Tuesday, 

January 10, 2006 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 745 

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Proposed Rule 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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 

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 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 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by OMB on or before 

February 9, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2005–0049, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 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 http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The 

regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in the online docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard 

copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The EPA Docket Center 

Reading Room telephone number is 

(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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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 

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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 

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 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 


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 

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 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 


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 

(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 http://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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 


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 

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). 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1597 

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 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In 

addition to the chairperson, the Panel 

consisted of the Director of EPA’s Office 

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

Before beginning pre-panel 

discussions with OMB and SBA, EPA 

held three conference calls with 

potential Small Entity Representatives 

(SERs) to obtain feedback on the options 

and alternatives for a renovation and 

remodeling regulation. The Review 

Panel held an outreach meeting with 

Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on 

December 3, 1999. Eleven SERs, 

representing small painting, decorating, 

finishing, remodeling and renovation 

contractors, as well as multi-family 

housing owners and training providers, 

and four trade association 

representatives participated in the 

meeting. The Panel solicited comments 

from the SERs on the options presented 

by EPA, as well as EPA’s cost estimates 

for these options. Several SERs 

submitted written comments to EPA 

following this meeting. More 

information on the Review Panel 

Process, including the recommendations 

of the panel, can be found in Unit 

VIII.C. The Panel’s report, along with 

background information provided to 

panel members and SERs, has been 

placed in the public docket for this 

action (Ref. 33). 

EPA also held a 2–day meeting with 

its State partners to discuss lead-based 

paint program issues. Most of the time 

on the agenda for this meeting, held in 

September 2000, was devoted to 

discussing how the existing abatement 

regulations might be modified to apply 

to renovation and remodeling projects. 

A summary of this meeting has been 

placed in the public docket for this 

action (Ref. 41). 

In May 2003, EPA hosted a series of 

conference calls to discuss additional 

issues related to renovation and 

remodeling. Two calls were held with 

State and local government agency 

representatives as well as a State 

legislator. Two separate calls included 

representatives from renovation and 

remodeling contractors and contractor 

associations, realtors and realtor 

associations, and apartment owner and 

manager associations. These calls 

focused on the relationship between 

lead-based paint hazard evaluation and 

control activities and renovations. 

Summaries of these calls have been 

placed in the public docket for this 

action (Refs. 42, 43, 44, and 45). 

EPA has co-sponsored several 

national lead conferences, at which the 

Agency met with representatives of 

State and Tribal governments to discuss 

renovation issues, among other issues. 

Examples include: 

• June 2000, EPA 4th National Lead 

Conference - Washington, DC. 

• December 2000, National Lead 

Grantee Conference (HUD/CDC/EPA) - 

Atlanta, GA. 

• May 2001, EPA 5th National Lead 

Conference - New Orleans, LA. 

• June 2003, EPA 6th National Lead 

Conference - San Antonio, TX. 

• June 2004, National Lead and 

Healthy Homes Grantee Conference 

(HUD/CDC/EPA) - Orlando, FL. 

IV. Proposed Requirements for 

Renovation Activities 

A. TSCA Section 402(c)(3) 

Determination 

As discussed in Unit III.B., TSCA 

section 402(a) directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations to ensure that 

persons who perform lead-based paint 

activities are properly trained through 

accredited training programs and that 

contractors performing these activities 

are certified. The regulations must also 

contain work practice standards for 

lead-based paint activities, taking into 

account reliability, effectiveness, and 

safety. Regulations governing lead-based 

paint activities in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities were 

promulgated in 1996 and codified at 40 

CFR part 745, subpart L. TSCA section 

402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise these 

regulations to apply to renovation or 

remodeling activities that create 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 


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 

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 

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 0- 

bedroom dwelling. EPA is not proposing 

to modify this definition in any way. 

EPA is proposing to make the 

requirements contained in this proposal 

effective in two major stages. In the first 

stage, the proposed requirements would 

apply to renovation projects performed 

for compensation in: 

• All target housing where the firm 

performing the renovation obtains 

information indicating that a child 

under age 6 resides there, if the child 

has a blood-lead level greater than or 

equal to 10 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1599 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1601 

renovation performed without lead-safe 

work practices or some other activity. 

c. Rental target housing. Also in the 

first stage of this rulemaking, the 

proposed requirements would apply to 

all rental target housing built before 

1960, regardless of whether a child 

under age 6 resides there. The second 

stage would extend the requirements to 

all rental target housing. 

The proposal would apply to target 

housing that is currently being rented, 

as well as target housing being offered 

for rent and target housing that the 

owner intends to offer for rent. 

Renovations to prepare target housing 

for the rental market would have to be 

performed in accordance with this 

proposal. Unlike in owner-occupied 

housing, occupants who are tenants 

have far less control over renovation 

projects in their housing than occupants 

who are owners. EPA believes that, in 

most cases, the owner of housing, or the 

owner’s agent, enters into contracts for 

renovation services, not the tenant. The 

owner has control over who performs 

the project and how it is conducted. In 

addition, renovations in rental housing 

often occur between tenants, when the 

housing is vacant and it is not known 

whether the next tenants will include a 

child under age 6. Therefore, requiring 

proper training and work practices in 

rental housing is necessary to protect 

the tenant occupants. Finally, applying 

the requirements of this proposal only 

to rental housing where children under 

age 6 reside could foster discrimination 

in the rental market against families 

with children under age 6. Although it 

is not the preferred option, EPA requests 

comment on whether this proposal 

should apply only to rental target 

housing where children under age 6 

reside. 

