24848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10652 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173; FRL–8823–6] 

RIN 2070–AJ56 

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program for Public and Commercial 

Buildings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice 

of the Agency’s intention to regulate the 

renovation, repair, and painting of 

public and commercial buildings under 

section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). This 

notice announces the commencement of 

proceedings to propose lead-safe work 

practices and other requirements for 

renovations on the exteriors of public 

and commercial buildings and to 

determine whether lead-based paint 

hazards are created by interior 

renovation, repair, and painting projects 

in public and commercial buildings. For 

those renovations in the interiors of 

public and commercial buildings that 

create lead-based paint hazards, EPA 

will propose regulations to address 

these hazards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173, 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. 

• 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–2010–0173. 

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 DCO’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– 

2010–0173. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available online 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 email. The regulations.gov Web site 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 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 available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information contact: 

Hans Scheifele, National Program 

Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (202) 564– 

3122; e-mail address: 

scheifele.hans@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI—Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This document is directed to the 

public in general. However, this 

document may be of particular interest 

to the following entities: 

• Building construction (North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) code 236), e.g., 

commercial building construction, 

industrial building construction, 

commercial and institutional building 

construction, building finishing 

contractors, drywall and insulation 

contractors, painting and wall covering 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

other building finishing contractors. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and 

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., 

lessors of non-residential buildings and 

dwellings, non-residential property 

managers. 

• Facilities support services (NAICS 

code 561210). 

• Other general government support 

(NAICS code 921) e.g., general services 

departments, government, public 

property management services, 

government. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24849 

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 NAICS codes have been 

provided to assist you and others in 

determining whether this action might 

apply to certain entities. 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 

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 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 document 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 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. EPA’s Lead-Bhased Paint Programs 

In 1992, Congress found that lowlevel 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 further determined 

that the prior Federal response to this 

threat was insufficient and enacted 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’’). Title X 

established a national goal of 

eliminating lead-based paint hazards in 

housing as expeditiously as possible 

and provided a leadership role for the 

Federal government in building the 

infrastructure necessary to achieve this 

goal. 

Subsequently, President Clinton 

created the President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children. Co-chaired by the 

Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and the 

Administrator of 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 (Ref. 1). In October 

2001, President Bush extended the work 

of the Task Force for an additional 18 

months beyond its original charter. 

Reducing lead poisoning in children 

was the Task Force’s top priority. 

Although more work remains to be 

done, significant progress has been 

made towards reducing lead poisoning 

in children. The estimated percentage of 

children with blood lead levels above 10 

micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) 

declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 

1994 to 1.4% between 1999 and 2004 

(Ref. 25). More information on Federal 

efforts to address lead poisoning, 

including the responsibilities of EPA 

and other Federal Agencies under Title 

X, can be found in Units III.A. and III.B. 

of the preamble to the 2006 Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program Proposed 

Rule (2006 Proposal) (Ref. 3). 

The Act 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 of TSCA being 

one source of the rulemaking authority 

to carry out these responsibilities. TSCA 

section 402(a) directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations covering leadbased paint activities to ensure that 

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) 

that govern lead-based paint 

inspections, lead hazard screens, risk 

assessments, and abatements in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities 

(also referred to as the Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations) (Ref. 4). ‘‘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. The Lead-based 

Paint Activities Regulations created a 

subset of public and commercial 

buildings called child-occupied 

facilities, and defined them in terms of 

the amount of time a young child might 

spend within them. These regulations, 

codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, 

contain an accreditation program for 

training providers and training and 

certification requirements for lead-based 

paint inspectors, risk assessors, project 

designers, abatement supervisors, and 

abatement workers. Work practice 

standards for lead-based paint activities 

are included. Pursuant to TSCA section 

404, provision was made for interested 

States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to 

apply for and receive authorization to 

administer their own lead-based paint 

activities programs. 

On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations were amended to 

include a fee schedule for training 

programs seeking EPA accreditation and 

for individuals and firms seeking EPA 

certification (Ref. 5). 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 

Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations 

occurred on April 8, 2004, when 

notification requirements were added to 

help EPA monitor compliance with the 

training and certification provisions and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the abatement work practice standards 

(Ref. 6). 

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), the Consumer 

Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), and EPA, in 

consultation with the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

jointly developed a lead hazard 

information pamphlet entitled Protect 

Your Family From Lead in Your Home 

(PYF) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was 

designed to be distributed as part of the 

disclosure requirements of section 1018 

of Title X and TSCA section 406(b), to 

provide home purchasers, renters, 

owners, and occupants with the 

information necessary to allow them to 

make informed choices when selecting 

housing to buy or rent, or deciding on 

home renovation projects. The pamphlet 

contains information on the health 

effects of lead, how exposure can occur, 

and steps that can be taken to reduce or 

eliminate the risk of exposure during 

various activities in the home. 

Pursuant to the authority provided in 

section 1018 of Title X, on March 6, 

1996, HUD and EPA jointly 

promulgated regulations requiring 

persons who are selling or leasing target 

housing to provide the PYF pamphlet 

and information on known lead-based 

paint and lead-based paint hazards in 

the housing to purchasers and renters 

(Ref. 8). 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 renovations for 

compensation in target housing to 

provide a lead hazard information 

pamphlet to owners and occupants of 

the home being renovated. These 

regulations, promulgated on June 1, 

1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart E (Ref. 9). The term ‘‘renovation’’ 

is not defined in the statute, but the 

regulation, at 40 CFR 745.83, defines a 

‘‘renovation’’ as the modification of any 

existing structure, or portion of a 

structure, that results in the disturbance 

of painted surfaces. The regulations 

specifically exclude lead-based paint 

abatement projects as well as small 

projects that disturb 2 square feet or less 

of painted surface per component, 

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. 

These regulations require the renovation 

firm to document compliance with the 

requirement to provide the owner and 

the occupant with the PYF pamphlet. 

TSCA section 404 also allows States to 

apply for, and receive authorization to 

administer, the TSCA section 406(b) 

requirements. 

TSCA section 403 directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations that identify, for 

the purposes of Title X and Title IV of 

TSCA, dangerous levels of lead in paint, 

dust, and soil. EPA promulgated 

regulations pursuant to TSCA section 

403 on January 5, 2001, and codified 

them at 40 CFR part 745, subpart D (Ref. 

10). These hazard standards define leadbased paint hazards in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities as paintlead, dust-lead, and soil-lead hazards. A 

paint-lead hazard is defined as any 

damaged or deteriorated lead-based 

paint, any chewable lead-based painted 

surface with evidence of teeth marks, or 

any lead-based paint on a friction 

surface if lead dust levels underneath 

the friction surface exceed the dust-lead 

hazard standards. A dust-lead hazard is 

surface dust that contains a mass-perarea concentration of lead equal to or 

exceeding 40 micrograms per square 

foot (μg/ft2) on floors or 250 μg/ft2 on 

interior windowsills based on wipe 

samples. A soil-lead hazard is bare soil 

that contains total lead equal to or 

exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) 

in a play area or average of 1,200 ppm 

of bare soil in the rest of the yard based 

on soil samples. 

B. EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program 

Section 402(c) of TSCA 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) of TSCA requires EPA 

to promulgate and disseminate 

guidelines for the conduct of such 

activities that 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. 11). 

This document has been widely 

disseminated to renovation and 

remodeling stakeholders through the 

National Lead Information Center, EPA 

Regions, and EPA’s State and Tribal 

partners and is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/ 

rrpamph.pdf. 

Section 402(c)(2) of TSCA 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. EPA conducted this study 

in four phases. Phase I, the 

Environmental Field Sampling Study 

(Ref. 12), evaluated the amount of 

leaded dust generated by various typical 

renovation activities. Phase II, the 

Worker Characterization and Blood 

Lead Study (Ref. 22), involved 

collecting data on blood lead and 

renovation and remodeling activities 

from workers. Phase III, the Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 14), 

was a retrospective study focused on 

assessing the relationship between 

renovation and remodeling activities 

and children’s blood-lead levels. Phase 

IV, the Worker Characterization and 

Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation 

and Repair) Workers Who Specialize in 

Renovations of Old or Historic Homes 

(Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but 

focused on individuals who worked 

primarily in old historic buildings. More 

information on the results of these peerreviewed studies can be found in Unit 

III.C.1. of the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal (Ref. 3). 

Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA 

to revise the regulations promulgated 

under TSCA section 402(a), i.e., the 

Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, 

to apply to renovation or remodeling 

activities in target housing, public 

buildings constructed before 1978, and 

commercial buildings that create leadbased paint hazards. Based primarily on 

the four-phase study conducted under 

TSCA section 402(c)(2), EPA issued a 

proposed rule in January 2006 to cover 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb painted surfaces 

in target housing and child-occupied 

facilities (Ref. 3). In the 2006 Proposal, 

EPA proposed to conclude that all such 

activities in the presence of lead-based 

paint create lead-based paint hazards 

because available information indicated 

that all such activities create dust-lead 

levels that exceed the hazard standards 

established under TSCA section 403. 

After the 2006 Proposal was issued, 

EPA conducted a field study entitled 

‘‘Characterization of Dust Lead Levels 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24851 

after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities’’ (Dust Study) to better 

characterize dust-lead levels resulting 

from various renovation, repair, and 

painting activities (Ref. 16). This study, 

completed in January 2007, was 

designed to compare environmental 

lead levels at appropriate stages after 

various types of renovation, repair, and 

painting preparation activities were 

performed on the interiors and exteriors 

of target housing units and childoccupied facilities. The renovation 

activities were conducted by local 

professional renovation firms, using 

personnel who received lead safe work 

practices training. The activities 

conducted represented a range of 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that would have been 

permitted under the 2006 Proposal, 

including work practices that are 

restricted or prohibited under the final 

rule, such as the use of high-speed 

machines without high-efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filtered exhaust 

control to remove paint. Of particular 

interest was the impact of using specific 

work practices that renovation firms 

would be required to use under the 

proposed rule, such as the use of plastic 

to contain the work area and a multistep cleaning protocol, as opposed to 

more typical work practices. The Dust 

Study reinforced EPA’s proposed 

finding that typical renovation and 

remodeling activities that disturb leadbased paint create lead-based paint 

hazards. 

