[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1588-1636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-71]



[[Page 1587]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 745



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

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 1588]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

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


Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0049, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. In addition, please 
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., 
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA 
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The DCO is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available in the 
on-line docket at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 
at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in the online docket at 
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket 
Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA 
Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby 
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division 
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9fdfaeae884e1c6ddc5c0c7cce9ccd9c887cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a3e39292b4722051e0603040f2a0f1a0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For technical information contact: Mike Wilson, National Program 
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0521; e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b7c6267786465256662606e4b6e7b6a256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5126383d223e3f7f3c383a34113421307f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

[[Page 1589]]

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

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

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

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

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

[[Page 1590]]

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

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

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

III. Introduction

A. Information on Lead, Health Effects, and History

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

B. The Federal Lead-based Paint Program.

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

[[Page 1591]]

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

[[Page 1592]]

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

[[Page 1593]]

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

[[Page 1594]]

paint hazards in order to be efficient and effective. In 1989, HUD and 
EPA formed an inter-agency task force to work through issues associated 
with lead-based paint abatement. The Federal Interagency Lead Based 
Paint Task Force has remained active throughout the years and continues 
to meet on a quarterly basis. Participating agencies include the 
Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Public Health 
Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), the National Institute for Environmental 
Health Sciences (NIEHS), ATSDR, CDC, CPSC, NIOSH, OSHA, HUD, and EPA. 
This Task Force serves as an important forum for coordinating the 
strategic plans of the Federal agencies who have responsibilities under 
Title X or who have responsibilities for maintaining and disposing of 
property that may contain lead-based paint.
    Title X assigned certain responsibilities to HUD. One of HUD's 
functions is the administration of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control 
Grant Program established by the Act. This program provides grants of 
$1 million to $3 million to State and local governments for control of 
lead-based paint hazards in privately-owned, low-income owner-occupied 
and rental housing that is not receiving federal assistance. These 
grants are also designed to stimulate the development of a trained and 
certified hazard evaluation and control industry. Evaluation and hazard 
control work funded by the program must be conducted by either 
contractors who are certified by EPA or an EPA-approved State or Tribal 
program, or by contractors trained in lead-safe work practices, in the 
case of interim controls. Through these requirements, HUD hopes to 
create infrastructure that will last beyond the life of the grant. In 
awarding grants, HUD promotes the use of cost-effective approaches to 
hazard control that can be replicated across the nation. Since 1993, 
approximately $971 million has been awarded to over 200 local and State 
jurisdictions across the country. The work approved to date will lead 
to the control of lead-based paint hazards in more than 70,000 homes 
where young children reside or are expected to reside. Other HUD lead 
grant programs include the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration program, 
the Lead Elimination Action Program (LEAP), the Lead Outreach program 
and the Lead Technical Studies program.
    HUD was also given regulatory authority over some aspects of lead-
based paint hazard control. As noted previously, on March 6, 1996, HUD 
and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiring the disclosure of 
lead-based paint information during sale or lease transactions 
involving target housing. The HUD disclosure regulations are codified 
at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A. Subparts B through R of 24 CFR part 35 
are known as the ``Lead Safe Housing Rule,'' initially promulgated on 
September 15, 1999, and updated in June 2004 (Ref. 26). This rule was 
designed to protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in 
target housing that is being sold by the Federal government or receives 
financial assistance from the government. The requirements generally 
depend upon the level of assistance being provided, and may include 
such things as inspections, risk assessments, abatement, paint 
stabilization, or interim controls, which are temporary measures to 
reduce potential exposure to lead-based paint hazards. The emphasis is 
on reducing lead-based paint hazards, so, after paint is disturbed, a 
visual assessment for surface dust, debris, and residue and dust 
clearance testing is required to ensure that no dust lead hazards were 
created or left in the work area or, for rehabilitation projects of 
moderate or substantial scope, in the entire housing unit. More 
information on the Lead Safe Housing Rule is available on the HUD 
website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/leadsaferule/index.cfm or by 
calling (202) 755-1785, extension 104.
    Section 1017 of Title X required HUD to issue ``guidelines for the 
conduct of federally supported work involving risk assessments, 
inspections, interim controls, and abatement of lead-based paint 
hazards.'' In response to this directive, HUD completed the Guidelines 
for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing 
(Guidelines), in June 1995 (Ref. 27). The Guidelines provide detailed, 
comprehensive, technical information on how to identify lead-based 
paint hazards in housing and how to control such hazards safely and 
efficiently.
    Other core activities of HUD's lead-based paint program include 
providing technical assistance to housing authorities, nonprofit 
housing providers, local and State agencies, other Federal agencies, 
housing developers, inspectors, real estate professionals, contractors 
and financiers, and public health authorities; evaluating the hazard 
reduction methods used in the grant program to measure their 
effectiveness, cost and safety; and maintaining a community outreach 
program in coordination with the other Federal agencies involved in 
lead-based paint hazard reduction.
    CDC also provides significant funding for the prevention of 
childhood lead poisoning. CDC provides funding to support State, city 
and county programs in the areas of primary prevention, case management 
and screening, surveillance, strategic partnerships, and program 
evaluation. Since 2002, CDC has recommended that a blood lead level of 
10 micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) be used as a threshold for 
individual intervention (Ref. 28). Additional CDC recommendations 
address the type and intensity of individual intervention strategies 
that should be undertaken, depending upon the child's blood lead level. 
These strategies range from nutritional and educational interventions, 
along with more frequent testing, for a child with a blood lead level 
of 10-14 [mu]g/dL, to medical and environmental interventions for 
children with blood lead levels above 45 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 28). CDC has 
established a national surveillance system for children with elevated 
blood lead levels. In addition, CDC works with HUD and EPA to 
coordinate outreach and education campaigns.
    OSHA is another agency with regulatory authority under Title X. As 
directed by the Act, OSHA promulgated an interim final standard on May 
4, 1993, which regulates lead exposures in the construction industry 
(Ref. 9). This standard, codified at 29 CFR 1926.62, limits worker 
exposures to 50 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air averaged over 
an 8-hour workday. Employers must use a combination of engineering 
controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure as much as 
possible, using appropriate respiratory protection where necessary to 
achieve the exposure limit. Employees must receive training on the 
health effects of lead and how to limit exposure through proper work 
practices and personal protective equipment. Exposure monitoring and 
medical monitoring, including blood lead testing, are also required. 
This standard remains in effect and OSHA retains the authority to 
protect workers from occupational exposure to lead.
    Many Federal agencies have been working to reduce or eliminate 
lead-based paint hazards in housing and to end childhood lead 
poisoning. EPA, HUD, and other Federal agencies have been working for 
many years on the problem of lead-based paint hazards that can be 
created during renovation

[[Page 1595]]

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

C. EPA Activities Related to This Rulemaking.

    TSCA section 402(c) addresses renovation and remodeling. For the 
stated purpose of reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection 
with renovation and remodeling activities, section 402(c)(1) requires 
EPA to promulgate and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of such 
activities which may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of 
lead. In response to this statutory directive, EPA developed the 
guidance document entitled Reducing Lead Hazards when Remodeling Your 
Home in consultation with industry and trade groups (Ref. 29). This 
document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling 
stakeholders through the National Lead Information Center, EPA Regions, 
and EPA's State and Tribal partners and is available at www.epa.gov/lead/rrpamph.pdf.
    TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study the extent to which 
persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling 
activities are exposed to lead during such activities or create a lead-
based paint hazard regularly or occasionally. The terms ``renovation'' 
and ``remodeling'' are not defined by the statute. For assistance in 
selecting the activities to be studied, and in otherwise defining the 
scope of this study, EPA consulted with persons from national 
committees, major trade industries, Federal and State governmental 
agencies, academia, and medical institutions who were involved in lead 
research and policy making. After receiving individual input from these 
consultations and a meeting in April 1993, with a number of the 
contacted individuals, EPA identified the following 11 categories of 
renovation and remodeling activities with the potential for resulting 
in exposure to lead:
    <bullet> Paint removal.
    <bullet> Surface preparation.
    <bullet> Removal of large structures (demolition).
    <bullet> Window replacement.
    <bullet> Enclosure of exterior painted surfaces (i.e., siding).
    <bullet> Carpet or other floor covering removal.
    <bullet> Wallpaper removal.
    <bullet> HVAC (central heating system) repair or replacement 
including duct work.
    <bullet> Repairs or additions resulting in isolated small surface 
disruptions.
    <bullet> Exterior soil disruption.
    <bullet> Major renovation projects involving multiple target 
activities.
    1. Renovation and remodeling study. The study itself was conducted 
in 4 phases; each phase was peer reviewed and the results of the peer 
reviews are discussed in the study reports (Refs. 30, 31, 32, and 37). 
The approach and conclusions for each phase are summarized in this 
Unit.
    a. Phase I. The approach taken for Phase I, Environmental Field 
Sampling Study (Ref. 30), involved a series of case studies and 
included data collection efforts for the following target activities:
    <bullet> Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
    <bullet> Removal of large structures, including demolition of 
interior plaster walls.
    <bullet> Window replacement.
    <bullet> Carpet removal.
    <bullet> HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work.
    <bullet> Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, 
including drilling and sawing into wood and plaster.
Exterior siding, wallpaper removal, and exterior soil disruption were 
excluded because the study design team and the individuals consulted in 
the information-gathering phase generally considered these target 
activities to be of secondary importance. The last category, repairs 
resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, was represented by 
drilling holes and sawing into wood and plaster covered with lead-based 
paint.
    After the completion of each activity, dust samples were collected 
within one foot of where the activity occurred and approximately 5 to 6 
feet away from the location of the activity. Samples were collected in 
a manner that excluded any contribution of pre-existing leaded dust at 
the sample location (Ref. 30). With the exception of carpet removal and 
drilling into plaster, the results from the samples taken within one 
foot of the activity indicated that these activities produce lead 
loadings on the floor that exceed the TSCA section 403 hazard standards 
of 40 [mu]g/ft<SUP>2</SUP> for lead in dust. EPA has already determined 
that loadings exceeding this level can cause adverse health effects. In 
the case of paint removal, the estimated average lead loading in a 6 
foot by one foot area extending away from the activity was 42,900 
[mu]g/ft<SUP>2</SUP>, or greater than 1,000 times the TSCA section 403 
dust-lead hazard standard. For paint removal, window replacement, HVAC 
work, demolition of interior plaster walls, and sawing into wood, the 
samples taken 6 feet away from the activity also indicated lead 
loadings at levels well in excess of the TSCA section 403 standard.
    This phase of the study also examined the effectiveness of two 
popular cleaning methods, broom sweeping and shop-vacuuming, for 
removing settled lead-dust. Although these data indicate that standard 
broom sweeping or shop-vacuuming can remove a high percentage of the 
dust (up to 99%), lead loadings nevertheless remained consistently 
above the TSCA section 403 standard. In addition, the data show that 
standard cleanup techniques sometimes disperse lead dust throughout the 
work area, thereby increasing lead levels in areas more distant from 
the work area. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that standard broom 
sweeping or shop-vacuuming are not reliable or effective methods for 
removing lead-based paint hazards created by typical renovation and 
remodeling activities.
    Worker air-monitoring samples, indicating the degree of worker 
inhalation exposure, were also collected during this phase of the 
study. These data suggest that some renovation and remodeling 
activities could result in worker exposure that exceeds OSHA's 
permissible exposure limit (PEL) for lead of 50 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. 
OSHA's PEL is based on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), which is 
an average exposure over one 8-hour shift. This study measured only 
average exposures over the duration of a particular activity, which 
would be equivalent to an 8-hour TWA for a worker only if it is assumed 
that the monitored activity is performed for 8 hours in a day. However, 
the worker exposure data generated in this study indicate that some 
exposures are likely to be so high that conducting the activity for 
only a short time would result in an 8-hour TWA that exceeds the OSHA 
PEL. For example, worker exposures monitored during power sanding and 
sawing into wood were so high that it is estimated that 45 minutes of 
performing these activities would result in an exposure that exceeded 
the PEL.
    b. Phase II. Phase II of the study, Worker Characterization and 
Blood-Lead Study, continued to address worker exposure (Ref. 31). This 
phase involved collecting data on blood samples and questionnaires from 
585 renovation and remodeling workers from Philadelphia and St. Louis. 
The questionnaire focused on demographic and background information 
such as work history, work habits, and hobbies. Questionnaire data also 
indicated that few renovation and remodeling professionals were using 
respirators or high energy particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Blood 
samples were collected from 581 of the 585 workers. Of these

[[Page 1596]]

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

[[Page 1597]]

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

IV. Proposed Requirements for Renovation Activities

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

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

[[Page 1598]]

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

B. Scope of Proposed Regulation

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

[[Page 1599]]

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

[[Page 1600]]

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

[[Page 1601]]

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

[[Page 1602]]

target housing and owner-occupied target housing where a child under 
age 6 resides. This option is not preferred at this time. As discussed 
in this section, EPA is proposing to phase in coverage of housing built 
between 1960 and 1978 to allow time to develop an accurate, but simple 
and inexpensive, means for determining whether the affected components 
in a particular housing unit built within this time frame are free of 
regulated lead-based paint (the determination whether a component is 
lead-based paint free is discussed more fully in Unit IV.B.4.a.). EPA 
solicits comment on this option.
    EPA also considered a single-staged regulation that would cover all 
renovations in rental target housing built before 1960 and owner-
occupied target housing built before 1960 where a child under age 6 
resides. This option is not preferred at this time because 24% of the 
target housing built between 1960 and 1978 contains lead-based paint. A 
regulation that excludes those homes would not cover the residents of 
those homes, particularly the children residing in those homes, from 
potential lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities. It 
should be noted that the Phase I study, which demonstrated lead dust 
loadings from renovation activities in target housing, did not 
differentiate housing by age. The measured lead loadings in that study 
represent an average. In the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in 
Housing (Ref. 46), a paint lead loading exceeding 10 mg/cm<SUP>2</SUP> 
was detected in 3% of the homes constructed between 1960 and 1978, 
compared to 14% of the homes constructed between 1940 and 1959, and 55% 
of the homes constructed before 1940. Further analysis of the data 
found that, although there were fewer homes built between 1960 and 1978 
that contained lead-based paint, the average lead concentration of 
paint on windows and on exterior walls, doors, and trim was higher in 
housing built between 1960 and 1978 than in housing built between 1950 
and 1960 (Ref. 48). EPA's preferred option takes into account the fact 
that most target housing built between 1960 and 1978 does not contain 
lead-based paint by phasing in coverage of those homes after improved 
test kits are expected to be available. EPA requests comment on the 
option of limiting this proposal to housing built before 1960, and on 
other options tied to the age of the housing and the likelihood that 
the housing contains lead-based paint.
    EPA also considered proposing a rule limited to the provision of 
information and certification, training, and accreditation 
requirements. The rationale for such a limited rule would be that 
individuals, if provided information on the health effects of lead 
exposure and renovation work practices that minimize leaded dust 
creation and release, would be able to choose whether or not to request 
that a firm performing a renovation use lead-safe work practices. 
Individuals wishing to employ a renovation firm that would use lead-
safe work practices would be assured by the certification, training, 
and accreditation provisions that a firm certified by EPA would employ 
persons trained in the use of lead-safe work practices. This is not the 
preferred option because EPA believes that a voluntary program of lead-
safe work practice compliance would not provide sufficient protection 
from lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities. 
Nevertheless, the Agency invites comment on this option.
    Finally, EPA considered covering all renovations in target housing 
without providing an exclusion for target housing where children under 
age 6 do not reside. A child under age 6 may spend a significant amount 
of time in housing that is not his or her primary residence, for 
example, in the home of a babysitter. In addition, a child that moved 
into housing shortly after a renovation performed without lead-safe 
work practices took place would be exposed to lead dust from the 
renovation. This is not the preferred option at this time because the 
proposed option provides a more focused targeting of resources on the 
population most at risk. EPA specifically requests comment on applying 
the requirements of this proposal without the exclusion for target 
housing where children under age 6 do not reside.
    3. Activities that would be covered. This proposal, like the Pre- 
Renovation Education Rule, would only apply to persons who perform 
renovations for compensation. This includes owners of rental property 
and their employees, as well as paid employees of home improvement 
companies, residential property management companies, State and local 
government agencies, and non-profits. With regard to the renovation 
activities that would be covered by this regulation, EPA is proposing 
to cover the same universe of activities that is already regulated 
under the Pre-Renovation Education Rule--essentially, activities that 
modify an existing structure and that result in the disturbance of 
painted surfaces. All types of repair, remodeling, modernization, and 
weatherization projects would be covered, including projects performed 
as part of another Federal, State, or local program, if the projects 
meet the definition of ``renovation'' codified in 40 CFR 745.83. The 
regulated community has had years of experience in applying this 
definition, as well as the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.82.
    EPA considered and requested public comment on various approaches 
to defining the term ``renovation'' for the Pre-Renovation Education 
Rule, including options modeled on a definition in the TSCA asbestos 
regulations, the construction tasks identified by OSHA in its Lead in 
Construction Standard, and by the use of Standard Industrial Codes (SIC 
codes) as a means of defining the subject universe (Ref. 49). The 
majority of the public comments EPA received in response to its 
proposal involved the definition of this term. In response to the 
public comments, EPA crafted a definition that borrows from other 
sources but focuses on the activities of greatest concern to EPA, 
activities that disturb lead-based paint (Ref. 23). This definition 
also covers virtually all of the activities in the renovation and 
remodeling study that created lead-based paint hazards. Conversely, EPA 
does not believe that this definition is overbroad, i.e., it does not 
capture a significant number of renovation activities that are not 
capable of creating lead-based paint hazards. All of the activities 
monitored in EPA's renovation and remodeling study which involved the 
disturbance of lead-based paint created or could reasonably be 
anticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. The study evaluated 
common renovation activities likely to disturb lead-based paint, 
including demolition of structures containing lead-based paint, removal 
of fixtures containing lead-based paint (window replacement), sawing 
and drilling into materials containing lead-based paint, and sanding 
lead-based paint. Because all of these activities are capable of 
creating lead-based paint hazards, a definition of ``renovation'' that 
is primarily based on the disturbance of lead-based paint is well-
tailored to regulate the activities of concern.
    As noted previously, the Phase I study excluded exterior siding 
installation, wallpaper removal, and exterior soil disruption because 
the study design team and the individuals consulted in the information-
gathering phase generally considered these target activities to be of 
secondary importance. EPA has no quantitative information on the lead 
dust loadings generated during such activities in target housing. 
However, to the extent that these activities disturb paint, these 
activities would be covered by this proposal.

[[Page 1603]]

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

[[Page 1604]]

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

C. Training, Certification, and Accreditation

    Under the regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, both 
individuals and firms that perform lead-based paint inspections, lead 
hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements must be certified by 
EPA. EPA is proposing a similar, but not identical, regulatory scheme 
for individuals and firms that perform renovations.
    EPA is proposing to require that all renovations regulated by this 
rule be performed by a firm certified to perform renovations and 
directed by a certified renovator. Although not required by the 
proposed rule, if dust sampling were performed, it would also have to 
be performed by a certified dust sampling technician, inspector, or 
risk assessor on behalf of a certified firm. In order to become a 
certified renovator, a person would have to either possess 
certification as a lead-based paint abatement supervisor or worker, or 
take an accredited renovator course. In order to perform dust sampling, 
a person would have to possess certification as a lead-based paint 
inspector or risk assessor, or take an accredited dust sampling 
technician course. Certification based on a dust sampling technician 
course would qualify the individual to conduct dust sampling as part of 
a renovation, but not as part of a lead-based paint activity under 40 
CFR part 745, subpart L. EPA renovator or dust sampling technician 
certification would allow the certified individual to perform 
renovations or dust sampling in any State or Indian Tribal area that 
does not have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745,

[[Page 1605]]

subpart Q. Each of these requirements is discussed in greater detail in 
the following sections.
    1. Firms--a. Firm responsibilities. Proposed Sec.  745.89(d) 
describes the responsibilities of firms performing renovations or dust 
sampling. These firms must ensure that all persons performing 
renovation activities on behalf of the firm are either certified 
renovators or have been trained and are directed by a certified 
renovator in accordance with proposed Sec.  745.90. Firms must also 
ensure that all persons performing dust sampling on behalf of the firm 
are certified as either risk assessors, inspectors, or dust sampling 
technicians. The firm is responsible for assigning a certified 
renovator to each renovation performed by the firm and ensuring that 
the certified renovator discharges all of the responsibilities 
identified in proposed Sec.  745.90. The firm is also responsible for 
ensuring that all renovations performed by the firm are performed in 
accordance with the work practice standards in proposed Sec.  745.85. 
Finally, EPA is proposing to amend Sec.  745.86 to require a firm to 
retain and make available to EPA all records necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the provisions of this proposal. These records would 
have to include copies of training certificates for certified 
renovators and dust sampling technicians used on projects, along with 
signed and dated descriptions of how worker training activities, sign 
posting, work area containment, waste handling, cleaning, and post-
renovation cleaning verification or clearance were conducted in 
compliance with this subpart. These descriptions must include a 
certification by the record preparer that the descriptions are complete 
and accurate. To assist firms in complying with these recordkeeping 
requirements, EPA has developed a simple form that firms could use to 
ensure that they are maintaining all of the necessary records (Ref. 
51). Use of this form would not be mandatory, firms could keep the 
required records in any manner that they choose. EPA requests comment 
on the utility and practicality of the sample recordkeeping form, which 
EPA would make available on its internet site and from the National 
Lead Information Center. EPA also requests comment on the recordkeeping 
requirements in general, as well as information on the business records 
typically kept by renovation firms that could be used to demonstrate 
compliance with the training, certification, and work practice 
requirements of this proposal.
    When multiple contractors are involved in a renovation, any 
contractor who disturbs, or whose employees disturb, paint in excess of 
the minor projects exception would be responsible for compliance with 
all of the requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule and this 
proposal. In this situation, renovation firms may find it advantageous 
to decide among themselves which firm will be responsible for providing 
pre-renovation education to the owners and occupants, which firm will 
establish containment, and which firm will perform the post-renovation 
cleaning and cleaning verification. For example, a general contractor 
may be hired to conduct a multi-faceted project involving the large-
scale disturbance of paint, which the general contractor then divides 
up among several subcontractors. In this situation, having the general 
contractor discharge the obligations of the Pre-Renovation Education 
Rule is likely to be the most efficient approach, since this only needs 
to be done once. The general contractor can then provide the 
subcontractors with copies of the signed acknowledgment form or proof 
of mailing. With regard to containment, the general contractor may 
decide that it is most cost-effective to establish one large work area 
for the entire project. In this case, from the time that containment is 
established until post-renovation cleaning verification occurs, all 
general contractor and subcontractor personnel performing renovation 
tasks within the work area would have to be certified renovators or 
trained and directed by certified renovators in accordance with this 
proposal. In addition, these personnel would be responsible for 
ensuring the integrity of the containment barriers. The cleaning and 
post-renovation cleaning verification could be performed by any 
properly qualified individuals, without regard to whether they are 
employees of the general contractor or a subcontractor. However, all 
contractors involved in the disturbance of lead-based paint, or who 
perform work within the work area established for the containment of 
lead dust and debris, would be responsible for compliance with this 
proposal, regardless of any agreements the contractors may have made 
among themselves.
    EPA considered requiring renovation firms to provide notification 
to EPA before commencing a renovation activity, in the same way that 
abatement firms are currently required by 40 CFR 745.227(e)(4) to 
notify EPA before commencing an abatement. This is not the preferred 
option at this time because EPA believes that it would be unduly 
burdensome for renovation firms, given the large number of renovations 
that EPA estimates would be subject to this proposed regulation 
annually. In addition, the processing of notifications would require a 
significant resource commitment on EPA's part. However, notification 
could improve EPA's ability to monitor compliance with work practice 
requirements while renovations are ongoing. EPA requests comment on 
whether notifications should be required for all renovation projects, 
or whether they should be required for a subset of regulated 
renovations, such as large-scale projects, projects in rental 
properties, or projects in housing built before 1940. Suggestions for 
how these categories could be identified are also requested. In 
addition, EPA requests comment on whether a notification requirement 
should be phased in over time, to allow the regulated community and EPA 
to evaluate the effectiveness and the feasibility of such a 
requirement.
    b. Initial certification. Firms that perform renovations covered by 
this proposal would have to be certified by EPA. EPA is proposing to 
add a definition of ``firm'' to 40 CFR 745.83 to make it clear that 
this term includes persons in business for themselves, i.e., sole 
proprietorships, as well as Federal, State, Tribal, and local 
governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Firms covered by 
this proposal include firms that typically perform renovations, such as 
building contractors or home improvement contractors, as well as 
property management companies or owners of multi-family housing 
performing property maintenance activities that include renovations 
within the scope of this proposal.
    EPA is proposing to use a process for certifying firms to perform 
renovations that is similar to the process currently used to certify 
firms to perform lead-based paint activities, such as inspections or 
abatements, that are regulated by 40 CFR part 745, subpart L. This 
proposal provides information about the certification and re-
certification process, establishes procedures for amending and 
transferring certifications, and identifies clear deadlines.
    Under proposed Sec.  745.89(a), a firm wishing to become certified 
to perform renovations would submit a complete ``Application for 
Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm, along with the 
correct certification fee. EPA intends to establish firm certification 
fees in a separate rulemaking.
    Proposed Sec.  745.89(a) also sets out EPA's possible responses to 
a firm certification application and gives the reasons why EPA would 
choose a

