge of the
structure a sufficient distance to collect
falling paint debris, closing all doors
and windows within 20 feet of the
outside of the work area on the same
floor as the renovation, and closing all
doors and windows on the floors below
that area. For example, if the renovation
involves sanding a 5-foot by 5-foot area
of paint on the third floor of a building,
and that side of the building is only 40
feet long, all doors and windows on that
side of the third floor must be closed, as
well as all of the doors and windows on
that side of the second and first floors.
In situations where other buildings are
in close proximity to the work area, or
where the work area abuts a property
line, the firm performing the renovation
may have to take extra precautions in
containing the work area to ensure that
dust and debris from the renovation
does not contaminate other buildings or
migrate to adjacent property. In
addition, doors within the work area
that must be used while the job is being
performed must be covered with plastic
sheeting or other impermeable material
in a manner that allows workers to pass
through while confining dust and debris
to the work area.
iii. Prohibited practices. Under the
current regulations for lead- based paint
abatement activities, certain practices
are prohibited in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(6).
These practices are open flame burning
or torching of lead-based paint; machine
sanding, grinding, abrasive blasting, or
sandblasting of lead-based paint except
when done with HEPA exhaust control;
dry scraping of lead based-paint except
around electrical outlets or for any area
no more than 2 ft2 in any one room,
hallway, or stairwell, or for any area no
more than 20 ft2 on exterior surfaces;
and operating a heat gun at 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit or higher.
Unlike with abatement, EPA is
proposing to allow the use of these
practices during renovation activities.
The Agency understands that, because
these practices are commonly used
during renovation work, prohibiting
such practices could make certain jobs,
such as preparing a surface for new
painting, extremely difficult, if not
impossible. For example, contractors
indicated there may be no practical way
to restore old and historic millwork
other than open flame burning, and that
prohibiting dry scraping and sanding
would cause many problems because
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
wet sanding tends to raise the grain of
wood surfaces preventing a smooth
finish which consumers demand. The
Agency believes that proper training, in
combination with appropriate
containment and cleanup requirements,
is safe, effective, and reliable in
preventing the introduction of new leadbased paint hazards. EPA is seeking
comment regarding the prohibition of
these practices, and specifically whether
different prohibitions should apply to
interior and exterior renovations.
Although EPA is proposing to allow
the use of these practices, other Federal,
State, and local requirements may
govern these practices and renovations
in general. Persons performing
renovations should check to see
whether other regulations, including the
OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1926.62,
apply to their projects.
c. Waste from renovations.
Renovation projects can generate a
considerable amount of waste material.
Lead-contaminated building
components and work area debris must
be handled carefully to prevent the
release of lead-contaminated dust and
debris. EPA is concerned that allowing
the storage of lead-contaminated waste
where it may be accessible to residents
and others could cause a lead-based
paint hazard. Therefore, under proposed
§ 745.85(a)(3) a firm would be required,
at the conclusion of each work day, to
store any collected lead-based paint
waste from renovation activities under
containment, in an enclosure, or behind
a barrier that prevents release of dust
and debris and prevents access to the
waste.
In addition, transporting lead-based
paint waste in uncovered vehicles is a
possible source of releases in the form
of paint chips or dust. The proposal
would require renovation firms
transporting lead-based paint waste
from a work site to contain the waste to
prevent identifiable releases, e.g., inside
a plastic garbage bag.
In a policy issued on July 31, 2000,
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
clarified that both homeowners and
contractors can be eligible for the
hazardous waste exclusion under 40
CFR 261.4(b)(1) for lead-based paint
wastes generated from renovation and
remodeling activities in households,
including single and multiple
residences. This conclusion was based
on the fact that both the definition of
‘‘household waste’’ in 40 CFR
261.4(b)(1) and the Agency’s criteria for
determining the scope of the exclusion
focus on the type of waste generated and
the place of generation rather than the
identity of the waste generator.
Therefore, under this clarification, lead-
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based paint waste may be disposed of in
municipal solid waste landfill units, as
long as those wastes are generated
during abatement or renovation and
remodeling activities in households
(Ref. 56).
On June 18, 2003, EPA amended its
regulations to provide an additional
option for disposal of this waste (Ref.
57). Having clarified that lead-based
paint waste generated through
abatements and renovation and
remodeling activities in residential
settings could be disposed of in
municipal solid waste landfill units,
EPA also wanted to offer the option of
disposing of this waste in construction
and demolition (C&D) landfills.
Accordingly, EPA amended 40 CFR
258.2 to add definitions for
‘‘construction and demolition (C&D)
landfill’’ and ‘‘residential lead-based
paint waste’’ and to amend the
definition of ‘‘municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF) unit.’’ The primary
purpose of these amendments was to
allow a C&D landfill to accept
residential lead-based paint waste
without becoming a municipal solid
waste landfill unit and having to
comply with RCRA requirements for
such units.
When disposing of waste from
renovation activities, the certified
renovator should follow all applicable
Federal, State, and local requirements.
d. Cleaning the work area. Under
proposed § 745.85(a)(4), a firm would be
required to clean the work area to
remove visible dust, debris or residue,
as well as dust particles too small to be
seen by the naked eye. All renovation
activities that disturb painted surfaces
can produce dangerous quantities of
leaded dust. Because very small
particles of leaded dust are easily
absorbed by the body when ingested or
inhaled, a small amount can create a
health hazard for young children.
Unless this dust is properly removed,
renovation and remodeling activities are
likely to introduce new lead-based paint
hazards. Therefore, careful cleaning is
required. Improper cleaning can
increase the cost of a project
considerably because additional
cleaning may be necessary during postrenovation cleaning verification.
Although it may not be possible to
remove all leaded dust generated by the
renovation, it is possible to reduce it
below levels that EPA has determined to
be hazardous.
The proposal specifies that, upon
completion of renovation activities, all
paint chips and debris must be picked
up. Protective sheeting must be misted
and folded dirty side inward, using care
to trap any remaining dust. Sheeting
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
used to isolate contaminated rooms
from non-contaminated rooms must
remain in place until after the cleaning
and removal of other sheeting; this
sheeting must then be misted and
removed last. Removed sheeting must
be either folded and taped shut to seal
or sealed in heavy-duty bags and
disposed of as waste.
After the sheeting has been removed
from the work area, the entire area must
be cleaned. The walls, starting from the
ceiling and working down to the floor,
would have to be vacuumed with a
vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter or
wiped with a damp cloth. The proposal
would require that all remaining
surfaces and objects in the work area,
including floors, furniture and fixtures,
be thoroughly vacuumed with a vacuum
equipped with a HEPA filter. When
cleaning carpets, the HEPA-equipped
vacuum must be equipped with a beater
bar to aid in dislodging and collecting
deep dust and lead from carpets. The
beater bar must be used on all passes on
the carpet face during dry vacuuming.
Where feasible, floor surfaces
underneath a rug or carpeting must also
be thoroughly vacuumed with a HEPAequipped vacuum. This cleaning step is
intended to remove as much dust and
remaining debris as possible.
EPA requests comment on whether
the rule should allow the use of
vacuums other than vacuums equipped
with HEPA filters. HEPA filters were
first developed by the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission during World War
II to capture microscopic radioactive
particles that existing filters could not
remove. HEPA filters have the ability to
capture particles of 0.3 microns with
99.97% efficiency. Particles both larger
and smaller than 0.3 microns are easier
to catch. Thus, HEPA filters capture
these particles with 100% efficiency.
Available information indicates that
lead particles generated by renovation
activities range in size from over 20
microns to 0.3 microns or less (Ref. 58).
It has been suggested that vacuums not
equipped with HEPA filters fail to
capture smaller lead particles, and that
these vacuums are more likely to
recirculate these particles to the air
instead. EPA is concerned that the
unintended release of lead particles into
the air during cleaning activities may
not only cause unintended dust lead
hazards in the work area, but that it
could impact other areas of the dwelling
unit. EPA requests comment on whether
there are other vacuums that have the
same efficiency at capturing the smaller
lead particles as HEPA-equipped
vacuums, along with any data that
would support this performance
equivalency and whether this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
performance specification is appropriate
for leaded dust cleanup. EPA also
requests comment on whether the rule
should allow other types of vacuums in
addition to HEPA-equipped vacuums,
given that the OSHA Lead in
Construction standard, at 29 CFR
1926.62(h)(4), requires that vacuums be
equipped with HEPA filters where
vacuums are used.
After vacuuming, all surfaces and
objects in the work area, except for
walls and carpeted or upholstered
surfaces, must be wiped with a damp
cloth. Uncarpeted floors must be
thoroughly mopped using a 2-bucket
mopping method that keeps the wash
water separate from the rinse water, or
using a wet mopping system with
disposable absorbent cleaning pads and
a built-in mechanism for distributing or
spraying cleaning solution from a
reservoir onto a floor.
These special cleaning methods and
procedures are typically not standard
operating procedure for general home
improvement contractors. Therefore,
this proposal seeks to train renovators
and establish work practice standards
that renovators must follow to ensure no
lead-based paint hazards are introduced
as a result of a renovation.
When cleaning following an exterior
renovation, under the proposal all paint
chips and debris must be picked up.
Protective sheeting used for
containment must be misted with water.
All sheeting must be folded carefully
from the corners or ends to the middle
to trap any remaining dust. The sheeting
must be disposed of as waste.
EPA invites comment on all aspects of
its proposed work practice standards.
EPA is especially interested in studies
showing the effectiveness of each
component of its proposed work
practices, as well as the effectiveness of
these components in combination. As
noted in the Draft Economic Analysis
for this proposed rule, discussed in
greater detail in Unit VIII.A., the Agency
assumes that the specified combination
of warning signs, containment barriers,
cleaning measures, and the postrenovation cleaning verification process
discussed in the next section, taken
together, will result in lead dust levels
at or below the dust-lead hazard
standards established at 40 CFR
745.65(b). The available data, however,
does not support a quantitative
assessment of the independent
efficiency of each of these measures.
E. Cleaning Verification
1. Background. The goal of this
proposed rule is to ensure that leadbased paint hazards are not created and
left behind after residential renovations.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1613
To achieve this goal, EPA has outlined
training requirements to provide
renovators with information and
techniques on how to minimize the lead
dust they produce during renovation
activities and the appropriate methods
for cleaning the work area after a
renovation has been completed. The
Agency has also proposed a series of
work practice standards that must be
followed during renovations. In
addition, to achieve the goal of ensuring
that residential renovations do not
increase exposure to lead-based paint
hazards, EPA has determined that
additional cleaning verification
procedures are necessary.
However, requiring dust clearance
sampling after each renovation project,
as is done for abatements, would be
problematic for several reasons. Dust
clearance sampling, which is required
after abatements, may be very
expensive. The costs can be attributed to
two major factors: the cost of trained
personnel to collect the samples and the
cost of the laboratory analysis. EPA
estimates the cost of three dust samples
to be approximately $160 to collect and
analyze. If EPA were to require dust
clearance sampling after every
renovation project, it would make up a
significant portion of the cost of smaller
projects. More information on the costs
of dust clearance sampling can be found
in Unit VIII.A. and in EPA’s draft
economic analysis of the impacts of this
proposal (Ref. 59). In addition, dust
clearance sampling takes a great deal of
time. Laboratory results may not be
available for several days, during which
time the work area cannot be reoccupied.
On the other hand, a visual
inspection, while less expensive and
less time-consuming than dust clearance
sampling, does not provide sufficient
assurance that the renovation activities
have not increased the potential for
exposure to lead-based paint hazards.
Recent studies indicate that visual
inspection alone is not a reliable and
effective method for identifying the
presence of a lead-based paint hazard
after cleaning (Ref. 60).
In addition, one of the significant
difficulties associated with requiring
clearance after renovation projects is the
difference in focus and scope between
abatement projects and renovations. The
purpose of an abatement project is to
permanently eliminate lead-based paint
and lead-based paint hazards. It is
therefore perfectly appropriate to
require an assurance that the abatement
firm has, in fact, eliminated these
hazards. However, renovations may be
performed for many reasons, most of
which have nothing to do with
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1614
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
eliminating lead-based paint hazards.
Moreover, if clearance using dust wipes
were required after every renovation job,
it could have the effect of holding the
renovation firm responsible for abating
all dust-lead hazards, including such
hazards that may have existed in the
area before the renovation commenced.
During the public meetings in 1998 and
1999, as well as during the SBREFA
panel process, discussed in Unit VIII.C.,
contractors pointed out that, if postrenovation clearance sampling were
required, the contractors would have to
protect themselves by collecting prerenovation dust samples, to ensure that
they would not be held liable for preexisting hazards. EPA understands this
concern and has attempted to address it
by finding an alternative to dust
clearance sampling. The goal of this
proposal is to ensure any potential leadbased paint hazards created during the
actual renovation project are cleaned up
by the renovation firm. EPA requests
comment on all of the available methods
for achieving this goal, including visual
inspections, dust clearance testing, and
the proposed post-renovation cleaning
verification process described below.
EPA also requests comment on whether
any cleanup verification is necessary,
given the proposed cleaning
requirements described above.
2. Disposable Cleaning Cloth/White
Glove Study. EPA began looking for an
alternative to dust clearance sampling
that would be quick, inexpensive,
reliable, and easy to perform. EPA
conducted a series of studies using
commercially available disposable
cleaning cloths to determine whether
variations of a ‘‘white glove’’ test could
serve as an effective alternative to dust
clearance sampling. White disposable
cleaning cloths were used to wipe
windowsills and wipe floors, then
examined to determine whether dust
was visible on the cloth. This
determination was made by visually
comparing the cloth to a photographic
standard that EPA developed to
correlate to a level of contamination that
is below the dust lead hazard standard
in 40 CFR 745.65(b). Cloths that
matched the standard were considered
to have achieved ‘‘white glove.’’
Initial studies focused on dry, or
electrostatic, disposable cleaning cloths
(dry cloths). These cloths were used to
wipe a windowsill or a section of floor
until a cloth had achieved ‘‘white
glove.’’ Then, dust samples were
collected to determine whether the
windowsill or floor had also achieved
clearance. These studies were
conducted both in vacant buildings,
where the amount of leaded dust on the
surfaces was uncontrolled and no pre-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
cleaning was done, and in a controlled
laboratory setting. The results of these
studies indicate that dry cloths are most
effective in predicting clearance through
the ‘‘white glove’’ test when the initial
lead levels are between 40 µg/ft2 and
200 µg/ft2.
EPA then began looking at wet
disposable cleaning cloths (wet cloths)
as a means to improve the effectiveness
of dry cloths. In a controlled setting, the
effectiveness of various combinations of
dry cloths and wet cloths were tested,
using a leaded dust loading of 1,600 µg/
ft2. The first protocol tested used only
dry cloths--after ‘‘white glove’’ was
achieved, the surface was wiped with
two more dry cloths. This protocol led
to a false negative error rate of 30%,
meaning that in 30% of the cases,
‘‘white glove’’ was achieved, but dust
sampling indicated that the surface lead
levels exceeded 40 µg/ft2. This
procedure was performed again, and
followed by one wiping with a wet
cloth. With this protocol, all 12 of the
tests performed resulted in levels below
the clearance standard, or a false
negative error rate of 0%. Finally, the
original dry cloth protocol was used,
until ‘‘white glove’’ was achieved, and
then followed by one mopping with a
wet cloth. This simplified protocol
achieved a false negative error rate of
10%.
The promising results of this
controlled study led to a field test of
three potential protocols: Dry cloths to
‘‘white glove,’’ dry cloths to ‘‘white
glove’’ followed by one wet cloth, and
wet cloths to ‘‘white glove.’’ This field
test was performed in vacant housing
units. Lead levels were determined
before testing began, but no cleaning
was performed. The results of this field
test were as follows: On floors, 91.5% of
the surfaces that achieved ‘‘white glove’’
using only dry cloths also achieved
clearance, while 97.3% of the floors that
achieved ‘‘white glove’’ using only wet
cloths also achieved clearance. In
addition, 10 of the 11 floors where
‘‘white glove’’ was not achieved using
dry cloths, and 20 of the 21 floors where
‘‘white glove’’ was not achieved using
wet cloths, achieved clearance anyway.
Unexpectedly, the protocol using dry
cloths to ‘‘white glove’’ followed by one
wet cloth was the least successful
protocol--the false negative error rate for
this protocol was nearly 20%.
Windowsills were also tested during
this part of the study, but only the alldry-cloth protocol and the all-wet-cloth
protocol were used. For the dry cloth
protocol, 96.4% of the sills that
achieved ‘‘white glove’’ also achieved
clearance, and the one sill that did not
achieve ‘‘white glove’’ still passed
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
clearance. For the wet cloth protocol, all
of the sills that achieved ‘‘white glove’’
also achieved clearance, as did the four
sills that did not reach ‘‘white glove.’’