This proposal avoids placing 

responsibility on the renovation firm for 

determining whether a child under age 

6 resides in a particular housing unit; 

the renovation firm would be 

responsible, however, for determining 

whether the housing unit is rental target 

housing. EPA considered holding the 

renovation firm responsible for making 

both determinations. However, it may 

be very difficult in many situations for 

the renovation firm to find objective 

proof that a child under age 6 does or 

does not reside in a particular housing 

unit. Because this proposal does not 

cover, for example, the residences of 

relatives that provide occasional care for 

a child, the mere presence of toys or 

other signs indicating the presence of a 

child under age 6 would not be a 

sufficient basis for deciding that the 

requirements of this proposal apply. 

In contrast, EPA does not believe that 

determining whether housing is rental 

target housing presents the same level of 

difficulty for renovators. Contractors are 

already responsible, under the TSCA 

section 402(a) regulations at 40 CFR part 

745, subpart L, as well as under the 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 

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 


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 

rationale for such a limited rule would 

be that individuals, if provided 

information on the health effects of lead 

exposure and renovation work practices 

that minimize leaded dust creation and 

release, would be able to choose 

whether or not to request that a firm 

performing a renovation use lead-safe 

work practices. Individuals wishing to 

employ a renovation firm that would 

use lead-safe work practices would be 

assured by the certification, training, 

and accreditation provisions that a firm 

certified by EPA would employ persons 

trained in the use of lead-safe work 

practices. This is not the preferred 

option because EPA believes that a 

voluntary program of lead-safe work 

practice compliance would not provide 

sufficient protection from lead-based 

paint hazards created by renovation 

activities. Nevertheless, the Agency 

invites comment on this option. 

Finally, EPA considered covering all 

renovations in target housing without 

providing an exclusion for target 

housing where children under age 6 do 

not reside. A child under age 6 may 

spend a significant amount of time in 

housing that is not his or her primary 

residence, for example, in the home of 

a babysitter. In addition, a child that 

moved into housing shortly after a 

renovation performed without lead-safe 

work practices took place would be 

exposed to lead dust from the 

renovation. This is not the preferred 

option at this time because the proposed 

option provides a more focused 

targeting of resources on the population 

most at risk. EPA specifically requests 

comment on applying the requirements 

of this proposal without the exclusion 

for target housing where children under 

age 6 do not reside. 

3. Activities that would be covered. 

This proposal, like the Pre- Renovation 

Education Rule, would only apply to 

persons who perform renovations for 

compensation. This includes owners of 

rental property and their employees, as 

well as paid employees of home 

improvement companies, residential 

property management companies, State 

and local government agencies, and 

non-profits. With regard to the 

renovation activities that would be 

covered by this regulation, EPA is 

proposing to cover the same universe of 

activities that is already regulated under 

the Pre-Renovation Education Rule-- 

essentially, activities that modify an 

existing structure and that result in the 

disturbance of painted surfaces. All 

types of repair, remodeling, 

modernization, and weatherization 

projects would be covered, including 

projects performed as part of another 

Federal, State, or local program, if the 

projects meet the definition of 

‘‘renovation’’ codified in 40 CFR 745.83. 

The regulated community has had years 

of experience in applying this 

definition, as well as the applicability 

provisions in 40 CFR 745.82. 

EPA considered and requested public 

comment on various approaches to 

defining the term ‘‘renovation’’ for the 

Pre-Renovation Education Rule, 

including options modeled on a 

definition in the TSCA asbestos 

regulations, the construction tasks 

identified by OSHA in its Lead in 

Construction Standard, and by the use 

of Standard Industrial Codes (SIC codes) 

as a means of defining the subject 

universe (Ref. 49). The majority of the 

public comments EPA received in 

response to its proposal involved the 

definition of this term. In response to 

the public comments, EPA crafted a 

definition that borrows from other 

sources but focuses on the activities of 

greatest concern to EPA, activities that 

disturb lead-based paint (Ref. 23). This 

definition also covers virtually all of the 

activities in the renovation and 

remodeling study that created 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1603 

Conversely, the Phase I study did 

include HVAC duct work, but it is 

possible that, in some cases, this work 

would not involve the disturbance of 

paint, and would, therefore, not be 

covered by this proposal. EPA requests 

comment on whether exterior siding 

projects, wallpaper removal, and 

exterior soil disruption or other 

activities should be excluded from this 

proposal or whether HVAC duct work 

should be specifically included. EPA is 

particularly interested in any data 

regarding the lead loadings generated by 

these activities that would support their 

exclusion or inclusion, and other 

activities that should be considered in 

the same manner. 

The panel convened by EPA pursuant 

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

recommended that the Agency consider 

exempting certain specialty contractors 

(e.g., plumbing, electrical) from the rule. 

More information on this panel and its 

recommendations can be found in Unit 

VIII.C.6.e. EPA is not proposing to 

exempt such work per se, but requests 

comment on whether any category of 

specialty contractor should be excluded 

from this proposal, along with data that 

would support the exclusion of a 

particular category of contractor. 