[[Page 1606]]

particular response. Under this proposal, EPA would approve a firm's 
initial application within 90 days of receipt if it is complete, 
including the proper amount of fees, and if EPA determines that the 
environmental compliance history of the firm, its principals, or its 
key employees does not show an unwillingness or inability to comply 
with applicable environmental statutes or regulations. If the 
application is approved, EPA proposes to follow the current practice 
under 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, of establishing the firm's 
certification expiration date at 3 years from the date of EPA's 
approval. EPA certification would allow the firm to perform renovations 
covered by this section in any State or Indian Tribal area that does 
not have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745, subpart 
Q. If the application was incomplete, EPA would notify the firm within 
90 days of receipt that its application was incomplete, and ask the 
firm to supplement its application within 30 days. If the firm did not 
supplement its application within that period of time, or if EPA's 
check into the compliance history of the firm revealed an unwillingness 
or inability to comply with environmental statutes or regulations, EPA 
would not approve the application and would provide the applicant with 
the reasons for not approving the application. EPA would not refund the 
application fees. A firm could reapply for certification at any time by 
filing a new, complete application that included the correct amount of 
fees.
    c. Re-certification. Under proposed Sec.  745.89(b), a certified 
firm would maintain its certification by submitting a complete and 
timely ``Application for Firms,'' noting that it is an application for 
re-certification, and paying the required re-certification fee. With 
regard to the timeliness of the application for re-certification, EPA 
is proposing that if a complete application, including the proper fee, 
is postmarked 90 days or more before the date the firm's current 
certification expires, the application would be considered timely and 
sufficient, and the firm's existing certification would remain in 
effect until its expiration date or until EPA had made a final decision 
to approve the re-certification application, or not, whichever occurred 
later. If the firm submitted a complete re-certification application 
fewer than 90 days before the date the firm's current certification 
expired, EPA might be able to process the application and re-certify 
the applicant before the expiration date, but this would not be 
guaranteed. If EPA did not approve the re-certification application 
before the existing application expired, the firm's certification would 
expire and the firm would not be able to conduct renovations until EPA 
approved its re- certification application. In any case, the firm's new 
certification expiration date would be 3 years from the date the 
existing certification expired.
    If the firm submitted an incomplete application for re-
certification, and EPA had not received all of the required information 
and fees before the date the firm's current certification expired, or 
if the firm did not submit its application until after its 
certification expired, EPA would not approve the firm's re-
certification application. The firm could not cure any deficiencies in 
its application package by postmarking missing information or fees by 
its certification expiration date. All required information and fees 
would have to be in EPA's possession as of the expiration date for EPA 
to approve the application. If EPA did not approve the application, the 
Agency would provide the applicant with the reasons for not approving 
the re-certification application. Any fees submitted by the applicant 
would not be refunded, but the firm could submit a new application for 
certification, along with the correct amount of fees, at any time.
    As with initial applications, this proposal includes a description 
of the actions EPA may take in response to an application for re-
certification and the reasons why EPA would take a particular action. 
This section is identical to the proposed process for initial 
applications, except that EPA will not require an incomplete 
application to be supplemented within 30 days of the date EPA requests 
additional information or fees. In the re-certification context, as 
described in the preceding paragraph, the firm must make its 
application complete by the date that its current certification 
expires. There is no compelling reason to establish another deadline 
for making an incomplete application complete.
    d. Amendments. Proposed Sec.  745.89(c) would require that a firm 
amend its certification within 45 days whenever a change occurred to 
information included in the firm's most recent application. If the firm 
failed to amend its certification within 45 days of the date the change 
occurred, the firm would not be authorized to perform renovations until 
its certification was amended. Examples of amendments include a change 
in the firm's name without transfer of ownership, or a change of 
address or other contact information. To amend its certification, a 
firm would be required to submit an application, noting on the form 
that it was submitted as an amendment. The firm would be required to 
complete the sections of the application pertaining to the new 
information, and sign and date the form. The amendment would have to 
include the correct amount of fees. Amending a certification would not 
affect the validity of the existing certification or extend the 
certification expiration date. EPA would issue the firm a new 
certificate if necessary to reflect information included in the 
amendment. Firm certifications are not transferable--if the firm is 
sold, the new owner must submit a new initial application for 
certification in accordance with Sec.  745.89(a).
    e. Suspension, revocation, or modification of certification. EPA is 
also proposing, in Sec.  745.91, procedures for suspending, revoking, 
or modifying a firm's certification. These procedures are identical to 
the current procedures in place for suspending, revoking, or modifying 
the certification of a firm that is certified to perform lead-based 
paint activities.
    2. Individuals--a. Renovators and workers. EPA is proposing to 
establish a new individual certification discipline for renovators. All 
renovation activities covered by this proposal would have to be 
performed by certified renovators, or by persons who have received on-
the-job training in lead-safe work practices from certified renovators. 
The certified renovator assigned to a renovation would be responsible 
for ensuring that the renovation is performed in compliance with the 
work practice requirements of this proposal.
    Under the proposal, a certified renovator must:
    <bullet> Perform the post-renovation cleaning verification 
described in proposed Sec.  745.85(b).
    <bullet> Perform or direct uncertified workers who perform all of 
the work practices described in proposed Sec.  745.85(a).
    <bullet> Provide training to uncertified workers on the lead-safe 
work practices they will be using in performing their assigned tasks, 
how to isolate the work area and maintain the integrity of the 
containment barriers, and how to avoid spreading lead contamination 
beyond the work area.
    <bullet> Be physically present at the work site when the signs 
required by proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work area 
containment required by proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(2) is being 
established, and while the work area cleaning required by proposed 
Sec.  745.85(a)(4) is performed.

[[Page 1607]]

    <bullet> Regularly direct the work being performed by uncertified 
persons to ensure that lead-safe work practices are being followed, the 
integrity of the containment barriers is maintained, and dust or debris 
is not spread beyond the work area.
    <bullet> Be available, either on-site or by telephone, at all times 
that renovations are being conducted.
    <bullet> Have with them at the work site copies of their initial 
course completion certificate and their most recent refresher course 
completion certificate.
    In order to use the term ``renovator'' to cover the new proposed 
certified discipline, EPA is proposing to revise the definition of the 
term in 40 CFR 745.83 to describe what a renovator is and how a 
renovator becomes certified. EPA is also proposing to modify the 
existing Pre-Renovation Education Rule requirements to replace the word 
``renovator'' with a reference to the firm performing the renovation 
wherever the term appears. This is not intended to change the 
requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule in any significant 
way. The effect of this change is to make it clear that any person 
associated with the firm performing the renovation, not necessarily the 
certified renovator, may handle the firm's pre-renovation education 
responsibilities.
    This proposal would not require everyone involved in performing a 
regulated renovation project to be a certified renovator. To allow 
maximum flexibility for firms undertaking these projects, EPA is 
proposing to allow these firms to use uncertified workers to perform 
renovation activities as long as they receive on-the-job training in 
lead-safe work practices from a certified renovator. This training must 
include instruction in the specific lead-safe work practices that these 
workers will be responsible for performing. To ensure that renovations 
are performed safely, this proposal would require a certified renovator 
to be at the work site during critical phases of the renovation 
activity to perform or direct uncertified workers who perform tasks 
directly related to protecting homeowners and occupants from the 
hazards of lead dust. These tasks include posting warning signs, 
containing the work area, and cleaning the work site. The proposed 
post-renovation cleaning verification requirements would have to be 
performed by a certified renovator, they could not be delegated to an 
uncertified worker.
    In addition, while the renovation project is ongoing, a certified 
renovator would have to be present at the work site on a regular basis 
in order to ensure that the uncertified workers are observing lead-safe 
work practices and maintaining the integrity of the systems employed to 
contain lead dust. When a certified renovator is not physically present 
at the work site, the uncertified workers must be able to contact the 
renovator immediately by telephone or other mechanism. Because these 
workers would be allowed to work without formal training in protecting 
children and other building occupants (OSHA requires these workers, 
like all construction workers, to receive training in protecting 
themselves and other workers from job hazards including lead), EPA 
believes that the kind of limited supervision envisioned by OSHA's 
competent person requirements or the EPA regulations pertaining to 
lead-based paint abatement supervisors is not sufficient in this 
situation. A walk around the job site once every shift is not enough to 
ensure that the uncertified workers are following lead-safe work 
practices at all times.
    EPA realizes that there may be other ways to achieve the goal of 
maximizing flexibility for renovation firms while ensuring that all 
persons involved in performing renovations have sufficient training and 
oversight to perform their tasks in a safe manner. An option EPA 
considered was a requirement that a certified renovator be physically 
present at the work site at all times while regulated renovation 
activities are ongoing. EPA believes that this approach would provide 
less flexibility for renovation firms, but requests comment on whether 
that is actually the case, and whether this approach would 
significantly improve the quality of the work performed by uncertified 
workers.
    Another way to provide flexibility for firms would be to prohibit 
certified renovators from being assigned to more than one job at a 
time, while not specifying when a certified renovator must be present 
during renovations, except that only a certified renovator would be 
permitted to perform the post-renovation cleaning verification step. 
EPA requests comment on whether this approach would provide flexibility 
and decrease costs for renovation firms without also decreasing the 
amount of protection provided by these proposed regulations. Regardless 
of the approach used, EPA anticipates that most renovation contractors 
and property management companies will find that they achieve maximum 
efficiency and flexibility by qualifying all of their permanent 
employees who perform renovations as certified renovators.
    EPA considered an individual certification scheme similar to that 
established for lead-based paint abatement activities, with a certified 
supervisor and certified workers. EPA does not prefer this option 
primarily because of the differences between renovation projects and 
abatement projects. All abatement projects have the same purpose--to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards. Renovation projects 
that involve the disturbance of paint are performed for many different 
reasons, using many different techniques. As a result, the training 
required by EPA for renovators is necessarily limited to the common 
elements of interest to EPA, which are the methods that a renovator can 
use to limit the creation of lead dust, prevent it from spreading to 
other parts of the dwelling, and properly clean it up afterwards. The 
containment and clean-up methods that would be required by this 
regulation are easy to understand and simple to use. A certified 
renovator who has received accredited training in these subjects should 
be able to communicate the principles of lead-safe renovation to others 
with very little difficulty. In addition, during the SBREFA panel 
process, discussed in greater detail in Unit VIII.C., the regulated 
community expressed concern over training requirements, given the level 
of employee turnover in the industry. Requiring certified renovators, 
but allowing firms to use uncertified workers where necessary, is an 
attempt to address this concern while still ensuring that everyone who 
performs regulated renovations understands how to follow lead-safe work 
practices.
    b. Dust sampling technicians. In 1999, in order to make accurate 
dust testing for lead more available and affordable, Congress provided 
EPA with funding for the development of a 1-day dust sampling 
technician course. Congress also encouraged the Agency to promote the 
recognition of this discipline. EPA completed the development of the 
course, entitled ``Lead Sampling Technician Training Course,'' in July 
of 2000. This course provides instruction on how to conduct a visual 
assessment for deteriorated paint, collect samples for lead dust, and 
interpret sample results.
    As discussed in Unit IV.E., some renovators or homeowners may 
choose to perform dust clearance testing at the completion of 
renovation activities instead of the post-renovation cleaning process 
that EPA is proposing. Dust clearance testing after abatements must be 
performed by a certified inspector or risk assessor in accordance with 
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). If dust clearance 
testing is to be performed after a renovation, it would also have to be 
performed as

[[Page 1608]]

directed in Sec.  745.227(e)(8), but EPA is also proposing to allow 
certified dust sampling technicians to perform the testing. This 
proposal includes training and certification requirements for the dust 
sampling technician discipline to help ensure the quality of initial 
training, provide for periodic refresher training to keep dust sampling 
technicians up to date regarding current regulatory and technical 
protocols, and assist the public in the identification of qualified 
individuals. Dust sampling technicians would not be subject to any 
additional education or experience requirements beyond completion of an 
accredited dust sampling technician course, nor would they be required 
to pass a third-party certification examination. As with the other 
certified disciplines, dust sampling technicians would be required to 
obtain re-certification every 3 years.
    EPA has determined that accredited dust sampling technicians would 
be qualified to perform the work described in this Unit for renovations 
because the training curriculum provides clearance sampling instruction 
that is equivalent to that presented in inspector and risk assessor 
courses, in terms of time and quality.
    A certified dust sampling technician is responsible for collecting 
dust samples, sending them to an EPA-recognized laboratory, and 
comparing the results to the clearance levels in accordance with 40 CFR 
745.227(e)(8). The certified dust sampling technician must also have 
with them at the work site copies of their initial course completion 
certificate and their most recent refresher course completion 
certificate.
    c. Initial certification. Proposed Sec.  745.90 addresses renovator 
and dust sampling technician certification. To become a certified 
renovator, a person would have to successfully complete a renovator 
course that has been accredited by EPA or by a State, Territorial, or 
Tribal program authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. The 
renovator course accreditation requirements are based on the joint EPA-
HUD model curriculum entitled Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & 
Painting. More information on the development of this curriculum and 
the accreditation of renovator and dust sampling technician courses can 
be found in Unit IV.D. The renovator course primarily covers how to 
isolate and contain renovation projects so that leaded dust does not 
escape, how to minimize the creation of leaded dust, and how to 
properly clean up after a renovation project so that lead-based paint 
hazards are not left behind. EPA is not proposing to require additional 
education or work experience of persons wishing to become certified 
renovators.
    To become a certified dust sampling technician, a person would have 
to successfully complete a dust sampling technician training course 
that has been accredited either by EPA or by a State, Territorial, or 
Tribal program authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. The 
dust sampling technician course primarily covers dust sampling 
methodologies and clearance standards and testing. EPA is not proposing 
to require additional education or work experience of persons wishing 
to become certified dust sampling technicians.
    EPA renovator certification would allow the certified individual to 
perform renovations covered by this section in any State or Indian 
Tribal area that does not have a renovation program authorized under 40 
CFR part 745, subpart Q. EPA dust sampling technician certification 
would allow the certified individual to perform dust sampling covered 
by this section in any State or Indian Tribal area that does not have a 
renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q.
    Because EPA is not proposing any additional education or work 
experience requirements, or a third-party examination similar to that 
taken by inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor candidates, EPA 
believes that there is little value in requiring candidates to apply to 
EPA to receive their renovator or dust sampling technician 
certification. Currently, the only certified discipline without 
prerequisites in education or experience, or a third-party examination, 
is the abatement worker. When candidates for worker certification apply 
to EPA, EPA verifies that the copy of the training course certificate 
submitted with the application is from an accredited training provider. 
Without requiring renovators or dust sampling technicians to apply to 
EPA for certification, under this proposal EPA would still receive 
course completion information from course providers. With this 
information, under the proposal EPA would be able to check to see if a 
particular course completion certificate holder appeared on a course 
completion list submitted by the training course provider identified on 
the certificate. When EPA inspects a renovation job for compliance with 
these proposed regulations, EPA will have the ability to verify, to the 
same extent, the validity of a course completion certificate held by a 
renovator or dust sampling technician at that job. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing that a course completion certificate from an accredited 
training provider serve as a renovator's or dust sampling technician's 
certification. To facilitate compliance monitoring, EPA would require a 
certified renovator or dust sampling technician to have a copy of the 
course completion certificate at the job site.
    EPA also considered alternatives such as requiring renovator and 
dust sampling technician candidates to apply to EPA for certification, 
following the same procedures established for worker certification in 
40 CFR 745.226. EPA also considered requiring a third-party examination 
for persons wishing to become certified renovator or dust sampling 
technicians. A third-party examination would be an additional check on 
the adequacy of the training courses being offered, as well as an 
independent assessment of how well a particular candidate retained the 
information presented. On the other hand, a third-party examination 
would significantly increase the burden of administration and the 
expense of complying with these proposed regulations. EPA requests 
comment on these options, as well as EPA's assessment of the costs and 
burdens of these options.
    d. Re-certification. EPA is proposing to require that renovators 
and dust sampling technicians who wish to remain certified take 
refresher training every 3 years. This is consistent with the existing 
re-certification interval for firms and for certified individuals under 
40 CFR 745.226. In addition, EPA is proposing to require that the 
refresher training course be half the length of the initial course. 
This is also consistent with current practice for certified individuals 
performing lead-based paint activities. If an individual does not take 
a refresher course within 3 years of the date he or she completed the 
initial course or the previous refresher course, that individual's 
certification will expire on that date and that individual may no 
longer serve as a certified renovator or dust sampling technician on a 
renovation project regulated by this proposal. There would be no grace 
period. To become certified again, the individual would have to take 
another initial training course.
    EPA also considered an alternative of requiring certified 
renovators to re-take the initial renovator course every 3 years. The 
primary advantage to such an approach is that, eventually, renovator 
course attendees would be a combination of experienced renovators and 
persons new to the field. This would allow the experienced persons to 
share helpful tips and lessons learned

[[Page 1609]]

with others and could have a positive impact on the overall quality of 
the training delivered. On the other hand, longer training requirements 
mean increased costs for the regulated community. In addition, with the 
preferred option, certified renovators would always be permitted to 
substitute an initial renovator course for a refresher course to allow 
maximum flexibility, particularly if for some reason the person was 
unable to attend a refresher course. EPA requests comment on this 
option on whether 3 years is an appropriate interval for refresher 
training, and whether refresher training should be required at all.
    e. Individuals certified to perform lead-based paint activities. 
EPA is also proposing to allow individuals who are or who become 
certified lead-based paint abatement supervisors or workers to act as 
certified renovators. These persons would have to possess a current and 
valid certification from EPA or an EPA-authorized State, Territorial, 
or Tribal lead-based paint program. EPA has determined that the 
training taken by candidates for supervisor or worker certification 
meets or exceeds the proposed training requirements for renovators with 
respect to many of the requirements of this proposal. Both disciplines 
must receive training in lead-based paint hazard recognition and 
control, as well as dust abatement and clean-up. However, the proposed 
post-renovation cleaning verification process, discussed in Unit IV.E., 
and the use of test kits for paint testing is not currently being 
taught in abatement supervisor or worker courses. EPA plans to develop 
guidance documents on these processes, and amend the model curriculum 
to cover them. EPA requests comment on whether an effective guidance 
document would be sufficient to familiarize abatement supervisors and 
workers with performing post-renovation cleaning verification and using 
paint test kits, or whether another approach, such as requiring 
certified supervisors or workers to take a renovator refresher course, 
would allow the regulated community to make use of the workforce 
already trained in lead-based paint hazard control, while ensuring that 
this workforce understands how to perform the post-renovation cleaning 
verification requirements and use test kits to test for lead-based 
paint.
    Persons who are or who become certified lead-based paint inspectors 
or risk assessors based on a certification issued either by EPA under 
40 CFR 745.226 or by an authorized State or Tribal program would be 
deemed under the proposal to be certified dust sampling technicians. 
Certified inspectors and risk assessors are qualified to perform dust 
sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or 
abatements. This rule would also allow them to perform dust sampling 
after renovation activities.
    f. Persons who have previously taken a course in Lead Safe Work 
Practices or a Dust Sampling Technician course. For the purposes of 
HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, many individuals have already taken HUD-
approved training in lead-safe work practices. In addition, many 
individuals have taken a dust sampling technician course based on the 
model developed by EPA. EPA is specifically requesting comment on 
whether a streamlined certification process would be appropriate for 
these individuals. For example, in promulgating the lead-based paint 
activities certification requirements at 40 CFR 745.226, EPA allowed 
persons who had previously taken worker training to become certified by 
EPA as abatement workers without taking an accredited initial lead-
based paint worker course. Individuals could become certified as 
workers by demonstrating that they had completed training (including 
on-the-job training) in the conduct of lead-based paint activities and 
completing an accredited worker refresher course. This option was only 
available for a limited time. A similar process could be used for 
individuals who have already taken lead-safe work practices training 
and who wish to become certified renovators, or individuals who have 
taken a dust sampling technician course and who wish to become 
certified dust sampling technicians.
    g. Suspension, revocation, or modification of certification. EPA is 
also proposing, in Sec.  745.89, procedures for suspending, revoking, 
or modifying an individual's certification. These procedures are 
identical to the current procedures in place for suspending, revoking, 
or modifying the certification of an individual who is certified to 
perform lead-based paint activities. However, EPA has added a sentence 
to this provision to make it clear that renovator certification could 
be suspended, revoked, or modified if the renovator does not ensure 
that projects to which he or she is assigned are conducted in 
accordance with the work practice requirements in this proposal.
    3. Training providers. EPA is proposing to amend the general 
accreditation requirements of 40 CFR 745.225 to apply to training 
programs that offer renovator or dust sampling technician courses for 
certification purposes. The regulations describe training program 
qualifications, quality control measures, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, as well as suspension, revocation, and modification 
procedures. Proposed amendments to Sec.  745.225 would add specific 
requirements for the renovator and dust sampling technician 
disciplines. This proposal introduces minimum training curriculum, 
training hour, and hands-on requirements for courses leading to 
certification as a renovator or a dust sampling technician.
    The minimum curriculum requirements for an initial renovator course 
are described in proposed Sec.  745.225(d)(6). The topics would include 
the roles and responsibilities of a renovator; background information 
on lead and its health effects; background on applicable Federal, 
State, and local regulations and guidance; use of acceptable test kits 
to test paint to determine whether it is lead-based paint; methods to 
minimize the creation of lead-based paint hazards during renovations; 
containment and clean-up methods; ways to verify that a renovation 
project has been properly completed, including clean-up verification 
and clearance testing; and waste handling and disposal. Hands-on 
activities relating to renovation methods, containment and clean-up, 
clean-up verification, and waste handling would be required in all 
courses. Proposed Sec.  745.225(c)(6)(vi) would establish the minimum 
length for an initial renovator course at 8 training hours, with 2 
hours being devoted to hands-on activities. A training hour means at 
least 50 minutes of actual learning, including, but not limited to, 
time devoted to lecture, learning activities, small group activities, 
demonstrations, evaluations, and hands-on experience.
    The minimum curriculum requirements for an initial dust sampling 
technician course are described in proposed Sec.  745.225(d)(7). The 
topics would include the roles and responsibilities of a dust sampling 
technician; background information on lead and its adverse health 
effects; background information on Federal, State, and local 
regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and 
renovation activities; dust sampling methodologies; clearance standards 
and testing; and report preparation and recordkeeping requirements. 
Proposed Sec.  745.225(c)(6)(vii) would establish the minimum length 
for an initial dust sampling technician course at 8 training hours, 
with 2 hours being devoted to hands-on activities.
    Accreditation would also be required for refresher training courses 
for

