*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 35

10T

- 0539 LRRP-PnCB-ANPRM_EO12866_FRN_2010-03-24.doc- REVISED per EO 1

recommendations as of 04/22/2010. 2

3

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 4

5

ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY 6

7

40 CFR Part 745 8

9 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173; FRL–8823–6] 10

11

RIN 2070–AJ56 12

13 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings 14

15

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 16

17

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 18

19

SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice of the Agency’s intention to regulate the 20 renovation, repair, and painting of public and commercial buildings under section 402(c)(3) of 21 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This notice announces the commencement of 22 proceedings to propose lead-saf e work practices and other re quirements for renovations on the 23 exteriors of public and commercial buildings and to determine whether lead-based paint hazards 24 are created by interior renova tion, repair, and painting projec ts in public and commercial 25 buildings. For those renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings that create 26 lead-based paint hazards, EPA will propose regul ations to address these hazards. 27

28

DATES: Comments must be recei ved on or before [ insert date 60 days after date of publication 29

in the Federal Register ]. 30

31

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by doc ket identification (ID) number EPA– 32 HQ–OPPT–2010–0173, by one of the following methods: 33

34

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions 35 for submitting comments. 36

37

• Mail : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Polluti on Prevention and Toxics 38 (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 39

20460–0001. 40

41

• Hand Delivery : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 42 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Atte ntion: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 43 2010–0173. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 44 holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only 45 accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operati on, and special arrangements should be made 46

for deliveries of boxed information. 47*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 35

10T

- 0539 48

Instructions : Direct your comments to doc ket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. 49 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and 50 may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal 51 information provided, unless the comment include s information claimed to be Confidential 52 Business Information (CBI) or other information whos e disclosure is restrict ed by statute. Do not 53 submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protec ted through regulations.gov 54 or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA 55 will not know your identity or contact inform ation unless you provide it in the body of your 56 comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 57 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automati cally captured and included as part of the 58 comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 59 electronic comment, EPA recomme nds that you include your name and other contact information 60 in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 61 your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not 62 be able to consider your comment . Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 63 any form of encryption, and be fr ee of any defects or viruses. 64

65

Docket : All documents in the docket are list ed in the docket index available at 66 http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, so me information is not publicly 67 available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disc losure is restricted by statute. Certain other 68 material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 69

available docket materials ar e available elect ronically at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only 70 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. Th e OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 71 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 72 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 73 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 74 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 75 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identificati on, pass through a metal detector, 76 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processe d through an X-ray machine and 77 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 78 the building and retu rned upon departure. 79

80

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 81

82 For technical information contact : Hans Scheifele, Nati onal Program Chemicals 83 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 84 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 564–3122; e85

mail address: scheifele.hans@epa.gov

. 86

87 For general information contact : The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI – Goodwill, 422 South 88 Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephon e number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA89 Hotline@epa.gov

. 90

91 Hearing

- or speech

- challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through 92

TT Y by calling the toll

- free Federal Relay Service at 1

– 800

– 877

– 8339. 93

94*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 35

10T

- 0539 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 95

96

I. General Information 97

98 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 99

100 This document is directed to the public in general. However, this document may be of 101 particular interest to the following entities: 102

103 • Building construction (North American Industrial Classificati on System (NAICS) code 104 236), e.g. , commercial building constr uction, industrial building c onstruction, commercial and 105 institutional building construction, building fi nishing contractors, drywall and insulation 106 contractors, painting and wall cove ring contractors, finish carpen try contractors, other building 107 finishing contractors. 108

109 • Specialty trade c ontractors (NAICS code 238), e.g. , plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 110 contractors, painting and wall c overing contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 111 contractors, drywall and insulati on contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 112 glass and glazing contractors. 113

114 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g. , lessors of non-residential buildings and dwellings, non115 residential property managers. 116

117 • Facilities support services (NAICS code 561210). 118

119

• Other general government support (NAICS code 921) e.g. , general services departments, 120 government, public property management services, government. 121

122 This listing is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers 123 regarding entities likely to be aff ected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 124

could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assi st you and others in 125 determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions 126 regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed 127

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 128

129 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 130

131

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e132 mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 133 information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD134 ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of th e disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 135 electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 136 addition to one complete version of the commen t that includes information claimed as CBI, a 137 copy of the comment that does not contain the in formation claimed as CBI must be submitted for 138 inclusion in the public docket. Information so ma rked will not be disclosed except in accordance 139 with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 140

141*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 35

10T

- 0539 2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: 142

143 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 144 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 145

146 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 147 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 148

149 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 150 your requested changes. 151

152 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide a ny technical information and/or data that you 153

used. 154

155 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 156 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 157

158 vi. Provide specific examples to illustra te your concerns and suggest alternatives. 159

160 vii. Explain your views as cl early as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 161

threats. 162

163 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 164

165 II. Background 166

167 A. EPA’s Lead-based Paint Programs 168

169 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 170 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000 ,000 children under age 6; th at the ingestion of 171 household dust containing lead from deterioratin g or abraded lead-based paint was the most 172 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 173 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 174 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminat ed dust in their homes. Congress further 175 determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 176 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also known as the 177

Residential Lead-Based Paint Haza rd Reduction Act of 1992) (“the Ac t” or “Title X”). Title X 178 established a national goal of eliminating lead-bas ed paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as 179 possible and provided a leadership role for the Federal government in building the infrastructure 180 necessary to achieve this goal. 181

182 Subsequently, President Clin ton created the President's Task Force on Environmental 183 Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Co-c haired by the Secretary of the Department of 184 Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Admini strator of EPA, the Task Force consisted of 185 representatives from 16 Federal de partments and agencies. The Task Force set a Federal goal of 186 eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the ye ar 2010 (Ref. 1). In October 2001, President 187

Bush extended the work of the Task Force fo r an additional 18 months beyond its original 188*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 35

10T

- 0539 charter. Reducing lead poisoni ng in children was the Task For ce's top priority. Although more 189 work remains to be done, significant progress has been made towards redu cing lead poisoning in 190 children. The estimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above 10 micrograms per 191 deciliter (μg/dL) declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1. 6 4 % between 2003 1999 and 192 2004 (Ref. 2 25 ). More information on Federal effort s to address lead poisoning, including the 193 responsibilities of EPA and other Federal Agenci es under Title X, can be found in Units III.A. 194 and III.B. of the preamble to the 2006 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule 195 (2006 Proposal) (Ref. 3). 196

197

The Act added a new title to TSCA entitled “Title IV-Lead Exposure Reduction.” Most 198 of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be f ound in this title, with 199 section 402 of TSCA being one source of th e rulemaking authority to carry out these 200 responsibilities. TSCA secti on 402(a) directs EPA to promulga te regulations covering lead201 based paint activities to ensure that persons pe rforming these activities are properly trained, that 202 training programs are accredited, and that contra ctors performing these ac tivities are certified. 203 These regulations must contain standards for perfo rming lead-based paint activities, taking into 204 account reliability, effectiveness, and safe ty. On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final 205 regulations under TSCA section 402 (a) that govern lead-based pa int inspections, lead hazard 206 screens, risk assessments, and abatements in ta rget housing and child-occu pied facilities (also 207

referred to as the Lead-based Pa int Activities Regulati ons) (Ref. 4). “Target housing” is defined 208 in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructe d before 1978, except housing for the elderly or 209 persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 210 housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. The Lead -based Paint Activities Regulations created a 211 subset of public and commercial buildings called child-occupied f acilities, and defined them in 212 terms of the amount of time a young child might sp end within them. These regulations, codified 213 at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain an acc reditation program for training providers and 214 training and certification requireme nts for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project 215 designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Work practice standards for lead216 based paint activities are included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for 217 interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to apply fo r and receive authorization to 218 administer their own lead-based paint activities programs. 219

220 On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint Activiti es Regulations were amended to include a 221 fee schedule for training programs seeking EP A accreditation and for individuals and firms 222 seeking EPA certification (Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 223 402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administeri ng and enforcing the lead-based 224 paint activities requirements in unauthorized Stat es. The most recent amendment to the Lead225 based Paint Activities Regulati ons occurred on April 8, 2004, wh en notification requirements 226 were added to help EPA monitor compliance with the training and certification provisions and 227 the abatement work prac tice standards (Ref. 6). 228

229 Another of EPA's responsibilit ies under Title X is to require that purchasers and tenants 230 of target housing and occupants of targ et housing undergoing re novation are provided 231 information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. As directed by TSCA section 232 406(a), the Consumer Products Safety Commi ssion (CPSC), the Department of Housing and 233 Urban Development (HUD), and EPA, in consulta tion with the Centers for Disease Control and 234 Prevention (CDC), jointly developed a lead hazar d information pamphlet entitled Protect Your 235*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 35

10T

- 0539 Family From Lead in Your Home (PYF) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was desi gned to be distributed 236 as part of the disclosure re quirements of section 1018 of Titl e X and TSCA section 406(b), to 237 provide home purchasers, renters, owners, and occ upants with the information necessary to allow 238

them to make informed choices when selecti ng housing to buy or rent, or deciding on home 239 renovation projects. The pamphlet contains information on the health effects of lead, how 240 exposure can occur, and steps that can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure during 241

various activities in the home. 242

243 Pursuant to the authority provided in section 1018 of Title X, on March 6, 1996, HUD 244 and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiri ng persons who are selling or leasing target 245 housing to provide the PYF pamphlet and informa tion on known lead-based paint and lead-based 246 paint hazards in the housing to pur chasers and renters (R ef. 8). These joint re gulations, codified 247 at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, describe in detail the information 248 that must be provided before the contract or leas e is signed and require that sellers, landlords, 249 and agents document compliance with the disclosure requirements in the contract to sell or lease 250 the property. Title X does not provide for these requirements to be administered by States or 251 Tribes in lieu of the Federal regulations . Therefore, HUD and EPA are responsible for 252 administering and enforcing th ese disclosure obligations. 253

254 TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to prom ulgate regulations requiring persons who 255 perform renovations for compensation in target h ousing to provide a lead hazard information 256 pamphlet to owners and occupants of the home being renovated. These regulations, promulgated 257 on June 1, 1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, s ubpart E (Ref. 9). The term “renovation” is 258 not defined in the statute, but the regulation, at 40 CFR 745.83, defines a “renovation” as the 259 modification of any existing structur e, or portion of a structure, that results in the disturbance of 260 painted surfaces. The regulations specifically exclude lead-based paint abatement projects as 261 well as small projects that disturb 2 square f eet or less of painted surface per component, 262 emergency projects, and renovations affecting co mponents that have been found to be free of 263 lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the regulations, by a certif ied inspector or risk 264 assessor. These regulations require the renova tion firm to document compliance with the 265 requirement to provide the owner and the occupa nt with the PYF pamphlet. TSCA section 404 266 also allows States to apply for, and receive authorization to ad minister, the TSCA section 406(b) 267 requirements. 268