In April 2008, EPA issued the final 

Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule 

(RRP Rule) under the authority of 

section 402(c)(3) of TSCA to address 

lead-based paint hazards created by 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

in target housing and child-occupied 

facilities (Ref. 17). 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. Under the RRP Rule, 

a child-occupied facility is a building, 

or a portion of a building, constructed 

prior to 1978, visited regularly by the 

same child, under 6 years of age, on at 

least two different days within any week 

(Sunday through Saturday period), 

provided that each day’s visit lasts at 

least 3 hours and the combined weekly 

visits last at least 6 hours, and the 

combined annual visits last at least 60 

hours. The RRP Rule establishes 

requirements for training renovators, 

other renovation workers, and dust 

sampling technicians; for certifying 

renovators, dust sampling technicians, 

and renovation firms; for accrediting 

providers of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training; for 

renovation work practices; and for 

recordkeeping. Interested States, 

Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply 

for and receive authorization to 

administer and enforce all of the 

elements of the RRP Rule. 

C. Recent Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Developments 

Shortly after the RRP Rule was 

published, several petitions were filed 

challenging the rule. These petitions 

were consolidated in the Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA 

entered into an agreement with the 

environmental and children’s health 

advocacy groups in settlement of their 

petitions (Ref. 18). In this agreement, 

EPA committed to propose several 

changes to the RRP Rule. EPA also 

agreed to commence rulemaking to 

address renovations in public and 

commercial buildings, other than childoccupied facilities, to the extent those 

renovations create lead-based paint 

hazards. For these buildings, EPA 

agreed, at a minimum, to do the 

following: 

• Issue a proposal to regulate 

renovations on the exteriors of public 

and commercial buildings other than 

child-occupied facilities by December 

15, 2011 and to take final action on that 

proposal by July 15, 2013. 

• Consult with EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board by September 30, 2011, 

on a methodology for evaluating the risk 

posed by renovations in the interiors of 

public and commercial buildings other 

than child-occupied facilities. 

• Eighteen months after receipt of the 

Science Advisory Board’s report, either 

issue a proposal to regulate renovations 

on the interiors of public and 

commercial buildings other than childoccupied facilities or conclude that such 

renovations do not create lead-based 

paint hazards. 

On August 10, 2009, EPA received a 

petition from several environmental and 

public health advocacy groups 

requesting that the EPA amend 

regulations issued under Title IV of 

TSCA (Ref. 20). Specifically, the 

petitioners requested that EPA lower the 

Agency’s dust-lead hazard standards 

issued pursuant to section 403 of TSCA 

from 40 μg/ft2 to 10 μg/ft2 or less for 

floors and from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg/ft2

or less for window sills. The petitioners 

also asked EPA to modify the definition 

of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 

and 745.223 from 0.5 percent by weight 

(5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 

percent by weight (600 ppm) with a 

corresponding reduction in the 1.0 

milligram per square centimeter 

standard. On October 22, 2009, EPA 

granted this petition under section 

553(e) of the Administrative Procedures 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e) (Ref. 21). In granting 

this petition, EPA agreed to commence 

the appropriate proceeding, but did not 

commit to a particular schedule or to a 

particular outcome. Because Congress 

gave the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) statutory 

authority to establish a lower level of 

lead in paint for the purpose of the 

definition of the term ‘‘lead-based paint’’ 

in target housing (see 15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), 

EPA agreed to work with HUD in taking 

the appropriate action on the request 

pertaining to the definition of the term 

‘‘lead-based paint.’’ 

D. Information on Lead and Its Health 

Effects 

Lead is a soft, bluish metallic 

chemical 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. 

1. Health effects in general. Lead 

bioaccumulates, and is only slowly 

removed, with bone lead serving as a 

blood lead source for years after 

exposure and may serve as a significant 

source of exposure. Bone accounts for 

more than 90% of the total body burden 

of lead in adults and 70% in children 

(Ref. 22). In comparison to adults, bone 

mineral turns over much more quickly 

in children as a result of growth. 

Changes in blood lead concentration in 

children are thought to parallel more 

closely to changes in total body burden. 

Therefore, blood lead concentration is 

often used in epidemiologic and 

toxicological studies as an index of 

exposure and body burden for children. 

Lead is known for its ‘‘broad array of 

deleterious effects on multiple organ 

systems via widely diverse mechanisms 

of action’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–24 and section 

8.4.1). This array of health effects 

includes effects on heme biosynthesis 

and related functions, neurological 

development and function, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

reproduction and physical 

development, kidney function, 

cardiovascular function, and immune 

function. The weight of evidence varies 

across this array of effects and is 

comprehensively described in the EPA 

Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Criteria 

Document) (Ref. 22). There is also some 

evidence of lead carcinogenicity, 

primarily from animal studies, together 

with limited human evidence of 

suggestive associations (Ref. 22, sections 

5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). Lead has also 

been classified as a probable human 

carcinogen by the International Agency 

for Research on Cancer (inorganic lead 

compounds), based on limited evidence 

in humans and sufficient evidence in 

animals, and as reasonably anticipated 

to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. 

National Toxicology Program (lead and 

lead compounds) (Ref. 22, section 6.7.2). 

EPA considers lead a probable 

carcinogen based on the available 

animal data (http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0277.htm (Ref. 22, p. 6–195)). 

This discussion is focused on those 

effects most pertinent to ambient 

exposures, which, given the reductions 

in ambient lead levels over the past 30 

years, are generally those associated 

with individual blood lead levels in 

children and adults in the range of 10 

μg/dL and lower. These key effects 

include neurological, hematological, 

and immune effects for children, and 

hematological, cardiovascular, and renal 

effects for adults (Ref. 22, Tables 8–5 

and 8–6, pp. 8–60 to 8–62). As evident 

from the discussions in chapters 5, 6, 

and 8 of the Criteria Document, 

‘‘neurotoxic effects in children and 

cardiovascular effects in adults are 

among those best substantiated as 

occurring at blood lead concentrations 

as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly 

lower); and these categories are 

currently clearly of greatest public 

health concern’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–60). At 

mean blood lead levels, in children, on 

the order of 10 μg/dL, and somewhat 

lower, associations have been found 

with effects to the immune system, 

including altered macrophage 

activation, increased immunoglobulin E 

(IgE) levels and associated increased 

risk for autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 

22, sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6). A metaanalysis of numerous studies estimates 

that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., 

from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is associated with 

∼1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) 

increase in systolic blood pressure and 

∼0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic 

pressure (Ref. 22, p. E–10). With respect 

to renal effects in adults, increased risk 

for nephrotoxicity was observed at the 

lowest lead exposure levels in 

epidemiological studies included in the 

Criteria Document (Ref. 22, p. 8–49). 

Nephrotic effects were reported among 

some adults with mean concurrent 

blood lead levels as low as 2 to 4 μg/ 

dL. ‘‘More specifically, the newly 

available general population studies 

have shown associations between blood 

Pb and indicators of renal function 

impairment at blood-Pb levels extending 

below 10 μg/dL, with nephrotic effects 

having been reported among some 

adults with mean concurrent blood-Pb 

levels as low as ∼2 to 4 μg/dL.’’ (Ref. 22, 

p. 8–49). 

The toxicological and epidemiological 

information available ‘‘includes 

assessment of new evidence 

substantiating risks of deleterious effects 

on certain health endpoints being 

induced by distinctly lower than 

previously demonstrated lead exposures 

indexed by blood lead levels extending 

well below 10 μg/dL in children and/or 

adults’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8– 25). Some health 

effects associated with individual blood 

lead levels extend below 5 μg/dL, and 

some studies have observed these effects 

at the lowest blood levels considered. 

With regard to population mean levels, 

the Criteria Document points to studies 

reporting ‘‘lead effects on the 

intellectual attainment of preschool and 

school age children at population mean 

concurrent blood-lead levels [BLLs] 

ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 μg/dL’’ 

(Ref. 22, p. E–9). 

EPA notes that many studies over the 

past decade, in investigating effects at 

lower blood lead levels, have utilized 

the CDC advisory level or level of 

concern for individual children (10 μg/ 

dL). This level has variously been called 

an advisory level or level of concern. In 

addressing children’s blood lead levels, 

CDC has stated, ‘‘[s]pecific strategies that 

target screening to high-risk children are 

essential to identify children with BLLs 

≥ 10 μg/dL’’ (Ref. 1) as a benchmark for 

assessment, and this is reflected in the 

numerous references in the Criteria 

Document to 10 μg/dL. Individual study 

conclusions stated with regard to effects 

observed below 10 μg/dL are usually 

referring to individual blood lead levels. 

In fact, many such study groups have 

been restricted to individual blood lead 

levels below 10 μg/dL or restricted to 

blood lead levels below levels that are 

lower than 10 μg/dL (e.g., the blood lead 

levels must be below 8 μg/dL). EPA 

notes that the mean blood lead level for 

these groups will necessarily be lower 

than the blood lead level below which 

they are restricted, because the 

restricted blood lead level is the upper 

end of the blood lead level range of the 

study. 

Threshold levels, in terms of blood 

lead levels in individual children, for 

neurological effects cannot be discerned 

from the currently available studies 

(Ref. 22, pp. 8–60 to 8–63). The Criteria 

Document states, ‘‘There is no level of 

lead exposure that can yet be identified, 

with confidence, as clearly not being 

associated with some risk of deleterious 

health effects’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–63). As 

discussed in the Criteria Document, ‘‘a 

threshold for lead neurotoxic effects 

may exist at levels distinctly lower than 

the lowest exposures examined in these 

epidemiologic studies’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8– 

67). Physiological, behavioral and 

demographic factors contribute to 

increased risk of lead-related health 

effects. Population groups potentially at 

risk, sometimes also referred to as 

sensitive populations, include those 

with increased susceptibility (i.e., 

physiological factors contributing to a 

greater response for the same exposure), 

as well as those with greater 

vulnerability (i.e., those with increased 

exposure such as through exposure to 

higher media concentrations or resulting 

from behavior leading to increased 

contact with contaminated media), or 

those affected by socioeconomic factors, 

such as reduced access to health care or 

low socioeconomic status (Ref. 22). 

