*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 33 LRRP-PnCB-ANPRM_EO12866_FRN_2010-03-24.doc 1

2

ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY 3

4

40 CFR Part 745 5

6 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173; FRL–XXX–X] 7

8

RIN 2070–AJ56 9

10 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings 11

12

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 13

14

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 15

16

SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice of the Agency’s intention to regulate the 17 renovation, repair and painting of public and commercial buildings under section 40 2(c)(3) of the 18

Toxic Substances Control Act. This notice announces the commencemen t of proceedings to 19 propose lead-safe work practices and other requirements for re novations on the exteriors of 20 public and commercial buildings and to determine whether lead-b ased paint hazards are created 21 by interior renovation, repair a nd painting projects in public a nd commercial buildings. For 22

those renovations in the interior s of public and commercial buildings that create lead-based paint 23 hazards, EPA will propose regulations to address these hazards. 24

25

DATES: Comments must be recei ved on or before [ insert date 60 days after date of publication 26

in the Federal Register ]. 27

28

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by doc ket identification (ID) number EPA– 29 HQ–OPPT–2010–0173, by one of the following methods: 30

31

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line instructions 32 for submitting comments. 33

34

• Mail : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Polluti on Prevention and Toxics 35 (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 36

20460–0001. 37

38

• Hand Delivery : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 39 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Atte ntion: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 40 2010–0173. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 41 holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only 42 accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operati on, and special arrangements should be made 43

for deliveries of boxed information. 44

45

Instructions : Direct your comments to doc ket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0173. 46 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and 47*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 33 may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal 48 information provided, unless the comment include s information claimed to be Confidential 49 Business Information (CBI) or other information whos e disclosure is restrict ed by statute. Do not 50 submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protec ted through regulations.gov 51 or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA 52 will not know your identity or contact inform ation unless you provide it in the body of your 53 comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 54 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automati cally captured and included as part of the 55 comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 56 electronic comment, EPA recomme nds that you include your name and other contact information 57 in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 58 your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not 59 be able to consider your comment . Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 60 any form of encryption, and be fr ee of any defects or viruses. 61

62

Docket : All documents in the docket are list ed in the docket index available at 63 http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, so me information is not publicly 64 available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disc losure is restricted by statute. Certain other 65 material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 66

available docket materials ar e available elect ronically at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only 67 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. Th e OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 68 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 69 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 70 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 71 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 72 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identificati on, pass through a metal detector, 73 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processe d through an X-ray machine and 74 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 75 the building and retu rned upon departure. 76

77

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 78

79 For general information contact : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental 80 Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollu tion Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 81 Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 82 number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov

. 83

84 For technical information contact : Hans Scheifele, Nati onal Program Chemicals 85 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 86 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 564–3122; e87

mail address: scheifele.hans@epa.gov

. 88

89 Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through 90 TTY by calling the toll-free Fe deral Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. 91

92

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 93

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

Page 3 of 33 I. General Information 95

96 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 97

98 This notice is directed to the public in genera l. However, this notice may be of particular 99 interest to the following entities: 100

101 • Building construction (North American Industrial Classificati on System (NAICS) code 102 236), e.g. , commercial building constr uction, industrial building c onstruction, commercial and 103 institutional building construction, building fi nishing contractors, drywall and insulation 104 contractors, painting and wall cove ring contractors, finish carpen try contractors, other building 105 finishing contractors. 106

107 • Specialty trade c ontractors (NAICS code 238), e.g. , plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 108 contractors, painting and wall c overing contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 109 contractors, drywall and insulati on contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 110 glass and glazing contractors. 111

112 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g. , lessors of non-residential buildings and dwellings, non113 residential property managers. 114

115 • Facilities support services (NAICS code 561210). 116

117

• Other general government support (NAICS code 921) e.g. , general services departments, 118 government, public property management services, government. 119

120 This listing is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers 121 regarding entities likely to be aff ected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 122

could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assi st you and others in 123 determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions 124 regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed 125

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 126

127 B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 128

129

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e130 mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 131 information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD132 ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of th e disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 133 electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 134 addition to one complete version of the commen t that includes information claimed as CBI, a 135 copy of the comment that does not contain the in formation claimed as CBI must be submitted for 136 inclusion in the public docket. Information so mark ed will not be disclose d except in accordance 137 with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 138

139

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: 140

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

Page 4 of 33 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 142 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 143

144 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 145 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 146

147 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 148 your requested changes. 149

150 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide a ny technical information and/or data that you 151

used. 152

153 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 154 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 155

156 vi. Provide specific examples to illustra te your concerns and suggest alternatives. 157

158 vii. Explain your views as cl early as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 159

threats. 160

161 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 162

163 II. Background 164

165 A. EPA’s Lead-based Paint Programs 166

167 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 168 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000 ,000 children under age 6; th at the ingestion of 169 household dust containing lead from deterioratin g or abraded lead-based paint was the most 170 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 171 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 172 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminat ed dust in their homes. Congress further 173 determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 174 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also known as the 175

Residential Lead-Based Paint Haza rd Reduction Act of 1992) (“the Ac t” or “Title X”). Title X 176 established a national goal of eliminating lead-bas ed paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as 177 possible and provided a leadership role for the Federal government in building the infrastructure 178 necessary to achieve this goal. 179

180 Subsequently, President Clin ton created the President's Task Force on Environmental 181 Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Co-c haired by the Secretary of the Department of 182 Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Admini strator of EPA, the Task Force consisted of 183 representatives from 16 Federal de partments and agencies. The Task Force set a Federal goal of 184 eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the ye ar 2010 (Ref. 1). In October 2001, President 185

Bush extended the work of the Task Force fo r an additional 18 months beyond its original 186 charter. Reducing lead poisoni ng in children was the Task For ce's top priority. Although more 187 work remains to be done, significant progress has been made towards redu cing lead poisoning in 188*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 33 children. The estimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above 10 micrograms per 189 deciliter (μg/dL) declined from 4.4% be tween 1991 and 1994 to 1.6% between 2003 and 2004 190 (Ref. 2). More information on Federal effo rts to address lead poisoning, including the 191 responsibilities of EPA and other Federal Agenci es under Title X, can be found in Units III.A. 192 and III.B. of the preamble to the 2006 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule 193 (2006 Proposal) (Ref. 3). 194

195

The Act added a new title to TSCA entitled “Title IV-Lead Exposure Reduction.” Most 196 of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be f ound in this title, with 197 section 402 of TSCA being one source of th e rulemaking authority to carry out these 198 responsibilities. TSCA secti on 402(a) directs EPA to promulga te regulations covering lead199 based paint activities to ensure that persons pe rforming these activities are properly trained, that 200 training programs are accredited, and that contra ctors performing these ac tivities are certified. 201 These regulations must contain standards for perfo rming lead-based paint activities, taking into 202 account reliability, effectiveness, and safe ty. On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final 203 regulations under TSCA section 402 (a) that govern lead-based pa int inspections, lead hazard 204 screens, risk assessments, and abatements in ta rget housing and child-occu pied facilities (also 205

referred to as the Lead-based Pa int Activities Regulati ons) (Ref. 4). “Target housing” is defined 206 in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructe d before 1978, except housing for the elderly or 207 persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 208 housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. The Lead -based Paint Activities Regulations created a 209 subset of public and commercial buildings called child-occupied f acilities, and defined them in 210 terms of the amount of time a young child might sp end within them. These regulations, codified 211 at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain an acc reditation program for training providers and 212 training and certification requireme nts for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project 213 designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Work practice standards for lead214 based paint activities are included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for 215 interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to apply fo r and receive au thorization to 216 administer their own lead-based paint activities programs. 217

218 On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint Activiti es Regulations were amended to include a 219 fee schedule for training programs seeking EP A accreditation and for individuals and firms 220 seeking EPA certification (Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 221 402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administeri ng and enforcing the lead-based 222 paint activities requirements in unauthorized Stat es. The most recent amendment to the Lead223 based Paint Activities Regulati ons occurred on April 8, 2004, wh en notification requirements 224 were added to help EPA monitor compliance with the training and certification provisions and 225 the abatement work prac tice standards (Ref. 6). 226

227 Another of EPA's responsibilit ies under Title X is to require that purchasers and tenants 228 of target housing and occupants of targ et housing undergoing re novation are provided 229 information on lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. As directed by TSCA section 230 406(a), the Consumer Products Safety Commi ssion (CPSC), the Department of Housing and 231 Urban Development (HUD), and EPA, in consulta tion with the Centers for Disease Control and 232 Prevention (CDC), jointly developed a lead hazar d information pamphlet entitled Protect Your 233 Family From Lead in Your Home (PYF) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was desi gned to be distributed 234 as part of the disclosure re quirements of section 1018 of Titl e X and TSCA section 406(b), to 235*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 33 provide home purchasers, renters, owners, and occ upants with the information necessary to allow 236

them to make informed choices when selecti ng housing to buy or rent, or deciding on home 237 renovation projects. The pamphlet contains information on the health effects of lead, how 238 exposure can occur, and steps that can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure during 239

various activities in the home. 240

241 Pursuant to the authority provided in section 1018 of Title X, on March 6, 1996, HUD 242 and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiri ng persons who are selling or leasing target 243 housing to provide the PYF pamphlet and informa tion on known lead-based paint and lead-based 244 paint hazards in the housing to pur chasers and renters (R ef. 8). These joint re gulations, codified 245 at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, describe in detail the information 246 that must be provided before the contract or leas e is signed and require that sellers, landlords, 247 and agents document compliance with the disclosure requirements in the contract to sell or lease 248 the property. Title X does not provide for these requirements to be administered by States or 249 Tribes in lieu of the Federal regulations . Therefore, HUD and EPA are responsible for 250 administering and enforcing th ese disclosure obligations. 251

252 TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to prom ulgate regulations requiring persons who 253 perform renovations for compensation in target h ousing to provide a lead hazard information 254 pamphlet to owners and occupants of the home being renovated. These regulations, promulgated 255 on June 1, 1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, s ubpart E (Ref. 9). The term “renovation” is 256 not defined in the statute, but the regulation, at 40 CFR 745.83, defines a “renovation” as the 257 modification of any existing structur e, or portion of a structure, that results in the disturbance of 258 painted surfaces. The regulations specifically exclude lead-based paint abatement projects as 259 well as small projects that disturb 2 square f eet or less of painted surface per component, 260 emergency projects, and renovations affecting co mponents that have been found to be free of 261 lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the regulations, by a certif ied inspector or risk 262 assessor. These regulations require the renova tion firm to documentcompliance with the 263 requirement to provide the owner and the occupa nt with the PYF pamphlet. TSCA section 404 264 also allows States to apply for, and receive authorization to ad minister, the TSCA section 406(b) 265 requirements. 266