The floors in the housing units tested
in this portion of the study were in
vacant buildings that had high levels of
accumulated lead that was often
encrusted on the surface as part of a
hard, gummy layer. In the case where
false negative results were seen, it was
primarily due to the moisture from the
wet cloth loosening lead after the
‘‘white glove’’ was achieved with the
wet cloth.
The final report for these studies and
the earlier studies, entitled Electrostatic
Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in
Residential Housing, underwent an
external peer review process. The final
report, including the Quality Assurance
Project Plan, the photographic
comparison standards, the comments
from the peer reviewers, and EPA’s
response to the comments from the peer
reviewers, has been placed into this
docket (Ref. 61). EPA also requests
comments on the conclusions drawn
from this study, as well as on the study
itself. EPA is particularly interested in
information or data on the Agency’s
conclusions that this approach is
practical and provides reliable
information on removal of lead hazards
and that renovators will be able to use
a reference card to properly assess when
‘‘white glove’’ is achieved.
3. Steps for cleaning verification.
Based on these study results, EPA is not
proposing to require dust clearance
sampling after any renovations. Instead,
for interior renovations, EPA is
proposing to require an additional postcleaning verification step following the
visual inspection. This step involves
wiping the interior windowsills and
floors with a wet disposable cleaning
cloth and, if necessary, a dry disposable
cleaning cloth, and comparing it to a
cleaning verification card that EPA will
develop and distribute. A prototype of
this card has been placed in the docket
(Ref. 62). The purpose of this step is to
verify that horizontal surfaces where
dust will settle have been adequately
cleaned. The specific post-renovation
cleaning verification requirements are
proposed as follows.
a. Visual inspection. A certified
renovator must perform a visual
inspection to determine whether visible
dust, debris, or residue is still present in
the work area. If such dust, debris, or
residue is present, these conditions
must be eliminated. If the renovation
involved is an interior renovation, these
conditions must be eliminated by recleaning the work area as directed in
proposed § 745.85(a)(4). After an
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
exterior work area passes the visual
inspection, the project has been
properly completed and the warning
signs may be removed. After an interior
work area passes the visual inspection,
the cleaning of each windowsill and
uncarpeted floor within the work area
must be verified as discussed in this
Unit.
b. Interior windowsills. For interior
renovations, after the work area has
been cleaned and has passed the visual
inspection, a certified renovator must
wipe each interior windowsill (also
known as a stool) in the work area with
a wet disposable cleaning cloth. All wet
cloths used in the post-renovation
cleaning verification process must be at
least damp to the touch, and must
remain so during the process. After
wiping each windowsill with a wet
cloth, the certified renovator must
compare the cloth to the cleaning
verification card. If the cloth matches
the card, that windowsill has passed the
post-renovation cleaning verification. If
the cloth does not match the card, that
windowsill must be re-cleaned in
accordance with proposed
§ 745.85(a)(4)(ii). After the windowsill
has been re-cleaned, the certified
renovator must wipe that windowsill
with a new wet cloth, or the same one
folded so that an unused surface is
exposed, and compare it to the cleaning
verification card. If the cloth matches
the card, that windowsill has passed. If
not, the windowsill must be re-cleaned
again and left to dry.
To perform this verification on a
windowsill, the certified renovator must
wait for one hour after the surface has
been re-cleaned or until the surface has
dried, whichever is longer. Then, the
certified renovator must wipe the
windowsill with a dry disposable
cleaning cloth and compare it to the
cleaning verification card. This process
must be repeated until a dry cloth, or a
folded section of a dry cloth, that has
wiped the windowsill matches the
cleaning verification card. At that point,
that windowsill has passed the postrenovation cleaning verification process.
Each windowsill in the work area must
pass the post-renovation cleaning
verification process.
EPA considered requiring that
certified renovators repeat the process of
cleaning and then wiping with a wet
disposable cleaning cloth until each
windowsill and each section of
uncarpeted floor within the work area
achieved post-renovation cleaning
verification with a wet cloth. The
disposable cleaning cloth studies
suggest that it is possible that some
floors may never achieve verification
with a wet cloth. Verification on floors
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
that are in poor condition or floors with
built-up layers of grime may be
particularly difficult. In the second field
study of disposable cleaning cloths,
there were 21 floors that did not achieve
‘‘white glove,’’ even after 15 separate
wipings with a fresh wet cloth.
However, 20 of these floors passed
clearance through dust sampling.
Therefore, for each windowsill and
for those sections of the floor that did
not achieve post-renovation cleaning
verification using the wet cloths, EPA is
proposing to require that after the
second re-cleaning, the surface be
allowed to dry, and then a dry
disposable cleaning cloth verification
process be performed. The dry cloth
may be less likely to dissolve additional
layers of built-up grime, which may
have contributed to the phenomenon of
floors passing clearance, but not
achieving ‘‘white glove’’ with the wet
cloths. In addition, lead dust trapped in
built-up layers of grime is not likely to
be the result of a current renovation
activity.
c. Floors. After the windowsills in the
work area have passed the postrenovation cleaning verification, a
certified renovator must wipe the floor
surfaces in the work area with a wet
disposable cleaning cloth. Wiping of
floors must be done with an application
device consisting of a long handle and
a head to which the wet cloth is
attached. This will help the certified
renovator apply fairly constant pressure
over the floor surface. Again, the wet
cloth must remain at least damp to the
touch throughout this process. During
the field studies, the cloths tended to
dry out as they were used over large
areas, or on more porous floor surfaces.
As the cloths dry out, they pick up less
dust. To ensure that the cloths remained
damp during the field studies, the
persons performing the wiping were
directed to use each wet cloth on no
more than 40 ft2 of floor area (Ref. 63).
EPA is proposing to require the same for
the purposes of post-renovation
cleaning verification, but requests
comment on whether this is an
appropriate size cut-off. If the floor
surface in the work area exceeds 40 ft2,
the certified renovator would divide the
floor surface into sections, each section
being less than 40 ft2, and perform the
post-renovation cleaning verification on
each section separately.
If the wet cloth used to wipe a
particular section of floor matches the
cleaning verification card, that section
has passed the post-renovation cleaning
verification. If, however, on the first
wiping of a section of the floor surface,
the wet cloth does not match the
cleaning verification card, the surface of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1615
that section of the floor must be recleaned in accordance with proposed
§ 745.85(a)(4)(ii). After re-cleaning, the
renovator must wipe that section of the
floor again using a new wet cloth. If the
wet cloth matches the cleaning
verification card, that section of the
floor has passed. If the wet cloth does
not match the verification card, that
section of the floor must be re-cleaned
as directed in proposed § 745.85(a)(4)(ii)
and left to dry.
For those sections of the floor that did
not achieve post-renovation cleaning
verification using the wet cloths, the
certified renovator must wait for 1 hour
after the floor has been re-cleaned or
until the floor has dried, whichever is
longer. Then, the certified renovator
must wipe those sections of the floor
with a dry disposable cleaning cloth and
compare it to the cleaning verification
card. This wiping must also be
performed using an application device
with a long handle and a head to which
the dry cloth is attached. This process
must be repeated until a dry cloth that
has wiped all of the sections of the floor
that have not yet passed verification
matches the cleaning verification card.
At that point, the entire floor has passed
the post-renovation cleaning verification
process and the warning signs may be
removed.
EPA believes that adherence to this
post-renovation cleaning verification
protocol, in combination with the
proposed training, containment, and
cleaning requirements is a safe, reliable
and effective system of ensuring that
renovation activities do not result in an
increased risk of exposure to lead-based
paint hazards. In the great majority of
cases, windowsills and floors that
achieve post-renovation cleaning
verification will also pass dust clearance
sampling. EPA specifically requests
comment on the elements of the
proposed protocol, especially with
regard to their efficacy and utility. EPA
also requests comments on whether the
reliability of the cleaning verification
would be improved if it were performed
by an individual who had not
previously participated in the
renovation activity, for example,
another certified renovator in the
renovation firm.
d. Carpets. As a final step in the
renovation process, EPA is proposing
that after containment is removed, the
work area be thoroughly cleaned. For
floors, the proposal would require
vacuuming with a HEPA-equipped
vacuum. When cleaning carpets, the
vacuum would have to be equipped
with a beater bar to aid in dislodging
and collecting leaded dust. EPA believes
that use of the HEPA-equipped vacuum
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1616
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
equipped with a beater bar to dislodge
dust and debris is the most effective
cleaning practice for carpets, and that an
effective cleaning verification method
for carpets is not available. EPA is not
proposing that the ‘‘white glove’’
cleaning verification protocol be used
on carpets after they have been cleaned
using a HEPA-equipped vacuum
equipped with a beater bar. EPA did not
verify use of the ‘‘white glove’’ protocol
on carpets. In addition, there are
questions about the validity of dust
clearance sampling on carpeted floors,
even though such sampling is required
by EPA after abatements and by HUD
after interim controls. In its final rule for
hazard and clearance standards for the
Title X program (Ref. 24), the Agency
included standards for carpeted floors,
even though the proposed floor
standards would have applied only to
bare floors (Ref. 64). The Agency
initially was concerned that there was a
lack of data on the relative performance
of sampling methods for carpets, given
that various studies had used different
sampling techniques (e.g., the Baltimore
Repair and Maintenance Study’s ‘‘BRM’’
vacuum (Ref. 65), the Comprehensive
Abatement Performance Pilot Study’s
‘‘Blue Nozzle’’ vacuum (Ref. 66), and
standard dust wipes). Additionally, the
Agency did not have adequate data on
the effectiveness of carpet cleaning
techniques that would be needed to
establish a dust clearance level for
carpeted floors. Consequently, there
were problems establishing a dust lead
level on a wipe that would
independently indicate that the carpet
had been sufficiently cleaned. This
problem was exacerbated by the wide
variety of carpet types and conditions
that would likely be encountered in
residential units.
The Agency changed its position in
the final lead hazard standards rule as
a result of commenters’ concerns that
many housing units contained carpeting
and that, without a standard, such units
could not be assessed for the presence
of lead hazards from floor dust. Based
upon data available to the Agency at
that time (Ref. 67), EPA estimated that
approximately 54 million housing units
built prior to 1978 contained some wallto-wall carpeting and, of these, 47
million had such carpeting in living
rooms and 46 million in bedrooms (i.e.,
rooms in which children reside and
play frequently). Agreeing with these
concerns, the Agency determined that
the floor standards (using dust wipes)
should apply to both bare and carpeted
floors in order that all floors would be
addressed in lead hazard screens, risk
assessments, and abatements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
In making this determination, EPA
did not specifically consider the
question of whether both the hazard and
the clearance floor standards should
apply to carpeted floors. Because the
hazard and clearance standards were
numerically equal, even though they
served different purposes and uses, EPA
chose to apply both standards to
carpeted and uncarpeted floors.
The decision to apply the clearance
standard to carpeted floors ultimately
had little consequence, given the
context in which clearance standards
are used--namely, to ensure that
sufficient cleanup has been performed
after an abatement. Typically, in
abatement situations, carpets that are in
poor condition or are known to be
highly contaminated are removed and
disposed of. Where carpets are not
replaced, they are cleaned according to
specified criteria (Ref. 27). In general,
carpets are acknowledged to be
potential traps of leaded dust and great
care is taken to replace or thoroughly
clean them in order to ensure that, once
the abatement is concluded, the housing
unit is cleanable so that the benefits of
the abatement will continue as long as
routine cleaning is performed.
Consequently, EPA believes that it is
this special attention to carpets that
ensures that they are sufficiently clean,
rather than reliance upon only a postabatement wipe clearance sample.
e. Optional use of clearance testing.
Some renovators or homeowners may
choose to perform clearance at the
completion of renovation activities
instead of the post-renovation cleaning
verification described in proposed
§ 745.85(b). If so, dust sampling for
clearance would have to be performed
by a certified inspector, risk assessor, or
dust sampling technician, who would
be responsible for collecting dust
samples, sending them to an EPArecognized laboratory, and comparing
the results to the clearance levels in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8).
EPA recommends that the renovation
work area be re-cleaned if the home fails
the clearance test. It is a good idea to
specify in the renovation contract who
is responsible for this re-cleaning if the
home fails the clearance test. EPA
welcomes comment on this part of the
proposal.
F. State Renovation Model Program and
Authorization Process
Recognizing the importance of EPA’s
State partners in achieving the goal of
eliminating lead-based paint hazards in
housing, Congress specifically directed
EPA to establish model State programs
and a process for authorizing States to
operate lead-safe programs in lieu of the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Federal program. As it did in the
regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart
L, for lead-based paint activities, the
Agency is also seeking to provide
Federally recognized Indian Tribes the
opportunity to apply for and receive
program authorization similar to that
available to States. Providing Indian
Tribes with this opportunity is
consistent with EPA’s Policy for the
Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations (Ref.
17).
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
allow interested States, Territories, and
Indian Tribes the opportunity to apply
for, and receive authorization to,
administer and enforce all of the
elements of the new subpart E, as
amended. States, Territories and Tribes
may choose to administer and enforce
just the existing requirements of subpart
E, the pre-renovation education
elements, or all of the requirements of
the proposed subpart E, as amended.
Under this proposal, EPA would not
authorize a State, Territorial, or Tribal
program that sought only the authority
to administer and enforce the training,
certification, accreditation, and work
practice requirements of this proposal,
and not the pre-renovation education
provisions of subpart E. Because this
proposal allows and encourages
renovation firms to use the existing
pamphlet acknowledgment process to
obtain information about occupant age
and rental status, in order to determine
whether the property would be covered
by these regulations, and because the
pre-renovation education provisions are
an integral part of ensuring that
consumers have the information they
need to make informed decisions about
renovation practices in their homes,
EPA believes that authorizing States,
Territories, and Tribes to administer all
of the regulations applicable to
renovations is the best approach.
However, some States have already been
authorized to administer and enforce
the existing pre-renovation education
provisions in 40 CFR part 745, subpart
E. EPA believes that those States should
be able to continue administering their
pre-renovation education programs
without being required to add the
training, certification, accreditation, and
work practice elements of this proposal.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow all
States, Territories and Tribes to apply
for authorization to administer and
enforce only the pre-renovation
education requirements of 40 CFR part
745, subpart E. Because there are no
authorized jurisdictions in the opposite
position, no existing State, Territorial,
or Tribal program will have to choose
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
between adding more program
responsibilities or relinquishing its
authorization.
For the purpose of authorizing State,
Territorial, and Tribal programs, EPA is
proposing to use the existing procedures
codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q,
with the amendments of this proposal
setting forth the specific elements that
would be required of a program seeking
authorization to administer and enforce
the training, certification, accreditation,
and work practice requirements of this
proposal. In accordance with the current
process for authorization, States,
Territories and Tribes may not choose
only to administer, but not enforce, the
provisions of subpart E, nor may they
selectively choose to administer and
enforce only the accreditation or
certification provisions, but not the
work practice standards, for
renovations.
States, Territories, and Tribes seeking
authority to administer and enforce the
provisions of this proposal must obtain
public input, then submit an application
to EPA. Existing 40 CFR 745.324
describes the process for applying for
authorization. Applications must
contain a number of items, including a
description of the State, Territorial, or
Tribal program, copies of all applicable
statutes, regulations, and standards, and
a certification by the State Attorney
General, Tribal Counsel, or an
equivalent official, that the applicable
legislation and regulations provide
adequate legal authority to administer
and enforce the program. The program
description must demonstrate that the
State, Territorial, or Tribal program is at
least as protective as the Federal
program. In this case, the Federal
program consists of the requirements for
training, certification, and accreditation
and the work practice standards in this
proposal.
To be eligible for authorization to
administer and enforce the training,
certification, accreditation, and work
practice requirements of this proposal,
EPA is proposing to require that State,
Territorial, and Tribal renovation
programs contain certain minimum
elements. These minimum elements
would be very similar to the minimum
elements currently codified in 40 CFR
745.326(a) for lead-based paint
activities. In order to be authorized,
State, Territorial, or Tribal programs
would have to have procedures and
requirements for the accreditation of
training programs, which could be as
simple as procedures for accepting
training provided by an EPA-accredited
provider, or a provider accredited by
another authorized State, Territorial, or
Tribal program. Procedures and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements for the certification of
renovators would also be necessary. At
a minimum, these must include a
requirement that certified renovators
have taken accredited training, and
procedures and requirements for recertification. State, Territorial, and
Tribal programs applying for
authorization would also be required to
establish work practice standards for
renovations that ensure that renovations
are conducted only by certified
renovation firms and the renovations are
conducted using lead-safe work
practices at least as protective as those
of the Federal program. As is the current
practice with lead-based paint activities,
EPA will not require State, Territorial,
or Tribal programs to certify both firms
and individuals that perform
renovations. States, Territories and
Tribes may choose to certify either firms
or individuals, so long as the
individuals that perform the duties of
renovators are required to take
accredited training.