269 TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations that id entify, for the purposes 270 of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous leve ls of lead in paint, dust, and soil. EPA 271 promulgated regulations pursuant to TSCA sec tion 403 on January 5, 2001, and codified them at 272 40 CFR part 745, subpart D (Ref. 10). These hazard standards define lead-b ased paint hazards in 273 target housing and child-occupied f acilities as paint-lead, dust-l ead, and soil-lead hazards. A 274 paint-lead hazard is defined as any damaged or de teriorated lead-based paint, any chewable lead275 based painted surface with evidence of teeth marks, or any lead-based paint on a friction surface 276

if lead dust levels underneath the friction surface exceed the dust-lead hazard standards. A dust277

lead hazard is surface dust that contains a ma ss-per-area concentration of lead equal to or 278 exceeding 40 micrograms per square foot ( μ g/ft 2 ) on floors or 250 μ g/ft 2 on interior windowsills 279 based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is ba re soil that contains total lead equal to or 280 exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in a play ar ea or average of 1,200 ppm of bare soil in the 281 rest of the yard based on soil samples. 282*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 35

10T

- 0539 283 B. EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 284

285 Section 402(c) of TSCA addr esses renovation and remodeling. For the stated purpose of 286 reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection with renov ation and remode ling activities, 287 section 402(c)(1) of TSCA requires EPA to prom ulgate and disseminate guidelines for the 288 conduct of such activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In 289 response to this statutory directive, EPA deve loped the guidance document entitled “Reducing 290 Lead Hazards when Remodeling Your Home” in consultation with industry and trade groups 291 (Ref. 11). This document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling 292 stakeholders through the National Lead Informa tion Center, EPA Regions, and EPA's State and 293 Tribal partners and is available at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf

. 294

295 Section 402(c)(2) of TSCA directs EPA to st udy the extent to which persons engaged in 296 various types of renovation and re modeling activities are exposed to lead during such activities 297 or create a lead-based paint ha zard regularly or occasionally. EP A conducted this study in four 298 phases. Phase I, the Environmental Field Sa mpling Study (Ref. 12), evaluated the amount of 299 leaded dust generated by vari ous typical renovation activities. Phas e II, the Worker 300 Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 22), involved collecting data on blood lead and 301 renovation and remodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood302 Lead Study (Ref. 14), was a retr ospective study focused on asse ssing the relationship between 303 renovation and remodeling activitie s and children’s blood-lead leve ls. Phase IV, the Worker 304 Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and Repair) Workers Who 305 Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but 306 focused on individuals who worked primarily in ol d historic buildings. More information on the 307 results of these peer-reviewed studies can be found in Unit III .C.1. of the preamble to the 2006 308 Proposal (Ref. 3). 309

310 Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise the regulations promulgated under 311 TSCA section 402(a), i.e. , the Lead-based Paint Activities Re gulations, to apply to renovation or 312 remodeling activities in target housing, pub lic buildings constructed before 1978, and 313 commercial buildings that create lead-based pain t hazards. Based primarily on the four-phase 314 study conducted under TSCA secti on 402(c)(2), EPA issued a proposed rule in January 2006 to 315 cover renovation, repair, and painti ng activities that disturb pain ted surfaces in target housing 316 and child-occupied facili ties (Ref. 3). In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that all 317 such activities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards because 318

available information indicated that all such ac tivities create dust-lead le vels that exceed the 319

hazard standards established under TSCA section 403. 320

321 After the 2006 Proposal was issue d, EPA conducted a field study entitled 322

“Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Pa inting Activities” (Dust 323 Study) to better characterize dust lead levels resulting from various renovation, repair, and 324 painting activities (Ref. 16). This study, comp leted in January 2007, was designed to compare 325 environmental lead levels at appropriate stag es after various types of renovation, repair, and 326 painting preparation activities were performed on the interiors and exteri ors of target housing 327 units and child-occupied facilities. Th e renovation activ ities were conducted by local 328 professional renovation firms, using personnel who r eceived lead safe work practices training. 329*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 35

10T

- 0539 The activities conducted re presented a range of renovation, repair, and pa inting activities that 330 would have been permitted under the 2006 Proposal, in cluding work practices that are restricted 331 or prohibited under the final rule, such as the use of high-speed machines without high-efficiency 332 particulate air (HEPA) filtered exhaust control to remove paint. Of particular interest was the 333 impact of using specific work practices that renovation firms w ould be required to use under the 334 proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the work area and a multi-step cleaning 335 protocol, as opposed to more t ypical work practices. The Dust Study reinforced EPA’s proposed 336 finding that typical renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead337 based paint hazards. 338

339 In April 2008, EPA issued the final Renova tion, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) 340 under the authority of sec tion 402(c)(3) of TSCA to address lead-based paint hazards created by 341 renovation, repair, and painting activities that di sturb lead-based paint in target housing and 342 child-occupied facilities (Ref. 17). The term “target housing” is defined in TSCA section 401 as 343 any housing constructed before 1978, except housing fo r the elderly or persons with disabilities 344 (unless any child under age 6 reside s or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom 345 dwelling. Under the RRP Rule, a child-occupied f acility is a building, or a portion of a building, 346 constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on at least 347 two different days within any week (Sunday thr ough Saturday period), provided that each day's 348

visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the combined 349

annual visits last at least 60 hours. The RRP Rule establishes requirements for training 350 renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sa mpling technicians; for certifying renovators, 351 dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust 352 sampling technician training; fo r renovation work pract ices; and for recordk eeping. Interested 353 States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for a nd receive authorization to administer and 354

enforce all of the elements of the RRP Rule. 355

356 C. Recent Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Developments 357

358 Shortly after the RRP Rule was published, several petitions were filed challenging the 359 rule. These petitions were cons olidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 360 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA entere d into an agreement with the environmental 361 and children’s health advocacy groups in settleme nt of their petitions (Ref. 18). In this 362 agreement, EPA committed to propose several ch anges to the RRP Rule. EPA also agreed to 363 commence rulemaking to address renovations in public and commercial buildings, other than 364 child-occupied facilities, to the extent those renovations create lead-based paint hazards. For 365 these buildings, EPA agreed, at a minimum, to do the following: 366

367 • Issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial 368 buildings other than child-occ upied facilities by December 15, 2011 and to take final action on 369 that proposal by July 15, 2013. 370

371 • Consult with EPA’s Science Advisory Board by September 30, 2011, on a methodology 372 for evaluating the risk posed by renovations in the interiors of public a nd commercial buildings 373 other than child-occupied facilities. 374

375 • Eighteen months after receipt of the Scie nce Advisory Board’s report, either issue a 376*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 35

10T

- 0539 proposal to regulate renovations on the interiors of public and co mmercial buildings other than 377 child-occupied facilities or c onclude that such renovations do not create lead-based paint 378

hazards. 379

380 On October 28, 2009

, EPA proposed to eliminate the “ opt

- out ” provision that currently 381 exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practi ce requirements of the rule where the 382

firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under 383 age 6 or pregnant wom a n resides in the home and the home is not a child

- occupied facility (Ref. 384 19)

. EPA also propos ed to require renovation firms to provide a copy of the records 385 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements of the RRP rule to 386 the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the 387

child

- occupied facility

. The final rule on these “opt

- out” and recordkeeping provisions is 388 published elsewhere in this Federal Register

. 389

390

E lsewhere in this section of this Federal Register , EPA is issuing a proposal that 391

contains additional requirements for renovations already covered by the RRP Rule. These 392 additional requirements are designed to ensure that lead

- based paint hazards generated by 393 renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovation work is finished and before the work 394

areas are re

- occupie d. Specifically, the proposal would r equire dust wipe testing after many 395 renovations covered by the RRP rule . In addition , f or a subset of jobs involving demolition or 396 removal of plaster through de structive means or the distur bance of paint using machine s 397 designed to remove paint through high

- speed operation, this proposal would also require the 398 renovation firm to demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust

- lead levels remaining in the 399 work area are below regulatory levels

. The proposal also contai ns several clarifications of 400 existing provisions of the RRP Rule and several modifications that would facilitate 401 implementation of the existing rule. 402

403 Finally, o O n August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from several environmental and 404 public health advocacy groups requesting that the EPA amend regulations issued under Title IV 405 of TSCA (Ref. 20). Specificall y, the petitioners requested that EPA lower the Agency’s dust406 lead hazard standards issued pursu ant to section 403 of TSCA from 40 μ g/ft 2 to 10 μ g/ft 2 or less 407

for floors and from 250 μ g/ft 2 to 100 μ g/ft 2 or less for window sills. The petitioners also asked 408 EPA to modify the definiti on of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 from 0.5 409 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm )) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a 410 corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard. On October 22, 411 2009, EPA granted this petition under section 553(e) of the Admini strative Procedures Act, 5 412 USC 553(e) (Ref. 21). In granting this peti tion, EPA agreed to commence the appropriate 413 proceeding, but did not commit to a particular schedule or to a particular outcome. Because 414 Congress gave the Department of Housing and Ur ban Development (HUD) statutory authority to 415 establish a lower level of lead in paint for the purpose of the definition of the term “lead-based 416 paint” in target housing (see 15 USC 2681(9)) , EPA agreed to work with HUD in taking the 417 appropriate action on the request pe rtaining to the definition of th e term “lead-based paint.” 418

419 D. Information on Lead and its Health Effects 420

421 Lead is a soft, bluish metallic chemical el ement mined from rock and found in its natural 422 state all over the world. Lead is virtually indest ructible, is persistent, and has been known since 423*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 35

10T

- 0539 antiquity for its adaptability in making various usef ul items. In modern times, it has been used to 424 manufacture many different produc ts, including paint, batteries , pipes, solder, pottery, and 425 gasoline. Through the 1940's, paint manufacturers frequently used lead as a primary ingredient 426 in many oil-based interior and exterior house paints. Usage gradually decreased through the 427 1950's and 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced lead and as latex paints became more widely 428

available. 429

430 1. Health effects in general. Lead bioaccumulates, and is only slowly removed, with 431 bone lead serving as a blood lead source for year s after exposure and may serve as a significant 432 source of exposure. Bone accounts for more than 90% of the total body burden of lead in adults 433 and 70% in children (Ref. 22). In comparison to adults, bone mineral turns over much more 434 quickly in children as a result of growth. Ch anges in blood lead concen tration in children are 435 thought to parallel more closely to change s in total body burden. Therefore, blood lead 436 concentration is often used in epidemiologic a nd toxicological studies as an index of exposure 437 and body burden for children. 438

439 Lead is known for its “broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems via 440 widely diverse mechanisms of action” (Ref. 22, p. 8–24 and section 8.4.1). This array of health 441 effects includes effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological development 442 and function, reproduction and phys ical development, kidney func tion, cardiovascular function, 443 and immune function. The weight of evidence varies across this array of effects and is 444 comprehensively described in the EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Criteria Document) (Ref. 445 22). There is also some evidence of lead carcin ogenicity, primarily from animal studies, together 446 with limited human evidence of suggestive asso ciations (Ref. 22, sections 5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). 447 Lead has also been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the In ternational Agency for 448 Research on Cancer (inorg anic lead compounds), based mainly on sufficient animal evidence on 449

limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animals , and as reasonably anticipated to 450 be a human carcinogen by the U.S. National To xicology Program (lead and lead compounds) 451 (Ref. 22, section 6.7.2). EPA consid ers lead a probable carcinogen based on the available animal 452

data ( http:// www.epa.gov /iris/subst/0277.htm (Ref. 22, p. 6–195)). 453

454

This discussion is focused on those effects most pertinent to ambient exposures, which, 455 given the reductions in ambient l ead levels over the past 30 years, are generally those associated 456

with individual blood lead levels in ch ildren and adults in the range of 10 μ g/dL and lower. 457 These key effects include neurological, hemato logical, and immune effects for children, and 458 hematological, cardiovascular, and renal eff ects for adults (Ref. 22, Tables 8–5 and 8–6, pp. 8– 459 60 to 8–62). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the Criteria Document, 460

“neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovasc ular effects in adults are among those best 461

substantiated as occurri ng at blood lead concentra tions as low as 5 to 10 μ g/dL (or possibly 462 lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public hea lth concern” (Ref. 22, p. 463 8–60). At mean blood lead levels, in children, on the order of 10 μ g/dL, and somewhat lower, 464

associations have been found w ith effects to the immune syst em, including altered macrophage 465 activation, increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) le vels and associated increased risk for 466 autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 22, sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6). A meta-analysis of numerous 467 studies estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μ g/dL) is associated with 468 ~1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) increase in systolic bl ood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg 469 increase in diastolic pressure (R ef. 22, p. E–10). With respect to renal effects in adults, increased 470*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 35

10T

- 0539 risk for nephrotoxicity was observed at the lo west lead exposure levels in epidemiological 471 studies included in the Criteria Document (Ref . 22, p. 8-49). Nephrotic effects were reported 472 among some adults with mean concurrent blood lead levels as low as 2 to 4 μ g/dL

. “More 473 specifically, the newly available general population studies have shown associations between 474 blood Pb and indicators of renal function impa irment at blood-Pb levels extending below 10 475

μ g/dL, with nephrotic effects ha ving been reported among some adults with mean concurrent 476

blood-Pb levels as low as ~2 to 4 μ g/dL.” (Ref. 22, p. 8-4 9 8 ). 477

478 The toxicological and epidemiological inform ation available “includes assessment of new 479 evidence substantiating risks of deleterious effects on certain h ealth endpoints being induced by 480 distinctly lower than previously demonstrated lead exposures indexe d by blood lead levels 481 extending well below 10 μ g/dL in children and/or adults” (Ref. 22, p. 8– 25). Some health 482

effects associated with individual blood lead levels extend below 5 μ g/dL, and some studies have 483

observed these effects at the lo west blood levels considered. With regard to population mean 484 levels, the Criteria Document points to studi es reporting “lead effect s on the intellectual 485 attainment of preschool and school age children at population mean concu rrent blood-lead levels 486 [BLLs] ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 μ g/dL” (Ref. 22, p. E–9). 487

488 EPA notes that many studies over the past deca de, in investigating e ffects at lower blood 489 lead levels, have utilized the CDC advisory leve l or level of concern fo r individual children (10 490

μ g/dL). This level has variously been called an a dvisory level or level of concern. In addressing 491 children’s blood lead levels, CDC has stated, “[s]p ecific strategies that ta rget screening to high492 risk children are essential to identify children with BLLs ≥ 10 μ g/dL” (Ref. 1) as a benchmark 493 for assessment, and this is reflected in the numer ous references in the Criteria Document to 10 494

μ g/dL. Individual study conclusions stated with regard to effects observed below 10 μ g/dL are 495 usually referring to individual blood lead levels. In fact, ma ny such study groups have been 496

restricted to individual blood lead levels below 10 μ g/dL or restricted to blood lead levels below 497

levels that are lower than 10 μ g/dL ( e.g. , the blood lead levels must be below 8 μ g/dL). EPA 498

notes that the mean blood lead level for these groups will necessarily be lower than the blood 499 lead level below which they are restricted, becau se the restricted blood lead level is the upper 500 end of the blood lead level range of the study. 501

502 Threshold levels, in terms of blood lead levels in indivi dual children, for neurological 503 effects cannot be discerned from the currently available studies (Ref. 22, pp. 8–60 to 8–63). The 504 Criteria Document states, “There is no level of lead exposure that can ye t be identified, with 505 confidence, as clearly not being a ssociated with some risk of dele terious health effects” (Ref. 22, 506 p. 8–63). As discussed in the Criteria Document , “a threshold for lead neurotoxic effects may 507 exist at levels distinctly lower than the lowe st exposures examined in these epidemiologic 508 studies” (Ref. 22, p. 8– 67). Physiological, beha vioral and demographic factors contribute to 509

increased risk of lead-related health effects. Population groups potentially at risk, sometimes 510 also referred to as sensitive populations, incl ude those with increased susceptibility (i.e., 511 physiological factors contributing to a greater response fo r the same exposure), as well as those 512 with greater vulnerability (i.e., those with increased exposure su ch as through exposure to higher 513

media concentrations or resulti ng from behavior leading to incr eased contact with contaminated 514 media), or those affected by socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health care or low 515 socioeconomic status (Ref. 22). 516

517*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 35

10T

- 0539 Children are at increased risk of lead-related health effects due to various factors that 518 enhance their exposures (e.g., via the hand-to-mout h activity that is prevalent in very young 519 children, (Ref. 22, section 4.4.3)) and susceptibility. While children are cons idered to be at a 520 period of maximum exposure around 18–27 months, recent epidemiologic studies have found 521 other blood lead measurements, including concurrent blood lead levels or lif etime averages, to be 522 stronger predictors of lead-associated effects th an peak blood lead concentration (Ref. 22, pp. 6- 523 60 and 6-61). The evidence “supports the idea that lead exposure continues to be toxic to 524 children as they reach school age, and [does] not lend support to the interpretation that all the 525 damage is done by the time the child reaches 2 to 3 years of age” (Ref. 22, section 6.2.12). The 526 following physiological and demographic factors can fu rther affect risk of lead-related effects in 527

some children. 528

529 • Children with particular genetic polymor phisms (e.g., presence of the d-aminolevulinic 530 acid dehydratase-2 [ALAD-2] allele) may have increased sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may 531 be due to increased susceptibility to the same internal dose and/or to increased internal dose 532 associated with same exposure (Ref. 22, p. 8–71, sections 6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6). 533

534 • Some children may have blood lead levels hi gher than those otherw ise associated with a 535 given lead exposure (Ref. 22, sec tion 8.5.3) as a result of nutriti onal status (e.g., iron deficiency, 536 calcium intake), as well as genetic and othe r factors (Ref. 22, chapte r 4 and sections 3.4, 5.3.7, 537 and 8.5.3). 538

539 • Situations of elevated exposure, such as re siding near sources of ambient lead, as well 540 as socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health care or low socioeconomic status can 541

also contribute to increased blood lead levels and increased risk of associated health effects from 542

air-related lead (Refs. 23, 24). 543

544

• [ C ] hildren in poverty and black, non-Hispanic children have notably higher blood lead 545 levels than do economically well-off children and white children, in general (Ref. 25). 546

547

2. Neurological effects in children . Among the wide variety of health endpoints 548 associated with lead exposures, there is genera l consensus that the developing nervous system in 549 children is among the, if not the, most sensitive. While blood lead levels in U.S. children have 550 decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have investig ated and reported associations 551 of effects on the neurodevelopment of children wi th these more recent blood lead levels (Ref. 22, 552 chapter 6). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity during childhood include 553 neurophysiologic, motor, cognitive , and behavioral impacts. Nu merous epidemiological studies 554 have reported neurocognitive, neurobehaviora l, neurophysiologic, and neuromotor function 555

effects in children with blood lead levels below 10 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2 and 8.4). As 556

discussed in the Criteria Docu ment, “extensive experimental laboratory animal evidence has 557 been generated that (a) substantiates well the pl ausibility of the epidemiologic findings observed 558 in human children and adults and (b) expa nds our understanding of likely mechanisms 559 underlying the neurotoxic effects” (Ref. 22, p. 8–25; section 5.3). 560

561 Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have been observed in 562 epidemiological studies have included decrements in intelligence test results, such as the widely 563 used IQ score, and in academic achievement as assessed by various standard ized tests as well as 564*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 35

10T

- 0539 by class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16 and pp. 8–29 to 8–30). As noted in 565 the Criteria Document with regard to the la tter, “[a]ssociations be tween lead exposure and 566

academic achievement observed in the studies note d in this section were significant even after 567 adjusting for IQ, suggesting that lead-sensiti ve neuropsychological processing and learning 568 factors not reflected by global in telligence indices might contribute to reduced performance on 569 academic tasks” (Ref. 22, pp. 8–29 to 8– 30). Furthe r, neurological effects in general include 570 behavioral effects, such as delinquent be havior (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.6 and 8.4.2.2), sensory 571 effects, such as those relate d to hearing and vision (Ref . 22, sections 6.2.7 and 8.4.2.3), and 572

deficits in neuromotor function (Ref. 22, p. 8–36). 573

574 With regard to potential imp lications of lead effects on IQ, the Criteria Document 575 recognizes the “critical” di stinction between population and indi vidual risk, identifying issues 576 regarding declines in IQ for an individual and for the population. The Criteria Document further 577 states that a “point estimate indicating a modest mean change on a health index at the individual 578 level can have substantial implications at the population level” (R ef. 22, p. 8–77). As an 579 example, the Criteria Document states, “although an increase of a few mm Hg in blood pressure 580 might not be of concern for an individual’s we ll-being, the same increas e in the population mean 581 might be associated with substant ial increases in the percentages of individuals with values that 582 are sufficiently extreme that they exceed the criteria used to diagnose hypertension” (Ref. 22, p. 583 8–77). A downward shift in the mean IQ value is associated with both su bstantial decreases in 584 percentages achieving very high scores and substan tial increases in the per centage of individuals 585 achieving very low scores (Ref. 22, p. 8–81). Fo r example, for a population mean IQ of 100 586 (and standard deviation of 15), 2.3% of the popul ation would score above 130, but a shift of the 587 population to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% of the population scoring above 130 (Ref. 22, 588 pp. 8–81 to 8–82). “ For an individual functioning in the low [ IQ ] range due to the influence of 589 developmental risk factors othe r than lead, a lead-associated [ IQ ] decline of several points might 590 be sufficient to drop that individu al into the range associated with increased risk of educational, 591 vocational, and social failure ” (Ref. 22, p. 8–77). 592

593 Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have incl uded effects on attention, 594 executive functions, language, memory, learning, and visuospatial processing (Ref. 22, sections 595 5.3.5, 6.2.5, and 8.4.2.1), with attention and executive function effects associated with lead 596 exposures indexed by blood lead levels below 10 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8–30 to 597 8–31). The evidence for the role of lead in this suite of effects includes experimental animal 598 findings (Ref. 22, section 8.4.2.1; p. 8–31), which provi de strong biological plausibility of lead 599 effects on learning abilit y, memory and attention (Ref. 22, s ection 5.3.5), as well as associated 600 mechanistic findings. 601

602 The persistence of such lead-induced effect s is described in the Criteria Document ( e.g. , 603 Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.11, and 8.5.2). The persiste nce or irreversibility of such effects can 604 be the result of damage occurring without adequate repair offsets or of the persistence of lead in 605 the body (Ref. 22, section 8.5.2). It is additionally important to note that there may be long-term 606 consequences of such deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and achievement can have 607 “enduring and important effects on objective parameters of success in real life,” as well as 608 increased risk of antisocial and delinque nt behavior (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16). 609

610 Multiple epidemiologic studies of lead and child development have demonstrated 611*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 35