Children are at increased risk of leadrelated health effects due to various 

factors that enhance their exposures 

(e.g., via the hand-to-mouth activity that 

is prevalent in very young children, 

(Ref. 22, section 4.4.3)) and 

susceptibility. While children are 

considered to be at a period of 

maximum exposure around 18–27 

months, recent epidemiologic studies 

have found other blood lead 

measurements, including concurrent 

blood lead levels or lifetime averages, to 

be stronger predictors of lead-associated 

effects than peak blood lead 

concentration (Ref. 22, pp. 6–60 and 6– 

61). The evidence ‘‘supports the idea 

that lead exposure continues to be toxic 

to children as they reach school age, and 

[does] not lend support to the 

interpretation that all the damage is 

done by the time the child reaches 2 to 

3 years of age’’ (Ref. 22, section 6.2.12). 

The following physiological and 

demographic factors can further affect 

risk of lead-related effects in some 

children. 

• Children with particular genetic 

polymorphisms (e.g., presence of the daminolevulinic acid dehydratase-2 

[ALAD-2] allele) may have increased 

sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may 

be due to increased susceptibility to the 

same internal dose and/or to increased 

internal dose associated with same 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24853 

exposure (Ref. 22, p. 8–71, sections 

6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6). 

• Some children may have blood lead 

levels higher than those otherwise 

associated with a given lead exposure 

(Ref. 22, section 8.5.3) as a result of 

nutritional status (e.g., iron deficiency, 

calcium intake), as well as genetic and 

other factors (Ref. 22, chapter 4 and 

sections 3.4, 5.3.7, and 8.5.3). 

• Situations of elevated exposure, 

such as residing near sources of ambient 

lead, as well as socioeconomic factors, 

such as reduced access to health care or 

low socioeconomic status can also 

contribute to increased blood lead levels 

and increased risk of associated health 

effects from air-related lead (Refs. 23, 

24). 

• Children in poverty and black, nonHispanic children have notably higher 

blood lead levels than do economically 

well-off children and white children, in 

general (Ref. 25). 

2. Neurological effects in children. 

Among the wide variety of health 

endpoints associated with lead 

exposures, there is general consensus 

that the developing nervous system in 

children is among the, if not the, most 

sensitive. While blood lead levels in 

U.S. children have decreased notably 

since the late 1970s, newer studies have 

investigated and reported associations 

of effects on the neurodevelopment of 

children with these more recent blood 

lead levels (Ref. 22, chapter 6). 

Functional manifestations of lead 

neurotoxicity during childhood include 

neurophysiologic, motor, cognitive, and 

behavioral impacts. Numerous 

epidemiological studies have reported 

neurocognitive, neurobehavioral, 

neurophysiologic, and neuromotor 

function effects in children with blood 

lead levels below 10 μg/dL (Ref. 22, 

sections 6.2 and 8.4). As discussed in 

the Criteria Document, ‘‘extensive 

experimental laboratory animal 

evidence has been generated that (a) 

substantiates well the plausibility of the 

epidemiologic findings observed in 

human children and adults and (b) 

expands our understanding of likely 

mechanisms underlying the neurotoxic 

effects’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–25; section 5.3). 

Cognitive effects associated with lead 

exposures that have been observed in 

epidemiological studies have included 

decrements in intelligence test results, 

such as the widely used IQ score, and 

in academic achievement as assessed by 

various standardized tests as well as by 

class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 

22, section 6.2.16 and pp. 8–29 to 8–30). 

As noted in the Criteria Document with 

regard to the latter, ‘‘[a]ssociations 

between lead exposure and academic 

achievement observed in the studies 

noted in this section were significant 

even after adjusting for IQ, suggesting 

that lead-sensitive neuropsychological 

processing and learning factors not 

reflected by global intelligence indices 

might contribute to reduced 

performance on academic tasks’’ (Ref. 

22, pp. 8–29 to 8– 30). Further, 

neurological effects in general include 

behavioral effects, such as delinquent 

behavior (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.6 and 

8.4.2.2), sensory effects, such as those 

related to hearing and vision (Ref. 22, 

sections 6.2.7 and 8.4.2.3), and deficits 

in neuromotor function (Ref. 22, p. 8– 

36). 

With regard to potential implications 

of lead effects on IQ, the Criteria 

Document recognizes the ‘‘critical’’ 

distinction between population and 

individual risk, identifying issues 

regarding declines in IQ for an 

individual and for the population. The 

Criteria Document further states that a 

‘‘point estimate indicating a modest 

mean change on a health index at the 

individual level can have substantial 

implications at the population level’’ 

(Ref. 22, p. 8–77). As an example, the 

Criteria Document states, ‘‘although an 

increase of a few mm Hg in blood 

pressure might not be of concern for an 

individual’s well-being, the same 

increase in the population mean might 

be associated with substantial increases 

in the percentages of individuals with 

values that are sufficiently extreme that 

they exceed the criteria used to diagnose 

hypertension’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–77). A 

downward shift in the mean IQ value is 

associated with both substantial 

decreases in percentages achieving very 

high scores and substantial increases in 

the percentage of individuals achieving 

very low scores (Ref. 22, p. 8–81). For 

example, for a population mean IQ of 

100 (and standard deviation of 15), 

2.3% of the population would score 

above 130, but a shift of the population 

to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% 

of the population scoring above 130 

(Ref. 22, pp. 8–81 to 8–82). ‘‘For an 

individual functioning in the low [IQ] 

range due to the influence of 

developmental risk factors other than 

lead, a lead-associated [IQ] decline of 

several points might be sufficient to 

drop that individual into the range 

associated with increased risk of 

educational, vocational, and social 

failure’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–77). 

Other cognitive effects observed in 

studies of children have included effects 

on attention, executive functions, 

language, memory, learning, and 

visuospatial processing (Ref. 22, 

sections 5.3.5, 6.2.5, and 8.4.2.1), with 

attention and executive function effects 

associated with lead exposures indexed 

by blood lead levels below 10 μg/dL 

(Ref. 22, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8–30 to 

8–31). The evidence for the role of lead 

in this suite of effects includes 

experimental animal findings (Ref. 22, 

section 8.4.2.1; p. 8–31), which provide 

strong biological plausibility of lead 

effects on learning ability, memory and 

attention (Ref. 22, section 5.3.5), as well 

as associated mechanistic findings. 

The persistence of such lead-induced 

effects is described in the Criteria 

Document (e.g., Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 

6.2.11, and 8.5.2). The persistence or 

irreversibility of such effects can be the 

result of damage occurring without 

adequate repair offsets or of the 

persistence of lead in the body (Ref. 22, 

section 8.5.2). It is additionally 

important to note that there may be 

long-term consequences of such deficits 

over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and 

achievement can have ‘‘enduring and 

important effects on objective 

parameters of success in real life,’’ as 

well as increased risk of antisocial and 

delinquent behavior (Ref. 22, section 

6.2.16). 

Multiple epidemiologic studies of 

lead and child development have 

demonstrated inverse associations 

between blood lead concentrations and 

children’s IQ and other cognitive-related 

outcomes at successively lower lead 

exposure levels over the past 30 years 

(Ref. 22, section 6.2.13). For example, 

the overall weight of the available 

evidence, described in the Criteria 

Document, provides clear substantiation 

of neurocognitive decrements being 

associated in children with mean blood 

lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 μg/ 

dL, and some analyses indicate lead 

effects on intellectual attainment of 

children for which population mean 

blood lead levels in the analysis ranged 

from 2 to 8 μg/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2, 

8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, while blood 

lead levels in U.S. children have 

decreased notably since the late 1970s, 

newer studies have investigated and 

reported associations of effects on the 

neurodevelopment of children with 

blood lead levels similar to the more 

recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 22, 

chapter 6). 

Children in minority populations and 

children whose families are poor have 

an increased risk of exposure to harmful 

lead levels (Ref. 25, at e376). Analysis 

of the National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Surveys (NHANES) data 

from 1988 through 2004 shows that the 

prevalence of blood lead levels equal to 

or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 

1 to 5 years has decreased from 8.6% in 

1988–1991 to 1.4% in 1999–2004, 

which is an 84% decline (Ref. 25, at 

e377). However, the NHANES data from 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1999–2004 indicates that non-Hispanic 

black children aged 1 to 5 years had 

higher percentages of blood lead levels 

equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) 

than white children in the same age 

group (1.2%) (Ref. 25). In addition, 

among children aged 1 to 5 years over 

the same period, the geometric mean 

blood lead level was significantly higher 

for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), 

compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 

μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/ 

dL) (Ref. 25, at e377). For children aged 

1 to 5 years from families with low 

income, the geometric mean blood lead 

level was 2.4 μg/dL (Ref. 25, at e377). 

Further, the incidences of blood-lead 

levels greater than 10 ug/dL and greater 

than or equal to 5 ug/dL were higher for 

non-hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4%, 

respectively) than for Mexican 

Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, 

respectively) and non-Hispanic whites 

(4.4% and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 25). 

The ‘‘analysis indicates that residence in 

older housing, poverty, age, and being 

non-Hispanic black are still major risk 

factors for higher lead levels’’ (Ref. 25, 

at e376). 

3. Adult health effects. As previously 

noted, the adult health effects of lead 

exposure include negative impacts on 

renal and cardiovascular function. 

While cardiovascular effects in adults 

are well substantiated as occurring at 

blood lead levels as low as 5 to 10 μg/ 

dL (or possibly lower), newlydemonstrated renal system effects 

among general population groups are 

also emerging as low-level lead 

exposure effects of concern (Ref. 22, p. 

8–60). 

Most studies in general adult and 

patient populations published during 

the past two decades have observed 

associations between ‘‘Pb dose and 

worse renal function.’’ (Ref. 22, p. 6– 

112) The cumulative effect of higher 

blood lead levels from past exposure 

may be a factor in the nephrotoxicity 

observed at current blood lead levels. 

However, one study found associations 

between blood lead and concurrent 

serum creatinine in participants whose 

peak blood lead levels were equal to or 

less than 10 μg/dL (Ref. 22, p. 6–112). 

