*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 35 

10T-0539

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

2 recommendations as of 04/22/2010.

3 

4 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

5 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

7 

8 40 CFR Part 745

9 

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

11 

12 RIN 2070–AJ56

13 

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

15 

16 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

17 

18 ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 

19 

20 SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice of the Agency’s intention to regulate the 

21 renovation, repair, and painting of public and commercial buildings under section 402(c)(3) of 

22 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This notice announces the commencement of 

23 proceedings to propose lead-safe work practices and other requirements for renovations on the 

24 exteriors of public and commercial buildings and to determine whether lead-based paint hazards 

25 are created by interior renovation, repair, and painting projects in public and commercial 

26 buildings. For those renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings that create 

27 lead-based paint hazards, EPA will propose regulations to address these hazards. 

28 

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

30 in the Federal Register]. 

31 

32 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–

33 HQ–OPPT–2010–0173, by one of the following methods: 

34 

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

36 for submitting comments. 

37 

38 • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

39 (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

40 20460–0001. 

41 

42 • Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 

43 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–

44 2010–0173. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

45 holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only 

46 accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made 

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

Page 2 of 35 

10T-0539

48 

49 Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. 

50 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and 

51 may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

52 information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 

53 Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 

54 submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov 

55 or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA 

56 will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

57 comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 

58 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 

59 comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 

60 electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information 

61 in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 

62 your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not 

63 be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 

64 any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

65 

66 Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at 

67 http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

68 available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 

69 material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 

70 available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

71 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 

72 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

73 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

74 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 

75 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 

76 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, 

77 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 

78 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 

79 the building and returned upon departure. 

80 

81 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

82 

83 For technical information contact: Hans Scheifele, National Program Chemicals 

84 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

85 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 564–3122; e86 mail address: scheifele.hans@epa.gov. 

87 

88 For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI – Goodwill, 422 South 

89 Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA90 Hotline@epa.gov. 

91 

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

93 TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339.

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

Page 3 of 35 

10T-0539

95 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

96 

97 I. General Information 

98 

99 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

100 

101 This document is directed to the public in general. However, this document may be of 

102 particular interest to the following entities: 

103 

104 • Building construction (North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 

105 236), e.g., commercial building construction, industrial building construction, commercial and 

106 institutional building construction, building finishing contractors, drywall and insulation 

107 contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, finish carpentry contractors, other building 

108 finishing contractors. 

109 

110 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 

111 contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 

112 contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 

113 glass and glazing contractors. 

114 

115 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of non-residential buildings and dwellings, non116 residential property managers. 

117 

118 • Facilities support services (NAICS code 561210). 

119 

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

121 government, public property management services, government. 

122 

123 This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

124 regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 

125 could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others in 

126 determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions 

127 regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed 

128 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

129 

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

131 

132 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e133 mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

134 information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD135 ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 

136 electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 

137 addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a 

138 copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

139 inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 

140 with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

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

Page 4 of 35 

10T-0539

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

143 

144 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 

145 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

146 

147 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

148 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

149 

150 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

151 your requested changes. 

152 

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

154 used. 

155 

156 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

157 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

158 

159 vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

160 

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

162 threats. 

163 

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

165 

166 II. Background 

167 

168 A. EPA’s Lead-based Paint Programs 

169 

170 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 

171 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of 

172 household dust containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the most 

173 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 

174 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 

175 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further 

176 determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 

177 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also known as the 

178 Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992) (“the Act” or “Title X”). Title X 

179 established a national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as 

180 possible and provided a leadership role for the Federal government in building the infrastructure 

181 necessary to achieve this goal. 

182 

183 Subsequently, President Clinton created the President's Task Force on Environmental 

184 Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Co-chaired by the Secretary of the Department of 

185 Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of EPA, the Task Force consisted of 

186 representatives from 16 Federal departments and agencies. The Task Force set a Federal goal of 

187 eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the year 2010 (Ref. 1). In October 2001, President 

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

Page 5 of 35 

10T-0539

189 charter. Reducing lead poisoning in children was the Task Force's top priority. Although more 

190 work remains to be done, significant progress has been made towards reducing lead poisoning in 

191 children. The estimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above 10 micrograms per 

192 deciliter (μg/dL) declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1.64% between 2003 1999 and 

193 2004 (Ref. 225). More information on Federal efforts to address lead poisoning, including the 

194 responsibilities of EPA and other Federal Agencies under Title X, can be found in Units III.A. 

195 and III.B. of the preamble to the 2006 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule 

196 (2006 Proposal) (Ref. 3). 

197 

198 The Act added a new title to TSCA entitled “Title IV-Lead Exposure Reduction.” Most 

199 of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be found in this title, with 

200 section 402 of TSCA being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out these 

201 responsibilities. TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering lead202 based paint activities to ensure that persons performing these activities are properly trained, that 

203 training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are certified. 

204 These regulations must contain standards for performing lead-based paint activities, taking into 

205 account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final 

206 regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard 

207 screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (also 

208 referred to as the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations) (Ref. 4). “Target housing” is defined 

209 in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or 

210 persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

211 housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. The Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations created a 

212 subset of public and commercial buildings called child-occupied facilities, and defined them in 

213 terms of the amount of time a young child might spend within them. These regulations, codified 

214 at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain an accreditation program for training providers and 

215 training and certification requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project 

216 designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Work practice standards for lead217 based paint activities are included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for 

218 interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to apply for and receive authorization to 

219 administer their own lead-based paint activities programs. 

220 

221 On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations were amended to include a 

222 fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for individuals and firms 

223 seeking EPA certification (Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 

224 402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based 

225 paint activities requirements in unauthorized States. The most recent amendment to the Lead226 based Paint Activities Regulations occurred on April 8, 2004, when notification requirements 

227 were added to help EPA monitor compliance with the training and certification provisions and 

228 the abatement work practice standards (Ref. 6). 

229 

230 Another of EPA's responsibilities under Title X is to require that purchasers and tenants 

231 of target housing and occupants of target housing undergoing renovation are provided 

232 information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. As directed by TSCA section 

233 406(a), the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of Housing and 

234 Urban Development (HUD), and EPA, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and 

235 Prevention (CDC), jointly developed a lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 35 

10T-0539

236 Family From Lead in Your Home (PYF) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was designed to be distributed 

237 as part of the disclosure requirements of section 1018 of Title X and TSCA section 406(b), to 

238 provide home purchasers, renters, owners, and occupants with the information necessary to allow 

239 them to make informed choices when selecting housing to buy or rent, or deciding on home 

240 renovation projects. The pamphlet contains information on the health effects of lead, how 

241 exposure can occur, and steps that can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure during 

242 various activities in the home. 

243 

244 Pursuant to the authority provided in section 1018 of Title X, on March 6, 1996, HUD 

245 and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiring persons who are selling or leasing target 

246 housing to provide the PYF pamphlet and information on known lead-based paint and lead-based 

247 paint hazards in the housing to purchasers and renters (Ref. 8). These joint regulations, codified 

248 at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, describe in detail the information 

249 that must be provided before the contract or lease is signed and require that sellers, landlords, 

250 and agents document compliance with the disclosure requirements in the contract to sell or lease 

251 the property. Title X does not provide for these requirements to be administered by States or 

252 Tribes in lieu of the Federal regulations. Therefore, HUD and EPA are responsible for 

253 administering and enforcing these disclosure obligations. 

254 

255 TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to promulgate regulations requiring persons who 

256 perform renovations for compensation in target housing to provide a lead hazard information 

257 pamphlet to owners and occupants of the home being renovated. These regulations, promulgated 

258 on June 1, 1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (Ref. 9). The term “renovation” is 

259 not defined in the statute, but the regulation, at 40 CFR 745.83, defines a “renovation” as the 

260 modification of any existing structure, or portion of a structure, that results in the disturbance of 

261 painted surfaces. The regulations specifically exclude lead-based paint abatement projects as 

262 well as small projects that disturb 2 square feet or less of painted surface per component, 

263 emergency projects, and renovations affecting components that have been found to be free of 

264 lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the regulations, by a certified inspector or risk 

265 assessor. These regulations require the renovation firm to document compliance with the 

266 requirement to provide the owner and the occupant with the PYF pamphlet. TSCA section 404 

267 also allows States to apply for, and receive authorization to administer, the TSCA section 406(b) 

268 requirements. 

269 

270 TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations that identify, for the purposes 

271 of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous levels of lead in paint, dust, and soil. EPA 

272 promulgated regulations pursuant to TSCA section 403 on January 5, 2001, and codified them at 

273 40 CFR part 745, subpart D (Ref. 10). These hazard standards define lead-based paint hazards in 

274 target housing and child-occupied facilities as paint-lead, dust-lead, and soil-lead hazards. A 

275 paint-lead hazard is defined as any damaged or deteriorated lead-based paint, any chewable lead276 based painted surface with evidence of teeth marks, or any lead-based paint on a friction surface 

277 if lead dust levels underneath the friction surface exceed the dust-lead hazard standards. A dust278 lead hazard is surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to or 

exceeding 40 micrograms per square foot (μg/ft2

) on floors or 250 μg/ft2 279 on interior windowsills 

280 based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is bare soil that contains total lead equal to or 

281 exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in a play area or average of 1,200 ppm of bare soil in the 

282 rest of the yard based on soil samples. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 35 

10T-0539

283 

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

285 

286 Section 402(c) of TSCA addresses renovation and remodeling. For the stated purpose of 

287 reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection with renovation and remodeling activities, 

288 section 402(c)(1) of TSCA requires EPA to promulgate and disseminate guidelines for the 

289 conduct of such activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In 

290 response to this statutory directive, EPA developed the guidance document entitled “Reducing 

291 Lead Hazards when Remodeling Your Home” in consultation with industry and trade groups 

292 (Ref. 11). This document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling 

293 stakeholders through the National Lead Information Center, EPA Regions, and EPA's State and 

294 Tribal partners and is available at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf. 

295 

296 Section 402(c)(2) of TSCA directs EPA to study the extent to which persons engaged in 

297 various types of renovation and remodeling activities are exposed to lead during such activities 

298 or create a lead-based paint hazard regularly or occasionally. EPA conducted this study in four 

299 phases. Phase I, the Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 12), evaluated the amount of 

300 leaded dust generated by various typical renovation activities. Phase II, the Worker 

301 Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 22), involved collecting data on blood lead and 

302 renovation and remodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood303 Lead Study (Ref. 14), was a retrospective study focused on assessing the relationship between 

304 renovation and remodeling activities and children’s blood-lead levels. Phase IV, the Worker 

305 Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and Repair) Workers Who 

306 Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but 

307 focused on individuals who worked primarily in old historic buildings. More information on the 

308 results of these peer-reviewed studies can be found in Unit III.C.1. of the preamble to the 2006 

309 Proposal (Ref. 3). 

310 

311 Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise the regulations promulgated under 

312 TSCA section 402(a), i.e., the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, to apply to renovation or 

313 remodeling activities in target housing, public buildings constructed before 1978, and 

314 commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. Based primarily on the four-phase 

315 study conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2), EPA issued a proposed rule in January 2006 to 

316 cover renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted surfaces in target housing 

317 and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 3). In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that all 

318 such activities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards because 

319 available information indicated that all such activities create dust-lead levels that exceed the 

320 hazard standards established under TSCA section 403. 