267 TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations that id entify, for the purposes 268 of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous leve ls of lead in paint, dust, and soil. EPA 269 promulgated regulations pursuant to TSCA sec tion 403 on January 5, 2001, and codified them at 270 40 CFR part 745, subpart D (Ref. 10). These hazard standards define lead-b ased paint hazards in 271 target housing and child-occupied f acilities as paint-lead, dust-l ead, and soil-lead hazards. A 272 paint-lead hazard is defined as any damaged or de teriorated lead-based paint, any chewable lead273 based painted surface with evidence of teeth marks, or any lead-based paint on a friction surface 274

if lead dust levels underneath the friction surface exceed the dust-lead hazard standards. A dust275

lead hazard is surface dust that contains a ma ss-per-area concentration of lead equal to or 276 exceeding 40 micrograms per square foot ( μ g/ft 2 ) on floors or 250 μ g/ft 2 on interior windowsills 277 based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is ba re soil that contains total lead equal to or 278 exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in a play ar ea or average of 1,200 ppm of bare soil in the 279 rest of the yard based on soil samples. 280

281 B. EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 282*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 33 283 Section 402(c) of TSCA addr esses renovation and remodeling. For the stated purpose of 284 reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection with renov ation and remode ling activities, 285 section 402(c)(1) of TSCA requires EPA to prom ulgate and disseminate guidelines for the 286 conduct of such activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In 287 response to this statutory directive, EPA deve loped the guidance document entitled “Reducing 288 Lead Hazards when Remodeling Your Home” in consultation with industry and trade groups 289 (Ref. 11). This document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling 290 stakeholders through the National Lead Informa tion Center, EPA Regions, and EPA's State and 291 Tribal partners and is available at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf. 292

293 Section 402(c)(2) of TSCA directs EPA to st udy the extent to which persons engaged in 294 various types of renovation and re modeling activities are exposed to lead during such activities 295 or create a lead-based paint ha zard regularly or occasionally. EP A conducted this study in four 296 phases. Phase I, the Environmental Field Sa mpling Study (Ref. 12), evaluated the amount of 297 leaded dust generated by vari ous typical renovation activities. Phas e II, the Worker 298 Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 22), involved collecting data on blood lead and 299 renovation and remodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood300 Lead Study (Ref. 14), was a retr ospective study focused on asse ssing the relationship between 301 renovation and remodeling activitie s and children’s blood-lead leve ls. Phase IV, the Worker 302 Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and Repair) Workers Who 303 Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but 304 focused on individuals who worked primarily in ol d historic buildings. More information on the 305 results of these peer-reviewed studies can be found in Unit III .C.1. of the preamble to the 2006 306 Proposal (Ref. 3). 307

308 Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise the regulations promulgated under 309 TSCA section 402(a), i.e. , the Lead-based Paint Activities Re gulations, to apply to renovation or 310 remodeling activities in target housing, pub lic buildings constructed before 1978, and 311 commercial buildings that create lead-based pain t hazards. Based primarily on the four-phase 312 study conducted under TSCA secti on 402(c)(2), EPA issued a proposed rule in January 2006 to 313 cover renovation, repair, and painti ng activities that disturb pain ted surfaces in target housing 314 and child-occupied facili ties (Ref. 3). In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that all 315 such activities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards because 316

available information indicated that all such ac tivities create dust-lead le vels that exceed the 317

hazard standards established under TSCA section 403. 318

319 After the 2006 Proposal was issue d, EPA conducted a field study entitled 320

“Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Pa inting Activities” (Dust 321 Study) to better characterize dust lead levels resulting from various renovation, repair, and 322 painting activities (Ref. 16). This study, comp leted in January 2007, was designed to compare 323 environmental lead levels at appropriate stag es after various types of renovation, repair, and 324 painting preparation activities were performed on the interiors and exteri ors of target housing 325 units and child-occupied facilities. Th e renovation activ ities were conducted by local 326 professional renovation firms, using personnel who r eceived lead safe work practices training. 327

The activities conducted re presented a range of renovation, repair, and pa inting activities that 328 would have been permitted under the 2006 Proposal, in cluding work practices that are restricted 329*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 33 or prohibited under the final rule, such as the use of high-speed machines without high-efficiency 330 particulate air (HEPA) filtered exhaust control to remove paint. Of particular interest was the 331 impact of using specific work practices that renovation firms w ould be required to use under the 332 proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the work area and a multi-step cleaning 333 protocol, as opposed to more t ypical work practices. The Dust Study reinforced EPA’s proposed 334 finding that typical renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead335 based paint hazards. 336

337 In April 2008, EPA issued the final Renova tion, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) 338 under the authority of sec tion 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substanc es Control Act (TSCA) to address 339 lead-based paint hazards create d by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead340 based paint in target housing and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 17). The term “target housing” 341 is defined in TSCA section 401 as any housi ng constructed before 1978, except housing for the 342 elderly or persons with disabilitie s (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside 343 in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Unde r the RRP Rule, a child-occupied facility is a 344 building, or a portion of a building, constructed pr ior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, 345 under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday 346 period), provided that each day's visit lasts at le ast 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at 347 least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Th e RRP Rule establishes 348 requirements for training renovators, other renov ation workers, and dust sampling technicians; 349 for certifying renovators, dust sampling technici ans, and renovation firms; for accrediting 350 providers of renovation and dust sampling technici an training; for renovation work practices; and 351 for recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories , and Indian Tribes may apply for and receive 352

authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of the RRP Rule. 353

354 C. Recent Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Developments 355

356 Shortly after the RRP Rule was published, several petitions were filed challenging the 357 rule. These petitions were cons olidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 358 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA entere d into an agreement with the environmental 359 and children’s health advocacy groups in settleme nt of their petitions (Ref. 18). In this 360 agreement, EPA committed to propose several ch anges to the RRP Rule. EPA also agreed to 361 commence rulemaking to address renovations in public and commercial buildings, other than 362 child-occupied facilities, to the extent those renovations create lead-based paint hazards. For 363 these buildings, EPA agreed, at a minimum, to do the following: 364

365 • Issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial 366 buildings other than child-occ upied facilities by December 15, 2011, and to take final action on 367 that proposal by July 15, 2013. 368

369 • Consult with EPA’s Science Advisory Board by September 30, 2011, on a methodology 370 for evaluating the risk posed by renovations in the interiors of public a nd commercial buildings 371 other than child-occupied facilities. 372

373 • Eighteen months after receipt of the Scie nce Advisory Board’s report, either issue a 374 proposal to regulate renovations on the interiors of public and co mmercial buildings other than 375 child-occupied facilities or c onclude that such renovations do not create lead-based paint 376*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 33 hazards. 377

378 On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to eliminat e the “opt-out” provis ion that currently 379 exempts a renovation firm from the training and wo rk practice requirements of the rule where the 380

firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under 381 age 6 or pregnant woman resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility (Ref. 382 19). EPA also proposed to require renovati on firms to provide a copy of the records 383 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements of the RRP rule to 384 the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the 385 child-occupied facility. The fi nal rule on these “opt-out” an d recordkeeping provisions is 386 published elsewhere in this Federal Register. 387

388

Elsewhere in this section of this Federal Register, EPA is i ssuing a proposal that contains 389 additional requirements for renova tions already covered by the RRP Rule. These additional 390 requirements are designed to ensure that lead-b ased paint hazards generated by renovation work 391 are adequately cleaned after renovation work is finished and before the work areas are re392 occupied. Specifically, the pr oposal would require dust wipe testing after many renovations 393 covered by the RRP rule. In addition, for a s ubset of jobs involving demolition or removal of 394 plaster through destructive means or the disturba nce of paint using machines designed to remove 395 paint through high-speed operati on, this proposal woul d also require the renovation firm to 396 demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dus t-lead levels remaini ng in the work area are 397 below regulatory levels. The propos al also contains several clarif ications of existing provisions 398

of the RRP Rule and several modifications that would facilitate implementation of the existing 399

rule. 400

401 Finally, on August 10, 2009, EPA received a pe tition from several environmental and 402 public health advocacy groups requesting that the EPA amend regulations issued under Title IV 403 of TSCA (Ref. 20). Specificall y, the petitioners requested that EPA lower the Agency’s dust404 lead hazard standards issued pursu ant to section 403 of TSCA from 40 μ g/ft 2 to 10 μ g/ft 2 or less 405

for floors and from 250 μ g/ft 2 to 100 μ g/ft 2 or less for window sills. The petitioners also asked 406 EPA to modify the definiti on of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 from 0.5 407 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million (ppm )) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a 408 corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard. On October 22, 409 2009, EPA granted this petition under section 553(e) of the Admini strative Procedures Act, 5 410 USC 553(e) (Ref. 21). In granting this peti tion, EPA agreed to commence the appropriate 411 proceeding, but did not commit to a particular schedule or to a particular outcome. Because 412 Congress gave the Department of Housing and Ur ban Development (HUD) statutory authority to 413 establish a lower level of lead in paint for the purpose of the definition of the term “lead-based 414 paint” in target housing, EPA agreed to work with HUD in taking the appropriate action on the 415 request pertaining to the definition of the term “lead-based paint.” 416

417 D. Information on Lead and its Health Effects 418

419 Lead is a soft, bluish metallic chemical el ement mined from rock and found in its natural 420 state all over the world. Lead is virtually indest ructible, is persistent, and has been known since 421 antiquity for its adaptability in making various usef ul items. In modern times, it has been used to 422 manufacture many different produc ts, including paint, batteries , pipes, solder, pottery, and 423*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 33 gasoline. Through the 1940's, paint manufacturers frequently used lead as a primary ingredient 424 in many oil-based interior and exterior house paints. Usage gradually decreased through the 425 1950's and 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced lead and as latex paints became more widely 426

available. 427

428 1. Health effects in general. Lead bioaccumulates, and is only slowly removed, with 429 bone lead serving as a blood lead source for year s after exposure and may serve as a significant 430 source of exposure. Bone accounts for more than 90% of the total body burden of lead in adults 431 and 70% in children (Ref. 22). In comparison to adults, bone mineral turns over much more 432 quickly in children as a result of growth. Ch anges in blood lead concen tration in children are 433 thought to parallel more closely to change s in total body burden. Therefore, blood lead 434 concentration is often used in epidemiologic a nd toxicological studies as an index of exposure 435 and body burden for children. 436