‘‘The threshold for lead-related 

nephrotoxicity cannot be determined 

based on current data, but associations 

with clinically-relevant renal outcomes 

have been observed in populations with 

mean blood lead levels as low as 2.2 μg/ 

dL’’ (Ref. 22, p. 6–112). In addition, the 

available data are not sufficient to 

determine whether the observed 

nephrotoxicity is related more to such 

current blood lead levels, higher levels 

from past exposures, or both (Ref. 22, p. 

8–49). Some adult populations are at an 

even greater risk for adverse health 

effects as a result of lead exposure. ‘‘The 

influence of an individual’s health 

status on susceptibility to lead toxicity 

has been demonstrated most clearly for 

renal outcomes.’’ ‘‘Individuals with 

diabetes, hypertension, and chronic 

renal insufficiency are at increased risk 

of Pb-associated declines in renal 

function, and indications of altered 

kidney function have been reported at 

blood Pb levels ranging somewhat 

below 5 μg/dL (Lin et al., 2001, 2003; 

Muntner et al., 2003; Tsaih et al., 2004).’’ 

(Ref. 22 p. 8–72). 

Positive associations between lead 

exposure and increased blood pressure 

have been observed in numerous 

studies. Epidemiologic studies that have 

examined the effects of blood lead levels 

on blood pressure have generally found 

positive associations, even after 

controlling for confounding factors such 

as tobacco smoking, exercise, body 

weight, alcohol consumption, and 

socioeconomic status (Ref. 22, p. 8–45). 

Recent meta-analyses of these studies 

have reported robust, statisticallysignificant, though small effect-size, 

associations between blood-Pb 

concentrations and blood pressure. For 

example, the meta-analysis of Nawrot et 

al. (2002) indicated that a doubling of 

blood lead corresponded to a 1 mm Hg 

increase in systolic blood pressure. 

Although this magnitude of increase is 

not clinically meaningful for an 

individual, a population shift of 1 mm 

Hg is important (Ref 22, p. 8–45). The 

majority of the more recent studies 

employing bone lead level have also 

found a strong association between 

long-term lead exposure and arterial 

pressure. ‘‘Since the residence time of 

Pb in blood is relatively short but very 

long in bone, the latter observations 

have provided compelling evidence for 

the positive relationship between Pb 

exposure and a subsequent rise in 

arterial pressure in human adults.’’ (Ref 

22, p. 8–45) 

Studies also demonstrate a 

relationship between increased lead 

exposure and other adverse 

cardiovascular outcomes, including 

increased incidence of hypertension and 

cardiovascular morbidity and mortality 

(Ref. 22, p. 6–154). ‘‘Lead interference in 

calcium-dependent processes, including 

ionic transport systems and signaling 

pathways important in vascular 

reactivity may only represent the first 

step in the cascade of Pb-induced 

physiological events that culminates in 

cardiovascular disease. Lead alteration 

of endothelial cell response to vascular 

damage, inducement of smooth muscle 

cell hyperplasia, alteration of hormonal 

and transmitter systems regulating 

vascular reactivity, and its clear role as 

promoter of oxidative stress suggest 

mechanisms that could explain the Pbassociated increase in blood pressure, 

hypertension, and cardiovascular 

disease noted in this section’’ (Ref. 22, 

p. 6–153). 

Current research does not definitively 

indicate whether health impacts 

observed later in life are the result of 

current lead exposure or exposure 

which occurred during early childhood 

or at some other time in the past. The 

following excerpts from the Criteria 

Document illustrate the uncertainties 

surrounding this issue: 

• ‘‘It could be that damage occurred 

during a circumscribed period when the 

critical substrate was undergoing rapid 

development, but that the high 

correlation between serial blood Pb 

levels impeded identification of the 

special significance of exposure at that 

time.’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–73). 

• ‘‘While some observations in 

children as old as adolescence indicate 

that exposure biomarkers measured 

concurrently are the strongest predictors 

of late outcomes, the interpretation of 

these observations with regard to critical 

windows of vulnerability remains 

uncertain’’ (Ref. 22, p. 8–74). 

4. Renovations in residential settings 

and elevated blood lead levels. EPA’s 

Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead 

Study, described more fully in Unit 

III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal, provides ample evidence of a 

link between renovation activities and 

elevated blood lead levels in resident 

children (Ref. 14). This peer-reviewed 

study concluded that general residential 

renovation and remodeling is associated 

with an increased risk of elevated blood 

lead levels in children and that specific 

renovation and remodeling activities are 

also associated with an increase in the 

risk of elevated blood lead levels in 

children. In particular, removing paint 

(using open flame torches, using heat 

guns, using chemical paint removers, 

and using wet scraping/sanding) and 

preparing surfaces by sanding or 

scraping significantly increased the risk 

of elevated blood lead levels. 

Three studies from New York support 

the findings of the Wisconsin Childhood 

Blood-Lead 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. 26). An update to that 

study with data from environmental 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24855 

investigations conducted during 2006– 

2007 in New York State (excluding New 

York City) identified renovation, repair, 

and painting activities as the probable 

source of lead exposure in 14% of 972 

children with blood lead levels equal to 

or exceeding 20 μg/dL (Ref. 27). The 

authors concluded that children living 

in housing undergoing renovation, 

repair, and painting that was built 

before 1978, and particularly before 

1950, when concentrations of lead in 

paint were higher, are at high risk for 

elevated blood lead levels. The final 

study was a case-control study that 

assessed the association between 

elevated blood lead levels in children 

younger than 5 years and renovation or 

repair activities in homes in New York 

City (Ref. 28). EPA notes that the 

authors show that when dust and debris 

was reported (by respondents via 

telephone interviews) to be 

‘‘everywhere’’ following a renovation, 

the children’s blood lead levels were 

significantly higher than those of the 

children at homes that did not report 

remodeling work. On the other hand, 

when the respondent reported either ‘‘no 

visible dust and debris’’ or that ‘‘dust 

and debris was limited to the work 

area,’’ there was no statistically 

significant effect on blood lead levels 

relative to homes that did not report 

remodeling work. Although the study 

found only a weak and nonsignificant 

link between a report of any renovation 

activity and the likelihood that a 

resident child had an elevated bloodlead level, the link to the likelihood of 

an elevated blood-lead level was 

statistically significant for surface 

preparation by sanding and for 

renovation work that spreads dust and 

debris beyond the work area. The 

researchers noted the consistency of 

their results with EPA’s Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 28, at 

509). 

III. Renovations in Public and 

Commercial Buildings 

In many respects, EPA’s approach to 

determining whether and how to 

regulate exterior renovations on public 

and commercial buildings and whether 

and how to regulate interior renovations 

in public and commercial buildings will 

be similar to the approach taken 

towards renovation activities in and on 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities. Although the statutory 

directive under TSCA section 402(c)(3) 

is the same for all of these buildings, 

each type of building may present a 

different level of exposure to occupants. 

In this ANPRM, EPA is taking comment 

on the many considerations it must take 

into account when revising the 

regulations issued under TSCA section 

402(a) to apply to those renovations that 

create lead-based paint hazards in 

public and commercial buildings. 

An important consideration in 

determining how to regulate renovations 

on the exteriors of public and 

commercial buildings is that these 

renovations can create lead-based paint 

hazards on and in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities. Lead dust can 

travel in the environment and has been 

shown to be readily tracked into homes 

and other buildings. In fact, as 

discussed in Unit III.B.1. a substantial 

proportion of interior dust is due to 

track-in activities. 

A. Definitions of ‘‘Public Building’’ and 

‘‘Commercial Building’’ 

While the term ‘‘target housing’’ is 

defined in TSCA section 401, TSCA 

Title IV does not provide definitions for 

the terms ‘‘public building’’ and 

‘‘commercial building.’’ The issue of the 

buildings that could and should be 

covered by these terms was raised, but 

not conclusively resolved, in the 

rulemaking to establish the existing 

Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations. 

As discussed previously, EPA 

promulgated the final Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations under TSCA 

section 402(a) in 1996 (Ref. 4). These 

regulations cover lead-based paint 

inspections, lead hazard screens, risk 

assessments, and abatements. The 

regulations include training and 

certification requirements for 

individuals and firms, accreditation 

requirements for lead-based paint 

training providers, and work practice 

standards designed in accordance with 

the statutory directive to ensure that 

lead-based paint activities are 

conducted safely, reliably and 

effectively. As initially proposed in 

1994, one set of requirements for the 

training and certification of contractors 

and the accreditation of training 

programs, as well as specific work 

practice standards would have applied 

to lead-based paint activities conducted 

in target housing and public buildings 

(Ref. 29). The 1994 proposal would have 

defined public buildings to include all 

buildings generally open to the public 

or occupied or visited by children, such 

as stores, museums, airports, offices, 

restaurants, hospitals, and government 

buildings, as well as schools and daycare centers. In the final rule, EPA 

decided to focus on buildings 

frequented by children and, thus, 

established a subset of the buildings 

EPA had intended to define as public. 

This subset is called ‘‘child-occupied 

facilities’’ and it is delineated terms of 

the frequency and duration of visits by 

particular children (Ref. 4). 

EPA continues to believe that it is 

important to emphasize the deleterious 

effects of lead exposure on young 

children, a sub-population that has long 

been identified as being particularly 

susceptible to the adverse effects of 

lead. However, it is also important to 

address exposures for other sensitive 

sub-populations, such as women who 

are pregnant or who may become 

pregnant in the future. In addition, as 

discussed in Unit II.D. of this preamble, 

a growing body of scientific literature 

documents lead’s adverse effects on 

older children and adults at lower levels 

of exposure than previously 

documented. As a result, EPA does not 

believe that the options considered in 

this rulemaking should be limited to 

those buildings or situations where 

young children are likely to be exposed. 

EPA intends to evaluate all of the 

available information on hazards, 

exposures, and risk to determine which 

renovations TSCA requires EPA to 

regulate and how TSCA requires EPA to 

regulate them. 