[[Page 1610]]

renovators and dust sampling technicians. Refresher courses would 
consist of, at a minimum, 4 hours of training. Topics covered would 
have to include a review of the topics covered in the initial renovator 
or dust sampling technician course, along with general lead-based paint 
safety practices and technologies.
    EPA requests comment on whether all of the topics that should be 
covered in the renovator and dust sampling technician courses are 
included, and whether hands-on activities should be required. EPA also 
requests comment on whether the specified training hour requirements 
for the initial and refresher courses are sufficient or excessive. In 
addition, EPA requests comment on whether minimum training hour 
requirements should be specified for these courses. EPA is concerned 
that such requirements may limit training provider flexibility without 
offering a substantial contribution to the quality of training.
    Renovator and dust sampling technician courses, both initial and 
refresher, could be taught in any language, but accreditation would be 
required for each specific language the provider wished to present the 
course in. All course materials and instruction for the course would 
have to be in the language of the course. EPA is proposing to modify 
Sec.  745.225(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that all lead-based paint courses 
taught in different languages are considered different courses, and 
accreditation must be obtained for each. To facilitate accreditation of 
courses in languages other than English, EPA is proposing to require 
that the training provider include in its application both the English 
version as well as the non-English version of all training materials, 
as well as a signed statement from a qualified, independent translator 
that the translator has compared the non-English language version of 
the course materials to the English language version and the 
translation is accurate. This requirement would apply to any course for 
which accreditation is sought, including lead-based paint activities 
courses. Finally, to assist EPA in monitoring compliance with these 
requirements, EPA is proposing to require that course completion 
certificates include the language in which the course was taught.
    EPA is also proposing to modify the requirements for course 
completion certificates to make it clear that the interim certification 
expiration date applies only to initial lead-based paint activities 
courses. The concept of interim certification is not applicable to 
refresher courses, nor would it be applicable to the proposed 
certification requirements for renovators or dust sampling technicians.
    Consistent with the existing accreditation requirements for lead-
based paint activities training programs, alternative training 
techniques (e.g., video training, computer-based training) may be used 
as a supplement to the hands-on skills assessment or as a substitute 
for the lecture portion of the training course requirements. All 
training programs, including those using alternative training methods, 
would be required to meet minimum hourly requirements for hands-on 
activities in their training courses. In addition, all training 
programs would have to administer a course test and conduct a hands-on 
skills assessment.
    As currently required for training providers who wish to offer 
lead-based paint activities courses, training providers who would like 
to provide courses leading to renovator or dust sampling technician 
certification, or refresher training courses in those disciplines, 
would have to apply to EPA for accreditation and pay an accreditation 
fee. The application would have to include a description of the 
facilities to be used for training, a description of the methods to be 
used to present hands-on activities, the blueprint for the course test, 
and the quality control plan. In addition, the proposal provides that 
if the training provider will not be using EPA-recommended model course 
materials, or course materials approved by an EPA-authorized State or 
Tribal program, the application must include copies of all course 
materials, including the agenda or syllabus.

D. Renovation Activities

    EPA is proposing to require that all renovations subject to this 
rule be conducted in accordance with a defined set of work practice 
standards. TSCA section 402(a)(1) directs EPA to promulgate regulations 
that, among other things, contain standards for performing lead-based 
paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and 
safety. In revising those regulations to apply to renovation 
activities, EPA is proposing more specific work practice standards for 
firms performing renovations than are currently required for certified 
firms conducting lead-based paint abatement activities regulated by 40 
CFR part 745, subpart L. These more specific standards are necessary, 
because unlike abatement firms, under this proposal renovation firms 
would not be required to conduct clearance testing at the conclusion of 
renovation activities. Clearance testing serves as a performance 
standard under the abatement regulations, allowing firms flexibility 
when establishing and cleaning a work area. Without such a performance 
indicator for renovation it is necessary to more specifically describe 
work practices and conditions at a work site in order to protect the 
occupants and ensure that new lead-based paint hazards are not 
introduced to the home. The proposed renovation work practices are 
consistent with the joint EPA-HUD curriculum, Lead Safety for 
Remodeling, Repair, & Painting (Ref. 52). EPA requests comment on the 
work practice, cleaning, and cleaning verification requirements 
discussed in greater detail in this Unit.
    1. Background. As was discussed in Unit III.B.3., HUD developed its 
Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
in Housing in response to a directive in Title X. The Guidelines 
provide detailed, comprehensive technical information on how to 
identify lead-based paint hazards in housing and how to control such 
hazards safely and efficiently. The Guidelines were the result of The 
HUD Lead-Based Paint Abatement Demonstration (FHA) that evaluated 
various lead-based paint hazard control methodologies both for 
effectiveness in reducing the lead hazard and for amount of lead dust 
generated (Ref. 53), as well as a number of other research projects. 
The Guidelines were developed in close consultation with EPA, CDC, 
OSHA, several other Federal agencies, and numerous experts and 
practitioners.
    While the primary purpose of the Guidelines is to provide guidance 
to people involved in identifying and controlling lead-based paint 
hazards in Federally assisted housing, they have also proven to be 
useful in housing that has no connection with the Federal government. 
The Guidelines have been accepted as the de facto standard for 
evaluation and reduction of lead hazards. EPA's training and 
certification program under TSCA sections 402 and 404 recognizes the 
Guidelines and their recommendations. The Guidelines complement such 
regulatory programs because they provide more complete work practice 
recommendations and explain why certain measures are recommended.
    EPA relied on the Guidelines in developing draft technical 
specifications for renovation, repair, and painting activities (Ref. 
54). While the Guidelines are focused on work practices associated with 
hazard reduction (permanent or temporary elimination of existing lead 
hazards), they also provide detailed

[[Page 1611]]

information relevant to renovation (i.e., containment, and cleaning). 
In addition, the Guidelines have a useful section devoted to routine 
building maintenance. While the activities considered in this section 
are often small-scale, and do not encompass the wide range of potential 
renovation work projects, they were extremely helpful in formulating 
work practice standards that are intended to be scalable based upon the 
activity being performed.
    EPA's draft technical specifications were developed in September 
1998 with the assistance of the National Center for Lead Safe Housing 
(now known as the National Center for Healthy Homes) in consultation 
with a group of technical experts. The specifications described the 
precautions needed to ensure that lead-contaminated dust and debris are 
minimized, controlled and properly cleaned up. The technical 
specifications themselves were developed to be applicable both to 
contractors and to homeowners who perform these activities without the 
aid of a contractor. However, the specifications document itself was 
not intended for use by the general public or contractors; it was 
developed to provide background information and serve as a reference 
for EPA to prepare technical materials, including a training 
curriculum.
    Following completion of the draft technical specifications, EPA 
began development of a model renovation training curriculum. In 
September 2000, EPA completed development of the curriculum Minimizing 
Lead-Based Paint Hazards During Renovation, Remodeling, and Painting 
(Ref. 55). The model curriculum was developed with the assistance of a 
review panel of representatives from state regulatory programs, lead 
advocacy groups, renovation contractors, EPA, HUD, and NIOSH. The 
course was developed to provide strategies to reduce or eliminate the 
introduction of hazards that occur when lead-based paint is disturbed. 
The curriculum was revised, in consultation with HUD, and renamed Lead 
Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting in July 2003 (Ref. 52). The 
revised curriculum is one of several courses approved for training 
purposes under HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule. The course represented a 
major Agency effort to protect public health from lead-based paint 
hazards associated with renovation and repainting activities, and was 
intended to be a model training curriculum for future regulations. Upon 
completion of the course, EPA made the model curriculum publicly 
available and encouraged renovation contractors to voluntarily obtain 
training.
    This proposal presents basic work practice standards derived from 
the model training course, draft technical manual, and the Guidelines, 
among other sources. These practices provide standards as to how the 
work must be done in order to protect occupants from lead hazards. 
While the standards provide basic requirements for occupant protection, 
site preparation, and clean-up, the course provides more complete 
guidance on how activities should be carried out and why certain 
measures are recommended.
    EPA requests comment on whether there may be situations where some 
or all of these proposed lead safe work practices are not necessary. 
For example, where housing is not occupied during the renovation 
process, some or all of the lead safe work practice requirements may 
not be necessary. In those cases, cleanup and cleaning verification may 
be sufficient. The Agency requests comment on the requirements that 
should apply in unoccupied housing, and also on whether there should be 
differential requirements for other situations.
    2. Proposed work practice standards--a. Occupant protection. Under 
proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(1), work areas must be clearly defined with 
signs warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation 
activities to remain outside of the work area. These signs must be 
posted before beginning the renovation and must remain in place until 
the renovation has been completed and the work area has been verified 
to have been adequately cleaned. If warning signs have been posted in 
accordance with HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule (24 CFR 35.1345(b)(2)) or 
OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62(m)), additional 
signs are not required by this proposal.
    b. Containing the work area. Under proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(2), a 
firm must contain the work area so that no visible dust or debris 
leaves the work area while the renovation is being performed. 
Containment refers to methods of preventing leaded dust from 
contaminating objects in the work area and from migrating beyond the 
work area. It includes everything from the simple use of disposable 
plastic drop cloths to the sealing of openings with plastic sheeting. 
When planning a renovation project, special consideration should be 
given to determining the type of work site preparation necessary to 
prevent dust and debris from leaving the work area.
    Renovation projects generate varying amounts of leaded dust, paint 
chips, and other lead-contaminated materials depending on the type of 
work, area affected, and work methods used. Repairing a small area of 
damaged drywall is likely to generate less lead-contaminated dust and 
debris than sanding a large area in preparation for painting. Because 
of this variability, the size of the area that must be isolated and the 
containment methods used will vary from project to project. Large 
renovation projects could involve one or more rooms and potentially 
encompass an entire home or building, while small projects may require 
only a minimal amount of containment. The necessary work area 
preparations will depend on the size of the surface(s) being disturbed, 
the method used in disturbing the surface, and the building layout. The 
certified renovator assigned to a renovation would weigh all of these 
factors in determining the appropriate work area size and preparation 
level for that particular situation. For example, repairing a small 
area of damaged drywall would probably require a smaller work area and 
minimal preparation while demolition work would probably require a 
larger work area and extensive preparation in order to prevent the 
migration of dust and debris from the work area. The certified 
renovator is responsible for weighing all of these factors and 
designing a system of containment that ensures that no dust and debris 
leaves the work area. EPA is proposing to define the term ``work area'' 
as the area that the certified renovator establishes to contain all of 
the dust and debris generated by a renovation, based on the certified 
renovator's evaluation of the extent and nature of the activity and the 
specific work practices that will be used.
    i. Interior renovations. At a minimum, interior work area 
preparations must include removing or covering all objects in the work 
area, closing and covering all forced air HVAC ducts in the work area, 
closing all windows in the work area, closing and sealing all doors in 
the work area, and covering the floor surface, including installed 
carpet, with taped-down plastic sheeting in the work area. Doors within 
the work area that must be used while the job is being performed must 
be covered with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in a 
manner that allows workers to pass through, while confining dust and 
debris to the work area. In addition, all personnel, tools, and other 
items, including the exterior of containers of waste, must be free of 
dust and debris when leaving the work area. Alternatively, the paths 
used to reach the exterior of the home must be covered with plastic 
sheeting or other impermeable material to prevent the

[[Page 1612]]

spread of lead contaminated dust and debris outside the work area.
    ii. Exterior renovations. For exterior projects, work area 
preparations must include, at a minimum, covering the ground with 
plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending out 
from the edge of the structure a sufficient distance to collect falling 
paint debris, closing all doors and windows within 20 feet of the 
outside of the work area on the same floor as the renovation, and 
closing all doors and windows on the floors below that area. For 
example, if the renovation involves sanding a 5-foot by 5-foot area of 
paint on the third floor of a building, and that side of the building 
is only 40 feet long, all doors and windows on that side of the third 
floor must be closed, as well as all of the doors and windows on that 
side of the second and first floors. In situations where other 
buildings are in close proximity to the work area, or where the work 
area abuts a property line, the firm performing the renovation may have 
to take extra precautions in containing the work area to ensure that 
dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate other 
buildings or migrate to adjacent property. In addition, doors within 
the work area that must be used while the job is being performed must 
be covered with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in a 
manner that allows workers to pass through while confining dust and 
debris to the work area.
    iii. Prohibited practices. Under the current regulations for lead- 
based paint abatement activities, certain practices are prohibited in 
40 CFR 745.227(e)(6). These practices are open flame burning or 
torching of lead-based paint; machine sanding, grinding, abrasive 
blasting, or sandblasting of lead-based paint except when done with 
HEPA exhaust control; dry scraping of lead based-paint except around 
electrical outlets or for any area no more than 2 ft<SUP>2</SUP> in any 
one room, hallway, or stairwell, or for any area no more than 20 
ft<SUP>2</SUP> on exterior surfaces; and operating a heat gun at 1100 
degrees Fahrenheit or higher.
    Unlike with abatement, EPA is proposing to allow the use of these 
practices during renovation activities. The Agency understands that, 
because these practices are commonly used during renovation work, 
prohibiting such practices could make certain jobs, such as preparing a 
surface for new painting, extremely difficult, if not impossible. For 
example, contractors indicated there may be no practical way to restore 
old and historic millwork other than open flame burning, and that 
prohibiting dry scraping and sanding would cause many problems because 
wet sanding tends to raise the grain of wood surfaces preventing a 
smooth finish which consumers demand. The Agency believes that proper 
training, in combination with appropriate containment and cleanup 
requirements, is safe, effective, and reliable in preventing the 
introduction of new lead-based paint hazards. EPA is seeking comment 
regarding the prohibition of these practices, and specifically whether 
different prohibitions should apply to interior and exterior 
renovations.
    Although EPA is proposing to allow the use of these practices, 
other Federal, State, and local requirements may govern these practices 
and renovations in general. Persons performing renovations should check 
to see whether other regulations, including the OSHA regulations at 29 
CFR 1926.62, apply to their projects.
    c. Waste from renovations. Renovation projects can generate a 
considerable amount of waste material. Lead-contaminated building 
components and work area debris must be handled carefully to prevent 
the release of lead-contaminated dust and debris. EPA is concerned that 
allowing the storage of lead-contaminated waste where it may be 
accessible to residents and others could cause a lead-based paint 
hazard. Therefore, under proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(3) a firm would be 
required, at the conclusion of each work day, to store any collected 
lead-based paint waste from renovation activities under containment, in 
an enclosure, or behind a barrier that prevents release of dust and 
debris and prevents access to the waste.
    In addition, transporting lead-based paint waste in uncovered 
vehicles is a possible source of releases in the form of paint chips or 
dust. The proposal would require renovation firms transporting lead-
based paint waste from a work site to contain the waste to prevent 
identifiable releases, e.g., inside a plastic garbage bag.
    In a policy issued on July 31, 2000, EPA's Office of Solid Waste 
(OSW) clarified that both homeowners and contractors can be eligible 
for the hazardous waste exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) for lead-
based paint wastes generated from renovation and remodeling activities 
in households, including single and multiple residences. This 
conclusion was based on the fact that both the definition of 
``household waste'' in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) and the Agency's criteria for 
determining the scope of the exclusion focus on the type of waste 
generated and the place of generation rather than the identity of the 
waste generator. Therefore, under this clarification, lead-based paint 
waste may be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfill units, as 
long as those wastes are generated during abatement or renovation and 
remodeling activities in households (Ref. 56).
    On June 18, 2003, EPA amended its regulations to provide an 
additional option for disposal of this waste (Ref. 57). Having 
clarified that lead-based paint waste generated through abatements and 
renovation and remodeling activities in residential settings could be 
disposed of in municipal solid waste landfill units, EPA also wanted to 
offer the option of disposing of this waste in construction and 
demolition (C&D) landfills. Accordingly, EPA amended 40 CFR 258.2 to 
add definitions for ``construction and demolition (C&D) landfill'' and 
``residential lead-based paint waste'' and to amend the definition of 
``municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) unit.'' The primary purpose of 
these amendments was to allow a C&D landfill to accept residential 
lead-based paint waste without becoming a municipal solid waste 
landfill unit and having to comply with RCRA requirements for such 
units.
    When disposing of waste from renovation activities, the certified 
renovator should follow all applicable Federal, State, and local 
requirements.
    d. Cleaning the work area. Under proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4), a 
firm would be required to clean the work area to remove visible dust, 
debris or residue, as well as dust particles too small to be seen by 
the naked eye. All renovation activities that disturb painted surfaces 
can produce dangerous quantities of leaded dust. Because very small 
particles of leaded dust are easily absorbed by the body when ingested 
or inhaled, a small amount can create a health hazard for young 
children. Unless this dust is properly removed, renovation and 
remodeling activities are likely to introduce new lead-based paint 
hazards. Therefore, careful cleaning is required. Improper cleaning can 
increase the cost of a project considerably because additional cleaning 
may be necessary during post-renovation cleaning verification. Although 
it may not be possible to remove all leaded dust generated by the 
renovation, it is possible to reduce it below levels that EPA has 
determined to be hazardous.
    The proposal specifies that, upon completion of renovation 
activities, all paint chips and debris must be picked up. Protective 
sheeting must be misted and folded dirty side inward, using care to 
trap any remaining dust. Sheeting

[[Page 1613]]

used to isolate contaminated rooms from non-contaminated rooms must 
remain in place until after the cleaning and removal of other sheeting; 
this sheeting must then be misted and removed last. Removed sheeting 
must be either folded and taped shut to seal or sealed in heavy-duty 
bags and disposed of as waste.
    After the sheeting has been removed from the work area, the entire 
area must be cleaned. The walls, starting from the ceiling and working 
down to the floor, would have to be vacuumed with a vacuum equipped 
with a HEPA filter or wiped with a damp cloth. The proposal would 
require that all remaining surfaces and objects in the work area, 
including floors, furniture and fixtures, be thoroughly vacuumed with a 
vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter. When cleaning carpets, the HEPA-
equipped vacuum must be equipped with a beater bar to aid in dislodging 
and collecting deep dust and lead from carpets. The beater bar must be 
used on all passes on the carpet face during dry vacuuming. Where 
feasible, floor surfaces underneath a rug or carpeting must also be 
thoroughly vacuumed with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. This cleaning step is 
intended to remove as much dust and remaining debris as possible.
    EPA requests comment on whether the rule should allow the use of 
vacuums other than vacuums equipped with HEPA filters. HEPA filters 
were first developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission during World 
War II to capture microscopic radioactive particles that existing 
filters could not remove. HEPA filters have the ability to capture 
particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency. Particles both larger 
and smaller than 0.3 microns are easier to catch. Thus, HEPA filters 
capture these particles with 100% efficiency. Available information 
indicates that lead particles generated by renovation activities range 
in size from over 20 microns to 0.3 microns or less (Ref. 58). It has 
been suggested that vacuums not equipped with HEPA filters fail to 
capture smaller lead particles, and that these vacuums are more likely 
to recirculate these particles to the air instead. EPA is concerned 
that the unintended release of lead particles into the air during 
cleaning activities may not only cause unintended dust lead hazards in 
the work area, but that it could impact other areas of the dwelling 
unit. EPA requests comment on whether there are other vacuums that have 
the same efficiency at capturing the smaller lead particles as HEPA-
equipped vacuums, along with any data that would support this 
performance equivalency and whether this performance specification is 
appropriate for leaded dust cleanup. EPA also requests comment on 
whether the rule should allow other types of vacuums in addition to 
HEPA-equipped vacuums, given that the OSHA Lead in Construction 
standard, at 29 CFR 1926.62(h)(4), requires that vacuums be equipped 
with HEPA filters where vacuums are used.
    After vacuuming, all surfaces and objects in the work area, except 
for walls and carpeted or upholstered surfaces, must be wiped with a 
damp cloth. Uncarpeted floors must be thoroughly mopped using a 2-
bucket mopping method that keeps the wash water separate from the rinse 
water, or using a wet mopping system with disposable absorbent cleaning 
pads and a built-in mechanism for distributing or spraying cleaning 
solution from a reservoir onto a floor.
    These special cleaning methods and procedures are typically not 
standard operating procedure for general home improvement contractors. 
Therefore, this proposal seeks to train renovators and establish work 
practice standards that renovators must follow to ensure no lead-based 
paint hazards are introduced as a result of a renovation.
    When cleaning following an exterior renovation, under the proposal 
all paint chips and debris must be picked up. Protective sheeting used 
for containment must be misted with water. All sheeting must be folded 
carefully from the corners or ends to the middle to trap any remaining 
dust. The sheeting must be disposed of as waste.
    EPA invites comment on all aspects of its proposed work practice 
standards. EPA is especially interested in studies showing the 
effectiveness of each component of its proposed work practices, as well 
as the effectiveness of these components in combination. As noted in 
the Draft Economic Analysis for this proposed rule, discussed in 
greater detail in Unit VIII.A., the Agency assumes that the specified 
combination of warning signs, containment barriers, cleaning measures, 
and the post-renovation cleaning verification process discussed in the 
next section, taken together, will result in lead dust levels at or 
below the dust-lead hazard standards established at 40 CFR 745.65(b). 
The available data, however, does not support a quantitative assessment 
of the independent efficiency of each of these measures.