EPA encourages States, Territories,
and Tribes that may be considering
establishing their own renovation
programs to keep reciprocity in mind as
they move forward. The benefits to be
derived from reciprocity arrangements
with the Federal program and other
authorized jurisdictions include a
potential cost-saving from reducing
duplicative activity and the
development of a professional
renovation workforce more quickly,
thus providing maximum flexibility to
State, Territorial, or Tribal residents. In
addition, the Agency encourages States,
Territories and Tribes to consider the
use of existing certification and
accreditation procedures as they
develop their programs. These existing
programs need not be limited to leadbased paint. For example a State may
choose to add lead-safe renovation
requirements to their existing contractor
licensing programs.
V. New Renovation-Specific Pamphlet
The existing regulations at 40 CFR
part 745, subpart E, require each person
who performs for compensation a
renovation of target housing to provide
a lead hazard information pamphlet to
owners and occupants of such housing
prior to commencing the renovation.
The term ‘‘pamphlet’’ is defined at 40
CFR 745.83 to mean, in part, the EPA
pamphlet developed under TSCA
section 406(a) for use in complying with
this and other regulations under TSCA
Title IV and Title X. Until recently, the
only pamphlet developed under TSCA
section 406(a) was Protect Your Family
from Lead in Your Home (Ref. 20). EPA
has now developed another pamphlet
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1617
more specific to lead dust hazards
created during renovation activities to
be distributed to occupants before these
activities commence. EPA intends to
announce in a future Federal Register
notice the availability of this new
pamphlet, entitled Protect Your Family
from Lead During Renovation, Repair &
Painting (the ‘‘RRP’’ pamphlet) for
notice and comment.
The RRP pamphlet is very similar to
the original PYF pamphlet in that both
pamphlets contain information on lead
human health effects, human exposure
pathways, lead testing, and the location
of additional information resources (Ref.
68). However, after careful analysis of
available research data related to leadbased paint and renovation activities,
EPA has decided to place more
emphasis on potential hazards caused
by disturbing lead-based paint during
renovation activities. This new
emphasis offers the public additional
information regarding lead-safe work
practices which can greatly reduce the
creation and release of leaded dust.
Because the RRP pamphlet was
developed specifically to inform the
public about the potential lead hazards
that can be caused by renovation
activities, EPA is proposing to require
the RRP pamphlet to be handed out
prior to renovation activities instead of
the PYF pamphlet. This pamphlet
contains information on lead-based
paint hazards specific to renovation
activities, as well as information on how
to select a renovation firm.
As an alternative to the RRP
pamphlet, an authorized State or Tribal
program could distribute an alternate
pamphlet that had been reviewed and
approved by EPA in accordance with 40
CFR 745.326. The alternate pamphlet
would have to contain renovationspecific information similar to that in
the RRP pamphlet, would have to meet
the content requirements prescribed by
TSCA section 406(a), and would have to
be in a format that was readable to the
diverse audience of housing owners and
occupants in that State or Tribe.
EPA therefore proposes to amend the
definition of ‘‘pamphlet’’ in 40 CFR
745.83 to refer specifically to the RRP
pamphlet. The effect of this amendment
would be to require that renovators who
are required under 40 CFR part 745,
subpart E, to distribute an information
pamphlet, distribute the RRP pamphlet
rather than the PYF pamphlet.
In addition, to maintain consistency
among the Federal, State, and Tribal
pre-renovation notification program
requirements, EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR 745.326 to require authorized
State or Tribal programs to use the RRP
pamphlet or create and distribute an
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1618
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
alternate pamphlet. Alternate pamphlets
would be required to contain
renovation-specific information similar
to that in Protect Your Family from Lead
During Renovation, Repair & Painting,
meet the content requirements
prescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA,
and be in a format that is readable to the
diverse audience of housing owners and
occupants in that State or Tribe.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
VI. Effective Dates
A. Requirements for Renovation
Activities
Interested States, Territories and
Indian Tribes could begin applying for
authorization of renovation programs
from EPA as soon as the final rule is
promulgated. Also, after the final rule is
promulgated, providers of courses that
cover lead-safe work practices for
renovations could continue to offer
these courses, but they would not be
permitted to advertise these courses for
EPA certification purposes until they
receive accreditation from EPA.
EPA would begin accepting training
provider accreditation applications for
renovator and dust sampling technician
initial and refresher courses 1 year after
promulgation of a final rule. The reason
for the delay is to provide interested
States, Territories and Indian Tribes 1
year to develop, or begin developing,
renovation-specific work practice
standards and accreditation, training,
and certification programs. EPA believes
the nation’s experience in implementing
the lead-based paint activities program
regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart
L should help everyone involved,
including States, Territories, Tribes, the
regulated community, and EPA, move
more quickly towards implementing
renovation programs. Thus, EPA is not
proposing to make training programs for
the federal program wait 2 years before
they can receive accreditation, as EPA
did for the subpart L regulations. On the
other hand, EPA is concerned about the
duplication of effort that could occur,
and the additional costs that could be
incurred by the regulated community, if
EPA begins accrediting training
providers and certifying firms in
jurisdictions that are also working
towards implementing their own
programs. Training providers, firms, and
individuals working in such
jurisdictions could end up having to
become accredited or certified by both
EPA and the State, Territory or Tribe
within a fairly short period of time. EPA
requests comment on the feasibility of
developing State, Territorial, or Tribal
programs and getting them authorized
within a year after EPA promulgates a
final rule. EPA also requests comment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
on ways to avoid multiple
accreditations and certifications in
jurisdictions that are unable to receive
authorization for their programs within
the first year after EPA promulgates a
final rule. In addition, EPA requests
comment on whether any
implementation delay is necessary,
given that EPA accreditation and
certification would be valid in any State
or Indian Tribal area that does not have
a renovation program authorized under
40 CFR part 745, subpart Q.
Firm certification applications would
be accepted by EPA starting 6 months
after EPA begins accepting training
provider accreditation applications, or
18 months after the promulgation date
of the final rule. The work practice
standards would become effective 2
years after the promulgation date of the
final rule, at which time all covered
renovations would have to be performed
in accordance with those standards by
certified renovators and trained
workers.
As discussed in Unit IV.B., EPA is
proposing to initially apply the training,
certification, accreditation, and work
practice requirements of this proposal to
pre-1960 rental target housing, pre-1960
owner-occupied target housing where a
child under age 6 resides, and any target
housing where a child under age 6 with
a blood lead level that equals or exceeds
10 µg/dL, or any lower State or local
government level of concern, resides.
Those requirements would apply 1 year
later to rental target housing built
between 1960 and 1978, and owneroccupied target housing built between
1960 and 1978 where a child under age
6 resides. Allowing for the time given to
interested States, Territories and Tribes
to develop programs, the first phase of
this regulation would be fully effective
2 years after the date of promulgation of
a final rule. The second phase of this
regulation would take effect 3 years after
a final rule is promulgated.
B. Renovation-specific Pamphlet
EPA is also proposing to phase in the
requirement to use the new RRP
pamphlet discussed in Unit V. For the
purpose of complying with the Federal
Pre-Renovation Education Rule, in the
first 6 months after this regulation is
promulgated, persons performing
renovations could distribute either the
PYF or the new RRP pamphlet. After 6
months, only the RRP pamphlet could
be used to comply with the PreRenovation Education Rule in
jurisdictions where the Federal program
is in effect.
However, EPA recognizes that
approved State, Territorial, and Tribal
Pre-Renovation Education programs, or
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
jurisdictions developing programs, may
need time to amend their programs and
either adopt the RRP pamphlet or
develop and obtain approval for an
alternate pamphlet. EPA has worked
with the existing State programs to
develop an acceptable time frame for
meeting the new requirements. In doing
so, EPA identified three potential nonFederal program categories: (1)
Programs authorized prior to the
effective date of the final rule, (2)
potential new programs with an
application submitted but not approved
prior to the effective date of the final
rule, and (3) potential new programs
that might apply after the effective date
of the final rule. The time frame for
compliance for each category is set forth
in proposed 40 CFR 745.326(b)(3).
In sum, such programs authorized
prior to the effective date of the final
rule would demonstrate compliance in
the first § 745.324(h) report submitted at
least 2 years after the effective date of
the final rule. Potential new programs
with an application submitted but not
approved prior to the effective date of
the final rule would demonstrate
compliance in the first § 745.324(h)
report submitted at least 2 years after
the effective date of the final rule or by
amending their application to comply
with this amendment. Potential new
programs that might apply after the
effective date of the final rule would be
required to demonstrate compliance
with the amendment at the time of their
application to EPA for program
approval.
VII. References
The following is a list of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this proposed rule and
placed in the public docket that was
established under Docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. For
information on accessing the docket,
refer to the ADDRESSES unit at the
beginning of this document.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). Sample
acknowledgment form. (2005).
2. Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X)
(Public Law 102–550).
3. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Public Health
Service (PHS), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young
Children; A Statement by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (August
2005).
4. HHS, PHS, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Lead
(July 1999).
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5. USEPA, Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Air Quality
Criteria for Lead, First External Review
Draft (EPA/600/R-05/144aA, December
2005)
6. USEPA. Integrated Risk Information
System; Lead and compounds
(inorganic) (CASRN 7439–92–1) (July 8,
2004).
7. U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Federal Register (42 FR
44199, September 1, 1977, as amended
at 43 FR 8515, March 2, 1978).
8. U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL),
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). Final Standard
for Occupational Exposure to Lead.
Federal Register (43 FR 52952,
November 14, 1978).
9. USDOL, OSHA. Lead Exposure in
Construction; Interim Final
Rule.Federal Register (58 FR 26590,
May 4, 1993).
10. USEPA. Control of Lead Additives
in Gasoline; Final Rule. Federal
Register (38 FR 33734, December 6,
1973).
11. USEPA. Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead
and Copper; Final Rule. Federal
Register (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991).
12. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Public Health
Service (PHS), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC).
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young
Children; A Statement by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (October
1991).
13. Alliance to End Childhood Lead
Poisoning. Preventing Childhood Lead
Poisoning: The First Comprehensive
National Conference; Final Report.
(October 6, 7, 8, 1991).
14. President’s Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Eliminating
Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards
(February 2000).
15. HHS, PHS, CDC. Preventing Lead
Exposure in Young Children: A Housing
Based Approach to Primary Prevention
of Lead Poisoning: Recommendations
from the Advisory Committee on
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
(October 2004).
16. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for
Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target
Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities:
Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR
45778, August 29, 1996).
17. USEPA. EPA Policy for the
Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations
(November 8, 1984).
18. USEPA. Lead; Fees for
Accreditation of Training Programs and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
Certification of Lead-based Paint
Activities Contractors; Final Rule.
Federal Register (64 FR 31092, June 9,
1999).
19. USEPA. Lead; Notification
Requirements for Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Activities and Training;
Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR
18489, April 8, 2004).
20. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead
in Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June
2003).
21. USEPA. Lead Hazard Information
Pamphlet; Notice of Availability.
Federal Register (60 FR 39167, August
1, 1995).
22. HUD, USEPA. Lead; Requirements
for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based
Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards
in Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register
(61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996).
23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for
Hazard Education Before Renovation of
Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal
Register (63 FR 29908, June 1, 1998).
24. USEPA. Lead; Identification of
Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule.
Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5,
2001).
25. USEPA. Targeted Grants to
Reduce Childhood Lead Poisoning;
Notice of Funds Availability. Federal
Register (69 FR 69913, December 1,
2004).
26. HUD. Requirements for
Notification, Evaluation, and Reduction
of Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing
Receiving Federal Assistance and
Federally Owned Residential Property
Being Sold (Lead Safe Housing Rule);
Final Rule, Conforming Amendments
and Corrections. Federal Register (69
FR 34262, June 21, 2004).
27. HUD. Guidelines for the
Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based
Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995).
28. HHS, PHS, CDC. Managing
Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among
Young Children (March 2002).
29. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards
When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747K-97-001, September 1997).
30. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field
Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007,
May 1997).
31. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase II, Worker
Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
(EPA 747-R-96-006, May 1997).
32. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1619
Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747R-99-002, March 1999).
33. USEPA. Report of the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel on the
Lead-based Paint Certification and
Training; Renovation and Remodeling
Requirements (March 3, 2000).
34. McMillan Associates. Response to
SBREFA Panel Recommendations for
Further Analysis of Existing Phase III
Data (August 6, 2001).
35. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with
Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed
to Home Renovation and Remolding
Activities--New York, 1993-1994.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(45(51); 1120-1123, January 3, 1997).
36. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D.
Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B.
Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ‘‘Is
Home Renovation or Repair a Risk
Factor for Exposure to Lead Among
Children Residing in New York City?’’
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the
New York Academy of Medicine. Vol.
79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005).
37. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase IV, Worker
Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
of R&R Workers Who Specialize in
Renovation of Old or Historic Homes
(EPA 747-R-99-001, March 1999).
38. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
with Renovation and Remodeling
Activities; Final Summary Report (EPA
747-S-00-001, January 2000).
39. USEPA. TSCA Section 402(c) Lead
Exposure Reduction Stakeholder
Meeting for the Proposed Renovation
and Remodeling Rule (December 7,
1998).
40. USEPA. Round Table Discussion
of TSCA Section 402(c) Lead Exposure
Reduction Proposed Renovation and
Remodeling Rule (March 8, 1999).
41. USEPA. Lead Programs Meeting,
Meeting Summary (September 25-26,
2000).
42. USEPA. Summary of Discussion
with State, Local, and Tribal
Government Representatives (May 1,
2003).
43. USEPA. Summary of Discussion
with State, Local, and Tribal
Government Representatives (May 15,
2003).
44. USEPA. Summary of Discussion
with Industry Stakeholders (May 9,
2003).
45. USEPA. Summary of Discussion
with Industry Stakeholders (May 29,
2003).
46. HUD. National Survey of Lead and
Allergens in Housing, Volume I:
Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report,
Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002).
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1620
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
47. NIST. Spot Test Kits for Detecting
Lead in Household Paint, a Laboratory
Evaluation (NISTIR 6398, May 2000).
48. USEPA. Estimates of
Concentration of Lead in Paint by Age
of Housing (October 2005).
49. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for
Hazard Education Before Renovation of
Target Housing; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register (59 FR 11108, March 9, 1994).
50. ASTM International. Standard
Practice for Evaluating the Performance
Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical
Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint (E 182801).
51. USEPA. Draft Recordkeeping
Checklist for Firms (December 2005).
52. USEPA, HUD. Lead Safety for
Remodeling, Repair, and Painting (EPA
747-B-03-001/2, July 2003).
53. HUD, Office of Policy
Development and Research. The HUD
Lead-Based Paint Abatement
Demonstration (FHA) (August 1991).
54. USEPA, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Lead
Dust Minimization Work Practices for
Renovation, Remodeling and
Repainting; Draft Technical Manual
(September 29, 1998).
55. USEPA. Minimizing Lead-Based
Paint Hazards During Renovation,
Remodeling, and Painting (September
2000).
56. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste
(OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A.
Cotsworth, Director, ‘‘Regulatory Status
of Waste Generated by Contractors and
Residents from Lead-Based Paint
Activities Conducted in Households’’
(July 31, 2000).
57. USEPA, OSW. Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices and Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:
Disposal of Residential Lead-based Paint
Waste; Final Rule. Federal Register (68
FR 36487, June 18, 2003).
58. Choe, K., Trunov, M., Grinshpun,
S.A., Willeke, K., Harney, J., Trakumas,
S., Mainelis, G., Bornschein, R., Clark,
S. and Friedman, W. Particle settling
after Lead-Based Paint Abatement Work
and Clearance Waiting Period,
American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, 61(6):798-807
(2001).
59. USEPA, OPPT. Draft Economic
Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Program Proposed Rule
(December 2005).
60. National Center for Healthy
Housing. An Evaluation of the Efficacy
of the Lead Hazard Reduction
Treatments Prescribed in Maryland
Environmental Article 6-8 (April 30,
2002).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
61. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and
Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential
Housing (September 2005).
62. USEPA. Draft Cleaning
Verification Card (2005)
63. USEPA, OPPT. Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) for the Field Study;
Appendix A - Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for Using the Dry
Electrostatic Cloth and Mop to Collect
Lead Dust (July 12, 2004).
64. USEPA. Lead; Identification of
Dangerous Levels of Lead; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302,
June 3, 1998).
65. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint
Abatement and Repair and Maintenance
Study in Baltimore: Pre-Intervention
Findings. (EPA 747-R-95-012, August
1996).
66. USEPA. Comprehensive
Abatement Performance Pilot Study,
Volume 1: Results of Lead Data
Analyses (EPA 747-R-93-007, February
1995).
