Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, 24802-24819 [2010-10100]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24802-24819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10100]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8823-7]
RIN 2070-AJ55


Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in 
the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal 
Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule established accreditation, 
training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 
practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation 
in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. In this 
document, EPA is eliminating the ``opt-out'' provision that currently 
exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice 
requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from 
the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 
or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-
occupied facility. EPA is also requiring renovation firms to provide a 
copy of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work 
practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner and, if different, 
the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the 
child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes minor changes to 
the certification, accreditation and state authorization requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the docket index available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic 
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard 
copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic 
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor 
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must 
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 566-0758; e-mail address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
    Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in 
this unit through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 
1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a 
training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you 
are a firm who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in 
accordance with 40 CFR 745.89, or if you are an individual who must be 
certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 
745.90.
    This final rule applies only in States, Territories, and Indian 
Tribal areas that do not have authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 
745.324. For further information regarding the authorization status of 
States, Territories, and Indian Tribes, contact the National Lead 
Information Center (NLIC) at 1-800-424-LEAD [5323]. Potentially 
affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction, 
residential remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., 
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall 
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, 
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential 
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
     Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), 
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.

[[Page 24803]]

     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), 
e.g., training providers.
     Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building 
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling 
technicians.
     Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., 
firms and supervisors engaged in lead-based paint activities.
    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 40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 
745.225, and 40 CFR 745.226. 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.

II. Background

A. Agency's Authority for Taking This Action

    This final rule is being issued under the authority of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 
U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687).

B. Introduction

    In the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008, under the 
authority of sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, EPA issued 
its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR 
part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses lead-based paint hazards 
created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb 
painted surfaces in target housing and child-occupied facilities.
    Shortly after the RRP rule was published, several petitions were 
filed challenging the rule. These petitions were consolidated in the 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On 
August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and 
children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. In 
this agreement EPA committed to propose several changes to the RRP 
rule, including the changes discussed in this document regarding the 
opt-out provision and recordkeeping requirements.
    The RRP rule establishes requirements for training renovators, 
other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians; for certifying 
renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for 
accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician 
training; for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. 
Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for and 
receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of 
the new renovation requirements. More information on the RRP rule may 
be found in the Federal Register document announcing the RRP rule or on 
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm.
    Many provisions of the RRP rule were derived from the existing 
lead-based paint activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L 
(Ref. 2). These existing regulations were promulgated in 1996 under 
TSCA section 402(a), which 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. These regulations established an 
accreditation program for training providers and a certification 
program for individuals and firms performing these activities. Training 
course accreditation and individual certification was made available in 
five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abatement 
supervisor, and abatement worker. In addition, these lead-based paint 
activities regulations established work practice standards and 
recordkeeping requirements for lead-based paint activities in target 
housing and child-occupied facilities.
    The RRP rule created two new training disciplines in the field of 
lead-based paint: Renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who 
successfully complete renovator training from an accredited training 
provider are certified renovators. Certified renovators are responsible 
for ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are performed 
in compliance with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 
745.85. Persons who successfully complete dust sampling technician 
training from an accredited training provider are certified dust 
sampling technicians. Certified dust sampling technicians may be called 
upon to collect dust samples after renovation activities have been 
completed.
    The RRP rule contains a number of work practice requirements that 
must be followed for every covered renovation in target housing and 
child-occupied facilities. These requirements pertain to warning signs 
and work area containment, the restriction or prohibition of certain 
practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power planing), 
waste handling, cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning verification. 
The firm must ensure compliance with these work practices. Although the 
certified renovator is not required to be on-site at all times, while 
the renovation project is ongoing, a certified renovator must 
nonetheless regularly direct the work being performed by other workers 
to ensure that the work practices are being followed.

C. Opt-Out Provision

    The RRP rule included a provision that exempts a renovation firm 
from the training and work practice requirements of the rule when the 
firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she 
occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the 
home and the home is not a child-occupied facility. Unless the target 
housing meets the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-
occupant signed a statement that no child under age 6 and no pregnant 
woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will 
not be required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's 
RRP rule, the renovation activity is not subject to the training, 
certification, and work practice requirements of the rule. Conversely, 
if the owner-occupant does not sign the certification and acknowledg 
ment for any reason (even if no children under age 6 or no pregnant 
women reside there), the renovation is subject to the requirements of 
the RRP rule.
    Even though the Agency included the opt-out provision in the final 
RRP rule, EPA recognized that the opt-out presented concerns for 
exposure to children under age 6. Nonetheless, EPA explained that it 
believed it should focus the rule on scenarios with the greatest 
exposure to children under age 6, that concerns for new homeowners 
would be mitigated to some extent by the requirements of the 
``Disclosure Rule'', and that older children and adults did not ingest 
lead-dust at as high a rate as toddlers and therefore high dust lead 
levels present a much greater risk to a young child than they do for an 
older child or adult. After promulgation, the rule, and specifically 
the opt-out provision, was challenged.