In some circumstances, a renovation, 

as that term is defined in this proposal, 

may constitute only a portion of a larger 

residential renovation and remodeling 

project. The certification, training, and 

work practice elements of this proposal 

would only be applicable during the 

portion of a project that involves the 

disturbance of painted surfaces. For 

example, adding a room to an existing 

home may require the demolition of an 

existing wall to provide access to the 

room. In this case, the only portion of 

the project that involves disturbing 

painted surfaces may be the demolition 

of the existing wall. A certified firm and 

a certified individual would be needed 

to establish the required work area, 

demolish the wall, perform the required 

clean-up, and verify that the area has 

been properly cleaned. If the remainder 

of the project, the construction of the 

new room, does not involve the 

disturbance of existing painted surfaces, 

then the requirements of this proposal 

would not apply to that portion of the 

project. Painters who disturb a large 

area of painted surface with surface 

preparation activities, such as sanding, 

would be performing a regulated 

renovation under this proposal. Merely 

painting prepared surfaces does not 

generally disturb existing paint, so a 

painter who prepares surfaces by 

sanding and then paints the prepared 

surfaces would be able to choose 

whether to perform required cleaning 

and cleaning verification activities 

before or after the prepared surface is 

painted. 

4. Exceptions—a. Components free of 

regulated lead-based paint. EPA is 

proposing to continue to exempt 

renovations that only affect painted 

components that have been determined, 

by a certified inspector or risk assessor, 

to be free of paint or other surface 

coatings that contain lead equal to or in 

excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. 

This determination may be made as part 

of a lead-based paint inspection of an 

entire housing unit or building, or on a 

component-by-component basis. 

EPA is also proposing to exempt 

renovations that only affect painted 

components that have been 

demonstrated to be free of regulated 

lead-based paint through the use of an 

EPA-recognized test kit by a certified 

renovator. EPA intends to recognize 

those test kits that have a very low 

probability of false negative responses, 

because an incorrect negative result may 

lead to the creation of lead-based paint 

hazards through uncontrolled 

renovation activities. More specifically, 

for paint containing lead at or above the 

regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by 

weight, EPA intends to recognize kits 

that have a demonstrated probability 

(with 95% confidence) of a negative 

response less than or equal to 5% of the 

time. In addition, as soon as the 

improved test kits discussed in Unit 

IV.B.1. are generally available, EPA 

intends to recognize only those test kits 

that have a demonstrated probability of 

a false positive response of no more 

than 10% to lead in paint at levels 

below the regulated level. EPA believes 

that limiting recognition to kits that 

result in a relatively-low rate of false 

positives would benefit the consumer by 

reducing the number of times that the 

training and work practice requirements 

of this regulation are followed in the 

absence of regulated lead-based paint. 

These performance parameters would 

have to be validated by a laboratory 

independent of the kit manufacturer, 

using ASTM International’s E1828, 

Standard Practice for Evaluating the 

Performance Characteristics of 

Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for 

Lead in Paint (Ref. 50) or an equivalent 

validation method. The instructions for 

use of any particular kit would have to 

conform to the results of the validation, 

and the certified renovator must follow 

the manufacturer’s instructions when 

using the kit. EPA requests comment on 

whether these standards are reasonably 

achievable and sufficiently protective. 

EPA is also soliciting suggestions on 

how to conduct the kit recognition 

process. 

As required by the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule, if the renovation firm 

relies on a determination by a certified 

inspector or risk assessor that affected 

components are free of paint or other 

surface coatings that contain lead equal 

to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% 

by weight, the renovation firm must 

obtain a copy of the written 

determination before the renovation 

begins and keep it for no less than 3 

years from the date the renovation is 

completed. If a test kit is used, the 

renovation firm must keep records 

documenting the use of the kit, 

including the name of the kit, who used 

the kit, and the results, for no less than 

3 years from the completion date of the 

renovation. 

To assist renovation firms in 

determining whether a particular project 

is eligible for this exception, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate, in 40 CFR 

745.83, the definition of the term 

‘‘component or building component’’

from 40 CFR 745.223. 

b. Minor maintenance. This regulation 

would also retain the Pre- Renovation 

Education Rule exception in 40 CFR 

745.82(a)(1) for minor maintenance 

activities that disturb 2 ft2 or less of 

painted surface per component. As 

discussed in the preamble to the final 

Pre-Renovation Education Rule, this 

exception was primarily designed as a 

means for distinguishing between 

renovation activities and routine 

maintenance activities (Ref. 23, p. 

29911). Because this exception for small 

surface area disturbances has acted as a 

surrogate for routine maintenance 

activities in the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule, EPA is proposing to 

apply this exception to the requirements 

of this regulation. 

The stakeholders participating in the 

various meetings EPA has held on 

renovation issues have had varying 

opinions of this exception. In general, 

property owners and managers favored 

this exception because it would remove 

routine, minor maintenance activities 

from the scope of the rule. Renovation 

firms thought it would have little 

impact on the jobs that they typically 

do. Advocacy organizations did not 

favor this exception because small 

projects can also create lead-based paint 

hazards. EPA requests additional 

comment on the appropriateness of this 

exception as a surrogate for routine 

building maintenance activities, and 

suggestions for alternate or additional 

surrogates. 

Although EPA believes that increasing 

the size of the exception from 2 ft2 to 5 

or 10 ft2 would reduce the number of 

renovations covered by this proposed 

rule, EPA does not have enough 


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 

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 

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, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1605 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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 

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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1607 

• 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 

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 

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 


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 

is not proposing to require additional 

education or work experience of persons 

wishing to become certified renovators. 