321 

322 After the 2006 Proposal was issued, EPA conducted a field study entitled 

323 “Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities” (Dust 

324 Study) to better characterize dust lead levels resulting from various renovation, repair, and 

325 painting activities (Ref. 16). This study, completed in January 2007, was designed to compare 

326 environmental lead levels at appropriate stages after various types of renovation, repair, and 

327 painting preparation activities were performed on the interiors and exteriors of target housing 

328 units and child-occupied facilities. The renovation activities were conducted by local 

329 professional renovation firms, using personnel who received lead safe work practices training. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 35 

10T-0539

330 The activities conducted represented a range of renovation, repair, and painting activities that 

331 would have been permitted under the 2006 Proposal, including work practices that are restricted 

332 or prohibited under the final rule, such as the use of high-speed machines without high-efficiency 

333 particulate air (HEPA) filtered exhaust control to remove paint. Of particular interest was the 

334 impact of using specific work practices that renovation firms would be required to use under the 

335 proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the work area and a multi-step cleaning 

336 protocol, as opposed to more typical work practices. The Dust Study reinforced EPA’s proposed 

337 finding that typical renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead338 based paint hazards. 

339 

340 In April 2008, EPA issued the final Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) 

341 under the authority of section 402(c)(3) of TSCA to address lead-based paint hazards created by 

342 renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint in target housing and 

343 child-occupied facilities (Ref. 17). The term “target housing” is defined in TSCA section 401 as 

344 any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities 

345 (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom 

346 dwelling. Under the RRP Rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a portion of a building, 

347 constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on at least 

348 two different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's 

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

350 annual visits last at least 60 hours. The RRP Rule establishes requirements for training 

351 renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, 

352 dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust 

353 sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. Interested 

354 States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer and 

355 enforce all of the elements of the RRP Rule. 

356 

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

358 

359 Shortly after the RRP Rule was published, several petitions were filed challenging the 

360 rule. These petitions were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 

361 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA entered into an agreement with the environmental 

362 and children’s health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions (Ref. 18). In this 

363 agreement, EPA committed to propose several changes to the RRP Rule. EPA also agreed to 

364 commence rulemaking to address renovations in public and commercial buildings, other than 

365 child-occupied facilities, to the extent those renovations create lead-based paint hazards. For 

366 these buildings, EPA agreed, at a minimum, to do the following: 

367 

368 • Issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial 

369 buildings other than child-occupied facilities by December 15, 2011 and to take final action on 

370 that proposal by July 15, 2013. 

371 

372 • Consult with EPA’s Science Advisory Board by September 30, 2011, on a methodology 

373 for evaluating the risk posed by renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings 

374 other than child-occupied facilities. 

375 

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

Page 9 of 35 

10T-0539

377 proposal to regulate renovations on the interiors of public and commercial buildings other than 

378 child-occupied facilities or conclude that such renovations do not create lead-based paint 

379 hazards. 

380 

381 On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to eliminate the “opt-out” provision that currently 

382 exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice requirements of the rule where the 

383 firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under 

384 age 6 or pregnant woman resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility (Ref. 

385 19). EPA also proposed to require renovation firms to provide a copy of the records 

386 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule to 

387 the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the 

388 child-occupied facility. The final rule on these “opt-out” and recordkeeping provisions is 

389 published elsewhere in this Federal Register.

390 

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

392 contains additional requirements for renovations already covered by the RRP Rule. These 

393 additional requirements are designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards generated by 

394 renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovation work is finished and before the work 

395 areas are re-occupied. Specifically, the proposal would require dust wipe testing after many 

396 renovations covered by the RRP rule. In addition, for a subset of jobs involving demolition or 

397 removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint using machines 

398 designed to remove paint through high-speed operation, this proposal would also require the 

399 renovation firm to demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust-lead levels remaining in the 

400 work area are below regulatory levels. The proposal also contains several clarifications of 

401 existing provisions of the RRP Rule and several modifications that would facilitate 

402 implementation of the existing rule. 

403 

404 Finally, oOn August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from several environmental and 

405 public health advocacy groups requesting that the EPA amend regulations issued under Title IV 

406 of TSCA (Ref. 20). Specifically, the petitioners requested that EPA lower the Agency’s dustlead hazard standards issued pursuant to section 403 of TSCA from 40 μg/ft2

 to 10 μg/ft2 407 or less 

for floors and from 250 μg/ft2 to 100 μg/ft2 408 or less for window sills. The petitioners also asked 

409 EPA to modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 from 0.5 

410 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a 

411 corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard. On October 22, 

412 2009, EPA granted this petition under section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 

413 USC 553(e) (Ref. 21). In granting this petition, EPA agreed to commence the appropriate 

414 proceeding, but did not commit to a particular schedule or to a particular outcome. Because 

415 Congress gave the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) statutory authority to 

416 establish a lower level of lead in paint for the purpose of the definition of the term “lead-based 

417 paint” in target housing (see 15 USC 2681(9)), EPA agreed to work with HUD in taking the 

418 appropriate action on the request pertaining to the definition of the term “lead-based paint.” 

419 

420 D. Information on Lead and its Health Effects 

421 

422 Lead is a soft, bluish metallic chemical element mined from rock and found in its natural 

423 state all over the world. Lead is virtually indestructible, is persistent, and has been known since 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 35 

10T-0539

424 antiquity for its adaptability in making various useful items. In modern times, it has been used to 

425 manufacture many different products, including paint, batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and 

426 gasoline. Through the 1940's, paint manufacturers frequently used lead as a primary ingredient 

427 in many oil-based interior and exterior house paints. Usage gradually decreased through the 

428 1950's and 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced lead and as latex paints became more widely 

429 available. 

430 

431 1. Health effects in general. Lead bioaccumulates, and is only slowly removed, with 

432 bone lead serving as a blood lead source for years after exposure and may serve as a significant 

433 source of exposure. Bone accounts for more than 90% of the total body burden of lead in adults 

434 and 70% in children (Ref. 22). In comparison to adults, bone mineral turns over much more 

435 quickly in children as a result of growth. Changes in blood lead concentration in children are 

436 thought to parallel more closely to changes in total body burden. Therefore, blood lead 

437 concentration is often used in epidemiologic and toxicological studies as an index of exposure 

438 and body burden for children. 

439 

440 Lead is known for its “broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems via 

441 widely diverse mechanisms of action” (Ref. 22, p. 8–24 and section 8.4.1). This array of health 

442 effects includes effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological development 

443 and function, reproduction and physical development, kidney function, cardiovascular function, 

444 and immune function. The weight of evidence varies across this array of effects and is 

445 comprehensively described in the EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Criteria Document) (Ref. 

446 22). There is also some evidence of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies, together 

447 with limited human evidence of suggestive associations (Ref. 22, sections 5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). 

448 Lead has also been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for 

449 Research on Cancer (inorganic lead compounds), based mainly on sufficient animal evidenceon 

450 limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animals, and as reasonably anticipated to 

451 be a human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (lead and lead compounds) 

452 (Ref. 22, section 6.7.2). EPA considers lead a probable carcinogen based on the available animal 

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

454 

455 This discussion is focused on those effects most pertinent to ambient exposures, which, 

456 given the reductions in ambient lead levels over the past 30 years, are generally those associated 

457 with individual blood lead levels in children and adults in the range of 10 μg/dL and lower. 

458 These key effects include neurological, hematological, and immune effects for children, and 

459 hematological, cardiovascular, and renal effects for adults (Ref. 22, Tables 8–5 and 8–6, pp. 8–

460 60 to 8–62). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the Criteria Document, 

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

462 substantiated as occurring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly 

463 lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public health concern” (Ref. 22, p. 

464 8–60). At mean blood lead levels, in children, on the order of 10 μg/dL, and somewhat lower, 

465 associations have been found with effects to the immune system, including altered macrophage 

466 activation, increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels and associated increased risk for 

467 autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 22, sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6). A meta-analysis of numerous 

468 studies estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is associated with 

469 ~1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) increase in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg 

470 increase in diastolic pressure (Ref. 22, p. E–10). With respect to renal effects in adults, increased 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 35 

10T-0539

471 risk for nephrotoxicity was observed at the lowest lead exposure levels in epidemiological 

472 studies included in the Criteria Document (Ref. 22, p. 8-49). Nephrotic effects were reported 

473 among some adults with mean concurrent blood lead levels as low as 2 to 4 μg/dL. “More 

474 specifically, the newly available general population studies have shown associations between 

475 blood Pb and indicators of renal function impairment at blood-Pb levels extending below 10 

476 μg/dL, with nephrotic effects having been reported among some adults with mean concurrent 

477 blood-Pb levels as low as ~2 to 4 μg/dL.” (Ref. 22, p. 8-498). 