[[Page 24804]]

As part of a settlement agreement, EPA agreed to propose removing the 
opt-out provision.
    On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to remove the opt-out provision. 
For the reasons discussed in this Unit, the Agency has now concluded 
that it is important to require the RRP work practices and training and 
certification requirements in target housing even if there is no child 
under age 6 or pregnant woman residing there. By removing the opt-out 
provision, the rule will go farther toward protecting children under 
age 6 and pregnant women, as well as older children and adult occupants 
of target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides. 
Therefore, the opt-out provision will no longer be available to owner-
occupants beginning on the effective date of this final rule.
    EPA believes the opt-out provision is not sufficiently protective 
for children under age 6 and pregnant women, the most vulnerable 
populations identified in the RRP rule. As pointed out by a number of 
commenters on the RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not protect 
families with young children who may purchase recently renovated target 
housing. Removal of the opt-out will result in fewer homes being 
purchased with lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting 
activities. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out provision was limited to 
owner-occupied target housing and did not extend to vacant rental 
housing because of the concern that future tenants could unknowingly 
move into a rental unit where dust-lead hazards created by the 
renovation are present. In the same way, dust-lead hazards created 
during renovations in an owner-occupied residence conducted prior to a 
sale will be present for the next occupants. It is common for home 
owners to hire contractors to perform activities that disturb paint 
before selling a house, thus increasing the likelihood of lead hazards 
being present for someone buying a home, which may include a family 
with a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman. There are other benefits 
to removing the opt-out provision, including protection for family 
pets, as lead poisonings resulting from renovations have been 
documented in both cats and dogs (Refs. 17 and 18).
    In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA explained that it believed the 
Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F (required by section 1018 
of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 
1992 (Pub. L. 102-550), would help to address these concerns. The 
Disclosure Rule requires sellers of target housing to disclose known 
lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers 
and provide them with a copy of the lead hazard information pamphlet 
entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 14). EPA 
explained the receipt of this information could prompt the family to 
inquire about potential lead-based paint hazards in the home. In 
addition, EPA recommended that purchasers take advantage of their 
statutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk 
assessment done while in the process of purchasing target housing.
    In supporting the proposal to remove the opt-out provision, one 
commenter disagreed that the Disclosure Rule adequately addresses the 
risks to subsequent owners of target housing that undergo renovations 
under the opt-out provision. In particular, this commenter pointed out 
that there is nothing in the Disclosure Rule to alert homeowners to the 
fact that RRP work practice requirements were not followed before they 
purchased the home. Indeed, the Disclosure Rule only requires 
disclosure of known hazards. It would not require disclosure of 
renovation activities or that the owner opted out of the RRP rule 
requirements. The commenter further states that it is unreasonable to 
assume that a typical homeowner or someone renting a previously owner-
occupied dwelling would know the detailed exemptions on the RRP rule.
    The Agency continues to believe that the Disclosure Rule provides 
valuable information to homeowners and that this information may help 
homeowners become aware of lead hazards. However, EPA's study on the 
Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and 
Painting Activities (the ``Dust Study'', Ref. 11), demonstrated that 
renovation, repair, and painting activities produce large quantities of 
lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The study also showed that the 
RRP work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to dust hazards 
that could result from renovation activities. As the commenter pointed 
out, the Disclosure Rule will not, in many cases, provide the type of 
renovation specific lead hazard information or provide recipients 
information that can be said to reliably or effectively result in 
minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation 
activities. Thus, there is little evidence to suggest that the 
provisions of the Disclosure Rule are effective or reliable at 
minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation 
activities in target housing. In addition, even if the Disclosure Rule 
reliably disclosed relevant information relating to earlier renovation 
activities, EPA does not believe this would be an adequate substitute 
for the work practice standards, which EPA has a record basis to 
conclude actually result in elimination--rather than simply 
disclosure--of the hazards created by renovations.
    Perhaps in recognition of this shortcoming, one commenter suggested 
that EPA should revise the Disclosure Rule, as opposed to making 
changes to the RRP rule. That would not, however, satisfy EPA's 
obligation under section 402 to put into place standards that take into 
account reliability, effectiveness, and safety to address lead-based 
paint hazards created by renovation activities in target housing. 
Moreover, the Disclosure Rule was jointly promulgated by EPA and the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thus, changes would 
involve a joint rulemaking effort and are not wholly within EPA's 
control. Furthermore, changes to the Disclosure Rule would need to be 
analyzed in the context of the underlying statute--not just because it 
might be helpful in the context of actions taken by EPA under a 
different statutory provision. In short, while this is a suggestion 
that may be worth pursuing, it does not address the present issue; that 
of reliably and effectively minimizing exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards created by renovation activities.
    Furthermore, EPA is concerned about the effectiveness of disclosure 
with respect to populations with the highest risk of exposure to 
harmful lead levels. Children in minority populations and children 
whose families are poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful 
lead levels (Ref. 3, at e376). Analysis of the National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 
shows that the prevalence of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 
[mu]g/dL in children aged 1 to 5 years has decreased from 8.6% in 1988-
1991 to 1.4% in 1999-2004, which is an 84% decline (Ref. 3, at e377). 
However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic 
black children aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead 
levels equal to or exceeding 10 [mu]g/dL (3.4%) than white children in 
the same age group (1.2%) (Ref. 3). In addition, among children aged 1 
to 5 years over the same period, the geometric mean blood lead level 
was significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 [mu]g/dL), 
compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 [mu]g/dL) and non-Hispanic whites 
(1.7 [mu]g/dL) (Ref. 3, at e377). For children aged 1 to 5 years from 
families with low