10T

- 0539 inverse associations between blood lead concen trations and children’s IQ and other cognitive612 related outcomes at successively lower lead exposure levels over the past 30 years (Ref. 22, 613 section 6.2.13). For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, described in the 614 Criteria Document, provides clear substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated 615

in children with mean blood lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 μ g/ dL, and some analyses 616

indicate lead effects on intell ectual attainment of children for which population mean blood lead 617 levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2, 8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, 618

while blood lead levels in U.S. children have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer 619 studies have investigated and reported associations of eff ects on the neurodevelopment of 620

children with blood lead levels similar to the more recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 22, 621 chapter 6). 622

623 Children in minority populati ons and children from low

- income families have an 624 increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Non

- Hispanic black c hildren and children 625

from low

- income families have an increased risk of exposur e to harmful lead levels. Analysis of 626

the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data show that overall the 627

incidence of elevated blood lead levels have decreased for all groups assessed (Ref. 2 5 )

. 628
However, the geometric mean blood le ad level was significantly higher for non

- Hispanic blacks 629 (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non

- Hispanic whites (1. 7 630 μg/dL). For children aged 1

- 5 years from families with low income, the geometric mean blood 631

lead level was 2.5 μg/dL . Further, the incidences of blood

- lead levels greater than 10 μ g/dL and 632 greater than or equal to 5 μ g/dL were higher for non

- Hispanic blacks ( 3.4 % and 14 % 633 respectively) than for Mexican Americans ( 1.2 % and 4.7 %, respectively) and non

- Hispanic 634

white s ( 1.2 % and 4.4 %, respectively)

. The analysis indicates that residence in older housing, 635 poverty, age, and being non

- Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels (Ref. 636

2 5 ). Children in minority populations and children whose families are poo r have an increased 637 risk of exposure to harmful lead levels (Ref. 25, at e376). Anal ysis of the National Health and 638 Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 shows that the 639 prevalence of blood lead levels equal to or exc eeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 1 to 5 years has 640

decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999- 2004, which is an 84% decline (Ref. 25, at 641 e377). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non-Hisp anic black children 642 aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL 643 (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) (Ref. 25) . In addition, among children 644 aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the geom etric mean blood lead le vel was significantly 645 higher for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), compar ed with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and 646 non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/dL) (Ref. 25, at e377). For children aged 1 to 5 years from families 647 with low income, the geometric mean blood lead le vel was 2.4 μg/dL (Ref. 25, at e377). Further, 648 the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 ug/dL and greater than or equal to 5ug/dL 649 were higher for non-hispanic bl acks (14% and 3.4% respectively) than for Mexican Americans 650 (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 25). 651 The “analysis indicates that residence in ol der housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic 652 black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels” (Ref. 25, at e376). 653

654

3. Adult health effects . As previously noted, the adult health effects of lead exposure 655 include negative impacts on renal and cardiovascu lar function. While cardiovascular effects in 656

adults are well substantiated as occurring at bl ood lead levels as low as 5 to 10 μ g/dL (or 657 possibly lower), newly-demonstrated renal sy stem effects among general population groups are 658*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 35

10T

- 0539 also emerging as low-level lead exposure effects of concern (Ref

. 22, p. 8-60). 659

660 Most studies in general adult and pati ent populations published during the past two 661

decades have observed associations between “Pb dose and worse renal function.” (Ref

. 22, p. 6- 662 112) The cumulative effect of higher blood lead leve ls from past exposure may be a factor in the 663 nephrotoxicity observed at curren t blood lead levels. However, one study found associations 664

between blood lead and concurrent serum creatinin e in participants whose peak blood lead levels 665 were equal to or less than 10 μ g/dL (Ref

. 22, p. 6-112). “ The threshold for lead-related 666 nephrotoxicity cannot be determined based on curr ent data, but associatio ns with clinically667

relevant renal outcomes have been observed in populations with mean bl ood lead levels as low 668

as 2.2 μ g/dL ” (Ref

. 22, p. 6-112). ” In addition, the available data are not sufficient to determine 669 whether the observed nephrotoxicity is related more to such cu rrent blood lead levels, higher 670 levels from past exposures, or both (Ref

. 22, p. 8-49). Some adult populations are at an even 671 greater risk for adverse health eff ects as a result of lead exposure. “ The influence of an 672

individual’s health stat us on susceptibility to lead toxicity has been demonstrated most clearly 673

for renal outcomes. ” “Individuals with diabetes, hyperten sion, and chronic renal insufficiency 674

are at increased risk of Pb-associated declines in renal function, and indica tions of altered kidney 675 function have been reported at blood Pb levels ranging somewhat below 5 μ g/dL (Lin et al., 676 2001, 2003; Muntner et al., 2003; Ts aih et al., 2004).” (Ref

. 22 p. 8-72)

. 677

678 Positive associations between lead exposur e and increased blood pressure have been 679 observed in numerous studies. Epidemiologic st udies that have examin ed the effects of blood 680 lead levels on blood pressure have generally found positive associations, even after controlling 681 for confounding factors such as tobacco smoki ng, exercise, body weight , alcohol consumption, 682 and socioeconomic status (Ref

. 22, p. 8-45). Recent meta-analyses of these studies have reported 683 robust, statistically-significan t, though small effect-size, associations between blood-Pb 684 concentrations and blood pressure. For example, the meta-analysis of Nawrot et al (2002) 685 indicated that a doubling of bl ood lead corresponded to a 1 mm Hg increase in systolic blood 686 pressure. Although this magnitude of increase is not clinically m eaningful for an individual, a 687 population shift of 1 mm Hg is important (Ref 22, p. 8-45). The majority of the more recent 688 studies employing bone lead level have also f ound a strong association between long-term lead 689 exposure and arterial pressure. “Since the residence time of Pb in blood is relatively short but 690 very long in bone, the latter observations have provided compelling evidence for the positive 691 relationship between Pb exposure an d a subsequent rise in arterial pressure in human adults.” 692 (Ref 22, p. 8-45) 693

694

Studies also demonstrate a relationship between increased lead exposure and other 695 adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including increased incidence of hypertension and 696 cardiovascular morbidity and mo rtality (Ref. 22, p. 6-154). “L ead interference in calcium697 dependent processes, including ionic transport systems and signaling pathways important in 698 vascular reactivity may only represent the first step in the cascade of Pb-induced physiological 699

events that culminates in cardi ovascular disease. Lead altera tion of endothelial cell response to 700 vascular damage, inducement of smooth muscle cell hyperplasia, alte ration of hormonal and 701 transmitter systems regulating vascular reactivity, and its clear role as promoter of oxidative 702 stress suggest mechanisms that could explai n the Pb-associated incr ease in blood pressure, 703 hypertension, and cardiovascular di sease noted in this section

. ” (Ref

. 22, p. 6-153)

. 704

705*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 35

10T

- 0539 Current research does not definitively indica te whether health impacts observed later in 706 life are the result of current lead exposure or exposure which occurred during early childhood or 707 at some other time in the past. The following exce rpts from the Criteria Document illustrate the 708 uncertainties surrounding this issue: 709

710 • “It could be that damage occurred duri ng a circumscribed period when the critical 711 substrate was undergoing rapid development, but that the high correlation between serial blood 712 Pb levels impeded identification of the special significance of exposure at that time.” (Ref. 22, p. 713 8-73) 714

715

• “While some observations in children as old as adolescence i ndicate that exposure 716 biomarkers measured concurrently are the st rongest predictors of late outcomes, the 717 interpretation of these observati ons with regard to critical windows of vulnerability remains 718

uncertain

. ” (Ref

. 22, p. 8-74)

. 719

720

4. Renovations in residential set tings and elevated blood lead levels. EPA’s Wisconsin 721 Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described more fully in Unit III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 722 Proposal, provides ample evidence of a link be tween renovation activitie s and elevated blood 723 lead levels in resident children (Ref. 14). This peer-reviewed study concluded that general 724 residential renovation and remodeling is associated with an increased risk of elevated blood lead 725 levels in children and that sp ecific renovation and remodeling activ ities are also associated with 726

an increase in the risk of elevated blood lead le vels in children. In particular, removing paint 727 (using open flame torches, using heat guns, us ing chemical paint removers, and using wet 728 scraping/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sandi ng or scraping significan tly increased the risk 729

of elevated blood lead levels. 730

731 Three studies from New York support th e findings of the Wisconsin Childhood Blood732 Lead Study. In 1995, the New York State Depart ment of Health assessed lead exposure among 733 children resulting from home renovation and rem odeling in 1993–1994. A review of the health 734 department records of children with blood l ead levels equal to or greater than 20 μ g/dL identified 735 320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood l ead levels that were attribut able to renovation and remodeling 736 (Ref. 26). An update to that study with data fr om environmental investig ations conducted during 737 2006-2007 in New York State (exc luding New York City) identif ied renovation, repair, and 738 painting activities as the probable source of l ead exposure in 14% of 972 children with blood 739 lead levels equal to or exceeding 20 μ g/dL (Ref. 27). The authors c oncluded that children living 740 in housing undergoing renovation, repair, and painting that was built before 1978, and 741 particularly before 1950, when conc entrations of lead in paint we re higher, are at high risk for 742 elevated blood lead levels. The final study was a case-control study that assessed the association 743

between elevated blood lead levels in childre n younger than 5 years and renovation or repair 744 activities in homes in New York City (Ref. 28). EPA notes that the authors show that when dust 745 and debris was reported (by respondents via tele phone interviews) to be “everywhere” following 746 a renovation, the children’s blood lead levels were significantly high er than those of the children 747 at homes that did not report remodeling work. On the other hand, when the respondent reported 748

either “no visible dust and debris” or that “dust and debris was limited to the work area,” there 749 was no statistically significant eff ect on blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report 750 remodeling work. Although the study found only a weak and nonsignificant link between a 751 report of any renovation activity and the likeliho od that a resident child had an elevated blood- 752*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 35

10T

- 0539 lead level, the link to the like lihood of an elevated blood-lead le vel was statistically significant 753 for surface preparation by sanding and for renovati on work that spreads dust and debris beyond 754

the work area. The researchers noted the cons istency of their results with EPA’s Wisconsin 755 Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 28, at 509). 756

757 III. Renovations in Public and Commercial Buildings 758

759 In many respects, EPA’s approach to determining whether and how to regulate exterior 760 renovations on public and commercial buildings and whether and how to regulate interior 761 renovations in public and commercial buildings must will be similar to the approach taken 762 towards renovation activities in and on targ et housing and child-o ccupied facilities. Although 763

t T he statutory directive under TS CA section 402(c)(3) is the sa me for all of these buildings , each 764 type of building may present a differe nt level of exposure to occupants

. In this ANPRM, EPA is 765 taking comment on the many considerations it must revise take into account when revising the 766 regulations issued under TSCA s ection 402(a) to apply to those renovations that create lead767 based paint hazards in public and commercial buildings

. 768

769 An important consideration in determining how to regulate renova tions on the exteriors 770 of public and commercial buildings is that these renovations can create lead-based paint hazards 771 on and in target housing and child-o ccupied facilities. Lead dust can travel in the environment 772 and has been shown to be readily tracked into home s and other buildings. In fact, as discussed in 773 Unit III.B.1. a substantial propor tion of interior dust is due to track-in activities. 774

775 A. Definitions of “Public Buildi ng” and “Commercia l Building” 776

777 While the term “target housing” is define d in TSCA section 401, TS CA Title IV does not 778 provide definitions for the terms “public building” and “commercial building.” The issue of the 779 buildings that could and should be covered by these terms was raised, but not conclusively 780 resolved, in the rulemaking to establish the existi ng Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations. 781