437 Lead is known for its “broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems via 438 widely diverse mechanisms of action” (Ref. 22, p. 8–24 and section 8.4.1). This array of health 439 effects includes effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological development 440 and function, reproduction and phys ical development, kidney func tion, cardiovascular function, 441 and immune function. The weight of evidence varies across this array of effects and is 442 comprehensively described in the EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Criteria Document) (Ref. 443 22). There is also some evidence of lead carcin ogenicity, primarily from animal studies, together 444 with limited human evidence of suggestive asso ciations (Ref. 22, sections 5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). 445 Lead has also been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the In ternational Agency for 446 Research on Cancer (inorganic lead compounds), based mainly on sufficient animal evidence, 447 and as reasonably anticipated to be a hu man carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology 448 Program (lead and lead compounds) (Ref. 22, sec tion 6.7.2). EPA considers lead a probable 449 carcinogen (http:// www.epa.gov/iris/ subst/0277.htm (Ref. 22, p. 6–195)). 450

451

This discussion is focused on those effects most pertinent to ambient exposures, which, 452 given the reductions in ambient l ead levels over the past 30 years, are generally those associated 453

with individual blood lead levels in ch ildren and adults in the range of 10 μ g/dL and lower. 454 These key effects include neurological, hemato logical, and immune effects for children, and 455 hematological, cardiovascular, and renal eff ects for adults (Ref. 22, Tables 8–5 and 8–6, pp. 8– 456 60 to 8–62). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the Criteria Document, 457

“neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovasc ular effects in adults are among those best 458

substantiated as occurri ng at blood lead concentra tions as low as 5 to 10 μ g/dL (or possibly 459 lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public hea lth concern” (Ref. 22, p. 460 8–60). At mean blood lead levels, in children, on the order of 10 μ g/dL, and somewhat lower, 461

associations have been found w ith effects to the immune syst em, including altered macrophage 462 activation, increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) le vels and associated increased risk for 463 autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 22, sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6). A meta-analysis of numerous 464 studies estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μ g/dL) is associated with 465 ~1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) increase in systolic bl ood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg 466 increase in diastolic pressure (R ef. 22, p. E–10). With respect to renal effects in adults, increased 467 risk for nephrotoxicity was observed at the lo west lead exposure levels in epidemiological 468 studies included in the Criteria Document (Ref . 22, p. 8-49). Nephrotic effects were reported 469 among some adults with mean concurrent blood lead levels as low as 2 to 4 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, p. 8- 470*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 33 48). 471

472 The toxicological and epidemiological inform ation available “includes assessment of new 473 evidence substantiating risks of deleterious effects on certain h ealth endpoints being induced by 474 distinctly lower than previously demonstrated lead exposures indexe d by blood lead levels 475 extending well below 10 μ g/dL in children and/or adults” (Ref. 22, p. 8– 25). Some health 476

effects associated with individual blood lead levels extend below 5 μ g/dL, and some studies have 477

observed these effects at the lo west blood levels considered. With regard to population mean 478 levels, the Criteria Document points to studi es reporting “lead effect s on the intellectual 479 attainment of preschool and school age children at population mean concu rrent blood-lead levels 480 [BLLs] ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 μ g/dL” (Ref. 22, p. E–9). 481

482 EPA notes that many studies over the past deca de, in investigating e ffects at lower blood 483 lead levels, have utilized the CDC advisory leve l or level of concern fo r individual children (10 484

μ g/dL). This level has variously been called an a dvisory level or level of concern. In addressing 485 children’s blood lead levels, CDC has stated, “[s]p ecific strategies that ta rget screening to high486 risk children are essential to identify children with BLLs ≥ 10 μ g/dL” (Ref. 1) as a benchmark 487 for assessment, and this is reflected in the numer ous references in the Criteria Document to 10 488

μ g/dL. Individual study conclusions stated with regard to effects observed below 10 μ g/dL are 489 usually referring to individual blood lead levels. In fact, ma ny such study groups have been 490

restricted to individual blood lead levels below 10 μ g/dL or restricted to blood lead levels below 491

levels that are lower than 10 μ g/dL ( e.g. , the blood lead levels must be below 8 μ g/dL). EPA 492

notes that the mean blood lead level for these groups will necessarily be lower than the blood 493 lead level below which they are restricted, becau se the restricted blood lead level is the upper 494 end of the blood lead level range of the study. 495

496 Threshold levels, in terms of blood lead levels in indivi dual children, for neurological 497 effects cannot be discerned from the currently available studies (Ref. 22, pp. 8–60 to 8–63). The 498 Criteria Document states, “There is no level of lead exposure that can ye t be identified, with 499 confidence, as clearly not being a ssociated with some risk of dele terious health effects” (Ref. 22, 500 p. 8–63). As discussed in the Criteria Document , “a threshold for lead neurotoxic effects may 501 exist at levels distinctly lower than the lowe st exposures examined in these epidemiologic 502 studies” (Ref. 22, p. 8– 67). Physiological, beha vioral and demographic factors contribute to 503

increased risk of lead-related health effects. Population groups potentially at risk, sometimes 504 also referred to as sensitive populations, incl ude those with increased susceptibility (i.e., 505 physiological factors contributing to a greater response fo r the same exposure), as well as those 506 with greater vulnerability (i.e., those with increased exposure su ch as through exposure to higher 507

media concentrations or resulti ng from behavior leading to incr eased contact with contaminated 508 media), or those affected by socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health care or low 509 socioeconomic status (Ref. 22). 510

511

Children are at increased risk of lead-related health effects due to various factors that 512 enhance their exposures (e.g., via the hand-to-mout h activity that is prevalent in very young 513 children, (Ref. 22, section 4.4.3)) and susceptibility. While children are cons idered to be at a 514 period of maximum exposure around 18–27 months, recent epidemiologic studies have found 515 other blood lead measurements, including concurrent blood lead levels or lif etime averages, to be 516 stronger predictors of lead-associated effects th an peak blood lead concentration (Ref. 22, pp. 6- 517*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 33 60 and 6-61). The evidence “supports the idea that lead exposure continues to be toxic to 518 children as they reach school age, and [does] not lend support to the interpretation that all the 519 damage is done by the time the child reaches 2 to 3 years of age” (Ref. 22, section 6.2.12). The 520 following physiological and demographic factors can fu rther affect risk of lead-related effects in 521

some children. 522

523 • Children with particular genetic polymor phisms (e.g., presence of the d-aminolevulinic 524 acid dehydratase-2 [ALAD-2] allele) may have increased sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may 525 be due to increased susceptibility to the same internal dose and/or to increased internal dose 526 associated with same exposure (Ref. 22, p. 8–71, sections 6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6). 527

528 • Some children may have blood lead levels hi gher than those otherw ise associated with a 529 given lead exposure (Ref. 22, sec tion 8.5.3) as a result of nutriti onal status (e.g., iron deficiency, 530 calcium intake), as well as genetic and othe r factors (Ref. 22, chapte r 4 and sections 3.4, 5.3.7, 531 and 8.5.3). 532

533 • Situations of elevated exposure, such as re siding near sources of ambient lead, as well 534 as socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health care or low socioeconomic status can 535

also contribute to increased blood lead levels and increased risk of associated health effects from 536

air-related lead (Refs. 23, 24). 537

538 • [C]hildren in poverty and black, non-Hispan ic children have notably higher blood lead 539 levels than do economically well-off children and white children, in general (Ref. 25). 540

541

2. Neurological effects in children . Among the wide variety of health endpoints 542 associated with lead exposures, there is genera l consensus that the developing nervous system in 543 children is among the, if not the, most sensitive. While blood lead levels in U.S. children have 544 decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have investig ated and reported associations 545 of effects on the neurodevelopment of children wi th these more recent blood lead levels (Ref. 22, 546 chapter 6). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity during childhood include 547 neurophysiologic, motor, cognitive , and behavioral impacts. Nu merous epidemiological studies 548 have reported neurocognitive, neurobehaviora l, neurophysiologic, and neuromotor function 549

effects in children with blood lead levels below 10 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2 and 8.4). As 550

discussed in the Criteria Docu ment, “extensive experimental laboratory animal evidence has 551 been generated that (a) substantiates well the pl ausibility of the epidemiologic findings observed 552 in human children and adults and (b) expa nds our understanding of likely mechanisms 553 underlying the neurotoxic effects” (Ref. 22, p. 8–25; section 5.3). 554

555 Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have been observed in 556 epidemiological studies have included decrements in intelligence test results, such as the widely 557 used IQ score, and in academic achievement as assessed by various standard ized tests as well as 558 by class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16 and pp. 8–29 to 8–30). As noted in 559 the Criteria Document with regard to the la tter, “[a]ssociations be tween lead exposure and 560

academic achievement observed in the above-noted studies were significant even after adjusting 561 for IQ, suggesting that lead-sen sitive neuropsychological proc essing and learning factors not 562 reflected by global intelligence indices might contribute to reduced performance on academic 563 tasks” (Ref. 22, pp. 8–29 to 8– 30). Further, neurol ogical effects in genera l include behavioral 564*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 33 effects, such as delinquent behavior (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.6 and 8.4.2.2), sensory effects, such as 565 those related to hearing and vision (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.7 and 8.4.2.3), and deficits in 566 neuromotor function (Ref. 22, p. 8–36). 567

568 With regard to potential imp lications of lead effects on IQ, the Criteria Document 569 recognizes the “critical” di stinction between population and indi vidual risk, identifying issues 570 regarding declines in IQ for an individual and for the population. The Criteria Document further 571 states that a “point estimate indicating a modest mean change on a health index at the individual 572 level can have substantial implications at the population level” (R ef. 22, p. 8–77). As an 573 example, the Criteria Document states, “although an increase of a few mm Hg in blood pressure 574 might not be of concern for an individual’s we ll-being, the same increas e in the population mean 575 might be associated with substant ial increases in the percentages of individuals with values that 576 are sufficiently extreme that they exceed the criteria used to diagnose hypertension” (Ref. 22, p. 577 8–77). A downward shift in the mean IQ value is associated with both su bstantial decreases in 578 percentages achieving very high scores and substan tial increases in the perc entage of individuals 579 achieving very low scores (Ref. 22, p. 8–81). Fo r example, for a population mean IQ of 100 580 (and standard deviation of 15), 2.3% of the popul ation would score above 130, but a shift of the 581 population to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% of the population scoring above 130 (Ref. 22, 582 pp. 8–81 to 8–82). For an individual functioning in the low IQ range due to the influence of 583 developmental risk factors other than lead, a lead-associated IQ decline of several points might 584 be sufficient to drop that individu al into the range associated with increased risk of educational, 585 vocational, and social failure (Ref. 22, p. 8–77). 586