To become a certified dust sampling 

technician, a person would have to 

successfully complete a dust sampling 

technician training course that has been 

accredited either by EPA or by a State, 

Territorial, or Tribal program authorized 

by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

Q. The dust sampling technician course 

primarily covers dust sampling 

methodologies and clearance standards 

and testing. EPA is not proposing to 

require additional education or work 

experience of persons wishing to 

become certified dust sampling 

technicians. 

EPA renovator certification would 

allow the certified individual to perform 

renovations covered by this section in 

any State or Indian Tribal area that does 

not have a renovation program 

authorized under 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart Q. EPA dust sampling 

technician certification would allow the 

certified individual to perform dust 

sampling covered by this section in any 

State or Indian Tribal area that does not 

have a renovation program authorized 

under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. 

Because EPA is not proposing any 

additional education or work experience 

requirements, or a third-party 

examination similar to that taken by 

inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor 

candidates, EPA believes that there is 

little value in requiring candidates to 

apply to EPA to receive their renovator 

or dust sampling technician 

certification. Currently, the only 

certified discipline without 

prerequisites in education or 

experience, or a third-party 

examination, is the abatement worker. 

When candidates for worker 

certification apply to EPA, EPA verifies 

that the copy of the training course 

certificate submitted with the 

application is from an accredited 

training provider. Without requiring 

renovators or dust sampling technicians 

to apply to EPA for certification, under 

this proposal EPA would still receive 

course completion information from 

course providers. With this information, 

under the proposal EPA would be able 

to check to see if a particular course 

completion certificate holder appeared 

on a course completion list submitted 

by the training course provider 

identified on the certificate. When EPA 

inspects a renovation job for compliance 

with these proposed regulations, EPA 

will have the ability to verify, to the 

same extent, the validity of a course 

completion certificate held by a 

renovator or dust sampling technician at 

that job. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

that a course completion certificate from 

an accredited training provider serve as 

a renovator’s or dust sampling 

technician’s certification. To facilitate 

compliance monitoring, EPA would 

require a certified renovator or dust 

sampling technician to have a copy of 

the course completion certificate at the 

job site. 

EPA also considered alternatives such 

as requiring renovator and dust 

sampling technician candidates to apply 

to EPA for certification, following the 

same procedures established for worker 

certification in 40 CFR 745.226. EPA 

also considered requiring a third-party 

examination for persons wishing to 

become certified renovator or dust 

sampling technicians. A third-party 

examination would be an additional 

check on the adequacy of the training 

courses being offered, as well as an 

independent assessment of how well a 

particular candidate retained the 

information presented. On the other 

hand, a third-party examination would 

significantly increase the burden of 

administration and the expense of 

complying with these proposed 

regulations. EPA requests comment on 

these options, as well as EPA’s 

assessment of the costs and burdens of 

these options. 

d. Re-certification. EPA is proposing 

to require that renovators and dust 

sampling technicians who wish to 

remain certified take refresher training 

every 3 years. This is consistent with 

the existing re-certification interval for 

firms and for certified individuals under 

40 CFR 745.226. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to require that the refresher 

training course be half the length of the 

initial course. This is also consistent 

with current practice for certified 

individuals performing lead-based paint 

activities. If an individual does not take 

a refresher course within 3 years of the 

date he or she completed the initial 

course or the previous refresher course, 

that individual’s certification will 

expire on that date and that individual 

may no longer serve as a certified 

renovator or dust sampling technician 

on a renovation project regulated by this 

proposal. There would be no grace 

period. To become certified again, the 

individual would have to take another 

initial training course. 

EPA also considered an alternative of 

requiring certified renovators to re-take 

the initial renovator course every 3 

years. The primary advantage to such an 

approach is that, eventually, renovator 

course attendees would be a 

combination of experienced renovators 

and persons new to the field. This 

would allow the experienced persons to 

share helpful tips and lessons learned 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1609 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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. 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1611 

information relevant to renovation (i.e., 

containment, and cleaning). In addition, 

the Guidelines have a useful section 

devoted to routine building 

maintenance. While the activities 

considered in this section are often 

small-scale, and do not encompass the 

wide range of potential renovation work 

projects, they were extremely helpful in 

formulating work practice standards 

that are intended to be scalable based 

upon the activity being performed. 

EPA’s draft technical specifications 

were developed in September 1998 with 

the assistance of the National Center for 

Lead Safe Housing (now known as the 

National Center for Healthy Homes) in 

consultation with a group of technical 

experts. The specifications described 

the precautions needed to ensure that 

lead-contaminated dust and debris are 

minimized, controlled and properly 

cleaned up. The technical specifications 

themselves were developed to be 

applicable both to contractors and to 

homeowners who perform these 

activities without the aid of a contractor. 

However, the specifications document 

itself was not intended for use by the 

general public or contractors; it was 

developed to provide background 

information and serve as a reference for 

EPA to prepare technical materials, 

including a training curriculum. 