782 As discussed previously, EPA promulgate d the final Lead-based Paint Activities 783 Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) in 1996 (Ref . 4). These regulations cover lead-based 784 paint inspections, lead ha zard screens, risk assessments, and abatements. The regulations include 785 training and certification requireme nts for individuals and firms, accreditation requirements for 786 lead-based paint training providers , and work practice standards de signed in accordance with the 787 statutory directive to ensure that lead-based paint activities are conducted safely, reliably and 788 effectively. As initially proposed in 1994, one set of requirements for the training and 789

certification of contractors and th e accreditation of training program s, as well as specific work 790 practice standards would have appl ied to lead-based paint activiti es conducted in target housing 791 and public buildings (Ref. 29). The 1994 proposal would have defined public buildings to 792 include all buildings generally open to the public or occupied or visite d by children, such as 793 stores, museums, airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals, and government buildings, as well as 794 schools and day-care centers. In the final rule, EPA decided to focus on buildings frequented by 795 children and, thus, established a subset of the bu ildings EPA had intended to define as public. 796 This subset is called “child-occupied facilities” and it is delineated terms of the frequency and 797 duration of visits by partic ular children (Ref. 4). 798

799*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 35

10T

- 0539 EPA continues to believe that it is important to emphasize the deleterious effects of lead 800 exposure on young children, a sub-populat ion that has long been identi fied as being particularly 801 susceptible to the adverse effects of lead. Howeve r, it is also important to address exposures for 802 other sensitive sub-populations, such as women w ho are pregnant or who may become pregnant 803 in the future. In addition, as discussed in Unit II.D. of this preamble, a growing body of 804

scientific literature documents lead’s adverse effects on older children and adults at lower levels 805 of exposure than previously documented. As a result, EPA does not believe that the Agency’s 806

efforts options considered in this rulemaking should be limite d to those buildings or situations 807 where young children are likely to be exposed. EP A intends to evaluate all of the available 808 information on hazards, exposures, and risk to determine which renovations TSCA requires EPA 809 to regulate and how TSCA requi res EPA to regulate them. 810

811 While TSCA Title IV does not define “public building” or “commercial building,” a 812 definition of “public and commercial building” wa s provided in TSCA Title II. TSCA Title II 813 addresses the management of asbestos-containing building materials in school buildings and the 814 training and accreditation (or certif ication) of persons who perform asbestos inspections or 815 design or conduct asbestos abatement in public or commercial buildings. Because the primary 816 focus of TSCA Title II is primary and secondary schools, and ensuring that asbestos-containing 817 building materials in such schools are properl y managed, primary and secondary schools are 818 specifically excluded from the de finition of the term “public a nd commercial building” in TSCA 819 section 202. However, the rest of the definition signals Congress’s intention for EPA to interpret 820 the term broadly, because a public and commercia l building is defined as “any building” other 821 than a school building or a “residential apartment building” of fewer than 10 units. EPA’s 822 regulatory definition of “public and commercial bu ilding” at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 763, 823 Subpart E, Appendix C , Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan, provides examples of the types of 824 buildings covered, including industrial and o ffice buildings, government-owned buildings, 825 colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches, preschools, stores, warehouses and factories. 826 Notwithstanding the differences in focus between TSCA Title II and Title IV, EPA believes that 827 a similar broad approach to interpreting “pub lic building” and “commercial building” is 828 warranted in this rulemaking. Of course, EPA must still determine which renovations in which 829 buildings create lead-bas ed paint hazards. 830

831

One other factor must be considered in interpreting the terms “public building” and 832 “commercial building.” In 1978, the CPSC banned the use of paint containing more than 0.06% 833 lead by weight on toys, furniture, and interior and exterior surfaces in housing and other 834 buildings and structures used by consumers (Ref. 30). However, this ban specifically exempted 835 “[i]ndustrial (and commercial) bu ilding and equipment maintenan ce coatings, including traffic 836 and safety marking coatings.” It is likely that Congress was thinking of this ban, and the 837 exemption, when it limited rulemaking authority in TSCA section 402(c)(3) to public buildings 838 built before 1978, but applied no such limitation to commercial buildings. L ead

- based paint is 839 still thought to be in use in commercial buildings, especially when resistance to water and 840

corrosion is needed. 841

842 With this in mind, EPA requests comment, information and data from the public on the 843 types of buildings that should be considered “public buildings” or “commercial buildings.” 844 Specifically, EPA asks commenters to consider the following questions: 845

846*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 35

10T

- 0539 1. What types of buildings should be consid ered to be public buildings? What types 847

should be considered to be commercial buildings? Should outbuildings and structures on the 848 property be included in either category as they are in respect to target housing? Why? 849

850 2. What types of building classifications s hould be considered? S hould the criteria for 851 classifying buildings include the presence of young children , pregnant women, or population 852 density? Is it possible to categorize buildi ngs based on the contractors and the workforce 853 renovating them ( i.e. , do different contractors perform renova tions in different types of public 854 and commercial buildings , or do such work differently )? Is it possible to classify public and 855 commercial buildings using building codes

, or zoning , or other characteristics ? Should various 856 classifications of buildings be treated differe ntly with regard to required work practices

, and 857 cleaning methods , and reoccupancy criteria ? 858

859 3. Some public or commercial buildings ar e mixed-use buildings, with residences, 860

schools and/or child care facilities in the buildings. If portions of the buildings are residences 861 that are target housing ( i.e., the building was constructed befo re 1978 and the residences are not 862 otherwise exempt), how should such buildings, or particular porti ons of them, be addressed in 863 this rulemaking? 864

865

4 3 . Every four years, the Department of En ergy (DOE) collects information on the stock 866 of commercial buildings in the United States, their energy-relate d building characteristics, and 867 their energy consumption and expenditures. For the purposes of this survey, the Commercial 868 Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), commercial buildings include all buildings in 869 which at least half of the floor space is used for a purpose that is not resi dential, industrial, or 870 agricultural. This survey includes building type s that might not traditionally be considered 871 commercial, such as schools, correctional institu tions, and buildings used for religious worship. 872

More information on the CBECS can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ . DOE 873 also collects data every four years on build ings used for manufact uring activities. The 874 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) collects data on buildings used by the 875 manufacturing sector, define d by NAICS codes 31 to 33. The MECS data does not include 876 information on building vintage. More information on MECS can be found at 877 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html . What other information is available on the 878 ages, types, sizes, and other characteristics of public and commercial buildings in the United 879 States? In particular, what data is are available on the age, types, sizes, and other characteristics 880 of public or commercial buildings no t included in the CBECS or MECS? 881

882 Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2003 American Housing Survey, there are 883 77,888,000 target housing units. “Target housing” is defined under section 401 of TSCA as any 884 housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or person s with disabilities 885 (unless any child under age 6 reside s or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom 886 dwelling. EPA estimates that there are 97,000 child -occupied facili ties (COFs), as defined at 40 887 CFR 745.83. By comparison, according to DOE ’s CBECS data, there are 2,826,000 commercial 888 buildings constructed prior to 1980. This include s building types such as schools and buildings 889 used for religious worship, so there is some double-counting with the ta rget housing and COFs 890 figures described in this paragraph. According to DOE’s MECS there are 368,000 891 manufacturing buildings, but this includes post- 1978 buildings because MECS does not indicate 892 the age of the buildings. EPA is not aware of data on the number of agricultural buildings. 893*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 35

10T

- 0539 894

The estimates from the CBECS and MECS da ta provide an indication of the relative 895 magnitude of different building type s, but at this time should not be considered reflective of the 896 number of buildings that would be affected by a future EPA regulation. The number of buildings 897 affected by an EPA regulation will depend on how EPA ultimately decides to define public and 898 commercial buildings and the scope of the regul ation within that defi nition. Aside from the 899 number of structures, the charac teristics of public and commerci al buildings may differ from 900 target housing and COFs, includi ng the prevalence of l ead-based paint; the frequency, type, and 901 size of renovation work performed; and the ba seline renovation work practices used. EPA is 902 seeking information in this notice on all of these characteristics. 903

904 B. Lead-based Paint Hazards and Public and Commercial Building Renovations 905

906 1. Leaded dust and debris created by exterior renovations. The Dust Study, as described 907 in Unit II.B., demonstrated that renovations on th e exteriors of target hou sing and child-occupied 908

facilities create an enormous am ount of leaded dust that can c ontaminate soil in the vicinity. 909 Including both bulk debris and dust created by th ese renovations, geometric mean lead levels in 910 exterior samples from collection trays placed on top of the containment plastic covering the 911 adjacent ground ranged from a low of 60,662 μ g/ ft 2 for door replacement to a high of 7,216,358 912

μ g/ft 2 for removing paint with a hi gh temperature heat gun (Ref. 16). EPA requests public 913 comment on the extent to which this study shoul d inform EPA’s determination on lead-based 914 paint hazards created by exterior renovations on public and comm ercial buildings, especially 915 considering that some of the ex terior renovations in the Dust Study were performed on a school 916 building, which represents one type of public buildings. 917

918

Studies have demonstrated th at exterior dust and soil that contains lead will contaminate 919 interior building areas when dust and soil is track ed inside on the shoes and clothing of building 920 occupants and visitors and through air exchange. In one study, a re gression analysis was used to 921 investigate those factors that were most statistically significantly associated with lead loadings in 922 dust samples taken from residential carpets (Ref. 29). The study found that soil-lead 923 concentration, the practice of removing shoes befo re entering, and the use of walk-off mats at 924 entrances were all statistically si gnificant predictors of dust-lead loading in carpets. Dust and 925 soil samples collected during the study were screened to includ e only particles smaller than 150 926 microns, because these particles were considered more likely to appear on a child’s hand (Ref. 927 31). 928

929 EPA possesses data on the transport of leaded dust and debris resulting from exterior 930 renovations. In EPA’s Dust Study, measured lead dust and debris were f ound up to 18 feet from 931 the exterior work area, and the average distan ce traveled by lead dust and debris was 10.81 feet 932 (Ref. 16). However, it is important to keep in mind that exterior vertical containment was used 933 where necessary during the Dust Study to ensure that leaded dust and debris did not contaminate 934 adjacent properties, and this limited the dist ance leaded dust and debris could travel. 935 Nevertheless, the Dust Study demonstrates that individuals residing in and visiting nearby 936 properties could be exposed to leaded dust and debris create d by exterior renovations when 937

vertical containment or other containment meas ures are not used. Renovation firms or building 938 owners and managers may not spec ifically consider th e potential for these exposures on nearby 939 properties when designing and pe rforming renovations on the exteri ors of public and commercial 940*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 35

10T

- 0539 buildings. 941

942

Numerous studies have found elevated soil lead levels in residential areas surrounding 943 residential and public and commercial buildings th at have been demolished. In one study of a 944 major building demolition, lead dust was found to travel up to 20 kilometers from the demolition 945 site (Ref. 32). While EPA rec ognizes that this situation invol ves whole building demolition, the 946 Agency expects that partial de molition and similar renovation activ ities would be expected to 947 release similar types of lead-bas ed paint dust particles with the ability to travel long distances 948

and contaminate soil and other horizontal surfaces such as streets, playgrounds and other 949

surfaces with which children could come into contact. Another study (Ref. 33) found increased 950 levels of lead in alleys up to 100 meters from row house demolition. These lead levels were 951 observed despite the fact that water wetting wa s used during demolition and debris removal to 952

reduce the amount of dust released. In another study, abrasive blasting of a bridge was found to 953 deposit 50% of the removed lead-based paint bey ond 300 yards of the operation with a four mile 954 per hour wind. This study indicates that curr ent abrasive methods have the demonstrated 955 potential to contaminate the surr ounding environment and have the potential to create lead-based 956 paint hazards (Ref. 34). 957