587 Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have incl uded effects on attention, 588 executive functions, language, memory, learning, and visuospatial processing (Ref. 22, sections 589 5.3.5, 6.2.5, and 8.4.2.1), with attention and executive function effects associated with lead 590 exposures indexed by blood lead levels below 10 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8–30 to 591 8–31). The evidence for the role of lead in this suite of effects includes experimental animal 592 findings (Ref. 22, section 8.4.2.1; p. 8–31), which provi de strong biological plausibility of lead 593 effects on learning abilit y, memory and attention (Ref. 22, s ection 5.3.5), as well as associated 594 mechanistic findings. 595

596 The persistence of such lead-induced effect s is described in the Criteria Document ( e.g. , 597 Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.11, and 8.5.2). The persiste nce or irreversibility of such effects can 598 be the result of damage occurring without adequate repair offsets or of the persistence of lead in 599 the body (Ref. 22, section 8.5.2). It is additionally important to note that there may be long-term 600 consequences of such deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and achievement can have 601 “enduring and important effects on objective parameters of success in real life,” as well as 602 increased risk of antisocial and delinque nt behavior (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16). 603

604 Multiple epidemiologic studies of lead and child development have demonstrated 605

inverse associations between blood lead concen trations and children’s IQ and other cognitive606 related outcomes at successively lower lead exposure levels over the past 30 years (Ref. 22, 607 section 6.2.13). For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, described in the 608 Criteria Document, provides clear substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated 609

in children with mean blood lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 μ g/ dL, and some analyses 610

indicate lead effects on intell ectual attainment of children for which population mean blood lead 611*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 33 levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8 μ g/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2, 8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, 612

while blood lead levels in U.S. children have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer 613 studies have investigated and reported associations of eff ects on the neurodevelopment of 614

children with blood lead levels similar to the more recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 22, 615 chapter 6). 616

617 Children in minority populations and child ren from low-income families have an 618 increased risk of exposure to harmful lead leve ls. Non-Hispanic black children and children 619

from low-income families have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Analysis of 620

the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data show that overall the 621

incidence of elevated blood lead levels have decreased for all groups assessed (Ref. 25). 622 However, the geometric mean blood lead level wa s significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks 623 (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican American s (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 624 μg/dL). For children aged 1-5 years from families with low income, the geometric mean blood 625 lead level was 2.5 μg/dL. Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 μg/dL and 626 greater than or equal to 5μg/dL were hi gher for non-Hispanic blacks (3.4% and 14% 627 respectively) than for Mexican Americans ( 1.2% and 4.7%, respectively) and non-Hispanic 628 whites (1.2% and 4.4%, respectively). The analysis indicates that reside nce in older housing, 629 poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for hi gher lead levels (Ref. 630 25). 631

632 3. Adult health effects. As previously not ed, the adult health effects of lead exposure 633 include negative impacts on renal and cardiovascular function. While cardiovascular effects are 634 well substantiated as occurring at blood lead levels as low as 5 to 10 μ g/dL (or possibly lower), 635 newly-demonstrated renal system effects among ge neral population groups are also emerging as 636 low-level lead exposure effects of concern (Ref 22, p. 8-60). 637

638 Most studies in general adult and pati ent populations published during the past two 639

decades have observed associations between “P b dose and worse renal function.” (Ref 22, p. 6- 640 112) The cumulative effect of higher blood lead leve ls from past exposure may be a factor in the 641 nephrotoxicity observed at curren t blood lead levels. However, one study found associations 642

between blood lead and concurrent serum creatinin e in participants whose peak blood lead levels 643 were equal to or less than 10 μ g/dL (Ref 22, p. 6-112). The threshold for lead-related 644 nephrotoxicity cannot be determined based on curr ent data, but associatio ns with clinically645

relevant renal outcomes have been observed in populations with mean bl ood lead levels as low 646

as 2.2 μ g/dL (Ref 22, p. 6-112).” In addition, the avai lable data are not sufficient to determine 647 whether the observed nephrotoxicity is related more to such cu rrent blood lead levels, higher 648 levels from past exposures, or both (Ref 22, p. 8-49). Some adult populations are at an even 649 greater risk for adverse health effects as a result of lead exposure. The influence of an 650

individual’s health stat us on susceptibility to lead toxicity has been demonstrated most clearly 651 for renal outcomes. “Individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal insufficiency are 652

at increased risk of Pb-associa ted declines in renal function, a nd indications of altered kidney 653 function have been reported at blood Pb levels ranging somewhat below 5 μ g/dL (Lin et al., 654 2001, 2003; Muntner et al., 2003; Tsaih et al., 2004).” (Ref 22 p. 8-72) 655

656 Positive associations between lead exposur e and increased blood pressure have been 657 observed in numerous studies. Epidemiologic st udies that have examin ed the effects of blood 658*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 33 lead levels on blood pressure have generally found positive associations, even after controlling 659 for confounding factors such as tobacco smoki ng, exercise, body weight , alcohol consumption, 660 and socioeconomic status (Ref 22, p. 8-45). Recent meta-analyses of these studies have reported 661 robust, statistically-significan t, though small effect-size, associations between blood-Pb 662 concentrations and blood pressure. For example, the meta-analysis of Nawrot et al (2002) 663 indicated that a doubling of bl ood lead corresponded to a 1 mm Hg increase in systolic blood 664 pressure. Although this magnitude of increase is not clinically m eaningful for an individual, a 665 population shift of 1 mm Hg is important (Ref 22, p. 8-45). The majority of the more recent 666 studies employing bone lead level have also f ound a strong association between long-term lead 667 exposure and arterial pressure. “Since the residence time of Pb in blood is relatively short but 668 very long in bone, the latter observations have provided compelling evidence for the positive 669 relationship between Pb exposure an d a subsequent rise in arterial pressure in human adults.” 670 (Ref 22, p. 8-45) 671

672

Studies also demonstrate a relationship between increased lead exposure and other 673 adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including increased incidence of hypertension and 674 cardiovascular morbidity and mo rtality (Ref. 22, p. 6-154). “L ead interference in calcium675 dependent processes, including ionic transport systems and signaling pathways important in 676 vascular reactivity may only represent the first step in the cascade of Pb-induced physiological 677

events that culminates in cardi ovascular disease. Lead altera tion of endothelial cell response to 678 vascular damage, inducement of smooth muscle cell hyperplasia, alte ration of hormonal and 679 transmitter systems regulating vascular reactivity, and its clear role as promoter of oxidative 680 stress suggest mechanisms that could explai n the Pb-associated incr ease in blood pressure, 681 hypertension, and cardiovascular disease noted in this section.” (Ref 22, p. 6-153) 682

683 Current research does not definitively indica te whether health impacts observed later in 684 life are the result of current lead exposure or exposure which occurred during early childhood or 685 at some other time in the past. The following exce rpts from the Criteria Document illustrate the 686 uncertainties surrounding this issue: 687

688 • “It could be that damage occurred duri ng a circumscribed period when the critical 689 substrate was undergoing rapid development, but that the high correlation between serial blood 690 Pb levels impeded identification of the special significance of exposure at that time.” (Ref. 22, p. 691 8-73) 692

693

• “While some observations in children as old as adolescence i ndicate that exposure 694 biomarkers measured concurrently are the st rongest predictors of late outcomes, the 695 interpretation of these observati ons with regard to critical windows of vulnerability remains 696 uncertain.” (Ref 22, p. 8-74) 697

698

4. Renovations in residential set tings and elevated blood lead levels. EPA’s Wisconsin 699 Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described more fully in Unit III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 700 Proposal, provides ample evidence of a link be tween renovation activitie s and elevated blood 701 lead levels in resident children (Ref. 14). This peer-reviewed study concluded that general 702 residential renovation and remodeling is associated with an increasedrisk of elevated blood lead 703 levels in children and that sp ecific renovation and remodeling activ ities are also associated with 704

an increase in the risk of elevated blood lead le vels in children. In particular, removing paint 705*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 33 (using open flame torches, using heat guns, us ing chemical paint removers, and using wet 706 scraping/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sandi ng or scraping significan tly increased the risk 707

of elevated blood lead levels. 708

709 Three studies from New York support th e findings of the Wisconsin Childhood Blood710 Lead Study. In 1995, the New York State Depart ment of Health assessed lead exposure among 711 children resulting from home renovation and rem odeling in 1993–1994. A review of the health 712 department records of children with blood l ead levels equal to or greater than 20 μ g/dL identified 713 320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood l ead levels that were attribut able to renovation and remodeling 714 (Ref. 26). An update to that study with data fr om environmental investig ations conducted during 715 2006-2007 in New York State (exc luding New York City) identif ied renovation, repair, and 716 painting activities as the probable source of l ead exposure in 14% of 972 children with blood 717 lead levels equal to or exceeding 20 μ g/dL (Ref. 27). The authors c oncluded that children living 718 in housing undergoing renovation, repair, and painting that was built before 1978, and 719 particularly before 1950, when conc entrations of lead in paint we re higher, are at high risk for 720 elevated blood lead levels. The final study was a case-control study that assessed the association 721

between elevated blood lead levels in childre n younger than 5 years a nd renovation or repair 722 activities in homes in New York City (Ref. 28). EPA notes that the authors show that when dust 723 and debris was reported (by respondents via tele phone interviews) to be “everywhere” following 724 a renovation, the children’s blood lead levels were significantly high er than those of the children 725 at homes that did not report remodeling work. On the other hand, when the respondent reported 726

either “no visible dust and debris” or that “dust and debris was limited to the work area,” there 727 was no statistically significant eff ect on blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report 728 remodeling work. Although the study found only a weak and nonsignificant link between a 729 report of any renovation activity and the likeliho od that a resident child had an elevated blood730 lead level, the link to the like lihood of an elevated blood-lead le vel was statistically significant 731 for surface preparation by sanding and for renovati on work that spreads dust and debris beyond 732

the work area. The researchers noted the cons istency of their results with EPA’s Wisconsin 733 Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 28, at 509). 734