478 

479 The toxicological and epidemiological information available “includes assessment of new 

480 evidence substantiating risks of deleterious effects on certain health endpoints being induced by 

481 distinctly lower than previously demonstrated lead exposures indexed by blood lead levels 

482 extending well below 10 μg/dL in children and/or adults” (Ref. 22, p. 8– 25). Some health 

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

484 observed these effects at the lowest blood levels considered. With regard to population mean 

485 levels, the Criteria Document points to studies reporting “lead effects on the intellectual 

486 attainment of preschool and school age children at population mean concurrent blood-lead levels 

487 [BLLs] ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 μg/dL” (Ref. 22, p. E–9). 

488 

489 EPA notes that many studies over the past decade, in investigating effects at lower blood 

490 lead levels, have utilized the CDC advisory level or level of concern for individual children (10 

491 μg/dL). This level has variously been called an advisory level or level of concern. In addressing 

492 children’s blood lead levels, CDC has stated, “[s]pecific strategies that target screening to high493 risk children are essential to identify children with BLLs ≥ 10 μg/dL” (Ref. 1) as a benchmark 

494 for assessment, and this is reflected in the numerous references in the Criteria Document to 10 

495 μg/dL. Individual study conclusions stated with regard to effects observed below 10 μg/dL are 

496 usually referring to individual blood lead levels. In fact, many such study groups have been 

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

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

499 notes that the mean blood lead level for these groups will necessarily be lower than the blood 

500 lead level below which they are restricted, because the restricted blood lead level is the upper 

501 end of the blood lead level range of the study. 

502 

503 Threshold levels, in terms of blood lead levels in individual children, for neurological 

504 effects cannot be discerned from the currently available studies (Ref. 22, pp. 8–60 to 8–63). The 

505 Criteria Document states, “There is no level of lead exposure that can yet be identified, with 

506 confidence, as clearly not being associated with some risk of deleterious health effects” (Ref. 22, 

507 p. 8–63). As discussed in the Criteria Document, “a threshold for lead neurotoxic effects may 

508 exist at levels distinctly lower than the lowest exposures examined in these epidemiologic 

509 studies” (Ref. 22, p. 8– 67). Physiological, behavioral and demographic factors contribute to 

510 increased risk of lead-related health effects. Population groups potentially at risk, sometimes 

511 also referred to as sensitive populations, include those with increased susceptibility (i.e., 

512 physiological factors contributing to a greater response for the same exposure), as well as those 

513 with greater vulnerability (i.e., those with increased exposure such as through exposure to higher 

514 media concentrations or resulting from behavior leading to increased contact with contaminated 

515 media), or those affected by socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health care or low 

516 socioeconomic status (Ref. 22). 

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

Page 12 of 35 

10T-0539

518 Children are at increased risk of lead-related health effects due to various factors that 

519 enhance their exposures (e.g., via the hand-to-mouth activity that is prevalent in very young 

520 children, (Ref. 22, section 4.4.3)) and susceptibility. While children are considered to be at a 

521 period of maximum exposure around 18–27 months, recent epidemiologic studies have found 

522 other blood lead measurements, including concurrent blood lead levels or lifetime averages, to be 

523 stronger predictors of lead-associated effects than peak blood lead concentration (Ref. 22, pp. 6-

524 60 and 6-61). The evidence “supports the idea that lead exposure continues to be toxic to 

525 children as they reach school age, and [does] not lend support to the interpretation that all the 

526 damage is done by the time the child reaches 2 to 3 years of age” (Ref. 22, section 6.2.12). The 

527 following physiological and demographic factors can further affect risk of lead-related effects in 

528 some children. 

529 

530 • Children with particular genetic polymorphisms (e.g., presence of the d-aminolevulinic 

531 acid dehydratase-2 [ALAD-2] allele) may have increased sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may 

532 be due to increased susceptibility to the same internal dose and/or to increased internal dose 

533 associated with same exposure (Ref. 22, p. 8–71, sections 6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6). 

534 

535 • Some children may have blood lead levels higher than those otherwise associated with a 

536 given lead exposure (Ref. 22, section 8.5.3) as a result of nutritional status (e.g., iron deficiency, 

537 calcium intake), as well as genetic and other factors (Ref. 22, chapter 4 and sections 3.4, 5.3.7, 

538 and 8.5.3). 

539 

540 • Situations of elevated exposure, such as residing near sources of ambient lead, as well 

541 as socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health care or low socioeconomic status can 

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

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

544 

545 • [C]hildren in poverty and black, non-Hispanic children have notably higher blood lead 

546 levels than do economically well-off children and white children, in general (Ref. 25). 

547 

548 2. Neurological effects in children. Among the wide variety of health endpoints 

549 associated with lead exposures, there is general consensus that the developing nervous system in 

550 children is among the, if not the, most sensitive. While blood lead levels in U.S. children have 

551 decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported associations 

552 of effects on the neurodevelopment of children with these more recent blood lead levels (Ref. 22, 

553 chapter 6). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity during childhood include 

554 neurophysiologic, motor, cognitive, and behavioral impacts. Numerous epidemiological studies 

555 have reported neurocognitive, neurobehavioral, neurophysiologic, and neuromotor function 

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

557 discussed in the Criteria Document, “extensive experimental laboratory animal evidence has 

558 been generated that (a) substantiates well the plausibility of the epidemiologic findings observed 

559 in human children and adults and (b) expands our understanding of likely mechanisms 

560 underlying the neurotoxic effects” (Ref. 22, p. 8–25; section 5.3). 

561 

562 Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have been observed in 

563 epidemiological studies have included decrements in intelligence test results, such as the widely 

564 used IQ score, and in academic achievement as assessed by various standardized tests as well as 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 35 

10T-0539

565 by class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16 and pp. 8–29 to 8–30). As noted in 

566 the Criteria Document with regard to the latter, “[a]ssociations between lead exposure and 

567 academic achievement observed in the studies noted in this section were significant even after 

568 adjusting for IQ, suggesting that lead-sensitive neuropsychological processing and learning 

569 factors not reflected by global intelligence indices might contribute to reduced performance on 

570 academic tasks” (Ref. 22, pp. 8–29 to 8– 30). Further, neurological effects in general include 

571 behavioral effects, such as delinquent behavior (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.6 and 8.4.2.2), sensory 

572 effects, such as those related to hearing and vision (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.7 and 8.4.2.3), and 

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

574 

575 With regard to potential implications of lead effects on IQ, the Criteria Document 

576 recognizes the “critical” distinction between population and individual risk, identifying issues 

577 regarding declines in IQ for an individual and for the population. The Criteria Document further 

578 states that a “point estimate indicating a modest mean change on a health index at the individual 

579 level can have substantial implications at the population level” (Ref. 22, p. 8–77). As an 

580 example, the Criteria Document states, “although an increase of a few mm Hg in blood pressure 

581 might not be of concern for an individual’s well-being, the same increase in the population mean 

582 might be associated with substantial increases in the percentages of individuals with values that 

583 are sufficiently extreme that they exceed the criteria used to diagnose hypertension” (Ref. 22, p. 

584 8–77). A downward shift in the mean IQ value is associated with both substantial decreases in 

585 percentages achieving very high scores and substantial increases in the percentage of individuals 

586 achieving very low scores (Ref. 22, p. 8–81). For example, for a population mean IQ of 100 

587 (and standard deviation of 15), 2.3% of the population would score above 130, but a shift of the 

588 population to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% of the population scoring above 130 (Ref. 22, 

589 pp. 8–81 to 8–82). “For an individual functioning in the low [IQ] range due to the influence of 

590 developmental risk factors other than lead, a lead-associated [IQ] decline of several points might 

591 be sufficient to drop that individual into the range associated with increased risk of educational, 

592 vocational, and social failure” (Ref. 22, p. 8–77). 

593 

594 Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have included effects on attention, 

595 executive functions, language, memory, learning, and visuospatial processing (Ref. 22, sections 

596 5.3.5, 6.2.5, and 8.4.2.1), with attention and executive function effects associated with lead 

597 exposures indexed by blood lead levels below 10 μg/dL (Ref. 22, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8–30 to 

598 8–31). The evidence for the role of lead in this suite of effects includes experimental animal 

599 findings (Ref. 22, section 8.4.2.1; p. 8–31), which provide strong biological plausibility of lead 

600 effects on learning ability, memory and attention (Ref. 22, section 5.3.5), as well as associated 

601 mechanistic findings. 

602 

603 The persistence of such lead-induced effects is described in the Criteria Document (e.g., 

604 Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.11, and 8.5.2). The persistence or irreversibility of such effects can 

605 be the result of damage occurring without adequate repair offsets or of the persistence of lead in 

606 the body (Ref. 22, section 8.5.2). It is additionally important to note that there may be long-term 

607 consequences of such deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and achievement can have 

608 “enduring and important effects on objective parameters of success in real life,” as well as 

609 increased risk of antisocial and delinquent behavior (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16). 

610 

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

Page 14 of 35 

10T-0539

612 inverse associations between blood lead concentrations and children’s IQ and other cognitive613 related outcomes at successively lower lead exposure levels over the past 30 years (Ref. 22, 

614 section 6.2.13). For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, described in the 

615 Criteria Document, provides clear substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated 

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

617 indicate lead effects on intellectual attainment of children for which population mean blood lead 

618 levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8 μg/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2, 8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, 

619 while blood lead levels in U.S. children have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer 

620 studies have investigated and reported associations of effects on the neurodevelopment of 

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

622 chapter 6). 

623 

624 Children in minority populations and children from low-income families have an 

625 increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Non-Hispanic black children and children 

626 from low-income families have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Analysis of 

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

628 incidence of elevated blood lead levels have decreased for all groups assessed (Ref. 25). 

629 However, the geometric mean blood lead level was significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks 

630 (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7

631 μg/dL). For children aged 1-5 years from families with low income, the geometric mean blood 

632 lead level was 2.5 μg/dL. Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 μg/dL and 

633 greater than or equal to 5μg/dL were higher for non-Hispanic blacks (3.4% and 14% 

634 respectively) than for Mexican Americans (1.2% and 4.7%, respectively) and non-Hispanic 

635 whites (1.2% and 4.4%, respectively). The analysis indicates that residence in older housing, 

636 poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels (Ref. 