958 There are data on the maintenance of bridges and structures (such as water towers) that 959

could be used to determine the extent of tr ansport of lead dust resulting from exterior 960 renovations. Paints on many of these steel struct ures contain up to 60-70% lead by weight (Ref. 961 35). Of particular interest are studies of the impacts of renovating these stru ctures in urban areas 962

or near schools. Evidence from steel structur es suggests that exterior public and commercial 963 building renovations can result in significant health impacts for children and others in close 964 proximity to the renovation, repair and painting work. 965

966 Given these considerations, EPA request s public comment, information, and data, 967 especially peer-reviewed studies, on the following topics: 968

969

a. What information is available on dust-lead and soil-lead levels generated by exterior 970 renovations on public and commercial buildings? To wh at extent is the data from the Dust Study 971

relevant? EPA is aware of information on the content of lead in urban and ru ral soils, and other 972 settings, such as near highways. Is there more information on the content of lead in soil or what 973 concentrations of lead are currently found in soil that EPA could use to evaluate the risk of 974 human and environmental lead exposure fr om the renovation of public and commercial 975 buildings? 976

977

b. To what extent will dust drift from exterior renovations , especially on public and 978 commercial buildings, onto neighboring properties? Would this, for instance, resemble modeling 979 plumes from smelters? 980

981 c. How far will lead-containing dust and debris travel from the exterior of properties 982 undergoing renovation? What factors will influence the travel of l ead dust? Such factors might 983 include particular renovation pr actices, the time of year, wind conditions, ground cover (e.g., 984 asphalt, concrete, dirt, vegetati on), average precipitation, or the height and concentration of 985 surrounding structures. 986

987*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 35

10T

- 0539 d. To what extent can the data on building demolition or steel structure maintenance be 988 used to predict the extent to which dust and de bris travel from exterior public and commercial 989 building renovations? 990

991

e. To what extent will exterior dust fr om the exterior renovation of public and 992 commercial buildings be tracked into the in terior of buildings being renovated or nearby other 993 buildings? To what extent will lead-based paint dust enter these buildings through open 994 windows, doorways and air exchange? 995

996 f. What actions can a contractor take to prev ent transportation of lead dust from exterior 997 renovations or to prevent the lead dust from entering the environment? 998

999 2. Leaded dust and debris generated by interi or renovations in public and commercial 1000 buildings. In determining which renovations in target housing and child -occupied facilities 1001 create lead-based paint hazards for the 2008 RRP Rule, EPA relied heavily on two Agency 1002

studies that evaluated dust-lead levels generated by renovations. One of these studies, the 1003 Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 12) , Phase I of the study conducted under TSCA 1004 section 402(c)(2), evaluated the amount of leaded dust genera ted by the following activities: 1005

1006 • Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 1007

1008 • Removal of large structures, includi ng demolition of interior plaster walls. 1009

1010 • Window replacement. 1011

1012 • Carpet removal. 1013

1014 • HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work. 1015

1016 • Repairs resulting in isolated small surf ace disruptions, including drilling and sawing 1017 into wood and plaster. 1018

1019 The dust lead levels generated by abrasive sanding were evaluated through a litera ture survey. 1020 The results of the literature survey included bot h residential buildings and public or commercial 1021 buildings. The rest of the evalua ted activities were performed as part of the study in residential 1022 buildings. 1023

1024 EPA also relied heavily on the Dust Study (R ef. 16) to promulgate the final RRP Rule. 1025 The Dust Study evaluated the dust-lead and soil-l ead levels generated by the following activities 1026 in and on an unoccupied school building a nd/or unoccupied target housing: 1027

1028 • Making cut-outs in the walls. 1029

1030 • Replacing a window from the inside. 1031

1032 • Removing paint with high and low temperature heat guns. 1033

1034*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 35

10T

- 0539 • Removing paint by dry scraping. 1035

1036 • Removing paint with a power planer. 1037

1038 • Removing kitchen cabinets. 1039

1040 EPA requests public comment, information, and data, particularly pe er-reviewed studies, 1041 on the dust-lead levels that are genera ted by renovations on the interiors of public and 1042

commercial non-residential buildings. EPA also requests comment on the extent to which these 1043

two EPA studies should inform EPA’s determin ation on lead-based pa int hazards created by 1044 renovations in the interiors of public and commerci al buildings, especially considering that some 1045 of the renovations in the Dust Study were performed in a school building. 1046

1047 3. Other evidence of lead-based paint hazards. While EPA primarily relied on the two 1048

studies described in section III.B.2. to determin e that renovations in and on target housing and 1049 child-occupied facilities create lead-based paint hazards, EPA also looked at the available 1050 evidence for a relationship between renovations and blood lead levels. In particular, EPA 1051 considered the results of the other three pha ses of the study conducted under TSCA section 1052 402(c)(2). Phase II, the Worker Characteri zation and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 13), involved 1053 collecting data on blood lead a nd renovation and remodeling activit ies from workers. Notably, 1054

half of the renovations studied occurred in commerc ial buildings and half occurred in residential 1055 housing. Thus, this study provides evidence of a relationship between commercial building 1056

renovation activities and worker blood lead levels . Phase IV, the Worker Characterization and 1057 Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and Re modeling) Workers Who Specialize in 1058 Renovations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but focused on 1059 individuals who worked primarily in old historic buildings. 1060

1061 EPA also relied on the evidence presented by Phase III of the TSCA section 402(c)(2) 1062 study, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 14), which documented a relationship 1063 between renovation and remodeling activities and the blood-lead leve ls of resident children. 1064 This evidence of a relationship is corroborated by New York studies also discussed in II.D.4. 1065

1066

EPA also considered severa l studies conducted by the Natio nal Institute of Occupational 1067 Safety and Health (NIOSH) that assessed work er exposure and transport of lead dust from 1068 renovation activities (Refs. 36 and 37). For ex ample, one study done at the University of 1069 California, Berkeley, assessed lead-based paint exposures of workers during exterior renovation 1070 work on campus buildings (Ref. 37). Estimated average exposures during dry manual sanding, 1071 dry manual scraping, power finish sanding, and po wer finish sanding with bag would exceed the 1072 permissible exposure limit (PEL) within an 8-hr period. Estimated average exposures for power 1073 sanding with HEPA exhaust, flame burning, we t manual sanding, and wet scraping would be 1074 below the PEL. Although it resulted in relati vely low worker exposures, flame burning was 1075 among the tasks associated with the higher lead le vels in air and settled dust levels in nearby 1076 areas (Ref. 37). 1077

1078 Lead-based paint is defined by TSCA as pain t with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1.0 1079 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight (TSCA section 401(9) (15 U.S.C. 1080 2681(9))). However, OSHA states in 29 CFR 1926.62 that if lead is present in the workplace in 1081*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 35

10T

- 0539 any quantity the employer is required to make an initial determination of whether any employee's 1082 exposure to lead exceeds the action level (30 ug /m3) averaged over an 8 hour day. This position 1083 is supported by the following interpretations: 1084

1085 "OSHA's role is to protect workers from hea lth and safety hazards, including exposure to 1086 harmful levels of lead, whatever the s ource. Accordingly, for all tasks governed by 1087 OSHA's Lead in Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62) involving paints having any 1088 level of lead, employers must comply with the assessment measures and any applicable 1089 protections of that standard." 1090 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadis p.show_document?p_tab le=INTERPRETATI 1091 ONS&p_id=27319. 1092

1093

"The lead-in-construction standard was intende d to apply to any detectable concentration 1094 of lead in paint, as even sm all concentrations of lead can result in unacceptable employee 1095 exposures depending upon on the method of removal and other workplace conditions. 1096 Since these conditions can vary greatly, the lead-in-construction standard was written to 1097 require exposure monitoring or the use of hist orical or objective da ta to ensure that 1098 employee exposures do not exceed the action level. Historical data may be applied to all 1099 construction tasks involving lea d. Objective data was intended to apply to all tasks other 1100 than those listed under paragra ph 1926.62(d)(2) of the standard." 1101 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadis p.show_document?p_tab le=INTERPRETATI 1102 ONS&p_id=22701. 1103

1104 EPA requests public comment, as well as ad ditional information and data, particularly 1105 peer-reviewed studies, on the relationship betw een renovations in and on public and commercial 1106 buildings and blood lead levels in workers, building occupants, a nd visitors. EPA also requests 1107 public comment on the extent to which these blo od-lead studies can inform EPA’s determination 1108 on lead-based paint hazards created by public and commercial building renovations. 1109

1110 C. Prevalence of Leaded Paint and Lead Levels in Leaded Paint in and on Public and 1111 Commercial Buildings 1112

1113 An important consideration in determini ng which renovations crea te lead-based paint 1114

hazards and how best to address those hazards is likely to be the prevalence of leaded paint 1115 disturbed and the level of lead in that paint. In issuing the 2008 RRP Rule covering renovations 1116 in target housing and child-occ upied facilities, EPA relied heavily on two surveys sponsored by 1117 HUD. The first, the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, was a representative 1118 sampling of housing units where children could resi de for lead-based paint, lead-based paint 1119 hazards, and allergens (Ref. 38). This survey provided valuable information on the prevalence 1120 of and levels of lead in lead-based paint in ta rget housing. A similar survey, the First National 1121 Environmental Health Survey of Childcare Centers, was conducted in licen sed child-care centers 1122 and included sampling for lead in paint, lead-based paint hazards, allergens, and pesticides (Ref. 1123 39). 1124

1125 EPA requests public input on these issues rela ted to the presence of leaded paint in and 1126 on public and commercial buildings: 1127

1128*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 35

10T

- 0539 1. What information and data are available on the prevalence of leaded paint? What 1129

information and data are available on the levels of lead (concentration or percentage of total) in 1130 such paint? Does the prevalen ce or lead level differ by building age, component or type ( e.g. , 1131 interior or exterior; doors and windows, trim

, or walls; wood substrate or metal substrate)? 1132

1133

2. What information and data are available on the trends in prevalence and lead levels 1134

over time? 1135

1136 3. What available data would help EPA estimate the likelihood that a public or 1137 commercial building contains lead-based paint? Are there factors that should be considered 1138 other than the year in wh ich it was constructed? 1139

1140 4. What voluntary consensus standards or othe r guidelines or specifications affect the 1141 prevalence of leaded paint and the le vels of lead in such paint? 1142

1143 5. What federal, state, and local laws, regula tions, or ordinances affect the prevalence of 1144 leaded paint and the lead levels in such paint? 1145

1146

6. What information is available on the cu rrent manufacture and import of lead-based 1147 paint for commercial building use? 1148

1149 D. Typical Renovation Activities and Build ing Management Practi ces for Public and 1150 Commercial Buildings 1151

1152 In making the determination which renovation activities in and on public and commercial 1153 buildings create lead-based paint hazards, EP A must evaluate information on the typical 1154 renovations performed and the typical practices used in performing these renovations. EPA is 1155 also interested on types of lead -paint containing building compone nts that may be reused during 1156 a renovation of a public or commercial build ing. EPA encourages the public to submit 1157 comments, information, and data re lating to these considerations. 1158