735 III. Renovations in Public and Commercial Buildings 736

737 In many respects, EPA’s approach to determ ining how to regulate exterior renovations on 738 public and commercial buildings and whether and how to regulate interior renovations in public 739 and commercial buildings must be similar to th e approach taken toward s renovation activities in 740 and on target housing and child-occu pied facilities. The statutor y directive under TSCA section 741 402(c)(3) is the same for all of these buildings. EPA must revi se the regulations issued under 742 TSCA section 402(a) to apply to those renovations that create l ead-based paint hazards. 743

744 An important consideration in determining how to regulate renova tions on the exteriors 745 of public and commercial buildings is that these renovations can create lead-based paint hazards 746 on and in target housing and child-o ccupied facilities. Lead dust can travel in the environment 747 and has been shown to be readily tracked into home s and other buildings. In fact, as discussed in 748 Unit III.B.1. below, a substantial proportion of interior dust is due to track-in activities. 749

750 A. Definitions of “Public Buildi ng” and “Commercia l Building.” 751

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

Page 17 of 33 While the term “target housing” is define d in TSCA section 401, TS CA Title IV does not 753 provide definitions for the terms “public building” and “commercial building.” The issue of the 754 buildings that could and should be covered by these terms was raised, but not conclusively 755 resolved, in the rulemaking to establish the existi ng Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations. 756

757 As discussed previously, EPA promulgate d the final Lead-based Paint Activities 758 Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) in 1996 (Ref . 4). These regulations cover lead-based 759 paint inspections, lead ha zard screens, risk assessments, and abatements. The regulations include 760 training and certification requireme nts for individuals and firms, accreditation requirements for 761 lead-based paint training providers , and work practice standards de signed in accordance with the 762 statutory directive to ensure that lead-based paint activities are conducted safely, reliably and 763 effectively. As initially proposed in 1994, one set of requirements for the training and 764

certification of contractors and th e accreditation of training program s, as well as specific work 765 practice standards would have appl ied to lead-based paint activiti es conducted in target housing 766 and public buildings (Ref. 29). The 1994 proposal would have defined public buildings to 767 include all buildings generally open to the public or occupied or visite d by children, such as 768 stores, museums, airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals, and government buildings, as well as 769 schools and day-care centers. In the final rule, EPA decided to focus on buildings frequented by 770 children and, thus, established a subset of the bu ildings EPA had intended to define as public. 771 This subset is called “child-occupied facilities” and it is delineated terms of the frequency and 772 duration of visits by partic ular children (Ref. 4). 773

774 EPA continues to believe that it is important to emphasize the deleterious effects of lead 775 exposure on young children, a sub-populat ion that has long been identi fied as being particularly 776 susceptible to the adverse effects of lead. Howeve r, it is also important to address exposures for 777 other sensitive sub-populations, such as women w ho are pregnant or who may become pregnant 778 in the future. In addition, as discussed in Unit II.D. of this preamble, a growing body of 779

scientific literature documents lead’s adverse effects on older children and adults at lower levels 780 of exposure than previously documented. As a result, EPA does not believe that the Agency’s 781 efforts in this rulemaking should be limited to th ose buildings or situat ions where young children 782 are likely to be exposed. EPA intends to eval uate all of the available information on hazards, 783 exposures, and risk to determine which renova tions TSCA requires EPA to regulate and how 784 TSCA requires EPA to regulate them. 785

786 While TSCA Title IV does not define “public building” or “commercial building,” a 787 definition of “public and commercial building” wa s provided in TSCA Title II. TSCA Title II 788 addresses the management of asbestos-containing building materials in school buildings and the 789 training and accreditation (or certif ication) of persons who perform asbestos inspections or 790 design or conduct asbestos abatement in public or commercial buildings. Because the primary 791 focus of TSCA Title II is primary and secondary schools, and ensuring that asbestos-containing 792 building materials in such schools are properl y managed, primary and secondary schools are 793 specifically excluded from the de finition of the term “public a nd commercial building” in TSCA 794 section 202. However, the rest of the definition signals Congress’s intention for EPA to interpret 795 the term broadly, because a public and commercia l building is defined as “any building” other 796 than a school building or a “residential apartment building” of fewer than 10 units. EPA’s 797 regulatory definition of “pub lic and commercial building” at 40 CFR part 745, subpart C 798 provides examples of the types of buildings co vered, including industria l and office buildings, 799*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 33 government-owned buildings, colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches, preschools, 800 stores, warehouses and factories. Notwithstanding the differences in focus between TSCA Title 801 II and Title IV, EPA believes that a similar broad approach to interpretin g “public building” and 802 “commercial building” is warranted in this ru lemaking. Of course, EPA must still determine 803 which renovations in which buildings create lead-based paint hazards. 804

805

One other factor must be considered in interpreting the terms “public building” and 806 “commercial building.” In 1978, the CPSC banned the use of paint containing more than 0.06% 807 lead by weight on toys, furniture, and interior and exterior surfaces in housing and other 808 buildings and structures used by consumers (Ref. 30). However, this ban specifically exempted 809 “[i]ndustrial (and commercial) bu ilding and equipment maintenan ce coatings, including traffic 810 and safety marking coatings.” It is likely that Congress was thinking of this ban, and the 811 exemption, when it limited rulemaking authority in TSCA section 402(c)(3) to public buildings 812 built before 1978, but applied no such limitation to commercial buildings. Lead-based paint is 813 still thought to be in use in commercial buildings, especially when resistance to water and 814

corrosion is needed. 815

816 With this in mind, EPA requests comment, information and data from the public on the 817 types of buildings that should be considered “public buildings” or “commercial buildings.” 818 Specifically, EPA asks commenters to consider the following questions: 819

820 1. What types of buildings should be consid ered to be public buildings? What types 821

should be considered to be commercial buildings? Why? 822

823 2. What types of building classifications s hould be considered? S hould the criteria for 824 classifying buildings include the presence of young children or population de nsity? Is it possible 825 to categorize buildings based on the contra ctors and the workforce renovating them ( i.e. , do 826 different contractors perform renova tions in different types of pub lic and commercial buildings)? 827 Is it possible to classify pub lic and commercial buildings usin g building codes or zoning? 828

Should various classifications of buildings be treated differently with regard to required work 829 practices and cleaning methods? 830

831 3. Every four years, the Department of En ergy (DOE) collects information on the stock of 832 commercial buildings in the United States, their en ergy-related building char acteristics, and their 833 energy consumption and expenditures. For the purposes of this survey, the Commercial 834 Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), commercial buildings include all buildings in 835 which at least half of the floor space is used for a purpose that is not resi dential, industrial, or 836 agricultural. This survey includes building type s that might not traditionally be considered 837 commercial, such as schools, correctional institu tions, and buildings used for religious worship. 838

More information on the CBECS can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ . DOE 839 also collects data every four years on build ings used for manufact uring activities. The 840 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) collects data on buildings used by the 841 manufacturing sector, define d by NAICS codes 31 to 33. The MECS data does not include 842 information on building vintage. More information on MECS can be found at 843 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html. What other information is available on the 844 ages, types, sizes, and other characteristics of public and commercial buildings in the United 845*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 33 States? In particular, what data is available on the age, types, sizes, and other characteristics of 846 public or commercial buildings not included in the CBECS or MECS? 847

848 Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2003 American Housing Survey, there are 849 77,888,000 target housing units. “Target housing” is defined under section 401 of TSCA as any 850 housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or person s with disabilities 851 (unless any child under age 6 reside s or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom 852 dwelling. EPA estimates that there are 97,000 child -occupied facili ties (COFs), as defined at 40 853 CFR 745.83. By comparison, according to DOE ’s CBECS data, there are 2,826,000 commercial 854 buildings constructed prior to 1980. This include s building types such as schools and buildings 855 used for religious worship, so there is some double-counting with the ta rget housing and COFs 856 figures described above. According to DOE’s MECS there are 368,000 manufacturing 857 buildings, but this includes post-1978 buildings because MECS does not indicate the age of the 858 buildings. EPA is not aware of data on the number of agricultural buildings. 859

860

The estimates from the CBECS and MECS da ta provide an indication of the relative 861 magnitude of different building type s, but at this time should not be considered reflective of the 862 number of buildings that would be affected by a future EPA regulation. The number of buildings 863 affected by an EPA regulation will depend on how EPA ultimately decides to define public and 864 commercial buildings and the scope of the regul ation within that defi nition. Aside from the 865 number of structures, the charac teristics of public and commerci al buildings may differ from 866 target housing and COFs, includi ng the prevalence of l ead-based paint; the frequency, type, and 867 size of renovation work performed; and the ba seline renovation work practices used. EPA is 868 seeking information in this notice on all of these characteristics. 869

870 B. Lead-based Paint Hazards and Public and Commercial Building Renovations. 871

872 1. Leaded dust and debris created by exterior renovations. The Dust Study, as described 873 in Unit II.B., demonstrated that renovations on th e exteriors of target hou sing and child-occupied 874

facilities create an enormous am ount of leaded dust that can c ontaminate soil in the vicinity. 875 Including both bulk debris and dust created by th ese renovations, geometric mean lead levels in 876 exterior samples from collection trays placed on top of the containment plastic covering the 877 adjacent ground ranged from a low of 60,662 μ g/ ft 2 for door replacement to a high of 7,216,358 878

μ g/ft 2 for removing paint with a hi gh temperature heat gun (Ref. 16). EPA requests public 879 comment on the extent to which this study shoul d inform EPA’s determination on lead-based 880 paint hazards created by exterior renovations on public and comm ercial buildings, especially 881 considering that some of the ex terior renovations in the Dust Study were performed on a school 882 building, which represents one type of public buildings. 883

884

Studies have demonstrated th at exterior dust and soil that contains lead will contaminate 885 interior building areas when dust and soil is track ed inside on the shoes and clothing of building 886 occupants and visitors and through air exchange. In one study, a re gression analysis was used to 887 investigate those factors that were most statistically significantly associated with lead loadings in 888 dust samples taken from residential carpets (Ref. 29). The study found that soil-lead 889 concentration, the practice of removing shoes befo re entering, and the use of walk-off mats at 890 entrances were all statistically si gnificant predictors of dust-lead loading in carpets. Dust and 891 soil samples collected during the study were screened to includ e only particles smaller than 150 892*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 33 microns, because these particles were considered more likely to appear on a child’s hand (Ref. 893 31). 894