Following completion of the draft 

technical specifications, EPA began 

development of a model renovation 

training curriculum. In September 2000, 

EPA completed development of the 

curriculum Minimizing Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards During Renovation, 

Remodeling, and Painting (Ref. 55). The 

model curriculum was developed with 

the assistance of a review panel of 

representatives from state regulatory 

programs, lead advocacy groups, 

renovation contractors, EPA, HUD, and 

NIOSH. The course was developed to 

provide strategies to reduce or eliminate 

the introduction of hazards that occur 

when lead-based paint is disturbed. The 

curriculum was revised, in consultation 

with HUD, and renamed Lead Safety for 

Remodeling, Repair, & Painting in July 

2003 (Ref. 52). The revised curriculum 

is one of several courses approved for 

training purposes under HUD’s Lead 

Safe Housing Rule. The course 

represented a major Agency effort to 

protect public health from lead-based 

paint hazards associated with 

renovation and repainting activities, and 

was intended to be a model training 

curriculum for future regulations. Upon 

completion of the course, EPA made the 

model curriculum publicly available 

and encouraged renovation contractors 

to voluntarily obtain training. 

This proposal presents basic work 

practice standards derived from the 

model training course, draft technical 

manual, and the Guidelines, among 

other sources. These practices provide 

standards as to how the work must be 

done in order to protect occupants from 

lead hazards. While the standards 

provide basic requirements for occupant 

protection, site preparation, and 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 

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 


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 

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, leadbased 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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1613 

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 

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. 

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 


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 precleaning 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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1615 

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 

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 

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 


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. 

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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1617 

between adding more program 

responsibilities or relinquishing its 

authorization. 

For the purpose of authorizing State, 

Territorial, and Tribal programs, EPA is 

proposing to use the existing procedures 

codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, 

with the amendments of this proposal 

setting forth the specific elements that 

would be required of a program seeking 

authorization to administer and enforce 

the training, certification, accreditation, 

and work practice requirements of this 

proposal. In accordance with the current 

process for authorization, States, 

Territories and Tribes may not choose 

only to administer, but not enforce, the 

provisions of subpart E, nor may they 

selectively choose to administer and 

enforce only the accreditation or 

certification provisions, but not the 

work practice standards, for 

renovations. 

States, Territories, and Tribes seeking 

authority to administer and enforce the 

provisions of this proposal must obtain 

public input, then submit an application 

to EPA. Existing 40 CFR 745.324 

describes the process for applying for 

authorization. Applications must 

contain a number of items, including a 

description of the State, Territorial, or 

Tribal program, copies of all applicable 

statutes, regulations, and standards, and 

a certification by the State Attorney 

General, Tribal Counsel, or an 

equivalent official, that the applicable 

legislation and regulations provide 

adequate legal authority to administer 

and enforce the program. The program 

description must demonstrate that the 

State, Territorial, or Tribal program is at 

least as protective as the Federal 

program. In this case, the Federal 

program consists of the requirements for 

training, certification, and accreditation 

and the work practice standards in this 

proposal. 

To be eligible for authorization to 

administer and enforce the training, 

certification, accreditation, and work 

practice requirements of this proposal, 

EPA is proposing to require that State, 

Territorial, and Tribal renovation 

programs contain certain minimum 

elements. These minimum elements 

would be very similar to the minimum 

elements currently codified in 40 CFR 

745.326(a) for lead-based paint 

activities. In order to be authorized, 

State, Territorial, or Tribal programs 

would have to have procedures and 

requirements for the accreditation of 

training programs, which could be as 

simple as procedures for accepting 

training provided by an EPA-accredited 

provider, or a provider accredited by 

another authorized State, Territorial, or 

Tribal program. Procedures and 

requirements for the certification of 

renovators would also be necessary. At 

a minimum, these must include a 

requirement that certified renovators 

have taken accredited training, and 

procedures and requirements for 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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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. 

VI. Effective Dates 

A. Requirements for Renovation 

Activities 

Interested States, Territories and 

Indian Tribes could begin applying for 

authorization of renovation programs 

from EPA as soon as the final rule is 

promulgated. Also, after the final rule is 

promulgated, providers of courses that 

cover lead-safe work practices for 

renovations could continue to offer 

these courses, but they would not be 

permitted to advertise these courses for 

EPA certification purposes until they 

receive accreditation from EPA. 

EPA would begin accepting training 

provider accreditation applications for 

renovator and dust sampling technician 

initial and refresher courses 1 year after 

promulgation of a final rule. The reason 

for the delay is to provide interested 

States, Territories and Indian Tribes 1 

year to develop, or begin developing, 

renovation-specific work practice 

standards and accreditation, training, 

and certification programs. EPA believes 

the nation’s experience in implementing 

the lead-based paint activities program 

regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

L should help everyone involved, 

including States, Territories, Tribes, the 

regulated community, and EPA, move 

more quickly towards implementing 

renovation programs. Thus, EPA is not 

proposing to make training programs for 

the federal program wait 2 years before 

they can receive accreditation, as EPA 

did for the subpart L regulations. On the 

other hand, EPA is concerned about the 

duplication of effort that could occur, 

and the additional costs that could be 

incurred by the regulated community, if 

EPA begins accrediting training 

providers and certifying firms in 

jurisdictions that are also working 

towards implementing their own 

programs. Training providers, firms, and 

individuals working in such 

jurisdictions could end up having to 

become accredited or certified by both 

EPA and the State, Territory or Tribe 

within a fairly short period of time. EPA 

requests comment on the feasibility of 

developing State, Territorial, or Tribal 

programs and getting them authorized 

within a year after EPA promulgates a 

final rule. EPA also requests comment 

on ways to avoid multiple 

accreditations and certifications in 

jurisdictions that are unable to receive 

authorization for their programs within 

the first year after EPA promulgates a 

final rule. In addition, EPA requests 

comment on whether any 

implementation delay is necessary, 

given that EPA accreditation and 

certification would be valid in any State 

or Indian Tribal area that does not have 

a renovation program authorized under 

40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. 