E. Cleaning Verification

    1. Background. The goal of this proposed rule is to ensure that 
lead-based paint hazards are not created and left behind after 
residential renovations. To achieve this goal, EPA has outlined 
training requirements to provide renovators with information and 
techniques on how to minimize the lead dust they produce during 
renovation activities and the appropriate methods for cleaning the work 
area after a renovation has been completed. The Agency has also 
proposed a series of work practice standards that must be followed 
during renovations. In addition, to achieve the goal of ensuring that 
residential renovations do not increase exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards, EPA has determined that additional cleaning verification 
procedures are necessary.
    However, requiring dust clearance sampling after each renovation 
project, as is done for abatements, would be problematic for several 
reasons. Dust clearance sampling, which is required after abatements, 
may be very expensive. The costs can be attributed to two major 
factors: the cost of trained personnel to collect the samples and the 
cost of the laboratory analysis. EPA estimates the cost of three dust 
samples to be approximately $160 to collect and analyze. If EPA were to 
require dust clearance sampling after every renovation project, it 
would make up a significant portion of the cost of smaller projects. 
More information on the costs of dust clearance sampling can be found 
in Unit VIII.A. and in EPA's draft economic analysis of the impacts of 
this proposal (Ref. 59). In addition, dust clearance sampling takes a 
great deal of time. Laboratory results may not be available for several 
days, during which time the work area cannot be re-occupied.
    On the other hand, a visual inspection, while less expensive and 
less time-consuming than dust clearance sampling, does not provide 
sufficient assurance that the renovation activities have not increased 
the potential for exposure to lead-based paint hazards. Recent studies 
indicate that visual inspection alone is not a reliable and effective 
method for identifying the presence of a lead-based paint hazard after 
cleaning (Ref. 60).
    In addition, one of the significant difficulties associated with 
requiring clearance after renovation projects is the difference in 
focus and scope between abatement projects and renovations. The purpose 
of an abatement project is to permanently eliminate lead-based paint 
and lead-based paint hazards. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to 
require an assurance that the abatement firm has, in fact, eliminated 
these hazards. However, renovations may be performed for many reasons, 
most of which have nothing to do with

[[Page 1614]]

eliminating lead-based paint hazards. Moreover, if clearance using dust 
wipes were required after every renovation job, it could have the 
effect of holding the renovation firm responsible for abating all dust-
lead hazards, including such hazards that may have existed in the area 
before the renovation commenced. During the public meetings in 1998 and 
1999, as well as during the SBREFA panel process, discussed in Unit 
VIII.C., contractors pointed out that, if post-renovation clearance 
sampling were required, the contractors would have to protect 
themselves by collecting pre-renovation dust samples, to ensure that 
they would not be held liable for pre-existing hazards. EPA understands 
this concern and has attempted to address it by finding an alternative 
to dust clearance sampling. The goal of this proposal is to ensure any 
potential lead-based paint hazards created during the actual renovation 
project are cleaned up by the renovation firm. EPA requests comment on 
all of the available methods for achieving this goal, including visual 
inspections, dust clearance testing, and the proposed post-renovation 
cleaning verification process described below. EPA also requests 
comment on whether any cleanup verification is necessary, given the 
proposed cleaning requirements described above.
    2. Disposable Cleaning Cloth/White Glove Study. EPA began looking 
for an alternative to dust clearance sampling that would be quick, 
inexpensive, reliable, and easy to perform. EPA conducted a series of 
studies using commercially available disposable cleaning cloths to 
determine whether variations of a ``white glove'' test could serve as 
an effective alternative to dust clearance sampling. White disposable 
cleaning cloths were used to wipe windowsills and wipe floors, then 
examined to determine whether dust was visible on the cloth. This 
determination was made by visually comparing the cloth to a 
photographic standard that EPA developed to correlate to a level of 
contamination that is below the dust lead hazard standard in 40 CFR 
745.65(b). Cloths that matched the standard were considered to have 
achieved ``white glove.''
    Initial studies focused on dry, or electrostatic, disposable 
cleaning cloths (dry cloths). These cloths were used to wipe a 
windowsill or a section of floor until a cloth had achieved ``white 
glove.'' Then, dust samples were collected to determine whether the 
windowsill or floor had also achieved clearance. These studies were 
conducted both in vacant buildings, where the amount of leaded dust on 
the surfaces was uncontrolled and no pre-cleaning was done, and in a 
controlled laboratory setting. The results of these studies indicate 
that dry cloths are most effective in predicting clearance through the 
``white glove'' test when the initial lead levels are between 40 [mu]g/
ft<SUP>2</SUP> and 200 [mu]g/ft<SUP>2</SUP>.
    EPA then began looking at wet disposable cleaning cloths (wet 
cloths) as a means to improve the effectiveness of dry cloths. In a 
controlled setting, the effectiveness of various combinations of dry 
cloths and wet cloths were tested, using a leaded dust loading of 1,600 
[mu]g/ft<SUP>2</SUP>. The first protocol tested used only dry cloths--
after ``white glove'' was achieved, the surface was wiped with two more 
dry cloths. This protocol led to a false negative error rate of 30%, 
meaning that in 30% of the cases, ``white glove'' was achieved, but 
dust sampling indicated that the surface lead levels exceeded 40 [mu]g/
ft<SUP>2</SUP>. This procedure was performed again, and followed by one 
wiping with a wet cloth. With this protocol, all 12 of the tests 
performed resulted in levels below the clearance standard, or a false 
negative error rate of 0%. Finally, the original dry cloth protocol was 
used, until ``white glove'' was achieved, and then followed by one 
mopping with a wet cloth. This simplified protocol achieved a false 
negative error rate of 10%.
    The promising results of this controlled study led to a field test 
of three potential protocols: Dry cloths to ``white glove,'' dry cloths 
to ``white glove'' followed by one wet cloth, and wet cloths to ``white 
glove.'' This field test was performed in vacant housing units. Lead 
levels were determined before testing began, but no cleaning was 
performed. The results of this field test were as follows: On floors, 
91.5% of the surfaces that achieved ``white glove'' using only dry 
cloths also achieved clearance, while 97.3% of the floors that achieved 
``white glove'' using only wet cloths also achieved clearance. In 
addition, 10 of the 11 floors where ``white glove'' was not achieved 
using dry cloths, and 20 of the 21 floors where ``white glove'' was not 
achieved using wet cloths, achieved clearance anyway. Unexpectedly, the 
protocol using dry cloths to ``white glove'' followed by one wet cloth 
was the least successful protocol--the false negative error rate for 
this protocol was nearly 20%. Windowsills were also tested during this 
part of the study, but only the all-dry-cloth protocol and the all-wet-
cloth protocol were used. For the dry cloth protocol, 96.4% of the 
sills that achieved ``white glove'' also achieved clearance, and the 
one sill that did not achieve ``white glove'' still passed clearance. 
For the wet cloth protocol, all of the sills that achieved ``white 
glove'' also achieved clearance, as did the four sills that did not 
reach ``white glove.''
    The floors in the housing units tested in this portion of the study 
were in vacant buildings that had high levels of accumulated lead that 
was often encrusted on the surface as part of a hard, gummy layer. In 
the case where false negative results were seen, it was primarily due 
to the moisture from the wet cloth loosening lead after the ``white 
glove'' was achieved with the wet cloth.
    The final report for these studies and the earlier studies, 
entitled Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 
Housing, underwent an external peer review process. The final report, 
including the Quality Assurance Project Plan, the photographic 
comparison standards, the comments from the peer reviewers, and EPA's 
response to the comments from the peer reviewers, has been placed into 
this docket (Ref. 61). EPA also requests comments on the conclusions 
drawn from this study, as well as on the study itself. EPA is 
particularly interested in information or data on the Agency's 
conclusions that this approach is practical and provides reliable 
information on removal of lead hazards and that renovators will be able 
to use a reference card to properly assess when ``white glove'' is 
achieved.
    3. Steps for cleaning verification. Based on these study results, 
EPA is not proposing to require dust clearance sampling after any 
renovations. Instead, for interior renovations, EPA is proposing to 
require an additional post-cleaning verification step following the 
visual inspection. This step involves wiping the interior windowsills 
and floors with a wet disposable cleaning cloth and, if necessary, a 
dry disposable cleaning cloth, and comparing it to a cleaning 
verification card that EPA will develop and distribute. A prototype of 
this card has been placed in the docket (Ref. 62). The purpose of this 
step is to verify that horizontal surfaces where dust will settle have 
been adequately cleaned. The specific post-renovation cleaning 
verification requirements are proposed as follows.
    a. Visual inspection. A certified renovator must perform a visual 
inspection to determine whether visible dust, debris, or residue is 
still present in the work area. If such dust, debris, or residue is 
present, these conditions must be eliminated. If the renovation 
involved is an interior renovation, these conditions must be eliminated 
by re-cleaning the work area as directed in proposed Sec.  
745.85(a)(4). After an

[[Page 1615]]

exterior work area passes the visual inspection, the project has been 
properly completed and the warning signs may be removed. After an 
interior work area passes the visual inspection, the cleaning of each 
windowsill and uncarpeted floor within the work area must be verified 
as discussed in this Unit.
    b. Interior windowsills. For interior renovations, after the work 
area has been cleaned and has passed the visual inspection, a certified 
renovator must wipe each interior windowsill (also known as a stool) in 
the work area with a wet disposable cleaning cloth. All wet cloths used 
in the post-renovation cleaning verification process must be at least 
damp to the touch, and must remain so during the process. After wiping 
each windowsill with a wet cloth, the certified renovator must compare 
the cloth to the cleaning verification card. If the cloth matches the 
card, that windowsill has passed the post-renovation cleaning 
verification. If the cloth does not match the card, that windowsill 
must be re-cleaned in accordance with proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4)(ii). 
After the windowsill has been re-cleaned, the certified renovator must 
wipe that windowsill with a new wet cloth, or the same one folded so 
that an unused surface is exposed, and compare it to the cleaning 
verification card. If the cloth matches the card, that windowsill has 
passed. If not, the windowsill must be re-cleaned again and left to 
dry.
    To perform this verification on a windowsill, the certified 
renovator must wait for one hour after the surface has been re-cleaned 
or until the surface has dried, whichever is longer. Then, the 
certified renovator must wipe the windowsill with a dry disposable 
cleaning cloth and compare it to the cleaning verification card. This 
process must be repeated until a dry cloth, or a folded section of a 
dry cloth, that has wiped the windowsill matches the cleaning 
verification card. At that point, that windowsill has passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification process. Each windowsill in the work 
area must pass the post-renovation cleaning verification process.
    EPA considered requiring that certified renovators repeat the 
process of cleaning and then wiping with a wet disposable cleaning 
cloth until each windowsill and each section of uncarpeted floor within 
the work area achieved post-renovation cleaning verification with a wet 
cloth. The disposable cleaning cloth studies suggest that it is 
possible that some floors may never achieve verification with a wet 
cloth. Verification on floors that are in poor condition or floors with 
built-up layers of grime may be particularly difficult. In the second 
field study of disposable cleaning cloths, there were 21 floors that 
did not achieve ``white glove,'' even after 15 separate wipings with a 
fresh wet cloth. However, 20 of these floors passed clearance through 
dust sampling.
    Therefore, for each windowsill and for those sections of the floor 
that did not achieve post-renovation cleaning verification using the 
wet cloths, EPA is proposing to require that after the second re-
cleaning, the surface be allowed to dry, and then a dry disposable 
cleaning cloth verification process be performed. The dry cloth may be 
less likely to dissolve additional layers of built-up grime, which may 
have contributed to the phenomenon of floors passing clearance, but not 
achieving ``white glove'' with the wet cloths. In addition, lead dust 
trapped in built-up layers of grime is not likely to be the result of a 
current renovation activity.
    c. Floors. After the windowsills in the work area have passed the 
post-renovation cleaning verification, a certified renovator must wipe 
the floor surfaces in the work area with a wet disposable cleaning 
cloth. Wiping of floors must be done with an application device 
consisting of a long handle and a head to which the wet cloth is 
attached. This will help the certified renovator apply fairly constant 
pressure over the floor surface. Again, the wet cloth must remain at 
least damp to the touch throughout this process. During the field 
studies, the cloths tended to dry out as they were used over large 
areas, or on more porous floor surfaces. As the cloths dry out, they 
pick up less dust. To ensure that the cloths remained damp during the 
field studies, the persons performing the wiping were directed to use 
each wet cloth on no more than 40 ft<SUP>2</SUP> of floor area (Ref. 
63). EPA is proposing to require the same for the purposes of post-
renovation cleaning verification, but requests comment on whether this 
is an appropriate size cut-off. If the floor surface in the work area 
exceeds 40 ft<SUP>2</SUP>, the certified renovator would divide the 
floor surface into sections, each section being less than 40 
ft<SUP>2</SUP>, and perform the post-renovation cleaning verification 
on each section separately.
    If the wet cloth used to wipe a particular section of floor matches 
the cleaning verification card, that section has passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification. If, however, on the first wiping of a 
section of the floor surface, the wet cloth does not match the cleaning 
verification card, the surface of that section of the floor must be re-
cleaned in accordance with proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4)(ii). After re-
cleaning, the renovator must wipe that section of the floor again using 
a new wet cloth. If the wet cloth matches the cleaning verification 
card, that section of the floor has passed. If the wet cloth does not 
match the verification card, that section of the floor must be re-
cleaned as directed in proposed Sec.  745.85(a)(4)(ii) and left to dry.
    For those sections of the floor that did not achieve post-
renovation cleaning verification using the wet cloths, the certified 
renovator must wait for 1 hour after the floor has been re-cleaned or 
until the floor has dried, whichever is longer. Then, the certified 
renovator must wipe those sections of the floor with a dry disposable 
cleaning cloth and compare it to the cleaning verification card. This 
wiping must also be performed using an application device with a long 
handle and a head to which the dry cloth is attached. This process must 
be repeated until a dry cloth that has wiped all of the sections of the 
floor that have not yet passed verification matches the cleaning 
verification card. At that point, the entire floor has passed the post-
renovation cleaning verification process and the warning signs may be 
removed.
    EPA believes that adherence to this post-renovation cleaning 
verification protocol, in combination with the proposed training, 
containment, and cleaning requirements is a safe, reliable and 
effective system of ensuring that renovation activities do not result 
in an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In the 
great majority of cases, windowsills and floors that achieve post-
renovation cleaning verification will also pass dust clearance 
sampling. EPA specifically requests comment on the elements of the 
proposed protocol, especially with regard to their efficacy and 
utility. EPA also requests comments on whether the reliability of the 
cleaning verification would be improved if it were performed by an 
individual who had not previously participated in the renovation 
activity, for example, another certified renovator in the renovation 
firm.
    d. Carpets. As a final step in the renovation process, EPA is 
proposing that after containment is removed, the work area be 
thoroughly cleaned. For floors, the proposal would require vacuuming 
with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. When cleaning carpets, the vacuum would 
have to be equipped with a beater bar to aid in dislodging and 
collecting leaded dust. EPA believes that use of the HEPA-equipped 
vacuum

[[Page 1616]]

equipped with a beater bar to dislodge dust and debris is the most 
effective cleaning practice for carpets, and that an effective cleaning 
verification method for carpets is not available. EPA is not proposing 
that the ``white glove'' cleaning verification protocol be used on 
carpets after they have been cleaned using a HEPA-equipped vacuum 
equipped with a beater bar. EPA did not verify use of the ``white 
glove'' protocol on carpets. In addition, there are questions about the 
validity of dust clearance sampling on carpeted floors, even though 
such sampling is required by EPA after abatements and by HUD after 
interim controls. In its final rule for hazard and clearance standards 
for the Title X program (Ref. 24), the Agency included standards for 
carpeted floors, even though the proposed floor standards would have 
applied only to bare floors (Ref. 64). The Agency initially was 
concerned that there was a lack of data on the relative performance of 
sampling methods for carpets, given that various studies had used 
different sampling techniques (e.g., the Baltimore Repair and 
Maintenance Study's ``BRM'' vacuum (Ref. 65), the Comprehensive 
Abatement Performance Pilot Study's ``Blue Nozzle'' vacuum (Ref. 66), 
and standard dust wipes). Additionally, the Agency did not have 
adequate data on the effectiveness of carpet cleaning techniques that 
would be needed to establish a dust clearance level for carpeted 
floors. Consequently, there were problems establishing a dust lead 
level on a wipe that would independently indicate that the carpet had 
been sufficiently cleaned. This problem was exacerbated by the wide 
variety of carpet types and conditions that would likely be encountered 
in residential units.
    The Agency changed its position in the final lead hazard standards 
rule as a result of commenters' concerns that many housing units 
contained carpeting and that, without a standard, such units could not 
be assessed for the presence of lead hazards from floor dust. Based 
upon data available to the Agency at that time (Ref. 67), EPA estimated 
that approximately 54 million housing units built prior to 1978 
contained some wall-to-wall carpeting and, of these, 47 million had 
such carpeting in living rooms and 46 million in bedrooms (i.e., rooms 
in which children reside and play frequently). Agreeing with these 
concerns, the Agency determined that the floor standards (using dust 
wipes) should apply to both bare and carpeted floors in order that all 
floors would be addressed in lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and 
abatements.
    In making this determination, EPA did not specifically consider the 
question of whether both the hazard and the clearance floor standards 
should apply to carpeted floors. Because the hazard and clearance 
standards were numerically equal, even though they served different 
purposes and uses, EPA chose to apply both standards to carpeted and 
uncarpeted floors.
    The decision to apply the clearance standard to carpeted floors 
ultimately had little consequence, given the context in which clearance 
standards are used--namely, to ensure that sufficient cleanup has been 
performed after an abatement. Typically, in abatement situations, 
carpets that are in poor condition or are known to be highly 
contaminated are removed and disposed of. Where carpets are not 
replaced, they are cleaned according to specified criteria (Ref. 27). 
In general, carpets are acknowledged to be potential traps of leaded 
dust and great care is taken to replace or thoroughly clean them in 
order to ensure that, once the abatement is concluded, the housing unit 
is cleanable so that the benefits of the abatement will continue as 
long as routine cleaning is performed. Consequently, EPA believes that 
it is this special attention to carpets that ensures that they are 
sufficiently clean, rather than reliance upon only a post-abatement 
wipe clearance sample.
    e. Optional use of clearance testing. Some renovators or homeowners 
may choose to perform clearance at the completion of renovation 
activities instead of the post-renovation cleaning verification 
described in proposed Sec.  745.85(b). If so, dust sampling for 
clearance would have to be performed by a certified inspector, risk 
assessor, or dust sampling technician, who would be responsible for 
collecting dust samples, sending them to an EPA-recognized laboratory, 
and comparing the results to the clearance levels in accordance with 40 
CFR 745.227(e)(8). EPA recommends that the renovation work area be re-
cleaned if the home fails the clearance test. It is a good idea to 
specify in the renovation contract who is responsible for this re-
cleaning if the home fails the clearance test. EPA welcomes comment on 
this part of the proposal.

F. State Renovation Model Program and Authorization Process

    Recognizing the importance of EPA's State partners in achieving the 
goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing, Congress 
specifically directed EPA to establish model State programs and a 
process for authorizing States to operate lead-safe programs in lieu of 
the Federal program. As it did in the regulations at 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart L, for lead-based paint activities, the Agency is also seeking 
to provide Federally recognized Indian Tribes the opportunity to apply 
for and receive program authorization similar to that available to 
States. Providing Indian Tribes with this opportunity is consistent 
with EPA's Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on 
Indian Reservations (Ref. 17).
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing to allow interested States, 
Territories, and Indian Tribes the opportunity to apply for, and 
receive authorization to, administer and enforce all of the elements of 
the new subpart E, as amended. States, Territories and Tribes may 
choose to administer and enforce just the existing requirements of 
subpart E, the pre-renovation education elements, or all of the 
requirements of the proposed subpart E, as amended. Under this 
proposal, EPA would not authorize a State, Territorial, or Tribal 
program that sought only the authority to administer and enforce the 
training, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements 
of this proposal, and not the pre-renovation education provisions of 
subpart E. Because this proposal allows and encourages renovation firms 
to use the existing pamphlet acknowledgment process to obtain 
information about occupant age and rental status, in order to determine 
whether the property would be covered by these regulations, and because 
the pre-renovation education provisions are an integral part of 
ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make informed 
decisions about renovation practices in their homes, EPA believes that 
authorizing States, Territories, and Tribes to administer all of the 
regulations applicable to renovations is the best approach. However, 
some States have already been authorized to administer and enforce the 
existing pre-renovation education provisions in 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart E. EPA believes that those States should be able to continue 
administering their pre-renovation education programs without being 
required to add the training, certification, accreditation, and work 
practice elements of this proposal. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
allow all States, Territories and Tribes to apply for authorization to 
administer and enforce only the pre-renovation education requirements 
of 40 CFR part 745, subpart E. Because there are no authorized 
jurisdictions in the opposite position, no existing State, Territorial, 
or Tribal program will have to choose

[[Page 1617]]

between adding more program responsibilities or relinquishing its 
authorization.
    For the purpose of authorizing State, Territorial, and Tribal 
programs, EPA is proposing to use the existing procedures codified in 
40 CFR part 745, subpart Q, with the amendments of this proposal 
setting forth the specific elements that would be required of a program 
seeking authorization to administer and enforce the training, 
certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements of this 
proposal. In accordance with the current process for authorization, 
States, Territories and Tribes may not choose only to administer, but 
not enforce, the provisions of subpart E, nor may they selectively 
choose to administer and enforce only the accreditation or 
certification provisions, but not the work practice standards, for 
renovations.
    States, Territories, and Tribes seeking authority to administer and 
enforce the provisions of this proposal must obtain public input, then 
submit an application to EPA. Existing 40 CFR 745.324 describes the 
process for applying for authorization. Applications must contain a 
number of items, including a description of the State, Territorial, or 
Tribal program, copies of all applicable statutes, regulations, and 
standards, and a certification by the State Attorney General, Tribal 
Counsel, or an equivalent official, that the applicable legislation and 
regulations provide adequate legal authority to administer and enforce 
the program. The program description must demonstrate that the State, 
Territorial, or Tribal program is at least as protective as the Federal 
program. In this case, the Federal program consists of the requirements 
for training, certification, and accreditation and the work practice 
standards in this proposal.
    To be eligible for authorization to administer and enforce the 
training, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements 
of this proposal, EPA is proposing to require that State, Territorial, 
and Tribal renovation programs contain certain minimum elements. These 
minimum elements would be very similar to the minimum elements 
currently codified in 40 CFR 745.326(a) for lead-based paint 
activities. In order to be authorized, State, Territorial, or Tribal 
programs would have to have procedures and requirements for the 
accreditation of training programs, which could be as simple as 
procedures for accepting training provided by an EPA-accredited 
provider, or a provider accredited by another authorized State, 
Territorial, or Tribal program. Procedures and requirements for the 
certification of renovators would also be necessary. At a minimum, 
these must include a requirement that certified renovators have taken 
accredited training, and procedures and requirements for re-
certification. State, Territorial, and Tribal programs applying for 
authorization would also be required to establish work practice 
standards for renovations that ensure that renovations are conducted 
only by certified renovation firms and the renovations are conducted 
using lead-safe work practices at least as protective as those of the 
Federal program. As is the current practice with lead-based paint 
activities, EPA will not require State, Territorial, or Tribal programs 
to certify both firms and individuals that perform renovations. States, 
Territories and Tribes may choose to certify either firms or 
individuals, so long as the individuals that perform the duties of 
renovators are required to take accredited training.
    EPA encourages States, Territories, and Tribes that may be 
considering establishing their own renovation programs to keep 
reciprocity in mind as they move forward. The benefits to be derived 
from reciprocity arrangements with the Federal program and other 
authorized jurisdictions include a potential cost-saving from reducing 
duplicative activity and the development of a professional renovation 
workforce more quickly, thus providing maximum flexibility to State, 
Territorial, or Tribal residents. In addition, the Agency encourages 
States, Territories and Tribes to consider the use of existing 
certification and accreditation procedures as they develop their 
programs. These existing programs need not be limited to lead-based 
paint. For example a State may choose to add lead-safe renovation 
requirements to their existing contractor licensing programs.