67. U.S. Census Bureau. Current
Housing Reports, Series H150/97,
American Housing Survey for the
United States (1997).
68. USEPA. Protect Your Family from
Lead During Renovation, Repair, &
Painting (2005).
69. USEPA. Proposed ICR amendment
for rulemaking entitled ‘‘Lead;
Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program; Proposed Rule’’ (December
2005).
70. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support
Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and
Soil (EPA 747-R-97-006, June 1998).
71. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support
Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and
Soil: Supplemental Report (EPA 747-R00-004, December 2000).
72. ASTM International. Standard
Practice for Clearance Examinations
Following Lead Hazard Reduction
Activities in Single-Family Dwellings
and Child-Occupied Facilities (E 227105).
73. ASTM International. Standard
Guide for Evaluation, Management, and
Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E
2052-99).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
it has been determined that this
proposed rule is a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1)
of the Executive Order because EPA
estimates that it will have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. Accordingly, this action was
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and any changes
made based on OMB recommendations
have been documented in the public
docket for this rulemaking as required
by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive
Order.
As required by the Executive Order,
EPA also submitted a draft analysis of
the potential costs and benefits
associated with this proposed
rulemaking. This analysis is contained
in a document entitled Draft Economic
Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Program Proposed Rule (Draft
Economic Analysis) (Ref. 59). The
Agency is conducting additional
analyses with other assumptions for
baseline activities than those that were
used in the Agency’s Draft Economic
Analysis to estimate the potential costs
and benefits of the proposed rule.
Information about these new analyses is
available in the docket, and, once
completed, the revised Economic
Analysis will also be available in the
docket. The additional analyses are
expected to change the estimated
potential costs and benefits of the
proposed rule. A copy of this Economic
Analysis is available in the docket for
this action, and is briefly summarized
here.
1. Options evaluated. EPA evaluated
a number of options in the development
of the proposed rule. All options
address target housing, which is defined
in section 401 of TSCA as housing
constructed before 1978, except housing
for the elderly and persons with
disabilities, unless any child under age
6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing, or any 0–bedroom dwelling.
Option A applies to renovation, repair,
and painting projects performed for
compensation in all rental target
housing and owner-occupied target
housing built before 1978 where a child
under age 6 resides. Option B has 2
phases. The first phase applies to rental
target housing built before 1960, and
owner-occupied target housing units
built before 1960 where a child under
age 6 resides, plus all housing units
built before 1978 where a child with a
blood lead level that equals or exceeds
applicable levels of concern resides. The
second phase, which takes effect a year
after the first phase, applies to all the
housing units covered by Option A.
Option C also has 2 phases. The first
phase applies to all rental housing built
before 1950, and owner-occupied
housing units built before 1950 where a
child under age 6 resides, plus all
housing units built before 1978 where a
child with a blood lead level that equals
or exceeds applicable levels of concern
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
resides. The second phase, which takes
effect a year after the first phase, applies
to all the housing units covered by
Option A. Option D covers the same
housing units at the same times as
Option B, but differs from Options A, B,
and C in that they allow a certified
renovator flexibility in selecting
appropriate work practices for each
individual job, while Option D does not
provide such flexibility. The proposed
rule is Option B.
2. Number of events and individuals.
As shown in the Draft Economic
Analysis, the number of renovation,
repair, and painting events covered by
the rule varies across regulatory options
in Phase 1 as a result of the different
time periods addressed by the options.
The number of events covered in Phase
2 is the same for all options because the
housing units regulated are the same,
i.e., pre-1978 units. Because not all
housing units built before 1978 have
lead-based paint, not all events need to
use lead-safe work practices. The
number of events with lead-safe work
practices in Phase 2 is smaller than in
Phase 1 for all but Option C, despite the
increase in housing units covered by
Phase 2 under Options B, C, and D. The
number of events requiring lead-safe
work practices is smaller because the
accuracy of lead paint test kits (in terms
of detecting the presence or absence of
regulated lead-based paint) is expected
to have improved by Phase 2. Under the
proposed rule, in Phase 1 there would
be 4.8 million events in housing where
lead-safe work practices are used due to
the rule. Slightly more than 4.9 million
individuals reside in these housing
units, including 729,000 children under
age 6. In Phase 2, the proposed rule
would cover 4.4 million such events in
units housing nearly 5.8 million
individuals, including 855,000 children
under age 6.
3. Benefits. The Draft Economic
Analysis describes the estimated
benefits of the proposed rulemaking in
qualitative and quantitative terms.
Benefits result from the prevention of
adverse health effects attributable to
lead exposure. These health effects
include several illnesses as well as
impaired cognitive function in adults
and children.
There are not sufficient data at this
time to quantify some of the potential
benefits of reducing exposure to lead.
EPA’s Draft Economic Analysis
estimates the benefits of avoiding
selected health effects in children and
adults.
The Agency considered the potential
benefits to both children and adults
because studies indicate that they are
both adversely affected by exposures to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
lead in dust from renovation and
remodeling activities. As stated in Unit
III.B., one of the purposes of Title X is
the elimination of lead-based paint
hazards in target housing. EPA
considered the potential benefits to
children separately from adults, because
a focus of Title X is the reduction in the
threat of childhood lead poisoning. The
Agency specifically seeks comment on
its consideration of potential benefits to
both adults and children, as well as
comments and information about the
potential uncertainties associated with
the adult health effects considered and
the magnitude of those uncertainties.
4. Costs. The Draft Economic Analysis
estimates the potential costs of
complying with this proposed rule
including training costs, certification
costs, and work practice costs. As
indicated previously, the Agency is
conducting additional analysis that
could change the estimated potential
costs of the proposed rule. This new
analysis will be added to the docket as
soon as it is complete. In the Draft
Economic Analysis, training costs will
be incurred for renovators, who will
perform or direct the performance of key
tasks during renovations, and workers,
who may perform renovation tasks
under the direction of renovators.
Persons who are not currently certified
as lead-based paint abatement
supervisors or workers and who wish to
become certified renovators would be
required to take an accredited 8–hour
renovator course. Currently certified
abatement supervisors and workers
would merely need to familiarize
themselves with this proposal’s work
practice and cleaning verification
requirements. Training for renovation
workers under this proposal would
consist of informal, on-the-job training
by a renovator. Renovators not
otherwise certified would be required to
take a 4–hour refresher course every 3
years to maintain their certification.
Firms performing renovations will have
to be certified by EPA or an EPAauthorized State, Tribal, or Territorial
program. Certified firms would have to
be re-certified every 3 years.
The work practice requirements of
this proposal cover 3 general categories
of activities: Containing the work area,
cleaning up the work area after the
project has been completed, and
verifying that the clean-up was
adequate. Costs associated with these
work practice requirements are
primarily related to the cost of
materials, such as the plastic used to
cover the floors, and the cost of the
labor needed to establish containment
before the project, clean the work area
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1621
afterwards, and perform the postrenovation cleaning verification step.
To further improve the analysis for
the final rule, the Agency is also
specifically interested in comments and
supporting information on the following
questions related to assumptions used
in the Agency’s analysis:
• To what extent do renovators/
contractors already conduct any of the
individual activities described in the
proposed rule, and under what
renovation, repair or painting
circumstances are any of these activities
routinely or rarely conducted? Do any
contractors already perform all of the
lead safe work practices described in
this proposal?
• To what extent is the whole house
or rooms adjacent to the work area
contaminated by typical renovation,
repair or painting activities? Under what
circumstances do renovators/contractors
clean the whole house or adjacent
rooms during or after renovation, repair
or painting activities?
• Under what circumstances do
homeowners or rental management
firms clean the work area or adjacent
rooms during or after renovation, repair
or painting activities?
• To what extent do renovators/
contractors or homeowners already use
vacuums equipped with HEPA filters to
clean-up debris created during
renovation, repair or painting activities?
• Under what circumstances do
renovators/contractors use plastic sheets
or other methods to isolate and collect
dust and debris, during or after
renovation, repair or painting activities?
• If dust or debris is generated in
preparing the surfaces, to what extent
do renovators/contractors or building
owners clean-up the dust or debris
before painting?
• To what extent should the analysis
reflect any exposures to owners or
occupants (both inhalation and
ingestion) during the renovation, repair
or painting event? (The Draft Economic
Analysis only looks at ingestion
exposures after the renovation, repair or
painting event is completed and the
contractor has left).
• How many days does a typical
renovation, repair or painting event last?
How many days during the renovation,
repair or painting event is dust created?
How often and how thoroughly is
cleaning performed during or after the
renovation, repair or painting event?
• To what extent should the analysis
of adult exposures consider average dust
loading on surfaces as compared to the
typically higher dust loadings resulting
from renovation, repair or painting
events?
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1622
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
• How do cleaning efficiencies of
different cleaning methods (sweeping,
regular vacuum, HEPA vacuum) vary
with the dust loading level? There is
information suggesting that cleaning is
more effective (as a percentage of dust
removed) at higher dust loading levels.
Thus, when there are multiple rounds of
cleaning, each one picks up a lower
percentage of dust than the one before
it. Would the cleaning efficiency be the
same for dust with different lead
concentrations? The Draft Economic
Analysis assumes that cleaning
effectiveness is constant, and does not
vary with dust loading levels.
• How do lead dust loading levels
vary by the age of the home and by
home component type (e.g., indoor trim
versus outdoor trim)?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA, an
amendment to an existing ICR that is
approved under OMB control number
2070–0155 and referred to as the ICR
Addendum (EPA ICR No. 1715.07) has
been placed in the public docket for this
proposed rule (Ref. 69).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations codified
in Chapter 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the preamble of the final
rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are
displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in
certain EPA regulations is consolidated
in 40 CFR part 9.
The new information collection
activities contained in this proposed
rule are designed to assist the Agency in
meeting the core objectives of TSCA
section 402, including ensuring the
integrity of accreditation programs for
training providers; providing for the
certification of contractors; and
determining whether work practice
standards are being followed. EPA has
carefully tailored the proposed reporting
and recordkeeping requirements so they
will permit the Agency to achieve
statutory objectives without imposing
an undue burden on those entities that
choose to be involved in residential
renovations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
Burden under the PRA means the
total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating,
and verifying information, processing
and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions
and requirements; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Under this proposal, the new
information collection requirements
may affect training providers and firms
that perform renovation, repair, or
painting for compensation in regulated
housing. Although these entities have
the option of choosing to engage in the
covered activities, once an entity
chooses to do so, the information
collection activities contained in this
rule become mandatory for those
entities.
The ICR document provides a detailed
presentation of the estimated burden
and costs for 3 years of the program. The
aggregate burden varies by year due to
changes in the number of firms that will
seek certification each year. The burden
and cost to training providers and
renovation firms is summarized here.
There are 100 to 167 training
providers that are estimated to incur
burden to become accredited, and to
notify EPA (or an authorized State,
Tribe, or Territory) before and after
training courses. The average burden
related to accreditation is estimated to
be 15 hours during the year a training
provider is first accredited, 7 hours in
years that it is re-accredited (reaccreditation is required every 3 years),
and 1 hour during other years. For
notifications, the average burden per
training provider is estimated at 35 to 95
hours per year, depending on the
number of training courses provided.
Total training provider burden is
estimated to be 6,300 to 12,900 hours
per year.
The estimated number of firms
certified to engage in residential
renovation, repair, or painting activities
under the rule varies from 115,000 to
218,000, depending on the phase of the
rule. The number of firms that receive
initial certification ranges from 72,000
per year to 141,000 per year, depending
on the year. The average certification
burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
firm in the year a firm is initially
certified, and 0.5 hours in years that it
is re-certified (which occurs every 3
years). Firms must also keep records of
the work they perform in regulated
housing; this recordkeeping is estimated
to take an average of 5 hours per year.
Total burden for renovation, repair, and
painting firms is estimated to be 981,000
to 1,530,000 hours per year, depending
on the year.
Total respondent burden during the
period covered by the ICR is estimated
to average 1,260,000 hours per year.
There are also government costs to
administer the program. States, Tribes,
and Territories are allowed, but are
under no obligation, to apply for and
receive authorization to administer
these proposed requirements. EPA will
directly administer programs for States,
Tribes, and Territories that do not
become authorized. Because the number
of States, Tribes, and Territories that
will become authorized is not known,
administrative costs are estimated
assuming that EPA will administer the
program everywhere. To the extent that
other government entities become
authorized, EPA’s administrative costs
will be lower.
Direct your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden,
including the use of automated
collection techniques, to EPA using the
public docket that has been established
for this proposed rule (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049). In
addition, send a copy of your comments
about the ICR to OMB at: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA ICR No.
1715.07. Since OMB is required to
complete its review of the ICR between
30 and 60 days after January 10, 2006,
please submit your ICR comments for
OMB consideration to OMB by February
9, 2006.
The Agency will consider and address
comments received on the information
collection requirements contained in
this proposal when it develops the final
rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., and the Agency’s long-standing
policy of always considering whether
there may be a potential for adverse
impacts on small entities, the Agency
has evaluated the potential small entity
impacts of this proposed rule. The
Agency’s analysis of potentially adverse
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
economic impacts is included in the
Draft Economic Analysis for this
proposed rule (Ref. 59). As discussed in
Unit VIII.A., the revised Economic
Analysis, to be available in the docket,
will provide additional information
about the expected costs and benefits,
and supplement the information now
provided in the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis and considered for
the final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The following is a brief overview of
EPA’s initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined in accordance
with the RFA as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
1. Legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule. As discussed in Unit
III.C., TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs
EPA to study the extent to which
persons engaged in renovation, repair,
and painting activities are exposed to
lead or create a lead-based paint hazard
regularly or occasionally. After
concluding this study, TSCA section
402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise
its lead-based paint activities
regulations under TSCA section 402(a)
to apply to renovation or remodeling
activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. Because EPA’s study found
that activities commonly performed
during renovation and remodeling
create lead-based paint hazards, EPA is
proposing to revise the TSCA section
402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to
individuals and firms engaged in
renovation and remodeling activities.
The primary objective of this proposal is
to prevent the creation of new leadbased paint hazards from renovation,
repair, and painting activities in
housing where children under age 6
reside.
2. Potentially affected small entities.
The small entities that are potentially
directly regulated by this proposed rule
include small businesses, such as
renovation, repair, and painting
contractors, property owners and
managers, small non-profits that own
target housing, and small governments
that may own certain target housing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
The vast majority of businesses in the
industries affected by this rule are
small. Approximately 200,000 small
contractors and real estate
establishments per year will be affected
per year under the proposed rule.
Information was not available to
estimate the number of small
governments and small non-profits, but
there are expected to be few, if any,
small governments that incur costs due
to the rule.
3. Potential economic impacts on
small entities. EPA used annual
compliance costs as a percentage of
annual company revenues to assess the
potential impacts of the rule on small
businesses. EPA believes this is a good
measure of a firm’s ability to afford the
costs attributable to a regulatory
requirement, because comparing
compliance costs to revenues provides a
reasonable indication of the magnitude
of the regulatory burden relative to a
commonly available measure of a
company’s business volume. Where
regulatory costs represent a small
fraction of a typical firm’s revenues (for
example, less than 1%, and not greater
than 3%), EPA believes that the
financial impacts of the regulation on
such firms may be considered as not
significant. EPA believes it is
appropriate to calculate this measure
based on annualized costs, because
these costs are more representative of
the continuing costs firms face to
comply with the proposed rule.
Using studies from the economics
literature, the Draft Economic Analysis
(Ref. 59) for this proposed rule estimates
that nearly 90% of the estimated cost
will be passed on to consumers in the
form of higher prices. The resulting cost
impact ranges from about 0.5% to 1.6%
of revenues, depending on the industry.
The costs represent less than 1% of
revenues for small firms when
considered together. Because of the lack
of information on small non-profits and
governments that might be affected by
the rule, it was not possible to calculate
the typical cost per entity or the impact
ratios for them. However, the cost per
event for non-profits and governments is
expected to be similar to that incurred
by businesses.
4. Relevant Federal rules. The
proposed requirements in this
rulemaking will fit within an existing
framework of other Federal regulations
that address lead-based paint.
The Pre-Renovation Education Rule,
discussed in Unit III.B.2.b., requires
renovators to distribute a lead hazard
information pamphlet to owners and
occupants before conducting a
renovation in target housing. This
proposal has been carefully crafted to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1623
harmonize with the existing prerenovation education requirements.
As discussed in Unit IV.D.2.c.,
disposal of waste from renovation
projects that would be regulated by this
proposal is covered by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations for solid waste. This
proposal does not contain specific
requirements for the disposal of waste
from renovations.