Firm certification applications would 

be accepted by EPA starting 6 months 

after EPA begins accepting training 

provider accreditation applications, or 

18 months after the promulgation date 

of the final rule. The work practice 

standards would become effective 2 

years after the promulgation date of the 

final rule, at which time all covered 

renovations would have to be performed 

in accordance with those standards by 

certified renovators and trained 

workers. 

As discussed in Unit IV.B., EPA is 

proposing to initially apply the training, 

certification, accreditation, and work 

practice requirements of this proposal to 

pre-1960 rental target housing, pre-1960 

owner-occupied target housing where a 

child under age 6 resides, and any target 

housing where a child under age 6 with 

a blood lead level that equals or exceeds 

10 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 

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). 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1619 

5. USEPA, Office of Research and 

Development (ORD). Air Quality 

Criteria for Lead, First External Review 

Draft (EPA/600/R-05/144aA, December 

2005) 

6. USEPA. Integrated Risk Information 

System; Lead and compounds 

(inorganic) (CASRN 7439–92–1) (July 8, 

2004). 

7. U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. Federal Register (42 FR 

44199, September 1, 1977, as amended 

at 43 FR 8515, March 2, 1978). 

8. U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA). Final Standard 

for Occupational Exposure to Lead. 

Federal Register (43 FR 52952, 

November 14, 1978). 

9. USDOL, OSHA. Lead Exposure in 

Construction; Interim Final 

Rule.Federal Register (58 FR 26590, 

May 4, 1993). 

10. USEPA. Control of Lead Additives 

in Gasoline; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (38 FR 33734, December 6, 

1973). 

11. USEPA. Maximum Contaminant 

Level Goals and National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations for Lead 

and Copper; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991). 

12. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), Public Health 

Service (PHS), Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young 

Children; A Statement by the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (October 

1991). 

13. Alliance to End Childhood Lead 

Poisoning. Preventing Childhood Lead 

Poisoning: The First Comprehensive 

National Conference; Final Report. 

(October 6, 7, 8, 1991). 

14. President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children. Eliminating 

Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal 

Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards 

(February 2000). 

15. HHS, PHS, CDC. Preventing Lead 

Exposure in Young Children: A Housing 

Based Approach to Primary Prevention 

of Lead Poisoning: Recommendations 

from the Advisory Committee on 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention 

(October 2004). 

16. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for 

Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities: 

Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 

45778, August 29, 1996). 

17. USEPA. EPA Policy for the 

Administration of Environmental 

Programs on Indian Reservations 

(November 8, 1984). 

18. USEPA. Lead; Fees for 

Accreditation of Training Programs and 

Certification of Lead-based Paint 

Activities Contractors; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (64 FR 31092, June 9, 

1999). 

19. USEPA. Lead; Notification 

Requirements for Lead-Based Paint 

Abatement Activities and Training; 

Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 

18489, April 8, 2004). 

20. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead 

in Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June 

2003). 

21. USEPA. Lead Hazard Information 

Pamphlet; Notice of Availability. 

Federal Register (60 FR 39167, August 

1, 1995). 

22. HUD, USEPA. Lead; Requirements 

for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based 

Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards 

in Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996). 

23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for 

Hazard Education Before Renovation of 

Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (63 FR 29908, June 1, 1998). 

24. USEPA. Lead; Identification of 

Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 

2001). 

25. USEPA. Targeted Grants to 

Reduce Childhood Lead Poisoning; 

Notice of Funds Availability. Federal 

Register (69 FR 69913, December 1, 

2004). 

26. HUD. Requirements for 

Notification, Evaluation, and Reduction 

of Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing 

Receiving Federal Assistance and 

Federally Owned Residential Property 

Being Sold (Lead Safe Housing Rule); 

Final Rule, Conforming Amendments 

and Corrections. Federal Register (69 

FR 34262, June 21, 2004). 

27. HUD. Guidelines for the 

Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995). 

28. HHS, PHS, CDC. Managing 

Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among 

Young Children (March 2002). 

29. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards 

When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747- 

K-97-001, September 1997). 

30. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field 

Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, 

May 1997). 

31. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase II, Worker 

Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 

(EPA 747-R-96-006, May 1997). 

32. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747- 

R-99-002, March 1999). 

33. USEPA. Report of the Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel on the 

Lead-based Paint Certification and 

Training; Renovation and Remodeling 

Requirements (March 3, 2000). 

34. McMillan Associates. Response to 

SBREFA Panel Recommendations for 

Further Analysis of Existing Phase III 

Data (August 6, 2001). 

35. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with 

Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed 

to Home Renovation and Remolding 

Activities--New York, 1993-1994. 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

(45(51); 1120-1123, January 3, 1997). 

36. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. 

Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. 

Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ‘‘Is 

Home Renovation or Repair a Risk 

Factor for Exposure to Lead Among 

Children Residing in New York City?’’

Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the 

New York Academy of Medicine. Vol. 

79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005). 

37. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase IV, Worker 

Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 

of R&R Workers Who Specialize in 

Renovation of Old or Historic Homes 

(EPA 747-R-99-001, March 1999). 

38. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

with Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities; Final Summary Report (EPA 

747-S-00-001, January 2000). 