V. New Renovation-Specific Pamphlet

    The existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, require 
each person who performs for compensation a renovation of target 
housing to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and 
occupants of such housing prior to commencing the renovation. The term 
``pamphlet'' is defined at 40 CFR 745.83 to mean, in part, the EPA 
pamphlet developed under TSCA section 406(a) for use in complying with 
this and other regulations under TSCA Title IV and Title X. Until 
recently, the only pamphlet developed under TSCA section 406(a) was 
Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home (Ref. 20). EPA has now 
developed another pamphlet more specific to lead dust hazards created 
during renovation activities to be distributed to occupants before 
these activities commence. EPA intends to announce in a future Federal 
Register notice the availability of this new pamphlet, entitled Protect 
Your Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting (the ``RRP'' 
pamphlet) for notice and comment.
    The RRP pamphlet is very similar to the original PYF pamphlet in 
that both pamphlets contain information on lead human health effects, 
human exposure pathways, lead testing, and the location of additional 
information resources (Ref. 68). However, after careful analysis of 
available research data related to lead-based paint and renovation 
activities, EPA has decided to place more emphasis on potential hazards 
caused by disturbing lead-based paint during renovation activities. 
This new emphasis offers the public additional information regarding 
lead-safe work practices which can greatly reduce the creation and 
release of leaded dust. Because the RRP pamphlet was developed 
specifically to inform the public about the potential lead hazards that 
can be caused by renovation activities, EPA is proposing to require the 
RRP pamphlet to be handed out prior to renovation activities instead of 
the PYF pamphlet. This pamphlet contains information on lead-based 
paint hazards specific to renovation activities, as well as information 
on how to select a renovation firm.
    As an alternative to the RRP pamphlet, an authorized State or 
Tribal program could distribute an alternate pamphlet that had been 
reviewed and approved by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 745.326. The 
alternate pamphlet would have to contain renovation-specific 
information similar to that in the RRP pamphlet, would have to meet the 
content requirements prescribed by TSCA section 406(a), and would have 
to be in a format that was readable to the diverse audience of housing 
owners and occupants in that State or Tribe.
    EPA therefore proposes to amend the definition of ``pamphlet'' in 
40 CFR 745.83 to refer specifically to the RRP pamphlet. The effect of 
this amendment would be to require that renovators who are required 
under 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, to distribute an information 
pamphlet, distribute the RRP pamphlet rather than the PYF pamphlet.
    In addition, to maintain consistency among the Federal, State, and 
Tribal pre-renovation notification program requirements, EPA proposes 
to amend 40 CFR 745.326 to require authorized State or Tribal programs 
to use the RRP pamphlet or create and distribute an

[[Page 1618]]

alternate pamphlet. Alternate pamphlets would be required to contain 
renovation-specific information similar to that in Protect Your Family 
from Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting, meet the content 
requirements prescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA, and be in a format 
that is readable to the diverse audience of housing owners and 
occupants in that State or Tribe.

VI. Effective Dates

A. Requirements for Renovation Activities

    Interested States, Territories and Indian Tribes could begin 
applying for authorization of renovation programs from EPA as soon as 
the final rule is promulgated. Also, after the final rule is 
promulgated, providers of courses that cover lead-safe work practices 
for renovations could continue to offer these courses, but they would 
not be permitted to advertise these courses for EPA certification 
purposes until they receive accreditation from EPA.
    EPA would begin accepting training provider accreditation 
applications for renovator and dust sampling technician initial and 
refresher courses 1 year after promulgation of a final rule. The reason 
for the delay is to provide interested States, Territories and Indian 
Tribes 1 year to develop, or begin developing, renovation-specific work 
practice standards and accreditation, training, and certification 
programs. EPA believes the nation's experience in implementing the 
lead-based paint activities program regulations at 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart L should help everyone involved, including States, Territories, 
Tribes, the regulated community, and EPA, move more quickly towards 
implementing renovation programs. Thus, EPA is not proposing to make 
training programs for the federal program wait 2 years before they can 
receive accreditation, as EPA did for the subpart L regulations. On the 
other hand, EPA is concerned about the duplication of effort that could 
occur, and the additional costs that could be incurred by the regulated 
community, if EPA begins accrediting training providers and certifying 
firms in jurisdictions that are also working towards implementing their 
own programs. Training providers, firms, and individuals working in 
such jurisdictions could end up having to become accredited or 
certified by both EPA and the State, Territory or Tribe within a fairly 
short period of time. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of 
developing State, Territorial, or Tribal programs and getting them 
authorized within a year after EPA promulgates a final rule. EPA also 
requests comment on ways to avoid multiple accreditations and 
certifications in jurisdictions that are unable to receive 
authorization for their programs within the first year after EPA 
promulgates a final rule. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether 
any implementation delay is necessary, given that EPA accreditation and 
certification would be valid in any State or Indian Tribal area that 
does not have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745, 
subpart Q.
    Firm certification applications would be accepted by EPA starting 6 
months after EPA begins accepting training provider accreditation 
applications, or 18 months after the promulgation date of the final 
rule. The work practice standards would become effective 2 years after 
the promulgation date of the final rule, at which time all covered 
renovations would have to be performed in accordance with those 
standards by certified renovators and trained workers.
    As discussed in Unit IV.B., EPA is proposing to initially apply the 
training, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements 
of this proposal to pre-1960 rental target housing, pre-1960 owner-
occupied target housing where a child under age 6 resides, and any 
target housing where a child under age 6 with a blood lead level that 
equals or exceeds 10 [mu]g/dL, or any lower State or local government 
level of concern, resides. Those requirements would apply 1 year later 
to rental target housing built between 1960 and 1978, and owner-
occupied target housing built between 1960 and 1978 where a child under 
age 6 resides. Allowing for the time given to interested States, 
Territories and Tribes to develop programs, the first phase of this 
regulation would be fully effective 2 years after the date of 
promulgation of a final rule. The second phase of this regulation would 
take effect 3 years after a final rule is promulgated.

B. Renovation-specific Pamphlet

    EPA is also proposing to phase in the requirement to use the new 
RRP pamphlet discussed in Unit V. For the purpose of complying with the 
Federal Pre-Renovation Education Rule, in the first 6 months after this 
regulation is promulgated, persons performing renovations could 
distribute either the PYF or the new RRP pamphlet. After 6 months, only 
the RRP pamphlet could be used to comply with the Pre-Renovation 
Education Rule in jurisdictions where the Federal program is in effect.
    However, EPA recognizes that approved State, Territorial, and 
Tribal Pre-Renovation Education programs, or jurisdictions developing 
programs, may need time to amend their programs and either adopt the 
RRP pamphlet or develop and obtain approval for an alternate pamphlet. 
EPA has worked with the existing State programs to develop an 
acceptable time frame for meeting the new requirements. In doing so, 
EPA identified three potential non-Federal program categories: (1) 
Programs authorized prior to the effective date of the final rule, (2) 
potential new programs with an application submitted but not approved 
prior to the effective date of the final rule, and (3) potential new 
programs that might apply after the effective date of the final rule. 
The time frame for compliance for each category is set forth in 
proposed 40 CFR 745.326(b)(3).
    In sum, such programs authorized prior to the effective date of the 
final rule would demonstrate compliance in the first Sec.  745.324(h) 
report submitted at least 2 years after the effective date of the final 
rule. Potential new programs with an application submitted but not 
approved prior to the effective date of the final rule would 
demonstrate compliance in the first Sec.  745.324(h) report submitted 
at least 2 years after the effective date of the final rule or by 
amending their application to comply with this amendment. Potential new 
programs that might apply after the effective date of the final rule 
would be required to demonstrate compliance with the amendment at the 
time of their application to EPA for program approval.

VII. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this proposed rule and placed in the public docket that 
was established under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. For 
information on accessing the docket, refer to the ADDRESSES unit at the 
beginning of this document.
    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Sample 
acknowledgment form. (2005).
    2. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title 
X) (Public Law 102-550).
    3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public 
Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A Statement by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (August 2005).
    4. HHS, PHS, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Lead (July 1999).

[[Page 1619]]

    5. USEPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD). Air Quality 
Criteria for Lead, First External Review Draft (EPA/600/R-05/144aA, 
December 2005)
    6. USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System; Lead and compounds 
(inorganic) (CASRN 7439-92-1) (July 8, 2004).
    7. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Federal Register (42 FR 
44199, September 1, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 8515, March 2, 1978).
    8. U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA). Final Standard for Occupational Exposure to 
Lead. Federal Register (43 FR 52952, November 14, 1978).
    9. USDOL, OSHA. Lead Exposure in Construction; Interim Final 
Rule.Federal Register (58 FR 26590, May 4, 1993).
    10. USEPA. Control of Lead Additives in Gasoline; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (38 FR 33734, December 6, 1973).
    11. USEPA. Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. Federal 
Register (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991).
    12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public 
Health Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A Statement by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (October 1991).
    13. Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning. Preventing Childhood 
Lead Poisoning: The First Comprehensive National Conference; Final 
Report. (October 6, 7, 8, 1991).
    14. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal 
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards (February 2000).
    15. HHS, PHS, CDC. Preventing Lead Exposure in Young Children: A 
Housing Based Approach to Primary Prevention of Lead Poisoning: 
Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning 
Prevention (October 2004).
    16. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in 
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities: Final Rule. Federal 
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996).
    17. USEPA. EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental 
Programs on Indian Reservations (November 8, 1984).
    18. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and 
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (64 FR 31092, June 9, 1999).
    19. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-Based Paint 
Abatement Activities and Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 
18489, April 8, 2004).
    20. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead in 
Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June 2003).
    21. USEPA. Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; Notice of 
Availability. Federal Register (60 FR 39167, August 1, 1995).
    22. HUD, USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-
Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996).
    23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before 
Renovation of Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 
29908, June 1, 1998).
    24. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001).
    25. USEPA. Targeted Grants to Reduce Childhood Lead Poisoning; 
Notice of Funds Availability. Federal Register (69 FR 69913, December 
1, 2004).
    26. HUD. Requirements for Notification, Evaluation, and Reduction 
of Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing Receiving Federal Assistance and 
Federally Owned Residential Property Being Sold (Lead Safe Housing 
Rule); Final Rule, Conforming Amendments and Corrections. Federal 
Register (69 FR 34262, June 21, 2004).
    27. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995).
    28. HHS, PHS, CDC. Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young 
Children (March 2002).
    29. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-
K-97-001, September 1997).
    30. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-
007, May 1997).
    31. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA 
747-R-96-006, May 1997).
    32. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-
99-002, March 1999).
    33. USEPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 
the Lead-based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and 
Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000).
    34. McMillan Associates. Response to SBREFA Panel Recommendations 
for Further Analysis of Existing Phase III Data (August 6, 2001).
    35. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels 
Attributed to Home Renovation and Remolding Activities--New York, 1993-
1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January 
3, 1997).
    36. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. 
Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ``Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk 
Factor for Exposure to Lead Among Children Residing in New York City?'' 
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 
Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005).
    37. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of 
R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes (EPA 
747-R-99-001, March 1999).
    38. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated with Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities; Final Summary Report (EPA 747-S-00-001, January 2000).
    39. USEPA. TSCA Section 402(c) Lead Exposure Reduction Stakeholder 
Meeting for the Proposed Renovation and Remodeling Rule (December 7, 
1998).
    40. USEPA. Round Table Discussion of TSCA Section 402(c) Lead 
Exposure Reduction Proposed Renovation and Remodeling Rule (March 8, 
1999).
    41. USEPA. Lead Programs Meeting, Meeting Summary (September 25-26, 
2000).
    42. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with State, Local, and Tribal 
Government Representatives (May 1, 2003).
    43. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with State, Local, and Tribal 
Government Representatives (May 15, 2003).
    44. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with Industry Stakeholders (May 9, 
2003).
    45. USEPA. Summary of Discussion with Industry Stakeholders (May 
29, 2003).
    46. HUD. National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, Volume 
I: Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31, 
2002).

[[Page 1620]]

    47. NIST. Spot Test Kits for Detecting Lead in Household Paint, a 
Laboratory Evaluation (NISTIR 6398, May 2000).
    48. USEPA. Estimates of Concentration of Lead in Paint by Age of 
Housing (October 2005).
    49. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before 
Renovation of Target Housing; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 
11108, March 9, 1994).
    50. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Evaluating the 
Performance Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for 
Lead in Paint (E 1828-01).
    51. USEPA. Draft Recordkeeping Checklist for Firms (December 2005).
    52. USEPA, HUD. Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, and Painting 
(EPA 747-B-03-001/2, July 2003).
    53. HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. The HUD Lead-
Based Paint Abatement Demonstration (FHA) (August 1991).
    54. USEPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Lead 
Dust Minimization Work Practices for Renovation, Remodeling and 
Repainting; Draft Technical Manual (September 29, 1998).
    55. USEPA. Minimizing Lead-Based Paint Hazards During Renovation, 
Remodeling, and Painting (September 2000).
    56. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth 
A. Cotsworth, Director, ``Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by 
Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based Paint Activities Conducted in 
Households'' (July 31, 2000).
    57. USEPA, OSW. Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal 
Facilities and Practices and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills: Disposal of Residential Lead-based Paint Waste; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (68 FR 36487, June 18, 2003).
    58. Choe, K., Trunov, M., Grinshpun, S.A., Willeke, K., Harney, J., 
Trakumas, S., Mainelis, G., Bornschein, R., Clark, S. and Friedman, W. 
Particle settling after Lead-Based Paint Abatement Work and Clearance 
Waiting Period, American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 
61(6):798-807 (2001).
    59. USEPA, OPPT. Draft Economic Analysis for the Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule (December 2005).
    60. National Center for Healthy Housing. An Evaluation of the 
Efficacy of the Lead Hazard Reduction Treatments Prescribed in Maryland 
Environmental Article 6-8 (April 30, 2002).
    61. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in 
Residential Housing (September 2005).
    62. USEPA. Draft Cleaning Verification Card (2005)
    63. USEPA, OPPT. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the 
Field Study; Appendix A - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Using 
the Dry Electrostatic Cloth and Mop to Collect Lead Dust (July 12, 
2004).
    64. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; 
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 30302, June 3, 1998).
    65. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Repair and Maintenance 
Study in Baltimore: Pre-Intervention Findings. (EPA 747-R-95-012, 
August 1996).
    66. USEPA. Comprehensive Abatement Performance Pilot Study, Volume 
1: Results of Lead Data Analyses (EPA 747-R-93-007, February 1995).
    67. U.S. Census Bureau. Current Housing Reports, Series H150/97, 
American Housing Survey for the United States (1997).
    68. USEPA. Protect Your Family from Lead During Renovation, Repair, 
& Painting (2005).
    69. USEPA. Proposed ICR amendment for rulemaking entitled ``Lead; 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule'' (December 
2005).
    70. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, 
Dust, and Soil (EPA 747-R-97-006, June 1998).
    71. USEPA. Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, 
Dust, and Soil: Supplemental Report (EPA 747-R-00-004, December 2000).
    72. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Clearance 
Examinations Following Lead Hazard Reduction Activities in Single-
Family Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities (E 2271-05).
    73. ASTM International. Standard Guide for Evaluation, Management, 
and Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E 2052-99).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this 
proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f)(1) of the Executive Order because EPA estimates that it will have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, 
this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made based on 
OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for this 
rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.
    As required by the Executive Order, EPA also submitted a draft 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
proposed rulemaking. This analysis is contained in a document entitled 
Draft Economic Analysis for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 
Program Proposed Rule (Draft Economic Analysis) (Ref. 59). The Agency 
is conducting additional analyses with other assumptions for baseline 
activities than those that were used in the Agency's Draft Economic 
Analysis to estimate the potential costs and benefits of the proposed 
rule. Information about these new analyses is available in the docket, 
and, once completed, the revised Economic Analysis will also be 
available in the docket. The additional analyses are expected to change 
the estimated potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule. A copy 
of this Economic Analysis is available in the docket for this action, 
and is briefly summarized here.
    1. Options evaluated. EPA evaluated a number of options in the 
development of the proposed rule. All options address target housing, 
which is defined in section 401 of TSCA as housing constructed before 
1978, except housing for the elderly and persons with disabilities, 
unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 
housing, or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Option A applies to renovation, 
repair, and painting projects performed for compensation in all rental 
target housing and owner-occupied target housing built before 1978 
where a child under age 6 resides. Option B has 2 phases. The first 
phase applies to rental target housing built before 1960, and owner-
occupied target housing units built before 1960 where a child under age 
6 resides, plus all housing units built before 1978 where a child with 
a blood lead level that equals or exceeds applicable levels of concern 
resides. The second phase, which takes effect a year after the first 
phase, applies to all the housing units covered by Option A. Option C 
also has 2 phases. The first phase applies to all rental housing built 
before 1950, and owner-occupied housing units built before 1950 where a 
child under age 6 resides, plus all housing units built before 1978 
where a child with a blood lead level that equals or exceeds applicable 
levels of concern

[[Page 1621]]

resides. The second phase, which takes effect a year after the first 
phase, applies to all the housing units covered by Option A. Option D 
covers the same housing units at the same times as Option B, but 
differs from Options A, B, and C in that they allow a certified 
renovator flexibility in selecting appropriate work practices for each 
individual job, while Option D does not provide such flexibility. The 
proposed rule is Option B.
    2. Number of events and individuals. As shown in the Draft Economic 
Analysis, the number of renovation, repair, and painting events covered 
by the rule varies across regulatory options in Phase 1 as a result of 
the different time periods addressed by the options. The number of 
events covered in Phase 2 is the same for all options because the 
housing units regulated are the same, i.e., pre-1978 units. Because not 
all housing units built before 1978 have lead-based paint, not all 
events need to use lead-safe work practices. The number of events with 
lead-safe work practices in Phase 2 is smaller than in Phase 1 for all 
but Option C, despite the increase in housing units covered by Phase 2 
under Options B, C, and D. The number of events requiring lead-safe 
work practices is smaller because the accuracy of lead paint test kits 
(in terms of detecting the presence or absence of regulated lead-based 
paint) is expected to have improved by Phase 2. Under the proposed 
rule, in Phase 1 there would be 4.8 million events in housing where 
lead-safe work practices are used due to the rule. Slightly more than 
4.9 million individuals reside in these housing units, including 
729,000 children under age 6. In Phase 2, the proposed rule would cover 
4.4 million such events in units housing nearly 5.8 million 
individuals, including 855,000 children under age 6.
    3. Benefits. The Draft Economic Analysis describes the estimated 
benefits of the proposed rulemaking in qualitative and quantitative 
terms. Benefits result from the prevention of adverse health effects 
attributable to lead exposure. These health effects include several 
illnesses as well as impaired cognitive function in adults and 
children.
    There are not sufficient data at this time to quantify some of the 
potential benefits of reducing exposure to lead. EPA's Draft Economic 
Analysis estimates the benefits of avoiding selected health effects in 
children and adults.
    The Agency considered the potential benefits to both children and 
adults because studies indicate that they are both adversely affected 
by exposures to lead in dust from renovation and remodeling activities. 
As stated in Unit III.B., one of the purposes of Title X is the 
elimination of lead-based paint hazards in target housing. EPA 
considered the potential benefits to children separately from adults, 
because a focus of Title X is the reduction in the threat of childhood 
lead poisoning. The Agency specifically seeks comment on its 
consideration of potential benefits to both adults and children, as 
well as comments and information about the potential uncertainties 
associated with the adult health effects considered and the magnitude 
of those uncertainties.
    4. Costs. The Draft Economic Analysis estimates the potential costs 
of complying with this proposed rule including training costs, 
certification costs, and work practice costs. As indicated previously, 
the Agency is conducting additional analysis that could change the 
estimated potential costs of the proposed rule. This new analysis will 
be added to the docket as soon as it is complete. In the Draft Economic 
Analysis, training costs will be incurred for renovators, who will 
perform or direct the performance of key tasks during renovations, and 
workers, who may perform renovation tasks under the direction of 
renovators. Persons who are not currently certified as lead-based paint 
abatement supervisors or workers and who wish to become certified 
renovators would be required to take an accredited 8-hour renovator 
course. Currently certified abatement supervisors and workers would 
merely need to familiarize themselves with this proposal's work 
practice and cleaning verification requirements. Training for 
renovation workers under this proposal would consist of informal, on-
the-job training by a renovator. Renovators not otherwise certified 
would be required to take a 4-hour refresher course every 3 years to 
maintain their certification. Firms performing renovations will have to 
be certified by EPA or an EPA-authorized State, Tribal, or Territorial 
program. Certified firms would have to be re-certified every 3 years.
    The work practice requirements of this proposal cover 3 general 
categories of activities: Containing the work area, cleaning up the 
work area after the project has been completed, and verifying that the 
clean-up was adequate. Costs associated with these work practice 
requirements are primarily related to the cost of materials, such as 
the plastic used to cover the floors, and the cost of the labor needed 
to establish containment before the project, clean the work area 
afterwards, and perform the post-renovation cleaning verification step.
    To further improve the analysis for the final rule, the Agency is 
also specifically interested in comments and supporting information on 
the following questions related to assumptions used in the Agency's 
analysis:
    <bullet> To what extent do renovators/contractors already conduct 
any of the individual activities described in the proposed rule, and 
under what renovation, repair or painting circumstances are any of 
these activities routinely or rarely conducted? Do any contractors 
already perform all of the lead safe work practices described in this 
proposal?
    <bullet> To what extent is the whole house or rooms adjacent to the 
work area contaminated by typical renovation, repair or painting 
activities? Under what circumstances do renovators/contractors clean 
the whole house or adjacent rooms during or after renovation, repair or 
painting activities?
    <bullet> Under what circumstances do homeowners or rental 
management firms clean the work area or adjacent rooms during or after 
renovation, repair or painting activities?
    <bullet> To what extent do renovators/contractors or homeowners 
already use vacuums equipped with HEPA filters to clean-up debris 
created during renovation, repair or painting activities?
    <bullet> Under what circumstances do renovators/contractors use 
plastic sheets or other methods to isolate and collect dust and debris, 
during or after renovation, repair or painting activities?
    <bullet> If dust or debris is generated in preparing the surfaces, 
to what extent do renovators/contractors or building owners clean-up 
the dust or debris before painting?
    <bullet> To what extent should the analysis reflect any exposures 
to owners or occupants (both inhalation and ingestion) during the 
renovation, repair or painting event? (The Draft Economic Analysis only 
looks at ingestion exposures after the renovation, repair or painting 
event is completed and the contractor has left).
    <bullet> How many days does a typical renovation, repair or 
painting event last? How many days during the renovation, repair or 
painting event is dust created? How often and how thoroughly is 
cleaning performed during or after the renovation, repair or painting 
event?
    <bullet> To what extent should the analysis of adult exposures 
consider average dust loading on surfaces as compared to the typically 
higher dust loadings resulting from renovation, repair or painting 
events?

[[Page 1622]]

    <bullet> How do cleaning efficiencies of different cleaning methods 
(sweeping, regular vacuum, HEPA vacuum) vary with the dust loading 
level? There is information suggesting that cleaning is more effective 
(as a percentage of dust removed) at higher dust loading levels. Thus, 
when there are multiple rounds of cleaning, each one picks up a lower 
percentage of dust than the one before it. Would the cleaning 
efficiency be the same for dust with different lead concentrations? The 
Draft Economic Analysis assumes that cleaning effectiveness is 
constant, and does not vary with dust loading levels.
    <bullet> How do lead dust loading levels vary by the age of the 
home and by home component type (e.g., indoor trim versus outdoor 
trim)?