895 EPA possesses data on the transport of leaded dust and debris resulting from exterior 896 renovations. In EPA’s Dust Study, measured lead dust and debris were f ound up to 18 feet from 897 the exterior work area, and the average distan ce traveled by lead dust and debris was 10.81 feet 898 (Ref. 16). However, it is important to keep in mind that exterior vertical containment was used 899 where necessary during the Dust Study to ensure that leaded dust and debris did not contaminate 900 adjacent properties, and this limited the dist ance leaded dust and debris could travel. 901 Nevertheless, the Dust Study demonstrates that individuals residing in and visiting nearby 902 properties could be exposed to leaded dust and debris create d by exterior renovations when 903

vertical containment or other containment meas ures are not used. Renovation firms or building 904 owners and managers may not spec ifically consider th e potential for these exposures on nearby 905 properties when designing and pe rforming renovations on the exteri ors of public and commercial 906 buildings. 907

908

Numerous studies have found elevated soil lead levels in residential areas surrounding 909 residential and public and commercial buildings th at have been demolished. In one study of a 910 major building demolition, lead dust was found to travel up to 20 kilometers from the demolition 911 site (Ref. 32). While EPA rec ognizes that this situation invol ves whole building demolition, the 912 Agency expects that partial de molition and similar renovation activ ities would be expected to 913 release similar types of lead-bas ed paint dust particles with the ability to travel long distances 914

and contaminate soil and other horizontal surfaces such as streets, playgrounds and other 915

surfaces with which children could come into contact. Another study (Ref. 33) found increased 916 levels of lead in alleys up to 100 meters from row house demolition. These lead levels were 917 observed despite the fact that water wetting wa s used during demolition and debris removal to 918

reduce the amount of dust released. In another study, abrasive blasting of a bridge was found to 919 deposit 50% of the removed lead-based paint bey ond 300 yards of the operation with a four mile 920 per hour wind. This study indicates that curr ent abrasive methods have the demonstrated 921 potential to contaminate the surr ounding environment and have the potential to create lead-based 922 paint hazards (Ref. 34). 923

924 There are data on the maintenance of bridges and structures (such as water towers) that 925

could be used to determine the extent of tr ansport of lead dust resulting from exterior 926 renovations. Paints on many of these steel struct ures contain up to 60-70% lead by weight (Ref. 927 35). Of particular interest are studies of the impacts of renovating these stru ctures in urban areas 928

or near schools. Evidence from steel structur es suggests that exterior public and commercial 929 building renovations can result in significant health impacts for children and others in close 930 proximity to the renovation, repair and painting work. 931

932 Given these considerations, EPA request s public comment, information, and data, 933 especially peer-reviewed studies, on the following topics: 934

935

a. What information is available on dust-lead and soil-lead levels generated by exterior 936 renovations on public and commercial buildings? To wh at extent is the data from the Dust Study 937

relevant? 938

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

Page 21 of 33 b. To what extent will dust drift from exte rior renovations onto neighboring properties? 940 Would this, for instance, resemble modeling plumes from smelters? 941

942 c. How far will lead-containing dust and debris travel from the exterior of properties 943 undergoing renovation? What factors will influence the travel of l ead dust? Such factors might 944 include particular renovation pr actices, the time of year, wind conditions, ground cover (e.g., 945 asphalt, concrete, dirt, vegetati on), average precipitation, or the height and concentration of 946 surrounding structures. 947

948 d. To what extent can the data on building demolition or steel structure maintenance be 949 used to predict the extent to which dust and de bris travel from exterior public and commercial 950 building renovations? 951

952

e. To what extent will exterior dust fr om the exterior renovation of public and 953 commercial buildings be tracked into the inte rior of buildings bei ng renovated or nearby 954 buildings? To what extent will lead-based paint dust enter these buildings through open 955 windows, doorways and air exchange? 956

957 2. Leaded dust and debris generated by interi or renovations in public and commercial 958 buildings. In determining which renovations in target housing and child -occupied facilities 959 create lead-based paint hazards for the 2008 RRP Rule, EPA relied heavily on two Agency 960

studies that evaluated dust-lead levels generated by renovations. One of these studies, the 961 Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 12) , Phase I of the study conducted under TSCA 962 section 402(c)(2), evaluated the amount of leaded dust genera ted by the following activities: 963

964 • Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 965

966 • Removal of large structures, includi ng demolition of interior plaster walls. 967

968 • Window replacement. 969

970 • Carpet removal. 971

972 • HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work. 973

974 • Repairs resulting in isolated small surf ace disruptions, including drilling and sawing 975 into wood and plaster. 976

977 The dust lead levels generated by abrasive sanding were evaluated through a litera ture survey. 978 The results of the literature survey included bot h residential buildings and public or commercial 979 buildings. The rest of the evalua ted activities were performed as part of the study in residential 980 buildings. 981

982 EPA also relied heavily on the Dust Study (R ef. 16) to promulgate the final RRP Rule. 983 The Dust Study evaluated the dust-lead and soil-l ead levels generated by the following activities 984 in and on an unoccupied school building a nd/or unoccupied target housing: 985

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

Page 22 of 33 • Making cut-outs in the walls. 987

988 • Replacing a window from the inside. 989

990 • Removing paint with high and low temperature heat guns. 991

992 • Removing paint by dry scraping. 993

994 • Removing paint with a power planer. 995

996 • Removing kitchen cabinets. 997

998 EPA requests public comment, information, and data, particularly p eer-reviewed studies, 999 on the dust-lead levels that are generated by renovations on the interiors of public and 1000 commercial buildings. EPA also requests co mment on the extent to which these two EPA 1001

studies should inform EPA’s dete rmination on lead-based paint h azards created by renovations in 1002 the interiors of public and comme rcial buildings, especially c onsidering that some of the 1003 renovations in the Dust Study were performed in a school building. 1004

1005 3. Other evidence of lead-based paint hazards. While EPA primarily relied on the two 1006

studies described above to de termine that renovations in a nd on target housing and child1007 occupied facilities create lead-b ased paint hazards, EPA also looked at the available evidence for 1008 a relationship between renovations and blood lead levels. In particular, EPA considered the 1009 results of the other three phase s of the study conducte d under TSCA section 402(c)(2). Phase II, 1010

the Worker Characterization and Blood Lead St udy (Ref. 13), involved collecting data on blood 1011

lead and renovation and remodeli ng activities from workers. Notably, half of the renovations 1012

studied occurred in commercial buildings and half occurred in residential housing. Thus, this 1013 study provides evidence of a relationship betw een commercial building renovation activities and 1014 worker blood lead levels. Phase IV, the Worker Characterization and Bl ood-Lead Study of R&R 1015 (Renovation and Remodeling) Workers Who Spec ialize in Renovations of Old or Historic 1016 Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but fo cused on individuals who worked primarily in 1017 old historic buildings. 1018

1019 As discussed in Unit II.E. of this preamble, EPA also relied on the evidence presented by 1020 Phase III of the TSCA section 402(c)(2) study, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study 1021 (Ref. 14), which documented a re lationship between renovation and remodeling activities and the 1022

blood-lead levels of resident children. This evidence of a relationshi p is corroborated by New 1023

York studies also discussed in Unit II.E. 1024

1025

EPA also considered severa l studies conducted by the Natio nal Institute of Occupational 1026 Safety and Health (NIOSH) that assessed work er exposure and transport of lead dust from 1027 renovation activities (Refs. 36 and 37). For ex ample, one study done at the University of 1028 California, Berkeley, assessed lead-based paint exposures of workers during exterior renovation 1029 work on campus buildings (Ref. 37). Estimated average exposures during dry manual sanding, 1030 dry manual scraping, power finish sanding, and po wer finish sanding with bag would exceed the 1031 permissible exposure limit (PEL) within an 8-hr period. Estimated average exposures for power 1032 sanding with HEPA exhaust, flame burning, we t manual sanding, and wet scraping would be 1033*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 33 below the PEL. Although it resulted in relati vely low worker exposures, flame burning was 1034 among the tasks associated with the higher lead le vels in air and settled dust levels in nearby 1035 areas (Ref. 37). 1036

1037 EPA requests public comment, as well as ad ditional information and data, particularly 1038 peer-reviewed studies, on the relationship betw een renovations in and on public and commercial 1039 buildings and blood lead levels in workers, building occupants, a nd visitors. EPA also requests 1040 public comment on the extent to which these blo od-lead studies can inform EPA’s determination 1041 on lead-based paint hazards created by public and commercial building renovations. 1042

1043 C. Prevalence of Leaded Paint and Lead Levels in Leaded Paint in and on Public and 1044 Commercial Buildings. 1045

1046 An important consideration in determini ng which renovations crea te lead-based paint 1047

hazards and how best to address those hazards is likely to be the prevalence of leaded paint 1048 disturbed and the level of lead in that paint. In issuing the 2008 RRP Rule covering renovations 1049 in target housing and child-occ upied facilities, EPA relied heavily on two surveys sponsored by 1050 HUD. The first, the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, was a representative 1051 sampling of housing units where children could resi de for lead-based paint, lead-based paint 1052 hazards, and allergens (Ref. 38). This survey provided valuable information on the prevalence 1053 of and levels of lead in lead-based paint in ta rget housing. A similar survey, the First National 1054 Environmental Health Survey of Childcare Centers, was conducted in licen sed child-care centers 1055 and included sampling for lead in paint, lead-based paint hazards, allergens, and pesticides (Ref. 1056 39). 1057

1058 EPA requests public input on these issues rela ted to the presence of leaded paint in and 1059 on public and commercial buildings: 1060

1061

1. What information and data are available on the prevalence of leaded paint? What 1062

information and data are available on the levels of lead (concentration or percentage of total) in 1063 such paint? Does the prevalence or lead level differ by building component or type ( e.g. , interior 1064 or exterior; doors and windows, trim, or wa lls; wood substrate or metal substrate)? 1065

1066

2. What information and data are available on the trends in prevalence and lead levels 1067

over time? 1068

1069 3. What available data would help EPA estimate the likelihood that a public or 1070 commercial building contains lead-based paint? Are there factors that should be considered 1071 other than the year in wh ich it was constructed? 1072

1073 4. What voluntary consensus standards or othe r guidelines or specifications affect the 1074 prevalence of leaded paint and the le vels of lead in such paint? 1075

1076 5. What federal, state, and local laws, regula tions, or ordinances affect the prevalence of 1077 leaded paint and the lead levels in such paint? 1078