[[Page 24805]]

income, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2.4 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 3, 
at e377). Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 
[mu]g/dL and greater than or equal to 5 [mu]g/dL were higher for non-
Hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4% respectively) than for Mexican Americans 
(4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic whites (4.4% and 1.2%, 
respectively) (Ref. 3, at e377). The ``analysis indicates that 
residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black 
are still major risk factors for higher lead levels'' (Ref. 3, at 
e376). EPA is concerned that disclosure may be ineffective with respect 
to these populations already at higher risk of having elevated blood 
lead levels because the effectiveness of disclosure depends on the 
recipient's understanding the significance of the disclosure and having 
the means and ability to act upon the information.
    This also relates to practical issues that have implications for 
the RRP rule in general, and for high risk, low-income, minority 
populations in particular. The opt-out is a relatively complicated 
overlay to the applicability provisions of the rule. EPA believes there 
are practical benefits to removing the opt-out and simplifying the 
applicability of the rule--both for renovators and homeowners. The opt-
out provision complicates the outreach and education about lead hazards 
and makes the rule more complicated for renovators to apply and 
consumers to understand. Furthermore, it not only assumes literacy but 
also a working knowledge of what the rule would otherwise require and 
an ability to provide informed consent. Accordingly, EPA believes that 
populations that already have the highest risk factors for lead 
exposure may be disproportionately adversely affected by the complexity 
of a rule that contains the opt-out provision. More generally, EPA 
believes that the more uniform the application of the rule work 
practices in target housing is, the more effective and reliable they 
will be at minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards. Contractors 
who have a single set of work practices that are to be applied in most 
pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities will be more likely to 
apply them consistently and correctly.
    Renovations performed under the opt-out provision are also likely 
to result in exposures for vulnerable populations in other ways. 
Visiting children who do not spend enough time in the housing to render 
it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead from 
playing in dust-lead hazards created by renovations. For example, 
children may spend time in the homes of grandparents, but those homes 
may be eligible for the opt-out provision of the RRP rule. A homeowner 
who signs an opt-out statement may not realize that she is pregnant. 
For example, ``A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation 
of a Victorian Farmhouse'' describes four cases of childhood lead 
poisoning and two cases of adult lead toxicity resulting from a 
renovation. One of the adults was a woman who did not realize she was 
pregnant until after the exposure occurred. (Ref. 16)
    Eliminating the opt-out provision will also protect families with 
young children residing near or adjacent to homes undergoing 
renovations. Under the RRP rule, an owner occupant can take advantage 
of the opt-out provision even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant 
woman lives in an adjacent home. Renovations on the exterior of a 
residence can spread leaded dust and debris some distance from the 
renovation activity, which is why, for regulated renovations, EPA 
requires renovation firms to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or 
other impermeable material a distance of 10 feet from the renovation 
and take extra precautions when in certain situations to ensure that 
dust and debris does not contaminate other buildings or other areas of 
the property or migrate to adjacent properties. One commenter cited a 
study that shows housing in urban areas, such as Chicago, tend to be 
only three to five meters apart, highlighting the likelihood of lead 
contamination of adjacent prosperities in urban neighborhoods. 
Similarly, another commenter stated that in urban communities, many if 
not most of the homes are side by side. There are approximately 2 
million owner-occupied, single-family attached homes (e.g., townhomes, 
semi-detached or duplex homes) built before 1978. Renovations on the 
exteriors of these homes are likely to contaminate neighboring yards 
and porches resulting in exposure outside the house as well as inside 
because dust can be tracked into the home. Many more owner-occupied, 
single-family detached homes are located in close proximity to each 
other, and renovations performed under the opt-out provision present a 
similar risk for these homes. Another factor that EPA did not fully 
consider in promulgating the original RRP rule, but that weighs heavily 
against the opt-out provision, is that the risks posed by the opt-out 
with respect to exterior work will disproportionally affect children 
that are already at the highest risk for higher blood lead levels--low 
income, non-Hispanic black children living in older housing in urban 
areas, which is likely to be comprised of attached, or closely 
constructed detached, homes.
    While the RRP rule focused principally on protecting children under 
age 6, it is well known that older children and adults can also suffer 
adverse effects from lead exposure. Adults are susceptible to lead 
effects at lower blood lead levels than previously understood (e.g., 
Ref. 13, p. 8-25). Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated 
associations between lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious 
cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and 
incidence of hypertension. A meta-analysis of numerous studies 
estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 
[mu]g/dL) is associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase in systolic blood 
pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. The evidence 
for an association of lead with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality 
is limited but supportive. (Ref. 13, p E-10). As evident from the 
discussions in chapters 5, 6 and 8 of EPA's Air Quality Criteria 
Document for Lead (Ref. 13), ``neurotoxic effects in children and 
cardiovascular effects in adults are among those best substantiated as 
occurring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL (or 
possibly lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest 
public health concern'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-60). With regard to blood lead 
levels in individual children associated with particular neurological 
effects, the Criteria Document states ``Collectively, the prospective 
cohort and cross-sectional studies offer evidence that exposure to lead 
affects the intellectual attainment of preschool and school age 
children at blood lead levels <10 [mu]g/dL (most clearly in the 5 to 10 
[mu]g/dL range, but, less definitively, possibly lower).'' (Ref. 13, p. 
6-269). Epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated 
associations between lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious 
cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and 
incidence of hypertension. As one commenter pointed out, the half-life 
of lead in bone is approximately 20 years. Thus, women of child-bearing 
age exposed to lead will retain higher levels of lead in their bodies 
throughout their child-bearing years. When pregnancy occurs, lead can 
be transferred to the fetus causing an array of adverse effects. EPA 
now believes the opt-out provision does not sufficiently account for 
the importance of the health effects of lead exposure to adults and 
children age 6 and older by