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this proposed 
rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA, 
an amendment to an existing ICR that is approved under OMB control 
number 2070-0155 and referred to as the ICR Addendum (EPA ICR No. 
1715.07) has been placed in the public docket for this proposed rule 
(Ref. 69).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations codified in Chapter 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the 
preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate 
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if 
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA 
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    The new information collection activities contained in this 
proposed rule are designed to assist the Agency in meeting the core 
objectives of TSCA section 402, including ensuring the integrity of 
accreditation programs for training providers; providing for the 
certification of contractors; and determining whether work practice 
standards are being followed. EPA has carefully tailored the proposed 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements so they will permit the Agency 
to achieve statutory objectives without imposing an undue burden on 
those entities that choose to be involved in residential renovations.
    Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose 
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the 
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Under this proposal, the new information collection requirements 
may affect training providers and firms that perform renovation, 
repair, or painting for compensation in regulated housing. Although 
these entities have the option of choosing to engage in the covered 
activities, once an entity chooses to do so, the information collection 
activities contained in this rule become mandatory for those entities.
    The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated 
burden and costs for 3 years of the program. The aggregate burden 
varies by year due to changes in the number of firms that will seek 
certification each year. The burden and cost to training providers and 
renovation firms is summarized here.
    There are 100 to 167 training providers that are estimated to incur 
burden to become accredited, and to notify EPA (or an authorized State, 
Tribe, or Territory) before and after training courses. The average 
burden related to accreditation is estimated to be 15 hours during the 
year a training provider is first accredited, 7 hours in years that it 
is re-accredited (re-accreditation is required every 3 years), and 1 
hour during other years. For notifications, the average burden per 
training provider is estimated at 35 to 95 hours per year, depending on 
the number of training courses provided. Total training provider burden 
is estimated to be 6,300 to 12,900 hours per year.
    The estimated number of firms certified to engage in residential 
renovation, repair, or painting activities under the rule varies from 
115,000 to 218,000, depending on the phase of the rule. The number of 
firms that receive initial certification ranges from 72,000 per year to 
141,000 per year, depending on the year. The average certification 
burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is 
initially certified, and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified 
(which occurs every 3 years). Firms must also keep records of the work 
they perform in regulated housing; this recordkeeping is estimated to 
take an average of 5 hours per year. Total burden for renovation, 
repair, and painting firms is estimated to be 981,000 to 1,530,000 
hours per year, depending on the year.
    Total respondent burden during the period covered by the ICR is 
estimated to average 1,260,000 hours per year.
    There are also government costs to administer the program. States, 
Tribes, and Territories are allowed, but are under no obligation, to 
apply for and receive authorization to administer these proposed 
requirements. EPA will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, 
and Territories that do not become authorized. Because the number of 
States, Tribes, and Territories that will become authorized is not 
known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA will 
administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government 
entities become authorized, EPA's administrative costs will be lower.
    Direct your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated 
collection techniques, to EPA using the public docket that has been 
established for this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0049). In addition, send a copy of your comments about the ICR to OMB 
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 
Office for EPA ICR No. 1715.07. Since OMB is required to complete its 
review of the ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 10, 2006, please 
submit your ICR comments for OMB consideration to OMB by February 9, 
2006.
    The Agency will consider and address comments received on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal when it 
develops the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., and the Agency's long-standing policy of always 
considering whether there may be a potential for adverse impacts on 
small entities, the Agency has evaluated the potential small entity 
impacts of this proposed rule. The Agency's analysis of potentially 
adverse

[[Page 1623]]

economic impacts is included in the Draft Economic Analysis for this 
proposed rule (Ref. 59). As discussed in Unit VIII.A., the revised 
Economic Analysis, to be available in the docket, will provide 
additional information about the expected costs and benefits, and 
supplement the information now provided in the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis and considered for the final regulatory 
flexibility analysis. The following is a brief overview of EPA's 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
    Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts 
of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined in 
accordance with the RFA as: (1) A small business as defined by the 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    1. Legal basis and objectives for the proposed rule. As discussed 
in Unit III.C., TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study the extent 
to which persons engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities 
are exposed to lead or create a lead-based paint hazard regularly or 
occasionally. After concluding this study, TSCA section 402(c)(3) 
further directs EPA to revise its lead-based paint activities 
regulations under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to renovation or 
remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Because 
EPA's study found that activities commonly performed during renovation 
and remodeling create lead-based paint hazards, EPA is proposing to 
revise the TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to 
individuals and firms engaged in renovation and remodeling activities. 
The primary objective of this proposal is to prevent the creation of 
new lead-based paint hazards from renovation, repair, and painting 
activities in housing where children under age 6 reside.
    2. Potentially affected small entities. The small entities that are 
potentially directly regulated by this proposed rule include small 
businesses, such as renovation, repair, and painting contractors, 
property owners and managers, small non-profits that own target 
housing, and small governments that may own certain target housing. The 
vast majority of businesses in the industries affected by this rule are 
small. Approximately 200,000 small contractors and real estate 
establishments per year will be affected per year under the proposed 
rule. Information was not available to estimate the number of small 
governments and small non-profits, but there are expected to be few, if 
any, small governments that incur costs due to the rule.
    3. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA used annual 
compliance costs as a percentage of annual company revenues to assess 
the potential impacts of the rule on small businesses. EPA believes 
this is a good measure of a firm's ability to afford the costs 
attributable to a regulatory requirement, because comparing compliance 
costs to revenues provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of 
the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available measure of a 
company's business volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small 
fraction of a typical firm's revenues (for example, less than 1%, and 
not greater than 3%), EPA believes that the financial impacts of the 
regulation on such firms may be considered as not significant. EPA 
believes it is appropriate to calculate this measure based on 
annualized costs, because these costs are more representative of the 
continuing costs firms face to comply with the proposed rule.
    Using studies from the economics literature, the Draft Economic 
Analysis (Ref. 59) for this proposed rule estimates that nearly 90% of 
the estimated cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher 
prices. The resulting cost impact ranges from about 0.5% to 1.6% of 
revenues, depending on the industry. The costs represent less than 1% 
of revenues for small firms when considered together. Because of the 
lack of information on small non-profits and governments that might be 
affected by the rule, it was not possible to calculate the typical cost 
per entity or the impact ratios for them. However, the cost per event 
for non-profits and governments is expected to be similar to that 
incurred by businesses.
    4. Relevant Federal rules. The proposed requirements in this 
rulemaking will fit within an existing framework of other Federal 
regulations that address lead-based paint.
    The Pre-Renovation Education Rule, discussed in Unit III.B.2.b., 
requires renovators to distribute a lead hazard information pamphlet to 
owners and occupants before conducting a renovation in target housing. 
This proposal has been carefully crafted to harmonize with the existing 
pre-renovation education requirements.
    As discussed in Unit IV.D.2.c., disposal of waste from renovation 
projects that would be regulated by this proposal is covered by the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations for solid 
waste. This proposal does not contain specific requirements for the 
disposal of waste from renovations.
    As described in Unit III.B.3., HUD has extensive regulations that 
address the conduct of interim controls, as well as other lead-based 
paint activities, in Federally assisted housing. Some of HUD's interim 
controls would be regulated under this proposal as renovations, 
depending upon whether the particular interim control measure disturbs 
more than the threshold amount of paint. In most cases, the HUD 
regulations are comparable to, or more stringent than this proposal. In 
general, persons performing HUD-regulated interim controls must have 
taken a course in lead-safe work practices, which is also a requirement 
of this proposal. However, this proposal would not require dust 
clearance testing, a process required by HUD after interim control 
activities that disturb more than a minimal amount of lead-based paint.
    Finally, OSHA's Lead Exposure in Construction standard covers 
potential worker exposures to lead during many construction activities, 
including renovation, repair, and painting activities. Although this 
standard, described in Unit III.B.3., may cover many of the same 
projects as this proposal, the requirements themselves do not overlap. 
The OSHA rule addresses the protection of the worker, this EPA proposal 
addresses the protection of the building occupants, particularly 
children under age 6.
    5. Skills needed for compliance. This proposal would establish 
requirements for training renovators and dust sampling technicians; 
certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; 
accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician 
training; and for renovation work practices. Renovators and dust 
sampling technicians would have to take a course to learn the proper 
techniques for accomplishing the tasks they will perform during 
renovations. These courses are intended to provide them with the 
information they would need to comply with the rule based on the skills 
they already have. Firms would be required to apply for certification 
to perform renovations; this process does not require any special 
skills other than the ability to complete the application. They would 
also need

[[Page 1624]]

to document the work they have performed during renovations. This does 
not require any special skills. Training providers must be 
knowledgeable about delivering technical training. Training providers 
would be required to apply for accreditation to offer renovator and 
dust sampling technician courses. They would also be required to 
provide prior notification of such courses and provide information on 
the students trained after each such course. Completing the 
accreditation application and providing the required notification 
information does not require any special skills.
    6. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. EPA conducted outreach to 
small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to 
obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small 
entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. 
The Panel was convened by EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson on 
November 23, 1999. In addition to the chairperson, the Panel consisted 
of the Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
within the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    After considering the existing lead-based paint activities 
regulations, and taking into account preliminary stakeholder feedback, 
EPA identified eight key elements of a potential renovation and 
remodeling regulation for the Panel's consideration. These elements 
were:
    <bullet> Applicability and scope.
    <bullet> Firm certification.
    <bullet> Individual training and certification.
    <bullet> Accreditation of training courses.
    <bullet> Work practice standards.
    <bullet> Prohibited practices.
    <bullet> Exterior clearance.
    <bullet> Interior clearance.
    EPA also developed several options for each of these key elements. 
At the onset of pre-panel discussions with SBA and OMB, EPA held three 
conference calls with potentially impacted Small Entity Representatives 
(SERs) to obtain feedback on these options and other alternatives for a 
renovation and remodeling regulation. The Panel held an outreach 
meeting with Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on December 3, 1999. 
Eleven SERs, representing a broad range of small entities from diverse 
geographic locations, and four association representatives participated 
in the meeting. The Panel solicited comments from the SERs on the 
options presented by EPA, as well as EPA's cost estimates for these 
options. Several SERs submitted written comments to EPA following this 
meeting. The Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity 
comments, and prepared a report for the Agency's consideration. A copy 
of the Panel report is included in the docket for this proposed rule 
(Ref. 33).
    As a result of its deliberations, the Panel made a number of 
recommendations. The options presented by EPA, the Panel's 
recommendations, and EPA's responses to the recommendations, are 
summarized here.
    a. Applicability and scope. EPA presented four options: All pre-
1978 housing, all pre-1978 rental housing, all pre-1960 housing, and 
all pre-1960 rental housing. The Panel recommended that EPA request 
public comment in the proposal on the option of limiting the housing 
stock affected by the rule to that constructed prior to 1960, as well 
as the option of covering all pre-1978 housing and other options that 
may help to reduce costs while achieving the protection of public 
health. In the discussion of the scope and applicability in Unit IV.B., 
EPA identified the pre-1960 option, as well as the option of covering 
all pre-1978 housing, and asked for public comment on these and other 
options that would limit the costs of the rule to the regulated 
community while providing protection to children from lead-based paint 
hazards created by renovation projects.
    EPA also presented 2 potential exemptions, a de minimis exemption 
for projects that disturb 2 square feet or less of painted surfaces, 
and an exemption for emergency projects. The Panel recommended that EPA 
include both of these exemptions in its proposal. EPA is proposing to 
extend the existing exemption for small projects available under the 
Pre-Renovation Education Rule to the training, certification, and work 
practice requirements of this proposal. However, rather than just 
exempting emergency renovations from the requirements of this proposal, 
EPA is adding a statement to the description of the exemption to 
indicate that the training, certification, and work practice standards 
apply to the extent practicable. As discussed in Unit IV.B., emergency 
renovations can generally be conducted in accordance with most of these 
proposed requirements, but some flexibility is necessary.
    b. Firm certification. EPA presented three options: Certification 
for all renovation firms, certification only for firms that perform 
large-scale surface preparation activities or demolitions, and no firm 
certification. The Panel believed that firm certification would help 
consumers identify qualified renovation firms, so the Panel recommended 
that firm certification be included in any proposal. The Panel also 
recommended that EPA attempt to balance the goals and objectives of the 
statute, with the burden associated with such regulatory requirements, 
in order to avoid placing compliant firms at an undue competitive 
disadvantage. EPA is proposing to require that firms who perform 
renovations, as that term would be defined, be certified. EPA believes 
that the proposed firm certification process is as minimally burdensome 
for firms as possible, while achieving the objectives of the mandate.
    c. Individual training and certification. EPA presented four 
options to the Panel. The first option was to require training and 
certification for all individuals who perform covered renovations. The 
second option was to require training and certification only for the 
supervisor. The third option was to require training for all 
individuals who perform covered renovations, but no certification. The 
final option was to require neither training nor certification for 
individuals. The Panel realized that worker training increases the 
likelihood that proper lead-safe work practices will be used, but 
recognized that the rate of worker turnover in the industry would lead 
to high training and certification costs for firms. As a less-
burdensome alternative, the Panel recommended that EPA propose formal 
training for supervisors, or some other clearly-defined responsible 
person, and informal training for all others. This recommendation has 
been adopted by EPA in the proposed rule.
    d. Accreditation of training courses. EPA presented two options on 
this topic to the Panel: Accreditation required, or accreditation not 
required. Although concerned about burdens for training providers, the 
Panel understood that accreditation provides a mechanism for ensuring 
quality control of training programs, establishing a minimum level of 
essential training, and facilitating reciprocity between States. The 
Panel recommended that EPA propose to require accreditation of 
training, which is what EPA is doing in this proposal.
    e. Work practice standards. EPA presented three 3 general options 
to the Panel for work practice standards: prescriptive containment and 
clean-up requirements, performance-based containment and clean-up 
requirements, or no work practice requirements. The Panel recognized 
that prescriptive approaches to work practice standards

[[Page 1625]]

may clearly identify ways to minimize lead-based paint hazards, but 
felt that prescriptive practices may not be practical or effective in 
all situations. Because a performance-based approach could provide 
firms with the flexibility to manage risks in the most cost-effective 
manner, the Panel recommended that EPA include performance-based 
standards in the proposal. In response to this recommendation, EPA is 
proposing an approach that includes required elements, such as warning 
signs, containment barriers, and specialized cleaning, but allows 
flexibility for the certified renovator to tailor these requirements to 
the specific job at hand.
    f. Prohibited practices. The current abatement regulations in 40 
CFR part 745, subpart L prohibit the following work practices during 
abatement projects: Open-flame burning or torching, machine sanding or 
grinding, abrasive blasting or sandblasting, dry scraping of large 
areas, and operating a heat gun in excess of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 
EPA presented four options to the Panel on this topic: Prohibit these 
practices during renovations, allow dry scraping and exterior flame-
burning or torching, allow dry scraping, and interior and exterior 
flame-burning or torching, or allow all of these practices. The Panel 
recognized industry concerns over the feasibility of prohibiting these 
practices, especially when no cost-effective alternatives exist. The 
Panel was also concerned about the potential risks associated with 
these practices, but noted that reasonable training, performance, 
containment, and clean-up requirements may adequately address these 
risks. In Unit IV.D., EPA has followed the Panel's recommendation and 
requested public comment on the cost, benefit, and feasibility of 
prohibiting certain work practices, but EPA is not proposing to 
prohibit any work practices. EPA has determined that the training, 
containment, and clean-up requirements of this proposal are sufficient 
to address any risks associated with the work practices prohibited by 
the abatement regulations.
    g. Exterior clearance. EPA presented three options to the Panel for 
determining when an exterior renovation project area had been properly 
cleaned-up and the area made ready for re-occupancy. This determination 
is typically called ``clearance.'' EPA's three options were visual 
inspection only, soil sampling, or no clearance process at all. 
Consistent with other Federal lead-based paint regulations, including 
the abatement regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, the Panel 
recommended that EPA propose to require a visual inspection for 
clearance after exterior renovations. This is the option EPA has 
proposed in this rulemaking.
    h. Interior clearance. Interior clearance was a particularly 
difficult issue for the Panel. Interior clearance after lead-based 
paint abatement projects involves an independent third-party collecting 
dust wipe samples, sending them to an EPA-recognized laboratory for 
analysis, and comparing the results to the standards established in 40 
CFR 745.227(e)(8). This is expensive and time-consuming. EPA presented 
4 options to the Panel for interior clearance: dust testing after all 
projects, dust testing only after large-scale surface preparation, 
demolition, or any of the practices prohibited by the abatement 
regulations, visual clearance only, and no clearance at all. After 
reviewing the studies available at the time, the Panel could not 
conclude that a thorough professional clean-up or a visual inspection 
would be an adequate substitute for dust wipe testing. The SBA 
introduced a new option to the Panel, consisting of a specific cleanup 
methodology followed by a visual clearance requirement, as an 
alternative to dust clearance testing. The Panel recommended that EPA 
include this new option in the proposal and take comment on the merits 
of all the interior clearance options in the proposal. The Panel also 
recommended that EPA take comment on options for clearance that are 
less costly and less burdensome and yet still demonstrate the absence 
of lead hazards. As discussed in Unit IV.E., EPA followed the Panel 
report with research into alternatives to laboratory dust clearance and 
is proposing an option based on this research. EPA is also requesting 
comment on other methods of ensuring that leaded dust and debris 
created during renovations have been cleaned up properly.
    The Panel also recommended that the EPA do additional analysis of 
the existing data from Phase III of the renovation and remodeling study 
conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2), discussed in Unit III.C.1.c. 
This phase of the study consisted of telephone interviews about 
renovation and remodeling activities with the parents or guardians of 
Wisconsin children for whom blood-lead data was available. The results 
of this additional analysis, which focused on the relationship between 
who performs renovation and remodeling activities and the odds of an 
elevated blood-lead level occurring in a resident child, are discussed 
in Unit III.C.1.c. and have been placed in the docket (Ref. 34).
    Finally, the Panel recommended that EPA continue to refine the 
impact analysis of the proposal, utilizing comments from affected 
industry and other parties related to costs and other issues. As 
always, EPA continues to refine its impact analysis, and is again 
requesting comment on EPA's updated assessment of the costs and 
benefits of this proposed rule.
    EPA invites comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts 
on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (Public 
Law 104-4), EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such 
expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate. 
Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement under section 202 of 
the UMRA which has been placed in the public docket for this proposed 
rule and is summarized here.
    1. Authorizing legislation. This proposal is issued under the 
authority of TSCA sections 402(c)(3) and 404.
    2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs 
and benefits associated with this proposed action (Ref. 59), a copy of 
which is available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The Draft 
Economic Analysis presents the costs of the proposal as well as various 
regulatory options and is summarized in Unit VIII.A.
    3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input 
from State, local and Tribal government representatives throughout the 
development of this proposal. EPA's experience in administering the 
existing lead-based paint activities program under TSCA section 402(a) 
suggests that these governments will play a critical role in the 
successful implementation of a national program to reduce exposures to 
lead-based paint hazards associated with renovation, repair, and 
painting activities. Consequently, as discussed in Unit III.C.2., the 
Agency has met with State, local, and Tribal government officials on 
numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues.
    4. Least burdensome option. As discussed in the Draft Economic 
Analysis prepared for this regulation, as well as in the information 
presented on the Panel review process in Unit VIII.C.6., EPA considered 
a wide variety of options for addressing the risks presented by 
renovation activities in

[[Page 1626]]

residences where lead-based paint is present. Options considered 
include covering only homes built before 1960, various combinations of 
training and certification requirements for individuals who perform 
renovations in covered housing, various combinations of work practice 
requirements, and various methods for ensuring that no lead-based paint 
hazards are left behind by persons performing renovations. EPA has 
determined that the proposed option is the least burdensome option 
available that achieves the objective of this proposed rule, which is 
to prevent the creation of new lead-based paint hazards from 
renovation, repair, and painting activities in housing where children 
under age 6 reside.
    This proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA. EPA has 
also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Based on the 
definition of ``small government jurisdiction'' in RFA section 601, no 
State governments can be considered small. Small Territorial or Tribal 
governments could apply for authorization to administer and enforce 
this program, which would entail costs, but these small jurisdictions 
are under no obligation to do so.

E. Federalism

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
does not have ``federalism implications,`` because it will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this proposed rule.
    As discussed in Unit IV.F., States would be able to apply for, and 
receive authorization to administer these proposed requirements, but 
would be under no obligation to do so. In the absence of a State 
authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. In addition, 
although the provisions of this proposal would apply to renovations in 
target housing owned by State and local governments, many of these 
housing authorities receive federal subsidies for public housing.
    Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive 
Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between 
the Agency and State and local governments, EPA has consulted with 
representatives of State and local governments in developing this rule. 
EPA hosted three renovation-specific meetings or conference calls with 
State and local government officials. Summaries of these meetings have 
been placed in the public docket for this action (Refs. 41, 42, and 
43).
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from State and local officials.

F. Tribal Implications

    As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 
2000), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal 
implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as 
specified in the Order. As discussed in Unit IV.F., Tribes would be 
able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer these 
proposed requirements on Tribal lands, but Tribes would be under no 
obligation to do so. In the absence of a Tribal authorization, EPA will 
administer these requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by discussing 
potential renovation regulatory options at several national lead 
program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested Federal agencies.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from Tribal officials.

G. Children's Health Protection.

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to this proposed rule because it has been designated an 
``economically significant regulatory action'' as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and the environmental health or safety risk addressed by 
this action have a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, 
EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of 
renovation, repair, and painting projects on children. Various aspects 
of this evaluation are discussed in Units III.C., IV.A., VIII.A., and 
VIII.C. Copies of the renovation and remodeling studies (Refs. 30, 31, 
32, 37, and 38), the Draft Economic Analysis for this proposal (Ref. 
59), the proposed and final TSCA section 403 hazard standards (Refs. 24 
and 64), and the risk assessments supporting the hazard standards 
(Refs. 70 and 71) have been placed in the public docket for this 
action.
    One purpose of this proposed regulation is to prevent the creation 
of new lead-based paint hazards from renovation activities in housing 
where children under age 6 reside. EPA's analysis indicates that 
renovation, repair, and painting projects in housing that is likely to 
contain lead-based paint will affect over 1.1 million children under 
age 6 annually. In the absence of this regulation, lead-safe work 
practices are not likely to be employed to perform the renovation 
projects. These children are projected to receive considerable benefits 
due to this regulation.

H. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on 
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. Technology Standards

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    EPA is proposing to adopt a number of work practice requirements 
that could be considered technical standards for performing renovation 
projects in residences that contain lead-based paint. EPA has 
identified 2 voluntary consensus documents that address aspects of the 
proper performance of renovation projects where lead-based paint is 
present. ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing 
and Materials) has developed 2 potentially-applicable documents: 
``Standard Practice for Clearance Examinations Following Lead Hazard 
Reduction Activities in Single-Family

[[Page 1627]]

Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities'' (Ref. 72), and ``Standard 
Guide for Evaluation, Management, and Control of Lead Hazards in 
Facilities'' (Ref. 73). With respect to the first document, EPA is not 
proposing to require traditional clearance examinations, including dust 
sampling, following renovation projects. However, as discussed in Unit 
IV.E., EPA is proposing to require that a visual inspection for dust, 
debris, and residue be conducted after cleaning and before post-
renovation cleaning verification is performed. The first ASTM document 
does contain information on conducting a visual inspection before 
collecting dust clearance samples. The second ASTM document is a 
comprehensive guide to identifying and controlling lead-based paint 
hazards. Some of the information in this document is relevant to the 
work practices that EPA is proposing to require. Each of these ASTM 
documents represents state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the 
performance of these particular aspects of lead-based paint hazard 
evaluation and control practices and EPA recommends the use of these 
documents where appropriate. However, because each of these documents 
is extremely detailed and encompasses many circumstances beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking, EPA does not believe that it is practical to 
incorporate these voluntary consensus standards into this proposal.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to recognize test kits that may be 
used by certified renovators to determine whether components to be 
affected by a renovation contain lead-based paint. EPA will recognize 
those kits that meet certain performance standards for limited false 
positives and negatives. EPA also intends recognize only those kits 
that have been properly validated by a laboratory independent of the 
kit manufacturer. Although EPA is not establishing a particular method 
that must be used for validating kits, for chemical spot test kits, EPA 
plans to look to the ASTM document entitled Standard Practice for 
Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot 
Test Kits for Lead in Paint (Ref. 50) to determine whether a particular 
kit's validation is adequate.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has assessed 
the potential impact of this proposal on minority and low-income 
populations. The results of this assessment are presented in the Draft 
Economic Analysis for this proposal, which is available in the public 
docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 59). The rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations and low-income populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Housing renovation, Lead, Lead-based 
paint, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 29, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as 
follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

    2. Section 745.80 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  745.80  Purpose.

    This subpart contains regulations developed under sections 402 and 
406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682 and 2686) and 
applies to all renovations of target housing performed for 
compensation. The purpose of this subpart is to ensure the following:
    (a) Owners and occupants of target housing receive information on 
lead-based paint hazards before these renovations begin; and
    (b) Persons performing renovations regulated in accordance with 
Sec.  745.82 are properly trained; renovators, dust sampling 
technicians, and firms performing these renovations are certified; and 
lead-safe work practices are followed during these renovations.
    3. Section 745.81 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  745.81   Effective dates.