As described in Unit III.B.3., HUD has
extensive regulations that address the
conduct of interim controls, as well as
other lead-based paint activities, in
Federally assisted housing. Some of
HUD’s interim controls would be
regulated under this proposal as
renovations, depending upon whether
the particular interim control measure
disturbs more than the threshold
amount of paint. In most cases, the HUD
regulations are comparable to, or more
stringent than this proposal. In general,
persons performing HUD-regulated
interim controls must have taken a
course in lead-safe work practices,
which is also a requirement of this
proposal. However, this proposal would
not require dust clearance testing, a
process required by HUD after interim
control activities that disturb more than
a minimal amount of lead-based paint.
Finally, OSHA’s Lead Exposure in
Construction standard covers potential
worker exposures to lead during many
construction activities, including
renovation, repair, and painting
activities. Although this standard,
described in Unit III.B.3., may cover
many of the same projects as this
proposal, the requirements themselves
do not overlap. The OSHA rule
addresses the protection of the worker,
this EPA proposal addresses the
protection of the building occupants,
particularly children under age 6.
5. Skills needed for compliance. This
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. Renovators
and dust sampling technicians would
have to take a course to learn the proper
techniques for accomplishing the tasks
they will perform during renovations.
These courses are intended to provide
them with the information they would
need to comply with the rule based on
the skills they already have. Firms
would be required to apply for
certification to perform renovations; this
process does not require any special
skills other than the ability to complete
the application. They would also need
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1624
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
to document the work they have
performed during renovations. This
does not require any special skills.
Training providers must be
knowledgeable about delivering
technical training. Training providers
would be required to apply for
accreditation to offer renovator and dust
sampling technician courses. They
would also be required to provide prior
notification of such courses and provide
information on the students trained after
each such course. Completing the
accreditation application and providing
the required notification information
does not require any special skills.
6. Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel. EPA conducted outreach to small
entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice
and recommendations of representatives
of the small entities that potentially
would be subject to the rule’s
requirements. The Panel was convened
by EPA’s Small Business Advocacy
Chairperson on November 23, 1999. In
addition to the chairperson, the Panel
consisted of the Director of the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
After considering the existing leadbased paint activities regulations, and
taking into account preliminary
stakeholder feedback, EPA identified
eight key elements of a potential
renovation and remodeling regulation
for the Panel’s consideration. These
elements were:
• Applicability and scope.
• Firm certification.
• Individual training and
certification.
• Accreditation of training courses.
• Work practice standards.
• Prohibited practices.
• Exterior clearance.
• Interior clearance.
EPA also developed several options
for each of these key elements. At the
onset of pre-panel discussions with SBA
and OMB, EPA held three conference
calls with potentially impacted Small
Entity Representatives (SERs) to obtain
feedback on these options and other
alternatives for a renovation and
remodeling regulation. The Panel held
an outreach meeting with Small Entity
Representatives (SERs) on December 3,
1999. Eleven SERs, representing a broad
range of small entities from diverse
geographic locations, and four
association representatives participated
in the meeting. The Panel solicited
comments from the SERs on the options
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
presented by EPA, as well as EPA’s cost
estimates for these options. Several
SERs submitted written comments to
EPA following this meeting. The Panel
evaluated the assembled materials and
small-entity comments, and prepared a
report for the Agency’s consideration. A
copy of the Panel report is included in
the docket for this proposed rule (Ref.
33).
As a result of its deliberations, the
Panel made a number of
recommendations. The options
presented by EPA, the Panel’s
recommendations, and EPA’s responses
to the recommendations, are
summarized here.
a. Applicability and scope. EPA
presented four options: All pre-1978
housing, all pre-1978 rental housing, all
pre-1960 housing, and all pre-1960
rental housing. The Panel recommended
that EPA request public comment in the
proposal on the option of limiting the
housing stock affected by the rule to that
constructed prior to 1960, as well as the
option of covering all pre-1978 housing
and other options that may help to
reduce costs while achieving the
protection of public health. In the
discussion of the scope and
applicability in Unit IV.B., EPA
identified the pre-1960 option, as well
as the option of covering all pre-1978
housing, and asked for public comment
on these and other options that would
limit the costs of the rule to the
regulated community while providing
protection to children from lead-based
paint hazards created by renovation
projects.
EPA also presented 2 potential
exemptions, a de minimis exemption for
projects that disturb 2 square feet or less
of painted surfaces, and an exemption
for emergency projects. The Panel
recommended that EPA include both of
these exemptions in its proposal. EPA is
proposing to extend the existing
exemption for small projects available
under the Pre-Renovation Education
Rule to the training, certification, and
work practice requirements of this
proposal. However, rather than just
exempting emergency renovations from
the requirements of this proposal, EPA
is adding a statement to the description
of the exemption to indicate that the
training, certification, and work practice
standards apply to the extent
practicable. As discussed in Unit IV.B.,
emergency renovations can generally be
conducted in accordance with most of
these proposed requirements, but some
flexibility is necessary.
b. Firm certification. EPA presented
three options: Certification for all
renovation firms, certification only for
firms that perform large-scale surface
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
preparation activities or demolitions,
and no firm certification. The Panel
believed that firm certification would
help consumers identify qualified
renovation firms, so the Panel
recommended that firm certification be
included in any proposal. The Panel
also recommended that EPA attempt to
balance the goals and objectives of the
statute, with the burden associated with
such regulatory requirements, in order
to avoid placing compliant firms at an
undue competitive disadvantage. EPA is
proposing to require that firms who
perform renovations, as that term would
be defined, be certified. EPA believes
that the proposed firm certification
process is as minimally burdensome for
firms as possible, while achieving the
objectives of the mandate.
c. Individual training and
certification. EPA presented four
options to the Panel. The first option
was to require training and certification
for all individuals who perform covered
renovations. The second option was to
require training and certification only
for the supervisor. The third option was
to require training for all individuals
who perform covered renovations, but
no certification. The final option was to
require neither training nor certification
for individuals. The Panel realized that
worker training increases the likelihood
that proper lead-safe work practices will
be used, but recognized that the rate of
worker turnover in the industry would
lead to high training and certification
costs for firms. As a less-burdensome
alternative, the Panel recommended that
EPA propose formal training for
supervisors, or some other clearlydefined responsible person, and
informal training for all others. This
recommendation has been adopted by
EPA in the proposed rule.
d. Accreditation of training courses.
EPA presented two options on this topic
to the Panel: Accreditation required, or
accreditation not required. Although
concerned about burdens for training
providers, the Panel understood that
accreditation provides a mechanism for
ensuring quality control of training
programs, establishing a minimum level
of essential training, and facilitating
reciprocity between States. The Panel
recommended that EPA propose to
require accreditation of training, which
is what EPA is doing in this proposal.
e. Work practice standards. EPA
presented three 3 general options to the
Panel for work practice standards:
prescriptive containment and clean-up
requirements, performance-based
containment and clean-up requirements,
or no work practice requirements. The
Panel recognized that prescriptive
approaches to work practice standards
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
may clearly identify ways to minimize
lead-based paint hazards, but felt that
prescriptive practices may not be
practical or effective in all situations.
Because a performance-based approach
could provide firms with the flexibility
to manage risks in the most costeffective manner, the Panel
recommended that EPA include
performance-based standards in the
proposal. In response to this
recommendation, EPA is proposing an
approach that includes required
elements, such as warning signs,
containment barriers, and specialized
cleaning, but allows flexibility for the
certified renovator to tailor these
requirements to the specific job at hand.
f. Prohibited practices. The current
abatement regulations in 40 CFR part
745, subpart L prohibit the following
work practices during abatement
projects: Open-flame burning or
torching, machine sanding or grinding,
abrasive blasting or sandblasting, dry
scraping of large areas, and operating a
heat gun in excess of 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit. EPA presented four options
to the Panel on this topic: Prohibit these
practices during renovations, allow dry
scraping and exterior flame-burning or
torching, allow dry scraping, and
interior and exterior flame-burning or
torching, or allow all of these practices.
The Panel recognized industry concerns
over the feasibility of prohibiting these
practices, especially when no costeffective alternatives exist. The Panel
was also concerned about the potential
risks associated with these practices, but
noted that reasonable training,
performance, containment, and clean-up
requirements may adequately address
these risks. In Unit IV.D., EPA has
followed the Panel’s recommendation
and requested public comment on the
cost, benefit, and feasibility of
prohibiting certain work practices, but
EPA is not proposing to prohibit any
work practices. EPA has determined
that the training, containment, and
clean-up requirements of this proposal
are sufficient to address any risks
associated with the work practices
prohibited by the abatement regulations.
g. Exterior clearance. EPA presented
three options to the Panel for
determining when an exterior
renovation project area had been
properly cleaned-up and the area made
ready for re-occupancy. This
determination is typically called
‘‘clearance.’’ EPA’s three options were
visual inspection only, soil sampling, or
no clearance process at all. Consistent
with other Federal lead-based paint
regulations, including the abatement
regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart
L, the Panel recommended that EPA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
propose to require a visual inspection
for clearance after exterior renovations.
This is the option EPA has proposed in
this rulemaking.
h. Interior clearance. Interior
clearance was a particularly difficult
issue for the Panel. Interior clearance
after lead-based paint abatement
projects involves an independent thirdparty collecting dust wipe samples,
sending them to an EPA-recognized
laboratory for analysis, and comparing
the results to the standards established
in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). This is
expensive and time-consuming. EPA
presented 4 options to the Panel for
interior clearance: dust testing after all
projects, dust testing only after largescale surface preparation, demolition, or
any of the practices prohibited by the
abatement regulations, visual clearance
only, and no clearance at all. After
reviewing the studies available at the
time, the Panel could not conclude that
a thorough professional clean-up or a
visual inspection would be an adequate
substitute for dust wipe testing. The
SBA introduced a new option to the
Panel, consisting of a specific cleanup
methodology followed by a visual
clearance requirement, as an alternative
to dust clearance testing. The Panel
recommended that EPA include this
new option in the proposal and take
comment on the merits of all the interior
clearance options in the proposal. The
Panel also recommended that EPA take
comment on options for clearance that
are less costly and less burdensome and
yet still demonstrate the absence of lead
hazards. As discussed in Unit IV.E.,
EPA followed the Panel report with
research into alternatives to laboratory
dust clearance and is proposing an
option based on this research. EPA is
also requesting comment on other
methods of ensuring that leaded dust
and debris created during renovations
have been cleaned up properly.
The Panel also recommended that the
EPA do additional analysis of the
existing data from Phase III of the
renovation and remodeling study
conducted under TSCA section
402(c)(2), discussed in Unit III.C.1.c.
This phase of the study consisted of
telephone interviews about renovation
and remodeling activities with the
parents or guardians of Wisconsin
children for whom blood-lead data was
available. The results of this 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, are
discussed in Unit III.C.1.c. and have
been placed in the docket (Ref. 34).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1625
Finally, the Panel recommended that
EPA continue to refine the impact
analysis of the proposal, utilizing
comments from affected industry and
other parties related to costs and other
issues. As always, EPA continues to
refine its impact analysis, and is again
requesting comment on EPA’s updated
assessment of the costs and benefits of
this proposed rule.
EPA invites comments on all aspects
of the proposal and its impacts on small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (Public
Law 104–4), EPA has determined that
this proposed rule contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more by the private
sector in any 1 year, but it will not
result in such expenditures by State,
local, and Tribal governments in the
aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has
prepared a written statement under
section 202 of the UMRA which has
been placed in the public docket for this
proposed rule and is summarized here.
1. Authorizing legislation. This
proposal is issued under the authority of
TSCA sections 402(c)(3) and 404.
2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has
prepared an analysis of the costs and
benefits associated with this proposed
action (Ref. 59), a copy of which is
available in the public docket for this
rulemaking. The Draft Economic
Analysis presents the costs of the
proposal as well as various regulatory
options and is summarized in Unit
VIII.A.
3. State, local, and Tribal government
input. EPA has sought input from State,
local and Tribal government
representatives throughout the
development of this proposal. EPA’s
experience in administering the existing
lead-based paint activities program
under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that
these governments will play a critical
role in the successful implementation of
a national program to reduce exposures
to lead-based paint hazards associated
with renovation, repair, and painting
activities. Consequently, as discussed in
Unit III.C.2., the Agency has met with
State, local, and Tribal government
officials on numerous occasions to
discuss renovation issues.
4. Least burdensome option. As
discussed in the Draft Economic
Analysis prepared for this regulation, as
well as in the information presented on
the Panel review process in Unit
VIII.C.6., EPA considered a wide variety
of options for addressing the risks
presented by renovation activities in
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1626
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
residences where lead-based paint is
present. Options considered include
covering only homes built before 1960,
various combinations of training and
certification requirements for
individuals who perform renovations in
covered housing, various combinations
of work practice requirements, and
various methods for ensuring that no
lead-based paint hazards are left behind
by persons performing renovations. EPA
has determined that the proposed
option is the least burdensome option
available that achieves the objective of
this proposed rule, which is to prevent
the creation of new lead-based paint
hazards from renovation, repair, and
painting activities in housing where
children under age 6 reside.
This proposed rule does not contain
a significant Federal intergovernmental
mandate as described by section 203 of
UMRA. EPA has also determined that
this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Based on the definition of ‘‘small
government jurisdiction’’ in RFA
section 601, no State governments can
be considered small. Small Territorial or
Tribal governments could apply for
authorization to administer and enforce
this program, which would entail costs,
but these small jurisdictions are under
no obligation to do so.
E. Federalism
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), EPA has determined
that this proposed rule does not have
‘‘federalism implications,‘‘ because it
will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
As discussed in Unit IV.F., States
would be able to apply for, and receive
authorization to administer these
proposed requirements, but would be
under no obligation to do so. In the
absence of a State authorization, EPA
will administer these requirements. In
addition, although the provisions of this
proposal would apply to renovations in
target housing owned by State and local
governments, many of these housing
authorities receive federal subsidies for
public housing.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of the
objectives of this Executive Order, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between the Agency
and State and local governments, EPA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
has consulted with representatives of
State and local governments in
developing this rule. EPA hosted three
renovation-specific meetings or
conference calls with State and local
government officials. Summaries of
these meetings have been placed in the
public docket for this action (Refs. 41,
42, and 43).
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
State and local officials.
F. Tribal Implications
As required by Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951, November
6, 2000), EPA has determined that this
proposed rule does not have tribal
implications because it will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in the Order. As
discussed in Unit IV.F., Tribes would be
able to apply for, and receive
authorization to administer these
proposed requirements on Tribal lands,
but Tribes would be under no obligation
to do so. In the absence of a Tribal
authorization, EPA will administer
these requirements. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Although Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule, EPA consulted
with Tribal officials and others by
discussing potential renovation
regulatory options at several national
lead program meetings hosted by EPA
and other interested Federal agencies.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
Tribal officials.
G. Children’s Health Protection.
Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to this proposed rule because it
has been designated an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ as defined
by Executive Order 12866, and the
environmental health or safety risk
addressed by this action have a
disproportionate effect on children.
Accordingly, EPA has evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of
renovation, repair, and painting projects
on children. Various aspects of this
evaluation are discussed in Units III.C.,
IV.A., VIII.A., and VIII.C. Copies of the
renovation and remodeling studies
(Refs. 30, 31, 32, 37, and 38), the Draft
Economic Analysis for this proposal
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Ref. 59), the proposed and final TSCA
section 403 hazard standards (Refs. 24
and 64), and the risk assessments
supporting the hazard standards (Refs.
70 and 71) have been placed in the
public docket for this action.
One purpose of this proposed
regulation is to prevent the creation of
new lead-based paint hazards from
renovation activities in housing where
children under age 6 reside. EPA’s
analysis indicates that renovation,
repair, and painting projects in housing
that is likely to contain lead-based paint
will affect over 1.1 million children
under age 6 annually. In the absence of
this regulation, lead-safe work practices
are not likely to be employed to perform
the renovation projects. These children
are projected to receive considerable
benefits due to this regulation.
H. Energy Effects
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, entitled Actions concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not likely to have any adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
I. Technology Standards
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
EPA is proposing to adopt a number
of work practice requirements that
could be considered technical standards
for performing renovation projects in
residences that contain lead-based
paint. EPA has identified 2 voluntary
consensus documents that address
aspects of the proper performance of
renovation projects where lead-based
paint is present. ASTM International
(formerly the American Society for
Testing and Materials) has developed 2
potentially-applicable documents:
‘‘Standard Practice for Clearance
Examinations Following Lead Hazard
Reduction Activities in Single-Family
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dwellings and Child-Occupied
Facilities’’ (Ref. 72), and ‘‘Standard
Guide for Evaluation, Management, and
Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities’’
(Ref. 73). With respect to the first
document, EPA is not proposing to
require traditional clearance
examinations, including dust sampling,
following renovation projects. However,
as discussed in Unit IV.E., EPA is
proposing to require that a visual
inspection for dust, debris, and residue
be conducted after cleaning and before
post-renovation cleaning verification is
performed. The first ASTM document
does contain information on conducting
a visual inspection before collecting
dust clearance samples. The second
ASTM document is a comprehensive
guide to identifying and controlling
lead-based paint hazards. Some of the
information in this document is relevant
to the work practices that EPA is
proposing to require. Each of these
ASTM documents represents state-ofthe-art knowledge regarding the
performance of these particular aspects
of lead-based paint hazard evaluation
and control practices and EPA
recommends the use of these documents
where appropriate. However, because
each of these documents is extremely
detailed and encompasses many
circumstances beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that it
is practical to incorporate these
voluntary consensus standards into this
proposal.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
recognize test kits that may be used by
certified renovators to determine
whether components to be affected by a
renovation contain lead-based paint.