637 25). Children in minority populations and children whose families are poor have an increased 

638 risk of exposure to harmful lead levels (Ref. 25, at e376). Analysis of the National Health and 

639 Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 shows that the 

640 prevalence of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 1 to 5 years has 

641 decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-2004, which is an 84% decline (Ref. 25, at 

642 e377). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic black children 

643 aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL 

644 (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) (Ref. 25). In addition, among children 

645 aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the geometric mean blood lead level was significantly

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

647 non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/dL) (Ref. 25, at e377). For children aged 1 to 5 years from families 

648 with low income, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2.4 μg/dL (Ref. 25, at e377). Further, 

649 the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 ug/dL and greater than or equal to 5ug/dL 

650 were higher for non-hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4% respectively) than for Mexican Americans 

651 (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 25). 

652 The “analysis indicates that residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic 

653 black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels” (Ref. 25, at e376). 

654 

655 3. Adult health effects. As previously noted, the adult health effects of lead exposure 

656 include negative impacts on renal and cardiovascular function. While cardiovascular effects in 

657 adults are well substantiated as occurring at blood lead levels as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL (or 

658 possibly lower), newly-demonstrated renal system effects among general population groups are 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 35 

10T-0539

659 also emerging as low-level lead exposure effects of concern (Ref. 22, p. 8-60). 

660 

661 Most studies in general adult and patient populations published during the past two 

662 decades have observed associations between “Pb dose and worse renal function.” (Ref. 22, p. 6-

663 112) The cumulative effect of higher blood lead levels from past exposure may be a factor in the 

664 nephrotoxicity observed at current blood lead levels. However, one study found associations 

665 between blood lead and concurrent serum creatinine in participants whose peak blood lead levels 

666 were equal to or less than 10 μg/dL (Ref. 22, p. 6-112). “The threshold for lead-related 

667 nephrotoxicity cannot be determined based on current data, but associations with clinically668 relevant renal outcomes have been observed in populations with mean blood lead levels as low 

669 as 2.2 μg/dL” (Ref. 22, p. 6-112).” In addition, the available data are not sufficient to determine 

670 whether the observed nephrotoxicity is related more to such current blood lead levels, higher 

671 levels from past exposures, or both (Ref. 22, p. 8-49). Some adult populations are at an even 

672 greater risk for adverse health effects as a result of lead exposure. “The influence of an 

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

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

675 are at increased risk of Pb-associated declines in renal function, and indications of altered kidney 

676 function have been reported at blood Pb levels ranging somewhat below 5 μg/dL (Lin et al., 

677 2001, 2003; Muntner et al., 2003; Tsaih et al., 2004).” (Ref. 22 p. 8-72).

678 

679 Positive associations between lead exposure and increased blood pressure have been 

680 observed in numerous studies. Epidemiologic studies that have examined the effects of blood 

681 lead levels on blood pressure have generally found positive associations, even after controlling 

682 for confounding factors such as tobacco smoking, exercise, body weight, alcohol consumption, 

683 and socioeconomic status (Ref. 22, p. 8-45). Recent meta-analyses of these studies have reported 

684 robust, statistically-significant, though small effect-size, associations between blood-Pb 

685 concentrations and blood pressure. For example, the meta-analysis of Nawrot et al (2002) 

686 indicated that a doubling of blood lead corresponded to a 1 mm Hg increase in systolic blood 

687 pressure. Although this magnitude of increase is not clinically meaningful for an individual, a 

688 population shift of 1 mm Hg is important (Ref 22, p. 8-45). The majority of the more recent 

689 studies employing bone lead level have also found a strong association between long-term lead 

690 exposure and arterial pressure. “Since the residence time of Pb in blood is relatively short but 

691 very long in bone, the latter observations have provided compelling evidence for the positive 

692 relationship between Pb exposure and a subsequent rise in arterial pressure in human adults.” 

693 (Ref 22, p. 8-45) 

694 

695 Studies also demonstrate a relationship between increased lead exposure and other 

696 adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including increased incidence of hypertension and 

697 cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (Ref. 22, p. 6-154). “Lead interference in calcium698 dependent processes, including ionic transport systems and signaling pathways important in 

699 vascular reactivity may only represent the first step in the cascade of Pb-induced physiological 

700 events that culminates in cardiovascular disease. Lead alteration of endothelial cell response to 

701 vascular damage, inducement of smooth muscle cell hyperplasia, alteration of hormonal and 

702 transmitter systems regulating vascular reactivity, and its clear role as promoter of oxidative 

703 stress suggest mechanisms that could explain the Pb-associated increase in blood pressure, 

704 hypertension, and cardiovascular disease noted in this section.” (Ref . 22, p. 6-153).

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

Page 16 of 35 

10T-0539

706 Current research does not definitively indicate whether health impacts observed later in 

707 life are the result of current lead exposure or exposure which occurred during early childhood or 

708 at some other time in the past. The following excerpts from the Criteria Document illustrate the 

709 uncertainties surrounding this issue: 

710 

711 • “It could be that damage occurred during a circumscribed period when the critical 

712 substrate was undergoing rapid development, but that the high correlation between serial blood 

713 Pb levels impeded identification of the special significance of exposure at that time.” (Ref. 22, p. 

714 8-73) 

715 

716 • “While some observations in children as old as adolescence indicate that exposure 

717 biomarkers measured concurrently are the strongest predictors of late outcomes, the 

718 interpretation of these observations with regard to critical windows of vulnerability remains 

719 uncertain.” (Ref . 22, p. 8-74).

720 

721 4. Renovations in residential settings and elevated blood lead levels. EPA’s Wisconsin 

722 Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described more fully in Unit III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 

723 Proposal, provides ample evidence of a link between renovation activities and elevated blood 

724 lead levels in resident children (Ref. 14). This peer-reviewed study concluded that general 

725 residential renovation and remodeling is associated with an increased risk of elevated blood lead 

726 levels in children and that specific renovation and remodeling activities are also associated with 

727 an increase in the risk of elevated blood lead levels in children. In particular, removing paint 

728 (using open flame torches, using heat guns, using chemical paint removers, and using wet 

729 scraping/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping significantly increased the risk 

730 of elevated blood lead levels. 

731 

732 Three studies from New York support the findings of the Wisconsin Childhood Blood733 Lead Study. In 1995, the New York State Department of Health assessed lead exposure among 

734 children resulting from home renovation and remodeling in 1993–1994. A review of the health 

735 department records of children with blood lead levels equal to or greater than 20 μg/dL identified 

736 320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood lead levels that were attributable to renovation and remodeling 

737 (Ref. 26). An update to that study with data from environmental investigations conducted during 

738 2006-2007 in New York State (excluding New York City) identified renovation, repair, and 

739 painting activities as the probable source of lead exposure in 14% of 972 children with blood 

740 lead levels equal to or exceeding 20 μg/dL (Ref. 27). The authors concluded that children living 

741 in housing undergoing renovation, repair, and painting that was built before 1978, and 

742 particularly before 1950, when concentrations of lead in paint were higher, are at high risk for 

743 elevated blood lead levels. The final study was a case-control study that assessed the association 

744 between elevated blood lead levels in children younger than 5 years and renovation or repair 

745 activities in homes in New York City (Ref. 28). EPA notes that the authors show that when dust 

746 and debris was reported (by respondents via telephone interviews) to be “everywhere” following 

747 a renovation, the children’s blood lead levels were significantly higher than those of the children 

748 at homes that did not report remodeling work. On the other hand, when the respondent reported 

749 either “no visible dust and debris” or that “dust and debris was limited to the work area,” there 

750 was no statistically significant effect on blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report 

751 remodeling work. Although the study found only a weak and nonsignificant link between a 

752 report of any renovation activity and the likelihood that a resident child had an elevated blood-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 35 

10T-0539

753 lead level, the link to the likelihood of an elevated blood-lead level was statistically significant 

754 for surface preparation by sanding and for renovation work that spreads dust and debris beyond 

755 the work area. The researchers noted the consistency of their results with EPA’s Wisconsin 

756 Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 28, at 509). 

757 

758 III. Renovations in Public and Commercial Buildings 

759 

760 In many respects, EPA’s approach to determining whether and how to regulate exterior 

761 renovations on public and commercial buildings and whether and how to regulate interior 

762 renovations in public and commercial buildings must will be similar to the approach taken 

763 towards renovation activities in and on target housing and child-occupied facilities. Although 

764 tThe statutory directive under TSCA section 402(c)(3) is the same for all of these buildings, each 

765 type of building may present a different level of exposure to occupants. In this ANPRM, EPA is 

766 taking comment on the many considerations it must revise take into account when revising the 

767 regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to those renovations that create lead768 based paint hazards in public and commercial buildings. 

769 

770 An important consideration in determining how to regulate renovations on the exteriors 

771 of public and commercial buildings is that these renovations can create lead-based paint hazards 

772 on and in target housing and child-occupied facilities. Lead dust can travel in the environment 

773 and has been shown to be readily tracked into homes and other buildings. In fact, as discussed in 

774 Unit III.B.1. a substantial proportion of interior dust is due to track-in activities. 

775 

776 A. Definitions of “Public Building” and “Commercial Building” 

777 

778 While the term “target housing” is defined in TSCA section 401, TSCA Title IV does not 

779 provide definitions for the terms “public building” and “commercial building.” The issue of the 

780 buildings that could and should be covered by these terms was raised, but not conclusively 

781 resolved, in the rulemaking to establish the existing Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations. 

782 

783 As discussed previously, EPA promulgated the final Lead-based Paint Activities 

784 Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) in 1996 (Ref. 4). These regulations cover lead-based 

785 paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements. The regulations include 

786 training and certification requirements for individuals and firms, accreditation requirements for 

787 lead-based paint training providers, and work practice standards designed in accordance with the 

788 statutory directive to ensure that lead-based paint activities are conducted safely, reliably and 

789 effectively. As initially proposed in 1994, one set of requirements for the training and 

790 certification of contractors and the accreditation of training programs, as well as specific work 

791 practice standards would have applied to lead-based paint activities conducted in target housing 

792 and public buildings (Ref. 29). The 1994 proposal would have defined public buildings to 

793 include all buildings generally open to the public or occupied or visited by children, such as 

794 stores, museums, airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals, and government buildings, as well as 

795 schools and day-care centers. In the final rule, EPA decided to focus on buildings frequented by 

796 children and, thus, established a subset of the buildings EPA had intended to define as public. 