39. USEPA. TSCA Section 402(c) Lead 

Exposure Reduction Stakeholder 

Meeting for the Proposed Renovation 

and Remodeling Rule (December 7, 

1998). 

40. USEPA. Round Table Discussion 

of TSCA Section 402(c) Lead Exposure 

Reduction Proposed Renovation and 

Remodeling Rule (March 8, 1999). 

41. USEPA. Lead Programs Meeting, 

Meeting Summary (September 25-26, 

2000). 

42. USEPA. Summary of Discussion 

with State, Local, and Tribal 

Government Representatives (May 1, 

2003). 

43. USEPA. Summary of Discussion 

with State, Local, and Tribal 

Government Representatives (May 15, 

2003). 

44. USEPA. Summary of Discussion 

with Industry Stakeholders (May 9, 

2003). 

45. USEPA. Summary of Discussion 

with Industry Stakeholders (May 29, 

2003). 

46. HUD. National Survey of Lead and 

Allergens in Housing, Volume I: 

Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, 

Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002). 


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 1828- 

01). 

51. USEPA. Draft Recordkeeping 

Checklist for Firms (December 2005). 

52. USEPA, HUD. Lead Safety for 

Remodeling, Repair, and Painting (EPA 

747-B-03-001/2, July 2003). 

53. HUD, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. The HUD 

Lead-Based Paint Abatement 

Demonstration (FHA) (August 1991). 

54. USEPA, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Lead 

Dust Minimization Work Practices for 

Renovation, Remodeling and 

Repainting; Draft Technical Manual 

(September 29, 1998). 

55. USEPA. Minimizing Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards During Renovation, 

Remodeling, and Painting (September 

2000). 

56. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste 

(OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A. 

Cotsworth, Director, ‘‘Regulatory Status 

of Waste Generated by Contractors and 

Residents from Lead-Based Paint 

Activities Conducted in Households’’

(July 31, 2000). 

57. USEPA, OSW. Criteria for 

Classification of Solid Waste Disposal 

Facilities and Practices and Criteria for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: 

Disposal of Residential Lead-based Paint 

Waste; Final Rule. Federal Register (68 

FR 36487, June 18, 2003). 

58. Choe, K., Trunov, M., Grinshpun, 

S.A., Willeke, K., Harney, J., Trakumas, 

S., Mainelis, G., Bornschein, R., Clark, 

S. and Friedman, W. Particle settling 

after Lead-Based Paint Abatement Work 

and Clearance Waiting Period, 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association Journal, 61(6):798-807 

(2001). 

59. USEPA, OPPT. Draft Economic 

Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Proposed Rule 

(December 2005). 

60. National Center for Healthy 

Housing. An Evaluation of the Efficacy 

of the Lead Hazard Reduction 

Treatments Prescribed in Maryland 

Environmental Article 6-8 (April 30, 

2002). 

61. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and 

Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 

Housing (September 2005). 

62. USEPA. Draft Cleaning 

Verification Card (2005) 

63. USEPA, OPPT. Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) for the Field Study; 

Appendix A - Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) for Using the Dry 

Electrostatic Cloth and Mop to Collect 

Lead Dust (July 12, 2004). 

64. USEPA. Lead; Identification of 

Dangerous Levels of Lead; Proposed 

Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302, 

June 3, 1998). 

65. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint 

Abatement and Repair and Maintenance 

Study in Baltimore: Pre-Intervention 

Findings. (EPA 747-R-95-012, August 

1996). 

66. USEPA. Comprehensive 

Abatement Performance Pilot Study, 

Volume 1: Results of Lead Data 

Analyses (EPA 747-R-93-007, February 

1995). 

67. U.S. Census Bureau. Current 

Housing Reports, Series H150/97, 

American Housing Survey for the 

United States (1997). 

68. USEPA. Protect Your Family from 

Lead During Renovation, Repair, & 

Painting (2005). 

69. USEPA. Proposed ICR amendment 

for rulemaking entitled ‘‘Lead; 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Proposed Rule’’ (December 

2005). 

70. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support 

Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and 

Soil (EPA 747-R-97-006, June 1998). 

71. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support 

Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and 

Soil: Supplemental Report (EPA 747-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 2271- 

05). 

73. ASTM International. Standard 

Guide for Evaluation, Management, and 

Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E 

2052-99). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

it has been determined that this 

proposed rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1) 

of the Executive Order because EPA 

estimates that it will have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. Accordingly, this action was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and any changes 

made based on OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the public 

docket for this rulemaking as required 

by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive 

Order. 

As required by the Executive Order, 

EPA also submitted a draft analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this proposed 

rulemaking. This analysis is contained 

in a document entitled Draft Economic 

Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Proposed Rule (Draft 

Economic Analysis) (Ref. 59). The 

Agency is conducting additional 

analyses with other assumptions for 

baseline activities than those that were 

used in the Agency’s Draft Economic 

Analysis to estimate the potential costs 

and benefits of the proposed rule. 

Information about these new analyses is 

available in the docket, and, once 

completed, the revised Economic 

Analysis will also be available in the 

docket. The additional analyses are 

expected to change the estimated 

potential costs and benefits of the 

proposed rule. A copy of this Economic 

Analysis is available in the docket for 

this action, and is briefly summarized 

here. 

1. Options evaluated. EPA evaluated 

a number of options in the development 

of the proposed rule. All options 

address target housing, which is defined 

in section 401 of TSCA as housing 

constructed before 1978, except housing 

for the elderly and persons with 

disabilities, unless any child under age 

6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing, or any 0–bedroom dwelling. 