    (a) Training, certification and accreditation requirements and work 
practice standards. The training, certification and accreditation 
requirements and work practice standards in this subpart are applicable 
as of [insert date 1 year after date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register] in any State or Indian Tribal area that does 
not have a renovation program that is authorized under subpart Q of 
this part. The training, certification and accreditation requirements 
and work practice standards in this subpart will become effective as 
follows:
    (1) Training programs. Effective [insert date 60 days after date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], no training 
program may provide, offer, or claim to provide training or refresher 
training for EPA certification as a renovator or a dust sampling 
technician without accreditation from EPA under Sec.  745.225. Training 
programs may apply for accreditation under Sec.  745.225 beginning 
[insert date 1 year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register].
    (2) Firms. Firms may apply for certification under Sec.  745.89 
beginning [insert date 18 months after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register].
    (i) No firm may perform, offer, or claim to perform renovations, as 
defined in this subpart, without certification from EPA under Sec.  
745.89 on or after [insert date 2 years after date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register]:
    (A) In any target housing where the firm obtains information 
indicating that a child under age 6 with a blood lead level greater 
than or equal to 10 [mu]g/dL or the applicable State or local 
government level of concern, if lower, resides there, or in any target 
housing where the firm has not provided the owners and occupants with 
the opportunity to inform the firm that a child under age 6 with such a 
blood lead level resides there; or
    (B) In target housing constructed before 1960, unless, in the case 
of owner-occupied target housing, the firm has obtained a statement 
signed by the owner that the renovation will occur in the owner's 
residence and no child under age 6 resides there.
    (ii) No firm may perform, offer, or claim to perform renovations, 
as defined in this subpart, without certification from EPA under Sec.  
745.89 on or after [insert date 3 years after date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register] in any target housing, unless, 
in the case of owner-occupied target housing, the firm has obtained a 
statement signed by the owner that the renovation will occur in the 
owner's residence and no child under age 6 resides there.

[[Page 1628]]

    (3) Individuals. (i) All renovations, as defined in this subpart, 
must be directed by renovators certified in accordance with Sec.  
745.90(a) and performed by certified renovators or individuals trained 
in accordance with Sec.  745.90(b)(2) on or after [insert date 2 years 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]:
    (A) In any target housing where the firm performing the renovation 
obtains information indicating that a child under age 6 with a blood 
lead level greater than or equal to 10 [mu]g/dL or the applicable State 
or local government level of concern, if lower, resides there, or in 
any target housing where the firm has not provided the owners and 
occupants with the opportunity to inform the firm that a child under 
age 6 with such a blood lead level resides there; or
    (B) In target housing constructed before 1960, unless, in the case 
of owner-occupied target housing, the firm performing the renovation 
has obtained a statement signed by the owner that the renovation will 
occur in the owner's residence and no child under age 6 resides there.
    (ii) All renovations, as defined in this subpart, must be directed 
by renovators certified in accordance with Sec.  745.90(a) and 
performed by certified renovators or individuals trained in accordance 
with Sec.  745.90(b)(2) on or after [insert date 3 years after date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] in any target 
housing, unless, in the case of owner-occupied target housing, the firm 
performing the renovation has obtained a statement signed by the owner 
that the renovation will occur in the owner's residence and no child 
under age 6 resides there.
    (4) Work practices. (i) All renovations, as defined in Sec.  
745.83, must be performed in accordance with the work practice 
standards in Sec.  745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements 
in Sec.  745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) on or after [insert date 2 years after 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]:
    (A) In any target housing where the firm performing the renovation 
obtains information indicating that a child under age 6 with a blood 
lead level greater than or equal to 10 [mu]g/dL or the applicable State 
or local government level of concern, if lower, resides there, or in 
any target housing where the firm has not provided the owners and 
occupants with the opportunity to inform the firm that a child under 
age 6 with such a blood lead level resides there; or
    (B) In target housing constructed before 1960, unless, in the case 
of owner-occupied target housing, the firm performing the renovation 
has obtained a statement signed by the owner that the renovation will 
occur in the owner's residence and no child under age 6 resides there.
    (ii) All renovations, as defined in this subpart, must be performed 
in accordance with the work practice standards in Sec.  745.85 and the 
associated recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) 
on or after [insert date 3 years after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register] in any target housing, unless, in the 
case of owner-occupied target housing, the firm performing the 
renovation has obtained a statement signed by the owner that the 
renovation will occur in the owner's residence and no child under age 6 
resides there.
    (5) The suspension and revocation provisions in Sec.  745.91 are 
effective [insert date 2 years after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register].
    (b) Renovation-specific pamphlet. Before [insert date 8 months 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
renovators or firms performing renovations in States and Indian Tribal 
areas without an authorized program may provide owners and occupants 
with either of the following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your Family From 
Lead in Your Home or Protect Your Family from Lead During Renovation, 
Repair & Painting. After that date, Protect Your Family from Lead 
During Renovation, Repair & Painting must be used exclusively.
    (c) Pre-Renovation Education Rule. With the exception of the 
requirement to use the pamphlet titled Protect Your Family from Lead 
During Renovation, Repair & Painting, the provisions of the Pre-
Renovation Education Rule in this subpart have been in effect since 
June 1999.
    4. Section 745.82 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  745.82  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart applies to all renovations of target housing 
performed for compensation, except for the following:
    (1) Minor repair and maintenance activities (including minor 
electrical work and plumbing) that disrupt 2 square feet or less of 
painted surface per component.
    (2) Renovations in target housing in which a written determination 
has been made by an inspector (certified pursuant to either Federal 
regulations at Sec.  745.226 or a State or Tribal certification program 
authorized pursuant to Sec.  745.324) that the components affected by 
the renovation are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain 
lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligrams/per square centimeter (mg/
cm<SUP>2</SUP>) or 0.5% by weight, where the firm performing the 
renovation has obtained a copy of the determination.
    (3) Renovations in target housing in which a certified renovator, 
using an acceptable test kit and following the kit manufacturer's 
instructions, has determined that the components affected by the 
renovation are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain 
lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm<SUP>2</SUP> or 0.5% by weight.
    (b) The information distribution requirements in Sec.  745.84 do 
not apply to emergency renovation operations, which are renovation 
activities that were not planned but result from a sudden, unexpected 
event (such as non-routine failures of equipment) that, if not 
immediately attended to, presents a safety or public health hazard, or 
threatens equipment and/or property with significant damage. Interim 
controls performed in response to an elevated blood lead level in a 
resident child are also emergency renovation operations. The work 
practice, training, and certification requirements in Sec. Sec.  
745.85, 745.89, 745.90 and the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) apply to emergency renovation operations to the 
extent practicable.
    (c) The work practice standards for renovation activities in Sec.  
745.85 apply to all renovations covered by this subpart, except for 
renovations in target housing for which the firm performing the 
renovation has obtained a statement signed by the owner that the 
renovation will occur in the owner's residence and no child under age 6 
resides there. For the purposes of this section, a child resides in the 
primary residence of his or her custodial parents, legal guardians, and 
foster parents. A child also resides in the primary residence of an 
informal caretaker if the child lives and sleeps most of the time at 
the caretaker's residence.
    5. Section 745.83 is amended as follows:
    a. Remove the definition of ``Emergency renovation operations.''
    b. Revise the definition of ``Pamphlet'' and the definition of 
``Renovator.''
    c. Add 11 definitions in alphabetic order.


Sec.  745.83  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Acceptable test kit means a commercially available kit recognized 
by EPA pursuant to section 405 of TSCA as being capable of allowing a 
user to

[[Page 1629]]

accurately determine the presence of lead at levels equal to or in 
excess of 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter, or more than 0.5% lead 
by weight, in a paint chip, paint powder, or painted surface.
* * * * *
    Cleaning verification card means a card developed and distributed, 
or otherwise approved, by EPA for the purpose of determining, through 
comparison of disposable cleaning cloths with the card, whether post-
renovation cleaning has been properly completed.
    Component or building component means specific design or structural 
elements or fixtures of a building or residential dwelling that are 
distinguished from each other by form, function, and location. These 
include, but are not limited to, interior components such as: Ceilings, 
crown molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door trim, floors, 
fireplaces, radiators and other heating units, shelves, shelf supports, 
stair treads, stair risers, stair stringers, newel posts, railing caps, 
balustrades, windows and trim (including sashes, window heads, jambs, 
sills or stools and troughs), built in cabinets, columns, beams, 
bathroom vanities, counter tops, and air conditioners; and exterior 
components such as: Painted roofing, chimneys, flashing, gutters and 
downspouts, ceilings, soffits, fascias, rake boards, cornerboards, 
bulkheads, doors and door trim, fences, floors, joists, lattice work, 
railings and railing caps, siding, handrails, stair risers and treads, 
stair stringers, columns, balustrades, window sills or stools and 
troughs, casings, sashes and wells, and air conditioners.
    Dry disposable cleaning cloth means a commercially available dry, 
electrostatically charged, white disposable cloth designed to be used 
for cleaning hard surfaces such as uncarpeted floors or counter tops.
* * * * *
    Firm means a company, partnership, corporation, sole proprietorship 
or individual doing business, association, or other business entity; a 
Federal, State, Tribal, or local government agency; or a nonprofit 
organization.
    HEPA-equipped vacuum means a vacuum equipped with a high efficiency 
particulate air filter.
    Interim controls means a set of measures designed to temporarily 
reduce human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based paint hazards, 
including specialized cleaning, repairs, maintenance, painting, 
temporary containment, ongoing monitoring of lead-based paint hazards 
or potential hazards, and the establishment and operation of management 
and resident education programs.
* * * * *
    Pamphlet means the EPA pamphlet titled Protect Your Family from 
Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting developed under section 
406(a) of TSCA for use in complying with section 406(b) of TSCA, or any 
State or Tribal pamphlet approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 745.326 
that is developed for the same purpose. This includes reproductions of 
the pamphlet when copied in full and without revision or deletion of 
material from the pamphlet (except for the addition or revision of 
State or local sources of information). Before [insert date 8 months 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
the term ``pamphlet'' also means any pamphlet developed by EPA under 
section 406(a) of TSCA or any State or Tribal pamphlet approved by EPA 
pursuant to Sec.  745.326.
* * * * *
    Renovator means a person who either performs or directs uncertified 
workers who perform renovations. A certified renovator is a renovator 
who has successfully completed a renovator course accredited by EPA or 
an EPA-authorized State or Tribal program.
    Training hour means at least 50 minutes of actual learning, 
including, but not limited to, time devoted to lecture, learning 
activities, small group activities, demonstrations, evaluations, and 
hands-on experience.
    Wet disposable cleaning cloth means a commercially available, pre-
moistened white disposable cloth designed to be used for cleaning hard 
surfaces such as uncarpeted floors or counter tops.
    Wet mopping system means a device with the following 
characteristics: A long handle, a mop head designed to be used with 
disposable absorbent cleaning pads, a reservoir for cleaning solution, 
and a built-in mechanism for distributing or spraying the cleaning 
solution onto a floor.
    Work area means the area that the certified renovator establishes 
to contain all of the dust and debris generated by a renovation, based 
on the certified renovator's evaluation of the extent and nature of the 
activity and the specific work practices that will be used.

Sec.  745.84 [Removed]

    6. Section 745.84 is removed.

Sec.  745.85 [Redesignated]

    7. Section 745.85 is redesignated as Sec.  745.84.
    8. Newly designated Sec.  745.84 is amended as follows:
    a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) and revise 
paragraph (a)(2)(i).
    b. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) and revise 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4).
    c. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (c).


Sec.  745.84  Information distribution requirements.

    (a) Renovations in dwelling units. No more than 60 days before 
beginning renovation activities in any residential dwelling unit of 
target housing, the firm performing the renovation must:
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Obtain, from the adult occupant, a written acknowledgment that 
the occupant has received the pamphlet; or certify in writing that a 
pamphlet has been delivered to the dwelling and that the firm 
performing the renovation has been unsuccessful in obtaining a written 
acknowledgment from an adult occupant. Such certification must include 
the address of the unit undergoing renovation, the date and method of 
delivery of the pamphlet, names of the persons delivering the pamphlet, 
reason for lack of acknowledgment (e.g., occupant refuses to sign, no 
adult occupant available), the signature of a representative of the 
firm performing the renovation, and the date of signature.
* * * * *
    (b) Renovations in common areas. No more than 60 days before 
beginning renovation activities in common areas of multi-unit target 
housing, the firm performing the renovation must:
    (1) * * *
    (2) Notify in writing, or ensure written notification of, each 
affected unit and make the pamphlet available upon request prior to the 
start of renovation. Such notification shall be accomplished by 
distributing written notice to each affected unit. The notice shall 
describe the general nature and locations of the planned renovation 
activities; the expected starting and ending dates; and a statement of 
how the occupant can obtain the pamphlet, at no charge, from the firm 
performing the renovation.
    (3) * * *
    (4) If the scope, locations, or expected starting and ending dates 
of the planned renovation activities change after the initial 
notification, the firm performing the renovation must provide further 
written notification to the owners and occupants providing revised 
information on the ongoing or planned activities. This subsequent 
notification must be provided before the firm performing the renovation 
initiates work

[[Page 1630]]

beyond that which was described in the original notice.
    (c) Written acknowledgment. The written acknowledgments required by 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), and (b)(1)(i) of this section must:
* * * * *
    9. Section 745.85 is added to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  745.85   Work practice standards.

    (a) Standards for renovation activities. Renovations must be 
performed by certified firms using certified renovators as directed in 
Sec.  745.89.
    (1) Occupant protection. Firms must post signs clearly defining the 
work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in 
renovation activities to remain outside of the work area. These signs 
must be posted before beginning the renovation and must remain in place 
and readable until the renovation and the post-renovation cleaning 
verification have been completed. If warning signs have been posted in 
accordance with 24 CFR 35.1345(b)(2) or 29 CFR 1926.62(m), additional 
signs are not required by this section.
    (2) Containing the work area. Before beginning the renovation, the 
firm must isolate the work area so that no visible dust or debris 
leaves the work area while the renovation is being performed.
    (i) Interior renovations. The firm must:
    (A) Remove all objects from the work area, including furniture, 
rugs, and window coverings, or cover them with plastic sheeting or 
other impermeable material with all seams and edges taped or otherwise 
sealed.
    (B) Close and cover all ducts opening in the work area with taped-
down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material.
    (C) Close windows and doors in the work area. Doors must be covered 
with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material. Doors used as an 
entrance to the work area must be covered with plastic sheeting or 
other impermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass 
through while confining dust and debris to the work area.
    (D) Cover the floor surface of the work area with plastic sheeting 
or other impermeable material with all seams taped and all edges 
secured at the perimeter of the work area
    (E) Ensure that all personnel, tools, and other items including 
waste are free of dust and debris when leaving the work area. 
Alternatively, the paths used to reach the exterior of the home must be 
covered with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material to prevent 
the spread of lead contaminated dust and debris outside the work area.
    (ii) Exterior renovations. The firm must:
    (A) Close all doors and windows within 20 feet of the renovation. 
On multi-story buildings, close all doors and windows within 20 feet of 
the renovation on the same floor as the renovation, and close all doors 
and windows on all floors below that are the same horizontal distance 
from the renovation.
    (B) Ensure that doors within the work area that must be used while 
the job is being performed are covered with plastic sheeting or other 
impermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass through 
while confining dust and debris to the work area.
    (C) Cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable 
impermeable material extending out from the edge of the structure a 
sufficient distance to collect falling paint debris.
    (3) Waste from renovations. (i) Waste from renovation activities 
must be contained to prevent releases of dust and debris before the 
waste is removed from the work area for storage or disposal. If a chute 
is used to remove waste from the work area, it must be covered.
    (ii) At the conclusion of each work day and at the conclusion of 
the renovation, waste that has been collected from renovation 
activities must be stored under containment, in an enclosure, or behind 
a barrier that prevents release of dust and debris out of the work area 
and prevents access to dust and debris.
    (iii) When the firm transports waste from renovation activities, 
the firm must contain the waste to prevent identifiable releases of 
dust and debris.
    (4) Cleaning the work area. After the renovation has been 
completed, the firm must clean the work area until no visible dust, 
debris or residue remains.
    (i) Interior and exterior renovations. The firm must:
    (A) Pick up all paint chips and debris.
    (B) Remove the protective sheeting. Mist the sheeting before 
folding it, fold the dirty side inward, and either tape shut to seal or 
seal in heavy-duty bags. Sheeting used to isolate contaminated rooms 
from non-contaminated rooms must remain in place until after the 
cleaning and removal of other sheeting. Dispose of the sheeting as 
waste.
    (ii) Additional cleaning for interior renovations. The firm must 
clean all objects and surfaces in and around the work area in the 
following manner, cleaning from higher to lower:
    (A) Walls. Clean walls starting at the ceiling and working down to 
the floor by either vacuuming with a HEPA-equipped vacuum or wiping 
with a damp cloth.
    (B) Remaining surfaces. Thoroughly vacuum all remaining surfaces 
and objects in the work area, including furniture and fixtures, with a 
HEPA-equipped vacuum. The HEPA-equipped vacuum must be equipped with a 
beater bar when vacuuming carpets and rugs. Where feasible, floor 
surfaces underneath a rug or carpeting must also be thoroughly vacuumed 
with a HEPA-equipped vacuum.
    (C) Wipe all remaining surfaces and objects in the work area, 
except for carpeted or upholstered surfaces, with a damp cloth. Mop 
uncarpeted floors thoroughly, using a 2-bucket mopping method that 
keeps the wash water separate from the rinse water, or using a wet 
mopping system.
    (b) Standards for post-renovation cleaning verification. (1) 
Interiors. (i) A certified renovator must perform a visual inspection 
to determine whether visible amounts of dust, debris or residue are 
still present. If visible amounts of dust, debris or residue are 
present, these conditions must be eliminated by re-cleaning and another 
visual inspection must be performed.
    (ii) After a successful visual inspection, a certified renovator 
must:
    (A) Verify that each windowsill in the work area has been 
adequately cleaned, using the following procedure.
    (1) Wipe the windowsill with a wet disposable cleaning cloth that 
is damp to the touch. If the cloth matches the cleaning verification 
card, the windowsill has been adequately cleaned.
    (2) If the cloth does not match the cleaning verification card, re-
clean the windowsill as directed in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) of 
this section, then either use a new cloth or fold the used cloth in 
such a way that an unused surface is exposed, and wipe the windowsill 
again. If the cloth matches the cleaning verification card, that 
windowsill has been adequately cleaned.
    (3) If the cloth does not match the cleaning verification card, 
clean that windowsill again as directed in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and 
(C) of this section and wait for one hour or until the windowsill has 
dried completely, whichever is longer.
    (4) After waiting for the windowsill to dry, wipe the windowsill 
with dry disposable cleaning cloths until a cloth, or section of cloth, 
used to wipe the windowsill matches the cleaning verification card.

[[Page 1631]]

    (B) Wipe uncarpeted floors within the work area with a wet 
disposable cleaning cloth, using an application device with a long 
handle and a head to which the cloth is attached. The cloth must remain 
damp at all times while it is being used to wipe the floor for post-
renovation cleaning verification. If the floor surface within the work 
area is greater than 40 square feet, the floor within the work area 
must be divided into roughly equal sections that are each less than 40 
square feet. Wipe each such section separately with a new wet 
disposable cleaning cloth. If the cloth used to wipe each section of 
the floor within the work area matches the cleaning verification card, 
the floor has been adequately cleaned.
    (1) If the cloth used to wipe a particular floor section does not 
match the cleaning verification card, re-clean that section of the 
floor as directed in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (a)(4)(ii)(C) of this 
section, then use a new wet disposable cleaning cloth to wipe that 
section again. If the cloth matches the cleaning verification card, 
that section of the floor has been adequately cleaned.
    (2) If the cloth used to wipe a particular floor section does not 
match the cleaning verification card after the floor has been re-
cleaned, clean that section of the floor again as directed in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (a)(4)(ii)(C) of this section and wait for 
1 hour or until the entire floor within the work area has dried 
completely, whichever is longer.
    (3) After waiting for the entire floor within the work area to dry, 
wipe those sections of the floor that have not yet achieved post-
renovation cleaning verification with dry disposable cleaning cloths 
until a cloth that has wiped those sections of the floor matches the 
cleaning verification card. This wiping must also be performed using an 
application device with a long handle and a head to which the cloths 
are attached.
    (iii) Dust clearance sampling may be performed instead of, or in 
addition to, the procedures identified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section. If dust clearance sampling is performed, it must be performed 
in accordance with Sec.  745.227(e)(8) through (e)(9), except that a 
dust sampling technician certified in accordance with this subpart may 
collect and report the results of the required samples.
    (iv) When the work area passes the post-renovation cleaning 
verification or dust clearance sampling, remove the warning signs.
    (2) Exteriors. A certified renovator must perform a visual 
inspection to determine whether visible amounts of dust, debris or 
residue are still present. If visible amounts of dust, debris or 
residue are present, these conditions must be eliminated and another 
visual inspection must be performed. When the area passes the visual 
inspection, remove the warning signs.
    (c) Activities conducted after post-renovation cleaning 
verification. Activities that do not disturb paint, such as applying 
paint to walls that have already been prepared, are not regulated by 
this subpart if they are conducted after post-renovation cleaning 
verification has been performed.
    10. Section 745.86 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
new paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.86  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Firms performing renovations or conducting dust sampling must 
retain and, if requested, make available to EPA all records necessary 
to demonstrate compliance with this subpart for a period of 3 years 
following completion of the renovation or dust sampling activities. 
This 3-year retention requirement does not supersede longer obligations 
required by other provisions for retaining the same documentation, 
including any applicable State or Tribal laws or regulations.
    (b) * * *
    (6) Any signed and dated statements received from owner-occupants 
that no children under age 6 reside in housing being renovated which 
document that the requirements of Sec.  745.85 do not apply. These 
statements must include a declaration that the renovation will occur in 
the owner's residence, a declaration that no children under age 6 
reside there, the address of the unit undergoing renovation, the 
owner's name, the signature of the owner, and the date of signature. 
These statements must be written in the same language as the text of 
the renovation contract, if any. This requirement includes any 
statements received from owners or occupants that a child under age 6 
with a blood lead level that equals or exceeds 10 [mu]g/dL, or an 
applicable State or local government level of concern, if lower, 
resides there.
    (7) Documentation of compliance with the requirements of Sec.  
745.85, including documentation that a certified renovator was assigned 
to the project, the certified renovator provided on-the-job training 
for uncertified workers used on the project, the certified renovator 
performed or directed uncertified workers who performed all of the 
tasks described in Sec.  745.85(a), and the certified renovator 
performed the post-renovation cleaning verification described in Sec.  
745.85(b). This documentation must include a copy of the certified 
renovator's or dust sampling technician's training certificate, and 
signed and dated descriptions of how activities performed by the 
certified renovator or dust sampling technician, including worker 
training activities, sign posting, work area containment, waste 
handling, cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning verification or 
clearance were conducted in compliance with this subpart. The 
descriptions of these activities must include a certification by the 
record preparer that the descriptions are complete and accurate.
    11. Section 745.87 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  745.87  Enforcement and inspections.