[[Page 24806]]

allowing renovations to be performed without following the RRP rule 
requirements in housing that qualified for the opt-out. In supporting 
the final RRP rule, EPA stated that older children and adults do not 
ingest dust at the same high rate that a toddler does. This is 
corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis of studies of children's hand-to-
mouth behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this analysis indicates, this 
does not mean that hand-to-mouth behavior is not a potential concern 
for older children. According to the meta-analysis, the average indoor 
hand-to-mouth behavior ranged from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, with the 
lowest value corresponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest 
value corresponding to the 3 to < 6 month olds. Average outdoor hand-
to-mouth frequency ranged from 2.9 to 14.5 contacts/hour, with the 
lowest value corresponding to the 6 to <11 year olds and the highest 
value corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month olds. Although toddlers have 
a higher incidence of hand-to-mouth behavior than 6 to < 11 year olds, 
the latter group still averages more than 6 contacts/hour. Further 
elevated blood lead levels do occur in children older than 6 and adults 
(Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows that when the RRP requirements are not 
followed, renovation activities result in dust lead levels that can be 
orders of magnitude above the hazard standard and that can be orders of 
magnitude higher than if the RRP requirements are followed. EPA 
believes the information from this meta-analysis provides corroborating 
support for EPA's concern for children 6 and older and its decision to 
eliminate the opt-out provision.
    The Agency believes that it should only allow provisions such as 
the opt-out for situations where the information available to EPA 
indicates that the RRP rule work practices are not necessary to 
minimize exposure of occupants to lead paint hazards. Because lead 
paint dust exposure can cause adverse health effects for populations 
other than just children under age 6 and renovations can result in lead 
dust levels many times higher than the hazard standard, EPA believes 
the work practices should be followed in target housing without regard 
to the age of the occupants.
    Moreover, EPA believes that implementing the regulations without 
the opt-out provision promotes, to a greater extent, the statutory 
directive to promulgate regulations covering renovation activities in 
target housing. Among other things, TSCA section 402(c)(3), directs EPA 
to promulgate regulations that apply to renovation activities that 
create lead-based paint hazards in target housing. Section 401(17) of 
TSCA 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.'' Pursuant to section 403 of TSCA, EPA has identified 
dust-lead hazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities as 
surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal 
to or exceeding 40 [mu]g/ft \2\ on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft \2\ on 
windowsills. In the RRP rule, EPA found that renovation, repair, and 
painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead-based 
paint hazards. Thus, renovations in target housing that create lead-
based paint hazards should be covered unless there is a record basis to 
conclude that coverage is unnecessary.
    Shortly after promulgating the RRP rule, the RRP rule, and 
specifically the opt-out provision, was challenged. EPA decided to 
settle the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, EPA agreed to issue a 
proposed rule removing the opt-out. In turn, as part of this 
rulemaking, EPA requested information or data that would shed any light 
on the reliability, effectiveness, or safety of the opt-out or any 
variation thereof in relation to EPA's lead hazard standards. EPA did 
not receive any information in response to its request.
    EPA's Dust Study demonstrated and EPA found that renovation, 
repair, and painting activities produce lead dust above the regulatory 
hazard standards. In fact many renovation activities create large 
quantities of lead dust. The Dust Study shows that renovation 
activities result in lead levels many times greater than the hazard 
standard when the RRP rule containment and cleanup procedures are not 
followed. It also demonstrated that work practices other than those 
restricted or prohibited by the RRP rule can leave behind lead dust 
well above the hazard standards when the RRP rule requirements are not 
followed. The Dust Study also showed that alternative practices (broom 
cleaning, not using containment) were not effective or safe in relation 
to EPA's lead hazard standards. Under the opt-out, contractors 
performing renovations would have no obligation to minimize or clean up 
any dust-lead hazards created by the renovation. Indeed, contractors 
would not be prevented from using practices that EPA has determined 
create hazards that cannot be adequately contained or cleaned up even 
when following the RRP rule requirements. The Agency also took these 
factors into consideration in its decision to remove the opt-out 
provision in this final rule.
    In development of the proposed rule, EPA considered and requested 
comment on certain alternative approaches or work practice requirements 
for owner-occupied target housing that is not a child-occupied facility 
and where no children younger than 6 or pregnant women reside. EPA also 
requested comment on possible alternate approaches that would meet 
EPA's statutory obligation to apply work practice standards in target 
housing that take into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.
    One alternative for which EPA requested comment would have required 
the RRP work practices only for exterior renovations. Under this 
option, unless the target housing meets the definition of a child-
occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no 
child under 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment 
that the renovation firm will only be required to use the lead-safe 
work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule when renovating exteriors 
then the renovation firm would only be required to follow the RRP work 
practices when doing exterior renovations, but not when doing interior 
renovations. This option would have addressed exposures to lead dust 
from exterior renovations for people living in neighboring homes, 
particularly attached homes or homes in close physical proximity. 
Individuals residing in homes in close physical proximity could be 
exposed during the entire renovation and post-renovation phase, and 
their exposure would not necessarily be considered by an owner-occupant 
in choosing not to require lead-safe work practices. However, this 
option did not address lead hazards created during renovations of the 
interiors of home which could lead to lead exposure to occupants, and 
EPA received no comments mitigating this concern or supporting the 
protectiveness of this option.
    EPA requested comment on an alternative option under which the only 
work practices applicable to housing that is not a child-occupied 
facility and where no children or pregnant women reside would be the 
restriction or prohibition on certain work practice found at 40 CFR 
745.85(a)(3). These include:
    1. Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is 
prohibited.
    2. The use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high 
speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, 
abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited

[[Page 24807]]

unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control.
    3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at 
temperatures below 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.
    All the other work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would not 
be required in target housing that is not a child-occupied facility and 
where no children under age 6 or pregnant women reside. This option 
would have prohibited or restricted the highest dust generating 
practices but would not have required the other practices under 40 CFR 
745.85. While the prohibited work practices create high amounts of lead 
dust, the other work practices also create lead dust above the hazard 
standard. The Dust Study shows that common work practices result in 
lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP 
rule containment and cleanup procedures are not followed.
    EPA requested comment on a third option under which a subset of 
target housing would not be subject to the RRP work practices but 
instead would have been subject to dust wipe testing to be performed 
after the renovation. Under this option, unless the target housing 
meets the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant 
signed a statement that no child under 6 and no pregnant woman reside 
there and an acknowledgment that the renovation activity is only 
subject to dust wipe testing after the renovation and providing the 
results to the owner-occupant, then the renovation firm would not be 
required to conduct the training, certification, and work practice 
requirements of the rule. The testing results would become part of the 
record for that house that must be disclosed under the Disclosure Rule 
(40 CFR part 745, subpart F) required by section 1018 of Title X of the 
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-
550). This option would provide information that could protect 
potential buyers of a home where renovation was completed prior to the 
sale, because they would be notified of the results of the dust wipe 
tests before purchase and could take appropriate action (e.g., thorough 
cleaning and retesting of the home, or selecting a different home) if 
the lead results were at a level that raised concerns for them. While 
this alternative may provide helpful information to home owners and 
occupants, as discussed above it would not address lead-based paint 
hazards created by renovations because it does not require any of the 
work practices required by the RRP rule.
    After considering these alternatives as well as keeping the opt-out 
provision, the Agency has decided to eliminate the Opt-out provision 
and not to adopt any of the alternatives. One concern with the opt-out 
provision or the alternatives is that they do not adequately address 
the risks of lead-based paint hazards to children older than five years 
old or adults. The opt-out and each of these alternatives can also 
result in exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women 
to lead-based paint hazards. In the same way as for the opt-out 
provision itself, EPA also has concerns that populations that are 
already at a higher risk for elevated blood lead levels may be 
disproportionately and adversely affected by the alternatives.
    Another concern with the opt-out as well as the alternatives is 
that they can create confusion among both contractors and consumers. 
Several commenters stated that the opt-out provision or the 
alternatives could cause confusion that could potentially result in 
non-compliance by renovation firms. EPA agrees and believes that 
simplifying the applicability of the work practices will enhance the 
effectiveness and reliability of the rule.
    Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the 
Agency cannot now conclude that the opt-out nor that the alternative 
approaches are safe, reliable or effective because none of these would 
sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In sum, 
when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors are 
exposed to the lead hazards created by the renovation, and therefore 
these approaches would not protect older children, women of 
childbearing age, or other adults currently residing in the home and 
can result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant 
women to lead-based paint hazards. Again, although EPA specifically 
requested information or data that would shed any light on the 
reliability, effectiveness, or safety of these options in relation to 
EPA's lead hazard standards, the Agency did not receive any. The Agency 
took these factors into consideration in deciding not to adopt these 
alternatives.

D. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    EPA's stated purposes in promulgating the recordkeeping 
requirements were two-fold. ``The first is to allow EPA or an 
authorized State to review a renovation firm's compliance with the 
substantive requirements of the regulation through reviewing the 
records maintained for all of the renovation jobs the firm has done. 
The second is to remind a renovation firm what it must do to comply. 
EPA envisioned that renovation firms would use the recordkeeping 
requirements and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done 
everything that they are required to do for a particular renovation'' 
(Ref. 1, p. 21745). Several commenters on the RRP rule suggested that 
the recordkeeping requirements could also be used to provide valuable 
information about the renovation to the owners and occupants of 
buildings being renovated. EPA responded to these comments by stating 
that some of the information identified by these commenters was 
included in the ``Renovate Right'' pamphlet and that the pamphlet was 
the best way to get that information to the owners and occupants. With 
respect to the other items identified by these commenters, EPA stated 
its belief that the renovation firms were already providing much of 
this information (Ref. 1, p. 21718).
    As part of EPA's preparations to administer the RRP program, EPA 
has been developing an education and outreach campaign aimed at 
consumers. In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA recognized the importance 
of education and outreach to consumers, to teach them about lead-safe 
work practices and to encourage them to hire certified renovation firms 
(Ref. 1, p. 21702). EPA's work on the education and outreach campaign 
has continued to highlight the importance of an informed public to the 
success of the RRP program at minimizing exposures to lead-based paint 
hazards that may be created by renovations. As a result, EPA has 
determined that copies of the records required to be maintained by 
renovation firms to document compliance with the work practice 
requirements, if provided to the owners and occupants of the renovated 
buildings, would serve to reinforce the information provided by the 
``Renovate Right'' pamphlet on the potential hazards of renovations and 
on the RRP rule requirements. While the ``Renovate Right'' pamphlet 
provides valuable information about the requirements of the RRP rule, 
the records that a firm would give to owners and occupants would 
provide useful information regarding rule compliance that is not found 
in the pamphlet. In covering the significant training and work practice 
provisions of the RRP rule, these records would enable building owners 
and occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to 
comply with the RRP rule and how the RRP rule's provisions affected 
their specific renovation. Several commenters stated that educating 
homeowners would help them monitor compliance by the

[[Page 24808]]

renovation firm. One commenter stated that the checklist would help the 
public understand the RRP rule and that a better informed public would 
choose to have renovation performed by professional remodelers who 
would provide safe and quality work. Other commenters believe that the 
distribution of the checklist is needed to address a lack of 
accountability of renovation firms to owners and occupants. EPA agrees 
that educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to 
improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with 
the RRP rule and contribute to the effectiveness and reliability of the 
rule.
    After considering public comments, EPA decided to finalize the rule 
as proposed. This final rule requires that, when the final invoice for 
the renovation is delivered, or within 30 days of the completion of the 
renovation, whichever is earlier, the renovation firm provide 
information demonstrating compliance with the training and work 
practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner of the building 
being renovated and, if different, to the occupants of the renovated 
housing or the operator of the child-occupied facility. For renovations 
in common areas of target housing, the renovation firm must provide the 
occupants of the affected housing units instructions on how to review 
or obtain this information from the renovation firm at no charge to the 
occupant. These instructions must be included in the notice provided to 
each affected unit under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on the signs posted 
in the common areas under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is finalizing 
similar requirements for renovations in child-occupied facilities. 
Under this final rule, the renovation firm is required to provide 
interested parents or guardians of children using the child-occupied 
facility instructions on how to review or obtain a copy of these 
records at no cost to the parents or guardians. This could be 
accomplished by mailing or hand delivering these instructions, or by 
including them on the signs posted under 40 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii).
    Under this new requirement, renovation firms must provide training 
and work practice information to owners and occupants. The information 
should be provided in a short, easily read checklist or other form. 
EPA's ``Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist'' may be used for 
this purpose, but firms may develop their own forms or checklists so 
long as they include all of the required information. The specific 
information that is required to be provided are the training and work 
practice compliance information required to be maintained by 40 CFR 
745.86(b)(7), as well as identifying information on the manufacturer 
and model of the test kits used, if any, a description of the 
components that were tested including their locations, and the test kit 
results. The checklist or form must include documentation that a 
certified renovator was assigned to the project, that the certified 
renovator provided on-the-job training for workers used on the project, 
that the certified renovator performed or directed workers who 
performed the tasks required by the RRP rule, and that the certified 
renovator performed the post-renovation cleaning verification. This 
documentation must include a certification by the certified renovator 
that the work practices were followed, with narration as applicable. 
However, EPA is not requiring that the renovation firm automatically 
provide a copy of the certified renovator's training certificate, which 
must be maintained in the firm's records pursuant to 40 CFR 
745.86(b)(7), as an attachment to the checklist or other form.
    One commenter believes that the text of the form should be included 
in the regulations. EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency wants 
to give renovation firms flexibility with regard to the format of the 
information given to owners and occupants. Renovation firms must list 
the information specified in the regulations and they can use EPA's 
sample checklist if they choose. However, the final rule allows firms 
to use their own version of the checklist as long as it includes the 
required information.
    With respect to the option for dust clearance in lieu of cleaning 
verification under 40 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule requires the 
renovation firm to provide the associated results from dust wipe 
sampling to the person who contracted for the renovation. This 
requirement was promulgated in response to public comments on the 
applicability of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, 
to dust lead testing reports. These commenters stated that a 
requirement for the information to be provided to the owner of the 
property was necessary in order to make sure that the information would 
be available to be disclosed in the future (Ref. 1, p. 21718). However, 
in agreeing with these commenters and acknowledging the importance of 
having the dust sampling reports available to disclose to future 
purchasers and tenants, EPA neglected to consider the importance of 
making dust sampling information available to the current occupants of 
renovated rental target housing or child-occupied facilities. While 40 
CFR 745.107 would require renovation-related dust sampling reports to 
be disclosed to target housing tenants at the next lease renewal, this 
may be months or years after the renovation was completed. In addition, 
the Lead Disclosure Rule does not apply to child-occupied facilities in 
public or commercial buildings, so those tenants may never receive this 
information.
    Therefore, this final rule requires that, if dust clearance is 
performed in lieu of cleaning verification, the renovation firm provide 
a copy of the dust wipe sampling report(s) to the owner of the building 
that was renovated as well as to the occupants, if different. With 
respect to renovations in common areas of target housing or in child-
occupied facilities, EPA is also requiring that these records be made 
available to the tenants of the affected housing units or the parents 
and guardians of children under age 6 using the child-occupied 
facilities. Dust sampling reports may be made available to these groups 
in the same way as training and work practice records, by providing 
information on how to review or obtain copies in individual 
notifications or on posted signs.