Option A applies to renovation, repair, 

and painting projects performed for 

compensation in all rental target 

housing and owner-occupied target 

housing built before 1978 where a child 

under age 6 resides. Option B has 2 

phases. The first phase applies to rental 

target housing built before 1960, and 

owner-occupied target housing units 

built before 1960 where a child under 

age 6 resides, plus all housing units 

built before 1978 where a child with a 

blood lead level that equals or exceeds 

applicable levels of concern resides. The 

second phase, which takes effect a year 

after the first phase, applies to all the 

housing units covered by Option A. 

Option C also has 2 phases. The first 

phase applies to all rental housing built 

before 1950, and owner-occupied 

housing units built before 1950 where a 

child under age 6 resides, plus all 

housing units built before 1978 where a 

child with a blood lead level that equals 

or exceeds applicable levels of concern 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1621 

resides. The second phase, which takes 

effect a year after the first phase, applies 

to all the housing units covered by 

Option A. Option D covers the same 

housing units at the same times as 

Option B, but differs from Options A, B, 

and C in that they allow a certified 

renovator flexibility in selecting 

appropriate work practices for each 

individual job, while Option D does not 

provide such flexibility. The proposed 

rule is Option B. 

2. Number of events and individuals. 

As shown in the Draft Economic 

Analysis, the number of renovation, 

repair, and painting events covered by 

the rule varies across regulatory options 

in Phase 1 as a result of the different 

time periods addressed by the options. 

The number of events covered in Phase 

2 is the same for all options because the 

housing units regulated are the same, 

i.e., pre-1978 units. Because not all 

housing units built before 1978 have 

lead-based paint, not all events need to 

use lead-safe work practices. The 

number of events with lead-safe work 

practices in Phase 2 is smaller than in 

Phase 1 for all but Option C, despite the 

increase in housing units covered by 

Phase 2 under Options B, C, and D. The 

number of events requiring lead-safe 

work practices is smaller because the 

accuracy of lead paint test kits (in terms 

of detecting the presence or absence of 

regulated lead-based paint) is expected 

to have improved by Phase 2. Under the 

proposed rule, in Phase 1 there would 

be 4.8 million events in housing where 

lead-safe work practices are used due to 

the rule. Slightly more than 4.9 million 

individuals reside in these housing 

units, including 729,000 children under 

age 6. In Phase 2, the proposed rule 

would cover 4.4 million such events in 

units housing nearly 5.8 million 

individuals, including 855,000 children 

under age 6. 

3. Benefits. The Draft Economic 

Analysis describes the estimated 

benefits of the proposed rulemaking in 

qualitative and quantitative terms. 

Benefits result from the prevention of 

adverse health effects attributable to 

lead exposure. These health effects 

include several illnesses as well as 

impaired cognitive function in adults 

and children. 

There are not sufficient data at this 

time to quantify some of the potential 

benefits of reducing exposure to lead. 

EPA’s Draft Economic Analysis 

estimates the benefits of avoiding 

selected health effects in children and 

adults. 

The Agency considered the potential 

benefits to both children and adults 

because studies indicate that they are 

both adversely affected by exposures to 

lead in dust from renovation and 

remodeling activities. As stated in Unit 

III.B., one of the purposes of Title X is 

the elimination of lead-based paint 

hazards in target housing. EPA 

considered the potential benefits to 

children separately from adults, because 

a focus of Title X is the reduction in the 

threat of childhood lead poisoning. The 

Agency specifically seeks comment on 

its consideration of potential benefits to 

both adults and children, as well as 

comments and information about the 

potential uncertainties associated with 

the adult health effects considered and 

the magnitude of those uncertainties. 

4. Costs. The Draft Economic Analysis 

estimates the potential costs of 

complying with this proposed rule 

including training costs, certification 

costs, and work practice costs. As 

indicated previously, the Agency is 

conducting additional analysis that 

could change the estimated potential 

costs of the proposed rule. This new 

analysis will be added to the docket as 

soon as it is complete. In the Draft 

Economic Analysis, training costs will 

be incurred for renovators, who will 

perform or direct the performance of key 

tasks during renovations, and workers, 

who may perform renovation tasks 

under the direction of renovators. 

Persons who are not currently certified 

as lead-based paint abatement 

supervisors or workers and who wish to 

become certified renovators would be 

required to take an accredited 8–hour 

renovator course. Currently certified 

abatement supervisors and workers 

would merely need to familiarize 

themselves with this proposal’s work 

practice and cleaning verification 

requirements. Training for renovation 

workers under this proposal would 

consist of informal, on-the-job training 

by a renovator. Renovators not 

otherwise certified would be required to 

take a 4–hour refresher course every 3 

years to maintain their certification. 

Firms performing renovations will have 

to be certified by EPA or an 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 

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? 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1622 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

• 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. 

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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1623 

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. 

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 

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 


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 

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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1625 

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 

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). 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1626 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

(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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1627 

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. 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1629 

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 

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: 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
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: 

§ 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 

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: 

(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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1631 

(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 

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: 

§ 745.86 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 postrenovation 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: 

§ 745.87 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 


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. 

(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 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1633 

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 

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 

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: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1634 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

§ 745.220 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). 

§ 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 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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: 

* * * * * 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 1635 

(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). 

§ 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 

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. 

(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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
1636 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2