797 This subset is called “child-occupied facilities” and it is delineated terms of the frequency and 

798 duration of visits by particular children (Ref. 4). 

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

Page 18 of 35 

10T-0539

800 EPA continues to believe that it is important to emphasize the deleterious effects of lead 

801 exposure on young children, a sub-population that has long been identified as being particularly 

802 susceptible to the adverse effects of lead. However, it is also important to address exposures for 

803 other sensitive sub-populations, such as women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant 

804 in the future. In addition, as discussed in Unit II.D. of this preamble, a growing body of 

805 scientific literature documents lead’s adverse effects on older children and adults at lower levels 

806 of exposure than previously documented. As a result, EPA does not believe that the Agency’s 

807 efforts options considered in this rulemaking should be limited to those buildings or situations 

808 where young children are likely to be exposed. EPA intends to evaluate all of the available 

809 information on hazards, exposures, and risk to determine which renovations TSCA requires EPA 

810 to regulate and how TSCA requires EPA to regulate them. 

811 

812 While TSCA Title IV does not define “public building” or “commercial building,” a 

813 definition of “public and commercial building” was provided in TSCA Title II. TSCA Title II 

814 addresses the management of asbestos-containing building materials in school buildings and the 

815 training and accreditation (or certification) of persons who perform asbestos inspections or 

816 design or conduct asbestos abatement in public or commercial buildings. Because the primary 

817 focus of TSCA Title II is primary and secondary schools, and ensuring that asbestos-containing 

818 building materials in such schools are properly managed, primary and secondary schools are 

819 specifically excluded from the definition of the term “public and commercial building” in TSCA 

820 section 202. However, the rest of the definition signals Congress’s intention for EPA to interpret 

821 the term broadly, because a public and commercial building is defined as “any building” other 

822 than a school building or a “residential apartment building” of fewer than 10 units. EPA’s 

823 regulatory definition of “public and commercial building” at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 763, 

824 Subpart E, Appendix C, Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan, provides examples of the types of 

825 buildings covered, including industrial and office buildings, government-owned buildings, 

826 colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches, preschools, stores, warehouses and factories. 

827 Notwithstanding the differences in focus between TSCA Title II and Title IV, EPA believes that 

828 a similar broad approach to interpreting “public building” and “commercial building” is 

829 warranted in this rulemaking. Of course, EPA must still determine which renovations in which 

830 buildings create lead-based paint hazards. 

831 

832 One other factor must be considered in interpreting the terms “public building” and 

833 “commercial building.” In 1978, the CPSC banned the use of paint containing more than 0.06% 

834 lead by weight on toys, furniture, and interior and exterior surfaces in housing and other 

835 buildings and structures used by consumers (Ref. 30). However, this ban specifically exempted 

836 “[i]ndustrial (and commercial) building and equipment maintenance coatings, including traffic 

837 and safety marking coatings.” It is likely that Congress was thinking of this ban, and the 

838 exemption, when it limited rulemaking authority in TSCA section 402(c)(3) to public buildings 

839 built before 1978, but applied no such limitation to commercial buildings. Lead-based paint is 

840 still thought to be in use in commercial buildings, especially when resistance to water and 

841 corrosion is needed. 

842 

843 With this in mind, EPA requests comment, information and data from the public on the 

844 types of buildings that should be considered “public buildings” or “commercial buildings.” 

845 Specifically, EPA asks commenters to consider the following questions: 

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

Page 19 of 35 

10T-0539

847 1. What types of buildings should be considered to be public buildings? What types 

848 should be considered to be commercial buildings? Should outbuildings and structures on the 

849 property be included in either category as they are in respect to target housing? Why? 

850 

851 2. What types of building classifications should be considered? Should the criteria for 

852 classifying buildings include the presence of young children, pregnant women, or population 

853 density? Is it possible to categorize buildings based on the contractors and the workforce 

854 renovating them (i.e., do different contractors perform renovations in different types of public 

855 and commercial buildings, or do such work differently)? Is it possible to classify public and 

856 commercial buildings using building codes, or zoning, or other characteristics? Should various 

857 classifications of buildings be treated differently with regard to required work practices, and 

858 cleaning methods, and reoccupancy criteria?

859 

860 3. Some public or commercial buildings are mixed-use buildings, with residences, 

861 schools and/or child care facilities in the buildings. If portions of the buildings are residences 

862 that are target housing (i.e., the building was constructed before 1978 and the residences are not 

863 otherwise exempt), how should such buildings, or particular portions of them, be addressed in 

864 this rulemaking?

865 

866 43. Every four years, the Department of Energy (DOE) collects information on the stock 

867 of commercial buildings in the United States, their energy-related building characteristics, and 

868 their energy consumption and expenditures. For the purposes of this survey, the Commercial 

869 Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), commercial buildings include all buildings in 

870 which at least half of the floor space is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or 

871 agricultural. This survey includes building types that might not traditionally be considered 

872 commercial, such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. 

873 More information on the CBECS can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. DOE 

874 also collects data every four years on buildings used for manufacturing activities. The 

875 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) collects data on buildings used by the 

876 manufacturing sector, defined by NAICS codes 31 to 33. The MECS data does not include 

877 information on building vintage. More information on MECS can be found at 

878 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html. What other information is available on the 

879 ages, types, sizes, and other characteristics of public and commercial buildings in the United 

880 States? In particular, what data is are available on the age, types, sizes, and other characteristics 

881 of public or commercial buildings not included in the CBECS or MECS? 

882 

883 Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2003 American Housing Survey, there are 

884 77,888,000 target housing units. “Target housing” is defined under section 401 of TSCA as any 

885 housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities 

886 (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom 

887 dwelling. EPA estimates that there are 97,000 child-occupied facilities (COFs), as defined at 40 

888 CFR 745.83. By comparison, according to DOE’s CBECS data, there are 2,826,000 commercial 

889 buildings constructed prior to 1980. This includes building types such as schools and buildings 

890 used for religious worship, so there is some double-counting with the target housing and COFs 

891 figures described in this paragraph. According to DOE’s MECS there are 368,000 

892 manufacturing buildings, but this includes post-1978 buildings because MECS does not indicate 

893 the age of the buildings. EPA is not aware of data on the number of agricultural buildings. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 35 

10T-0539

894 

895 The estimates from the CBECS and MECS data provide an indication of the relative 

896 magnitude of different building types, but at this time should not be considered reflective of the 

897 number of buildings that would be affected by a future EPA regulation. The number of buildings 

898 affected by an EPA regulation will depend on how EPA ultimately decides to define public and 

899 commercial buildings and the scope of the regulation within that definition. Aside from the 

900 number of structures, the characteristics of public and commercial buildings may differ from 

901 target housing and COFs, including the prevalence of lead-based paint; the frequency, type, and 

902 size of renovation work performed; and the baseline renovation work practices used. EPA is 

903 seeking information in this notice on all of these characteristics. 

904 

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

906 

907 1. Leaded dust and debris created by exterior renovations. The Dust Study, as described 

908 in Unit II.B., demonstrated that renovations on the exteriors of target housing and child-occupied 

909 facilities create an enormous amount of leaded dust that can contaminate soil in the vicinity. 

910 Including both bulk debris and dust created by these renovations, geometric mean lead levels in 

911 exterior samples from collection trays placed on top of the containment plastic covering the 

adjacent ground ranged from a low of 60,662 μg/ ft2 912 for door replacement to a high of 7,216,358 

μg/ft2 913 for removing paint with a high temperature heat gun (Ref. 16). EPA requests public 

914 comment on the extent to which this study should inform EPA’s determination on lead-based 

915 paint hazards created by exterior renovations on public and commercial buildings, especially 

916 considering that some of the exterior renovations in the Dust Study were performed on a school 

917 building, which represents one type of public buildings. 

918 

919 Studies have demonstrated that exterior dust and soil that contains lead will contaminate 

920 interior building areas when dust and soil is tracked inside on the shoes and clothing of building 

921 occupants and visitors and through air exchange. In one study, a regression analysis was used to 

922 investigate those factors that were most statistically significantly associated with lead loadings in 

923 dust samples taken from residential carpets (Ref. 29). The study found that soil-lead 

924 concentration, the practice of removing shoes before entering, and the use of walk-off mats at 

925 entrances were all statistically significant predictors of dust-lead loading in carpets. Dust and 

926 soil samples collected during the study were screened to include only particles smaller than 150 

927 microns, because these particles were considered more likely to appear on a child’s hand (Ref. 

928 31). 

929 

930 EPA possesses data on the transport of leaded dust and debris resulting from exterior 

931 renovations. In EPA’s Dust Study, measured lead dust and debris were found up to 18 feet from 

932 the exterior work area, and the average distance traveled by lead dust and debris was 10.81 feet 

933 (Ref. 16). However, it is important to keep in mind that exterior vertical containment was used 

934 where necessary during the Dust Study to ensure that leaded dust and debris did not contaminate 

935 adjacent properties, and this limited the distance leaded dust and debris could travel. 

936 Nevertheless, the Dust Study demonstrates that individuals residing in and visiting nearby 

937 properties could be exposed to leaded dust and debris created by exterior renovations when 

938 vertical containment or other containment measures are not used. Renovation firms or building 

939 owners and managers may not specifically consider the potential for these exposures on nearby 

940 properties when designing and performing renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 35 

10T-0539

941 buildings. 

942 

943 Numerous studies have found elevated soil lead levels in residential areas surrounding 

944 residential and public and commercial buildings that have been demolished. In one study of a 

945 major building demolition, lead dust was found to travel up to 20 kilometers from the demolition 

946 site (Ref. 32). While EPA recognizes that this situation involves whole building demolition, the 

947 Agency expects that partial demolition and similar renovation activities would be expected to 

948 release similar types of lead-based paint dust particles with the ability to travel long distances 

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

950 surfaces with which children could come into contact. Another study (Ref. 33) found increased 

951 levels of lead in alleys up to 100 meters from row house demolition. These lead levels were 

952 observed despite the fact that water wetting was used during demolition and debris removal to 

953 reduce the amount of dust released. In another study, abrasive blasting of a bridge was found to 

954 deposit 50% of the removed lead-based paint beyond 300 yards of the operation with a four mile 

955 per hour wind. This study indicates that current abrasive methods have the demonstrated 

956 potential to contaminate the surrounding environment and have the potential to create lead-based 

957 paint hazards (Ref. 34). 

958 

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

960 could be used to determine the extent of transport of lead dust resulting from exterior 

961 renovations. Paints on many of these steel structures contain up to 60-70% lead by weight (Ref. 

962 35). Of particular interest are studies of the impacts of renovating these structures in urban areas 

963 or near schools. Evidence from steel structures suggests that exterior public and commercial 

964 building renovations can result in significant health impacts for children and others in close 

965 proximity to the renovation, repair and painting work. 

966 

967 Given these considerations, EPA requests public comment, information, and data, 

968 especially peer-reviewed studies, on the following topics: 

969 

970 a. What information is available on dust-lead and soil-lead levels generated by exterior 

971 renovations on public and commercial buildings? To what extent is the data from the Dust Study 

972 relevant? EPA is aware of information on the content of lead in urban and rural soils, and other 

973 settings, such as near highways. Is there more information on the content of lead in soil or what 

974 concentrations of lead are currently found in soil that EPA could use to evaluate the risk of 

975 human and environmental lead exposure from the renovation of public and commercial 

976 buildings?

977 

978 b. To what extent will dust drift from exterior renovations, especially on public and 

979 commercial buildings, onto neighboring properties? Would this, for instance, resemble modeling 

980 plumes from smelters? 

981 

982 c. How far will lead-containing dust and debris travel from the exterior of properties 

983 undergoing renovation? What factors will influence the travel of lead dust? Such factors might 

984 include particular renovation practices, the time of year, wind conditions, ground cover (e.g., 

985 asphalt, concrete, dirt, vegetation), average precipitation, or the height and concentration of 

986 surrounding structures. 

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

Page 22 of 35 

10T-0539

988 d. To what extent can the data on building demolition or steel structure maintenance be 

989 used to predict the extent to which dust and debris travel from exterior public and commercial 

990 building renovations? 

991 

992 e. To what extent will exterior dust from the exterior renovation of public and 

993 commercial buildings be tracked into the interior of buildings being renovated or nearby other 

994 buildings? To what extent will lead-based paint dust enter these buildings through open 

995 windows, doorways and air exchange?

996 

997 f. What actions can a contractor take to prevent transportation of lead dust from exterior 

998 renovations or to prevent the lead dust from entering the environment?

999 

1000 2. Leaded dust and debris generated by interior renovations in public and commercial 

1001 buildings. In determining which renovations in target housing and child-occupied facilities 

1002 create lead-based paint hazards for the 2008 RRP Rule, EPA relied heavily on two Agency 

1003 studies that evaluated dust-lead levels generated by renovations. One of these studies, the 

1004 Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 12), Phase I of the study conducted under TSCA 

1005 section 402(c)(2), evaluated the amount of leaded dust generated by the following activities: 

1006 

1007 • Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 

1008 

1009 • Removal of large structures, including demolition of interior plaster walls. 

1010 

1011 • Window replacement. 

1012 

1013 • Carpet removal. 

1014 

1015 • HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work. 

1016 

1017 • Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, including drilling and sawing 

1018 into wood and plaster. 

1019 

1020 The dust lead levels generated by abrasive sanding were evaluated through a literature survey. 

1021 The results of the literature survey included both residential buildings and public or commercial 

1022 buildings. The rest of the evaluated activities were performed as part of the study in residential 

1023 buildings. 

1024 

1025 EPA also relied heavily on the Dust Study (Ref. 16) to promulgate the final RRP Rule. 

1026 The Dust Study evaluated the dust-lead and soil-lead levels generated by the following activities 

1027 in and on an unoccupied school building and/or unoccupied target housing: 

1028 

1029 • Making cut-outs in the walls. 

1030 

1031 • Replacing a window from the inside. 

1032 

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

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

Page 23 of 35 

10T-0539

1035 • Removing paint by dry scraping. 

1036 

1037 • Removing paint with a power planer. 

1038 

1039 • Removing kitchen cabinets. 

1040 

1041 EPA requests public comment, information, and data, particularly peer-reviewed studies, 

1042 on the dust-lead levels that are generated by renovations on the interiors of public and 

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

1044 two EPA studies should inform EPA’s determination on lead-based paint hazards created by 

1045 renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings, especially considering that some 

1046 of the renovations in the Dust Study were performed in a school building. 

1047 

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

1049 studies described in section III.B.2. to determine that renovations in and on target housing and 

1050 child-occupied facilities create lead-based paint hazards, EPA also looked at the available 

1051 evidence for a relationship between renovations and blood lead levels. In particular, EPA 

1052 considered the results of the other three phases of the study conducted under TSCA section 

1053 402(c)(2). Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 13), involved 

1054 collecting data on blood lead and renovation and remodeling activities from workers. Notably, 

1055 half of the renovations studied occurred in commercial buildings and half occurred in residential 

1056 housing. Thus, this study provides evidence of a relationship between commercial building 

1057 renovation activities and worker blood lead levels. Phase IV, the Worker Characterization and 

1058 Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and Remodeling) Workers Who Specialize in 

1059 Renovations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but focused on 

1060 individuals who worked primarily in old historic buildings. 

1061 

1062 EPA also relied on the evidence presented by Phase III of the TSCA section 402(c)(2) 

1063 study, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 14), which documented a relationship 

1064 between renovation and remodeling activities and the blood-lead levels of resident children. 

1065 This evidence of a relationship is corroborated by New York studies also discussed in II.D.4. 

1066 

1067 EPA also considered several studies conducted by the National Institute of Occupational 

1068 Safety and Health (NIOSH) that assessed worker exposure and transport of lead dust from 

1069 renovation activities (Refs. 36 and 37). For example, one study done at the University of 

1070 California, Berkeley, assessed lead-based paint exposures of workers during exterior renovation 

1071 work on campus buildings (Ref. 37). Estimated average exposures during dry manual sanding, 

1072 dry manual scraping, power finish sanding, and power finish sanding with bag would exceed the 

1073 permissible exposure limit (PEL) within an 8-hr period. Estimated average exposures for power 

1074 sanding with HEPA exhaust, flame burning, wet manual sanding, and wet scraping would be 

1075 below the PEL. Although it resulted in relatively low worker exposures, flame burning was 

1076 among the tasks associated with the higher lead levels in air and settled dust levels in nearby 

1077 areas (Ref. 37). 

1078 

1079 Lead-based paint is defined by TSCA as paint with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1.0 

1080 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight (TSCA section 401(9) (15 U.S.C. 

1081 2681(9))). However, OSHA states in 29 CFR 1926.62 that if lead is present in the workplace in 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 35 

10T-0539

1082 any quantity the employer is required to make an initial determination of whether any employee's 

1083 exposure to lead exceeds the action level (30 ug/m3) averaged over an 8 hour day. This position 

1084 is supported by the following interpretations: 

1085 

1086 "OSHA's role is to protect workers from health and safety hazards, including exposure to 

1087 harmful levels of lead, whatever the source. Accordingly, for all tasks governed by 

1088 OSHA's Lead in Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62) involving paints having any 

1089 level of lead, employers must comply with the assessment measures and any applicable 

1090 protections of that standard."

1091 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATI

1092 ONS&p_id=27319.

1093 

1094 "The lead-in-construction standard was intended to apply to any detectable concentration 

1095 of lead in paint, as even small concentrations of lead can result in unacceptable employee 

1096 exposures depending upon on the method of removal and other workplace conditions. 

1097 Since these conditions can vary greatly, the lead-in-construction standard was written to 

1098 require exposure monitoring or the use of historical or objective data to ensure that 

1099 employee exposures do not exceed the action level. Historical data may be applied to all 

1100 construction tasks involving lead. Objective data was intended to apply to all tasks other 

1101 than those listed under paragraph 1926.62(d)(2) of the standard." 

1102 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATI

1103 ONS&p_id=22701.

1104 

1105 EPA requests public comment, as well as additional information and data, particularly 

1106 peer-reviewed studies, on the relationship between renovations in and on public and commercial 

1107 buildings and blood lead levels in workers, building occupants, and visitors. EPA also requests 

1108 public comment on the extent to which these blood-lead studies can inform EPA’s determination 

1109 on lead-based paint hazards created by public and commercial building renovations. 

1110 

1111 C. Prevalence of Leaded Paint and Lead Levels in Leaded Paint in and on Public and 

1112 Commercial Buildings 

1113 

1114 An important consideration in determining which renovations create lead-based paint 

1115 hazards and how best to address those hazards is likely to be the prevalence of leaded paint 

1116 disturbed and the level of lead in that paint. In issuing the 2008 RRP Rule covering renovations 

1117 in target housing and child-occupied facilities, EPA relied heavily on two surveys sponsored by 

1118 HUD. The first, the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, was a representative 

1119 sampling of housing units where children could reside for lead-based paint, lead-based paint 

1120 hazards, and allergens (Ref. 38). This survey provided valuable information on the prevalence 

1121 of and levels of lead in lead-based paint in target housing. A similar survey, the First National 

1122 Environmental Health Survey of Childcare Centers, was conducted in licensed child-care centers 

1123 and included sampling for lead in paint, lead-based paint hazards, allergens, and pesticides (Ref. 

1124 39). 

1125 

1126 EPA requests public input on these issues related to the presence of leaded paint in and 

1127 on public and commercial buildings: 

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

Page 25 of 35 

10T-0539

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

1130 information and data are available on the levels of lead (concentration or percentage of total) in 

1131 such paint? Does the prevalence or lead level differ by building age, component or type (e.g., 

1132 interior or exterior; doors and windows, trim, or walls; wood substrate or metal substrate)? 

1133 

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

1135 over time? 

1136 

1137 3. What available data would help EPA estimate the likelihood that a public or 

1138 commercial building contains lead-based paint? Are there factors that should be considered 

1139 other than the year in which it was constructed? 

1140 

1141 4. What voluntary consensus standards or other guidelines or specifications affect the 

1142 prevalence of leaded paint and the levels of lead in such paint? 

1143 

1144 5. What federal, state, and local laws, regulations, or ordinances affect the prevalence of 

1145 leaded paint and the lead levels in such paint? 

1146 

1147 6. What information is available on the current manufacture and import of lead-based 

1148 paint for commercial building use? 