E. Effective Date

    During the development of the proposed rule, EPA considered a delay 
in the effective date of this final rule. EPA estimated that 
eliminating the opt-out provision could increase the number of 
renovators that need to be certified by 50%. A delayed effective date 
would have allowed more time for additional renovators to get their 
certification. The Agency asked for comment on whether a 6-month or 1-
year delay in the effective date is appropriate. In addition, EPA asked 
for comment on whether a delay in the effective date of this rule would 
be confusing for the regulated community or the certified personnel.
    Comments regarding the delay were mixed. Several commenters 
opposing the delay believe that EPA has enough training capacity to 
train additional renovators that may need certification because of this 
rule. Several commenters pointed out that delaying the effective date 
would result in more people being exposed to lead hazards that could be 
avoided if the RRP rule work practices were in place for renovations 
previously eligible for the opt-out. Another commenter believes that 
phasing in the work practice requirements by delaying the effective 
date of this rule would lead to confusion for the public and renovation 
firms.

[[Page 24809]]

    Some commenters were in favor of delaying the effective date. 
Several commenters said that many contractors were not aware of the 
requirements and there is not sufficient time for them to understand 
and comply with the regulations without a delayed effective date. Other 
commenters stated that EPA should delay the effective date to allow 
enough time for additional renovators to take the training. One 
commenter asserts that EPA should delay the effective date rather than 
create a shortfall of renovators.
    Another factor EPA considered with regard to extending the 
effective date is whether firms specialize in housing that is eligible 
for the opt-out. The cost estimates for the rule assume that renovation 
firms are somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work in housing 
where the RRP rule is applicable. However, there may be many instances 
where firms working in opt-out housing will already have become 
certified, and their staff been trained, because they also work in 
regulated facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. If firms are 
less specialized than the analysis assumed, there may be little to no 
incremental training and certification costs due to the proposed rule. 
Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have 
declined to opt out, the work practice costs for removing the opt-out 
provision will be less than estimated. EPA requested comment in the 
proposal on the degree to which the same firms and renovators are 
likely to work both in opt-out housing and in child-occupied facilities 
and target housing that are ineligible for the opt-out provision.
    Several commenters stated that they do not believe firms specialize 
in housing based on occupancy. One commenter reviewed advertisements 
and the market place, and did not find renovators that work only in 
owner-occupied housing without children or pregnant women. According to 
the commenter, because firms do not appear to specialize in this 
manner, the additional costs of eliminating the opt-out are only the 
costs associated with the materials and time for a particular job as 
contractors would be required to get certification regardless of 
whether the opt-out provision is removed. EPA agrees with these 
comments. While the Agency has not done analysis to determine how many 
firms may specialize based on occupancy, EPA believes it is likely that 
most firms will not specialize in owner-occupied housing without 
children or pregnant women. Commenters did not provide information 
indicating that firms specialize in this way. If that is the case then 
many of the approximately 110,000 firms and renovators estimated to 
seek certification because of this rule would need certification 
regardless of whether the opt-out provision is removed. If the majority 
of the 110,000 firms and renovators have already been required to get 
certification then there is less of an argument to extend the effective 
date of this rule because many fewer firms and renovators will need 
certification between publication of the rule and the effective date.
    Accordingly, the Agency decided not to delay the effective date of 
this final rule. As such, the rule will become effective 60 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. EPA believes that it is important 
to eliminate the opt-out exemption without delay in order to avoid 
further lead exposures in housing previously eligible for the opt-out. 
Further, based on the number of training courses accredited to date, 
the Agency believes that there is sufficient training capacity 
available to train any additional renovators that would need to get 
certification because of this rule.