* * * * *
    (e) Lead-based paint is assumed to be present at renovations 
covered by this subpart. EPA may conduct inspections and issue 
subpoenas pursuant to the provisions of TSCA section 11 (15 U.S.C. 
2610) to ensure compliance with this subpart.

Sec.  745.88 [Removed]

    12. Section 745.88 is removed.
    13. Section 745.89 is added to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  745.89  Firm certification.

    (a) Initial certification. (1) Firms that perform renovations for 
compensation must apply to EPA for certification to perform renovations 
or dust sampling. To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a completed 
``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm, 
and pay at least the correct amount of fees. If a firm pays more than 
the correct amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the firm for the excess 
amount.
    (2) After EPA receives a firm's application, EPA will take one of 
the following actions within 90 days of the date the application is 
received:
    (i) EPA will approve a firm's application if EPA determines that it 
is complete and that the environmental compliance history of the firm, 
its principals, or its key employees does not show an unwillingness or 
inability to maintain compliance with environmental statutes or 
regulations. An application is complete if it contains all of the 
information requested on the form and includes at least the correct 
amount of fees. When EPA approves a firm's application, EPA will issue 
the firm a certificate with an expiration date not more than 3 years 
from the date the application is approved. EPA

[[Page 1632]]

certification allows the firm to perform renovations covered by this 
section in any State or Indian Tribal area that does not have a 
renovation program that is authorized under subpart Q of this part.
    (ii) EPA will request a firm to supplement its application if EPA 
determines that the application is incomplete. If EPA requests a firm 
to supplement its application, the firm must submit the requested 
information or pay the additional fees within 30 days of the date of 
the request.
    (iii) EPA will not approve a firm's application if the firm does 
not supplement its application in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 
of this section or if EPA determines that the environmental compliance 
history of the firm, its principals, or its key employees demonstrates 
an unwillingness or inability to maintain compliance with environmental 
statutes or regulations. EPA will send the firm a letter giving the 
reason for not approving the application. EPA will not refund the 
application fees. A firm may reapply for certification at any time by 
filing a new, complete application that includes the correct amount of 
fees.
    (b) Re-certification. To maintain its certification, a firm must be 
re-certified by EPA every 3 years.
    (1) Timely and complete application. To be re-certified, a firm 
must submit a complete application for re-certification. A complete 
application for re-certification includes a completed ``Application for 
Firms'' which contains all of the information requested by the form and 
is signed by an authorized agent of the firm, noting on the form that 
it is submitted as a re-certification. A complete application must also 
include at least the correct amount of fees. If a firm pays more than 
the correct amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the firm for the excess 
amount.
    (i) An application for re-certification is timely if it is 
postmarked 90 days or more before the date the firm's current 
certification expires. If the firm's application is complete and 
timely, the firm's current certification will remain in effect until 
its expiration date or until EPA has made a final decision to approve 
or disapprove the re-certification application, whichever is later.
    (ii) If the firm submits a complete re-certification application 
less than 90 days before its current certification expires, and EPA 
does not approve the application before the expiration date, the firm's 
current certification will expire and the firm will not be able to 
conduct renovations until EPA approves its re-certification 
application.
    (iii) If the firm fails to obtain recertification before the firm's 
current certification expires, the firm must not perform renovations or 
dust sampling until it is certified anew pursuant to paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (2) EPA action on an application. After EPA receives a firm's 
application for re-certification, EPA will review the application and 
take one of the following actions within 90 days of receipt:
    (i) EPA will approve a firm's application if EPA determines that it 
is timely and complete and that the environmental compliance history of 
the firm, its principals, or its key employees does not show an 
unwillingness or inability to maintain compliance with environmental 
statutes or regulations. When EPA approves a firm's application for re-
certification, EPA will issue the firm a new certificate with an 
expiration date 3 years from the date that the firm's current 
certification expires. EPA certification allows the firm to perform 
renovations or dust sampling covered by this section in any State or 
Indian Tribal area that does not have a renovation program that is 
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
    (ii) EPA will request a firm to supplement its application if EPA 
determines that the application is incomplete.
    (iii) EPA will not approve a firm's application if it is not 
received or is not complete as of the date that the firm's current 
certification expires, or if EPA determines that the environmental 
compliance history of the firm, its principals, or its key employees 
demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to maintain compliance with 
environmental statutes or regulations. EPA will send the firm a letter 
giving the reason for not approving the application. EPA will not 
refund the application fees. A firm may reapply for certification at 
any time by filing a new application and paying the correct amount of 
fees.
    (c) Amendment of certification. A firm must amend its certification 
within 45 days of the date a change occurs to information included in 
the firm's most recent application. If the firm fails to amend its 
certification within 45 days of the date the change occurs, the firm 
may not perform renovations or dust sampling until its certification is 
amended.
    (1) To amend a certification, a firm must submit a completed 
``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm, 
noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating 
the information that has changed. The firm must also pay at least the 
correct amount of fees.
    (2) If additional information is needed to process the amendment, 
or the firm did not pay the correct amount of fees, EPA will request 
the firm to submit the necessary information or fees. The firm's 
certification is not amended until the firm complies with the request.
    (3) Amending a certification does not affect the certification 
expiration date.
    (d) Firm responsibilities. Firms performing renovations or dust 
sampling must ensure that:
    (1)(i) All persons performing renovation activities on behalf of 
the firm are either certified renovators or have been trained by a 
certified renovator in accordance with Sec.  745.90.
    (ii) All persons performing dust sampling on behalf of the firm are 
certified as either risk assessors, inspectors, or dust sampling 
technicians.
    (2) A certified renovator is assigned to each renovation performed 
by the firm and discharges all of the certified renovator 
responsibilities identified in Sec.  745.90; and
    (3) All renovations performed by the firm are performed in 
accordance with the work practice standards in Sec.  745.85.
    14. Section 745.90 is added to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  745.90  Renovator and dust sampling technician certification.

    (a) Renovator and dust sampling technician certification. (1) To 
become a certified renovator or dust sampling technician, a person must 
successfully complete the appropriate course accredited by EPA under 
Sec.  745.225 or by a State or Tribal program that is authorized under 
subpart Q of this part. The course completion certificate serves as 
proof of certification. EPA renovator certification allows the 
certified individual to perform renovations covered by this section in 
any State or Indian Tribal area that does not have a renovation program 
that is authorized under subpart Q of this part. EPA dust sampling 
technician certification allows the certified individual to perform 
dust sampling covered by this section in any State or Indian Tribal 
area that does not have a renovation program that is authorized under 
subpart Q of this part.
    (2) To maintain renovator or dust sampling technician 
certification, a person must complete a renovator or dust sampling 
technician refresher course accredited by EPA under Sec.  745.225 or by 
a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this 
part within 3 years of the date the person completed the initial course 
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this

[[Page 1633]]

section. If the person does not complete a refresher course within this 
time, the person must re-take the initial course to become certified 
again.
    (3) Persons who have a valid lead-based paint abatement supervisor 
or worker certification issued by EPA under Sec.  745.226 or by a State 
or Tribal program authorized under subpart Q of this part are also 
deemed to be certified renovators.
    (4) Persons who have a valid lead-based paint inspector or risk 
assessor certification issued by EPA under Sec.  745.226 or by a State 
or Tribal program authorized under subpart Q of this part are also 
deemed to be certified dust sampling technicians.
    (b) Renovator responsibilities. Certified renovators are 
responsible for ensuring compliance with Sec.  745.85 at all 
renovations to which they are assigned. A certified renovator:
    (1) Must perform all of the tasks described in Sec.  745.85(b) and 
must either perform or direct uncertified workers who perform all of 
the tasks described in Sec.  745.85(a).
    (2) Must provide training to uncertified workers on the lead-safe 
work practices they will be using in performing their assigned tasks, 
how to isolate the work area and maintain the integrity of the 
containment barriers, and how to avoid spreading dust or debris beyond 
the work area.
    (3) Must be physically present at the work site when the signs 
required by Sec.  745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work area 
containment required by Sec.  745.85(a)(2) is being established, and 
while the work area cleaning required by Sec.  745.85(a)(4) is 
performed.
    (4) Must direct work being performed by uncertified persons to 
ensure that lead-safe work practices are being followed, the integrity 
of the containment barriers is maintained, and dust or debris is not 
spread beyond the work area.
    (5) Must be available, either on-site or by telephone, at all times 
that renovations are being conducted.
    (6) When requested by the entity contracting for renovation 
services, must use an acceptable test kit to determine whether 
components to be affected by the renovation contain lead-based paint.
    (7) Must have with them at the work site copies of their initial 
course completion certificate and their most recent refresher course 
completion certificate.
    (c) Dust sampling technician responsibilities. A certified dust 
sampling technician:
    (1) Must collect dust samples in accordance with Sec.  
745.227(e)(8), must send the collected samples to a laboratory 
recognized by EPA under TSCA section 405(b), and must compare the 
results to the clearance levels in accordance with Sec.  745.227(e)(8).
    (2) Must have with them at the work site copies of their initial 
course completion certificate and their most recent refresher course 
completion certificate.
    15. Section 745.91 is added to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  745.91  Suspending, revoking, or modifying an individual's or 
firm's certification.

    (a)(1) Grounds for suspending, revoking or modifying an 
individual's certification. EPA may suspend, revoke, or modify an 
individual's certification if the individual fails to comply with 
Federal lead-based paint statutes or regulations. EPA may also suspend, 
revoke, or modify a certified renovator's certification if the 
renovator fails to ensure that all assigned renovations comply with 
Sec.  745.85. In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of 
violation, execution of a consent agreement in settlement of an 
enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this section, evidence 
of a failure to comply with relevant statutes or regulations.
    (2) Grounds for suspending, revoking or modifying a firm's 
certification. EPA may suspend, revoke, or modify a firm's 
certification if the firm:
    (i) Submits false or misleading information to EPA in its 
application for certification or re-certification.
    (ii) Fails to maintain or falsifies records required in Sec.  
745.86.
    (iii) Fails to comply, or an individual performing a renovation on 
behalf of the firm fails to comply, with Federal lead-based paint 
statutes or regulations. In addition to an administrative or judicial 
finding of violation, execution of a consent agreement in settlement of 
an enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this section, 
evidence of a failure to comply with relevant statutes or regulations.
    (b) Process for suspending, revoking, or modifying certification. 
(1) Prior to taking action to suspend, revoke, or modify an 
individual's or firm's certification, EPA will notify the affected 
entity in writing of the following:
    (i) The legal and factual basis for the proposed suspension, 
revocation, or modification.
    (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the 
suspension, revocation, or modification.
    (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entity may take to avoid 
suspension, revocation, or modification, or to receive certification in 
the future.
    (iv) The opportunity and method for requesting a hearing prior to 
final suspension, revocation, or modification.
    (2) If an individual or firm requests a hearing, EPA will:
    (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunity to offer written 
statements in response to EPA's assertions of the legal and factual 
basis for its proposed action.
    (ii) Appoint an impartial official of EPA as Presiding Officer to 
conduct the hearing.
    (3) The Presiding Officer will:
    (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days 
of the request for a hearing.
    (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and 
argument submitted.
    (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing within 90 days of 
completion of the hearing of his or her decision and order. Such an 
order is a final agency action which may be subject to judicial review.
    (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare 
warrants immediate action to suspend the certification of any 
individual or firm prior to the opportunity for a hearing, it will:
    (i) Notify the affected entity in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section, explaining why it is 
necessary to suspend the entity's certification before an opportunity 
for a hearing.
    (ii) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing 
on the immediate suspension within 15 days of the suspension taking 
place and the procedures for the conduct of such a hearing.
    (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this 
section, any transcript or other verbatim record of oral testimony, and 
any documents filed by a certified individual or firm in a hearing 
under this section will be available to the public, except as otherwise 
provided by section 14 of TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any such 
hearing at which oral testimony is presented will be open to the 
public, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public to the 
extent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be 
entitled to confidential treatment under section 14 of TSCA or part 2 
of this title.
    (6) EPA will maintain a publicly available list of entities whose 
certification has been suspended, revoked, modified or reinstated.
    16. Section 745.220 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 1634]]

Sec.  745.220  Scope and applicability.

    (a) This subpart contains procedures and requirements for the 
accreditation of training programs for lead-based paint activities and 
renovations, procedures and requirements for the certification of 
individuals and firms engaged in lead-based paint activities, and work 
practice standards for performing such activities. This subpart also 
requires that, except as discussed below, all lead-based paint 
activities, as defined in this subpart, be performed by certified 
individuals and firms.
* * * * *
    17. Section 745.225 is amended as follows:
    a. Revise paragraph (a).
    b. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (b), revise paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii), and add paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C).
    c. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (c) and paragraph 
(c)(8)(iv), add paragraphs (c)(6)(vi), (c)(6)(vii), and (c)(8)(vi), and 
revise paragraph (c)(10).
    d. Amend paragraph (c)(13) by replacing the phrase ``lead-based 
paint activities'' with the phrase ``renovator, dust sampling 
technician, or lead-based paint activities'' wherever it appears in the 
paragraph.
    e. Add paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7).
    f. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (e).
    g. Amend paragraph (e)(1) by removing the word ``activities'' 
wherever it appears in the paragraph.
    h. Revise paragraph (e)(2).


Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs; target housing and 
child-occupied facilities.

    (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offer 
courses in any of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, 
supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, and dust 
sampling technician. A training program may also seek accreditation to 
offer refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines.
    (2) Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of 
their lead-based paint activities courses or refresher courses pursuant 
to this section on or after August 31, 1998. Training programs may 
first apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or dust 
sampling technician courses or refresher courses pursuant to this 
section on or after [insert date 1 year after date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register].
    (3) A training program must not provide, offer, or claim to provide 
EPA-accredited lead-based paint activities courses without applying for 
and receiving accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph (b) of 
this section on or after March 1, 1999. A training program must not 
provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited renovator or dust 
sampling technician courses without applying for and receiving 
accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph (b) of this section 
on or after [insert date 60 days after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register].
    (b) Application process. The following are procedures a training 
program must follow to receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based 
paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust sampling 
technician courses:
    (1) * * *
    (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. 
For the purposes of this section, courses taught in different languages 
are considered different courses, and each must independently meet the 
accreditation requirements.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other 
than English, a signed statement from a qualified, independent 
translator that they had compared the course to the English language 
version and found the translation to be accurate.
    (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. For a 
training program to obtain accreditation from EPA to offer lead-based 
paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust sampling 
technician courses, the program must meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (vi) The renovator course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, 
with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The 
minimum curriculum requirements for the renovator course are contained 
in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. Hands-on training activities must 
cover renovation methods that minimize the creation of dust and lead-
based paint hazards, interior and exterior containment and cleanup 
methods, and post-renovation cleaning verification.
    (vii) The dust sampling technician course must last a minimum of 8 
training hours, with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training 
activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the dust sampling 
technician course are contained in paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 
Hands on training activities must cover dust sampling methodologies.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, project designer, 
supervisor, or abatement worker course completion certificates, the 
expiration date of interim certification, which is 6 months from the 
date of course completion.
* * * * *
    (vi) The language in which the course was taught.
* * * * *
    (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work 
practice standards contained in Sec.  745.85 or Sec.  745.227, as 
applicable, in such a manner that trainees are provided with the 
knowledge needed to perform the renovations or lead-based paint 
activities they will be responsible for conducting.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Renovator. (i) Role and responsibility of a renovator.
    (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects.
    (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local 
regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and 
renovation activities.
    (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether 
paint is lead-based paint.
    (v) Renovation methods to minimize the creation of dust and lead-
based paint hazards.
    (vi) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods.
    (vii) Methods to ensure that the renovation has been properly 
completed, including clean-up verification, and clearance testing.
    (viii) Waste handling and disposal.
    (7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role and responsibility of a dust 
sampling technician.
    (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects.
    (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local 
regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and 
renovation activities.
    (iv) Dust sampling methodologies.
    (v) Clearance standards and testing.
    (vi) Report preparation.
* * * * *
    (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training 
programs. A training program may seek accreditation to offer refresher 
training courses in any of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk 
assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 
and dust sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer 
refresher training, a training program must meet the following minimum 
requirements:
* * * * *

[[Page 1635]]

    (1) * * *
    (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and 
abatement worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher 
courses for project designer, renovator, and dust sampling technician 
must last a minimum of 4 training hours.
* * * * *
    18. Section 745.320 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  745.320  Scope and purpose.

* * * * *
    (c) A State or Indian Tribe may seek authorization to administer 
and enforce all of the provisions of subpart E of this part or just the 
pre-renovation education provisions of subpart E of this part. The 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  745.324 and 745.326 apply for the purposes of 
such program authorizations.
* * * * *
    19. Section 745.324 is amended as follows:
    a. Revise paragraph (a)(1).
    b. Delete the phrase ``lead-based paint training accreditation and 
certification'' from the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(iii).
    c. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
    d. Revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (e)(4).
    e. Revise paragraph (f)(2).
    f. Revise paragraph (i)(8).


Sec.  745.324  Authorization of State or Tribal programs.

    (a) Application content and procedures. (1) Any State or Indian 
Tribe that seeks authorization from EPA to administer and enforce the 
provisions of subpart E or subpart L of this part must submit an 
application to the Administrator in accordance with this paragraph.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) An analysis of the State or Tribal program that compares the 
program to the Federal program in subpart E or subpart L of this part, 
or both. This analysis must demonstrate how the program is, in the 
State's or Indian Tribe's assessment, at least as protective as the 
elements in the Federal program at subpart E or subpart L of this part, 
or both. EPA will use this analysis to evaluate the protectiveness of 
the State or Tribal program in making its determination pursuant to 
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The State or Tribal program is at least as protective of human 
health and the environment as the corresponding Federal program under 
subpart E or subpart L of this part, or both; and
* * * * *
    (4) If the State or Indian Tribe applies for authorization of State 
or Tribal programs under both subpart E and subpart L, EPA may, as 
appropriate, authorize one program and disapprove the other.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) If a State or Indian Tribe does not have an authorized program 
to administer and enforce the pre-renovation education requirements of 
subpart E of this part by August 31, 1998, the Administrator will, by 
such date, enforce those provisions of subpart E of this part as the 
Federal program for that State or Indian Country. If a State or Indian 
Tribe does not have an authorized program to administer and enforce the 
training, certification and accreditation requirements and work 
practice standards of subpart E of this part by [insert date 1 year 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
the Administrator will, by such date, enforce those provisions of 
subpart E of this part as the Federal program for that State or Indian 
Country.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (8) By the date of such order, the Administrator will establish and 
enforce the provisions of subpart E or subpart L of this part, or both, 
as the Federal program for that State or Indian Country.
    20. Section 745.326 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  745.326   Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements.

    (a) Program elements. To receive authorization from EPA, a State or 
Tribal program must contain the following program elements:
    (1) For pre-renovation education programs, procedures and 
requirements for the distribution of lead hazard information to owners 
and occupants of target housing before renovations for compensation.
    (2) For renovation training, certification, accreditation, and work 
practice standards programs:
    (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation 
and dust sampling technician training programs.
    (ii) Procedures and requirements for the certification of 
renovators and dust sampling technicians.
    (iii) Procedures and requirements for the certification of 
individuals and/or firms.
    (iv) Requirements that all renovations be conducted by 
appropriately certified individuals and/or firms.
    (v) Work practice standards for the conduct of renovations.
    (3) For all renovation programs, development of the appropriate 
infrastructure or government capacity to effectively carry out a State 
or Tribal program.
    (b) Pre-renovation education. To be considered at least as 
protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must:
    (1) Establish clear standards for identifying renovation activities 
that trigger the information distribution requirements.
    (2) Establish procedures for distributing the lead hazard 
information to owners and occupants of housing prior to renovation 
activities.
    (3) Require that the information to be distributed include either 
the pamphlet titled Protect Your Family from Lead During Renovation, 
Repair & Painting, developed by EPA under section 406(a), or an 
alternate pamphlet or package of lead hazard information that has been 
submitted by the State or Tribe, reviewed by EPA, and approved by EPA 
for that State or Tribe. Such information must contain renovation-
specific information similar to that in Protect Your Family from Lead 
During Renovation, Repair & Painting, must meet the content 
requirements prescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA, and must be in a 
format that is readable to the diverse audience of housing owners and 
occupants in that State or Tribe.
    (i) A State or Tribe with a pre-renovation education program 
approved before [insert date 60 days after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register] must demonstrate that it meets the 
requirements of this section no later than the first report that it 
submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h) of this subpart on or after 
[insert date 1 year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register].
    (ii) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a pre-
renovation education program submitted but not approved before [insert 
date 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register] must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this 
section either by amending its application or in the first report that 
it submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h) of this part on or after 
[insert date 1 year after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register].
    (iii) A State or Indian Tribe submitting its application for 
approval

[[Page 1636]]

of a pre-renovation education program on or after [insert date 60 days 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] 
must demonstrate in its application that it meets the requirements of 
this section.
    (c) Accreditation of training programs. To be considered at least 
as protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must 
meet the requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 
section:
    (1) The State or Tribal program must establish accreditation 
procedures and requirements, including:
    (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of training 
programs, including, but not limited to:
    (A) Training curriculum requirements.
    (B) Training hour requirements.
    (C) Hands-on training requirements.
    (D) Trainee competency and proficiency requirements.
    (E) Requirements for training program quality control.
    (ii) Procedures and requirements for the re-accreditation of 
training programs.
    (iii) Procedures for the oversight of training programs.
    (iv) Procedures and standards for the suspension, revocation, or 
modification of training program accreditations; or
    (2) The State or Tribal program must establish procedures and 
requirements for the acceptance of renovation training offered by 
training providers accredited by EPA or a State or Tribal program 
authorized by EPA under this subpart.
    (d) Certification of renovators. To be considered at least as 
protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must:
    (1) Establish procedures and requirements for individual 
certification that ensure that certified renovators are trained by an 
accredited training program.
    (2) Establish procedures and requirements for re-certification.
    (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or 
modification of certifications.
    (e) Work practice standards for renovations. To be considered at 
least as protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program 
must establish standards that ensure that renovations are conducted 
reliably, effectively, and safely. At a minimum, the State or Tribal 
program must contain the following requirements:
    (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified contractors.
    (2) Renovations are conducted using lead-safe work practices that 
are at least as protective to occupants as the requirements in Sec.  
745.85.
    (3) Certified contractors must retain appropriate records.
    21. Section 745.327 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) 
and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.327  State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 
enforcement programs.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Requirements that regulate the conduct of renovation 
activities as described at Sec.  745.326.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a renovation program, State or 
Tribal officials must be able to enter a firm's place of business or 
work site.
* * * * *
    22. Section 745.339 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  745.339   Effective dates.

    States and Indian Tribes may seek authorization to administer and 
enforce subpart L of this part pursuant to this subpart at any time. 
States and Indian Tribes may seek authorization to administer and 
enforce subpart E of this part pursuant to this subpart effective 
[insert date 60 days after date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register].

[FR Doc. 06-71 Filed 1-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>