1159 1. What types of renovations are typically performed in and on public and commercial 1160 buildings, and how often is each type pe rformed? What is the span or range , both typical and 1161

extreme, in size and duration of each type of renovation job? 1162

1163

2. Do renovation firms or the building owners or managers typically assess whether the 1164 paint the y renovation firms will disturb during a renovation job in or on a public or commercial 1165 building contains lead? To what extent are there patterns in their making such assessments? 1166 Before hiring a renovation firm to perfor m a renovation, or performing a renovation using 1167 building maintenance staff, do public and comm ercial building owners or managers assess 1168 whether leaded paint is present? What me thods and procedures are currently employed by 1169 contractors or building owne rs/managers to assess whether paint contains lead? 1170

1171 3. Do building owners or managers typical ly provide notice of the lead content of 1172 building paint to renovation firms, building occu pants or the public? What triggers these 1173

notifications? Do renovation firms or building owners/manag ers typically provide advance 1174

notice of renovation activities to building occupants or the public? To what extent are there 1175*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 35

10T

- 0539 patterns in their maki ng such notifications? 1176

1177 4. Do renovation firms typically separate renovation work areas from other areas of the 1178 building or grounds to limit access and minimize the spread of dust, chips, and debris? How 1179 often are the following practices used to accomplish this separation , and to what extent are there 1180 patterns in their us ing such practices ? To what extent have renovation firms or the public 1181 building owners or managers assessed the effica cy of these separation practices on the projects 1182 where they are used, and what are the results of such assessments? 1183

1184 • Restricting access of other building occupant s or the public into or around the building 1185 during renovation through warn ing signs and/or barriers. 1186

1187 • Closing the windows of the building duri ng exterior renovations and the windows of 1188 other buildings adjacent to the work area. 1189

1190 • Placing plastic on the ground to capture the falling chips and paint dust during exterior 1191

renovations. 1192

1193 • Avoiding exterior renovati on work during windy conditions. 1194

1195 • Shutting off the ventilation system and sealing the supply and return grills during 1196

interior renovation. 1197

1198 • Sealing off the work area (establishing a work area containment system) for interior 1199

renovations. 1200

1201 • Maintaining negative pressure in the work area with respect to the adjacent areas during 1202

interior renovations. 1203

1204

• Follow OSHA housekeeping provisions specifie d in the OSHA lead standards at 29 1205 CFR 1926.62 or 29 CFR 1910.1025, or practice Practicing good housekeeping in the work area. 1206

1207 5. What clean-up practices do renovation firms typically follow during and after 1208 renovation activities in and on public and commerci al buildings? How often are brooms used? 1209 How often is wet cleaning or mopping performed? How often is vacuuming performed, and

, in 1210 particular, how often are shop vacuums used, and how often are or high-efficiency particulate air 1211 (HEPA) vacuums typically used? 1212

1213 6. How often is dust wipe testing for lead ed dust performed after renovations in public 1214 and commercial buildings? How often is soil tested for lead after renovations on public and 1215 commercial buildings , especially after exterior renovations ? Do renovation firms or building 1216 owners/managers use any other met hods to assess lead levels in dust or soil remaining after 1217

renovations? Are the results of these tests or as sessments used to determine whether the work 1218 area may be re-occupied by other building occupants or visite d by the public? 1219

1220 7. What routine cleaning procedures do the owners and managers of public and 1221 commercial buildings follow , apart from renovation projects ? How often are these procedures 1222*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 35

10T

- 0539 followed? Are there differences in cleaning procedures and or fr equencies between older (e.g., 1223 pre-1978) buildings and newe r (e.g., post-1977) buildings? 1224

1225 8. To what extent are building component s that contain lead-b ased paint reused? To what 1226 extent are reused components tested for lead-based paint before reuse? 1227

1228

9. What measures are typically To what extent are measures taken to avoid the release of 1229 lead dust during the installation a nd use of reused lead-contaminat ed building materials (such as 1230 paint removal techniques)? 1231

1232

10. What information is available on the scale and types of new renovation and repair 1233 projects on public and commercial buildings? 1234

1235

11. What types of practices are used to protect workers from exposure to lead

- based paint 1236 containing building components which are being removed for future re

- use ? 1237

1238

E. Renovation Waste 1239

1240 Waste from building renovations can cr eate lead-contaminated waste. Lead1241

contaminated waste from the renovation of reside nces, regardless of who generates the waste, is 1242

excluded from the Subtitle C Hazardous Wast e Regulations under the Resource Conservation 1243 and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Ref. 40). This includ es waste from the renovation of single family 1244 homes, apartment buildings, public housing, and m ilitary barracks. This waste may be disposed 1245 of in a municipal solid waste landfill or in a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill. 1246 However this exclusion does not apply to lead-c ontaminated waste generated from public and 1247 commercial building renovations. That waste mu st be managed in accordance with the RCRA 1248 Hazardous Waste Regulations. Given this regul atory status, EPA requests public comment, 1249 information, and data responsiv e to the following questions: 1250

1251

1. What information is available on curre nt practices for the cleanup, handling, and 1252 disposal of lead-contaminate d wastes after public and comm ercial building renovations? 1253

1254 2. Can you provide information and data on the amount of waste from renovation 1255 activities in public and commercial buildings that a contractor might currently manage as RCRA 1256

Hazardous Waste? What materials ar e typically included in this waste? 1257

1258

2 3 . To what extent (i.e. quantities) is lead-contaminated waste from public and 1259 commercial building renovations recycled? What information is available on the methods and 1260 practices currently in use for recycling such wastes? 1261

1262

3 4 . To what extent (i.e. quantities) are lead-containing building components and other 1263 waste removed from public and commercial buildings during renovations reused? What 1264 information is available on the methods and pr actices currently employed for reusing such 1265 components? 1266

1267*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 35

10T

- 0539 4 5 . Other than RCRA, what federal, state or local statutes, regulations, ordinances, or 1268 protocols govern the cleanup, handling, and disposal , and reuse of lead-contaminated waste from 1269 public and commercial bu ilding renovations? 1270

1271

5 6 . What measures are typically taken to avoid the releas e of leaded dust during the 1272 removal and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes from public and commercial building 1273

renovations? 1274

1275 F. The Renovation Workforce in Public and Commercial Buildings 1276

1277 In determining which public and commercial bu ilding renovations create lead-based paint 1278 hazards and in designing safe, re liable, and effective work practice standards to address those 1279 lead-based paint hazards, EPA must take into account the typical renovation workforce for public 1280 and commercial buildings. Accordingly, EPA seek s public comment and data to help inform the 1281 Agency’s understanding of this workforce. 1282

1283

1. What kinds of contract ors perform renovations in a nd on public and commercial 1284 buildings? How often is building maintenance st aff used to perform renovations in and on public 1285 and commercial buildings? What differences are there in the si ze or type of pr ojects typically 1286 conducted by contractors vs. building maintenance staff? 1287

1288 2. When hiring a contractor to pe rform a renovation, how often do building 1289 owners/managers check to see whether the pe rsonnel who will be performing the renovation 1290 have been trained in lead-safe work practices, i.e. , work practices designed to minimize the 1291

creation of leaded dust and debris , control the spread of such dust and debris, and properly clean 1292 up this dust and debris after th e renovation has been completed? How often do building owners 1293 and managers train (either personally or through consultants) building maintenance staff in lead1294 safe work practices? What kind of lead-safe wo rk practices training do c ontractor employees or 1295 building maintenance staff typically receive? 1296

1297 3. How often do building owners/managers or renovation contractor s hire consultants 1298 trained to evaluate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards , architects, engineers, or others, 1299

to assess the renovation work area before work begins? How often do building owners/managers 1300

or renovation contractors hire consultant s trained in lead-safe work practices , lead-based paint 1301 inspection, lead risk assessment, and/or lead project design to assist them in designing and 1302 conducting renovation projects? What are the patterns for the use of such consultants in these 1303

various situations? 1304

1305 4. Who typically provides health

, and safety , and environmental oversight during 1306 renovation projects in public and commercial buildings—the building owner, the building 1307 manager, the construction contract or, or another party? Are other specially qualified individuals 1308 involved in the oversight of re novation projects? Are interior and exterior renovations handled 1309 differently in this respect? 1310

1311 5. Typically, do contractors who perform re novations in public and commercial buildings 1312 also perform renovations in residential buildings? Are the same work practices followed in both 1313 settings? To what extent are the contractor empl oyees the same from job to job? How likely is it 1314*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 35

10T

- 0539 that an employee used to perform a public or commercial building renovation will have received 1315 the training required by the 2008 RRP Rule for renovation work in target housing and child1316 occupied facilities? Do renovation contractor s in public and commercia l buildings typically 1317 establish and enforce standard renovation work practice procedures for their employees? 1318

1319 G. Exposure Considerations 1320

1321 In determining which public and commercial bu ilding renovations create lead-based paint 1322 hazards and in fashioning reliab le, safe, and effective work pr actices for those renovations, EPA 1323 must consider the exposures of building occupants and visitors. To help inform EPA’s decision1324 making, EPA requests public comment, informati on, and data, particularly relevant peer1325 reviewed studies, related to exposures. 1326

1327 1. What are the pathways for exposure in each type of public or commercial building? 1328

1329 2. While the Agency has developed research -based daily activity patterns for general use 1330 in its analyses for children and adults, none of the patterns distinguish activities based on the 1331 character or ownership of the build ings where activities occur (Ref. 41). What data or studies are 1332 available that would assist EPA in estimating th e amount of time that a ny particular individual 1333 will spend in public and commercial buildings and what portion of that time will be in a building 1334 containing leaded paint or lead-bas ed paint hazards? What data or studies exist that characterize 1335 the range or distribution of tim e spent by typical individuals? How much variation in exposure 1336 exists in exposure by typical people? 1337

1338

3. What information and data ar e available on occupancy rates ( e.g. , number of people, 1339 days per year of occupancy), exposed population ( e.g., demographic characteristics, reason for 1340 being in the building (working, visiting, etc.)) , and time-activity patterns of occupants of each 1341 type of public or commercial building? 1342

1343

4. If surveys were to be conducted and testi ng methods employed to assess the presence, 1344 distribution and scope of lead

- containing materials in every public and commercial building 1345 before proceeding with renova tions, how frequently woul d such surveys be carried out in any 1346 given month in a town of 20,000? How frequently would such surveys be carried out i n a rural 1347 county? After what period

, could EPA be satisfied that all such public and commercial buildings 1348

have been so characterized? How often are public and commercial buildings assessed to 1349 determine the presence, distribution and extent of lead-based paint? 1350

1351 5. To what extent will people other than renovation workers, such as other building 1352 occupants, visitors, passers-by, a nd occupants of nearby buildings, be exposed to leaded dust and 1353 debris created by public and comm ercial building renovations? For instance, when scaffolding is 1354 installed, how likely is are dust and debris to waft down to passersby or to fill the ambient air? 1355 To what extent do scaffolding enclosures a ffect the dispersion of the dust and debris? 1356