1079*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 33 6. What information is available on the cu rrent manufacture and import of lead-based 1080 paint for commercial building use? 1081

1082 D. Typical Renovation Activities and Build ing Management Practi ces for Public and 1083 Commercial Buildings. 1084

1085 In making the determination which renovation activities in and on public and commercial 1086 buildings create lead-based paint hazards, EP A must evaluate information on the typical 1087 renovations performed and the typical practices used in performing these renovations. EPA is 1088 also interested on types of lead -paint containing building compone nts that may be reused during 1089 a renovation of a public or commercial build ing. EPA encourages the public to submit 1090 comments, information, and data re lating to these considerations. 1091

1092 1. What types of renovations are typically performed in and on public and commercial 1093 buildings, and how often is each ty pe performed? What is the sp an or range in size and duration 1094 of each type of renovation job? 1095

1096 2. Do renovation firms typically assess whether the paint they will disturb during a 1097 renovation job in or on a public or commercial building contains lead ? Before hiring a 1098 renovation firm to perform a renovation, or perf orming a renovation using building maintenance 1099 staff, do public and commercial building owners or managers assess whether leaded paint is 1100 present? What methods and procedures are currently employed by contractors or building 1101 owners/managers to assess whether paint contains lead? 1102

1103 3. Do building owners or managers typical ly provide notice of the lead content of 1104 building paint to renovation firms, building occu pants or the public? What triggers these 1105

notifications? Do renovation firms or building owners/manag ers typically provide advance 1106

notice of renovation activities to bu ilding occupants or the public? 1107

1108 4. Do renovation firms typically separate renovation work areas from other areas of the 1109 building or grounds to limit access and minimize the spread of dust, chips, and debris? How 1110 often are the following practices used to accomplish this separation? 1111

1112 • Restricting access of other building occupant s or the public into or around the building 1113 during renovation through warn ing signs and/or barriers. 1114

1115 • Closing the windows of the building duri ng exterior renovations and the windows of 1116 other buildings adjacent to the work area. 1117

1118 • Placing plastic on the ground to capture the falling chips and paint dust during exterior 1119

renovations. 1120

1121 • Avoiding exterior renovati on work during windy conditions. 1122

1123 • Shutting off the ventilation system and sealing the supply and return grills during 1124

interior renovation. 1125

1126*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 33 • Sealing off the work area (establishing a work area containment system) for interior 1127

renovations. 1128

1129 • Maintaining negative pressure in the work area with respect to the adjacent areas during 1130

interior renovations. 1131

1132 • Practicing good housekeeping in the work area. 1133

1134 5. What clean-up practices do renovation firms typically follow during and after 1135 renovation activities in and on public and commerci al buildings? How often are brooms used? 1136 How often is wet cleaning or mopping performed? How often is vacuuming performed, and are 1137 shop vacuums or high-efficiency particulat e air (HEPA) vacuums typically used? 1138

1139 6. How often is dust wipe testing for lead ed dust performed after renovations in public 1140 and commercial buildings? How often is soil tested for lead after renovations on public and 1141 commercial buildings? Do renovation firms or bu ilding owners/managers use any other methods 1142 to assess lead levels in dust or soil remaining after renovations? Are the re sults of these tests or 1143

assessments used to determine whether the wo rk area may be re-occupied by other building 1144 occupants or visited by the public? 1145

1146 7. What routine cleaning procedures do the owners and managers of public and 1147 commercial buildings follow? How of ten are these procedures followed? 1148

1149 8. To what extent are building component s that contain lead-b ased paint reused? 1150

1151 9. What measures are typically taken to avoid the release of lead dust during the 1152

installation and use of reused lead-contaminated building mate rials (such as paint removal 1153 techniques)? 1154

1155

10. What information is available on the scal e of new renovation and repair projects on 1156 public and commercial buildings? 1157

1158 11. What types of practices are used to prot ect workers from exposure to lead-based paint 1159 containing building components which ar e being removed for future re-use? 1160

1161

E. Renovation Waste. 1162

1163 Waste from building renovations can cr eate lead-contaminated waste. Lead1164

contaminated waste from the renovation of reside nces, regardless of who generates the waste, is 1165

excluded from the Subtitle C Hazardous Wast e Regulations under the Resource Conservation 1166 and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Ref. 40). This includ es waste from the renovation of single family 1167 homes, apartment buildings, public housing, and m ilitary barracks. This waste may be disposed 1168 of in a municipal solid waste landfill or in a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill. 1169 However this exclusion does not apply to lead-c ontaminated waste generated from public and 1170 commercial building renovations. That waste mu st be managed in accordance with the RCRA 1171 Hazardous Waste Regulations. Given this regul atory status, EPA requests public comment, 1172 information, and data responsiv e to the following questions: 1173*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 33 1174

1. What information is available on curre nt practices for the cleanup, handling, and 1175 disposal of lead-contaminate d wastes after public and comm ercial building renovations? 1176

1177 2. To what extent (i.e. quantities) is lead -contaminated waste from public and commercial 1178 building renovations recycled? What informa tion is available on the methods and practices 1179 currently in use for recycling such wastes? 1180

1181 3. To what extent (i.e. quantities) are lead-containing building components and other 1182 waste removed from public and commercial buildings during renovations reused? What 1183 information is available on the methods and pr actices currently employed for reusing such 1184 components? 1185

1186 4. Other than RCRA, what federal, state or local statutes, regula tions, ordinances, or 1187 protocols govern the cleanup, handling, and disposal of lead-contaminated waste from public and 1188 commercial building renovations? 1189

1190 5. What measures are typically taken to avoid the release of leaded dust during the 1191 removal and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes from public and commercial building 1192

renovations? 1193

1194 F. The Renovation Workforce in Public and Commercial Buildings. 1195

1196 In determining which public and commercial bu ilding renovations create lead-based paint 1197 hazards and in designing safe, re liable, and effective work practice standards to address those 1198 lead-based paint hazards, EPA must take into account the typical renovation workforce for public 1199 and commercial buildings. Accordingly, EPA seek s public comment and data to help inform the 1200 Agency’s understanding of this workforce. 1201

1202

1. What kinds of contract ors perform renovations in a nd on public and commercial 1203 buildings? How often is building maintenance st aff used to perform renovations in and on public 1204 and commercial buildings? 1205

1206 2. When hiring a contractor to pe rform a renovation, how often do building 1207 owners/managers check to see whether the pe rsonnel who will be performing the renovation 1208 have been trained in lead-safe work practices, i.e. , work practices designed to minimize the 1209

creation of leaded dust and debris , control the spread of such dust and debris, and properly clean 1210 up this dust and debris after th e renovation has been completed? How often do building owners 1211 and managers train building maintenance staff in lead-safe work practices? What kind of lead1212 safe work practices training do contractor empl oyees or building maintenance staff typically 1213

receive? 1214

1215 3. How often do building owners/managers or renovation contractor s hire consultants 1216 trained to evaluate lead-based paint and lead-bas ed paint hazards to assess the renovation work 1217 area before work begins? How often do build ing owners/managers or renovation contractors 1218

hire consultants trained in lead -safe work practices to assist them in designing and conducting 1219 renovation projects? 1220*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 33 1221 4. Who typically provides health and safety ove rsight during renovation projects in public 1222 and commercial buildings—the building owne r, the building manager, the construction 1223 contractor, or another party? Are other specially qualified individuals involved in the oversight 1224 of renovation projects? Ar e interior and exterior renovations handled different ly in this respect? 1225

1226 5. Typically, do contractors who perform re novations in public and commercial buildings 1227 also perform renovations in residential buildings? Are the same work practices followed in both 1228 settings? To what extent are the contractor empl oyees the same from job to job? How likely is it 1229 that an employee used to perform a public or commercial building renovation will have received 1230 the training required by the 2008 RRP Rule for renovation work in target housing and child1231 occupied facilities? Do renovation contractor s in public and commercia l buildings typically 1232

establish and enforce standard renovation work practice proc edures for their employees? 1233

1234 G. Exposure Considerations 1235

1236 In determining which public and commercial bu ilding renovations create lead-based paint 1237 hazards and in fashioning reliab le, safe, and effective work pr actices for those renovations, EPA 1238 must consider the exposures of building occupants and visitors. To help inform EPA’s decision1239 making, EPA requests public comment, informati on, and data, particularly relevant peer1240 reviewed studies, related to exposures. 1241

1242 1. What are the pathways for exposure in each type of public or commercial building? 1243

1244 2. While the Agency has developed research -based daily activity patterns for general use 1245 in its analyses for children and adults, none of the patterns distinguish activities based on the 1246 character or ownership of the build ings where activities occur (Ref. 41). What data or studies are 1247 available that would assist EPA in estimating th e amount of time that a ny particular individual 1248 will spend in public and commercial buildings and what portion of that time will be in a building 1249 containing leaded paint or lead-bas ed paint hazards? What data or studies exist that characterize 1250 the range or distribution of tim e spent by typical individuals? How much variation in exposure 1251 exists in exposure by typical people? 1252

1253

3. What information and data ar e available on occupancy rates ( e.g. , number of people, 1254 days per year of occupancy), exposed population, and time-activity patterns of occupants of each 1255 type of public or commercial building? 1256

1257 4. If surveys were to be conducted and test ing methods employed to assess the presence, 1258 distribution and scope of lead -containing materials in every public and commercial building 1259 before proceeding with renovations , how frequently would such su rveys be carried out in any 1260 given month in a town of 20,000? How frequently would such surveys be carried out in a rural 1261 county? After what period, could EPA be satisfied that all such public and commercial buildings 1262

have been so characterized? 1263

1264 5. To what extent will people other than renovation workers, such as other building 1265 occupants, visitors, passers-by, a nd occupants of nearby buildings, be exposed to leaded dust and 1266 debris created by public and comm ercial building renovations? For instance, when scaffolding is 1267*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 33 installed, how likely is debris to waft dow n to passersby or to fill the ambient air? 1268

1269

6. What information is available on the number of potentially-e xposed occupants of 1270 buildings undergoing renovations or buildings recently renovated, the duration of the occupants’ 1271 exposure per work day, and the number of days or hours exposed per year during and after 1272

exterior and interior renovations? 1273

1274

7. What information and data are available on the proximity of resi dential properties to 1275 public or commercial buildings? Wh at is the distribution of dist ances of residences, schools and 1276 day care facilities from public or commercial buildings? What information and data are 1277

available on the correlation between the distribution of distances of re sidences, schools and day 1278 care facilities from public or commercial buildings and average incomes of communities? For 1279 example, many low income communities are in mixed-use neighborhoods. 1280