F. State Authorization

    As part of the authorization process, States and Indian Tribes must 
demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. A 
State or Indian Tribe would have to indicate that it meets the 
requirements of the renovation program in its application for approval 
or the first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency 
proposed to give States and Indian Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that 
their programs include any new requirements the EPA may promulgate, 
such as the requirements in this final rule. EPA received two comments 
regarding this requirement. One comment, from the Iowa Department of 
Public Health, explained that Iowa's legislature only meets once a year 
for 4 months. Depending on when the EPA publishes amendments to the 
RRP, it could be very difficult for states in similar situations to 
meet this requirement. The commenter requested that EPA give States and 
Indian Tribes two years instead of one to demonstrate compliance. EPA 
believes that the concern raised by the commenter has merit, and not 
just for Iowa. Therefore, the Agency decided to allow States and Indian 
Tribes up to two years to demonstrate to EPA that they meet the 
requirements of the RRP rule in its application for approval or the 
first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h).

G. Renovator Certification Requirements

    EPA was made aware by stakeholders that some renovators want to 
take the training course closer to April 2010 in order to maximize 
their 5-year certification which is not required until the RRP rule 
becomes effective on April 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 5-year 
certification begins when the renovator completes the training. The 
Agency is concerned that if enough renovators wait until April 2010 to 
take the training it may cause training courses to fill up resulting in 
a lack of available courses near the effective date. In order to give 
renovators incentive to take the course well in advance of the April 
2010 effective date, the Agency considered a change to the requirements 
that would allow renovator certifications issued on or before the 
effective date of the RRP rule to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency 
requested comment on whether it should extend the certification for 
renovators that get their certification by April 22, 2010.
    EPA received several comments in favor of extending the renovator 
certification to July 1, 2015. Several commenters believe this would 
give renovators incentive to take the training early. One commenter 
supported the extension so those who took the training in advance of 
the April 22, 2010 implementation date would not be penalized. Another 
commenter stated that an extension of the certification would prevent 
logistical problems like waiting lists for trainings during the final 
days before the effective date.
    The Agency decided to finalize an extension of the 5-year 
certification for renovators who take the training before April 22, 
2010. EPA agrees that renovators who take the training early should not 
be penalized and therefore will extend those certifications until July 
1, 2015.

H. Principle Instructor Requirements

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered 
modifying the requirements for training providers. Under the original 
requirements for the accreditation of training providers, Principle 
Instructors were required to take a 16-hour lead-paint course taught by 
EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. EPA became aware that 
16-hour courses are not available in every state, making it difficult 
for some instructors to get the required training. To address this 
problem, EPA considered reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. EPA 
received several comments on the Principal Instructor requirement, 
mostly

[[Page 24810]]

in support of reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. One commenter 
stated that there is no significant benefit to requiring 16 hours 
instead of 8 hours and that the 8-hour requirement will fit more 
closely to available training courses. Similarly, another commenter 
stated that the 16-hour training shares little content with what the 
Principal Instructors are going to teach in the renovator course. The 
commenter also explained that there is no 16-hour lead training course 
in Mississippi which led to difficulties with a local organization's 
ability to offer the renovator course. One commenter opposed to 
reducing the hourly requirement stated that 8 hours of lead training is 
not sufficient for an instructor to know enough about lead paint, lead 
hazards and federal regulations. Another commenter stated that there is 
enough training capacity negating the need to reduce the hourly 
requirement.
    EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator course, instead of a longer 
abatement course, is more closely related to what Principal Instructors 
must know in order to teach the renovator training. In addition to the 
training requirement, Principal Instructors must meet education and 
work experience requirements in order to teach lead-based paint 
training courses. The Agency believes that taking this course would be 
sufficient training for future instructors of the renovator course and 
therefore has reduced the requirement from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing 
the required hours, future instructors can take the 8-hour renovator or 
dust sampling technician trainings instead of a 16-hour or longer 
abatement course.

III. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for 
this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The 
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the 
technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 
Available on-line at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target 
Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register 
(61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). Available on-line at: 
https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, 
Kathleen L. Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. ``Trends 
in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 
1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.'' Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 
American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 
2009.
4. Xue J, Zartarian V, Moya J, Freeman N, Beamer P, Black K, Tulve 
N, Shalat S: A meta-analysis of children's hand-to-mouth frequency 
data for estimating nondietary ingestion exposure. Risk Anal. 2007 
Apr.; 27(2): 411-20.
5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic 
Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 
Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities. April 2010.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. August 
17, 2009.
7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR Addendum for the 
rulemaking entitled Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out Provision and 
Other Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 
Proposed Rule. April 2010.
8. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Elimination of 
the Opt-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the Lead Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. April 2010.
9. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the 
Lead-based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and 
Remodeling Requirements. March 3, 2000.
10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed 
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-7755-5). 
Available on-line at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Activities. November 13, 2007.
12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement; Lead: Elimination 
of the Opt-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. April 2010.
13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. October 2006.
14. EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From 
Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June 2003).
15. CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. vol 54, no. 20, pp 
513-516, May 27, 2005.
16. Marino, Phyllis E. et al. ``A Case Report of Lead Paint 
Poisoning during Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse.'' American 
Journal of Public Health, 80 (10) pp. 1183-1185. October 1990.
17. Kowalczyk DF. ``Lead poisoning in dogs at the University of 
Pennsylvania Veterinary Hospital.'' Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association. 1976 Mar 1;168(5):428-32.
18. Knight TE, Kumar MS. ``Lead toxicosis in cats--a review.'' 
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. 2003 Oct;5 (5): 249-55.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    EPA has p