EPA will recognize those kits that meet
certain performance standards for
limited false positives and negatives.
EPA also intends recognize only those
kits that have been properly validated
by a laboratory independent of the kit
manufacturer. Although EPA is not
establishing a particular method that
must be used for validating kits, for
chemical spot test kits, EPA plans to
look to the ASTM document entitled
Standard Practice for Evaluating the
Performance Characteristics of
Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for
Lead in Paint (Ref. 50) to determine
whether a particular kit’s validation is
adequate.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this
regulation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
J. Environmental Justice
Under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994), the Agency has assessed the
potential impact of this proposal on
minority and low-income populations.
The results of this assessment are
presented in the Draft Economic
Analysis for this proposal, which is
available in the public docket for this
rulemaking (Ref. 59). The rule will not
have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations and
low-income populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745
Environmental protection, Housing
renovation, Lead, Lead-based paint,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 29, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 745—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 745
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–
2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.
2. Section 745.80 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 745.80
Purpose.
This subpart contains regulations
developed under sections 402 and 406
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2682 and 2686) and applies to all
renovations of target housing performed
for compensation. The purpose of this
subpart is to ensure the following:
(a) Owners and occupants of target
housing receive information on leadbased paint hazards before these
renovations begin; and
(b) Persons performing renovations
regulated in accordance with § 745.82
are properly trained; renovators, dust
sampling technicians, and firms
performing these renovations are
certified; and lead-safe work practices
are followed during these renovations.
3. Section 745.81 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 745.81
Effective dates.
(a) Training, certification and
accreditation requirements and work
practice standards. The training,
certification and accreditation
requirements and work practice
standards in this subpart are applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1627
as of [insert date 1 year after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] in any State or Indian
Tribal area that does not have a
renovation program that is authorized
under subpart Q of this part. The
training, certification and accreditation
requirements and work practice
standards in this subpart will become
effective as follows:
(1) Training programs. Effective
[insert date 60 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], no training program
may provide, offer, or claim to provide
training or refresher training for EPA
certification as a renovator or a dust
sampling technician without
accreditation from EPA under § 745.225.
Training programs may apply for
accreditation under § 745.225 beginning
[insert date 1 year after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
(2) Firms. Firms may apply for
certification under § 745.89 beginning
[insert date 18 months after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
(i) No firm may perform, offer, or
claim to perform renovations, as defined
in this subpart, without certification
from EPA under § 745.89 on or after
[insert date 2 years after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register]:
(A) In any target housing where the
firm obtains information indicating that
a child under age 6 with a blood lead
level greater than or equal to 10 µg/dL
or the applicable State or local
government level of concern, if lower,
resides there, or in any target housing
where the firm has not provided 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; or
(B) In target housing constructed
before 1960, unless, in the case of
owner-occupied target housing, the firm
has obtained a statement signed by the
owner that the renovation will occur in
the owner’s residence and no child
under age 6 resides there.
(ii) No firm may perform, offer, or
claim to perform renovations, as defined
in this subpart, without certification
from EPA under § 745.89 on or after
[insert date 3 years after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] in any target housing,
unless, in the case of owner-occupied
target housing, the firm has obtained a
statement signed by the owner that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence and no child under age 6
resides there.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1628
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(3) Individuals. (i) All renovations, as
defined in this subpart, must be directed
by renovators certified in accordance
with § 745.90(a) and performed by
certified renovators or individuals
trained in accordance with
§ 745.90(b)(2) on or after [insert date 2
years after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register]:
(A) In any target housing where the
firm performing the renovation obtains
information indicating that a child
under age 6 with a blood lead level
greater than or equal to 10 µg/dL or the
applicable State or local government
level of concern, if lower, resides there,
or in any target housing where the firm
has not provided 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; or
(B) In target housing constructed
before 1960, unless, in the case of
owner-occupied target housing, the firm
performing the renovation has obtained
a statement signed by the owner that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence and no child under age 6
resides there.
(ii) All renovations, as defined in this
subpart, must be directed by renovators
certified in accordance with § 745.90(a)
and performed by certified renovators or
individuals trained in accordance with
§ 745.90(b)(2) on or after [insert date 3
years after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register] in any
target housing, unless, in the case of
owner-occupied target housing, the firm
performing the renovation has obtained
a statement signed by the owner that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence and no child under age 6
resides there.
(4) Work practices. (i) All renovations,
as defined in § 745.83, must be
performed in accordance with the work
practice standards in § 745.85 and the
associated recordkeeping requirements
in § 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) on or after
[insert date 2 years after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register]:
(A) In any target housing where the
firm performing the renovation obtains
information indicating that a child
under age 6 with a blood lead level
greater than or equal to 10 µg/dL or the
applicable State or local government
level of concern, if lower, resides there,
or in any target housing where the firm
has not provided 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; or
(B) In target housing constructed
before 1960, unless, in the case of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
owner-occupied target housing, the firm
performing the renovation has obtained
a statement signed by the owner that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence and no child under age 6
resides there.
(ii) All renovations, as defined in this
subpart, must be performed in
accordance with the work practice
standards in § 745.85 and the associated
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) on or after
[insert date 3 years after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] in any target housing,
unless, in the case of owner-occupied
target housing, the firm performing the
renovation has obtained a statement
signed by the owner that the renovation
will occur in the owner’s residence and
no child under age 6 resides there.
(5) The suspension and revocation
provisions in § 745.91 are effective
[insert date 2 years after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
(b) Renovation-specific pamphlet.
Before [insert date 8 months after date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], renovators or firms
performing renovations in States and
Indian Tribal areas without an
authorized program may provide
owners and occupants with either of the
following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your
Family From Lead in Your Home or
Protect Your Family from Lead During
Renovation, Repair & Painting. After
that date, Protect Your Family from
Lead During Renovation, Repair &
Painting must be used exclusively.
(c) Pre-Renovation Education Rule.
With the exception of the requirement
to use the pamphlet titled Protect Your
Family from Lead During Renovation,
Repair & Painting, the provisions of the
Pre-Renovation Education Rule in this
subpart have been in effect since June
1999.
4. Section 745.82 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 745.82
Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to all
renovations of target housing performed
for compensation, except for the
following:
(1) Minor repair and maintenance
activities (including minor electrical
work and plumbing) that disrupt 2
square feet or less of painted surface per
component.
(2) Renovations in target housing in
which a written determination has been
made by an inspector (certified pursuant
to either Federal regulations at § 745.226
or a State or Tribal certification program
authorized pursuant to § 745.324) that
the components affected by the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
renovation are free of paint or other
surface coatings that contain lead equal
to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams/per
square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by
weight, where the firm performing the
renovation has obtained a copy of the
determination.
(3) Renovations in target housing in
which a certified renovator, using an
acceptable test kit and following the kit
manufacturer’s instructions, has
determined that the components
affected by the renovation 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.
(b) The information distribution
requirements in § 745.84 do not apply to
emergency renovation operations,
which are renovation activities that
were not planned but result from a
sudden, unexpected event (such as nonroutine failures of equipment) that, if
not immediately attended to, presents a
safety or public health hazard, or
threatens equipment and/or property
with significant damage. Interim
controls performed in response to an
elevated blood lead level in a resident
child are also emergency renovation
operations. The work practice, training,
and certification requirements in
§§ 745.85, 745.89, 745.90 and the
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) apply to
emergency renovation operations to the
extent practicable.
(c) The work practice standards for
renovation activities in § 745.85 apply
to all renovations covered by this
subpart, except for renovations in target
housing for which the firm performing
the renovation has obtained a statement
signed by the owner that the renovation
will occur in the owner’s residence and
no child under age 6 resides there. For
the purposes of this section, a child
resides in the primary residence of his
or her custodial parents, legal guardians,
and foster parents. A child also resides
in the primary residence of an informal
caretaker if the child lives and sleeps
most of the time at the caretaker’s
residence.
5. Section 745.83 is amended as
follows:
a. Remove the definition of
‘‘Emergency renovation operations.’’
b. Revise the definition of ‘‘Pamphlet’’
and the definition of ‘‘Renovator.’’
c. Add 11 definitions in alphabetic
order.
§ 745.83
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Acceptable test kit means a
commercially available kit recognized
by EPA pursuant to section 405 of TSCA
as being capable of allowing a user to
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
accurately determine the presence of
lead at levels equal to or in excess of 1.0
milligrams per square centimeter, or
more than 0.5% lead by weight, in a
paint chip, paint powder, or painted
surface.
*
*
*
*
*
Cleaning verification card means a
card developed and distributed, or
otherwise approved, by EPA for the
purpose of determining, through
comparison of disposable cleaning
cloths with the card, whether postrenovation cleaning has been properly
completed.
Component or building component
means specific design or structural
elements or fixtures of a building or
residential dwelling that are
distinguished from each other by form,
function, and location. These include,
but are not limited to, interior
components such as: Ceilings, crown
molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door
trim, floors, fireplaces, radiators and
other heating units, shelves, shelf
supports, stair treads, stair risers, stair
stringers, newel posts, railing caps,
balustrades, windows and trim
(including sashes, window heads,
jambs, sills or stools and troughs), built
in cabinets, columns, beams, bathroom
vanities, counter tops, and air
conditioners; and exterior components
such as: Painted roofing, chimneys,
flashing, gutters and downspouts,
ceilings, soffits, fascias, rake boards,
cornerboards, bulkheads, doors and
door trim, fences, floors, joists, lattice
work, railings and railing caps, siding,
handrails, stair risers and treads, stair
stringers, columns, balustrades, window
sills or stools and troughs, casings,
sashes and wells, and air conditioners.
Dry disposable cleaning cloth means
a commercially available dry,
electrostatically charged, white
disposable cloth designed to be used for
cleaning hard surfaces such as
uncarpeted floors or counter tops.
*
*
*
*
*
Firm means a company, partnership,
corporation, sole proprietorship or
individual doing business, association,
or other business entity; a Federal, State,
Tribal, or local government agency; or a
nonprofit organization.
HEPA-equipped vacuum means a
vacuum equipped with a high efficiency
particulate air filter.
Interim controls means a set of
measures designed to temporarily
reduce human exposure or likely
exposure to lead-based paint hazards,
including specialized cleaning, repairs,
maintenance, painting, temporary
containment, ongoing monitoring of
lead-based paint hazards or potential
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
hazards, and the establishment and
operation of management and resident
education programs.
*
*
*
*
*
Pamphlet means the EPA pamphlet
titled Protect Your Family from Lead
During Renovation, Repair & Painting
developed under section 406(a) of TSCA
for use in complying with section 406(b)
of TSCA, or any State or Tribal
pamphlet approved by EPA pursuant to
40 CFR 745.326 that is developed for the
same purpose. This includes
reproductions of the pamphlet when
copied in full and without revision or
deletion of material from the pamphlet
(except for the addition or revision of
State or local sources of information).
Before [insert date 8 months after date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], the term ‘‘pamphlet’’
also means any pamphlet developed by
EPA under section 406(a) of TSCA or
any State or Tribal pamphlet approved
by EPA pursuant to § 745.326.
*
*
*
*
*
Renovator means a person who either
performs or directs uncertified workers
who perform renovations. A certified
renovator is a renovator who has
successfully completed a renovator
course accredited by EPA or an EPAauthorized State or Tribal program.
Training hour means at least 50
minutes of actual learning, including,
but not limited to, time devoted to
lecture, learning activities, small group
activities, demonstrations, evaluations,
and hands-on experience.
Wet disposable cleaning cloth means
a commercially available, pre-moistened
white disposable cloth designed to be
used for cleaning hard surfaces such as
uncarpeted floors or counter tops.
Wet mopping system means a device
with the following characteristics: A
long handle, a mop head designed to be
used with disposable absorbent cleaning
pads, a reservoir for cleaning solution,
and a built-in mechanism for
distributing or spraying the cleaning
solution onto a floor.
Work area means the area that the
certified renovator establishes to contain
all of the dust and debris generated by
a renovation, based on the certified
renovator’s evaluation of the extent and
nature of the activity and the specific
work practices that will be used.
§ 745.84 [Removed]
6. Section 745.84 is removed.
§ 745.85 [Redesignated]
7. Section 745.85 is redesignated as
§ 745.84.
8. Newly designated § 745.84 is
amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1629
a. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (a) and revise paragraph
(a)(2)(i).
b. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and revise paragraphs
(b)(2) and (b)(4).
c. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (c).
§ 745.84 Information distribution
requirements.
(a) Renovations in dwelling units. No
more than 60 days before beginning
renovation activities in any residential
dwelling unit of target housing, the firm
performing the renovation must:
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Obtain, from the adult occupant, a
written acknowledgment that the
occupant has received the pamphlet; or
certify in writing that a pamphlet has
been delivered to the dwelling and that
the firm performing the renovation has
been unsuccessful in obtaining a written
acknowledgment from an adult
occupant. Such certification must
include the address of the unit
undergoing renovation, the date and
method of delivery of the pamphlet,
names of the persons delivering the
pamphlet, reason for lack of
acknowledgment (e.g., occupant refuses
to sign, no adult occupant available), the
signature of a representative of the firm
performing the renovation, and the date
of signature.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Renovations in common areas. No
more than 60 days before beginning
renovation activities in common areas of
multi-unit target housing, the firm
performing the renovation must:
(1) * * *
(2) Notify in writing, or ensure written
notification of, each affected unit and
make the pamphlet available upon
request prior to the start of renovation.
Such notification shall be accomplished
by distributing written notice to each
affected unit. The notice shall describe
the general nature and locations of the
planned renovation activities; the
expected starting and ending dates; and
a statement of how the occupant can
obtain the pamphlet, at no charge, from
the firm performing the renovation.
(3) * * *
(4) If the scope, locations, or expected
starting and ending dates of the planned
renovation activities change after the
initial notification, the firm performing
the renovation must provide further
written notification to the owners and
occupants providing revised
information on the ongoing or planned
activities. This subsequent notification
must be provided before the firm
performing the renovation initiates work
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1630
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
beyond that which was described in the
original notice.
(c) Written acknowledgment. The
written acknowledgments required by
paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), and (b)(1)(i)
of this section must:
*
*
*
*
*
9. Section 745.85 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
§ 745.85
Work practice standards.
(a) Standards for renovation activities.
Renovations must be performed by
certified firms using certified renovators
as directed in § 745.89.
(1) Occupant protection. Firms must
post signs clearly defining the work area
and warning occupants and other
persons not involved in renovation
activities to remain outside of the work
area. These signs must be posted before
beginning the renovation and must
remain in place and readable until the
renovation and the post-renovation
cleaning verification have been
completed. If warning signs have been
posted in accordance with 24 CFR
35.1345(b)(2) or 29 CFR 1926.62(m),
additional signs are not required by this
section.
(2) Containing the work area. Before
beginning the renovation, the firm must
isolate the work area so that no visible
dust or debris leaves the work area
while the renovation is being
performed.
(i) Interior renovations. The firm
must:
(A) Remove all objects from the work
area, including furniture, rugs, and
window coverings, or cover them with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material with all seams and edges taped
or otherwise sealed.
(B) Close and cover all ducts opening
in the work area with taped-down
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material.
(C) Close windows and doors in the
work area. Doors must be covered with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material. Doors used as an entrance to
the work area must be covered with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material in a manner that allows
workers to pass through while confining
dust and debris to the work area.
(D) Cover the floor surface of the work
area with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material with all seams
taped and all edges secured at the
perimeter of the work area
(E) Ensure that all personnel, tools,
and other items including waste are free
of dust and debris when leaving the
work area. Alternatively, the paths used
to reach the exterior of the home must
be covered with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material to prevent the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
spread of lead contaminated dust and
debris outside the work area.
(ii) Exterior renovations. The firm
must:
(A) Close all doors and windows
within 20 feet of the renovation. On
multi-story buildings, close all doors
and windows within 20 feet of the
renovation on the same floor as the
renovation, and close all doors and
windows on all floors below that are the
same horizontal distance from the
renovation.
(B) Ensure that doors within the work
area that must be used while the job is
being performed are covered with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material in a manner that allows
workers to pass through while confining
dust and debris to the work area.
(C) Cover the ground with plastic
sheeting or other disposable
impermeable material extending out
from the edge of the structure a
sufficient distance to collect falling
paint debris.
(3) Waste from renovations. (i) Waste
from renovation activities must be
contained to prevent releases of dust
and debris before the waste is removed
from the work area for storage or
disposal. If a chute is used to remove
waste from the work area, it must be
covered.
(ii) At the conclusion of each work
day and at the conclusion of the
renovation, waste that has been
collected from renovation activities
must be stored under containment, in an
enclosure, or behind a barrier that
prevents release of dust and debris out
of the work area and prevents access to
dust and debris.
(iii) When the firm transports waste
from renovation activities, the firm must
contain the waste to prevent identifiable
releases of dust and debris.
(4) Cleaning the work area. After the
renovation has been completed, the firm
must clean the work area until no
visible dust, debris or residue remains.
(i) Interior and exterior renovations.
The firm must:
(A) Pick up all paint chips and debris.
(B) Remove the protective sheeting.
Mist the sheeting before folding it, fold
the dirty side inward, and either tape
shut to seal or seal in heavy-duty bags.
Sheeting used to isolate contaminated
rooms from non-contaminated rooms
must remain in place until after the
cleaning and removal of other sheeting.
Dispose of the sheeting as waste.
(ii) Additional cleaning for interior
renovations. The firm must clean all
objects and surfaces in and around the
work area in the following manner,
cleaning from higher to lower:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(A) Walls. Clean walls starting at the
ceiling and working down to the floor
by either vacuuming with a HEPAequipped vacuum or wiping with a
damp cloth.
(B) Remaining surfaces. Thoroughly
vacuum all remaining surfaces and
objects in the work area, including
furniture and fixtures, with a HEPAequipped vacuum. The HEPA-equipped
vacuum must be equipped with a beater
bar when vacuuming carpets and rugs.
Where feasible, floor surfaces
underneath a rug or carpeting must also
be thoroughly vacuumed with a HEPAequipped vacuum.
(C) Wipe all remaining surfaces and
objects in the work area, except for
carpeted or upholstered surfaces, with a
damp cloth. Mop uncarpeted floors
thoroughly, using a 2-bucket mopping
method that keeps the wash water
separate from the rinse water, or using
a wet mopping system.
(b) Standards for post-renovation
cleaning verification. (1) Interiors. (i) A
certified renovator must perform a
visual inspection to determine whether
visible amounts of dust, debris or
residue are still present. If visible
amounts of dust, debris or residue are
present, these conditions must be
eliminated by re-cleaning and another
visual inspection must be performed.
(ii) After a successful visual
inspection, a certified renovator must:
(A) Verify that each windowsill in the
work area has been adequately cleaned,
using the following procedure.
(1) Wipe the windowsill with a wet
disposable cleaning cloth that is damp
to the touch. If the cloth matches the
cleaning verification card, the
windowsill has been adequately
cleaned.
(2) If the cloth does not match the
cleaning verification card, re-clean the
windowsill as directed in paragraphs
(a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, then
either use a new cloth or fold the used
cloth in such a way that an unused
surface is exposed, and wipe the
windowsill again. If the cloth matches
the cleaning verification card, that
windowsill has been adequately
cleaned.
(3) If the cloth does not match the
cleaning verification card, clean that
windowsill again as directed in
paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of this
section and wait for one hour or until
the windowsill has dried completely,
whichever is longer.
(4) After waiting for the windowsill to
dry, wipe the windowsill with dry
disposable cleaning cloths until a cloth,
or section of cloth, used to wipe the
windowsill matches the cleaning
verification card.
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(B) Wipe uncarpeted floors within the
work area with a wet disposable
cleaning cloth, using an application
device with a long handle and a head
to which the cloth is attached. The cloth
must remain damp at all times while it
is being used to wipe the floor for postrenovation cleaning verification. If the
floor surface within the work area is
greater than 40 square feet, the floor
within the work area must be divided
into roughly equal sections that are each
less than 40 square feet. Wipe each such
section separately with a new wet
disposable cleaning cloth. If the cloth
used to wipe each section of the floor
within the work area matches the
cleaning verification card, the floor has
been adequately cleaned.
(1) If the cloth used to wipe a
particular floor section does not match
the cleaning verification card, re-clean
that section of the floor as directed in
paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (a)(4)(ii)(C)
of this section, then use a new wet
disposable cleaning cloth to wipe that
section again. If the cloth matches the
cleaning verification card, that section
of the floor has been adequately
cleaned.
(2) If the cloth used to wipe a
particular floor section does not match
the cleaning verification card after the
floor has been re-cleaned, clean that
section of the floor again as directed in
paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (a)(4)(ii)(C)
of this section and wait for 1 hour or
until the entire floor within the work
area has dried completely, whichever is
longer.
(3) After waiting for the entire floor
within the work area to dry, wipe those
sections of the floor that have not yet
achieved post-renovation cleaning
verification with dry disposable
cleaning cloths until a cloth that has
wiped those sections of the floor
matches the cleaning verification card.
This wiping must also be performed
using an application device with a long
handle and a head to which the cloths
are attached.
(iii) Dust clearance sampling may be
performed instead of, or in addition to,
the procedures identified in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section. If dust clearance
sampling is performed, it must be
performed in accordance with
§ 745.227(e)(8) through (e)(9), except
that a dust sampling technician certified
in accordance with this subpart may
collect and report the results of the
required samples.
(iv) When the work area passes the
post-renovation cleaning verification or
dust clearance sampling, remove the
warning signs.
(2) Exteriors. A certified renovator
must perform a visual inspection to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
1631
determine whether visible amounts of
dust, debris or residue are still present.
If visible amounts of dust, debris or
residue are present, these conditions
must be eliminated and another visual
inspection must be performed. When
the area passes the visual inspection,
remove the warning signs.
(c) Activities conducted after postrenovation cleaning verification.
Activities that do not disturb paint, such
as applying paint to walls that have
already been prepared, are not regulated
by this subpart if they are conducted
after post-renovation cleaning
verification has been performed.
10. Section 745.86 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding new
paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) to read as
follows:
renovation cleaning verification
described in § 745.85(b). This
documentation must include a copy of
the certified renovator’s or dust
sampling technician’s training
certificate, and signed and dated
descriptions of how activities performed
by the certified renovator or dust
sampling technician, including worker
training activities, sign posting, work
area containment, waste handling,
cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning
verification or clearance were
conducted in compliance with this
subpart. The descriptions of these
activities must include a certification by
the record preparer that the descriptions
are complete and accurate.
11. Section 745.87 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 745.86
§ 745.87
Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Firms performing renovations or
conducting dust sampling must retain
and, if requested, make available to EPA
all records necessary to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart for a
period of 3 years following completion
of the renovation or dust sampling
activities. This 3–year retention
requirement does not supersede longer
obligations required by other provisions
for retaining the same documentation,
including any applicable State or Tribal
laws or regulations.
(b) * * *
(6) Any signed and dated statements
received from owner-occupants that no
children under age 6 reside in housing
being renovated which document that
the requirements of § 745.85 do not
apply. These statements must include a
declaration that the renovation will
occur in the owner’s residence, a
declaration that no children under age
6 reside there, the address of the unit
undergoing renovation, the owner’s
name, the signature of the owner, and
the date of signature. These statements
must be written in the same language as
the text of the renovation contract, if
any. This requirement includes any
statements received from owners or
occupants that a child under age 6 with
a blood lead level that equals or exceeds
10 µg/dL, or an applicable State or local
government level of concern, if lower,
resides there.
(7) Documentation of compliance
with the requirements of § 745.85,
including documentation that a certified
renovator was assigned to the project,
the certified renovator provided on-thejob training for uncertified workers used
on the project, the certified renovator
performed or directed uncertified
workers who performed all of the tasks
described in § 745.85(a), and the
certified renovator performed the post-
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Enforcement and inspections.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Lead-based paint is assumed to be
present at renovations covered by this
subpart. EPA may conduct inspections
and issue subpoenas pursuant to the
provisions of TSCA section 11 (15
U.S.C. 2610) to ensure compliance with
this subpart.
§ 745.88 [Removed]
12. Section 745.88 is removed.
13. Section 745.89 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
§ 745.89
Firm certification.
(a) Initial certification. (1) Firms that
perform renovations for compensation
must apply to EPA for certification to
perform renovations or dust sampling.
To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a
completed ‘‘Application for Firms,’’
signed by an authorized agent of the
firm, and pay at least the correct amount
of fees. If a firm pays more than the
correct amount of fees, EPA will
reimburse the firm for the excess
amount.
(2) After EPA receives a firm’s
application, EPA will take one of the
following actions within 90 days of the
date the application is received:
(i) EPA will approve a firm’s
application if EPA determines that it is
complete and that the environmental
compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees does
not show an unwillingness or inability
to maintain compliance with
environmental statutes or regulations.
An application is complete if it contains
all of the information requested on the
form and includes at least the correct
amount of fees. When EPA approves a
firm’s application, EPA will issue the
firm a certificate with an expiration date
not more than 3 years from the date the
application is approved. EPA
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1632
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
certification allows the firm to perform
renovations covered by this section in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
(ii) EPA will request a firm to
supplement its application if EPA
determines that the application is
incomplete. If EPA requests a firm to
supplement its application, the firm
must submit the requested information
or pay the additional fees within 30
days of the date of the request.
(iii) EPA will not approve a firm’s
application if the firm does not
supplement its application in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section or if EPA determines that
the environmental compliance history
of the firm, its principals, or its key
employees demonstrates an
unwillingness or inability to maintain
compliance with environmental statutes
or regulations. EPA will send the firm
a letter giving the reason for not
approving the application. EPA will not
refund the application fees. A firm may
reapply for certification at any time by
filing a new, complete application that
includes the correct amount of fees.
(b) Re-certification. To maintain its
certification, a firm must be re-certified
by EPA every 3 years.
(1) Timely and complete application.
To be re-certified, a firm must submit a
complete application for re-certification.
A complete application for recertification includes a completed
‘‘Application for Firms’’ which contains
all of the information requested by the
form and is signed by an authorized
agent of the firm, noting on the form
that it is submitted as a re-certification.
A complete application must also
include at least the correct amount of
fees. If a firm pays more than the correct
amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the
firm for the excess amount.
(i) An application for re-certification
is timely if it is postmarked 90 days or
more before the date the firm’s current
certification expires. If the firm’s
application is complete and timely, the
firm’s current certification will remain
in effect until its expiration date or until
EPA has made a final decision to
approve or disapprove the recertification application, whichever is
later.
(ii) If the firm submits a complete recertification application less than 90
days before its current certification
expires, and EPA does not approve the
application before the expiration date,
the firm’s current certification will
expire and the firm will not be able to
conduct renovations until EPA approves
its re-certification application.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
(iii) If the firm fails to obtain
recertification before the firm’s current
certification expires, the firm must not
perform renovations or dust sampling
until it is certified anew pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) EPA action on an application.
After EPA receives a firm’s application
for re-certification, EPA will review the
application and take one of the
following actions within 90 days of
receipt:
(i) EPA will approve a firm’s
application if EPA determines that it is
timely and complete and that the
environmental compliance history of
the firm, its principals, or its key
employees does not show an
unwillingness or inability to maintain
compliance with environmental statutes
or regulations. When EPA approves a
firm’s application for re-certification,
EPA will issue the firm a new certificate
with an expiration date 3 years from the
date that the firm’s current certification
expires. EPA certification allows the
firm to perform renovations or dust
sampling covered by this section in any
State or Indian Tribal area that does not
have a renovation program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
(ii) EPA will request a firm to
supplement its application if EPA
determines that the application is
incomplete.
(iii) EPA will not approve a firm’s
application if it is not received or is not
complete as of the date that the firm’s
current certification expires, or if EPA
determines that the environmental
compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees
demonstrates an unwillingness or
inability to maintain compliance with
environmental statutes or regulations.
EPA will send the firm a letter giving
the reason for not approving the
application. EPA will not refund the
application fees. A firm may reapply for
certification at any time by filing a new
application and paying the correct
amount of fees.
(c) Amendment of certification. A
firm must amend its certification within
45 days of the date a change occurs to
information included in the firm’s most
recent application. If the firm fails to
amend its certification within 45 days of
the date the change occurs, the firm may
not perform renovations or dust
sampling until its certification is
amended.
(1) To amend a certification, a firm
must submit a completed ‘‘Application
for Firms,’’ signed by an authorized
agent of the firm, noting on the form
that it is submitted as an amendment
and indicating the information that has
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
changed. The firm must also pay at least
the correct amount of fees.
(2) If additional information is needed
to process the amendment, or the firm
did not pay the correct amount of fees,
EPA will request the firm to submit the
necessary information or fees. The
firm’s certification is not amended until
the firm complies with the request.
(3) Amending a certification does not
affect the certification expiration date.
(d) Firm responsibilities. Firms
performing renovations or dust
sampling must ensure that:
(1)(i) All persons performing
renovation activities on behalf of the
firm are either certified renovators or
have been trained by a certified
renovator in accordance with § 745.90.
(ii) All persons performing dust
sampling on behalf of the firm are
certified as either risk assessors,
inspectors, or dust sampling
technicians.
(2) A certified renovator is assigned to
each renovation performed by the firm
and discharges all of the certified
renovator responsibilities identified in
§ 745.90; and
(3) All renovations performed by the
firm are performed in accordance with
the work practice standards in § 745.85.
14. Section 745.90 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
§ 745.90 Renovator and dust sampling
technician certification.
(a) Renovator and dust sampling
technician certification. (1) To become a
certified renovator or dust sampling
technician, a person must successfully
complete the appropriate course
accredited by EPA under § 745.225 or by
a State or Tribal program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
The course completion certificate serves
as proof of certification. EPA renovator
certification allows the certified
individual to perform renovations
covered by this section in any State or
Indian Tribal area that does not have a
renovation program that is authorized
under subpart Q of this part. EPA dust
sampling technician certification allows
the certified individual to perform dust
sampling covered by this section in any
State or Indian Tribal area that does not
have a renovation program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
(2) To maintain renovator or dust
sampling technician certification, a
person must complete a renovator or
dust sampling technician refresher
course accredited by EPA under
§ 745.225 or by a State or Tribal program
that is authorized under subpart Q of
this part within 3 years of the date the
person completed the initial course
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
section. If the person does not complete
a refresher course within this time, the
person must re-take the initial course to
become certified again.
(3) Persons who have a valid leadbased paint abatement supervisor or
worker certification issued by EPA
under § 745.226 or by a State or Tribal
program authorized under subpart Q of
this part are also deemed to be certified
renovators.
(4) Persons who have a valid leadbased paint inspector or risk assessor
certification issued by EPA under
§ 745.226 or by a State or Tribal program
authorized under subpart Q of this part
are also deemed to be certified dust
sampling technicians.
(b) Renovator responsibilities.
Certified renovators are responsible for
ensuring compliance with § 745.85 at all
renovations to which they are assigned.
A certified renovator:
(1) Must perform all of the tasks
described in § 745.85(b) and must either
perform or direct uncertified workers
who perform all of the tasks described
in § 745.85(a).
(2) Must provide training to
uncertified workers on the lead-safe
work practices they will be using in
performing their assigned tasks, how to
isolate the work area and maintain the
integrity of the containment barriers,
and how to avoid spreading dust or
debris beyond the work area.
(3) Must be physically present at the
work site when the signs required by
§ 745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work
area containment required by
§ 745.85(a)(2) is being established, and
while the work area cleaning required
by § 745.85(a)(4) is performed.
(4) Must direct work being performed
by uncertified persons to ensure that
lead-safe work practices are being
followed, the integrity of the
containment barriers is maintained, and
dust or debris is not spread beyond the
work area.
(5) Must be available, either on-site or
by telephone, at all times that
renovations are being conducted.
(6) When requested by the entity
contracting for renovation services,
must use an acceptable test kit to
determine whether components to be
affected by the renovation contain leadbased paint.
(7) Must have with them at the work
site copies of their initial course
completion certificate and their most
recent refresher course completion
certificate.
(c) Dust sampling technician
responsibilities. A certified dust
sampling technician:
(1) Must collect dust samples in
accordance with § 745.227(e)(8), must
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
send the collected samples to a
laboratory recognized by EPA under
TSCA section 405(b), and must compare
the results to the clearance levels in
accordance with § 745.227(e)(8).
(2) Must have with them at the work
site copies of their initial course
completion certificate and their most
recent refresher course completion
certificate.
15. Section 745.91 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
§ 745.91 Suspending, revoking, or
modifying an individual’s or firm’s
certification.
(a)(1) Grounds for suspending,
revoking or modifying an individual’s
certification. EPA may suspend, revoke,
or modify an individual’s certification if
the individual fails to comply with
Federal lead-based paint statutes or
regulations. EPA may also suspend,
revoke, or modify a certified renovator’s
certification if the renovator fails to
ensure that all assigned renovations
comply with § 745.85. In addition to an
administrative or judicial finding of
violation, execution of a consent
agreement in settlement of an
enforcement action constitutes, for
purposes of this section, evidence of a
failure to comply with relevant statutes
or regulations.
(2) Grounds for suspending, revoking
or modifying a firm’s certification. EPA
may suspend, revoke, or modify a firm’s
certification if the firm:
(i) Submits false or misleading
information to EPA in its application for
certification or re-certification.
(ii) Fails to maintain or falsifies
records required in § 745.86.
(iii) Fails to comply, or an individual
performing a renovation on behalf of the
firm fails to comply, with Federal leadbased paint statutes or regulations. In
addition to an administrative or judicial
finding of violation, execution of a
consent agreement in settlement of an
enforcement action constitutes, for
purposes of this section, evidence of a
failure to comply with relevant statutes
or regulations.
(b) Process for suspending, revoking,
or modifying certification. (1) Prior to
taking action to suspend, revoke, or
modify an individual’s or firm’s
certification, EPA will notify the
affected entity in writing of the
following:
(i) The legal and factual basis for the
proposed suspension, revocation, or
modification.
(ii) The anticipated commencement
date and duration of the suspension,
revocation, or modification.
(iii) Actions, if any, which the
affected entity may take to avoid
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1633
suspension, revocation, or modification,
or to receive certification in the future.
(iv) The opportunity and method for
requesting a hearing prior to final
suspension, revocation, or modification.
(2) If an individual or firm requests a
hearing, EPA will:
(i) Provide the affected entity an
opportunity to offer written statements
in response to EPA’s assertions of the
legal and factual basis for its proposed
action.
(ii) Appoint an impartial official of
EPA as Presiding Officer to conduct the
hearing.
(3) The Presiding Officer will:
(i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and
impartial hearing within 90 days of the
request for a hearing.
(ii) Consider all relevant evidence,
explanation, comment, and argument
submitted.
(iii) Notify the affected entity in
writing within 90 days of completion of
the hearing of his or her decision and
order. Such an order is a final agency
action which may be subject to judicial
review.
(4) If EPA determines that the public
health, interest, or welfare warrants
immediate action to suspend the
certification of any individual or firm
prior to the opportunity for a hearing, it
will:
(i) Notify the affected entity in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i)
through (b)(1)(iii) of this section,
explaining why it is necessary to
suspend the entity’s certification before
an opportunity for a hearing.
(ii) Notify the affected entity of its
right to request a hearing on the
immediate suspension within 15 days of
the suspension taking place and the
procedures for the conduct of such a
hearing.
(5) Any notice, decision, or order
issued by EPA under this section, any
transcript or other verbatim record of
oral testimony, and any documents filed
by a certified individual or firm in a
hearing under this section will be
available to the public, except as
otherwise provided by section 14 of
TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any such
hearing at which oral testimony is
presented will be open to the public,
except that the Presiding Officer may
exclude the public to the extent
necessary to allow presentation of
information which may be entitled to
confidential treatment under section 14
of TSCA or part 2 of this title.
(6) EPA will maintain a publicly
available list of entities whose
certification has been suspended,
revoked, modified or reinstated.
16. Section 745.220 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1634
§ 745.220
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Scope and applicability.
(a) This subpart contains procedures
and requirements for the accreditation
of training programs for lead-based
paint activities and renovations,
procedures and requirements for the
certification of individuals and firms
engaged in lead-based paint activities,
and work practice standards for
performing such activities. This subpart
also requires that, except as discussed
below, all lead-based paint activities, as
defined in this subpart, be performed by
certified individuals and firms.
*
*
*
*
*
17. Section 745.225 is amended as
follows:
a. Revise paragraph (a).
b. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (b), revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii),
and add paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C).
c. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (c) and paragraph (c)(8)(iv),
add paragraphs (c)(6)(vi), (c)(6)(vii), and
(c)(8)(vi), and revise paragraph (c)(10).
d. Amend paragraph (c)(13) by
replacing the phrase ‘‘lead-based paint
activities’’ with the phrase ‘‘renovator,
dust sampling technician, or lead-based
paint activities’’ wherever it appears in
the paragraph.
e. Add paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7).
f. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (e).
g. Amend paragraph (e)(1) by
removing the word ‘‘activities’’
wherever it appears in the paragraph.
h. Revise paragraph (e)(2).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
§ 745.225 Accreditation of training
programs; target housing and childoccupied facilities.
(a) Scope. (1) A training program may
seek accreditation to offer courses in
any of the following disciplines:
Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor,
project designer, abatement worker,
renovator, and dust sampling
technician. A training program may also
seek accreditation to offer refresher
courses for each of the above listed
disciplines.
(2) Training programs may first apply
to EPA for accreditation of their leadbased paint activities courses or
refresher courses pursuant to this
section on or after August 31, 1998.
Training programs may first apply to
EPA for accreditation of their renovator
or dust sampling technician courses or
refresher courses pursuant to this
section on or after [insert date 1 year
after date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register].
(3) A training program must not
provide, offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited lead-based paint activities
courses without applying for and
receiving accreditation from EPA as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
required under paragraph (b) of this
section on or after March 1, 1999. A
training program must not provide,
offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited renovator or dust sampling
technician courses without applying for
and receiving accreditation from EPA as
required under paragraph (b) of this
section on or after [insert date 60 days
after date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register].
(b) Application process. The
following are procedures a training
program must follow to receive EPA
accreditation to offer lead-based paint
activities courses, renovator courses, or
dust sampling technician courses:
(1) * * *
(ii) A list of courses for which it is
applying for accreditation. For the
purposes of this section, courses taught
in different languages are considered
different courses, and each must
independently meet the accreditation
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) * * *
(C) When applying for accreditation of
a course in a language other than
English, a signed statement from a
qualified, independent translator that
they had compared the course to the
English language version and found the
translation to be accurate.
(c) Requirements for the accreditation
of training programs. For a training
program to obtain accreditation from
EPA to offer lead-based paint activities
courses, renovator courses, or dust
sampling technician courses, the
program must meet the following
requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
(6) * * *
(vi) The renovator course must last a
minimum of 8 training hours, with a
minimum of 2 hours devoted to handson training activities. The minimum
curriculum requirements for the
renovator course are contained in
paragraph (d)(6) of this section. Handson training activities must cover
renovation methods that minimize the
creation of dust and lead-based paint
hazards, interior and exterior
containment and cleanup methods, and
post-renovation cleaning verification.
(vii) The dust sampling technician
course must last a minimum of 8
training hours, with a minimum of 2
hours devoted to hands-on training
activities. The minimum curriculum
requirements for the dust sampling
technician course are contained in
paragraph (d)(7) of this section. Hands
on training activities must cover dust
sampling methodologies.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(8) * * *
(iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor,
project designer, supervisor, or
abatement worker course completion
certificates, the expiration date of
interim certification, which is 6 months
from the date of course completion.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) The language in which the course
was taught.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Courses offered by the training
program must teach the work practice
standards contained in § 745.85 or
§ 745.227, as applicable, in such a
manner that trainees are provided with
the knowledge needed to perform the
renovations or lead-based paint
activities they will be responsible for
conducting.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(6) Renovator. (i) Role and
responsibility of a renovator.
(ii) Background information on lead
and its adverse health effects.
(iii) Background information on
Federal, State, and local regulations and
guidance that pertains to lead-based
paint and renovation activities.
(iv) Procedures for using acceptable
test kits to determine whether paint is
lead-based paint.
(v) Renovation methods to minimize
the creation of dust and lead-based
paint hazards.
(vi) Interior and exterior containment
and cleanup methods.
(vii) Methods to ensure that the
renovation has been properly
completed, including clean-up
verification, and clearance testing.
(viii) Waste handling and disposal.
(7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role
and responsibility of a dust sampling
technician.
(ii) Background information on lead
and its adverse health effects.
(iii) Background information on
Federal, State, and local regulations and
guidance that pertains to lead-based
paint and renovation activities.
(iv) Dust sampling methodologies.
(v) Clearance standards and testing.
(vi) Report preparation.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Requirements for the accreditation
of refresher training programs. A
training program may seek accreditation
to offer refresher training courses in any
of the following disciplines: Inspector,
risk assessor, supervisor, project
designer, abatement worker, renovator,
and dust sampling technician. To obtain
EPA accreditation to offer refresher
training, a training program must meet
the following minimum requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(1) * * *
(2) Refresher courses for inspector,
risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement
worker must last a minimum of 8
training hours. Refresher courses for
project designer, renovator, and dust
sampling technician must last a
minimum of 4 training hours.
*
*
*
*
*
18. Section 745.320 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 745.320
Scope and purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) A State or Indian Tribe may seek
authorization to administer and enforce
all of the provisions of subpart E of this
part or just the pre-renovation education
provisions of subpart E of this part. The
provisions of §§ 745.324 and 745.326
apply for the purposes of such program
authorizations.
*
*
*
*
*
19. Section 745.324 is amended as
follows:
a. Revise paragraph (a)(1).
b. Delete the phrase ‘‘lead-based paint
training accreditation and certification’’
from the second sentence of paragraph
(b)(1)(iii).
c. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
d. Revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and
(e)(4).
e. Revise paragraph (f)(2).
f. Revise paragraph (i)(8).
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
§ 745.324 Authorization of State or Tribal
programs.
(a) Application content and
procedures. (1) Any State or Indian
Tribe that seeks authorization from EPA
to administer and enforce the provisions
of subpart E or subpart L of this part
must submit an application to the
Administrator in accordance with this
paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) An analysis of the State or Tribal
program that compares the program to
the Federal program in subpart E or
subpart L of this part, or both. This
analysis must demonstrate how the
program is, in the State’s or Indian
Tribe’s assessment, at least as protective
as the elements in the Federal program
at subpart E or subpart L of this part, or
both. EPA will use this analysis to
evaluate the protectiveness of the State
or Tribal program in making its
determination pursuant to paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The State or Tribal program is at
least as protective of human health and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
the environment as the corresponding
Federal program under subpart E or
subpart L of this part, or both; and
*
*
*
*
*
(4) If the State or Indian Tribe applies
for authorization of State or Tribal
programs under both subpart E and
subpart L, EPA may, as appropriate,
authorize one program and disapprove
the other.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) If a State or Indian Tribe does not
have an authorized program to
administer and enforce the prerenovation education requirements of
subpart E of this part by August 31,
1998, the Administrator will, by such
date, enforce those provisions of subpart
E of this part as the Federal program for
that State or Indian Country. If a State
or Indian Tribe does not have an
authorized program to administer and
enforce the training, certification and
accreditation requirements and work
practice standards of subpart E of this
part by [insert date 1 year after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], the Administrator
will, by such date, enforce those
provisions of subpart E of this part as
the Federal program for that State or
Indian Country.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(8) By the date of such order, the
Administrator will establish and enforce
the provisions of subpart E or subpart L
of this part, or both, as the Federal
program for that State or Indian
Country.
20. Section 745.326 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal
program requirements.
(a) Program elements. To receive
authorization from EPA, a State or
Tribal program must contain the
following program elements:
(1) For pre-renovation education
programs, procedures and requirements
for the distribution of lead hazard
information to owners and occupants of
target housing before renovations for
compensation.
(2) For renovation training,
certification, accreditation, and work
practice standards programs:
(i) Procedures and requirements for
the accreditation of renovation and dust
sampling technician training programs.
(ii) Procedures and requirements for
the certification of renovators and dust
sampling technicians.
(iii) Procedures and requirements for
the certification of individuals and/or
firms.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1635
(iv) Requirements that all renovations
be conducted by appropriately certified
individuals and/or firms.
(v) Work practice standards for the
conduct of renovations.
(3) For all renovation programs,
development of the appropriate
infrastructure or government capacity to
effectively carry out a State or Tribal
program.
(b) Pre-renovation education. To be
considered at least as protective as the
Federal program, the State or Tribal
program must:
(1) Establish clear standards for
identifying renovation activities that
trigger the information distribution
requirements.
(2) Establish procedures for
distributing the lead hazard information
to owners and occupants of housing
prior to renovation activities.
(3) Require that the information to be
distributed include either the pamphlet
titled Protect Your Family from Lead
During Renovation, Repair & Painting,
developed by EPA under section 406(a),
or an alternate pamphlet or package of
lead hazard information that has been
submitted by the State or Tribe,
reviewed by EPA, and approved by EPA
for that State or Tribe. Such information
must contain renovation-specific
information similar to that in Protect
Your Family from Lead During
Renovation, Repair & Painting, must
meet the content requirements
prescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA,
and must be in a format that is readable
to the diverse audience of housing
owners and occupants in that State or
Tribe.
(i) A State or Tribe with a prerenovation education program approved
before [insert date 60 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] must demonstrate that
it meets the requirements of this section
no later than the first report that it
submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) of this
subpart on or after [insert date 1 year
after date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register].
(ii) A State or Tribe with an
application for approval of a prerenovation education program
submitted but not approved before
[insert date 60 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] must demonstrate that
it meets the requirements of this section
either by amending its application or in
the first report that it submits pursuant
to § 745.324(h) of this part on or after
[insert date 1 year after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
(iii) A State or Indian Tribe
submitting its application for approval
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
1636
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
of a pre-renovation education program
on or after [insert date 60 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register] must demonstrate in
its application that it meets the
requirements of this section.
(c) Accreditation of training programs.
To be considered at least as protective
as the Federal program, the State or
Tribal program must meet the
requirements of either paragraph (c)(1)
or (c)(2) of this section:
(1) The State or Tribal program must
establish accreditation procedures and
requirements, including:
(i) Procedures and requirements for
the accreditation of training programs,
including, but not limited to:
(A) Training curriculum
requirements.
(B) Training hour requirements.
(C) Hands-on training requirements.
(D) Trainee competency and
proficiency requirements.
(E) Requirements for training program
quality control.
(ii) Procedures and requirements for
the re-accreditation of training
programs.
(iii) Procedures for the oversight of
training programs.
(iv) Procedures and standards for the
suspension, revocation, or modification
of training program accreditations; or
(2) The State or Tribal program must
establish procedures and requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
for the acceptance of renovation training
offered by training providers accredited
by EPA or a State or Tribal program
authorized by EPA under this subpart.
(d) Certification of renovators. To be
considered at least as protective as the
Federal program, the State or Tribal
program must:
(1) Establish procedures and
requirements for individual certification
that ensure that certified renovators are
trained by an accredited training
program.
(2) Establish procedures and
requirements for re-certification.
(3) Establish procedures for the
suspension, revocation, or modification
of certifications.
(e) Work practice standards for
renovations. To be considered at least as
protective as the Federal program, the
State or Tribal program must establish
standards that ensure that renovations
are conducted reliably, effectively, and
safely. At a minimum, the State or
Tribal program must contain the
following requirements:
(1) Renovations must be conducted
only by certified contractors.
(2) Renovations are conducted using
lead-safe work practices that are at least
as protective to occupants as the
requirements in § 745.85.
(3) Certified contractors must retain
appropriate records.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
21. Section 745.327 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and
(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based
paint compliance and enforcement
programs.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Requirements that regulate the
conduct of renovation activities as
described at § 745.326.
(2) * * *
(ii) For the purposes of enforcing a
renovation program, State or Tribal
officials must be able to enter a firm’s
place of business or work site.
*
*
*
*
*
22. Section 745.339 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 745.339
Effective dates.
States and Indian Tribes may seek
authorization to administer and enforce
subpart L of this part pursuant to this
subpart at any time. States and Indian
Tribes may seek authorization to
administer and enforce subpart E of this
part pursuant to this subpart effective
[insert date 60 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
[FR Doc. 06–71 Filed 1–9–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
E:\FR\FM\10JAP2.SGM
10JAP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1588-1636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-71]
[[Page 1587]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 745
Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1588]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: https://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 (202) 564-8930. 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 https://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 https://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
https://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 (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA
Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.
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: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-
Hotline@epa.gov.
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: (202) 566-0521; e-mail
address: wilson.mike@epa.gov.
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.
[[Page 1589]]
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
[[Page 1590]]
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
[[Page 1591]]
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
[[Page 1592]]
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
[[Page 1593]]
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
[[Page 1594]]
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 https://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/leadsaferule/index.cfm or by
calling (202) 755-1785, 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
[[Page 1595]]
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 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
[[Page 1596]]
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