1281

8. What information and data are avai lable on the demographics of mixed-use 1282 neighborhoods? 1283

1284

9. For low income communities in mixed-use neighborhoods, particularly those in which 1285 the housing stock is primarily pre-1978, how shoul d EPA consider multiple exposures from both 1286 residential buildings and public and commercial buildings? 1287

1288 10. Do communities in mixed-use neighborhoods have higher burdens of lead exposure? 1289 What factors should EPA consider in assessing th e extent to which renovations in and on public 1290 and commercial buildings contribute to disproportionate impacts? 1291

1292

11. What studies and other sources of inform ation are available on the frequency of use 1293 or effectiveness of work practices designed to prevent other building occupants and visitors and 1294 persons in nearby buildings from being exposed to leaded dust and debris created by renovations 1295 in and on public and commercial buildings? 1296

1297 12. To what extent have recent building re novations or constructions installed reused 1298 building materials that are coated with lead-based paint? To what extent have installers abated 1299 or used techniques to eliminate worker or occ upant exposure to lead from these materials? 1300

1301 13. To what extent do green building certifi cation systems encourage the reuse of lead1302 contaminated building materials? To what extent do these systems encourage lead abatement of 1303

reused materials? 1304

1305 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1306

1307 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 1308 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 1309 (OMB) for review. Any changes to the documen t that were made in response to comments 1310 received by EPA during that revi ew have been documented in the docket as required by the 1311

Executive Order. 1312

1313 Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks 1314*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 33 comments and suggestions for the Agency to co nsider in possibly de veloping a subsequent 1315 proposed rule, the various othe r review requirements that apply when an agency imposes 1316 requirements do not apply to this action. Neve rtheless, as part of your comments on this 1317 document, you may include any comments or in formation that you have regarding the various 1318 other review requirements. 1319

1320 In particular, EPA is interested in any info rmation that would help the Agency to assess 1321 the potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 1322 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ); to consider voluntary consensus stan dards pursuant to section 12(d) of the 1323 National Technology Transfer and Advancem ent Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 1324 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety effects on children 1325 pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protect ion of Children from Environmental Health 1326 Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 2 3, 1997); or to consider human health or 1327 environmental effects on minority or low-in come populations pursuant to Executive Order 1328 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Enviro nmental Justice in Mino rity Populations and 1329 Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 1330

1331 EPA specifically requests information and data to facilitate its analyses in the following 1332

two areas: 1333

1334

a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments and information 1335 about the various characteristics of potenti ally impacted small entities that would 1336 facilitate the Agency’s evaluation of the numbe r of firms that might experience an impact 1337 from a rulemaking in this area, as well as an assessment of the potential size of that 1338 impact on small entities. In commenting or providing information about small entities 1339 that might be impacted by a rulemaking in th is area, please note that the phrase “small 1340 entities” encompasses small businesses, sm all governmental jurisdictions, and small 1341 organizations. In the analysis the Agency expects to perform under the RFA, these 1342 entities are specifically defined in sections 601( 3) - (5) of the RFA. The definitions for 1343

“small business” are codified in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 1344

at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines small business by category of business using the North 1345 American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). 1346 (http://www.sba.gov/regulations/121/201.htm) Small business default definitions can be 1347

found on SBA’s internet site at http://www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html . A “small 1348 governmental jurisdiction” is “a government of a city, county, tow n, school district or 1349 special district with a population of less th an 50,000.” A “small organization” is any 1350 "not-for-profit enterprise wh ich is independently owned a nd operated and is not dominant 1351

in its field." 1352

1353

b. Environmental Justice. EPA is particularly interested in receiving comment and 1354 information about potential impacts – both be nefits and costs – on the human health or 1355 environmental conditions in minority or low-income populations. Such information 1356 would facilitate the Agency’s considerat ion of environmental justice during the 1357 development of the proposed rule. 1358

1359

This information will be used in the iden tification and evaluation of options for the 1360 proposed rule, and will inform the analyses that the Agency intends to prepare for the proposed 1361*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 33 rule. Any comments on this topic should be submitted to the Agency in the manner specified 1362

under ADDRESSES . The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any 1363 subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to addre ss any applicable requirements. 1364

1365

V. References 1366

1367

As indicated under ADDRESSES , a docket has been established for this rulemaking 1368 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The following is a listing of the 1369 documents that are specifically referenced in this document. Th e docket includes these 1370 documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced 1371

within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not 1372 physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other docu ments, please consult 1373

the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 1374

1375 1. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. 1376 Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federa l Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards 1377 (February 2000). 1378

1379 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv ices (HHS), Public Health Service (PHS), 1380

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young 1381 Children; A Statement by the Centers for Di sease Control and Prevention August 2005). 1382

1383 3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 1384 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006). 1385

1386 4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 1387 Child-Occupied Facilities: Fi nal Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996). 1388

1389 5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for A ccreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead1390 based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule . Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999). 1391

1392 6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-based Paint Abatement Activities 1393 Training; Final Rule. Federal Re gister (69 FR 18489, April 8, 2004). 1394

1395 7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commi ssion (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 1396 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Fa mily From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K1397 99-001, June 2003). 1398

1399 8. Department of Housing and Urban Deve lopment (HUD), USEPA. Lead; Requirements 1400

for Disclosure of Known Lead-Bas ed Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final 1401 Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996). 1402

1403 9. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target 1404 Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 29907, June 1, 1998). 1405

1406 10. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Danger ous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 1407 Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001). 1408*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 33 1409 11. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-K-97-001, 1410 September 1997). 1411

1412 12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1413 Phase I, Environmental Field Sa mpling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 1414

1415 13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1416 Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA747-R-96-006, May 1997). 1417

1418 14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1419 Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-L ead Study (EPA 747-R-99-002, March 1999). 1420

1421 15. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1422 Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Le ad Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in 1423

Renovation of Old or Historic Homes (EPA747-R-99-001, March 1999). 1424

1425

16. USEPA. Characterization of Dust L ead Levels After Renovation, Repair, and 1426 Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007). 1427

1428 17. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, a nd Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 1429 Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008). 1430

1431 18. USEPA, Sierra Club, etc. Settlement. (August, 2009). 1432

1433 19. USEPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt- out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the 1434 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Pr oposed Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 55506, 1435 October 28, 2009). 1436

1437 20. Sierra Club, etc. Petition to Lo wer Dust Lead Hazard Standard. (2009) 1438

1439 21. USEPA. Response to Petition on Dust Lead Hazard Standard (October, 2009). 1440

1441 22. USEPA. Air Quality Criteri a for Lead (September 29, 2006). 1442

1443

23. USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, 1444 Washington, DC, EPA/630/P–02/001F (May 2003). 1445

1446

24. USEPA. Review of the National Ambien t Air Quality Standards for Particulate 1447 Matter: Policy Assessment of Sc ientific and Technical Inform ation, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– 1448 452/R–05–005a. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (2005). 1449

1450 25. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pame la A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 1451 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brow n. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 1452 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Y ears, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics 2009, Vol. 123, No. 3, 1453 pp. e376-385, March 2009. 1454

1455*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 33 26. HHS, PHS, CDC. “Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home 1456 Renovation and Remodeling Activities--New York, 1993-1994.” Morbidity and Mortality 1457 Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January 3, 1997). 1458

1459 27. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevat ed Blood Lead Levels Related to Home 1460 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities – New York St ate, 2006-2007. Morbidity and 1461 Mortality Weekly Report (58( 03); 55-58, January 30, 2009). 1462

1463 28. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. Kaufmann, and 1464 Jessica Leighton. “Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk Factor for Exposure to Lead Among 1465 Children Residing in New York City?” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York 1466 Academy of Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005. 1467

1468 29. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead -Based Paint Activities: Proposed Rule. 1469 Federal Register (59 FR 45872, September 2, 1994). 1470

1471 30. CPSC. Federal Register (42 FR 4 4199, September 1, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 1472 8515, March 2, 1978). 1473

1474 31. Roberts, J.W., D.E. Camann, and T.M. Spittler. “Reducing Lead Exposure from 1475 Remodeling and Soil Track-In in Older Homes.” In: Proceedings, Annual Meeting - Air and 1476 Waste Management Association . Publication No. 91-134.2. (1991a). 1477

1478 32. Stefani D, D. Wardman, T. Lambert. Th e Implosion of the Calgary General Hospital: 1479 Ambient Air Quality Issues. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2005 Jan; 55(1):52-9. 1480

1481 33. Farfel M.R., A.O. Orlova, P.S. Lees, C. Rohde, P.J. Ashley, J. Chisolm. “A Study of 1482 Urban Housing Demolition as a Source of Lead in Ambient Dust on Sidewalks, Streets, and 1483 Alleys.” Environ Res. 2005 Oct; 99(2):204-13. Epub 2004 Dec 15. 1484

1485 34. Snyder, M.K. and D. Bendersky. “Removal of Lead Based Bridge Paints.” Midwest 1486 Research Institute. National Cooperative Hi ghway Research Program Report #265 for the 1487 Transportation Research Board, Nati onal Research Council, December 1983. 1488

1489

35. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Department of the Attorney 1490 General. Rhode Island Lead Nuisance Abatement Plan (September 14, 2007). 1491

1492 36. National Institute for Occupational Safe ty and Health (NIOSH). Health Hazard 1493 Evaluation; Vermont Housi ng & Conservation Board. H ETA #98-0285-2989 Montpelier, 1494 Vermont (December 2005). 1495

1496

37. NIOSH. Health Hazard Ev aluation; University of Calif ornia, Berkley. HETA #99- 1497 0113-2853 Berkeley, California (July 2001). 1498

1499 38. HUD. National Survey of L ead and Allergens in Housing, Volume I: Analysis of 1500 Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002). 1501

1502*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 33 39. HUD. First National Environmental Health Su rvey of Child Care Centers, Volume I: 1503 Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report. (July 15, 2003). 1504

1505 40. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, 1506 Director, “Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based 1507

Paint Activities Conducted in Households” (July 31, 2000). 1508

1509 41. USEPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (Fin al Report) EPA/600/P- 95/002F a-c (1997). 1510

1511 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 1512

1513 Environmental protection, Hazardous s ubstance, Lead poisoning, Reporting and 1514 recordkeeping requirements. 1515

Dated: ________ 1516

_____________________ 1517

Administrator 1518

1519 [FR Doc. 10–????? Filed ??–??–10; 8:45 am] 1520

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 1521