While TSCA Title IV does not define 

‘‘public building’’ or ‘‘commercial 

building,’’ a definition of ‘‘public and 

commercial building’’ was provided in 

TSCA Title II. TSCA Title II addresses 

the management of asbestos-containing 

building materials in school buildings 

and the training and accreditation (or 

certification) of persons who perform 

asbestos inspections or design or 

conduct asbestos abatement in public or 

commercial buildings. Because the 

primary focus of TSCA Title II is 

primary and secondary schools, and 

ensuring that asbestos-containing 

building materials in such schools are 

properly managed, primary and 

secondary schools are specifically 

excluded from the definition of the term 

‘‘public and commercial building’’ in 

TSCA section 202. However, the rest of 

the definition signals Congress’s 

intention for EPA to interpret the term 

broadly, because a public and 

commercial building is defined as ‘‘any 

building’’ other than a school building 

or a ‘‘residential apartment building’’ of 

fewer than 10 units. EPA’s regulatory 

definition of ‘‘public and commercial 

building’’ at 40 CFR part 763, Subpart E, 

Appendix C, Asbestos Model 

Accreditation Plan, provides examples 

of the types of buildings covered, 

including industrial and office 

buildings, government-owned buildings, 

colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, 

churches, preschools, stores, 

warehouses and factories. 

Notwithstanding the differences in 

focus between TSCA Title II and Title 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

IV, EPA believes that a similar broad 

approach to interpreting ‘‘public 

building’’ and ‘‘commercial building’’ is 

warranted in this rulemaking. Of course, 

EPA must still determine which 

renovations in which buildings create 

lead-based paint hazards. 

One other factor must be considered 

in interpreting the terms ‘‘public 

building’’ and ‘‘commercial building.’’ In 

1978, the 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. 30). However, this ban 

specifically exempted ‘‘[i]ndustrial (and 

commercial) building and equipment 

maintenance coatings, including traffic 

and safety marking coatings.’’ It is likely 

that Congress was thinking of this ban, 

and the exemption, when it limited 

rulemaking authority in TSCA section 

402(c)(3) to public buildings built before 

1978, but applied no such limitation to 

commercial buildings. 

With this in mind, EPA requests 

comment, information and data from the 

public on the types of buildings that 

should be considered ‘‘public buildings’’ 

or ‘‘commercial buildings.’’ Specifically, 

EPA asks commenters to consider the 

following questions: 

1. What types of buildings should be 

considered to be public buildings? What 

types should be considered to be 

commercial buildings? Should 

outbuildings and structures on the 

property be included in either category 

as they are in respect to target housing? 

Why? 

2. What types of building 

classifications should be considered? 

Should the criteria for classifying 

buildings include the presence of young 

children, pregnant women, or 

population density? Is it possible to 

categorize buildings based on the 

contractors and the workforce 

renovating them (i.e., do different 

contractors perform renovations in 

different types of public and 

commercial buildings, or do such work 

differently)? Is it possible to classify 

public and commercial buildings using 

building codes, zoning, or other 

characteristics? Should various 

classifications of buildings be treated 

differently with regard to required work 

practices, cleaning methods, and 

reoccupancy criteria? 

3. Some public or commercial 

buildings are mixed-use buildings, with 

residences, schools and/or child care 

facilities in the buildings. If portions of 

the buildings are residences that are 

target housing (i.e., the building was 

constructed before 1978 and the 

residences are not otherwise exempt), 

how should such buildings, or 

particular portions of them, be 

addressed in this rulemaking? 

4. Every four years, the Department of 

Energy (DOE) collects information on 

the stock of commercial buildings in the 

United States, their energy-related 

building characteristics, and their 

energy consumption and expenditures. 

For the purposes of this survey, the 

Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS), 

commercial buildings include all 

buildings in which at least half of the 

floor space is used for a purpose that is 

not residential, industrial, or 

agricultural. This survey includes 

building types that might not 

traditionally be considered commercial, 

such as schools, correctional 

institutions, and buildings used for 

religious worship. More information on 

the CBECS can be found at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. DOE also 

collects data every four years on 

buildings used for manufacturing 

activities. The Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey (MECS) collects 

data on buildings used by the 

manufacturing sector, defined by NAICS 

codes 31 to 33. The MECS data does not 

include information on building 

vintage. More information on MECS can 

be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

emeu/mecs/contents.html. What other 

information is available on the ages, 

types, sizes, and other characteristics of 

public and commercial buildings in the 

United States? In particular, what data 

are available on the age, types, sizes, 

and other characteristics of public or 

commercial buildings not included in 

the CBECS or MECS? 

Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

2003 American Housing Survey, there 

are 77,888,000 target housing units. 

‘‘Target housing’’ is defined under 

section 401 of 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. 

EPA estimates that there are 97,000 

child-occupied facilities (COFs), as 

defined at 40 CFR 745.83. By 

comparison, according to DOE’s CBECS 

data, there are 2,826,000 commercial 

buildings constructed prior to 1980. 

This includes building types such as 

schools and buildings used for religious 

worship, so there is some doublecounting with the target housing and 

COFs figures described in this 

paragraph. According to DOE’s MECS 

there are 368,000 manufacturing 

buildings, but this includes post-1978 

buildings because MECS does not 

indicate the age of the buildings. EPA is 

not aware of data on the number of 

agricultural buildings. 

The estimates from the CBECS and 

MECS data provide an indication of the 

relative magnitude of different building 

types, but at this time should not be 

considered reflective of the number of 

buildings that would be affected by a 

future EPA regulation. The number of 

buildings affected by an EPA regulation 

will depend on how EPA ultimately 

decides to define public and 

commercial buildings and the scope of 

the regulation within that definition. 

Aside from the number of structures, the 

characteristics of public and commercial 

buildings may differ from target housing 

and COFs, including the prevalence of 

lead-based paint; the frequency, type, 

and size of renovation work performed; 

and the baseline renovation work 

practices used. EPA is seeking 

information in this notice on all of these 

characteristics. 

B. Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Public 

and Commercial Building Renovations 

1. Leaded dust and debris created by 

exterior renovations. The Dust Study, as 

described in Unit II.B., demonstrated 

that renovations on the exteriors of 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities create an enormous amount of 

leaded dust that can contaminate soil in 

the vicinity. Including both bulk debris 

and dust created by these renovations, 

geometric mean lead levels in exterior 

samples from collection trays placed on 

top of the containment plastic covering 

the adjacent ground ranged from a low 

of 60,662 μg/ft2 for door replacement to 

a high of 7,216,358 μg/ft2 for removing 

paint with a high temperature heat gun 

(Ref. 16). EPA requests public comment 

on the extent to which this study should 

inform EPA’s determination on leadbased paint hazards created by exterior 

renovations on public and commercial 

buildings, especially considering that 

some of the exterior renovations in the 

Dust Study were performed on a school 

building, which represents one type of 

public buildings. 

Studies have demonstrated that 

exterior dust and soil that contains lead 

will contaminate interior building areas 

when dust and soil is tracked inside on 

the shoes and clothing of building 

occupants and visitors and through air 

exchange. In one study, a regression 

analysis was used to investigate those 

factors that were most statistically 

significantly associated with lead 

loadings in dust samples taken from 

residential carpets (Ref. 29). The study 

found that soil-lead concentration, the 

practice of removing shoes before 

entering, and the use of walk-off mats at 

entrances were all statistically 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24857 

significant predictors of dust-lead 

loading in carpets. Dust and soil 

samples collected during the study were 

screened to include only particles 

smaller than 150 microns, because these 

particles were considered more likely to 

appear on a child’s hand (Ref. 31). 

EPA possesses data on the transport of 

leaded dust and debris resulting from 

exterior renovations. In EPA’s Dust 

Study, measured lead dust and debris 

were found up to 18 feet from the 

exterior work area, and the average 

distance traveled by lead dust and 

debris was 10.81 feet (Ref. 16). However, 

it is important to keep in mind that 

exterior vertical containment was used 

where necessary during the Dust Study 

to ensure that leaded dust and debris 

did not contaminate adjacent properties, 

and this limited the distance leaded 

dust and debris could travel. 

Nevertheless, the Dust Study 

demonstrates that individuals residing 

in and visiting nearby properties could 

be exposed to leaded dust and debris 

created by exterior renovations when 

vertical containment or other 

containment measures are not used. 

Renovation firms or building owners 

and managers may not specifically 

consider the potential for these 

exposures on nearby properties when 

designing and performing renovations 

on the exteriors of public and 

commercial buildings. 

Numerous studies have found 

elevated soil lead levels in residential 

areas surrounding residential and public 

and commercial buildings that have 

been demolished. In one study of a 

major building demolition, lead dust 

was found to travel up to 20 kilometers 

from the demolition site (Ref. 32). While 

EPA recognizes that this situation 

involves whole building demolition, the 

Agency expects that partial demolition 

and similar renovation activities would 

be expected to release similar types of 

lead-based paint dust particles with the 

ability to travel long distances and 

contaminate soil and other horizontal 

surfaces such as streets, playgrounds 

and other surfaces with which children 

could come into contact. Another study 

(Ref. 33) found increased levels of lead 

in alleys up to 100 meters from row 

house demolition. These lead levels 

were observed despite the fact that 

water wetting was used during 

demolition and debris removal to 

reduce the amount of dust released. In 

another study, abrasive blasting of a 

bridge was found to deposit 50% of the 

removed lead-based paint beyond 300 

yards of the operation with a four mile 

per hour wind. This study indicates that 

current abrasive methods have the 

demonstrated potential to contaminate 

the surrounding environment and have 

the potential to create lead-based paint 

hazards (Ref. 34). 

There are data on the maintenance of 

bridges and structures (such as water 

towers) that could be used to determine 

the extent of transport of lead dust 

resulting from exterior renovations. 

Paints on many of these steel structures 

contain up to 60–70% lead by weight 

(Ref. 35). Of particular interest are 

studies of the impacts of renovating 

these structures in urban areas or near 

schools. Evidence from steel structures 

suggests that exterior public and 

commercial building renovations can 

result in significant health impacts for 

children and others in close proximity 

to the renovation, repair and painting 

work. 

Given these considerations, EPA 

requests public comment, information, 

and data, especially peer-reviewed 

studies, on the following topics: 

a. What information is available on 

dust-lead and soil-lead levels generated 

by exterior renovations on public and 

commercial buildings? To what extent is 

the data from the Dust Study relevant? 