1357

6. What information is available on the number of potentially-e xposed occupants of 1358 buildings undergoing renovations or buildings recently renovated, the duration of the occupants’ 1359 exposure per work day, and the number of days or hours exposed per year during and after 1360

exterior and interior renovations? To what extent are these exposure rates affected by the 1361*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 35

10T

- 0539 scheduling of the renovations, e.g., to what extent are renovations conducted during shifts or 1362 days when few regular occupants of the buildi ngs are present (typically nights and weekends)? 1363

1364

7. What information and data are available on the proximity of resi dential properties to 1365 public or commercial buildings? Wh at is the distribution of dist ances of residences, schools and 1366 day child care facilities from public or commercial buildings? In particular, to what extent are 1367 public or commercial buildings mi xed-use buildings, with residen ces, schools and/or child care 1368 facilities in the buildings? What information and data are av ailable on the correlation between 1369 the distribution of distances of residences, sc hools and day care facilities from public or 1370 commercial buildings and average incomes of communities or neighborhoods ? For example, 1371 many low income communities ar e in mixed-use neighborhoods. 1372

1373

8. What information and data are avai lable on the demographics of mixed-use 1374 neighborhoods? 1375

1376

9. For low income communities in mixed-use neighborhoods, particularly those in which 1377 the housing stock is primarily pre-1978, how shoul d EPA consider multiple exposures from both 1378 residential buildings and public and commercial buildings? 1379

1380 10. Do communities in mixed-use neighborhoods have higher burdens of lead exposure? 1381 What factors should EPA consider in assessing th e extent to which renovations in and on public 1382 and commercial buildings contribute to disproportionate impacts? 1383

1384

11. What studies and other sources of inform ation are available on the frequency of use 1385 or effectiveness of work practices designed to prevent other building occupants and visitors and 1386 persons in nearby buildings from being exposed to leaded dust and debris created by renovations 1387 in and on public and commercial buildings? 1388

1389 12. To what extent have recent building re novations or constructions installed reused 1390 building materials that are coated with lead-based paint? To what extent have installers abated 1391 or used techniques to eliminate worker or occ upant exposure to lead from these materials? 1392

1393 13. To what extent do green building certifi cation systems encourage the reuse of lead1394 contaminated building materials? To what extent do these systems encourage lead abatement of 1395

reused materials? 1396

1397

IV. References 1398

1399

As indicated under ADDRESSES , a docket has been established for this rulemaking 1400 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The following is a listing of the 1401 documents that are specifically referenced in this document. Th e docket includes these 1402 documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced 1403

within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not 1404 physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other docu ments, please consult 1405

the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 1406

1407 1. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. 1408*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 35

10T

- 0539 Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federa l Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards 1409 (February 2000). 1410

1411 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv ices (HHS), Public Health Service (PHS), 1412

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young 1413 Children; A Statement by the Centers for Di sease Control and Prevention August 2005). 1414

1415 3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 1416 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006). 1417

1418 4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 1419 Child-Occupied Facilities: Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996). 1420

1421 5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for A ccreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead1422 based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999). 1423

1424 6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-based Paint Abatement Activities 1425 Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 18489, April 8, 2004). 1426

1427 7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commi ssion (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 1428 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Fa mily From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K1429 99-001, June 2003). 1430

1431 8. Department of Housing and Urban Deve lopment (HUD), USEPA. Lead; Requirements 1432

for Disclosure of Known Lead-Bas ed Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final 1433

Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996). 1434

1435 9. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target 1436 Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 29907, June 1, 1998). 1437

1438 10. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Da ngerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 1439 Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001). 1440

1441 11. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-K-97-001, 1442 September 1997). 1443

1444 12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1445 Phase I, Environmental Field Sa mpling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 1446

1447 13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1448 Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA747-R-96-006, May 1997). 1449

1450 14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1451 Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-L ead Study (EPA 747-R-99-002, March 1999). 1452

1453 15. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1454 Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Le ad Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in 1455*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 35

10T

- 0539 Renovation of Old or Historic Homes (EPA747-R-99-001, March 1999). 1456

1457

16. USEPA. Characterization of Dust L ead Levels After Renovation, Repair, and 1458 Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007). 1459

1460 17. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair , and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 1461 Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008). 1462

1463 18. USEPA, Sierra Club, etc. Settlement. (August, 2009). 1464

1465 19. USEPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt- out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the 1466 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 55506, 1467 October 28, 2009). 1468

1469 20. Sierra Club, etc. Petition to Lo wer Dust Lead Hazard Standard. (2009) 1470

1471 21. USEPA. Response to Petition on Dust Lead Hazard Standard (October, 2009). 1472

1473 22. USEPA. Air Quality Criteri a for Lead (September 29, 2006). 1474

1475

23. USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, 1476 Washington, DC, EPA/630/P–02/001F (May 2003). 1477

1478

24. USEPA. Review of the National Ambien t Air Quality Standards for Particulate 1479 Matter: Policy Assessment of Sc ientific and Technical Inform ation, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– 1480 452/R–05–005a. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (2005). 1481

1482 25. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pame la A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 1483 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brow n. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 1484 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Y ears, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics 2009, Vol. 123, No. 3, 1485 pp. e376-385, March 2009. 1486

1487 26. HHS, PHS, CDC. “Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home 1488 Renovation and Remodeling Activities--New York, 1993-1994.” Morbidity and Mortality 1489 Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January 3, 1997). 1490

1491 27. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevat ed Blood Lead Levels Related to Home 1492 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities – New York St ate, 2006-2007. Morbidity and 1493 Mortality Weekly Report (58( 03); 55-58, January 30, 2009). 1494

1495 28. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. Kaufmann, and 1496 Jessica Leighton. “Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk Factor for Exposure to Lead Among 1497 Children Residing in New York City?” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York 1498 Academy of Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005. 1499

1500 29. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead -Based Paint Activities: Proposed Rule. 1501 Federal Register (59 FR 45872, September 2, 1994). 1502*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 35

10T

- 0539 1503

30. CPSC. Federal Register (42 FR 44199, September 1, 19 77, as amended at 43 FR 1504 8515, March 2, 1978). 1505

1506 31. Roberts, J.W., D.E. Camann, and T.M. Spittler. “Reducing Lead Exposure from 1507 Remodeling and Soil Track-In in Older Homes.” In: Proceedings, Annual Meeting - Air and 1508 Waste Management Association . Publication No. 91-134.2. (1991a). 1509

1510 32. Stefani D, D. Wardman, T. Lambert. Th e Implosion of the Calgary General Hospital: 1511 Ambient Air Quality Issues. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2005 Jan; 55(1):52-9. 1512

1513 33. Farfel M.R., A.O. Orlova, P.S. Lees, C. Rohde, P.J. Ashley, J. Chisolm. “A Study of 1514 Urban Housing Demolition as a Source of Lead in Ambient Dust on Sidewalks, Streets, and 1515 Alleys.” Environ Res. 2005 Oct; 99(2):204-13. Epub 2004 Dec 15. 1516

1517 34. Snyder, M.K. and D. Bendersky. “Removal of Lead Based Bridge Paints.” Midwest 1518 Research Institute. National Cooperative Hi ghway Research Program Report #265 for the 1519 Transportation Research Board, Nati onal Research Council, December 1983. 1520

1521

35. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Department of the Attorney 1522 General. Rhode Island Lead Nuisance Abatement Plan (September 14, 2007). 1523

1524 36. National Institute for Occupational Safe ty and Health (NIOSH). Health Hazard 1525 Evaluation; Vermont Housi ng & Conservation Board. H ETA #98-0285-2989 Montpelier, 1526 Vermont (December 2005). 1527

1528

37. NIOSH. Health Hazard Ev aluation; University of Calif ornia, Berkley. HETA #99- 1529 0113-2853 Berkeley, California (July 2001). 1530

1531 38. HUD. National Survey of L ead and Allergens in Housing, Volume I: Analysis of 1532 Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002). 1533

1534

39. HUD. First National Environmental Health Su rvey of Child Care Centers, Volume I: 1535 Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report. (July 15, 2003). 1536

1537 40. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, 1538 Director, “Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based 1539

Paint Activities Conducted in Households” (July 31, 2000). 1540

1541 41. USEPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (Fin al Report) EPA/600/P- 95/002F a-c (1997). 1542

1543 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1544

1545 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 1546 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 1547 (OMB) for review. Any changes to the documen t that were made in response to comments 1548 received by EPA during that revi ew have been documented in the docket as required by the 1549*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 35

10T

- 0539 Executive Order. 1550

1551 Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks 1552 comments and suggestions for the Agency to co nsider in possibly de veloping a subsequent 1553 proposed rule, the various othe r review requirements that apply when an agency imposes 1554 requirements do not apply to this action. Neve rtheless, as part of your comments on this 1555 document, you may include any comments or in formation that you have regarding the various 1556 other review requirements. 1557

1558 In particular, EPA is interested in any info rmation that would help the Agency to assess 1559 the potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 1560 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ); to consider voluntary consensus stan dards pursuant to section 12(d) of the 1561 National Technology Transfer and Advancem ent Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 1562 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety effects on children 1563 pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protect ion of Children from Environmental Health 1564 Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 2 3, 1997); or to consider human health or 1565 environmental effects on minority or low-in come populations pursuant to Executive Order 1566 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Enviro nmental Justice in Mino rity Populations and 1567 Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 1568

1569 EPA specifically requests information and data to facilitate its analyses in the following 1570

two areas: 1571

1572

a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments and information 1573 about the various characteristics of potenti ally impacted small entities that would 1574 facilitate the Agency’s evaluation of the numbe r of firms that might experience an impact 1575 from a rulemaking in this area, as well as an assessment of the potential size of that 1576 impact on small entities. In commenting or providing information about small entities 1577 that might be impacted by a rulemaking in th is area, please note that the phrase “small 1578 entities” encompasses small businesses, sm all governmental jurisdictions, and small 1579 organizations. In the analysis the Agency expects to perform under the RFA, these 1580 entities are specifically defined in sections 601( 3) - (5) of the RFA. The definitions for 1581

“small business” are codified in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 1582 at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines small business by category of business using the 1583 NAICS-Codes. ( http://www.sba.gov/regulations/121/201.htm ) Small business default 1584

definitions can be found on SBA’s internet site at 1585 http://www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html . A “small governmental jurisdiction” is “a 1586 government of a city, county, town, school distri ct or special district with a population of 1587 less than 50,000.” A “small organization” is any "not-for-profit enterprise which is 1588 independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field." 1589

1590

b. Environmental Justice. EPA is particularly interested in receiving comment and 1591 information about potential impacts – both be nefits and costs – on the human health or 1592 environmental conditions in minority or low-income populations. Such information 1593 would facilitate the Agency’s considerat ion of environmental justice during the 1594 development of the proposed rule. 1595

1596*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 35

10T

- 0539 This information will be used in the iden tification and evaluation of options for the 1597 proposed rule, and will inform the analyses that the Agency intends to prepare for the proposed 1598 rule. Any comments on this topic should be submitted to the Agency in the manner specified 1599

under ADDRESSES . The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any 1600 subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to addre ss any applicable requirements. 1601

1602 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 1603

1604 Environmental protection, Hazardous s ubstance, Lead poisoning, Reporting and 1605 recordkeeping requirements. 1606

Dated: ________ 1607

_____________________ 1608

Administrator. 1609

1610 [FR Doc. 10–????? Filed ??–??–10; 8:45 am] 1611

BILLING CODE 6560

– 50

– P 1612