1149 

1150 D. Typical Renovation Activities and Building Management Practices for Public and 

1151 Commercial Buildings 

1152 

1153 In making the determination which renovation activities in and on public and commercial 

1154 buildings create lead-based paint hazards, EPA must evaluate information on the typical 

1155 renovations performed and the typical practices used in performing these renovations. EPA is 

1156 also interested on types of lead-paint containing building components that may be reused during 

1157 a renovation of a public or commercial building. EPA encourages the public to submit 

1158 comments, information, and data relating to these considerations. 

1159 

1160 1. What types of renovations are typically performed in and on public and commercial 

1161 buildings, and how often is each type performed? What is the span or range, both typical and 

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

1163 

1164 2. Do renovation firms or the building owners or managers typically assess whether the 

1165 paint they renovation firms will disturb during a renovation job in or on a public or commercial 

1166 building contains lead? To what extent are there patterns in their making such assessments? 

1167 Before hiring a renovation firm to perform a renovation, or performing a renovation using 

1168 building maintenance staff, do public and commercial building owners or managers assess 

1169 whether leaded paint is present? What methods and procedures are currently employed by 

1170 contractors or building owners/managers to assess whether paint contains lead? 

1171 

1172 3. Do building owners or managers typically provide notice of the lead content of 

1173 building paint to renovation firms, building occupants or the public? What triggers these 

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

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

Page 26 of 35 

10T-0539

1176 patterns in their making such notifications?

1177 

1178 4. Do renovation firms typically separate renovation work areas from other areas of the 

1179 building or grounds to limit access and minimize the spread of dust, chips, and debris? How 

1180 often are the following practices used to accomplish this separation, and to what extent are there 

1181 patterns in their using such practices? To what extent have renovation firms or the public 

1182 building owners or managers assessed the efficacy of these separation practices on the projects 

1183 where they are used, and what are the results of such assessments?

1184 

1185 • Restricting access of other building occupants or the public into or around the building 

1186 during renovation through warning signs and/or barriers. 

1187 

1188 • Closing the windows of the building during exterior renovations and the windows of 

1189 other buildings adjacent to the work area. 

1190 

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

1192 renovations. 

1193 

1194 • Avoiding exterior renovation work during windy conditions. 

1195 

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

1197 interior renovation. 

1198 

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

1200 renovations. 

1201 

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

1203 interior renovations. 

1204 

1205 • Follow OSHA housekeeping provisions specified in the OSHA lead standards at 29 

1206 CFR 1926.62 or 29 CFR 1910.1025, or practice Practicing good housekeeping in the work area. 

1207 

1208 5. What clean-up practices do renovation firms typically follow during and after 

1209 renovation activities in and on public and commercial buildings? How often are brooms used? 

1210 How often is wet cleaning or mopping performed? How often is vacuuming performed, and, in 

1211 particular, how often are shop vacuums used, and how often are or high-efficiency particulate air 

1212 (HEPA) vacuums typically used? 

1213 

1214 6. How often is dust wipe testing for leaded dust performed after renovations in public 

1215 and commercial buildings? How often is soil tested for lead after renovations on public and 

1216 commercial buildings, especially after exterior renovations? Do renovation firms or building 

1217 owners/managers use any other methods to assess lead levels in dust or soil remaining after 

1218 renovations? Are the results of these tests or assessments used to determine whether the work 

1219 area may be re-occupied by other building occupants or visited by the public? 

1220 

1221 7. What routine cleaning procedures do the owners and managers of public and 

1222 commercial buildings follow, apart from renovation projects? How often are these procedures 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 35 

10T-0539

1223 followed? Are there differences in cleaning procedures and or frequencies between older (e.g., 

1224 pre-1978) buildings and newer (e.g., post-1977) buildings?

1225 

1226 8. To what extent are building components that contain lead-based paint reused? To what 

1227 extent are reused components tested for lead-based paint before reuse? 

1228 

1229 9. What measures are typically To what extent are measures taken to avoid the release of 

1230 lead dust during the installation and use of reused lead-contaminated building materials (such as 

1231 paint removal techniques)? 

1232 

1233 10. What information is available on the scale and types of new renovation and repair 

1234 projects on public and commercial buildings? 

1235 

1236 11. What types of practices are used to protect workers from exposure to lead-based paint 

1237 containing building components which are being removed for future re-use?

1238 

1239 E. Renovation Waste 

1240 

1241 Waste from building renovations can create lead-contaminated waste. Lead1242 contaminated waste from the renovation of residences, regardless of who generates the waste, is 

1243 excluded from the Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Regulations under the Resource Conservation 

1244 and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Ref. 40). This includes waste from the renovation of single family 

1245 homes, apartment buildings, public housing, and military barracks. This waste may be disposed 

1246 of in a municipal solid waste landfill or in a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill. 

1247 However this exclusion does not apply to lead-contaminated waste generated from public and 

1248 commercial building renovations. That waste must be managed in accordance with the RCRA 

1249 Hazardous Waste Regulations. Given this regulatory status, EPA requests public comment, 

1250 information, and data responsive to the following questions: 

1251 

1252 1. What information is available on current practices for the cleanup, handling, and 

1253 disposal of lead-contaminated wastes after public and commercial building renovations? 

1254 

1255 2. Can you provide information and data on the amount of waste from renovation 

1256 activities in public and commercial buildings that a contractor might currently manage as RCRA 

1257 Hazardous Waste? What materials are typically included in this waste?

1258 

1259 23. To what extent (i.e. quantities) is lead-contaminated waste from public and 

1260 commercial building renovations recycled? What information is available on the methods and 

1261 practices currently in use for recycling such wastes? 

1262 

1263 34. To what extent (i.e. quantities) are lead-containing building components and other 

1264 waste removed from public and commercial buildings during renovations reused? What 

1265 information is available on the methods and practices currently employed for reusing such 

1266 components? 

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

Page 28 of 35 

10T-0539

1268 45. Other than RCRA, what federal, state or local statutes, regulations, ordinances, or 

1269 protocols govern the cleanup, handling, and disposal, and reuse of lead-contaminated waste from 

1270 public and commercial building renovations? 

1271 

1272 56. What measures are typically taken to avoid the release of leaded dust during the 

1273 removal and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes from public and commercial building 

1274 renovations? 

1275 

1276 F. The Renovation Workforce in Public and Commercial Buildings 

1277 

1278 In determining which public and commercial building renovations create lead-based paint 

1279 hazards and in designing safe, reliable, and effective work practice standards to address those 

1280 lead-based paint hazards, EPA must take into account the typical renovation workforce for public 

1281 and commercial buildings. Accordingly, EPA seeks public comment and data to help inform the 

1282 Agency’s understanding of this workforce. 

1283 

1284 1. What kinds of contractors perform renovations in and on public and commercial 

1285 buildings? How often is building maintenance staff used to perform renovations in and on public 

1286 and commercial buildings? What differences are there in the size or type of projects typically 

1287 conducted by contractors vs. building maintenance staff?

1288 

1289 2. When hiring a contractor to perform a renovation, how often do building 

1290 owners/managers check to see whether the personnel who will be performing the renovation 

1291 have been trained in lead-safe work practices, i.e., work practices designed to minimize the 

1292 creation of leaded dust and debris, control the spread of such dust and debris, and properly clean 

1293 up this dust and debris after the renovation has been completed? How often do building owners 

1294 and managers train (either personally or through consultants) building maintenance staff in lead1295 safe work practices? What kind of lead-safe work practices training do contractor employees or 

1296 building maintenance staff typically receive? 

1297 

1298 3. How often do building owners/managers or renovation contractors hire consultants 

1299 trained to evaluate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards, architects, engineers, or others, 

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

1301 or renovation contractors hire consultants trained in lead-safe work practices, lead-based paint 

1302 inspection, lead risk assessment, and/or lead project design to assist them in designing and 

1303 conducting renovation projects? What are the patterns for the use of such consultants in these 

1304 various situations?

1305 

1306 4. Who typically provides health, and safety, and environmental oversight during 

1307 renovation projects in public and commercial buildings—the building owner, the building 

1308 manager, the construction contractor, or another party? Are other specially qualified individuals 

1309 involved in the oversight of renovation projects? Are interior and exterior renovations handled 

1310 differently in this respect? 

1311 

1312 5. Typically, do contractors who perform renovations in public and commercial buildings 

1313 also perform renovations in residential buildings? Are the same work practices followed in both 

1314 settings? To what extent are the contractor employees the same from job to job? How likely is it 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 35 

10T-0539

1315 that an employee used to perform a public or commercial building renovation will have received 

1316 the training required by the 2008 RRP Rule for renovation work in target housing and child1317 occupied facilities? Do renovation contractors in public and commercial buildings typically 

1318 establish and enforce standard renovation work practice procedures for their employees? 

1319 

1320 G. Exposure Considerations 

1321 

1322 In determining which public and commercial building renovations create lead-based paint 

1323 hazards and in fashioning reliable, safe, and effective work practices for those renovations, EPA 

1324 must consider the exposures of building occupants and visitors. To help inform EPA’s decision1325 making, EPA requests public comment, information, and data, particularly relevant peer1326 reviewed studies, related to exposures. 

1327 

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

1329 

1330 2. While the Agency has developed research-based daily activity patterns for general use 

1331 in its analyses for children and adults, none of the patterns distinguish activities based on the 

1332 character or ownership of the buildings where activities occur (Ref. 41). What data or studies are 

1333 available that would assist EPA in estimating the amount of time that any particular individual 

1334 will spend in public and commercial buildings and what portion of that time will be in a building 

1335 containing leaded paint or lead-based paint hazards? What data or studies exist that characterize 

1336 the range or distribution of time spent by typical individuals? How much variation in exposure 

1337 exists in exposure by typical people? 

1338 

1339 3. What information and data are available on occupancy rates (e.g., number of people, 

1340 days per year of occupancy), exposed population (e.g., demographic characteristics, reason for 

1341 being in the building (working, visiting, etc.)), and time-activity patterns of occupants of each 

1342 type of public or commercial building? 

1343 

1344 4. If surveys were to be conducted and testing methods employed to assess the presence, 

1345 distribution and scope of lead-containing materials in every public and commercial building 

1346 before proceeding with renovations, how frequently would such surveys be carried out in any 

1347 given month in a town of 20,000? How frequently would such surveys be carried out in a rural 

1348 county? After what period, could EPA be satisfied that all such public and commercial buildings 

1349 have been so characterized? How often are public and commercial buildings assessed to 

1350 determine the presence, distribution and extent of lead-based paint?

1351 

1352 5. To what extent will people other than renovation workers, such as other building 

1353 occupants, visitors, passers-by, and occupants of nearby buildings, be exposed to leaded dust and 

1354 debris created by public and commercial building renovations? For instance, when scaffolding is 

1355 installed, how likely is are dust and debris to waft down to passersby or to fill the ambient air? 

1356 To what extent do scaffolding enclosures affect the dispersion of the dust and debris?

1357 

1358 6. What information is available on the number of potentially-exposed occupants of 

1359 buildings undergoing renovations or buildings recently renovated, the duration of the occupants’ 

1360 exposure per work day, and the number of days or hours exposed per year during and after 

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

Page 30 of 35 

10T-0539

1362 scheduling of the renovations, e.g., to what extent are renovations conducted during shifts or 

1363 days when few regular occupants of the buildings are present (typically nights and weekends)?

1364 

1365 7. What information and data are available on the proximity of residential properties to 

1366 public or commercial buildings? What is the distribution of distances of residences, schools and 

1367 day childcare facilities from public or commercial buildings? In particular, to what extent are 

1368 public or commercial buildings mixed-use buildings, with residences, schools and/or child care 

1369 facilities in the buildings? What information and data are available on the correlation between 

1370 the distribution of distances of residences, schools and day care facilities from public or 

1371 commercial buildings and average incomes of communities or neighborhoods? For example, 

1372 many low income communities are in mixed-use neighborhoods. 

1373 

1374 8. What information and data are available on the demographics of mixed-use 

1375 neighborhoods? 

1376 

1377 9. For low income communities in mixed-use neighborhoods, particularly those in which 

1378 the housing stock is primarily pre-1978, how should EPA consider multiple exposures from both 

1379 residential buildings and public and commercial buildings? 

1380 

1381 10. Do communities in mixed-use neighborhoods have higher burdens of lead exposure? 

1382 What factors should EPA consider in assessing the extent to which renovations in and on public 

1383 and commercial buildings contribute to disproportionate impacts? 

1384 

1385 11. What studies and other sources of information are available on the frequency of use 

1386 or effectiveness of work practices designed to prevent other building occupants and visitors and 

1387 persons in nearby buildings from being exposed to leaded dust and debris created by renovations 

1388 in and on public and commercial buildings? 

1389 

1390 12. To what extent have recent building renovations or constructions installed reused 

1391 building materials that are coated with lead-based paint? To what extent have installers abated 

1392 or used techniques to eliminate worker or occupant exposure to lead from these materials? 

1393 

1394 13. To what extent do green building certification systems encourage the reuse of lead1395 contaminated building materials? To what extent do these systems encourage lead abatement of 

1396 reused materials? 

1397 

1398 IV. References 

1399 

1400 As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this rulemaking 

1401 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The following is a listing of the 

1402 documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these 

1403 documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced 

1404 within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not 

1405 physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult 

1406 the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1407 

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

Page 31 of 35 

10T-0539

1409 Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards 

1410 (February 2000). 

1411 

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

1413 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young 

1414 Children; A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention August 2005). 

1415 

1416 3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

1417 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006). 

1418 

1419 4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 

1420 Child-Occupied Facilities: Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996). 

1421 

1422 5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead1423 based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999). 

1424 

1425 6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-based Paint Abatement Activities 

1426 Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 18489, April 8, 2004). 

1427 

1428 7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 

1429 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K1430 99-001, June 2003). 

1431 

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

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

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

1435 

1436 9. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target 

1437 Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 29907, June 1, 1998). 

1438 

1439 10. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 

1440 Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001). 

1441 

1442 11. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-K-97-001, 

1443 September 1997). 

1444 

1445 12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

1446 Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 

1447 

1448 13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

1449 Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA747-R-96-006, May 1997). 

1450 

1451 14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

1452 Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-99-002, March 1999). 

1453 

1454 15. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

1455 Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 35 

10T-0539

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

1457 

1458 16. USEPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, and 

1459 Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007). 

1460 

1461 17. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 

1462 Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008). 

1463 

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

1465 

1466 19. USEPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the 

1467 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 55506, 

1468 October 28, 2009). 

1469 

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

1471 

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

1473 

1474 22. USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006). 

1475 

1476 23. USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, 

1477 Washington, DC, EPA/630/P–02/001F (May 2003). 

1478 

1479 24. USEPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

1480 Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–

1481 452/R–05–005a. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (2005). 

1482 

1483 25. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 

1484 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 

1485 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics 2009, Vol. 123, No. 3, 

1486 pp. e376-385, March 2009. 

1487 

1488 26. HHS, PHS, CDC. “Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home 

1489 Renovation and Remodeling Activities--New York, 1993-1994.” Morbidity and Mortality 

1490 Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January 3, 1997). 

1491 

1492 27. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Related to Home 

1493 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities – New York State, 2006-2007. Morbidity and 

1494 Mortality Weekly Report (58(03); 55-58, January 30, 2009). 

1495 

1496 28. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. Kaufmann, and 

1497 Jessica Leighton. “Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk Factor for Exposure to Lead Among 

1498 Children Residing in New York City?” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York 

1499 Academy of Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005. 

1500 

1501 29. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities: Proposed Rule. 

1502 Federal Register (59 FR 45872, September 2, 1994). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 35 

10T-0539

1503 

1504 30. CPSC. Federal Register (42 FR 44199, September 1, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 

1505 8515, March 2, 1978). 

1506 

1507 31. Roberts, J.W., D.E. Camann, and T.M. Spittler. “Reducing Lead Exposure from 

1508 Remodeling and Soil Track-In in Older Homes.” In: Proceedings, Annual Meeting - Air and 

1509 Waste Management Association. Publication No. 91-134.2. (1991a). 

1510 

1511 32. Stefani D, D. Wardman, T. Lambert. The Implosion of the Calgary General Hospital: 

1512 Ambient Air Quality Issues. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2005 Jan; 55(1):52-9. 

1513 

1514 33. Farfel M.R., A.O. Orlova, P.S. Lees, C. Rohde, P.J. Ashley, J. Chisolm. “A Study of 

1515 Urban Housing Demolition as a Source of Lead in Ambient Dust on Sidewalks, Streets, and 

1516 Alleys.” Environ Res. 2005 Oct; 99(2):204-13. Epub 2004 Dec 15. 

1517 

1518 34. Snyder, M.K. and D. Bendersky. “Removal of Lead Based Bridge Paints.” Midwest 

1519 Research Institute. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report #265 for the 

1520 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, December 1983. 

1521 

1522 35. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Department of the Attorney 

1523 General. Rhode Island Lead Nuisance Abatement Plan (September 14, 2007). 

1524 

1525 36. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Health Hazard 

1526 Evaluation; Vermont Housing & Conservation Board. HETA #98-0285-2989 Montpelier, 

1527 Vermont (December 2005). 

1528 

1529 37. NIOSH. Health Hazard Evaluation; University of California, Berkley. HETA #99-

1530 0113-2853 Berkeley, California (July 2001). 

1531 

1532 38. HUD. National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, Volume I: Analysis of 

1533 Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002). 

1534 

1535 39. HUD. First National Environmental Health Survey of Child Care Centers, Volume I: 

1536 Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report. (July 15, 2003). 

1537 

1538 40. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, 

1539 Director, “Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based 

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

1541 

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

1543 

1544 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

1545 

1546 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 

1547 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

1548 (OMB) for review. Any changes to the document that were made in response to comments 

1549 received by EPA during that review have been documented in the docket as required by the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 35 

10T-0539

1550 Executive Order. 

1551 

1552 Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks 

1553 comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent 

1554 proposed rule, the various other review requirements that apply when an agency imposes 

1555 requirements do not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on this 

1556 document, you may include any comments or information that you have regarding the various 

1557 other review requirements. 

1558 

1559 In particular, EPA is interested in any information that would help the Agency to assess 

1560 the potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

1561 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the 

1562 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 

1563 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety effects on children 

1564 pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

1565 Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or to consider human health or 

1566 environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 

1567 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

1568 Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

1569 

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

1571 two areas: 

1572 

1573 a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments and information 

1574 about the various characteristics of potentially impacted small entities that would 

1575 facilitate the Agency’s evaluation of the number of firms that might experience an impact 

1576 from a rulemaking in this area, as well as an assessment of the potential size of that 

1577 impact on small entities. In commenting or providing information about small entities 

1578 that might be impacted by a rulemaking in this area, please note that the phrase “small 

1579 entities” encompasses small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small 

1580 organizations. In the analysis the Agency expects to perform under the RFA, these 

1581 entities are specifically defined in sections 601(3) - (5) of the RFA. The definitions for 

1582 “small business” are codified in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

1583 at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines small business by category of business using the 

1584 NAICS-Codes. (http://www.sba.gov/regulations/121/201.htm) Small business default 

1585 definitions can be found on SBA’s internet site at 

1586 http://www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html. A “small governmental jurisdiction” is “a 

1587 government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of 

1588 less than 50,000.” A “small organization” is any "not-for-profit enterprise which is 

1589 independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field." 

1590 

1591 b. Environmental Justice. EPA is particularly interested in receiving comment and 

1592 information about potential impacts – both benefits and costs – on the human health or 

1593 environmental conditions in minority or low-income populations. Such information 

1594 would facilitate the Agency’s consideration of environmental justice during the 

1595 development of the proposed rule. 

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

Page 35 of 35 

10T-0539

1597 This information will be used in the identification and evaluation of options for the 

1598 proposed rule, and will inform the analyses that the Agency intends to prepare for the proposed 

1599 rule. Any comments on this topic should be submitted to the Agency in the manner specified 

1600 under ADDRESSES. The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any 

1601 subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to address any applicable requirements. 

1602 

1603 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

1604 

1605 Environmental protection, Hazardous substance, Lead poisoning, Reporting and 

1606 recordkeeping requirements. 

1607 Dated: ________ 

1608 _____________________ 

1609 Administrator.

1610 

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

1612 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P