EPA is aware of information on the 

content of lead in urban and rural soils, 

and other settings, such as near 

highways. Is there more information on 

the content of lead in soil or what 

concentrations of lead are currently 

found in soil that EPA could use to 

evaluate the risk of human and 

environmental lead exposure from the 

renovation of public and commercial 

buildings? 

b. To what extent will dust drift from 

exterior renovations, especially on 

public and commercial buildings, onto 

neighboring properties? Would this, for 

instance, resemble modeling plumes 

from smelters? 

c. How far will lead-containing dust 

and debris travel from the exterior of 

properties undergoing renovation? What 

factors will influence the travel of lead 

dust? Such factors might include 

particular renovation practices, the time 

of year, wind conditions, ground cover 

(e.g., asphalt, concrete, dirt, vegetation), 

average precipitation, or the height and 

concentration of surrounding structures. 

d. To what extent can the data on 

building demolition or steel structure 

maintenance be used to predict the 

extent to which dust and debris travel 

from exterior public and commercial 

building renovations? 

e. To what extent will exterior dust 

from the exterior renovation of public 

and commercial buildings be tracked 

into the interior of buildings being 

renovated or other buildings? To what 

extent will lead-based paint dust enter 

these buildings through open windows, 

doorways and air exchange? 

f. What actions can a contractor take 

to prevent transportation of lead dust 

from exterior renovations or to prevent 

the lead dust from entering the 

environment? 

2. Leaded dust and debris generated 

by interior renovations in public and 

commercial buildings. In determining 

which renovations in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities create leadbased paint hazards for the 2008 RRP 

Rule, EPA relied heavily on two Agency 

studies that evaluated dust-lead levels 

generated by renovations. One of these 

studies, the Environmental Field 

Sampling Study (Ref. 12), Phase I of the 

study conducted under TSCA section 

402(c)(2), evaluated the amount of 

leaded dust generated by the following 

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. 

The dust lead levels generated by 

abrasive sanding were evaluated 

through a literature survey. The results 

of the literature survey included both 

residential buildings and public or 

commercial buildings. The rest of the 

evaluated activities were performed as 

part of the study in residential 

buildings. 

EPA also relied heavily on the Dust 

Study (Ref. 16) to promulgate the final 

RRP Rule. The Dust Study evaluated the 

dust-lead and soil-lead levels generated 

by the following activities in and on an 

unoccupied school building and/or 

unoccupied target housing: 

• Making cut-outs in the walls. 

• Replacing a window from the 

inside. 

• Removing paint with high and low 

temperature heat guns. 

• Removing paint by dry scraping. 

• Removing paint with a power 

planer. 

• Removing kitchen cabinets. 

EPA requests public comment, 

information, and data, particularly peerreviewed studies, on the dust-lead 

levels that are generated by renovations 

on the interiors of non-residential 

buildings. EPA also requests comment 

on the extent to which these two EPA 

studies should inform EPA’s 

determination on lead-based paint 

hazards created by renovations in the 

interiors of public and commercial 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

buildings, especially considering that 

some of the renovations in the Dust 

Study were performed in a school 

building. 

3. Other evidence of lead-based paint 

hazards. While EPA primarily relied on 

the two studies described in section 

III.B.2. to determine that renovations in 

and on target housing and childoccupied facilities create lead-based 

paint hazards, EPA also looked at the 

available evidence for a relationship 

between renovations and blood lead 

levels. In particular, EPA considered the 

results of the other three phases of the 

study conducted under TSCA section 

402(c)(2). Phase II, the Worker 

Characterization and Blood Lead Study 

(Ref. 13), involved collecting data on 

blood lead and renovation and 

remodeling activities from workers. 

Notably, half of the renovations studied 

occurred in commercial buildings and 

half occurred in residential housing. 

Thus, this study provides evidence of a 

relationship between commercial 

building renovation activities and 

worker blood lead levels. Phase IV, the 

Worker Characterization and BloodLead Study of R&R (Renovation and 

Remodeling) Workers Who Specialize in 

Renovations of Old or Historic Homes 

(Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but 

focused on individuals who worked 

primarily in old historic buildings. 

EPA also relied on the evidence 

presented by Phase III of the TSCA 

section 402(c)(2) study, the Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 14), 

which documented a relationship 

between renovation and remodeling 

activities and the blood-lead levels of 

resident children. This evidence of a 

relationship is corroborated by New 

York studies also discussed in II.D.4. 

EPA also considered several studies 

conducted by the National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) that assessed worker exposure 

and transport of lead dust from 

renovation activities (Refs. 36 and 37). 

For example, one study done at the 

University of California, Berkeley, 

assessed lead-based paint exposures of 

workers during exterior renovation work 

on campus buildings (Ref. 37). 

Estimated average exposures during dry 

manual sanding, dry manual scraping, 

power finish sanding, and power finish 

sanding with bag would exceed the 

permissible exposure limit (PEL) within 

an 8-hr period. Estimated average 

exposures for power sanding with HEPA 

exhaust, flame burning, wet manual 

sanding, and wet scraping would be 

below the PEL. Although it resulted in 

relatively low worker exposures, flame 

burning was among the tasks associated 

with the higher lead levels in air and 

settled dust levels in nearby areas (Ref. 

37). 

Lead-based paint is defined by TSCA 

as paint with lead levels equal to or 

exceeding 1.0 milligrams per square 

centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight 

(TSCA section 401(9) (15 U.S.C. 

2681(9))). However, OSHA states in 29 

CFR 1926.62 that if lead is present in 

the workplace in any quantity the 

employer is required to make an initial 

determination of whether any 

employee’s exposure to lead exceeds the 

action level (30 ug/m3) averaged over an 

8 hour day. This position is supported 

by the following interpretations: 

OSHA’s role is to protect workers from 

health and safety hazards, including 

exposure to harmful levels of lead, whatever 

the source. Accordingly, for all tasks 

governed by OSHA’s Lead in Construction 

standard (29 CFR 1926.62) involving paints 

having any level of lead, employers must 

comply with the assessment measures and 

any applicable protections of that standard. 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/

owadisp.show_document?

p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27319. 

The lead-in-construction standard was 

intended to apply to any detectable 

concentration of lead in paint, as even small 

concentrations of lead can result in 

unacceptable employee exposures depending 

upon on the method of removal and other 

workplace conditions. Since these conditions 

can vary greatly, the lead-in-construction 

standard was written to require exposure 

monitoring or the use of historical or 

objective data to ensure that employee 

exposures do not exceed the action level. 

Historical data may be applied to all 

construction tasks involving lead. Objective 

data was intended to apply to all tasks other 

than those listed under paragraph 

1926.62(d)(2) of the standard. 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/

owadisp.show_document?

p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22701. 

EPA requests public comment, as well 

as additional information and data, 

particularly peer-reviewed studies, on 

the relationship between renovations in 

and on public and commercial buildings 

and blood lead levels in workers, 

building occupants, and visitors. EPA 

also requests public comment on the 

extent to which these blood-lead studies 

can inform EPA’s determination on 

lead-based paint hazards created by 

public and commercial building 

renovations. 

C. Prevalence of Leaded Paint and Lead 

Levels in Leaded Paint in and on Public 

and Commercial Buildings 

An important consideration in 

determining which renovations create 

lead-based paint hazards and how best 

to address those hazards is likely to be 

the prevalence of leaded paint disturbed 

and the level of lead in that paint. In 

issuing the 2008 RRP Rule covering 

renovations in target housing and childoccupied facilities, EPA relied heavily 

on two surveys sponsored by HUD. The 

first, the National Survey of Lead and 

Allergens in Housing, was a 

representative sampling of housing 

units where children could reside for 

lead-based paint, lead-based paint 

hazards, and allergens (Ref. 38). This 

survey provided valuable information 

on the prevalence of and levels of lead 

in lead-based paint in target housing. A 

similar survey, the First National 

Environmental Health Survey of 

Childcare Centers, was conducted in 

licensed child-care centers and included 

sampling for lead in paint, lead-based 

paint hazards, allergens, and pesticides 

(Ref. 39). 

EPA requests public input on these 

issues related to the presence of leaded 

paint in and on public and commercial 

buildings: 

1. What information and data are 

available on the prevalence of leaded 

paint? What information and data are 

available on the levels of lead 

(concentration or percentage of total) in 

such paint? Does the prevalence or lead 

level differ by building age, component 

or type (e.g., interior or exterior; doors 

and windows, trim or walls; wood 

substrate or metal substrate)? 

2. What information and data are 

available on the trends in prevalence 

and lead levels over time? 

3. What available data would help 

EPA estimate the likelihood that a 

public or commercial building contains 

lead-based paint? Are there factors that 

should be considered other than the 

year in which it was constructed? 

4. What voluntary consensus 

standards or other guidelines or 

specifications affect the prevalence of 

leaded paint and the levels of lead in 

such paint? 

5. What federal, state, and local laws, 

regulations, or ordinances affect the 

prevalence of leaded paint and the lead 

levels in such paint? 

6. What information is available on 

the current manufacture and import of 

lead-based paint for commercial 

building use? 

D. Typical Renovation Activities and 

Building Management Practices for 

Public and Commercial Buildings 

In making the determination which 

renovation activities in and on public 

and commercial buildings create leadbased paint hazards, EPA must evaluate 

information on the typical renovations 

performed and the typical practices 

used in performing these renovations. 

EPA is also interested in types of leadVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:10 May 05, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM 06MYP1

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24859 

paint containing building components 

that may be reused during a renovation 

of a public or commercial building. EPA 

encourages the public to submit 

comments, information, and data 

relating to these considerations. 

1. What types of renovations are 

typically performed in and on public 

and commercial buildings, and how 

often is each type performed? What is 

the span or range, both typical and 

extreme, in size and duration of each 

type of renovation job? 

2. Do renovation firms or the building 

owners or managers typically assess 

whether the paint the renovation firms 

will disturb during a renovation job in 

or on a public or commercial building 

contains lead? To what extent are there 

patterns in their making such 

assessments? Before hiring a renovation 

firm to perform a renovation, or 

performing a renovation using building 

maintenance staff, do public and 

commercial building owners or 

managers assess whether leaded paint is 

present? What methods and procedures 

are currently employed by contractors 

or building owners/managers to assess 

whether paint contains lead? 

3. Do building owners or managers 

typically provide notice of the lead 

content of building paint to renovation 

firms, building occupants or the public? 

What triggers these notifications? Do 

renovation firms or building owners/ 

managers typically provide advance 

notice of renovation activities to 

building occupants or the public? To 

what extent are there patterns in their 

making such notifications? 

4. Do renovation firms typically 

separate renovation work areas from 

other areas of the building or grounds to 

limit access and minimize the spread of 

dust, chips, and debris? How often are 

the following practices used to 

accomplish this separation, and to what 

extent are there patterns in their using 

such practices? To what extent have 

renovation firms or the public building 

owners or managers assessed the 

efficacy of these separation practices on 

the projects where they are used, and 

what are the results of such 

assessments? 

• Restricting access of other building 

occupants or the public into or around 

the building during renovation through 

warning signs and/or barriers. 

• Closing the windows of the 

building during exterior renovations 

and the windows of other buildings 

adjacent to the work area. 

• Placing plastic on the ground to 

capture the falling chips and paint dust 

during exterior renovations. 

• Avoiding exterior renovation work 

during windy conditions. 

• Shutting off the ventilation system 

and sealing the supply and return grills 

during interior renovation. 

• Sealing off the work area 

(establishing a work area containment 

system) for interior renovations. 

• Maintaining negative pressure in 

the work area with respect to the 

adjacent areas during interior 

renovations. 

• Follow OSHA housekeeping 

provisions specified in the OSHA lead 

standards at 29 CFR 1926.62 or 29 CFR 

1910.1025, or practice good 

housekeeping in the work area. 

5. What clean-up practices do 

renovation firms typically follow during 

and after renovation activities in and on 

public and commercial buildings? How 

often are brooms used? How often is wet 

cleaning or mopping performed? How 

often is vacuuming performed, and, in 

particular, how often are shop vacuums 

used, and how often are high-efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) vacuums used? 

6. How often is dust wipe testing for 

leaded dust performed after renovations 

in public and commercial buildings? 

How often is soil tested for lead after 

renovations on public and commercial 

buildings, especially after exterior 

renovations? Do renovation firms or 

building owners/managers use any other 

methods to assess lead levels in dust or 

soil remaining after renovations? Are 

the results of these tests or assessments 

used to determine whether the work 

area may be re-occupied by other 

building occupants or visited by the 

public? 

7. What routine cleaning procedures 

do the owners and managers of public 

and commercial buildings follow, apart 

from renovation projects? How often are 

these procedures followed? Are there 

differences in cleaning procedures and 

or frequencies between older (e.g., pre1978) buildings and newer (e.g., post1977) buildings? 

8. To what extent are building 

components that contain lead-based 

paint reused? To what extent are reused 

components tested for lead-based paint 

before reuse? 

9. To what extent are measures taken 

to avoid the release of lead dust during 

the installation and use of reused leadcontaminated building materials (such 

as paint removal techniques)? 

10. What information is available on 

the scale and types of new renovation 

and repair projects on public and 

commercial buildings? 

E. Renovation Waste 

Waste from building renovations can 

create lead-contaminated waste. Leadcontaminated waste from the renovation 

of residences, regardless of who 

generates the waste, is excluded from 

the Subtitle C Hazardous Waste 

Regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

(Ref. 40). This includes waste from the 

renovation of single family homes, 

apartment buildings, public housing, 

and military barracks. This waste may 

be disposed of in a municipal solid 

waste landfill or in a construction and 

demolition (C&D) landfill. However this 

exclusion does not apply to leadcontaminated waste generated from 

public and commercial building 

renovations. That waste must be 

managed in accordance with the RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Regulations. Given 

this regulatory status, EPA requests 

public comment, information, and data 

responsive to the following questions: 

1. What information is available on 

current practices for the cleanup, 

handling, and disposal of leadcontaminated wastes after public and 

commercial building renovations? 

2. Can you provide information and 

data on the amount of waste from 

renovation activities in public and 

commercial buildings that a contractor 

might currently manage as RCRA 

Hazardous Waste? What materials are 

typically included in this waste? 

3. To what extent (i.e. quantities) is 

lead-contaminated waste from public 

and commercial building renovations 

recycled? What information is available 

on the methods and practices currently 

in use for recycling such wastes? 

4. To what extent (i.e. quantities) are 

lead-containing building components 

and other waste removed from public 

and commercial buildings during 

renovations reused? What information is 

available on the methods and practices 

currently employed for reusing such 

components? 

5. Other than RCRA, what federal, 

state or local statutes, regulations, 

ordinances, or protocols govern the 

cleanup, handling, disposal, and reuse 

of lead-contaminated waste from public 

and commercial building renovations? 

6. What measures are typically taken 

to avoid the release of leaded dust 

during the removal and disposal of leadcontaminated wastes from public and 

commercial building renovations? 

F. The Renovation Workforce in Public 

and Commercial Buildings 

In determining which public and 

commercial building renovations create 

lead-based paint hazards and in 

designing safe, reliable, and effective 

work practice standards to address those 

lead-based paint hazards, EPA must take 

into account the typical renovation 

workforce for public and commercial 

buildings. Accordingly, EPA seeks 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

public comment and data to help inform 

the Agency’s understanding of this 

workforce. 

1. What kinds of contractors perform 

renovations in and on public and 

commercial buildings? How often is 

building maintenance staff used to 

perform renovations in and on public 

and commercial buildings? What 

differences are there in the size or type 

of projects typically conducted by 

contractors vs. building maintenance 

staff? 

2. When hiring a contractor to 

perform a renovation, how often do 

building owners/managers check to see 

whether the personnel who will be 

performing the renovation have been 

trained in lead-safe work practices, i.e., 

work practices designed to minimize the 

creation of leaded dust and debris, 

control the spread of such dust and 

debris, and properly clean up this dust 

and debris after the renovation has been 

completed? How often do building 

owners and managers train (either 

personally or through consultants) 

building maintenance staff in lead-safe 

work practices? What kind of lead-safe 

work practices training do contractor 

employees or building maintenance staff 

typically receive? 

3. How often do building owners/ 

managers or renovation contractors hire 

consultants trained to evaluate leadbased paint and lead-based paint 

hazards, architects, engineers, or others, 

to assess the renovation work area 

before work begins? How often do 

building owners/managers or renovation 

contractors hire consultants trained in 

lead-safe work practices, lead-based 

paint inspection, lead risk assessment, 

and/or lead project design to assist them 

in designing and conducting renovation 

projects? What are the patterns for the 

use of such consultants in these various 

situations? 

4. Who typically provides health, 

safety, and environmental oversight 

during renovation projects in public and 

commercial buildings—the building 

owner, the building manager, the 

construction contractor, or another 

party? Are other specially qualified 

individuals involved in the oversight of 

renovation projects? Are interior and 

exterior renovations handled differently 

in this respect? 

5. Typically, do contractors who 

perform renovations in public and 

commercial buildings also perform 

renovations in residential buildings? 

Are the same work practices followed in 

both settings? To what extent are the 

contractor employees the same from job 

to job? How likely is it that an employee 

used to perform a public or commercial 

building renovation will have received 

the training required by the 2008 RRP 

Rule for renovation work in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities? 

Do renovation contractors in public and 

commercial buildings typically establish 

and enforce standard renovation work 

practice procedures for their employees? 

G. Exposure Considerations 

In determining which public and 

commercial building renovations create 

lead-based paint hazards and in 

fashioning reliable, safe, and effective 

work practices for those renovations, 

EPA must consider the exposures of 

building occupants and visitors. To help 

inform EPA’s decision-making, EPA 

requests public comment, information, 

and data, particularly relevant peerreviewed studies, related to exposures. 

1. What are the pathways for exposure 

in each type of public or commercial 

building? 

2. While the Agency has developed 

research-based daily activity patterns for 

general use in its analyses for children 

and adults, none of the patterns 

distinguish activities based on the 

character or ownership of the buildings 

where activities occur (Ref. 41). What 

data or studies are available that would 

assist EPA in estimating the amount of 

time that any particular individual will 

spend in public and commercial 

buildings and what portion of that time 

will be in a building containing leaded 

paint or lead-based paint hazards? What 

data or studies exist that characterize 

the range or distribution of time spent 

by typical individuals? How much 

variation in exposure exists in exposure 

by typical people? 

3. What information and data are 

available on occupancy rates (e.g., 

number of people, days per year of 

occupancy), exposed population (e.g., 

demographic characteristics, reason for 

being in the building (working, visiting, 

etc.)), and time-activity patterns of 

occupants of each type of public or 

commercial building? 

4. How often are public and 

commercial buildings assessed to 

determine the presence, distribution 

and extent of lead-based paint? 

5. To what extent will people other 

than renovation workers, such as other 

building occupants, visitors, passers-by, 

and occupants of nearby buildings, be 

exposed to leaded dust and debris 

created by public and commercial 

building renovations? For instance, 

when scaffolding is installed, how likely 

are dust and debris to waft down to 

passersby or to fill the ambient air? To 

what extent do scaffolding enclosures 

affect the dispersion of the dust and 

debris? 

6. What information is available on 

the number of potentially-exposed 

occupants of buildings undergoing 

renovations or buildings recently 

renovated, the duration of the 

occupants’ exposure per work day, and 

the number of days or hours exposed 

per year during and after exterior and 

interior renovations? To what extent are 

these exposure rates affected by the 

scheduling of the renovations, e.g., to 

what extent are renovations conducted 

during shifts or days when few regular 

occupants of the buildings are present 

(typically nights and weekends)? 

7. What information and data are 

available on the proximity of residential 

properties to public or commercial 

buildings? What is the distribution of 

distances of residences, schools and 

childcare facilities from public or 

commercial buildings? In particular, to 

what extent are public or commercial 

buildings mixed-use buildings, with 

residences, schools and/or child care 

facilities in the buildings? What 

information and data are available on 

the correlation between the distribution 

of distances of residences, schools and 

day care facilities from public or 

commercial buildings and average 

incomes of communities or 

neighborhoods? For example, many low 

income communities are in mixed-use 

neighborhoods. 

8. What information and data are 

available on the demographics of mixeduse neighborhoods? 

9. For low income communities in 

mixed-use neighborhoods, particularly 

those in which the housing stock is 

primarily pre-1978, how should EPA 

consider multiple exposures from both 

residential buildings and public and 

commercial buildings? 

10. Do communities in mixed-use 

neighborhoods have higher burdens of 

lead exposure? What factors should EPA 

consider in assessing the extent to 

which renovations in and on public and 

commercial buildings contribute to 

disproportionate impacts? 

11. What studies and other sources of 

information are available on the 

frequency of use or effectiveness of 

work practices designed to prevent 

other building occupants and visitors 

and persons in nearby buildings from 

being exposed to leaded dust and debris 

created by renovations in and on public 

and commercial buildings? 

12. To what extent have recent 

building renovations or constructions 

installed reused building materials that 

are coated with lead-based paint? To 

what extent have installers abated or 

used techniques to eliminate worker or 

occupant exposure to lead from these 

materials? 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24861 

13. To what extent do green building 

certification systems encourage the 

reuse of lead-contaminated building 

materials? To what extent do these 

systems encourage lead abatement of 

reused materials? 

IV. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

rulemaking under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. The 

following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this 

document. The docket includes these 

documents and other information 

considered by EPA, including 

documents that are referenced within 

the documents that are included in the 

docket, even if the referenced document 

is not physically located in the docket. 

For assistance in locating these other 

documents, please consult the technical 

contact listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. 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). 

2. 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). 

3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 

10, 2006). 

4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for LeadBased Paint Activities in Target Housing 

and Child-Occupied Facilities: Final 

Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, 

August 29, 1996). 

5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of 

Training Programs and Certification of 

Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; 

Final Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 

31091, June 9, 1999). 

6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements 

for Lead-based Paint Abatement 

Activities Training; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (69 FR 18489, April 8, 2004). 

7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Protect Your Family From Lead in Your 

Home (EPA-747–K–99–001, June 2003). 

8. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (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). 

9. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard 

Education Before Renovation of Target 

Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(63 FR 29907, June 1, 1998). 

10. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001). 

11. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When 

Remodeling Your Home (EPA747–K–97– 

001, September 1997). 

12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With 

Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling 

Study (EPA 747–R–96–007, May 1997). 

13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With 

Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

Phase II, Worker Characterization and 

Blood-Lead Study (EPA747–R–96–006, 

May 1997). 

14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With 

Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood BloodLead Study (EPA 747–R–99–002, March 

1999). 

15. 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 (EPA747–R–99–001, 

March 1999). 

16. USEPA. Characterization of Dust Lead 

Levels After Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007). 

17. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008). 

18. USEPA, Sierra Club, etc. Settlement. 

(August, 2009). 

19. USEPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out 

and Recordkeeping Provisions in the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register (74 FR 55506, October 28, 

2009). 

20. Sierra Club, etc. Petition to Lower Dust 

Lead Hazard Standard. (2009) 

21. USEPA. Response to Petition on Dust 

Lead Hazard Standard (October, 2009). 

22. USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead 

(September 29, 2006). 

23. USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk 

Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, 

Washington, DC, EPA/630/P–02/001F 

(May 2003). 

24. USEPA. Review of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific 

and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff 

Paper. EPA–452/R–05–005a. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park (2005). 

25. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela 

A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 

Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean 

Brown. ‘‘Trends in Blood Lead Levels 

and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. 

Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988–2004.’’ 

Pediatrics 2009, Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 

e376–385, March 2009. 

26. HHS, PHS, CDC. ‘‘Children with Elevated 

Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home 

Renovation and Remodeling Activities— 

New York, 1993–1994.’’ Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120– 

1123, January 3, 1997). 

27. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated 

Blood Lead Levels Related to Home 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities—New York State, 2006–2007. 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

(58(03); 55–58, January 30, 2009). 

28. 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. 

29. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for LeadBased Paint Activities: Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (59 FR 45872, 

September 2, 1994). 

30. CPSC. Federal Register (42 FR 44199, 

September 1, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 

8515, March 2, 1978). 

31. Roberts, J.W., D.E. Camann, and T.M. 

Spittler. ‘‘Reducing Lead Exposure from 

Remodeling and Soil Track-In in Older 

Homes.’’ In: Proceedings, Annual 

Meeting—Air and Waste Management 

Association. Publication No. 91–134.2. 

(1991a). 

32. Stefani D, D. Wardman, T. Lambert. The 

Implosion of the Calgary General 

Hospital: Ambient Air Quality Issues. J 

Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2005 Jan; 

55(1):52–9. 

33. Farfel M.R., A.O. Orlova, P.S. Lees, C. 

Rohde, P.J. Ashley, J. Chisolm. ‘‘A Study 

of Urban Housing Demolition as a Source 

of Lead in Ambient Dust on Sidewalks, 

Streets, and Alleys.’’ Environ Res. 2005 

Oct; 99(2):204–13. Epub 2004 Dec 15. 

34. Snyder, M.K. and D. Bendersky. 

‘‘Removal of Lead Based Bridge Paints.’’ 

Midwest Research Institute. National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program 

Report #265 for the Transportation 

Research Board, National Research 

Council, December 1983. 

35. State of Rhode Island and Providence 

Plantations; Department of the Attorney 

General. Rhode Island Lead Nuisance 

Abatement Plan (September 14, 2007). 

36. National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH). Health Hazard 

Evaluation; Vermont Housing & 

Conservation Board. HETA #98–0285– 

2989 Montpelier, Vermont (December 

2005). 

37. NIOSH. Health Hazard Evaluation; 

University of California, Berkley. HETA 

#99–0113–2853 Berkeley, California 

(July 2001). 

38. HUD. National Survey of Lead and 

Allergens in Housing, Volume I: 

Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, 

Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002). 

39. HUD. First National Environmental 

Health Survey of Child Care Centers, 

Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards, 

Final Report. (July 15, 2003). 

40. 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). 

41. USEPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 

(Final Report) EPA/600/P–95/002F a-c 

(1997). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

this action was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any changes to the document 

that were made in response to 

comments received by EPA during that 

review have been documented in the 

docket as required by the Executive 

Order. 

Since this document does not impose 

or propose any requirements, and 

instead seeks comments and suggestions 

for the Agency to consider in possibly 

developing a subsequent proposed rule, 

the various other review requirements 

that apply when an agency imposes 

requirements do not apply to this 

action. Nevertheless, as part of your 

comments on this document, you may 

include any comments or information 

that you have regarding the various 

other review requirements. 

In particular, EPA is interested in any 

information that would help the Agency 

to assess the potential impact of a rule 

on small entities pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider 

voluntary consensus standards pursuant 

to section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); 

to consider environmental health or 

safety effects on children pursuant to 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or 

to consider human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

EPA specifically requests information 

and data to facilitate its analyses in the 

following two areas: 

a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

information about the various characteristics 

of potentially impacted small entities that 

would facilitate the Agency’s evaluation of 

the number of firms that might experience an 

impact from a rulemaking in this area, as 

well as an assessment of the potential size of 

that impact on small entities. In commenting 

or providing information about small entities 

that might be impacted by a rulemaking in 

this area, please note that the phrase ‘‘small 

entities’’ encompasses small businesses, 

small governmental jurisdictions, and small 

organizations. In the analysis the Agency 

expects to perform under the RFA, these 

entities are specifically defined in sections 

601(3)–(5) of the RFA. The definitions for 

‘‘small business’’ are codified in the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines small 

business by category of business using the 

NAICS–Codes. (http://www.sba.gov/

regulations/121/201.htm) Small business 

default definitions can be found on SBA’s 

internet site at http://www.sba.gov/size/

indextableofsize.html. A ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is ‘‘a government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special 

district with a population of less than 

50,000.’’ A ‘‘small organization’’ is any ‘‘notfor-profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in 

its field.’’ 

b. Environmental Justice. EPA is 

particularly interested in receiving comment 

and information about potential impacts— 

both benefits and costs—on the human 

health or environmental conditions in 

minority or low-income populations. Such 

information would facilitate the Agency’s 

consideration of environmental justice 

during the development of the proposed rule. 

This information will be used in the 

identification and evaluation of options 

for the proposed rule, and will inform 

the analyses that the Agency intends to 

prepare for the proposed rule. Any 

comments on this topic should be 

submitted to the Agency in the manner 

specified under ADDRESSES. The Agency 

will consider such comments during the 

development of any subsequent 

proposed rule as it takes appropriate 

steps to address any applicable 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substance, Lead poisoning, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 22, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10097 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 83 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2010–0009] 

[91400–5110–POLI–7B; 91400–9410–POLI– 

7B] 

RIN 1018-AX00 

Removing Regulations Implementing 

the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

remove our regulations implementing 

the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 

of 1980. The Act authorized financial 

and technical assistance to States to 

design conservation plans and programs 

to benefit nongame species; however, 

funds never became available to carry 

out the Act, and we do not expect funds 

to become available in the future. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before July 

6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2010–0009. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

WSR–2010–0009; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all public comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish 

Restoration Program, Division of Policy 

and Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 703–358–2156. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Service manages or comanages 54 

financial assistance programs. Our 

Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program manages, in whole or in part, 

19 of these programs. We implement 

some of these programs via regulations 

in title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), particularly in 

subchapter F ‘‘Financial Assistance— 

Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program,’’ which currently includes 

parts 80 through 86. 

The regulations at part 83 implement 

the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 

of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901–2911). This act 

authorized the Service to give financial 

and technical assistance to States and 

other eligible jurisdictions to design 

conservation plans and programs to 

benefit nongame species. The 

regulations tell the fish and wildlife 

agencies of the 50 States, the 

Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the District of 

Columbia, and the territories of Guam, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American 

Samoa how they can take part in this 

grant program. However, neither the 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act nor 

any subsequent legislation established a 

continuing source of funds for this grant 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS