pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Tuesday, 

April 22, 2008 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 745 

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Lead Hazard Information 

Pamphlet; Notice of Availability; Final 

Rule 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21692 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–8355–7] 

RIN 2070–AC83 

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 


Agency (EPA). 


ACTION: Final rule. 


SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final rule 

under the authority of section 402(c)(3) 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) to address lead-based paint 

hazards created by renovation, repair, 

and painting activities that disturb leadbased paint in target housing and childoccupied facilities. ‘‘Target housing’’ is 

defined in TSCA section 401 as any 

housing constructed before 1978, except 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities (unless any child under age 

6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. 

Under this rule, a child-occupied 

facility is a building, or a portion of a 

building, constructed prior to 1978, 

visited regularly by the same child, 

under 6 years of age, on at least two 

different days within any week (Sunday 

through Saturday period), provided that 

each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and 

the combined weekly visits last at least 

6 hours, and the combined annual visits 

last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 

facilities may be located in public or 

commercial buildings or in target 

housing. This rule establishes 

requirements for training renovators, 

other renovation workers, and dust 

sampling technicians; for certifying 

renovators, dust sampling technicians, 

and renovation firms; for accrediting 

providers of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training; for 

renovation work practices; and for 

recordkeeping. Interested States, 

Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply 

for and receive authorization to 

administer and enforce all of the 

elements of these new renovation 

requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2005–0049. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available in regulations.gov. To access 

the electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

website to view the docket index or 

access available documents. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

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

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

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

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Mike Wilson, National Program 

Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(202) 566-0521; e-mail address: 

wilson.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you perform renovations of 

target housing or child-occupied 

facilities for compensation or dust 

sampling. ‘‘Target housing’’ is defined 

in section 401 of TSCA as any housing 

constructed prior to 1978, except 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities (unless any child under age 

6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. 

Under this rule, a child-occupied 

facility is a building, or a portion of a 

building, constructed prior to 1978, 

visited regularly by the same child, 

under 6 years of age, on at least 2 

different days within any week (Sunday 

through Saturday period), provided that 

each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and 

the combined weekly visits last at least 

6 hours, and the combined annual visits 

last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 

facilities may be located in public or 

commercial buildings or in target 

housing. Potentially affected entities 

may include, but are not limited to: 

• Building construction (NAICS 

code 236), e.g., single family housing 

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

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

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

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

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary 

schools with kindergarten classrooms. 

• Other technical and trade schools 

(NAICS code 611519), e.g., training 

providers. 

• Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust 

sampling technicians. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

Unit III. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed underFOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

EPA is issuing a final rule under the 

authority of section 402(c)(3) of the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21693 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to 

address lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovation, repair, and 

painting activities (hereinafter also 

referred to as renovation activities or 

renovation projects) that disturb leadbased paint in target housing and childoccupied facilities. ‘‘Target housing’’ is 

defined in TSCA section 401 as any 

housing constructed before 1978, except 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities (unless any child under age 

6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. 

Under this rule, a child-occupied 

facility is a building, or a portion of a 

building, constructed prior to 1978, 

visited regularly by the same child, 

under 6 years of age, on at least two 

different days within any week (Sunday 

through Saturday period), provided that 

each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and 

the combined weekly visits last at least 

6 hours, and the combined annual visits 

last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 

facilities may be located in public or 

commercial buildings or in target 

housing. This rule establishes 

requirements for training renovators, 

other renovation workers, and dust 

sampling technicians; for certifying 

renovators, dust sampling technicians, 

and renovation firms; for accrediting 

providers of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training; for 

renovation work practices; and for 

recordkeeping. Interested States, 

Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply 

for and receive authorization to 

administer and enforce all of the 

elements of these new renovation 

requirements. 

1. Information on lead and its health 

effects. Lead is a soft, bluish metallic 

chemical element mined from rock and 

found in its natural state all over the 

world. Lead is virtually indestructible, 

is persistent, and has been known since 

antiquity for its adaptability in making 

various useful items. In modern times, 

it has been used to manufacture many 

different products, including paint, 

batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and 

gasoline. Through the 1940’s, paint 

manufacturers frequently used lead as a 

primary ingredient in many oil-based 

interior and exterior house paints. Usage 

gradually decreased through the 1950’s 

and 1960’s as titanium dioxide replaced 

lead and as latex paints became more 

widely available. 

Lead has been demonstrated to exert 

‘‘a broad array of deleterious effects on 

multiple organ systems via widely 

diverse mechanisms of action.’’ This 

array of health effects, the evidence for 

which is comprehensively described in 

EPA’s Air Quality Criteria for Lead 

document (Ref. 1), includes heme 

biosynthesis and related functions; 

neurological development and function; 

reproduction and physical 

development; kidney function; 

cardiovascular function; and immune 

function. There is also some evidence of 

lead carcinogenicity, primarily from 

animal studies, together with limited 

human evidence of suggestive 

associations. 

Of particular interest for present 

purposes is the delineation of lowest 

observed effect levels for those leadinduced effects that are most clearly 

associated with blood lead less 10 μg/dL 

in children and/or adults and are, 

therefore, of greatest public health 

concern (Ref. 1, at 8-60). As evident 

from the Criteria Document, neurotoxic 

effects in children and cardiovascular 

effects in adults are among those best 

substantiated as occurring at blood-lead 

concentrations as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL 

(or possibly lower); and these categories 

of effects are currently clearly of greatest 

public health concern. Other newly 

demonstrated immune and renal system 

effects among general population groups 

are also emerging as low-level leadexposure effects of potential public 

health concern. (Ref. 1, at 8-60) 

The overall weight of the available 

evidence provides clear substantiation 

of neurocognitive decrements being 

associated in young children with blood 

lead concentrations in the range of 5–10 

micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL), and 

possibly somewhat lower. Some newly 

available analyses appear to show lead 

effects on the intellectual attainment of 

preschool and school age children at 

population mean concurrent blood-lead 

levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 

μg/dL. A decline of 6.2 points in full 

scale IQ for an increase in concurrent 

blood lead levels from 1 to 10 μg/dL has 

been estimated, based on a pooled 

analysis of results derived from seven 

well-conducted prospective 

epidemiologic studies (Ref. 1, at E-9). 

Epidemiologic studies have 

consistently demonstrated associations 

between lead exposure and enhanced 

risk of deleterious cardiovascular 

outcomes, including increased blood 

pressure and incidence of hypertension. 

A meta-analysis of numerous studies 

estimates that a doubling of blood lead 

level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is 

associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase in 

systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg 

increase in diastolic pressure. (Ref. 1, at 

E-10). 

Both epidemiologic and toxicologic 

studies have shown that 

environmentally relevant levels of lead 

affect many different organ systems (Ref. 

1, at E-8). Please see Ref. 1 for further 

information. 

The nervous system has long been 

recognized as a target of lead toxicity, 

with the developing nervous system 

affected at lower exposures than the 

mature system. While blood lead levels 

in U.S. children ages 1 to 5 years have 

decreased notably since the late 1970’s, 

newer studies have investigated and 

reported associations of effects on the 

neurodevelopment of children at 

population mean concurrent blood lead 

levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 

μg/dL (Ref. 1, at E-9). Functional 

manifestations of lead neurotoxicity 

during childhood include sensory, 

motor, cognitive and behavioral 

impacts. Investigating associations 

between lead exposure and behavior, 

mood, and social conduct of children 

has been an emerging area of research 

(see Ref. 1, at 6.2.6). Early studies 

indicated linkages between lower-level 

lead toxicity and behavioral problems 

(e.g., aggression, attentional problems, 

and hyperactivity) in children. 

Effects of lead on neurobehavior have 

been reported with remarkable 

consistency across numerous studies of 

various designs, populations studied, 

and developmental assessment 

protocols. The negative impact of lead 

on IQ and other neurobehavioral 

outcomes persist in most recent studies 

following adjustment for numerous 

confounding factors including social 

class, quality of caregiving, and parental 

intelligence. Moreover, these effects 

appear to persist into adolescence and 

young adulthood. Cognitive effects 

associated with lead exposures that 

have been observed in some studies 

include decrements in intelligence test 

results, such as the widely used IQ 

score, and in academic achievement as 

assessed by various standardized tests 

as well as by class ranking and 

graduation rates. Associations between 

lead exposure and academic 

achievement observed in the abovenoted studies were significant even after 

adjusting for IQ, suggesting that leadsensitive neuropsychological processing 

and learning factors not reflected by 

global intelligence indices might 

contribute to reduced performance on 

academic tasks (Ref. 1, at 8–29). 

Other cognitive effects observed in 

studies of children have included effects 

on attention, executive functions, 

language, memory, learning and 

visuospatial processing with attention 

and executive function effects observed. 

The evidence for the role of lead in this 

suite of effects includes experimental 

animal findings.These animal 

toxicology findings provide strong 

biological plausibility in support of the 

concept that lead may impact one or 

more of these specific cognitive 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21694 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

functions in humans (Ref. 1, at 8–30). 

Further, lead-induced deficits observed 

in animal and epidemiological studies, 

for the most part, have been found to be 

persistent in the absence of markedly 

reduced environmental exposures. It is 

additionally important to note that there 

may be long-term consequences of such 

deficits over a lifetime. Studies 

examining aspects of academic 

achievement related to lead exposure 

indicate the association of deficits in 

academic skills and performance, which 

in turn lead to enduring and important 

effects on objective parameters of 

success in real life (Ref. 1, at 6–76). 

Lead bioaccumulates, and is only 

slowly removed, with bone lead serving 

as a blood lead source for years after 

exposure and may serve as a significant 

source of exposure. Bone accounts for 

more than 90% of the total body burden 

of lead in adults and 70% in children 

(Ref. 1, at 4–42). In comparison to 

adults, bone mineral turns over much 

more quickly in children as a result of 

growth. Changes in blood lead 

concentration in children are thought to 

parallel more closely to changes in total 

body burden. Therefore, blood lead 

concentration is often used in 

epidemiologic and toxicological studies 

as an index of exposure and body 

burden for children. 

Paint that contains lead can pose a 

health threat through various routes of 

exposure. House dust is the most 

common exposure pathway through 

which children are exposed to leadbased paint hazards. Dust created 

during normal lead-based paint wear 

(especially around windows and doors) 

can create an invisible film over 

surfaces in a house. Children, 

particularly younger children, are at risk 

for high exposures of lead-based paint 

dust via hand-to-mouth exposure, and 

may also ingest lead-based paint chips 

from flaking paint on walls, windows, 

and doors. Lead from exterior house 

paint can flake off or leach into the soil 

around the outside of a home, 

contaminating children’s play areas. 

Cleaning and renovation activities may 

actually increase the threat of leadbased paint exposure by dispersing lead 

dust particles in the air and over 

accessible household surfaces. In turn, 

both adults and children can receive 

hazardous exposures by inhaling the 

dust or by ingesting lead-based paint 

dust during hand-to-mouth activities. 

2. Statutory and regulatory 

background. In 1992, Congress found 

that low-level lead poisoning was 

widespread among American children, 

affecting, at that time, as many as 

3,000,000 children under age 6; that the 

ingestion of household dust containing 

lead from deteriorating or abraded leadbased paint was the most common cause 

of lead poisoning in children; and that 

the health and development of children 

living in as many as 3,800,000 American 

homes was endangered by chipping or 

peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts 

of lead-contaminated dust in their 

homes. Congress further determined 

that the prior Federal response to this 

threat was insufficient and enacted Title 

X of the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992, Public Law 

102–550 (also known as the Residential 

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 

of 1992) (‘‘the Act’’ or ‘‘Title X’’). Title 

X established a national goal of 

eliminating lead-based paint hazards in 

housing as expeditiously as possible 

and provided a leadership role for the 

Federal government in building the 

infrastructure necessary to achieve this 

goal. 

Subsequently, President Clinton 

created the President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children. Co-chaired by the 

Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and the 

Administrator of EPA, the Task Force 

consisted of representatives from 16 

Federal departments and agencies. The 

Task Force set a Federal goal of 

eliminating childhood lead poisoning 

by the year 2010 (Ref. 2). In October 

2001, President Bush extended the work 

of the Task Force for an additional 18 

months beyond its original charter. 

Reducing lead poisoning in children 

was the Task Force’s top priority. 

Although more work remains to be 

done, significant progress has been 

made towards reducing lead poisoning 

in children. The estimated percentage of 

children with blood lead levels above 

the CDC level of concern declined from 

4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1.6% 

between 2003 and 2004. More 

information on Federal efforts to 

address lead poisoning, including the 

responsibilities of EPA and other 

Federal Agencies under Title X, can be 

found in Units III.A. and III.B. of the 

preamble to the 2006 Lead; Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program Proposed 

Rule (‘‘2006 Proposal’’) (Ref. 3). 

The Act added a new title to TSCA 

entitled ‘‘Title IV–Lead Exposure 

Reduction.’’ Most of EPA’s 

responsibilities for addressing leadbased paint hazards can be found in this 

title, with section402 of TSCA being one 

source of the rulemaking authority to 

carry out these responsibilities. TSCA 

section 402(a) directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations covering leadbased paint activities to ensure persons 

performing these activities are properly 

trained, that training programs are 

accredited, and that contractors 

performing these activities are certified. 

These regulations must contain 

standards for performing lead-based 

paint activities, taking into account 

reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On 

August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final 

regulations under TSCA section 402(a) 

that govern lead-based paint 

inspections, lead hazard screens, risk 

assessments, and abatements in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities 

(also referred to as the Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations). These 

regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart L, contain an accreditation 

program for training providers and 

training and certification requirements 

for lead-based paint inspectors, risk 

assessors, project designers, abatement 

supervisors, and abatement workers. 

Work practice standards for lead-based 

paint activities are included. Pursuant 

to TSCA section 404, provision was 

made for interested States, Territories, 

and Indian Tribes to apply for and 

receive authorization to administer their 

own lead-based paint activities 

programs. 

On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations were amended to 

include a fee schedule for training 

programs seeking EPA accreditation and 

for individuals and firms seeking EPA 

certification (Ref. 5). These fees were 

established as directed by TSCA section 

402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover 

the cost of administering and enforcing 

the lead-based paint activities 

requirements in unauthorized States. 

The most recent amendment to the 

Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations 

occurred on April 8, 2004, when 

notification requirements were added to 

help EPA monitor compliance with the 

training and certification provisions and 

the abatement work practice standards 

(Ref. 5). 

Another of EPA’s responsibilities 

under Title X is to require that 

purchasers and tenants of target housing 

and occupants of target housing 

undergoing renovation are provided 

information on lead-based paint and 

lead-based paint hazards. As directed by 

TSCA section 406(a), the Consumer 

Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), and EPA, in 

consultation with the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

jointly developed a lead hazard 

information pamphlet entitled Protect 

Your Family From Lead in Your Home 

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

designed to be distributed as part of the 

disclosure requirements of section 1018 

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

provide home purchasers, renters, 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21695 

owners, and occupants with the 

information necessary to allow them to 

make informed choices when selecting 

housing to buy or rent, or deciding on 

home renovation projects. The pamphlet 

contains information on the health 

effects of lead, how exposure can occur, 

and steps that can be taken to reduce or 

eliminate the risk of exposure during 

various activities in the home. 

TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations requiring 

persons who perform renovations for 

compensation in target housing to 

provide a lead hazard information 

pamphlet to owners and occupants of 

the home being renovated. These 

regulations, promulgated on June 1, 

1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart E (Ref. 8). The term 

‘‘renovation’’ is not defined in the 

statute, but the regulation, at 40 CFR 

745.83, defines a ‘‘renovation’’ as the 

modification of any existing structure, 

or portion of a structure, that results in 

the disturbance of painted surfaces. The 

regulations specifically exclude leadbased paint abatement projects as well 

as small projects that disturb 2 square 

feet or less of painted surface per 

component, emergency projects, and 

renovations affecting components that 

have been found to be free of lead-based 

paint, as that term is defined in the 

regulations, by a certified inspector or 

risk assessor. These regulations require 

the renovation firm to document 

compliance with the requirement to 

provide the owner and the occupant 

with the PYF pamphlet. TSCA section 

404 also allows States to apply for, and 

receive authorization to administer, the 

TSCA section 406(b) requirements. 

TSCA section 403 directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations that identify, for 

the purposes of Title X and Title IV of 

TSCA, dangerous levels of lead in paint, 

dust, and soil. These regulations were 

promulgated on January 5, 2001, and 

codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart D 

(Ref. 9). These hazard standards define 

lead-based paint hazards in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities as 

paint-lead, dust-lead, and soil-lead 

hazards. A paint-lead hazard is defined 

as any damaged or deteriorated leadbased paint, any chewable lead-based 

painted surface with evidence of teeth 

marks, or any lead-based paint on a 

friction surface if lead dust levels 

underneath the friction surface exceed 

the dust-lead hazard standards. A dustlead hazard is surface dust that contains 

a mass-per-area concentration of lead 

equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per 

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

ft2 on interior windowsills based on 

wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is bare 

soil that contains total lead equal to or 

exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) 

in a play area or average of 1,200 ppm 

of bare soil in the rest of the yard based 

on soil samples. 

TSCA section 402(c) addresses 

renovation and remodeling. For the 

stated purpose of reducing the risk of 

exposure to lead in connection with 

renovation and remodeling activities, 

section 402(c)(1) of TSCA requires EPA 

to promulgate and disseminate 

guidelines for the conduct of such 

activities that may create a risk of 

exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In 

response to this statutory directive, EPA 

developed the guidance document 

entitledReducing Lead Hazards when 

Remodeling Your Home in consultation 

with industry and trade groups (Ref. 10). 

This document has been widely 

disseminated to renovation and 

remodeling stakeholders through the 

National Lead Information Center, EPA 

Regions, and EPA’s State and Tribal 

partners and is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf. 

TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to 

study the extent to which persons 

engaged in various types of renovation 

and remodeling activities are exposed to 

lead during such activities or create a 

lead-based paint hazard regularly or 

occasionally. EPA conducted this study 

in four phases. Phase I, the 

Environmental Field Sampling Study 

(Ref. 11), evaluated the amount of 

leaded dust released by the following 

activities: 

• Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 

• Removal of large structures, 

including demolition of interior plaster 

walls. 

• Window replacement. 

• Carpet removal. 

• HVAC repair or replacement, 

including duct work. 

• Repairs resulting in isolated small 

surface disruptions, including drilling 

and sawing into wood and plaster. 

Phase II, the Worker Characterization 

and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 12), 

involved collecting data on blood lead 

and renovation and remodeling 

activities from workers. Phase III, the 

Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study 

(Ref. 13.), was a retrospective study 

focused on assessing the relationship 

between renovation and remodeling 

activities and children’s blood-lead 

levels. Phase IV, the Worker 

Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 

of R&R Workers Who Specialize in 

Renovations of Old or Historic Homes 

(Ref. 14), was similar to Phase II, but 

focused on individuals who worked 

primarily in old historic buildings. More 

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

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

Proposal. 

3. Summary of 2006 Proposal. TSCA 

section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise 

the Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations to apply to renovation or 

remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards. In the 2006 

Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude 

that any renovation activity that 

disturbs lead-based paint can create 

significant amounts of leaded dust, that 

most activities created lead-based paint 

hazards, and that some activities can be 

reasonably anticipated to create leadbased paint hazards. Accordingly, on 

January 10, 2006, EPA issued a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking covering 

renovation performed for compensation 

in target housing (Ref. 3). The 2006 

Proposal contained requirements 

designed to address lead-based paint 

hazards created by renovation, repair, 

and painting activities that disturb leadbased paint. The 2006 Proposal 

included requirements for training 

renovators, other renovation workers, 

and dust sampling technicians; for 

certifying renovators, dust sampling 

technicians, and renovation firms; for 

accrediting providers of renovation and 

dust sampling technician training; for 

renovation work practices; and for 

recordkeeping. The 2006 Proposal 

would have made the rule effective in 

two stages. Initially, the rule would 

have applied to all renovations for 

compensation performed in target 

housing where a child with an increased 

blood lead level resided and rental 

target housing built before 1960. The 

rule would also have applied to owneroccupied target housing built before 

1960, unless the person performing the 

renovation obtained a statement signed 

by the owner-occupant that the 

renovation would occur in the owner’s 

residence and that no child under age 6 

resided there. As proposed, the rule 

would take effect 1 year later in all 

rental target housing built between 1960 

and 1978 and owner-occupied target 

housing built between 1960 and 1978. 

EPA also proposed to allow interested 

States, Territories, and Indian Tribes the 

opportunity to apply for and receive 

authorization to administer and enforce 

all of the elements of the new 

renovation provisions. 

4. Summary of 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal. EPA received approximately 

250 comments on its 2006 Proposal. 

These comments came from a wide 

variety of commenters, including State 

and local governments, industry groups, 

advocacy groups, renovation 

contractors, training providers, and 

individuals. A significant number of 

these commenters observed that the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21696 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

proposal did not cover buildings where 

children under age 6 spend a great deal 

of time, such as day care centers and 

schools. Commenters noted that the risk 

posed to children from lead-based paint 

hazards in schools and day care centers 

is likely to be equal to, if not greater 

than, the risk posed from these hazards 

at home. These commenters suggested 

that EPA expand its proposal to include 

such places, and several suggested that 

EPA use the existing definition of 

‘‘child-occupied facility’’ in 40 CFR 

745.223 to define the expanded scope of 

coverage. EPA felt that these comments 

had merit, and, because adding childoccupied facilities was beyond the 

scope of the 2006 Proposal, an 

expansion of the 2006 Proposal was 

necessary to give this issue full and fair 

consideration. Accordingly, on June 5, 

2007, EPA issued a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2007 

Supplemental Proposal) to add childoccupied facilities to the universe of 

buildings covered by the 2006 Proposal 

(Ref. 15). 

EPA proposed to use the definition of 

‘‘child-occupied facility’’ from 40 CFR 

745.223 with some modifications to 

make it consistent with the statutory 

focus on children under age 6 and to 

better describe the applicability of the 

term in target housing and in public or 

commercial buildings. The 2007 

Supplemental Proposal would apply all 

of the accreditation, training, 

certification, work practice, and 

recordkeeping requirements to 

renovations in child-occupied facilities 

in the same way that the requirements 

would apply to renovations in target 

housing. In addition, EPA proposed to 

extend the lead hazard information 

distribution requirements of the PreRenovation Education Rule, 40 CFR part 

745, subpart E, to renovations in childoccupied facilities. Specifically, EPA 

proposed that persons performing 

renovations in child-occupied facilities 

in public or commercial buildings 

would have to provide a lead hazard 

information pamphlet to the owner of 

the building and to the proprietor of the 

child-occupied facility. In addition, 

general information about the 

renovation would have to be provided 

to parents and guardians of children 

under age 6 using the child-occupied 

facility. The 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal further provided that a lead 

hazard information pamphlet would 

have to be provided to parents and 

guardians or made available upon 

request. EPA received 12 comments on 

its 2007 Supplemental Proposal. 

5. 2007 Notice of Data Availability. 

After the 2006 proposal, two new 

studies assessing hazards associated 

with renovation activities were 

completed. On March 16, 2007, EPA 

announced the availability of these new 

studies in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Ref. 16). EPA requested comment on 

how these studies might inform 

provisions of the final rule. EPA 

received nearly 100 comments in 

response to its notice. Comments 

specifically on the studies are discussed 

below. Comments on how the studies 

might affect the final rule are discussed 

along with the provisions of the final 

rule in Unit III.E. of this preamble. 

a. Characterization of Dust Lead 

Levels after Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Activities. EPA conducted a 

field study (Characterization of Dust 

Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Activities) (the ‘‘Dust 

Study’’) to characterize dust lead levels 

resulting from various renovation, 

repair, and painting activities (Ref. 17). 

This study, completed in January 2007, 

was designed to compare environmental 

lead levels at appropriate stages after 

various types of renovation, repair, and 

painting preparation activities were 

performed on the interiors and exteriors 

of target housing units and childoccupied facilities. All of the jobs 

disturbed more than 2 square feet of 

lead-based paint, so they would not 

have been eligible for the minor 

maintenance exception from the 2006 

Proposal. The renovation activities were 

conducted by local professional 

renovation firms, using personnel who 

received lead safe work practices 

training using the curriculum developed 

by EPA and HUD, ‘‘Lead Safety for 

Remodeling, Repair, and Painting’’ (Ref. 

18). The activities conducted 

represented a range of activities that 

would be permitted under the 2006 

Proposal, including work practices that 

are restricted or prohibited for 

abatements under 40 CFR 745.227(e)(6). 

Of particular interest was the impact of 

using specific work practices that 

renovation firms would be required to 

use under the proposed rule, such as the 

use of plastic to contain the work area 

and a multi-step cleaning protocol, as 

opposed to more typical work practices. 

The design of the Dust Study was 

peer-reviewed by experts in fields 

related to the study. They reviewed the 

design and quality assurance plan 

independently and provided written 

comments to EPA. The results of this 

peer-review are summarized in Unit 2 of 

the Dust Study report (Ref. 17). In 

addition, the record of this peer-review, 

which includes the comments from the 

reviewers and EPA’s responses, has 

been placed into the public docket for 

this action. 

In the Dust Study, 12 different interior 

and 12 different exterior renovation 

activities were performed at 7 vacant 

target housing units in Columbus, Ohio, 

and 8 vacant target housing units 

(including four apartments) in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Three 

different interior and three different 

exterior renovation activities were 

conducted at a building representing a 

child-occupied facility, a vacant school 

in Columbus. The presence of leadbased paint was confirmed by laboratory 

analysis before a building was assigned 

a particular renovation activity or set of 

activities. Before interior renovation 

activities were performed, the floors and 

windowsills in the work area and 

adjacent rooms were cleaned. In most 

cases, pre-work cleaning resulted in 

dust lead levels on floors of less than 10 

μg/ft2; nearly all floors were less than 40 

μg/ft2 before work started. Most 

windowsills that would be used for later 

sampling were cleaned to dust lead 

levels less than 250 μg/ft2. In the few 

cases where that level was not achieved 

on a windowsill needed for sampling, 

dust collection trays were used. Interior 

renovation activities included the 

following jobs: 

• Making cut-outs in the walls. 

• Replacing a window from the 

inside. 

• Removing paint with a high 

temperature (greater than 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit) heat gun. 

• Removing paint with a low 

temperature (less than 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit) heat gun. 

• Removing paint by dry scraping. 

• Removing kitchen cabinets. 

• Removing paint with a power 

planer. 

To illustrate the impact of the 

containment plastic and the specialized 

cleaning and cleaning verification 

protocol that would be required by the 

2006 Proposal, each activity was 

performed a minimum of four times: 

• With the plastic containment 

described in the 2006 Proposal followed 

by the cleaning protocol described in 

the proposal. 

• With the plastic containment 

described in the 2006 Proposal followed 

by dry sweeping and vacuuming with a 

shop vacuum. 

• With no plastic containment 

followed by the cleaning protocol 

described in the 2006 Proposal. 

• With no plastic containment 

followed by dry sweeping and 

vacuuming with a shop vacuum. 

Dust samples were collected after the 

renovation work was completed, after 

cleaning, and after cleaning verification. 

If a building was being used again for 

the same job under different work 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21697 

practices, or for a completely different 

job, the unit was recleaned and retested 

prior to starting the next job. All 

buildings were cleaned and tested after 

the last job. 

Geometric mean post-work, precleaning floor dust lead levels in the 

work room were as follows (in μg/ft2): 

• Cut-outs--422. 

• Kitchen cabinet removal--958. 

• Low temperature heat gun--2,080. 

• Dry scraping--2,686. 

• Window replacement--3,993. 

• High temperature heat gun--7,737. 

• Power planing--32,644. 

Power planing is an activity very 

similar to power sanding in which a 

machine that operates at high speed 

generating large quantities of dust is 

used. 

Where baseline practices, i.e., no 

containment, dry sweeping, and 

vacuuming with a shop vacuum, were 

used, the geometric mean post-job floor 

dust lead levels in the work room were 

as follows (in μg/ft2): 

• Cut-outs--22. 

• Kitchen cabinet removal--58. 

• Low temperature heat gun--41. 

• Dry scraping--66. 

• Window replacement--135. 

• High temperature heat gun--445. 

• Power planing--450. 

The package of proposed rule 

requirements, i.e., containment, 

specialized cleaning, and cleaning 

verification, resulted in the lowest 

geometric mean dust lead levels in the 

work room at the end of a job. These 

results were as follows (in μg/ft2): 

• Cut-outs--5. 

• Kitchen cabinet removal--12. 

• Low temperature heat gun--24. 

• Dry scraping--30. 

• Window replacement--33. 

• High temperature heat gun--36. 

• Power planing--148. 

Windowsill sample results were 

similar; the geometric mean dust lead 

levels after renovation activities 

performed in accordance with the 

proposed rule exceeded 250 μg/ft2 only 

where power planing or a high 

temperature heat gun were used. When 

baseline practices were used, the 

geometric mean dust lead levels on the 

windowsills exceeded 250 μg/ft2 for 

kitchen cabinet removal, window 

replacement, high temperature heat gun 

use, and power planing. 

Exterior renovation activities 

performed as part of the study included 

the following: 

• Replacing a door and doorway. 

• Replacing fascia boards, soffits, 

and other trim. 

• Removing paint with a high 

temperature (greater than 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit) heat gun. 

• Removing paint with a low 

temperature (less than 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit) heat gun. 

• Removing paint by dry scraping. 

• Removing paint with a needle gun. 

• Removing paint with power 

sanding or grinding. 

• Removing paint with a torch or 

open flame. 

For the exterior jobs, plastic sheeting 

was placed on the ground to catch the 

debris and dust from the job, in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. Additional plastic 

sheeting was laid out beneath and 

beyond the ‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic. 

Trays to collect dust and debris were 

placed on top of and underneath the 

‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic. Trays were also 

placed just outside of the ‘‘proposed 

rule’’ plastic to assess how far the dust 

was spreading. A vertical containment, 

as high as the work zone, was erected 

at the end of the additional plastic. 

The use of the ‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic 

as a ground covering captured large 

amounts of leaded dust. For all job types 

except removing paint with a torch, 

there was a substantial difference 

between the amount of lead captured by 

the ‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic and the 

amount under the ‘‘proposed rule’’ 

plastic. Including both bulk debris and 

dust, geometric mean lead levels in 

exterior samples from the collection 

trays on top of the ‘‘proposed rule’’ 

plastic ranged from a low of 60,662 μg/ 

ft2 for the door replacement activity to 

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

paint with a high temperature heat gun. 

Geometric mean lead levels from the 

collection trays under the ‘‘proposed 

rule’’ plastic ranged from a low of 32 μg/ 

ft2 for door replacement to 8,565 μg/ft2 

for removing paint with a torch. 

This regulatory action was supported 

by the Dust Study discussed above. 

Therefore, EPA conducted a peer review 

in accordance with OMB’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review. EPA requested this review from 

the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC) Lead Review 

Panel. The CASAC, which is comprised 

of seven members appointed by the EPA 

Administrator, was established under 

the Clean Air Act as an independent 

scientific advisory committee. The 

CASAC’s comments on the Dust Study, 

along with EPA’s responses, have been 

placed into the public docket for this 

action. More information on the CASAC 

consultation process, along with 

background documents, is available on 

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/ 

lead/pubs/casac.htm. 

According to the peer review report, 

the CASAC Panel found 

. . .that the [Dust Study] was reasonably 

well-designed, considering the complexity of 

the problem, and that the report provided 

information not available from any other 

source. The study indicated that the rule 

cleaning procedures reduced the residual 

lead (Pb) remaining after a renovation more 

than did the baseline cleaning procedures. 

Another positive aspect of the Dust Study 

was that it described deviations from the 

protocol when they occurred. 

The CASAC Panel also contended that 

the limited data from residential 

housing units and child-occupied 

facilities included in the Dust Study, 

most likely do not represent a 

statistically valid sample of housing at 

the national level. They noted that there 

are aspects of the study that would 

underestimate the levels of leadloadings while other aspects of the 

study would overestimate the loadings. 

EPA agrees that the Dust Study is not 

nationally representative of all housing. 

EPA notes that there are several reasons 

why this is the case, including the fact 

that all of the housing studied was built 

during 1925 or earlier, and a large 

number of the floors were in poor 

condition. A major purpose of the Dust 

Study was to assess the proposed work 

practices. A statistically valid sample of 

housing at the national level is not 

needed to assess the work practices. If 

anything, the Dust Study is conservative 

with respect to the age of housing 

because it studied older houses and 

therefore is appropriate for assessing the 

effectiveness of the work practices. 

In addition to the Dust Study which 

directly supported this regulatory 

action, several other studies are 

discussed throughout the preamble 

which may or may not have been peer 

reviewed. 

b. Lead-Safe Work Practices Survey 

Project. The National Association of 

Home Builders (NAHB) conducted a 

survey that assessed renovation and 

remodeling activities to measure levels 

of lead dust generated by home 

improvement contractors (Ref. 19). The 

stated objective of this survey, 

completed in November 2006, was to 

measure the amount of lead dust 

generated during typical renovation and 

remodeling activities and assess 

whether routine renovation and 

remodeling activities increased lead 

dust levels in the work area and on the 

property. 

The activities evaluated during the 

survey were selected in consultation 

with remodeling contractors. NAHB 

believes that these activities represent 

the most common jobs performed by 

renovation and remodeling firms. The 

renovations were performed by 

professional renovation and remodeling 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21698 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

contractors from each of the 

communities where the properties were 

located. All of the workers who 

participated in this project had 

previously attended and successfully 

completed the EPA/HUD curriculum for 

Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & 

Painting. 

According to the NAHB survey, 

anEPA-certified lead-based paint 

inspector confirmed the presence of 

lead-based paint in all of the properties 

considered for this survey. Previous 

inspection reports were consulted if the 

inspections conformed to the HUD 

Guidelines for lead-based paint 

inspections. Properties used in this 

survey included a single family home in 

Illinois, two single-family homes and a 

duplex in Connecticut, and an 

apartment above a storefront in 

Wisconsin. 

The NAHB survey evaluated the 

following activities: 

• Wall and ceiling removal 

(demolition). 

• Wall and ceiling modification. 

• Window and door removal and/or 

replacement (no sanding). 

• Window and door alteration (no 

sanding). 

• Sanding on windows and doors. 

• Kitchen or bath cabinet removal. 

• Baseboard and stair removal. 

• Surface preparation (sanding). 

• Sawing into wood and plaster. 

Activities were performed in one of 

three ways: Using the work practices 

presented in the EPA/HUD curriculum, 

using modified work practices (one or 

more of the dust control or cleanup 

methods discussed in the EPA/HUD 

curriculum), or routine renovation 

practices. 

Area air samples were collected 

before, during and after the work 

activity. Personal breathing zone air 

samples were collected during the work 

activity. Dust wipe samples were 

collected before work started and after 

final clean-up. Dust wipe samples were 

routinely collected from floors near the 

work activity and in some cases 

collected from a windowsill and/or 

window well. 

In comparing the mean dust lead 

levels before the activities with the 

mean dust lead levels after the 

activities, the NAHB concluded that the 

renovation activities surveyed did not 

create new lead dust hazards overall. 

However, even after clean-up was 

conducted, over half of the 60 

individual renovation activities studied 

resulted in an increase in dust lead 

levels on at least one surface. In most 

cases, the increase was considerably 

greater than the regulatory dust-lead 

hazard standard for that surface. 

6. Statutory finding and regulatory 

approach—TSCA section 402(c)(3) 

determination. TSCA section 402(c)(3) 

directs EPA to revise the regulations 

issued under TSCA section 402(a), the 

Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, 

to apply to renovation or remodeling 

activities that create lead-based paint 

hazards. EPA finds that renovation, 

repair, and painting activities that 

disturb lead-based paint create leadbased paint hazards. This finding is 

based upon EPA’s Environmental Field 

Sampling Study and corroborated by the 

Dust Study and the NAHB survey (Refs. 

11, 17, and 19). 

In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed 

to conclude that any renovation activity 

that disturbs lead-based paint can create 

significant amounts of leaded dust, that 

most activities created lead-based paint 

hazards, and that some activities can be 

reasonably anticipated to create leadbased paint hazards. EPA’s proposed 

conclusions were based upon the results 

of the Environmental Field Sampling 

Study, which examined, on a variety of 

components using a variety of tools and 

methods, activities that EPA had 

determined were representative of the 

paint-disturbing activities that typically 

occur during renovations. The activities 

were: 

• Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 

• Window replacement. 

• HVAC duct work. 

• Demolition of interior plaster 

walls. 

• Drilling into wood. 

• Drilling into plaster. 

• Sawing into wood. 

• Sawing into plaster. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to 

conclude that all of the activities 

studied in the Environmental Field 

Sampling Study, with the exception of 

drilling into plaster, can create leadbased paint hazards. With respect to 

drilling into plaster, where lead-based 

paint is present, EPA proposed to 

conclude that this activity can 

reasonably be anticipated to create leadbased paint hazards. The Environmental 

Field Sampling Study found that, with 

the exception of drilling into plaster, all 

renovation and remodeling activities, 

when conducted where lead-based paint 

is present, generated lead loadings on 

floors at a distance of 5 to 6 feet from 

the activity that exceeded EPA’s dustlead hazard standard of 40 μg/ft2. 

However, upon further review, it is 

apparent that the study also found that 

drilling into plaster created dust lead 

levels in the immediate vicinity of the 

activity that exceeded the dust-lead 

hazard standard. Thus, all the activities 

studied did in fact create lead-based 

paint hazards. 

The 2006 Proposal cited the other 

phases of the TSCA section 402(c)(2) 

renovation and remodeling study to 

support EPA’s proposed determination 

that any renovation, remodeling, or 

painting activity that disturbs leadbased paint can be reasonably 

anticipated to create lead-based paint 

hazards. Phase III, the Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study, found 

that children who live in homes where 

renovation and remodeling activities 

were performed within the past year are 

30% more likely to have a blood leadlevel that equals or exceeds 10 μg/dL, 

the level of concern established by CDC, 

than children living in homes where no 

such activity has taken place recently. 

Phases II and IV of the study, which 

evaluated worker exposures from 

renovation and remodeling activities, 

provide additional documentation of the 

significant and direct relationship 

between blood-lead levels and the 

conduct of certain renovation and 

remodeling activities. Phase II found a 

statistically significant association 

between increased blood lead levels and 

the number of days spent performing 

general renovation and remodeling 

activities, paint removal, and cleanup in 

pre-1950 buildings in the past month. 

Phase IV of the study found that persons 

performing renovation and remodeling 

activities in old historic buildings are 

more likely to have elevated blood lead 

levels than persons in the general 

population of renovation and 

remodeling workers. 

In light of EPA’s proposed 

determination, the 2006 Proposal 

included revisions to the existing Leadbased Paint Activities Regulations to 

extend them to renovation, remodeling, 

and painting activities in target housing, 

with certain exceptions. In proposing to 

extend these regulations to renovation, 

remodeling, and painting activities in 

child-occupied facilities, the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal incorporated the 

proposed TSCA section 402(c)(3) 

determination. 

Since the 2006 Proposal, EPA 

conducted the Dust Study and NAHB 

submitted the results of their survey. 

The results of the Dust Study confirm 

that renovation and remodeling 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

create lead-based paint hazards. The 

Dust Study evaluated a number of 

common renovation activities, including 

replacing windows, removing kitchen 

cabinets, cutting into walls, and 

removing paint by high and low 

temperature heat guns, power tools, and 

dry scraping. The geometric mean postwork dust lead levels on work room 

floors ranged from a low of 422 μg/ft2, 

or 10 times the dust-lead hazard 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21699 

standard for floors, for cut-outs, to a 

high of 32,644 μg/ft2 for power planing. 

Thus, all of the activities evaluated in 

the Dust Study created floor dust lead 

levels that exceeded 40 μg/ft2, one of the 

measures that, in 40 CFR 745.65, defines 

a lead-based paint hazard. It is more 

difficult to evaluate the effect of 

disturbing lead-based paint in the 

NAHB Survey, since the survey did not 

involve collecting samples after work 

had been performed but before the postrenovation cleaning had begun. 

Nevertheless, even after post-renovation 

cleaning using a variety of methods, in 

more than half of the 60 experiments 

performed in this survey, the postcleaning dust wipe sample results for at 

least one surface showed an increase 

greater than the TSCA section 403 

hazard standard over pre-work levels. 

These experiments showing increased 

dust lead levels cover the range of 

activities evaluated in the NAHB 

Survey. 

Therefore, in this action, EPA is 

issuing its determination that 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

create lead-based paint hazards. Because 

the evidence shows that all such 

activities in the presence of lead-based 

paint create lead-based paint hazards, 

EPA is modifying its proposed finding, 

which distinguished between activities 

that create lead-based paint hazards and 

those that can reasonably be anticipated 

to create lead-based paint hazards, and 

instead concludes that renovation 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

create lead-based paint hazards. Indeed, 

no commenter submitted data indicating 

that any renovation, repair, or painting 

activity should be exempt from 

regulation because it does not create 

lead-based paint hazards. 

EPA received a large number of 

comments on this proposed finding. 

Many expressed support for EPA’s 

determination that any renovation, 

repair, or painting activity that disturbs 

lead-based paint creates lead-based 

paint hazards. Some commenters, while 

expressing their support for this 

determination, also opined that the 

regulatory dust-lead hazard standards 

for floors and windowsills are too high. 

These commenters argued that recent 

scientific evidence shows that children 

experience adverse health effects at 

lower blood lead levels than previously 

thought, and since EPA’s regulatory 

dust-lead hazard standards were set 

with reference to a blood lead level of 

10 μg/dL, the CDC level of concern, the 

dust-lead hazard standards must be 

lowered. EPA agrees that recent studies 

demonstrate that neurocognitive effects 

occur at blood lead levels below the 

current CDC level of concern. In fact, 

EPA’s most recent Air Quality Criteria 

for Lead document, issued in October, 

2006, describes several epidemiologic 

studies published in the last 5 years that 

observed significant lead-induced IQ 

decrements in children with some 

effects observed at blood lead levels of 

5 μg/dL and lower (Ref. 1). The 

document also notes that other recent 

studies observed significant associations 

at low blood-lead levels for other 

neurotoxicity endpoints in addition to 

IQ, such as arithmetic and reading 

scores, attentional behavior, and 

neuromotive function. However, EPA is 

not addressing the appropriateness of 

the existing dust-lead hazard standards 

in this rulemaking. The original hazard 

standards were set through a separate 

rulemaking process under TSCA section 

403 that allowed for input from all of 

the parties that would be affected by the 

standards. Furthermore, EPA is 

concerned that a full review of the 

available evidence and other 

considerations affecting the hazard 

standards as part of this rulemaking 

would result in a significant delay in 

promulgating training, certification, and 

work practice standards for renovation 

activities. EPA did not propose to 

modify the TSCA section 403 hazard 

standard levels in this rulemaking and 

has not undertaken the significant 

analyses that would need to be 

performed in order to establish different 

standards. Accordingly, EPA is not able, 

in this final rule, to modify the 

regulatory hazard standard. In any 

event, since EPA finds that renovation 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

create lead-paint hazards, lowering the 

hazard standard would not affect EPA’s 

finding. 

Some commenters objected to EPA’s 

proposed determination that renovation, 

repair, or painting activities that disturb 

lead-based paint create lead-based paint 

hazards. Some commenters interpreted 

EPA’s statutory authority to regulate 

renovation and remodeling under TSCA 

section 402(c)(3) as being limited to 

those renovation and remodeling 

activities for which EPA can prove a 

link between the activity and the blood 

lead action level established by CDC for 

public health intervention. These 

commenters contend that the failure to 

prove such a link means that renovation 

and remodeling activities do not create 

lead-based paint hazards. This 

interpretation is not supported by the 

plain language of the statute. TSCA 

section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to 

regulate renovation and remodeling 

activities that create lead-based paint 

hazards. The term ‘‘lead-based paint 

hazard’’ is defined in TSCA section 401 

as ‘‘any condition that causes exposure 

to lead from lead-contaminated dust . . 

. that would result in adverse human 

health effects as established by the 

Administrator under this subchapter.’’ 

TSCA section 403 directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations which ‘‘identify, 

for purposes of this subchapter and the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992, lead-based paint 

hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and 

lead-contaminated soil.’’ The TSCA 

section 403 regulations define dust-lead 

hazards as levels that equal or exceed 40 

μg/ft2 of lead on floors or 250 μg/ft2 of 

lead on interior windowsills. Therefore, 

EPA interprets TSCA as directing it to 

regulate renovation and remodeling 

activities if such activities create dust 

lead levels that exceed the standards for 

dust-lead hazards established under 

TSCA section 403. Again, the 

Environmental Field Sampling Study, 

the Dust Study, and the NAHB survey 

all demonstrate that renovation and 

remodeling activities that disturb leadbased paint create dust lead levels that 

exceed the hazard standards in 40 CFR 

745.65. 

EPA also interprets the scientific 

evidence for a link between renovations 

and the CDC blood lead action level 

differently than do these commenters. 

EPA’s Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead 

Study, described more fully in Unit 

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

Proposal, provides ample evidence of a 

link between renovation activities and 

elevated blood lead levels in resident 

children (Ref. 13). This peer-reviewed 

study concluded that general residential 

renovation and remodeling is associated 

with an increased risk of elevated blood 

lead levels in children and that specific 

renovation and remodeling activities are 

also associated with an increase in the 

risk of elevated blood lead levels in 

children. In particular, removing paint 

(using open flame torches, using heat 

guns, using chemical paint removers, 

and wet scraping/sanding) and 

preparing surfaces by sanding or 

scraping significantly increased the risk 

of elevated blood lead levels. Some of 

the commenters on this rule focused on 

Table 3-13 in the study report and cited 

that as evidence that work performed by 

paid professional renovators does not 

create a statistically significant risk of 

an elevated blood-lead level in a 

resident child.EPA agrees that this table, 

which presents the results of analyses 

using one of the sets of models used to 

interpret study data, indicates that, with 

respect to the persons performing the 

work, the only statistically significant 

result associated with increased risk of 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

elevated blood lead levels was work 

performed by a relative or friend not in 

the household. Work performed by 

professional renovators was associated 

with an increased risk of an elevated 

blood lead level, but the association was 

not statistically significant. As 

explained more fully in a memorandum 

summarizing additional analyses of the 

data from this study (Ref. 20), this table 

does not indicate that professional 

contractors were not responsible for 

creating lead exposure hazards. Rather, 

it indicates that renovation activities 

performed by professional contractors 

are no more or less hazardous than 

renovation activities performed by most 

of the other categories of persons 

identified in the survey responses 

collected as part of the study. It is also 

important to note that, while these 

commenters focus on a blood-lead level 

of 10 μg/dL as a threshold, this level is 

not and has not been considered by CDC 

or EPA as a threshold for adverse 

effects. 

One commenter also dismissed the 

two studies from New York that EPA 

cited as supporting the findings of the 

Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead 

Study. In 1995, the New York State 

Department of Health assessed lead 

exposure among children resulting from 

home renovation and remodeling in 

1993–1994. A review of the health 

department records of children with 

blood lead levels equal to or greater than 

20 μg/dL identified 320, or 6.9%, with 

elevated blood lead levels that were 

attributable to renovation and 

remodeling (Ref. 21). The commenter 

noted that this study suffered from a 

number of limitations, including the fact 

that it was not a case-control study; i.e., 

the group of children with elevated 

blood lead levels attributed to 

renovation and remodeling was not 

compared with a similar group of 

households that had not undergone 

renovation during the period. EPA 

agrees that this is an important 

limitation of this study. However, with 

respect to the other limitations noted by 

this commenter, the authors of the 

report felt that most of these limitations 

would likely result in an 

underestimation of the burden of lead 

exposure associated with renovation 

and remodeling. 

The other study cited by EPA as 

supporting the Wisconsin Childhood 

Blood-Lead Study conclusions was a 

case-control study that assessed the 

association between elevated blood lead 

levels in children younger than 5 years 

and renovation or repair activities in 

homes in New York City (Ref. 22).EPA 

notes that the authors show that when 

dust and debris was reported (by 

respondents via telephone interviews) 

to be ‘‘everywhere’’ following a 

renovation, the blood lead levels were 

significantly higher than children at 

homes that did not report remodeling 

work. On the other hand, when the 

respondent reported either ‘‘no visible 

dust and debris’’ or that ‘‘dust and 

debris was limited to the work area,’’ 

there was no statistically significant 

effect on blood lead levels relative to 

homes that did not report remodeling 

work. Although the study found only a 

weak and nonsignificant link between a 

report of any renovation activity and the 

likelihood that a resident child had an 

elevated blood-lead level, the link to the 

likelihood of an elevated blood-lead 

level was statistically significant for 

surface preparation by sanding and for 

renovation work that spreads dust and 

debris beyond the work area. The 

researchers noted the consistency of 

their results with EPA’s Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 13, at 

509). EPA notes that this confirms that 

keeping visible dust and debris 

contained to the work area is important 

for limiting children exposures to lead 

dust, rather than providing substantial 

arguments for the effectiveness of visual 

inspection. 

In sum, EPA’s finding that renovation 

and remodeling activities create leadbased paint hazards is not dependent 

upon establishing a correlation between 

such activities and elevated blood lead 

levels. Rather, it rests on the fact that, 

as demonstrated by EPA’s 

Environmental Field Sampling Study, 

EPA’s Dust Study, and by the NAHB 

Survey, such activities create lead-based 

paint hazards as defined by EPA 

regulations. Moreover, EPA disagrees 

that there is no scientific support for 

establishing a relationship between 

elevated blood lead levels in children 

and renovation activities. While EPA 

interprets these studies as supporting 

such a relationship and believes these 

studies further support its finding, it is 

not a determinative factor. 

b. EPA’s approach to this final rule. 

Given EPA’s determination that 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb lead-based paint 

create lead-based paint hazards, TSCA 

section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise 

the Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations to apply to these activities. 

EPA does not interpret its statutory 

mandate to require EPA to apply the 

existing TSCA section 402(a) regulations 

to renovations without change. By using 

the word ‘‘revise,’’ and creating a 

separate subsection of the statute for 

renovation, EPA believes that Congress 

intended that EPA make revisions to 

those existing regulations to adapt them 

to a very different regulated community. 

As discussed below, there are 

significant differences between 

renovations and abatements. 

Accordingly, this final rule does not 

merely expand the scope of the current 

abatement requirements to cover 

renovation and remodeling activities. 

Rather, EPA has carefully considered 

the elements of the existing abatement 

regulations and revised them as 

necessary to craft a rule that is practical 

for renovation, remodeling and painting 

businesses and their customers, taking 

into account reliability, effectiveness, 

and safety as directed by TSCA section 

402(a). Specifically, the Agency 

concludes that the training, 

containment, cleaning, and cleaning 

verification requirements in this final 

rule rule achieve the goal of minimizing 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created during renovation, remodeling 

and painting activities, taking into 

account reliability, effectiveness, and 

safety. 

In taking safety into account, EPA 

looked to the statutory directive to 

regulate renovation activities that create 

lead-based paint hazards. Although 

there is no known level of lead exposure 

that is safe, EPA does not believe the 

intent of Congress was to require 

elimination of all possible risk arising 

from a renovation. Nor does TSCA 

explicitly require EPA to eliminate all 

possible risk from lead, nor would it be 

feasible to do so since lead is a 

component of the earth. Rather, it 

directs EPA to regulate renovation and 

remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards. Given that the 

trigger for regulating renovation and 

remodeling activities is the creation of 

lead-based paint hazards--which EPA 

has identified in a separate rulemaking 

pursuant to TSCA section 403--EPA 

believes taking safety into account in 

this context is best interpreted with 

reference to those promulgated hazard 

standards. If taking safety into account 

required a more stringent standard, as 

suggested by some commenters, the 

potential would be created for a scheme 

under which any renovation activities 

found not to create hazards are not 

regulated at all, whereas renovation 

activities found to create hazards trigger 

requirements designed to leave the 

renovation site cleaner than the 

unregulated renovations. EPA’s 

interpretation is supported by the broad 

Congressional intent that the section 

403 hazard standards apply for purposes 

of subchapter IV of TSCA. It is also 

consistent with EPA’s approach in its 

abatement regulations, which require 

post-abatement cleaning to dust-lead 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21701 

clearance levels that are numerically 

equal to the TSCA section 403 hazard 

standards levels. It would be anomalous 

to impose a more stringent safety 

standard in the renovation context than 

in the abatement context, where the 

express purpose of the regulated 

activities is to abate lead-based paint 

hazards. Therefore, in taking into 

account safety, this final rule regulates 

renovation and remodeling activities 

relative to the TSCA section 403 hazard 

standard, with the purpose of 

minimizing exposure to such hazards 

created during renovation and 

remodeling activities. 

Additionally, EPA has interpreted 

practicality in implementation to be an 

element of the statutory directive to take 

into account effectiveness and 

reliability. In particular, EPA believes 

that given the highly variable nature of 

the regulated community, the work 

practices required by this rule should be 

simple to understand and easy to use. 

EPA is very aware that this regulation 

will apply to a whole range of 

individuals from day laborers to 

property maintenance staff to master 

craftsmen performing a whole range of 

activities from simple drywall repair to 

window replacement to complete 

kitchen and bath renovations to 

building additions and everything in 

between. Work practices that are easy 

and practical to use are more likely to 

be followed by all of the persons who 

perform renovations, and, therefore, 

more likely to be reliable and effective 

in minimizing exposure to lead-based 

paint hazards created by renovation 

activities. 

One of the biggest challenges facing 

EPA in revising the TSCA section 402(a) 

Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations 

is how to effectively bridge the 

differences between abatement and 

renovation and remodeling while 

acknowledging that many of the dust 

generating activities are the same. 

Abatements are generally performed in 

three circumstances. First, an abatement 

may be performed in the residence of a 

child who has been found to have an 

elevated blood lead level. Second, 

abatements are performed in housing 

receiving HUD financial assistance 

when required by HUD’s Lead-Safe 

Housing Rule. Third, state and local 

laws and regulations may require 

abatements in certain situations 

associated with rental housing. 

Typically, when an abatement is 

performed, the housing is either 

unoccupied or the occupants are 

temporarily relocated to lead-safe 

housing until the abatement has been 

demonstrated to have been properly 

completed through dust clearance 

testing. Carpet in the housing is usually 

removed as part of the abatement 

because it is difficult to demonstrate 

that it is free of lead-based paint 

hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not 

been replaced during the abatement may 

need to be refinished or sealed in order 

to achieve clearance. Abatements have 

only one purpose--to permanently 

eliminate lead-based paint and leadbased paint hazards. 

On the other hand, renovations are 

performed for a myriad of reasons, most 

having nothing to do with lead-based 

paint. Renovations involve activities 

designed to update, maintain, or modify 

all or part of a building. Renovations 

may be performed while the property is 

occupied or unoccupied. If the 

renovation is performed while the 

property is occupied, the occupants do 

not typically relocate pending the 

completion of the project. 

Further, performing abatement is a 

highly specialized skill that workers and 

supervisors must learn in training 

courses accredited by EPA or authorized 

States, Territories, and Tribes. In 

contrast, EPA is not interested in 

teaching persons how to be painters, 

plumbers, or carpenters. Rather, EPA’s 

objective is to ensure that persons who 

already know how to perform 

renovations perform their typical work 

in a lead-safe manner. 

Nevertheless, as pointed out by some 

commenters, abatement and renovation 

have some things in common. For 

example, as noted by one commenter, 

window replacement may be performed 

as part of an abatement to remove the 

lead-based paint and lead-based paint 

hazards on the existing window, or it 

may be performed as part of a 

renovation designed to improve the 

energy efficiency of the building. In 

many cases, the window replacement as 

abatement and the window replacement 

as renovation will generate the same 

amount of leaded dust. 

Another consideration is that while 

renovation activities undoubtedly create 

lead-based paint hazards, without 

results from dust wipe samples 

collected immediately before the 

renovation commences, there is no way 

to tell what portion of the lead dust 

remaining on the surface was 

contributed by the renovation. In 

addition, as a practical matter, once 

dust-lead hazards commingle with preexisting hazards, there is no functional 

way to distinguish between those 

created by the renovation activity and 

any pre-existing dust-lead hazards. 

However, the Dust Study shows that the 

combination of training, containment, 

cleaning and cleaning verification 

required by this rule is effective at 

reducing dust lead levels below the 

dust-lead hazard standard. While the 

requirements of this rule will, in some 

cases, have the ancillary benefit of 

removing some pre-existing dust-lead 

hazards, these requirements are 

designed to effectively clean-up the 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

renovation activities without changing 

the scope of the renovation activity 

itself. The intent of this final rule is not 

to require cleanup of pre-existing 

contamination. 

For example, the rule does not require 

cleaning of dust or any other possible 

lead sources in portions of target 

housing or child-occupied facilities 

beyond the location in and around the 

work area. Nor does this rule require the 

replacement of carpets in the area of the 

renovation or the refinishing or sealing 

of uncarpeted floors. The approach in 

this final rule is designed to address the 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

the renovation while not requiring 

renovators to remediate or eliminate 

hazards that are beyond the scope of the 

work they were hired to do. 

In addition, EPA has made a 

concerted effort to keep the costs and 

burdens associated with this rule as low 

as possible, while still providing 

adequate protection against lead-based 

paint hazards created by renovation 

activities. Indeed, as part of this 

rulemaking EPA has, as directed by 

TSCA section 2(c), considered the 

environmental, economic, and social 

impact of this rule. Nonetheless, many 

commenters expressed concerns over 

the potential unintended consequences 

of this rulemaking. These commenters 

argued that atoo-burdensome rule will 

result in more renovations by 

noncompliant renovators, and more doit-yourself renovations, both of which 

are likely to be more hazardous than 

renovations by certified professional 

renovation firms using certified 

renovators who follow the work practice 

requirements of the rule. These 

commenters were also concerned about 

deferred property maintenance which 

can be hazardous for many reasons, 

including lead-based paint issues. For 

example, one commenter pointed out 

that a renovation project that replaces 

old lead-based paint covered windows 

with new ones that have no lead-based 

paint may, as a by-product, reduce lead 

hazards, and the rule should not work 

to discourage this activity. 

On the other hand, one commenter 

argued that increased do-it-yourself 

activity is an unlikely byproduct of this 

rule because consumers are not only 

opting to hire or not hire contractors 

based on factors such as cost, 

convenience, and perceived quality, but, 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

even more importantly, their own 

proclivity towards performing 

renovation work. According to the 

commenter, the fact that the work 

practices required by this rule may 

result in slight cost increases is unlikely 

to motivate homeowners to perform 

their own renovations. This commenter 

also felt that the sooner that protective 

approaches become the accepted 

standard of care for renovation work by 

contractors receiving compensation, the 

sooner do-it-yourselfers and the do–it– 

yourself literature and training supports 

will adopt the same protective 

approaches. 

It is difficult to determine with any 

amount of certainty whether this final 

rule will have unintended 

consequences. However, EPA agrees 

that it is important to minimize 

disincentives for using certified 

renovation firms who follow the work 

practices required by this rule. EPA also 

agrees that practicality is an important 

consideration. Given the relatively low 

estimated overall average per-job cost of 

this final rule, which is $35, and the 

relatively easy-to-use work practices 

required by this final rule, EPA does not 

expect the incremental costs associated 

with this rule to be a determinative 

factor for consumers. However, that 

relatively low cost has resulted in part 

from EPA’s efforts to contain the costs 

of this rule in order to avoid creating 

disincentives to using certified 

renovation firms, and EPA has viewed 

the comments received with those 

considerations in mind. 

With respect to the comment 

regarding the standard of care for do-ityourselfers, EPA also plans to conduct 

an outreach and education campaign 

aimed at encouraging homeowners and 

other building owners to follow work 

practices while performing renovations 

or hire a certified renovation firm to do 

so. 

7. Summary of the final rule. This 

section summarizes the final rule in 

general terms. For more information, 

consult Unit III. below, which describes 

each provision in detail, discusses any 

changes from the proposal, and reviews 

the comments received. 

a. Definitions and scope. This final 

rule applies to renovations for 

compensation in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities. TSCA section 

401 defines ‘‘target housing’’ as any 

housing constructed prior to 1978, 

except housing for the elderly or 

persons with disabilities (unless any 

child who is less than 6 years of age 

resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities) or any 0–bedroom dwelling. 

This rule contains the following 

definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’: 

Child-occupied facility’’ means a building, 

or portion of a building, constructed prior to 

1978, visited regularly by the same child, 

under 6 years of age, on at least two different 

days within any week (Sunday through 

Saturday period), provided that each day’s 

visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined 

weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the 

combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. 

Child-occupied facilities may include, but 

are not limited to, day care centers, 

preschools and kindergarten classrooms. 

Child-occupied facilities may be located in 

target housing or in public or commercial 

buildings. With respect to common areas in 

public or commercial buildings that contain 

child-occupied facilities, the child-occupied 

facility encompasses only those common 

areas that are routinely used by children 

under age 6, such as restrooms and cafeterias. 

Common areas that children under age 6 only 

pass through, such as hallways, stairways, 

and garages are not included. In addition, 

with respect to exteriors of public or 

commercial buildings that contain childoccupied facilities, the child-occupied 

facility encompasses only the exterior sides 

of the building that are immediately adjacent 

to the child-occupied facility or the common 

areas routinely used by children under age 6. 

TSCA does not define the terms 

‘‘renovation’’ or ‘‘remodeling,’’ but this 

final rule builds upon the definition of 

‘‘renovation’’ already established by the 

regulations promulgated under TSCA 

section 406(b). This rule defines 

‘‘renovation’’ as follows: 

‘‘Renovation’’ means the modification 

of any existing structure, or portion 

thereof, that results in the disturbance of 

painted surfaces, unless that activity is 

performed as part of an abatement as 

defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223). 

The term renovation includes (but is not 

limited to): The removal, modification 

or repair of painted surfaces or painted 

components (e.g., modification of 

painted doors, surface restoration, 

window repair, surface preparation 

activity (such as sanding, scraping, or 

other such activities that may generate 

paint dust)); the removal of building 

components (e.g., walls, ceilings, 

plumbing, windows); weatherization 

projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted 

surfaces to install blown-in insulation or 

to gain access to attics, planing 

thresholds to install weather-stripping), 

and interim controls that disturb 

painted surfaces. A renovation 

performed for the purpose of converting 

a building, or part of a building, into 

target housing or a child-occupied 

facility is a renovation under this 

subpart. The term renovation does not 

include minor repair and maintenance 

activities. 

This final rule excludes some of the 

same projects that are excluded by the 

TSCA section 406(b) regulations, such 

as lead-based paint abatement projects 

and renovations affecting components 

that have been found to be free of leadbased paint. To be eligible for the latter 

exception, the components must be 

determined to be free of lead-based 

paint by a certified inspector or risk 

assessor, or by a certified renovator 

using an EPA-approved test kit. 

Emergency projects would continue to 

be exempt from the lead hazard 

information distribution requirements, 

but the clean-up after the project must 

meet the requirements of this regulation, 

and compliance with the training, 

certification, warning sign, and 

containment requirements of this 

regulation is required to the extent 

practicable. Minor maintenance projects 

that disturb no more than 6 square feet 

of painted surface per room for interiors 

or no more than 20 square feet of 

painted surface for exteriors are also 

exempt, so long as no work practices 

prohibited or restricted by this final rule 

are used, the renovation does not 

involve window replacement and there 

is no demolition of painted areas. 

Finally, this regulation contains an 

exception for renovations in owneroccupied target housing where no child 

under age 6 or pregnant woman resides, 

so long as the housing does not meet the 

definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility.’’ 

To claim this exception, the renovation 

firm must obtain, before beginning the 

renovation, a signed statement from the 

owner of the housing that states that the 

person signing is the owner of the 

housing to be renovated, that he or she 

resides there, that no child under age 6 

or pregnant woman resides there, that 

the housing is not a child-occupied 

facility, and that the owner understands 

that the renovation firm will not be 

required to use the work practices 

contained in this rule. 

b. Pre-Renovation Education Rule. As 

described in greater detail in a separate 

notice published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register, EPA has developed a 

new renovation-specific lead hazard 

information pamphlet intended for use 

in fulfilling the requirements of the PreRenovation Education Rule, 40 CFR part 

745, subpart E. This final rule requires 

firms performing renovations for 

compensation in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities to distribute 

this new pamphlet before beginning 

renovations to the owners and 

occupants of target housing, owners of 

public or commercial buildings that 

contain a child-occupied facility, and 

the proprietor of the child-occupied 

facility, if different, and to provide 

general information on the renovation 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21703 

and the pamphlet to, or make it 

available to, parents or guardians of 

children under age 6 using the childoccupied facility. This can be 

accomplished by mailing or handdelivering the general information on 

the renovation and the pamphlet to the 

parents and guardians or by posting 

informational signs containing general 

information on the renovation in areas 

where the signs can be seen by the 

parents or guardians of the children 

frequenting the child-occupied facility. 

The signs must be accompanied by a 

posted copy of the pamphlet or 

information on how interested parents 

or guardians can review a copy of the 

pamphlet or obtain a copy from the 

renovation firm at no cost to the parents 

or guardians. For renovations in the 

common areas of multi-unit target 

housing, similar notification options are 

available to firms. They must provide 

tenants with general information 

regarding the nature of the renovation 

by mail, by hand-delivery, or by posting 

signs, and must also make this new 

pamphlet available upon request. Firms 

must maintain documentation of 

compliance with these requirements. 

c. Training, accreditation, and 

certification. This final rule contains 

training requirements leading to 

certification for ‘‘renovators’’--

individuals who perform and direct 

renovation activities—and ‘‘dust 

sampling technicians’’--individuals who 

perform dust sampling not in 

connection with an abatement. 

Requirements for each of these courses 

of study are described in detail, and a 

hands-on component is required. 

Training providers who wish to provide 

training to renovators and dust sampling 

technicians for Federal certification 

purposes must apply for and receive 

accreditation from EPA following the 

same procedures that training providers 

who offer lead-based paint activities 

training now use to become accredited 

by EPA. Providers of renovation training 

must follow the same requirements for 

program operation as training providers 

who offer lead-based paint activities 

training. For example, renovation 

training programs must have adequate 

facilities and equipment for delivering 

the training, a training manager with 

experience or education in a 

construction or environmental field, and 

a principal instructor with experience or 

education in a related field and 

education or experience in teaching 

adults. To become accredited to provide 

training for renovators and dust 

sampling technicians, a provider must 

submit an application for accreditation 

to EPA. The application must include 

the following items: 

• The course materials and syllabus, 

or a statement that EPA model materials 

or materials approved by an authorized 

State or Tribe will be used. 

• A description of the facilities and 

equipment that will be used. 

• A copy of the test blueprint for 

each course. 

• A description of the activities and 

procedures that will be used during the 

hands-on skills portion of each course. 

• A copy of the quality control plan. 

• The correct amount of fees. 

Training programs that submit a 

complete application and meet the 

requirements for faculty, facilities, 

equipment, and course and test content 

will be accredited for 4 years. To 

maintain accreditation, the training 

program must submit an application 

and the correct amount of fees every 4 

years. EPA is not establishing the 

required fees in this rulemaking. EPA 

intends to publish a proposed fee 

schedule for public comment shortly. 

Accredited renovation training 

programs must also comply with the 

existing notification and recordkeeping 

requirements for lead-based paint 

activities training programs at 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(13) and 40 CFR 745.225(i), 

respectively, by notifying EPA before 

and after providing renovation training 

and by maintaining records of course 

materials, course test blueprints, 

information on how hands-on training is 

delivered, and the results of the 

students’ skills assessments and course 

tests. 

Each renovation project covered by 

this final rule must be performed and/ 

or directed by an individual who has 

become a certified renovator by 

successfully completing renovator 

training from an accredited training 

provider. The certified renovator is 

responsible for ensuring compliance 

with the work practice standards of this 

final regulation. The certified renovator 

must perform or direct certain critical 

tasks during the renovation, such as 

posting warning signs, establishing 

containment of the work area, and 

cleaning the work area after the 

renovation. These and other renovation 

activities may be performed by workers 

who have been provided on-the-job 

training in these activities by a certified 

renovator. However, the certified 

renovator must be physically present at 

the work site while signs are being 

posted, containment is being 

established, and the work area is being 

cleaned after the renovation to ensure 

that these tasks are performed correctly. 

Although the certified renovator is not 

required to be on-site at all times, while 

the renovation project is ongoing, a 

certified renovator must nonetheless 

regularly direct the work being 

performed by other workers to ensure 

that the work practices are being 

followed. When a certified renovator is 

not physically present at the work site, 

the workers must be able to contact the 

renovator immediately by telephone or 

other mechanism. In addition, the 

certified renovator must perform the 

post-renovation cleaning verification. 

This task may not be delegated to 

workers with on-the-job training. To 

maintain certification, a renovator must 

successfully complete an accredited 

renovator refresher training course every 

5 years. 

Renovations must be performed by 

certified firms. The certification 

requirements for renovation firms are 

identical to the certification 

requirements for firms that perform 

lead-based paint activities, except that 

renovation firm certification lasts for 5 

years instead of 3 years.A firm that 

wishes to become certified to perform 

renovations must submit an application, 

along with the correct amount of fees, 

attesting that it will assign a certified 

renovator to each renovation that it 

performs, that it will use only certified 

or properly trained individuals to 

perform renovations, and that it will 

follow the work practice standards and 

recordkeeping requirements in this 

regulation. EPA will certify any firm 

that meets these requirements unless 

EPA determines that the environmental 

compliance history of the firm, its 

principals, or its key employees 

demonstrates an unwillingness or 

inability to maintain compliance with 

environmental statutes or regulations. 

To maintain certification, the firm must 

submit an application and the correct 

amount of fees every 5 years. As noted 

above, EPA will establish the required 

fees in a subsequent rulemaking. 

d. Work practice standards. This final 

rule contains a number of work practice 

requirements that must be followed for 

every covered renovation in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities. 

These requirements pertain to warning 

signs and work area containment, the 

restriction or prohibition of certain 

practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, 

power sanding, power planing), waste 

handling, cleaning, and post-renovation 

cleaning verification. The firm must 

ensure compliance with these work 

practices. Although the certified 

renovator is not required to be on-site at 

all times, while the renovation project is 

ongoing, a certified renovator must 

nonetheless regularly direct the work 

being performed by other workers to 

ensure that the work practices are being 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

followed. When a certified renovator is 

not physically present at the work site, 

the workers must be able to contact the 

renovator immediately by telephone or 

other mechanism. 

i. Warning signs and work area 

containment. Before beginning a 

covered renovation, the certified 

renovator or a worker under the 

direction of the certified renovator must 

post signs outside the area to be 

renovated warning occupants and others 

not involved in the renovation to remain 

clear of the area. In addition, the 

certified renovator or a worker under 

the direction of the certified renovator 

must also contain the work area so that 

dust or debris does not leave the area 

while the work is being performed. At 

a minimum, containment for interior 

projects must include: 

• Removing or covering all objects in 

the work area with plastic or other 

impermeable material. 

• Closing and covering all forced air 

HVAC ducts in the work area with 

plastic or other impermeable material. 

• Closing all windows in the work 

area. 

• Closing and sealing all doors in the 

work area with plastic or other 

impermeable material. 

• Covering the floor surface, 

including installed carpet, with tapeddown plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material in the work area 

6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to contain the dust, whichever 

is greater. 

Doors within the work area that will be 

used while the job is being performed 

must be covered with plastic sheeting or 

other impermeable material in a manner 

that allows workers to pass through 

while confining dust and debris to the 

work area. In addition, all personnel, 

tools, and other items, including the 

exterior of containers of waste, must be 

free of dust and debris when leaving the 

work area. There are several ways of 

accomplishing this. For example, tacky 

mats may be put down immediately 

adjacent to the plastic sheeting covering 

the work area floor to remove dust and 

debris from the bottom of the workers’ 

shoes as they leave the work area, 

workers may remove their shoe covers 

(booties) as they leave the work area, 

and clothing and materials may be wetwiped and/or HEPA-vacuumed before 

they are removed from the work area. 

At a minimum, containment for 

exterior projects must include: 

• Covering the ground with plastic 

sheeting or other disposable 

impermeable material extending 10 feet 

beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to collect falling paint debris, 

whichever is greater, unless the 

property line prevents 10 feet of such 

ground covering. 

• Closing all doors and windows 

within 20 feet of the outside of the work 

area on the same floor as the renovation 

and closing all doors and windows on 

the floors below that area. 

In certain situations, such as where 

other buildings are in close proximity to 

the work area, when conditions are 

windy, or where the work area abuts a 

property line, the certified renovator or 

a worker under the direction of the 

certified renovator performing the 

renovation may have to take extra 

precautions to prevent dust and debris 

from leaving the work area as required 

by the regulation. This may include 

erecting a system of vertical 

containment designed to prevent dust 

and debris from migrating to adjacent 

property or contaminating the ground, 

other buildings, or any object beyond 

the work area. In addition, doors within 

the work area that will be used while 

the job is being performed must be 

covered with plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material in a manner that 

allows workers to pass through while 

confining dust and debris to the work 

area. 

ii. Waste management. The certified 

renovator or a worker trained and 

directed by a certified renovator must, at 

the conclusion of each work day, store 

any collected lead-based paint waste 

from renovation activities under 

containment, in an enclosure, or behind 

a barrier that prevents release of dust 

and debris and prevents access to the 

waste. In addition, the certified 

renovator or a worker under the 

direction of the certified renovator 

transporting lead-based paint waste 

from a work site must contain the waste 

to prevent identifiable releases. With 

regard to the lead-based paint waste 

generated by renovations in housing 

units, Unit IV.D.2. of the preamble to 

the 2006 Proposal describes how a 

clarification of the hazardous waste 

exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) means 

that residential lead-based paint waste 

may be disposed of in municipal solid 

waste landfill units, as long as the waste 

is generated during abatement or 

renovation and remodeling activities in 

households. Also discussed in the 

preamble to the 2006 Proposal is a 

subsequent amendment to the waste 

regulations promulgated under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) that allows construction 

and demolition (C&D) landfills to accept 

residential lead-based paint waste. 

iii. Cleaning. This final rule contains 

a number of specific cleaning steps that 

the certified renovator or a worker 

under the direction of the certified 

renovator must follow after performing 

a covered renovation. Upon completion 

of renovation activities, all paint chips 

and debris must be picked up. 

Protective sheeting must be misted and 

folded dirty side inward. Sheeting used 

to isolate the work area from other areas 

must remain in place until after the 

cleaning and removal of other sheeting; 

this sheeting must be misted and 

removed last. Removed sheeting must 

either be folded and taped shut to seal 

or sealed in heavy-duty bags and 

disposed of as waste. 

After the sheeting has been removed 

from the work area, the entire area must 

be cleaned, including the adjacent 

surfaces that are within 2 feet of the 

work area. The walls, starting from the 

ceiling and working down to the floor, 

must be vacuumed with a HEPA 

vacuum or wiped with a damp cloth. 

This final rule requires that all 

remaining surfaces and objects in the 

work area, including floors, furniture 

and fixtures, be thoroughly vacuumed 

with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. When 

cleaning carpets, the HEPA vacuum 

must be equipped with a beater bar to 

aid in dislodging and collecting deep 

dust and lead from carpets. Where 

feasible, floor surfaces underneath area 

rugs must also be thoroughly vacuumed 

with a HEPA vacuum. 

After vacuuming, all surfaces and 

objects in the work area, except for 

walls and carpeted or upholstered 

surfaces, must be wiped with a damp 

cloth. Uncarpeted floors must be 

thoroughly mopped using a 2-bucket 

mopping method that keeps the wash 

water separate from the rinse water, or 

using a wet mopping system with 

disposable absorbent cleaning pads and 

a built-in mechanism for distributing or 

spraying cleaning solution from a 

reservoir onto a floor. 

For cleaning following an exterior 

renovation, this final rule requires all 

paint chips and debris to be picked up. 

Protective sheeting must be misted and 

folded dirty side inward. Removed 

sheeting must be either folded and 

taped shut to seal or sealed in heavyduty bags and disposed of as waste. 

iv. Post-renovation cleaning 

verification. This final rule requires a 

certified renovator to perform a visual 

inspection of the work area after the 

cleaning steps outlined in the previous 

subsection. This visual inspection is for 

the purpose of determining whether 

dust, debris, or other residue is present 

in the work area. If dust, debris, or other 

residue remains in the work area, the 

dust, debris, or other residue must be 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21705 

removed by re-cleaning and another 

visual inspection must be performed. 

When an exterior work area passes the 

visual inspection, the renovation has 

been properly completed and the 

warning signs may be removed. When 

an interior work area passes the visual 

inspection, an additional cleaning 

verification step is required. A certified 

renovator assigned to the renovation 

project must use disposable cleaning 

cloths to wipe the windowsills, 

countertops, and uncarpeted floors in 

the work area. These cloths must then 

be compared to a cleaning verification 

card. For each cloth that matches or is 

lighter than the cleaning verification 

card, the corresponding windowsill, 

countertop, or floor area is considered to 

have passed the post-renovation 

cleaning verification. In contrast to the 

2006 Proposal, this final rule limits this 

requirement to two wet cloths and one 

dry cloth. After the first dry cloth, that 

surface will be considered to have 

passed post-renovation cleaning 

verification. When all windowsills, 

countertops, and floor areas in the work 

area have passed post-renovation 

cleaning verification, the warning signs 

may be removed. More information on 

the post-renovation cleaning verification 

procedure and the underlying studies 

can be found in Unit IV.E. of the 

preamble to the 2006 Proposal and in 

Unit III.E.7. of this preamble. 

In contrast to the 2006 Proposal, this 

final rule does not allow dust clearance 

sampling in lieu of post-renovation 

cleaning verification, except in cases 

where the contract between the 

renovation firm and the property owner 

or another Federal, State, Territorial, 

Tribal, or local regulation requires dust 

clearance sampling by a certified 

sampling professional and requires the 

renovation firm to clean the work area 

until it passes clearance. 

e. State, Territorial, and Tribal 

programs. This final rule also contains 

provisions for interested States, 

Territories, and Tribes to apply for and 

receive authorization to administer their 

own renovation, repair and painting 

programs in lieu of the proposed 

regulation. States, Territories and Tribes 

may choose to administer and enforce 

just the existing requirements of subpart 

E, the pre-renovation education 

elements, the training, certification, 

accreditation, work practice, and 

recordkeeping requirements of this final 

rule, or both. EPA will use the same 

process used for lead-based paint 

activities programs, along with 

proposed specific renovation program 

elements, to authorize State, Territorial, 

and Tribal programs. 

States, Territories, and Tribes seeking 

authority to administer and enforce 

renovation programs must obtain public 

input and then submit an application to 

EPA. Applications must contain a 

number of items, including a 

description of the State, Territorial, or 

Tribal program, copies of all applicable 

statutes, regulations, and standards, and 

a certification by the State Attorney 

General, Tribal Counsel, or an 

equivalent official, that the applicable 

legislation and regulations provide 

adequate legal authority to administer 

and enforce the program. The program 

description must demonstrate that the 

State, Territorial, or Tribal program is at 

least as protective as the Federal 

program and that it provides for 

adequate enforcement. 

To be eligible for authorization to 

administer and enforce renovation 

programs, State, Territorial, and Tribal 

renovation programs must contain 

certain minimum elements that are very 

similar to the minimum elements 

required for lead-based paint activities 

programs. In order to be authorized, 

State, Territorial, or Tribal programs 

must have procedures and requirements 

for the accreditation of training 

programs, the training of renovators, 

and the certification of renovators or 

renovation firms. At a minimum, the 

program requirements must include 

accredited training for renovators and 

procedures and requirements for recertification. State, Territorial, and 

Tribal programs applying for 

authorization are also required to 

include work practice standards for 

renovations that ensure that renovations 

are conducted only by certified 

renovators or renovation firms and that 

renovations are conducted using work 

practices at least as protective as those 

of the Federal program. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

These training, certification and 

accreditation requirements; State, 

Territorial, and Tribal authorization 

provisions; and work practice standards 

are being promulgated under the 

authority of TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 

404, 406, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 

2684, 2686, and 2687, and in a manner 

that is consistent with TSCA section 

2(c), 15 U.S.C. 2601(c). 

III. Provisions of this Final Rule 

This unit describes the specific 

provisions of the final regulation and 

discusses the major comments received. 

A. Scope of the Final Rule 

EPA is amending the existing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

E (the ‘‘Pre-Renovation Education 

Rule’’), that implement TSCA section 

406(b) to add training and certification 

requirements, as well as work practice 

standards, for certain renovation, repair, 

and painting projects performed for 

compensation in target housing and in 

child-occupied facilities. 

1. Buildings covered—a. Target 

housing. The requirements of this final 

rule apply to renovations performed for 

compensation within and on the 

exteriors of target housing units, 

including renovations performed for 

compensation in common areas, such as 

hallways, stairways, and laundry and 

recreational rooms, in multi-unit target 

housing. The term ‘‘target housing’’ is 

defined in TSCA section 401 as any 

housing constructed before 1978, except 

housing for the elderly or persons with 

disabilities (unless any child under age 

6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing) or any 0–bedroom dwelling. 

Several commenters were concerned 

about the exclusion of 0–bedroom 

dwellings from the definition of ‘‘target 

housing.’’ These commenters noted that 

this effectively excludes a significant 

subset of housing where children live, 

particularly studio or efficiency 

apartments and certain low-income 

housing such as single-room occupancy 

hotels. One commenter stated that, in 

his city, at least 400 families with more 

than 700 children live in single-room 

occupancy hotels, and these hotels 

constitute some of oldest housing in 

their city. Other commenters were 

concerned about the exclusion of 

housing for the elderly (or persons with 

disabilities) unless any child under age 

6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

housing. These commenters suggested 

that EPA not exempt such housing 

because children may be present for a 

substantial amount of time. One 

commenter noted that, because some 

children spend 40 or more hours per 

week at their grandparents’ home, 

eliminating housing for the elderly from 

the rule would place an inordinate 

number of young children at risk. 

Another commenter observed that 

unless the building is reserved for 

elderly residents only, the likelihood of 

children living in a multi-unit building 

and being exposed to lead hazards in 

common areas is high. 

EPA understands and shares the 

concerns of these commenters. 

However, these exclusions were 

established by Congress in Title X. The 

exclusions and limitations in the 

exclusions appear consistent with a 

focus on housing where children under 

age 6 reside. Nonetheless, EPA does 

wish to point out that this regulation 

and other existing TSCA regulations 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

cover activities in common areas that 

are accessible to residents of target 

housing units. Thus, renovations in 

common areas in a building built before 

1978 that contains both housing units 

reserved for the elderly and regular 

housing units would be covered by this 

rule. In addition, as described more 

fully in Unit III.G. of this preamble, 

States, Territories and Tribes may 

choose to develop and implement their 

own lead renovation, repair, and 

painting programs. Such programs may 

be more stringent than this Federal 

regulation and could, therefore, cover 0– 

bedroom dwellings or housing for the 

elderly. 

Finally, one commenter questioned 

the existing definition of‘‘multi-family 

housing’’ in 40 CFR 745.83, which 

defines the term as a ‘‘housing property 

consisting of more than four dwelling 

units.’’ The commenter referred to the 

definition of ‘‘multi-family dwelling’’ in 

40 CFR 745.223 which does not limit 

the term to a specific number of units, 

and questioned why smaller multifamily housing such as duplexes should 

not be included in the definition in 40 

CFR 745.83. This commenter and others 

contended that it is important to cover 

common areas, including building 

exteriors, in all multi-unit target 

housing. In response to these 

commenters, EPA is deleting the 

definition of ‘‘multi-family housing’’ 

from 40 CFR 745.83 because the term is 

not used in this final rule. This final 

rule covers renovations in common 

areas, including building exteriors, of 

multi-unit buildings regardless of the 

number of units contained in the 

building. In addition, the deletion of 

this definition will also make it clear 

that the existing Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule provisions also apply to 

the same renovations covered by this 

final rule. 

b. Child-occupied facilities. The 

certification, training, recordkeeping, 

and work practice standards of this final 

rule also apply to renovations for 

compensation in child-occupied 

facilities. As discussed in the preamble 

to the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, 

numerous commenters on the 2006 

Proposal requested that EPA cover 

child-occupied facilities under this 

regulation and suggested that EPA use 

the existing definition of ‘‘childoccupied facility’’ in 40 CFR 745.223. In 

response, the 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal included a definition of 

‘‘child-occupied facility’’ that was based 

upon the existing definition, with 

modifications to make it consistent with 

the provisions of the 2006 Proposal. 

EPA also proposed to modify the 

definition to clarify, for child-occupied 

facilities located in public or 

commercial buildings, which portions 

of the building would be considered 

part of the child-occupied facility for 

purposes of this rulemaking. EPA 

received several comments suggesting 

modifications to the proposed 

definition, but (with the exception of 

one small clarification) EPA is retaining 

the proposed definition for the reasons 

discussed below. The final rule’s 

definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’ is 

as follows: 

‘‘Child-occupied facility’’ means a 

building, or portion of a building, 

constructed prior to 1978, visited 

regularly by the same child, under 6 

years of age, on at least 2 different days 

within any week (Sunday through 

Saturday period), provided that each 

day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the 

combined weekly visits last at least 6 

hours, and the combined annual visits 

last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 

facilities may include, but are not 

limited to, day care centers, preschools 

and kindergarten classrooms. Childoccupied facilities may be located in 

target housing or in public or 

commercial buildings. With respect to 

common areas in public or commercial 

buildings that contain child-occupied 

facilities, the child-occupied facility 

encompasses only those common areas 

that are routinely used by children 

under age 6, such as restrooms and 

cafeterias. Common areas that children 

under age 6 only pass through, such as 

hallways, stairways, and garages are not 

included. In addition, with respect to 

exteriors of public or commercial 

buildings that contain child–occupied 

facilities, the child–occupied facility 

encompasses only the exterior sides of 

the building that are immediately 

adjacent to the child–occupied facility 

or the common areas routinely used by 

children under age 6. 

EPA added the introductory clauses 

‘‘with respect to common areas’’ and 

‘‘with respect to exteriors of’’ to the 

sentences describing the applicability of 

the rule to common areas and exteriors 

of public or commercial buildings 

because EPA was concerned that people 

would be confused about the area 

defined by the term ‘‘child-occupied 

facility’’ in those situations. 

Most of the commenters on the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal expressed 

support for including child-occupied 

facilities within the universe of 

buildings covered by this rulemaking. 

Several commenters requested that EPA 

provide a more clear definition of public 

buildings that contain child-occupied 

facilities or additional examples of such 

facilities. However, EPA is not aware of 

additional examples that could be 

included in the definition to make the 

applicability of this rule clearer. One 

commenter believed that a definition 

based upon the amount of time a child 

spends at a facility would be 

unworkable. 

EPA disagrees with the comment that 

a time-based definition of childoccupied facility is unworkable. A timebased definition has been a part of the 

Lead-based Paint Activities Program 

under TSCA section 402(a) for more 

than 10 years and EPA is not aware of 

any significant implementation 

difficulties. As initially proposed in 

1994, the Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) 

would have contained one set of 

requirements for the training and 

certification of contractors and the 

accreditation of training programs, as 

well as specific work practice standards 

that would have applied to lead-based 

paint activities conducted in target 

housing and public buildings (Ref. 23). 

A different set of requirements would 

have applied to lead-based paint 

activities conducted in commercial 

buildings and on bridges and other 

structures. The 1994 proposal would 

have defined public buildings to 

include all buildings generally open to 

the public or occupied or visited by 

children, such as stores, museums, 

airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals, 

and government buildings, as well as 

schools and day care centers. During the 

comment period, a significant majority 

of commenters expressed the concern 

that applying these regulations to 

activities in all of the buildings that EPA 

would consider public would result in 

significant costs without a comparable 

reduction in lead-based paint exposures 

for children under age 6, the population 

most vulnerable to lead exposures. 

Many of these commenters 

recommended that EPA focus its 

attention on buildings that are 

frequented by children, rather than on 

buildings that may be briefly visited by 

children. 

In response to these comments, EPA 

established, in the final rule, a subset of 

the buildings EPA had intended to 

define as public. This subset, called 

‘‘child-occupied facilities,’’ was 

delineated in terms of the frequency and 

duration of visits by children (Ref. 4). 

These primarily consist of public 

buildings where young children receive 

care or instruction on a regular basis, 

such as child care centers and 

kindergarten classrooms. The Agency’s 

decision to define child-occupied 

facilities as a sub-category of public 

buildings was based on one of the key 

objectives of the Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations, which was to 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21707 

prevent lead exposures among young 

children. The Agency reasoned that 

children face an equal, if not greater, 

risk from lead-based paint hazards in 

schools and day care centers as they do 

at home. Indeed, EPA was concerned 

that children could spend more time in 

a particular classroom or day care room 

in a given day or week than they might 

spend in a single room in their homes. 

With respect to the type of building 

covered, this regulation will operate in 

much the same way as the Lead-based 

Paint Activities Regulations. In most 

cases, office buildings without child 

care facilities, museums, stores, airports, 

and restaurants will not be covered by 

this rule. Although there may be large 

numbers of children present at any 

given time in these kinds of buildings, 

individual children are not likely to be 

there often enough and long enough to 

qualify the building as a child-occupied 

facility. 

Some commenters appeared to be 

confused about whether the definition 

of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’ covers 

housing where informal or unpaid care 

is provided, such as the homes of 

relatives and neighbors. Whether or not 

a building is a child-occupied facility 

does not depend upon whether the 

owner or operator of the child-occupied 

facility is somehow compensated for the 

child’s presence. Indeed, the first 

sentence of the definition makes this 

clear in stating that a child-occupied 

facility is a ‘‘building, or portion of a 

building, constructed prior to 1978, 

visited regularly by the same child . . .’’ 

The word ‘‘visited’’ is very broad, it 

includes visits to a relative’s house or a 

neighbor’s house as well as visits to a 

child-care facility or school. 

Except in owner-occupied target 

housing, as discussed below, the firm 

performing the renovation is responsible 

for determining whether a building is a 

child-occupied facility. This can be 

accomplished in any number of ways. A 

stand-alone child care center is likely to 

have a name that suggests that it 

provides child care, and the center’s 

status as a child-occupied facility 

should be obvious upon entering the 

center. Child care centers in office 

buildings are likely to have 

informational signs posted and the 

centers are likely to be identified in the 

building directory. Elementary schools 

are likely to have kindergarten 

classrooms. The renovation firm should 

inquire about the presence of a childoccupied facility when contracting to 

perform renovation services in a public 

or commercial building. However, a 

statement by the building owner or 

manager that there is no child-occupied 

facility in the building may not be relied 

upon in the face of evidence to the 

contrary. 

Several commenters felt that EPA had 

inappropriately limited the space 

encompassed by achild-occupied 

facility in a public or commercial 

building. These commenters thought 

that EPA should follow the approach 

used for common areas in multi-family 

housing. Under this approach, the rule 

would cover renovations for 

compensation in all areas normally 

accessible to the children using the 

child-occupied facility. However, 

children under age 6 are likely to spend 

less time in the hallways and stairways 

of public or commercial buildings than 

they do in common areas in the 

buildings where they live. It is also 

likely that children under age 6 walking 

to and from a child care center in an 

office building, or to and from a 

classroom in a school building, will be 

closely supervised and will not be 

permitted to walk through active 

renovation work sites. Although some 

exposure is possible in these areas, they 

are more akin to general public and 

commercial buildings that children may 

enter but where they are not expected to 

spend significant amounts of time than 

to the exposures associated with childoccupied facilities, and EPA’s hazard 

standards are applicable to residents 

and residential-type settings. In 

addition, EPA is concerned that 

application of this final rule to all 

common areas of public or commercial 

buildings that may house a childoccupied facility in a small portion of 

the building would likely result in 

minimal benefit to the children at a 

potentially large cost. 

c. Other public or commercial 

buildings. A number of commenters 

noted that TSCA section 402(c)(3) 

directs EPA to address renovation or 

remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards not only in target 

housing, but also in public buildings 

constructed before 1978, and 

commercial buildings. Most of these 

commenters, commenting on the 2006 

Proposal, expressed the greatest concern 

over EPA’s failure to address buildings 

where young children spend significant 

amounts of time, or child-occupied 

facilities. However, a handful of 

commenters argued that EPA also 

needed to address other public and 

commercial buildings under the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program. 

TSCA section 402(c)(3) provides 

authority for EPA to regulate renovation 

or remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards. EPA has, by 

regulation under TSCA section 403, 

identified lead-based paint hazards for 

purposes of Title IV. These hazard 

standards were developed by evaluating 

exposure patterns and hazard 

information for young children and 

taking into account costs and benefits. 

They are only applicable in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities, 

places where young children are likely 

to be present for significant periods of 

time. Although EPA realizes that lead 

exposure for older children and adults 

can result in adverse health effects, 

effects which are discussed in chapter 5 

of the Final Economic Analysis for the 

Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program (‘‘Final Economic Analysis’’) 

(Ref. 24), EPA has not evaluated the 

exposure and hazard information for 

these groups in the same way that it has 

for young children. EPA has not 

evaluated the potential adverse health 

effects and associated them with a 

specific level of surface dust that will 

result in a blood lead level in an older 

child or an adult that is likely to cause 

a particular adverse effect. Nor has EPA 

evaluated the potential health effects to 

young children from the less frequent 

exposures that might arise in public and 

commercial buildings that are not childoccupied facilities. At this time, EPA 

does not have sufficient information 

with which to conclude that renovation 

and remodeling activities in buildings 

not frequented by young children, e.g., 

public or commercial buildings that are 

not child-occupied facilities, create 

lead-based paint hazards because EPA’s 

TSCA section 403 hazard standards only 

apply to target housing and childoccupied facilities. EPA has no hazard 

standards to apply in other situations. 

Thus, this rule, like the Lead-based 

Paint Activities Regulations, only 

applies in target housing and childoccupied facilities. 

2. Activities covered—a. Renovations 

for compensation. This rule, like the 

Pre-Renovation Education Rule, only 

applies to persons who perform 

renovations for compensation. As 

discussed in the preamble to the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal, for the 

purposes of this regulation, 

compensation includes pay for work 

performed, such as that paid to 

contractors and subcontractors; wages, 

such as those paid to employees of 

contractors, building owners, property 

management companies, child-occupied 

facility operators, State and local 

government agencies, and non-profits; 

and rent for target housing or public or 

commercial building space. 

Although the owner of rental property 

may not be compensated for 

maintenance and repair work at the time 

that the work is performed, tenants 

generally pay rent for the right to 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

occupy rental space as well as for 

maintenance services in that space. 

Thus, renovations performed by 

renovation contractors and their 

employees in target housing or childoccupied facilities are covered, as are 

renovations by owners of rental target 

housing or child-occupied facilities, if 

the child-occupied facility leases space. 

Renovations in target housing or in 

child-occupied facilities are covered if 

they are performed by employees of the 

renovation contractor, the building 

owner, the building manager, a State or 

local government agency, a non-profit 

organization, or the child-occupied 

facility operator, and the employees 

receive wages or other compensation for 

the work performed. Child care 

payments, in and of themselves, are not 

considered compensation for 

renovations. An agreement to provide 

child care in exchange for a payment is 

not a contract for building maintenance 

services in the same way that a lease or 

other agreement between a landlord and 

a tenant generally is. 

One commenter requested that EPA 

consider payments for child care to be 

compensation for renovations. A 

number of other commenters expressed 

a general concern over the fact that EPA 

was not proposing to cover do-ityourself renovations in owner-occupied 

target housing. Some of these 

commenters cited research or 

observations suggesting that improperly 

performed renovations by homeowners, 

relatives, or friends are equally likely, if 

not more likely, to cause elevated blood 

lead levels as renovations performed by 

professional contractors. The most 

commonly cited study for this 

proposition was the Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study, 

commissioned by EPA as Phase III of the 

Renovation and Remodeling Study 

performed pursuant to TSCA section 

402(c)(2). As described more fully in the 

preamble to the 2006 Proposal, in 

homes where renovation and 

remodeling activities had been 

performed, the analysis of the results of 

the Wisconsin Study indicated the 

following ordering of the five possible 

responses to the question of who 

performed the renovation and 

remodeling, in order of highest to lowest 

risk of increased odds of an elevated 

blood lead level: 

• Relative or friend not in 

household. 

• Paid professional. 

• Owner or building superintendent. 

• Head of household or spouse. 

• Other person in household. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

2007 Supplemental Proposal, EPA does 

not believe that child-care payments 

represent compensation for renovations 

in the same way that rent is. 

Furthermore, as discussed in the Final 

Economic Analysis, the overwhelming 

majority of child-occupied facilities 

covered by this final rule are located in 

target housing. Some of that housing is 

rental target housing, and renovations in 

rental target housing are covered by this 

final rule regardless of whether a childoccupied facility is present. With 

respect to child-occupied facilities 

located in owner-occupied target 

housing and do-it-yourself renovations 

in owner-occupied target housing in 

general, EPA believes that it would be 

inconsistent with Congressional intent 

to cover these renovations. 

EPA has previously determined that 

Congress was most concerned with the 

certification and training of contractors, 

not homeowners. In the preamble to the 

proposed Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations, EPA reviewed section 1021 

of the Residential Lead-Based Paint 

Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, the 

section that added Title IV to TSCA, and 

determined that the emphasis under 

section 402 of TSCA ought to be the 

certification and training of contractors, 

not homeowners (Ref. 23). In its review, 

EPA declared that TSCA section 

402(c)(3), the section under which this 

final rule is being issued, shows that 

Congressional ‘‘focus was on the need to 

regulate contractors doing renovation 

and remodeling activities, and not 

homeowners doing renovation and 

remodeling of their own homes’’ (Ref. 

23). Specifically, TSCA section 402(c)(3) 

directs EPA to revise the TSCA section 

402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations to apply to renovation and 

remodeling activities. In so doing, EPA 

is to determine ‘‘which contractors are 

engaged in such activities.’’ TSCA 

section 402(c)(3) (emphasis added). EPA 

thus interprets the statutory directive to 

regulate remodeling and renovation 

activities found in TSCA section 

402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and 

not a broader category of persons, such 

as homeowners. 

With respect to do-it-yourself 

renovations in child-occupied facilities 

in target housing, as stated above, 

although payment is received in 

exchange for childcare, EPA does not 

consider this to be a contract for 

building maintenance. As discussed in 

the previous paragraph, Congress 

intended to cover renovation 

contractors, not homeowners who 

perform renovations on their own 

homes. 

However, as previously discussed, 

EPA intends to conduct an outreach and 

education campaign designed to 

encourage homeowners and other 

building owners to follow lead-safe 

work practices while performing 

renovations or hire a certified 

renovation firm to do so. 

b. Definition of ‘‘renovation.’’ The 

universe of renovation activities covered 

by this rule is virtually identical to the 

renovation activities already regulated 

under the Pre-Renovation Education 

Rule--essentially, activities that modify 

an existing structure and that result in 

the disturbance of painted surfaces. All 

types of repair, remodeling, 

modernization, and weatherization 

projects are covered, including projects 

performed as part of another Federal, 

State, or local program, if the projects 

meet the definition of ‘‘renovation’’ 

already codified in 40 CFR 745.83. 

As discussed in Unit IV.B.3. of the 

preamble to the 2006 Proposal, EPA 

considered a number of options for 

defining the term ‘‘renovation’’ for the 

Pre-Renovation Education Rule, and 

chose a definition that focuses on the 

activities of greatest concern to EPA, 

activities that disturb lead-based paint. 

This definition also covers virtually all 

of the types of activities in the 

Environmental Field Sampling Study 

that created lead-based paint hazards. In 

this rulemaking, EPA received several 

comments requesting clarification on 

the definition; some of these 

commenters were particularly interested 

in the types of jobs that would be 

covered by this definition. One 

commenter requested that, if EPA 

intended to cover maintenance and 

repair projects and interim control 

projects, the definition of ‘‘renovation’’ 

be modified to specifically include 

those projects. Another commenter 

requested that EPA specifically mention 

weatherization projects as an example of 

the types of projects covered by the rule. 

Several commenters suggested that the 

definition should clearly delineate the 

boundaries between renovation and 

abatement. 

EPA also received several responses 

to its requests for comment on whether 

to exclude any category of specialty 

contractor and whether certain 

renovation activities, such as HVAC 

duct work, which may result in the 

disturbance of limited amounts of leadbased paint, should be specifically 

included or excluded. A state agency 

contended that exterior siding projects, 

HVAC duct work, and wallpaper 

removal should not be excluded, noting 

that wallpaper removal was implicated 

in a lead poisoning case the agency 

investigated. Another commenter 

argued that many interior and exterior 

painting projects involve washing, scuffsanding, and scraping to remove loose 

materials, and that such ‘‘common’’ and 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21709 

‘‘relatively benign’’ industry practices 

should not be regulated. Other 

commenters argued that there should be 

no categorical exemption for any type of 

specialty contractor. Most commenters 

on this issue contended that the amount 

of lead-based paint disturbed, rather 

than the type of project or contractor 

involved, should control the 

applicability of the rule. 

EPA specifically disagrees that scuffsanding and scraping are ‘‘benign,’’ 

especially in light of the dust lead levels 

generated by dry scraping in the Dust 

Study. The geometric mean post-work, 

pre-cleaning dust lead levels resulting 

from dry scraping were 2,686 μg/ft2. 

After baseline cleaning procedures, the 

geometric mean was still 66 μg/ft2. 

When the work practices required by 

the final rule were used, the geometric 

mean was 30 μg/ft2. As stated above, all 

of the renovation activities in the Dust 

Study and the other studies in the 

record for this final rule created leadbased paint hazards. Therefore, this 

regulation will not exempt any category 

of specialty contractor or any specific 

type of renovation. EPA notes, however, 

that it has not prohibited the use of dry 

scraping or dry hand sanding. More 

information on prohibited renovation 

practices can be found in Unit III.E.4. of 

this preamble. EPA also notes that some 

small jobs will be exempt from the 

requirements of this final rule under the 

minor repair and maintenance 

exception. 

EPA has also determined that, based 

on the comments, some changes to the 

proposed definition of the term 

‘‘renovation’’ are necessary to ensure 

that everyone understands that all types 

of building renovation, repair, and 

painting projects are covered, so long as 

painted surfaces are disturbed. The 

following definition of ‘‘renovation’’ 

will be incorporated into 40 CFR 745.83. 

Renovation means the modification of 

any existing structure, or portion 

thereof, that results in the disturbance of 

painted surfaces, unless that activity is 

performed as part of an abatement as 

defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223). 

The term renovation includes (but is not 

limited to): The removal, modification 

or repair of painted surfaces or painted 

components (e.g., modification of 

painted doors, surface restoration, 

window repair, surface preparation 

activity (such as sanding, scraping, or 

other such activities that may generate 

paint dust)); the removal of building 

components (e.g., walls, ceilings, 

plumbing, windows); weatherization 

projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted 

surfaces to install blown-in insulation or 

to gain access to attics, planing 

thresholds to install weather-stripping), 

and interim controls. A renovation 

performed for the purpose of converting 

a building, or part of a building, into 

target housing or a child-occupied 

facility is a renovation under this 

subpart. The term renovation does not 

include minor repair and maintenance 

activities. 

EPA added ‘‘repair,’’ ‘‘surface 

restoration,’’ ‘‘window repair,’’ 

‘‘weatherization,’’ and ‘‘interim 

controls’’ to the definition to make it 

clear that all of these activities are 

covered by this definition if they disturb 

painted surfaces. EPA also separated the 

removal and the modification of 

building components to provide clarity. 

In addition, EPA provided examples of 

weatherization activities and building 

component removal. Finally, EPA added 

a sentence to ensure that it is clear that 

renovations performed to turn a 

building into target housing or a childoccupied facility are covered. 

Thus, interim control projects and 

weatherization projects that disturb 

painted surfaces are renovations. In 

addition, under this definition, the line 

between renovation and abatement is 

clear. Any renovation, repair, 

maintenance, or painting project is a 

renovation potentially covered by this 

rule unless the purpose of the project is 

to permanently eliminate lead-based 

paint or lead-based paint hazards. In 

that case, the project is an abatement. 

Covered renovations must be performed 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart E, while covered abatements 

must be performed in accordance with 

40 CFR part 745, subpart L. 

3. Exceptions—a. Owner-occupied 

target housing that is neither the 

residence of a child under age 6 or a 

pregnant woman, nor a child-occupied 

facility. The 2006 Proposal proposed to 

establish an exception that would allow 

owner-occupants of target housing to 

opt-out of having renovation firms use 

the work practices that would be 

required by the rule. The proposed 

exception provided that if the owneroccupant signed a statement that no 

child under 6 resided there, the 

renovation would be exempt from the 

training, certification, and work practice 

requirements of the regulation. The 

2007 Supplemental Proposal narrowed 

this exception. Under the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal, owneroccupied target housing where no child 

under age 6 resides would not be 

eligible for this exception if the housing 

meets the definition of ‘‘child-occupied 

facility.’’ This final rule retains this 

exception, but further narrows it to 

exclude housing where pregnant women 

reside. In addition, to make it clear to 

the property owner what the effect of 

the signed statement is, EPA has 

modified the requirements to include an 

acknowledgment by the owner that the 

renovation firm will not be required to 

use the lead-safe work practices 

contained in EPA’s renovation, repair, 

and painting rule. Thus, unless the 

target housing meets the definition of a 

child-occupied facility, if an owneroccupant signed a statement that no 

child under 6 and no pregnant woman 

reside there and an acknowledgment 

that the renovation firm will not be 

required to use the lead-safe work 

practices contained in EPA’s renovation, 

repair, and painting rule, the renovation 

activity is exempt from the training, 

certification, and work practice 

requirements of the rule. Conversely, if 

the owner-occupant does not sign the 

certification and acknowledgement 

(even if no children under 6 or no 

pregnant women reside there), or if the 

owner-occupant chooses not to take 

advantage of the exception for other 

reasons, the exception does not apply 

and the renovation is subject to the 

requirements of this final rule. 

EPA asked for and received numerous 

comments on this aspect of the 2006 

Proposal. Several commenters 

supported EPA’s focus on housing 

where children under age 6 reside, 

citing the need to target society’s 

resources towards the housing that 

presents the greatest risk. One 

commenter also noted that this 

provision would help keep renovation 

costs down for low-income homeowners 

without children. Most commenters, 

however, did not agree with EPA’s 

proposal to allow homeowners with no 

children under age 6 who occupy their 

own homes to opt out of the rule’s 

requirements. These commenters cited a 

number of reasons for their position, 

including the fact that children visit 

homes where they do not reside, and 

newly renovated housing may be sold to 

a family with young children regardless 

of whether children were in residence 

when the renovation occurred. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

about pregnant women, given that the 

transplacental transfer of lead in 

humans is well documented, and 

infants are generally born with a lead 

body burden reflecting that of the 

mother. This led some commenters to 

suggest that women of child-bearing age 

and girls between the ages of 6 and 14 

also deserve special protection, because 

any lead body burden that they acquire 

through uncontrolled renovations will 

be passed on to any children they may 

eventually have. 

EPA has carefully considered the 

issues and concerns raised with respect 

to exceptions to the rule. On the one 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21710 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

hand, EPA agrees with the commenters 

that believed it was important to focus 

this regulation on the housing that 

presents the greatest risk to young 

children. EPA is mindful of the impacts 

this regulation may have on the 

affordability of renovations, particularly 

for low-income homeowners. EPA 

believes that primarily focusing 

society’s resources on the housing that 

presents the greatest risk to children is 

consistent with Congressional intent. In 

the Senate report on Title X, Congress 

noted the need ‘‘for a flexible, targeted 

approach for protecting children from 

exposure to lead hazards while 

maintaining housing affordability’’ (Ref. 

25). The report also noted that 

‘‘exposure to lead is primarily caused by 

ingesting paint dust or chips,’’ which is 

the route of exposure of concern 

primarily for young children, ages 18– 

27 months. Indeed, in the Congressional 

findings for Title X, Congress focused 

on the lead poisoning of children and 

the need to address this as a national 

priority. [Sec. 1002, Public Law 102– 

550]. The focus on children can also be 

inferred from the very definition of 

‘‘target housing’’ which on the one hand 

excludes housing for the elderly and 

disabled ‘‘unless a child under six 

resides or is expected to reside’’ there. 

Similarly, this final rule focuses on the 

population most at risk and does not 

provide any exceptions if a child under 

age 6 resides in the target housing to be 

renovated. 

On the other hand, EPA understands 

and shares some of the concerns 

expressed by those commenters who did 

not support an exception for owneroccupied target housing where no child 

under 6 resides. In balancing these 

countervailing considerations, EPA has 

further limited this exception to owneroccupied target housing that does not 

meet the definition of a child-occupied 

facility because no child under 6 is 

present on a regular basis and in which 

no pregnant women reside. This has the 

effect of focusing this regulation 

primarily on renovations performed in 

buildings where children under age 6 

reside or spend a great deal of time or 

in which a pregnant woman resides. 

With regard to older children and 

adults, it is important to remember that 

the hazards presented by a particular 

floor or windowsill dust lead level are 

markedly different for a toddler than for 

an older child or an adult. As discussed 

in EPA’s most recent Air Quality 

Criteria for Lead document, hand-tomouth behavior is an important means 

of exposure for children. The period of 

peak exposure, reflected in peak blood 

lead levels, is around 18–27 months 

when hand-to-mouth activity is at its 

maximum. This leads to a high rate of 

ingestion of dust at a time when 

children are believed to be particularly 

vulnerable to the neurological effects of 

lead exposure. While lead exposure 

continues to affect older children and 

adults, these individuals do not ingest 

dust at the same high rate that a toddler 

does. Therefore, the same floor dust 

level will present a much greater hazard 

for the young child than it will for the 

older child or adult. The lead-based 

paint hazard standards in 40 CFR part 

745, subpart D, were established with 

reference to impacts on childhood blood 

lead levels based principally on handto-mouth activity, and EPA has not 

assessed the effect of dust lead levels or 

other potential sources of lead-based 

paint hazards on older children or 

adults. 

However, EPA is particularly 

concerned about exposure to pregnant 

women because while the exposure 

patterns for small children and older 

children and adults are different, once 

exposed a pregnant woman can transfer 

lead to the developing fetus. 

Epidemiologic evidence indicates that 

lead freely crosses the placenta resulting 

in continued fetal exposure throughout 

pregnancy. Of particular concern is 

transfer to the developing brain of the 

fetus across the poorly developed blood 

brain barrier. Further, a significant 

proportion of lead transferred from the 

mother is incorporated into the 

developing skeletal system of the 

offspring, where it can serve as a 

continuing source of toxic exposure 

(Ref. 1). Thus, EPA agrees with the 

commenters who believed it is 

important to ensure that the work 

practices required in this final rule are 

followed in homes where a pregnant 

woman resides. 

EPA also acknowledges the concern 

expressed by a number of commenters 

that newly renovated housing will be 

sold to a family with young children. If 

the renovation was not performed in 

accordance with the work practices 

prescribed by this rule, a dust-lead 

hazard may be present in the home. 

However, EPA does not believe it is an 

effective use of society’s resources to 

impose this final rule requirements on 

all renovations in order to account for 

the portion of homes without young 

children that will be sold to families 

with young children following 

renovations. Moreover, the Disclosure 

Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, 

requires sellers of target housing to 

disclose known lead-based paint or 

lead-based paint hazard information to 

purchasers and provide them with a 

copy of the lead hazard information 

pamphlet entitledProtect Your Family 

From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 7). In the 

situation described by the commenters, 

the receipt of this information should 

prompt the family to inquire about 

potential lead-based paint hazards in 

the home, particularly if one of the 

selling points is that areas of the home 

have been recently renovated. In 

addition, EPA continues to recommend 

that purchasers take advantage of their 

statutory opportunity to have a leadbased paint inspection or risk 

assessment done while in the process of 

purchasing target housing. 

In response to comments expressing 

concern about this exception from this 

final rule, EPA has further considered 

the proposed owner-occupant 

acknowledgement statement and 

concluded that it is important that 

homeowners understand the effect of 

the acknowledgement. Accordingly, 

EPA has clarified and expanded the 

acknowledgement language to ensure 

that it is clear and consistent. In 

addition, EPA would like to make it 

clear that even if the housing to be 

renovated qualifies for this exception, 

the homeowner may always choose to 

have the renovation firm follow the 

work practices required by this rule. For 

example, the homeowner may be 

concerned about potential exposures for 

visiting children who do not visit often 

enough to make the housing a childoccupied facility. The homeowner may 

also be concerned that she may be 

pregnant, even though she is not yet 

certain. EPA has added a statement to 

the sample acknowledgment form that 

would allow the homeowner to state 

that the housing does qualify for the 

exception, but the homeowner wishes 

the renovation firm to follow the 

requirements of this rule anyway. 

EPA would like to reiterate that this 

exception applies only to target housing 

that is occupied by its owner. For a 

number of reasons, this exception is not 

available in rental target housing, 

whether young children are present or 

not. First, tenants are likely to have 

much less control over renovations in 

their housing than owners. Next, as 

pointed out by some commenters, there 

is more turnover in rental housing than 

in owner-occupied housing. In many 

cases, renovations are done between 

tenants and it may not be known who 

will be occupying the unit next. Finally, 

as noted by at least two commenters, 

exempting renovations in rental housing 

that is not occupied by a child under 

age 6 could cause discrimination in the 

rental housing market against families 

with young children. Nearly all of the 

commenters on this issue agreed with 

this approach. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21711 

Several commenters expressed 

reservations about the ability of 

renovation firms to determine whether 

housing to be renovated is eligible for 

this exception. As discussed in both 

proposals, EPA believes that it could be 

difficult for a renovation firm to 

determine whether a child under age 6 

resides in a particular unit of target 

housing or whether the housing is a 

child-occupied facility or whether a 

woman is pregnant. EPA will therefore 

allow renovation firms to rely on a 

signed statement from the owner of the 

housing that he or she is the owner of 

the housing to be renovated, that he or 

she resides in the housing to be 

renovated, that no child under 6 or 

pregnant woman resides there, that the 

housing does not meet the definition of 

a child-occupied facility, and that the 

owner acknowledges that the renovation 

firm will not be required to use the leadsafe work practices contained in this 

final rule. In the absence of such a 

signed statement, the renovation firm 

must comply with all of the regulation’s 

requirements. If the renovation firm 

obtains such a statement, the renovation 

firm is not subject to the work practice 

and other requirements of this final rule. 

EPA will not hold the renovation firm 

responsible for misrepresentations on 

the part of the owner of the housing. 

Renovations in common areas of owneroccupied multi-unit target housing, 

such as condominiums, must be 

performed in accordance with the 

requirements of this rule unless the 

renovation firm obtains a signed 

statement from each occupant with 

access to the common area that the 

occupant is the owner of the housing 

unit, that he or she resides there, that no 

child under age 6 or pregnant woman 

resides there, that the housing does not 

meet the definition of child-occupied 

facility, and that the owner understands 

that the renovation firm will not be 

required to use the work practices 

contained in this final rule. 

Finally, some commenters argued that 

TSCA section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to 

cover all renovations in target housing 

regardless of whether the housing is the 

residence of a child under age 6 or a 

child-occupied facility. This regulation 

covers all target housing. In order to 

perfect a claim for the exception for 

owner-occupied target housing that is 

not the residence of a child under age 

6 or a pregnant woman or a childoccupied facility, the renovation firm 

must obtain the owner’s signature on a 

form indicating that the housing 

qualifies for the exception and the 

owner is opting out of the training, 

certification, and work practice 

requirements of this rule. In addition, 

the form and regulation provide the 

option for a homeowner to request that 

the work conform to the requirements of 

this final rule even in homes without 

young children or pregnant women. 

EPA believes homeowners without 

young children or who reside in homes 

without pregnant women should be able 

to choose whether or not work done in 

their own homes conforms to the 

requirements of this final rule. EPA has 

determined that allowing these owneroccupants to opt out of the training, 

certification, and work practice 

requirements of the rule does not 

significantly compromise the safety and 

effectiveness of this rule because the 

limitations on the applicability of the 

exception with respect to children 

under 6 and pregnant women serve to 

minimize the possibility that a young 

child or a pregnant woman will be 

exposed to a lead-based paint hazard 

resulting from a renovation in target 

housing. 

b. Renovations affecting only 

components free of regulated lead-based 

paint—i. Determination by certified 

inspector or risk assessor. In keeping 

with the 2006 Proposal and the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal, this final rule 

exempts renovations that affect only 

components that a certified inspector or 

risk assessor has determined are free of 

paint or other surface coatings that 

contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 

mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. These 

standards are from the definition of 

lead-based paint in Title X and in EPA’s 

implementing regulations. Nearly all of 

the commenters that expressed an 

opinion on this topic favored this 

exception. The determination that any 

particular component is free of leadbased paint may be made as part of a 

lead-based paint inspection of an entire 

housing unit or building, or on a 

component-by-component basis. 

Some commenters expressed 

confusion over the mechanics of this 

exception. The certified inspector or 

risk assessor determines whether 

components contain lead-based paint, 

while the renovation firm is responsible 

for determining which components will 

be affected by the renovation. A 

renovation firm may rely on the report 

of a past inspection or risk assessment 

that addresses the components that will 

be disturbed by the renovation. 

ii. Determination by certified 

renovator using EPA-recognized test 

kits. Also in accordance with both of the 

proposals, this final rule exempts 

renovations that affect only components 

that a certified renovator, using a test kit 

recognized by EPA, determines are free 

of lead-based paint. EPA has deleted the 

regulatory thresholds for lead-based 

paint from this definition because they 

unnecessarily complicate the exception. 

As discussed in Unit III.C.1. of this 

preamble, a certified renovator is a 

person who has taken an accredited 

course in work practices. This training 

will include how to properly use the 

EPA-approved test kits. This final rule 

also establishes the process EPA will 

use to recognize test kits. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

2006 Proposal, research on the use of 

currently available kits for testing lead 

in paint has been published by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) (Ref. 26). The 

research indicates that there are test kits 

on the market that, when used by a 

trained professional, can reliably 

determine that regulated lead-based 

paint is not present by virtue of a 

negative result. Based on this research, 

EPA proposed to initially recognize test 

kits that have, for paint containing lead 

at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/ 

cm2 or 0.5% by weight, a demonstrated 

probability (with 95% confidence) of a 

negative response less than or equal to 

5% of the time. 

Some commenters, representing a 

variety of interests, supported an 

exception for renovations affecting 

components that have been found to be 

free of regulated lead-based paint by use 

of a test kit. One commenter cited the 

need for faster and cheaper methods of 

accurately checking for lead and 

expressed the opinion that this 

approach will expand access to lead 

screening in homes. Several comments 

were generally supportive, with some 

reservations about kit reliability. 

However, most commenters did not 

favor the use of test kits. The most 

commonly cited reason for not 

supporting this approach was the 

potential conflict-of-interest present in 

having the certified renovator be the one 

to determine whether or not he or she 

must use the work practices required by 

the rule. EPA addressed potential 

conflicts-of-interest in its lead-based 

paint program in the preamble to the 

final Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations. That discussion outlined 

two reasons for not requiring that 

inspections or risk assessments, 

abatements, and post-abatement 

clearance testing all be performed by 

different entities. The first was the cost 

savings and convenience of being able 

to hire just one firm to perform all 

necessary lead-based paint activities. 

The second was the potential regional 

scarcity of firms to perform the work. 

These considerations may also be 

applicable to the renovation sector, 

given the premium on maintaining a 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21712 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

rule that is simple and streamlined and 

does not unduly prolong the timeframes 

for completing renovations. Moreover, it 

is not unusual in regulatory programs to 

allow regulated entities to make 

determinations affecting regulatory 

applicability and compliance. See, e.g., 

40 CFR 262.11 (hazardous waste 

determinations by waste generators 

under RCRA). EPA has decided to take 

an approach that is consistent with the 

approach taken in the 402(a) lead-based 

Paint Activities regulation and not 

require third party testing. 

Another commonly cited reason for 

not supporting the use of test kits by 

certified renovators was the lack of any 

sampling protocol in the regulation. A 

related concern was that the training in 

sampling techniques and protocols in 

the lead-based paint inspector course 

could not be shortened to fit within the 

8–hour renovator course and still retain 

all of the necessary information. EPA 

wishes to make it clear that the 8–hour 

renovator course will not train 

renovators in how to select components 

for sampling because the certified 

renovator must use a test kit on each 

component affected by the renovation. 

The only exception to this is when the 

components make up an integrated 

whole, such as the individual stair 

treads and risers in a staircase. In this 

situation, the renovator need test only 

one such individual component, e.g., a 

single stair tread, unless it is obvious to 

therenovator that the individual 

components have been repainted or 

refinished separately. As such, a 

complicated sampling protocol is not 

necessary. EPA plans to modify the 

EPA/HUD Lead Safe Work Practices 

course to include training on how to use 

a test kit. To ensure that the 

applicability of the exception is clear, 

EPA has also modified 40 CFR 

745.82(a)(2) to specifically state that the 

certified renovator must test each of the 

components that will be affected by the 

renovation. 

iii. Phased implementation and 

improved test kits. Under the proposals, 

the regulatory requirements would have 

taken effect in two major stages, based 

on the age of the building being 

renovated. The first stage would have 

applied to renovations in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities built 

before 1960. Requirements for 

renovations in target housing and childoccupied facilities built between 1960 

and 1978 would have taken effect 1 year 

later. The primary reason for this 

phased implementation was to allow 

time for the development of improved 

test kits. 

According to the National Survey of 

Lead and Allergens in Housing, 24% of 

the housing constructed between 1960 

and 1978 contains lead-based paint (Ref. 

27). In contrast, 69% of the housing 

constructed between 1940 and 1959, 

and 87% of the housing constructed 

before 1940 contains lead-based paint. 

The results of this survey indicate that 

there is a much greater likelihood of 

disturbing lead-based paint during a 

renovation that occurs in a home built 

before 1960 than in a home built after 

that date. The NIST research on existing 

test kits shows that existing test kits 

cannot reliably determine that lead is 

present in paint only above the statutory 

levels because the kits are sensitive to 

lead at levels below the Federal 

standards that define lead-based paint, 

and therefore are prone to a large 

number of false positive results (i.e., a 

positive result when regulated leadbased paint is, in fact, not present). The 

NIST research found that such false 

positive rates range from 42% to 78%. 

This means that the currently available 

kits are not an effective means of 

identifying the 76% of homes built 

between 1960 and 1978 that do not 

contain regulated lead-based paint. 

Research conducted by EPA 

subsequent to the publication of the 

2006 Proposal confirms that the 

sensitivity of test kits could be adjusted 

for paint testing so that the results from 

the kits reliably correspond to one of the 

two Federal standards for lead-based 

paint, 1.0 mg/cm2 and 0.5% by weight. 

EPA’s research and initial contacts with 

potential kit manufacturers also indicate 

that this can be accomplished in the 

near future. As stated in the preamble to 

the 2006 Proposal, EPA’s goal is to 

foster the development of a kit that can 

reliably be used by a person with 

minimal training, is inexpensive, 

provides results within an hour, and is 

demonstrated to have a false positive 

rate of no more than 10% and a false 

negative rate at 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by 

weight of less than 5%. EPA is 

confident that improved test kits 

meeting EPA’s benchmarks will be 

commercially available by September 

2010. 

With this in mind, EPA felt that a 

staged approach would initially address 

the renovations that present the greatest 

risks to children under age 6, i.e., the 

renovations that are most likely to 

disturb lead-based paint, while allowing 

additional time to ensure that the 

improved test kits are commercially 

available before phasing in the 

applicability of the rule to newer target 

housing and child-occupied facilities. 

However, EPA was concerned about 

delaying implementation for post-1960 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities that are occupied or used by 

children under age 6 with increased 

blood lead levels. In order to reduce the 

possibility that an unregulated 

renovation activity would contribute to 

continuing exposures for these children, 

the 2006 Proposal would have required 

renovation firms, during the first year 

that the training, certification, work 

practice and recordkeeping 

requirements are in effect, to provide 

owners and occupants of target housing 

built between 1960 and 1978 and childoccupied facilities built between 1960 

and 1978 the opportunity to inform the 

firm that the building to be renovated is 

the residence of, or is a child-occupied 

facility frequented by, a child under age 

6 with a blood lead level that equals or 

exceeds the CDC level of concern, or a 

lower State or local government level of 

concern. If the owner or occupant 

informs the renovation firm that a child 

under age 6 with an increased blood 

lead level lives in or frequents the 

building to be renovated, the renovation 

firm must comply with all of the 

training, certification, work practice, 

and recordkeeping requirements of this 

regulation. 

Some commenters agreed that a 

staged approach was probably 

necessary, given the number of 

renovations that would be covered by 

the rule, and that a focus on buildings 

built before 1960 was appropriate. 

However, most commenters objected to 

the phased implementation. Some were 

concerned about the potential exposures 

to children in buildings built between 

1960 and 1978 during the first stage of 

the rule. Another major concern 

expressed by commenters was that the 

phased implementation would 

unnecessarily complicate the rule, 

especially with the provision relating to 

children under age 6 with increased 

blood lead levels. These commenters 

felt that, because there already are 

accurate methods for determining 

whether a building contains lead-based 

paint, and because renovation firms 

ought to get into the habit of working in 

a lead-safe manner whenever they are 

working on a building built before 1978, 

the utility of the delay does not 

outweigh the likely confusion in the 

regulated community. Commenters also 

expressed reservations about providing 

sensitive medical information to 

contractors, in the case of children 

under age 6 with increased blood lead 

levels. 

After reviewing the comments and 

weighing all of the factors, including 

EPA’s expectation that the improved 

test kits will be commercially available 

by September 2010, EPA has decided 

not to include a phased implementation 

in this rulemaking. Therefore, this 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21713 

regulation will take effect at the same 

time for target housing and childoccupied facilities regardless of whether 

they were built before or after 1960. 

Nonetheless, if the improved test kits 

are not commercially available by 

September 2010, EPA will initiate a 

rulemaking to extend the effective date 

of this final rule for 1 year with respect 

to owner-occupied target housing built 

after 1960. 

iv. Test kit recognition process. In the 

2006 Proposal, EPA described proposed 

criteria for test kit recognition. 

Specifically, for paint containing lead at 

or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 

or 0.5% by weight, EPA stated its 

intention to only recognize kits that 

have a demonstrated probability (with 

95% confidence) of a negative response 

less than or equal to 5% of the time. In 

addition, as soon as the improved test 

kits are generally available, EPA 

proposed to recognize only those test 

kits that have a demonstrated 

probability (with 95% confidence) of a 

false positive response of no more than 

10% to lead in paint at levels below the 

regulated level. EPA stated its belief that 

limiting recognition to kits that 

demonstrate relatively low rates of false 

positives would benefit the consumer by 

reducing the number of times that the 

training and work practice requirements 

of this regulation are followed in the 

absence of regulated lead-based paint. 

EPA also proposed to require that these 

performance parameters be validated by 

a laboratory independent of the kit 

manufacturer, using ASTM 

International’s E1828, Standard Practice 

for Evaluating the Performance 

Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical 

Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint (Ref. 28) 

or an equivalent validation method. In 

addition, the instructions for use of any 

particular kit would have to conform to 

the results of the validation, and the 

certified renovator would have to follow 

the manufacturer’s instructions when 

using the kit. EPA requested comment 

on whether these standards are 

reasonably achievable and sufficiently 

protective. EPA also solicited input on 

how to conduct the kit recognition 

process. 

Some commenters expressed 

reservations about the proposed 

performance criteria, contending that a 

false negative rate of 5% is too high to 

be protective. However, a 5% false 

negative rate (with 95% confidence) is 

similar to the performance requirements 

for other lead-based paint testing 

methods, such as laboratory analysis 

used for lead-based paint inspections, 

and is considered to be the statistical 

equivalent of zero. Therefore, this final 

rule retains the proposed false-negative 

criteria for test kit recognition, i.e., for 

paint containing lead at or above the 

regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by 

weight, kits will be only recognized if 

they have a demonstrated probability 

(with 95% confidence) of a negative 

response less than or equal to 5% of the 

time. Because no comments were 

received on the proposed false-positive 

criteria of 10% for the improved test 

kits, this final rule also retains the 

proposed false-positive criteria for the 

improved kits, i.e., after the improved 

kits are available, the only test kits that 

will be recognized are those that have a 

demonstrated probability (with 95% 

confidence) of a false positive response 

of no more than 10% to lead in paint at 

levels below the regulated level. 

EPA did not receive any comments or 

suggestions on the test kit recognition 

process itself. With respect to existing 

test kits, EPA has determined that the 

NIST research (Ref. 26) is the equivalent 

of an independent laboratory validation 

of test kit performance. The NIST 

research found that three kits met the 

false-negative criteria established in this 

final rule. For the purposes of this 

regulation, EPA will therefore recognize 

these test kits, provided that they still 

use the same formulation that was 

evaluated by NIST. These test kits will 

be recognized by EPA until EPA 

publicizes its recognition of the first 

improved test kit. 

With respect to the improved test kits, 

EPA has determined that Environmental 

Technology Verification Program (ETV) 

is a suitable vehicle for obtaining 

independent laboratory validation of 

test kit performance. EPA intends to use 

ETV or an equivalent testing program 

approved by EPA for the test kit 

recognition process. The goal of the ETV 

Program is to provide independent, 

objective, and credible performance data 

for commercial-ready environmental 

technologies. The ETV process promotes 

these technologies implementation for 

the benefit of purchasers, permitters, 

vendors and the public. If ETV is used, 

EPA would utilize the Environmental 

and Sustainable Technology Evaluations 

(ESTE) element of the ETV program 

because the development of the test kits 

is in support of this final rule, and the 

ESTE element was created in 2005 to 

address Agency priorities such as rule 

making. More information on this 

program is available on EPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/etv/index.html. 

In the 2006 Proposal, EPA noted that 

it would look to ASTM International’s 

E1828, Standard Practice for Evaluating 

the Performance Characteristics of 

Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for 

Lead in Paint (Ref. 28) or equivalent for 

a validation method for test kits. With 

the input of stakeholders, EPA is 

adapting this ASTM Standard for use in 

the laboratory validation program. The 

testing protocol will consist of an 

evaluation of the performance of the test 

kits, using the manufacturer’s 

instructions, on various substrates, such 

as wood, steel, drywall, and plaster, 

with various lead compounds, such as 

lead carbonate and lead chromate, at 

various lead concentrations above and 

below regulatory threshold for leadbased paint. To be consistent with the 

performance criteria of the National 

Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program, 

the testing protocol will not involve 

testing the performance of the kits on 

paint that contains between 0.8 

milligrams of lead per square centimeter 

and 1.2 milligrams of lead per square 

centimeter. After a test kit has gone 

through the ETV or other EPA approved 

testing process, EPA will review the test 

report to determine whether the kit has 

been demonstrated to achieve the 

criteria set forth in the rule. EPA 

anticipates that evaluation of the 

improved test kits under the recognition 

program will begin by August 2009. 

In addition, EPA intends to allow 

other existing test kit manufacturers the 

opportunity to demonstrate that their 

kits meet the false negative criteria 

described in 40 CFR 745.88(c)(1) by 

going through the ETV process. Any 

recognition granted to test kits based 

only on the false negative criteria will 

expire when EPA publicizes its 

recognition of the first improved test kit 

that meets both the false negative and 

false positive criteria of 40 CFR 

745.88(c). 

Beginning on September 1, 2008, 

EPA’s ETV program will accept 

applications for testing from test kit 

manufacturers. Applications must be 

submitted, along with a sufficient 

number of kits and the instructions for 

using the kits, to EPA. The test kit 

manufacturer should first visit the 

following website for information on 

where to apply: http://www.epa.gov/etv/ 

howtoapply.html. 

c. Minor repair and maintenance. 

EPA proposed to incorporate into this 

regulation the minor maintenance 

exception for the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule. The proposed minor 

maintenance exception would have 

applied to projects that disturb 2 ft2 or 

less of painted surface per component. 

The preamble to the 2006 Proposal 

discusses the history of this exception 

and requested comment on potential 

changes. In particular, EPA noted that 

HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, at 20 

CFR 35.1350(d), includes a de minimis 

exception for projects that disturb 2 ft2 

or less of painted surface per room for 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21714 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

interior projects, 20 ft2 or less of painted 

exterior surfaces, and 10% or less of the 

total surface area on an interior or 

exterior type of component with a small 

surface area. If less than this amount of 

painted surface is disturbed, HUD’s 

lead-safe work practice requirements do 

not apply. EPA’s lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulation incorporates this 

as an exception for small projects at 40 

CFR 745.65(d). EPA requested comment 

on whether the minor maintenance 

exception in this regulation should be 

consistent with other EPA regulations 

and the HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule. 

This provision describes the 

applicability of the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule as well as this final rule. 

Most commenters expressed support 

for consistency in the various leadbased paint regulations administered by 

EPA and HUD. They noted that a 

consistent exception for small projects 

or minor maintenance would be easier 

for the regulated community to apply. 

Many of these commenters 

recommended 2 ft2 for interior projects 

and 20 ft2 on exterior surfaces. While 

some commenters supported a ‘‘per 

component’’ exception, several 

commenters specifically noted that the 

‘‘per component’’ aspect of the existing 

Pre-Renovation Education Rule 

exception was problematic in that it 

could result in the disturbance of large 

areas of painted surfaces in a single 

room. Other commenters recommended 

that the threshold area for the exception 

be made smaller or the exception 

abolished. These commenters noted that 

even very small projects have the 

potential to create lead-based paint 

hazards and that, rather than worrying 

about the applicability of the exception, 

renovation firms should just get into the 

habit of performing every project in a 

lead-safe manner. Other commenters 

suggested that EPA consider a larger 

threshold area for the exception, or an 

exception based on other factors, such 

as time spent performing an activity. 

EPA recognizes that, depending upon 

the methods used to disturb lead-based 

paint, very small disturbances can 

release a great deal of lead. EPA also 

understands the practicality of a minor 

maintenance exception. 

In weighing these competing 

considerations, EPA has decided to 

incorporate in this final rule a minor 

maintenance exception for projects that 

disturb 6 ft2 or less of painted surface 

per room for interiors and 20 ft2 or less 

of painted surface on exteriors. This 

addresses the concerns of those 

commenters who supported a ‘‘per 

component’’ exception while still 

limiting the overall amount of paint that 

can be disturbed in a single room during 

a single project. As in the 2006 

Proposal, this exception is not available 

for window replacement projects. In 

contrast to the Proposal, this exception 

is only available for projects that do not 

use any of the work practices prohibited 

or restricted by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) and 

that do not involve demolition of 

painted surface areas. 

EPA remains convinced that the 

distinction between renovation and 

minor maintenance activities is an 

important part of implementing this 

program. Congress directed EPA to 

address renovation and remodeling. In 

ordinary usage, minor maintenance 

activities that might disturb lead-based 

paint (e.g., removing a face plate for an 

electric switch to repair a loose 

connection, adding a new cable TV 

outlet, or removing a return air grill to 

service the HVAC system) are not 

normally considered home renovations. 

EPA believes that minor repair and 

maintenance activities that cover 6 ft2 or 

less per room and 20 ft2 or less for 

exteriors and that do not involve 

prohibited practices, demolition or 

window replacement would not 

ordinarily be considered renovation or 

remodeling but would better be 

described as minor work on the home or 

COF. EPA also believes that a typical 

minor repair and maintenance activity 

would not normally involve the use of 

high dust generating machinery such as 

those prohibited or restricted by this 

rule. To make the distinction between 

renovations and minor repair and 

maintenance activities clear, EPA has 

added a definition of ‘‘minor repair and 

maintenance activities’’ to 40 CFR 

745.83. This term is defined as follows: 

Minor repair and maintenance activities’’ 

are activities, including minor heating, 

ventilation or air conditioning work, 

electrical work, and plumbing, that disrupt 6 

square feet or less of painted surface per 

room for interior activities or 20 square feet 

or less of painted surface for exterior 

activities where none of the work practices 

prohibited or restricted by § 745.85(a)(3) are 

used and where the work does not involve 

window replacement or demolition of 

painted surface areas. When removing 

painted components, or portions of painted 

components, the entire surface area removed 

is the amount of painted surface disturbed. 

Jobs, other than emergency renovations, 

performed in the same room within the same 

30 days must be considered the same job for 

the purpose of determining whether the job 

is a minor repair and maintenance activity. 

To accommodate this new definition 

of ‘‘minor repair and maintenance 

activities,’’ the definition of 

‘‘renovation’’ in § 745.83 has also been 

changed to include the following 

sentence: ‘‘The term renovation does not 

include minor repair and maintenance 

activities.’’ As a result of these two 

definitional changes, the reference to 

minor maintenance in 40 CFR 

745.82(a)(1) is no longer necessary. 

Therefore, when engaged in minor 

repair and maintenance activities as 

defined in 40 CFR 745.83, renovation 

firms and renovators are not covered by 

this rule. EPA believes this approach--

eliminating the per-component 

limitation in favor of an overall size cap, 

and prohibiting practices that EPA 

believes are inconsistent with minor 

maintenance work and that generate 

very high lead dust loadings--is a 

reasonable balance of the considerations 

identified by commenters and 

considered by EPA. 

Several commenters expressed 

concerns about how the exception 

would be applied, and whether various 

activities would be covered by the rule 

or exempt under the minor maintenance 

exception. Window replacement was of 

interest to several commenters, who 

referred to EPA’s previous guidance on 

window replacement under the PreRenovation Education Rule (Ref. 29). 

That guidance states that window 

replacement, for various reasons, cannot 

qualify for the minor maintenance 

exception. EPA knows of no reason why 

this interpretation should be changed. 

In fact, contrary to the assertions of 

some commenters, the Dust Study found 

that window replacement was one of the 

more hazardous jobs. The geometric 

mean of the lead content of floor dust 

samples taken in the work area after the 

window replacement projects was 3,003 

μg/ft2 (Ref. 17, at 6–11). In addition, 

EPA does not believe that window 

replacement is within the common 

understanding of the meaning of either 

minor repair or maintenance. EPA has 

specifically included language in the 

definition of ‘‘minor repair and 

maintenance activities’’ to make it clear 

that window replacements cannot 

qualify. 

Two commenters contended that, 

when determining whether wall or 

ceiling cut-outs exceed the minor 

maintenance exception, the painted 

surface disturbed should be measured 

by multiplying the length of the cut by 

its width, as opposed to the total size of 

the cut-out. EPA disagrees with these 

commenters. For cut-outs, the 

calculation is made for the entire area of 

surface being disturbed, e.g., the area of 

the cut-out, for the following reasons: 

• The removed portion can flex or be 

broken during the removal process and 

the paint can flake off; 

• The removed portion can fall on 

the floor and be trampled upon; or 

• The removed portion may not be 

removed as a single piece. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21715 

Calculating the amount of painted 

surface disturbed in the manner that the 

commenters suggested would also 

complicate the rule and be more 

difficult to convey during the renovator 

training course. In response to these 

comments, EPA has inserted clarifying 

language on this into the text of the 

definition of ‘‘minor repair and 

maintenance activities’’ at 40 CFR 

745.83. 

One commenter recommended that 

EPA prohibit splitting work, i.e., 

conducting a single project as several 

minor maintenance activities in the 

same room in a short time (like a month) 

in order to avoid the regulatory 

requirements. EPA agrees with this 

commenter. It has always been EPA’s 

interpretation of the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule that renovators could 

not artificially split up projects in order 

to avoid having to provide the 

pamphlet. In response to this comment, 

EPA has inserted clarifying language on 

this into the definition of ‘‘minor repair 

and maintenance activities’’ at 40 CFR 

745.83. This definition states that jobs, 

other than emergency renovations, 

performed in the same room within the 

same 30 days must be considered the 

same job for the purpose of determining 

whether the job is a minor repair and 

maintenance activity. 

d. Emergency projects. Both the 2006 

Proposal and the 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal proposed to retain the 

emergency project exception in the PreRenovation Education Rule with one 

modification. EPA proposed to clarify 

that interim control projects performed 

on an expedited basis in response to an 

elevated blood lead level finding in a 

resident child qualify for the emergency 

project exception from the PreRenovation Education Rule 

requirements. As discussed in the 2006 

Proposal, EPA was concerned that local 

public health organizations may be 

delayed in responding to a leadpoisoned child if the owner of the 

building where the child resides is not 

available to acknowledge receipt of the 

lead hazard information pamphlet 

before an interim control project begins. 

In addition, EPA recognized that some 

emergencies could make it difficult to 

comply with all of the training, 

certification, work practice, and 

recordkeeping requirements. For 

example, a broken water pipe may make 

it impossible to contain the work area 

before beginning to disturb painted 

surfaces to get to the pipe. The proposed 

emergency project exception would 

have required firms to comply with the 

work practice, training, certification, 

and recordkeeping requirements to the 

extent practicable. 

EPA received a number of comments 

on this aspect of the 2006 Proposal. 

Several recognized the need for such an 

exception, but most of the commenters 

were concerned that the language of the 

proposal would make it possible for 

renovation firms to circumvent the 

training, certification, and work practice 

controls when performing interim 

controls in response to a child with an 

elevated blood lead level. A number of 

these commenters, as well as several 

others, urged EPA to be more specific 

about which requirements could be 

bypassed in particular situations. EPA 

agrees with these commenters. It never 

was EPA’s intention to allow firms 

performing interim controls in response 

to a poisoned child to use untrained 

workers or work in a manner not 

consistent with the work practices 

required by this rule. 

EPA has therefore revised the 

exception to specifically state that 

interim controls performed in response 

to a child with an elevated blood lead 

level are only exempt from the 

information distribution requirements, 

which is consistent with the current 

Pre-Renovation Education Rule. EPA 

has also modified the exception to state 

that emergency renovations are only 

exempt to the extent necessary to 

respond to the emergency from the 

training, certification, sign posting, and 

containment requirements of this 

regulation. For example, most property 

management companies who do their 

own maintenance are likely to have at 

least one trained and certified renovator 

on staff to perform renovations, so these 

companies should be able to comply 

with the training and certification 

requirements on all renovations. 

Likewise, firms performing emergency 

renovations should be able to follow the 

required cleaning procedures after 

emergency repairs have been made. As 

such, under the final rule, in all cases 

the cleaning specified by the regulation 

must be performed and it must be 

performed or directed by certified 

renovators. In addition, in all cases, the 

cleaning verification requirements of 

this regulation must be performed and 

they must be performed by a certified 

renovator. In response to one 

commenter who requested that EPA 

require firms to document their inability 

to comply with all of the regulatory 

provisions in emergencies, EPA has 

included such a requirement in 40 CFR 

745.86(b)(7). Finally, EPA has removed 

the word ‘‘operations’’ from the 

exception, in response to one 

commenter who suggested that the word 

is unnecessary and confusing. EPA 

agrees that the word ‘‘operations’’ is 

unnecessary in its description of 

emergency renovations. EPA intends to 

continue interpreting the term 

‘‘emergency renovations’’ in the same 

way that it always has done, except that 

EPA has clarified that interim controls 

performed in response to a child with 

an elevated blood-lead level can be an 

emergency renovation. 

B. Pre-Renovation Education 

The Pre-Renovation Education Rule, 

promulgated pursuant to TSCA section 

406(b) and codified at 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart E, requires renovators to 

provide owners and occupants of target 

housing with a lead hazard information 

pamphlet before beginning a renovation 

in the housing (Ref. 8). The pamphlet 

currently used for this purpose, ‘‘Protect 

Your Family From Lead in Your Home,’’ 

was developed in accordance with 

TSCA section 406(a) and includes 

useful information on lead-based paint 

and lead-based paint hazards in general. 

This pamphlet is also used to provide 

lead hazard information to purchasers 

and renters of target housing under the 

Requirements for Disclosure of 

Information Concerning lead-Based 

Paint in Housing ‘‘Lead Disclosure 

Rule’’ (Ref. 30). 

1. New renovation-specific pamphlet. 

EPA has developed a new lead hazard 

information pamphlet that addresses 

renovation-specific lead exposure 

concerns. The development of this 

pamphlet, including the public 

comments received on the format and 

content, is discussed in greater detail in 

a separate notice published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. This new 

renovation-specific pamphlet, entitled 

Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools will better inform 

families about the risks of exposure to 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

renovations and promote the use of 

work practices and other health and 

safety measures during renovation 

activities (Ref. 31). This new pamphlet 

gives information on lead-based paint 

hazards, lead testing, how to select a 

contractor, what precautions to take 

during the renovation, and proper 

cleanup activities, while still 

incorporating the information already 

included in the original ‘‘Protect Your 

Family From Lead In Your Home’’ and 

mandated by section 406(a) of TSCA. 

In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed 

to require renovation firms to distribute 

the new renovation-specific pamphlet 

(then titled Protect Your Family From 

Lead During Renovation, Repair & 

Painting) instead of the pamphlet 

currently used for this purpose (Protect 

Your Family From Lead in Your Home). 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21716 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

In general, most commenters were 

supportive of a requirement to distribute 

a new renovation-specific pamphlet for 

the purposes of TSCA section 406(b). 

One commenter stated a belief that the 

existing Protect Your Family From Lead 

in Your Home pamphlet had served its 

purpose well and the development of a 

new pamphlet should not be a priority. 

EPA agrees with the commenters who 

recognized the merit of providing 

renovation-specific information to 

owners and tenants before renovations 

commence. Therefore, this final rule 

will require renovation firms to 

distribute the new Renovate Right: 

Important Lead Hazard Information for 

Families, Child Care Providers and 

Schools; pamphlet before beginning 

renovations. This requirement to use the 

new pamphlet will become effective as 

discussed in Unit III.H. of this preamble. 

2. Information distribution 

requirements. Other than the use of the 

new renovation-specific pamphlet, EPA 

did not specifically propose any 

changes to the existing information 

distribution requirements for target 

housing that does not meet the proposed 

definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility.’’ 

One commenter contended that the 

existing information distribution 

requirements for multi-family target 

housing were extremely burdensome 

and resulted in tenants being given 

multiple notifications and copies of the 

lead hazard information pamphlet over 

the course of a year’s time. This 

commenter requested that EPA modify 

the regulations to allow an annual 

distribution of renovation-related lead 

hazard information to tenants. However, 

as noted in interpretive guidance 

previously issued on the Pre-renovation 

Education Rule, EPA, in developing the 

final Pre-renovation Education Rule, 

carefully weighed whether a one-time 

pamphlet distribution would be 

adequate to meet the objectives of 

section 406(b) of the lead statute, and 

concluded that many, if not most, 

tenants would benefit from receiving the 

information in the lead pamphlet closer 

to the time that a renovation is to begin. 

Although some tenants may read lead 

information delivered on a ‘‘for-yourinformation’’ basis, many others are not 

likely to focus on potential lead hazards 

until a renovation affecting their unit is 

imminent, and would welcome 

receiving information on protecting 

their families from lead in a more timely 

fashion. Therefore, EPA has determined 

that an annual distribution of 

renovation-specific lead hazard 

information would not be an effective 

means of providing timely information 

to tenants. 

However, with respect to renovations 

in common areas, EPA has determined 

that there are other effective ways of 

delivering lead hazard information to 

tenants in a timely manner. Specifically, 

the posting of informational signs 

during the renovation in places where 

the tenants of the affected units are 

likely to see them will provide these 

tenants with the information they need 

at the time that they need it. Depending 

upon the circumstances, renovation 

firms may find the posting of such signs 

to be less burdensome than mailing or 

hand-delivering this information to 

affected tenants. Indeed sign posting 

may be more effective than mail since 

it provides an immediate reminder. 

Therefore, EPA will allow renovation 

firms performing renovations in 

common areas of multi-unit target 

housing the option of mailing or handdelivering general information about the 

renovation and making a copy of the 

pamphlet available to the tenants of 

affected units upon request prior to the 

start of the renovation, or posting 

informational signs while the 

renovation is ongoing. These signs must 

be posted where they are likely to be 

seen by all of the tenants of the affected 

units and they must contain a 

description of the general nature and 

locations of the renovation and the 

anticipated completion date. The signs 

must be accompanied by a posted copy 

of the pamphlet or information on how 

interested tenants can review or obtain 

a copy of the pamphlet at no cost to the 

tenants. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about tenants either not seeing the 

‘‘postings’’ because they use different 

entrances or distinguishing the 

renovation-specific lead hazard 

information ‘‘postings’’ from other 

‘‘postings’’ in the general area. To take 

advantage of this option, this final rule 

requires renovation firms to use actual 

signs, not notices on tenant bulletin 

boards. In addition, these signs must be 

posted where the tenants of all of the 

affected units can see them. If the 

tenants of the affected units use several 

different entrances, a sign posted by one 

of the entrances would not be sufficient. 

With respect to renovations in 

individual housing units, whether 

single family or multi-family, firms 

performing renovations for 

compensation in target housing must 

continue to distribute a lead hazard 

information pamphlet to the owners and 

tenants of the housing no more than 60 

days before beginning renovations. This 

requirement, along with the associated 

requirements to obtain 

acknowledgments or document 

delivery, has not changed. For 

renovations in the common areas of 

multi-unit target housing, firms must 

provide tenants with general 

information regarding the nature of the 

renovation and make the pamphlet 

available upon request, by mailing, 

hand-delivery, or posting informational 

signs. Firms must also maintain 

documentation of compliance with 

these requirements. The 2007 

Supplemental Proposal contained 

additional proposed information 

distribution requirements for childoccupied facilities in target housing and 

in public and commercial buildings. 

This final rule incorporates those 

additional requirements. 

Also, as proposed in the 2006 

Proposal, this final rule deletes the 

existing 40 CFR 745.84 because it is 

duplicative. The section provided some 

details on submitting CBI and how EPA 

will handle that information. However, 

comprehensive regulations governing 

sensitive business information, 

including CBI under TSCA, are codified 

in 40 CFR part 2. The regulations in 40 

CFR part 2 set forth the procedures for 

making a claim of confidentiality and 

describe the rules governing EPA’s 

release of information. EPA received no 

comments on the proposed deletion of 

40 CFR 745.84. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting this section and redesignating 

existing 40 CFR 745.85 as 40 CFR 

745.84. 

EPA is also taking this opportunity to 

reiterate who is responsible for 

complying with the information 

distribution responsibilities of 40 CFR 

745.84. This provision of this final rule 

includes the existing Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule information distribution 

requirements as amended to include 

requirements applicable to childoccupied facilities. In interpretive 

guidance issued for the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule, EPA shed additional 

light on the issue of who is responsible 

for complying with the information 

distribution requirements, particularly 

for renovation projects where multiple 

contractors are involved (Ref. 32). EPA 

stated that if the renovation is overseen 

by a general contractor, the general 

contractor is considered to be the 

‘‘renovator’’ under the rule and is 

therefore responsible for ensuring that 

the information distribution 

requirements are met. EPA further 

stated that it would not consider a 

subcontractor to be a ‘‘renovator’’ for 

purposes of the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule so long as the 

subcontractor has no direct contractual 

relationship with the property owner or 

manager relating to the particular 

renovation. EPA’s reasoning is that the 

information distribution requirements 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21717 

should be fulfilled by the person or 

entity with which the customer enters 

into the contract and compensates for 

the work--even if that work is 

subsequently contracted out. 

This final rule changes the existing 

definition of ‘‘renovator’’ to refer 

specifically to the individual trained in 

work practices as distinct from the 

renovation firm. The final rule also 

specifies in 40 CFR 745.84 that the 

renovation firm is responsible for 

carrying out the information 

distribution requirements. Renovation 

firms may find it more efficient to have 

someone other than the certified 

renovator distribute the pamphlet and 

obtain the acknowledgement forms. In 

changing the definition of ‘‘renovator,’’ 

EPA is not changing its policies as to 

which entity, between a contractor and 

subcontractor, is responsible for 

carrying out the information 

distribution requirements. On the 

contrary, as to this issue, EPA intends 

to continue interpreting the regulatory 

responsibility for the information 

distribution requirements as it has in 

the past. 

a. Owners and occupants of public or 

commercial buildings containing a 

child-occupied facility. The PreRenovation Education Rule covers only 

renovations in target housing. Thus, the 

information distribution requirements 

summarized in the preceding paragraph 

have not historically applied to firms 

performing renovations for 

compensation in public or commercial 

buildings. In the 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal, EPA proposed to require firms 

performing renovations for 

compensation in child-occupied 

facilities in public or commercial 

buildings to provide a lead hazard 

information pamphlet to the owner of 

the building as well as to an adult 

representative of the child-occupied 

facility, if the owner of the building and 

the child-occupied facility are different 

entities. This requirement was modeled 

on the Pre-Renovation Education Rule’s 

requirements for pamphlet distribution 

in rental target housing. As described in 

the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, EPA 

has determined, in accordance with 

TSCA section 407, that the distribution 

of lead hazard information, before 

renovation projects begin, to an adult 

representative of the child-occupied 

facility as well as to the owners of 

public or commercial buildings that 

contain child-occupied facilities is 

necessary to ensure effective 

implementation of this regulation. EPA 

believes that information on lead-based 

paint hazards, and lead-safe work 

practices that minimize the creation of 

hazards, will stimulate interest on the 

part of child-occupied facilities and 

public or commercial building owners 

in these work practices and increase the 

demand for their use. 

EPA received no comments on this 

aspect of the 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal. Therefore, the final rule 

includes this requirement as proposed. 

Renovation firms performing 

renovations for compensation in a childoccupied facility in a public or 

commercial building must provide the 

lead hazard information pamphlet 

entitled Renovate Right: Important Lead 

Hazard Information for Families, Child 

Care Providers and Schoolsto the owner 

of the building. The renovation firm 

must either obtain written 

acknowledgment from the owner that 

the pamphlet was delivered or obtain a 

certificate of mailing for the pamphlet at 

least 7 days prior to the start of the 

renovation. In addition, the renovation 

firm must provide the pamphlet to an 

adult representative of the childoccupied facility if the facility and the 

building are owned by different entities. 

To document compliance with this 

requirement, the renovation firm must 

do one of the following: 

• Obtain a written acknowledgment 

of pamphlet delivery from the adult 

representative of the child-occupied 

facility. 

• Obtain a certificate of mailing for 

the pamphlet at least 7 days prior to the 

start of the renovation. 

• Certify in writing that the 

pamphlet has been delivered to the 

child-occupied facility and the firm has 

been unsuccessful in attempting to 

obtain the signature of an adult 

representative of the child-occupied 

facility. This certification must contain 

the reason for the failure to obtain the 

signature. 

b. Parents and guardians of children 

under age 6 using a child-occupied 

facility. The 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal would also have required a 

renovation firm performing a renovation 

for compensation in a child-occupied 

facility to provide information about the 

renovation to the parents and guardians 

of children under age 6 using the 

facility. This proposed requirement was 

designed to be comparable to the PreRenovation Education Rule provisions 

for informing adult occupants (who are 

not owners). EPA is finalizing this 

requirement as proposed. The 

renovation firm must either mail each 

parent or guardian the lead hazard 

information pamphlet and a general 

description of the renovation or post 

informational signs where parents and 

guardians would be likely to see them. 

The signs must be accompanied by a 

posted copy of the pamphlet or 

information on how to obtain the 

pamphlet at no charge to interested 

parents or guardians. This requirement 

applies to renovations in child-occupied 

facilities in target housing as well as to 

renovations in child-occupied facilities 

in public or commercial buildings. 

EPA received three comments on this 

aspect of the 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal. One commenter expressed 

support for this proposed requirement. 

The other two provided a number of 

reasons why the final rule should not 

include such a requirement. These 

commenters noted that renovation firms 

have no contractual connection with or 

contractual responsibility to the parents 

or guardians of children using a childoccupied facility. They believe that the 

child-occupied facility owner bears 

primary responsibility for maintaining a 

safe environment for children. They 

were also concerned that renovation 

firms might be called upon to spend a 

significant amount of additional time at 

a child-occupied facility to answer 

parents’ questions about lead poisoning. 

EPA is not persuaded by these 

comments. Although the firms may have 

no contractual connection with the 

parents or guardians of the children, 

that is often the case with occupants 

who are not owners. Although childoccupied facility owners bear 

responsibility for maintaining a safe 

environment for children, renovation 

firms are responsible for providing the 

pamphlet to owners and occupants. 

Once the renovation firm has 

distributed the pamphlet, it has no 

further obligation to educate the owners 

or occupants about lead poisoning. The 

pamphlet contains this information and 

refers to additional resources. EPA 

acknowledges that it may be difficult to 

provide copies of the pamphlet to each 

parent, which is why this final rule 

allows renovation firms to comply by 

posting informational signs where 

parents or guardians would be likely to 

see them. 

c. Other commenter suggestions 

regarding information distribution to 

owners and occupants. EPA received a 

number of comments that recommended 

that additional information be provided 

to the owner and the occupant before 

and after a renovation occurs. These 

commenters believe that one of the 

purposes of this rule ought to be to 

provide enough information to owners 

and occupants so that they can 

understand the work practices and can 

adequately monitor the work being 

performed by renovation firms. EPA 

agrees that consumers will play a 

critical role in ensuring that the 

requirements of this regulation are being 

followed. EPA believes that some of the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21718 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

suggested items of additional 

information, such as an explanation of 

the cleaning verification process, use of 

test kits, lead-based paint and dust 

testing recommendations, and how to 

find a qualified person to do testing, are 

best addressed through revisions to the 

new lead hazard informational 

pamphlet for renovations, Renovate 

Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools. Those changes 

are described and discussed in a notice 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. 

Other information distribution 

elements recommended by these 

commenters are likely to be provided by 

renovation firms already. For example, 

several commenters suggested that EPA 

require the renovation firm to provide 

emergency contact information to 

owners and occupants. EPA believes 

that, during the normal course of 

business, persons that hire renovation 

firms to perform renovations typically 

already have contact information. A 

person who contracts for a renovation is 

likely to be the owner of the property 

being renovated, and this person is also 

likely to be able to stop the work at any 

time so that he or she can confer with 

the certified renovator or supervisor. 

Occupants who are not the owners of 

the property being renovated often will 

not be the party contracting for the 

renovation and may not always have 

emergency contact information for the 

specific firm performing a renovation in 

their housing unit or building. However, 

these occupants will most likely have 

contact information for their landlord, 

and the landlord as the person most 

likely contracting with the renovation 

firm and therefore to have authority to 

direct the renovation work. In addition, 

renovations that occur in occupied 

rental housing are likely to be 

maintenance or repair projects that are 

performed by the landlord, the 

landlord’s employees, or a maintenance 

company under contract to perform all 

maintenance for a particular landlord or 

rental complex. 

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

require renovation firms provide a 

description of the work area and 

identify the designated entrance and 

exit from the work area. EPA is not 

requiring the renovation firm to 

designate a specific entrance and exit 

from the work area. This final rule 

requires the work area itself to be 

delineated by warning signs and plastic 

containment. EPA does not believe there 

is any utility in requiring the contractor 

to also provide the owner and occupant 

with a written description of the work 

area before the work begins. 

Other commenters noted the existence 

of the Lead Disclosure Rule (Ref. 30), 

promulgated under section 1018 of the 

Residential lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992, and codified at 

40 CFR part 745, subpart F and 24 CFR 

part 35. These commenters stated that 

information about the use of spot test 

kits and the results of those tests, and 

well as any sort of dust testing 

information, are information pertaining 

to lead-based paint or lead-based paint 

hazards and would therefore have to be 

disclosed to subsequent purchasers or 

tenants of the renovated property under 

the Lead Disclosure Rule. These 

commenters further opined that a 

requirement for the renovation firm to 

provide this information to the owner of 

the property is necessary to ensure the 

information is available to be disclosed. 

With respect to the use of test kits to 

determine whether components to be 

affected by a renovation contain leadbased paint, EPA agrees with these 

commenters in their Lead Disclosure 

Rule analysis. Therefore, this final rule 

includes a requirement for the 

renovation firm to provide, within 30 

days, information identifying the 

manufacturer and model of test kits 

used, a description of the components 

tested, including locations, and the 

results of the test kits to the person who 

contracted for the renovation. EPA also 

agrees that dust clearance sampling 

information is information pertaining to 

lead-based paint hazards and must be 

disclosed under the Disclosure Rule. If 

dust clearance sampling is performed 

instead of cleaning verification as 

permitted in 40 CFR 745.85(c), this final 

rule requires the renovation firm to 

provide, within 30 days, a copy of the 

dust clearance report to the person 

contracting for the renovation. 

However, EPA does not believe that 

information related to cleaning 

verification is a record or report 

‘‘pertaining to lead-based paint or leadbased paint hazards’’ for purposes of 

section 1018. As discussed in more 

detail in Unit III.E.7. of this preamble, 

cleaning verification is not the 

equivalent of clearance. The purpose of 

cleaning verification is to determine 

whether the dust that was created by the 

renovation, whether or not it contains 

lead, has been adequately removed. 

Although the disposable cleaning-cloth 

study, discussed in Unit III.E.7., and the 

Dust Study show that information is 

correlated with the hazard standard, the 

purpose of cleaning verification is not to 

detect lead-based paint hazards per se. 

In addition, under this final rule, 

cleaning verification must be completed 

for every renovation (i.e., it must 

achieve ‘‘white glove’’ or the prescribed 

combination of wet and dry wipes must 

have been used), so the results of 

verification will always show that 

‘‘white glove’’ or the equivalent has 

been achieved. As explained below, the 

cleaning verification is part of a package 

of work practices that, together, 

minimize exposure to hazards created 

by renovation. Also, as explained below, 

completing the cleaning verification 

process does not necessarily indicate 

that the surface does not have leadbased paint hazards unrelated to the 

renovation. Therefore, EPA will not 

require the results of cleaning 

verification activities to be disclosed 

under the Lead Disclosure Rule. 

C. Training and Certification 

Under the current Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations at 40 CFR part 

745, subpart L, both individuals and 

firms that perform lead-based paint 

inspections, lead hazard screens, risk 

assessments, and abatements must be 

certified by EPA. EPA proposed a 

similar, but not identical, regulatory 

scheme for individuals and firms that 

perform renovations. 

This final rule requires all renovations 

subject to this rule to be performed by 

a firm certified to perform renovations. 

In addition, the rule requires that all 

persons performing renovation work 

either be certified renovators or receive 

on-the-job training from and perform 

key tasks under the direction of a 

certified renovator. In order to become 

a certified renovator, a person must 

successfully complete an accredited 

renovator course. EPA renovator 

certification allows the certified 

individual to perform renovations in 

any State, Territory, or Indian Tribal 

area that does not have a renovation 

program authorized under 40 CFR part 

745, subpart Q. These requirements are 

discussed in greater detail in the 

following sections. 

EPA is also creating, with this final 

rule, a dust sampling technician 

discipline. Although, as discussed in 

Unit III.E.7. of this preamble, this final 

rule does not allow dust clearance 

testing in lieu of post-renovation 

cleaning verification, except in limited 

circumstances, EPA still believes that 

there will be a market for the services 

of persons with dust sampling 

technician credentials. EPA 

recommends that any property owners 

who choose to have dust clearance 

testing performed after a renovation use 

a certified inspector, risk assessor, or 

dust sampling technician. 

Finally, in response to one commenter 

who suggested that EPA’s use of the 

term ‘‘person’’ and the term 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21719 

‘‘individual’’ was confusing, EPA has 

modified the regulatory text in the 

sections added or significantly revised 

by this final rule to use the term 

‘‘person’’ when referring to both natural 

persons and judicial persons, such as 

renovation firms, property management 

companies, or units of government, and 

the term ‘‘individual’’ when referring 

only to natural persons. 

1. Individuals. Under this final rule, 

EPA is establishing new individual 

certification disciplines for renovators 

and dust sampling technicians. All 

renovation activities covered by this 

final rule must be performed by certified 

renovators, or by renovation workers 

who receive on-the-job training in the 

work practices from a certified 

renovator. 

a. Certified renovators and renovation 

workers—i. Responsibilities of certified 

renovators. The certified renovator 

assigned to a renovation is responsible 

for ensuring that the renovation is 

performed in compliance with the work 

practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 

745.85. These requirements pertain to 

warning signs and work area 

containment, the restriction or 

prohibition of certain practices (e.g., 

high heat gun, torch, power sanding), 

waste handling, cleaning, and postrenovation cleaning verification. The 

certified renovator can perform these 

work practices herself or himself. 

Alternatively, the certified renovator 

can direct other workers to perform 

most of these work practices. However, 

the post-renovation cleaning verification 

requirements must be performed by a 

certified renovator. These requirements 

cannot be delegated to a worker. If the 

certified renovator directs the other 

workers to perform the work practices, 

the certified renovator must be at the 

work site during the critical phases of 

the renovation activity. The critical 

phases are posting warning signs, 

containing the work area, and cleaning 

the work site. 

Although the certified renovator is not 

required to be on-site at all times, while 

the renovation project is ongoing, a 

certified renovator must nonetheless 

regularly direct the work being 

performed by other workers to ensure 

that the work practices are being 

followed. When a certified renovator is 

not physically present at the work site, 

the workers must be able to contact the 

renovator immediately by telephone or 

other mechanism. A certified renovator 

must: 

• Perform the post-renovation 

cleaning verification described in 40 

CFR 745.85(b). 

• Perform or direct workers who 

perform all of the work practices 

described in 40 CFR 745.85(a). 

• Provide training to workers on the 

work practices they will be using in 

performing their assigned tasks. 

• Be physically present at the work 

site when the signs required by 40 CFR 

745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work 

area containment required by 40 CFR 

745.85(a)(2) is being established, and 

while the work area cleaning required 

by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5) is performed. 

• Regularly direct the work being 

performed by other workers to ensure 

that the work practices are being 

followed, including maintaining the 

integrity of the containment barriers and 

ensuring that dust or debris does not 

spread beyond the work area. 

• Be available, either on-site or by 

telephone, at all times that renovations 

are being conducted. 

• When requested by the party 

contracting for renovation services, use 

an acceptable test kit to determine 

whether components to be affected by 

the renovation contain lead-based paint. 

• Have with them at the work site 

copies of their initial course completion 

certificate and their most recent 

refresher course completion certificate. 

• Prepare the records required to 

demonstrate that renovations have been 

performed in accordance with the 

requirements of this rule. 

There are some slight revisions 

between the 2006 Proposal and this 

final rule, although none of these 

changes add to or detract from the 

renovator’s responsibilities. First, the 

Proposal used both the term ‘‘lead-safe 

work practices’’ and ‘‘work practices’’ in 

the preamble and in the proposed rule 

text. Although the work practices 

required in this final rule are lead-safe, 

for purposes of clarity, the final rule text 

has been changed to ‘‘work practices.’’ 

The reason for this change was to make 

text of the rule relating the renovator’s 

responsibilities text consistent with 

other provisions in the rule, particularly 

40 CFR 745.85 (Work Practice 

Standards). Today’s work practices are 

lead-safe work practices. The work 

practice standards listed in § 745.85(a) 

are the same tasks that the other workers 

will be directed in and trained to do by 

the certified renovator (except for 

cleaning verification). In addition, the 

term ‘‘lead-safe work practices’’ has 

different meanings in different contexts, 

and this change is to make clear that the 

work practices required by this final 

rule are the work practices required in 

§ 745.85(a). 

Second, one of the renovator’s 

responsibilities listed in the preamble of 

the 2006 Proposal was to ‘‘[r]egularly 

direct the work being performed by 

uncertified persons to ensure that leadsafe work practices are being followed, 

the integrity of the containment barriers 

is maintained, and dust or debris is not 

spread beyond the work area.’’ The 

word ‘‘regularly’’ was inadvertently 

omitted from the proposed regulatory 

text. To make the regulatory text 

consistent with the preamble, the word 

‘‘regularly’’ has been added to the final 

regulatory text. In addition, EPA has 

slightly modified the regulatory text, 

consistent with the preceding 

paragraph, to clarify that maintaining 

the integrity of the containment barriers 

and ensuring that dust or debris does 

not spread beyond the work area are 

among the work practices required by 

the rule. 

Some commenters agreed that it was 

unnecessary for a certified renovator to 

be on site at all times and believed that 

oversight by a certified renovator on a 

regular basis was sufficient. One 

commenter believed that the certified 

renovator should be on site at critical 

points including site preparations and 

isolation, end of day and end of project 

cleaning, and cleaning verification. 

Many other commenters thought a 

certified renovator should be on site at 

all times. Another stated that a certified 

renovator would not have to be on site 

at all times if workers received lead safe 

work practices training. After carefully 

considering the issue, EPA has 

concluded that requiring a certified 

renovator to be on site during critical 

phases of the work is sufficient to 

ensure that the work practices required 

by this final rule are followed. These 

work practices provide a mechanism to 

contain dust and debris generated by a 

job and a clean-up regimen following 

work that is designed to minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created during the renovation activity. 

Once the containment has been 

established and until cleanup begins, 

this final rule requires few, and simple, 

changes from the way renovation work 

is currently carried out. Specifically, 

renovation workers need to avoid using 

the specific practices prohibited by this 

final rule; they need to maintain the 

containment (e.g., avoid ripping or 

displacing the plastic); and they need to 

make sure that any waste generated is 

contained at the end of the day. These 

are important but relatively simple 

measures that EPA does not believe 

require formal classroom training, or the 

constant supervision of a certified 

renovator who has had formal training. 

Once the cleanup begins, the certified 

renovator will again be required to be 

present, either performing the cleanup 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21720 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

or directing others. In addition, the 

certified renovator must perform the 

cleaning verification. Thus, EPA has 

concluded that having a renovator on 

site at all times is unwarranted. 

ii. Renovator training. To become a 

certified renovator, a person must 

successfully complete a renovator 

course accredited by EPA or by a State, 

Territorial, or Tribal program authorized 

by EPA. 

Some commenters questioned the 

need to create a separate discipline for 

renovators. In their opinion, the existing 

abatement course is sufficient (with 

some basic changes) and to create a new 

program will take resources away from 

existing efforts in lead hazard control. 

EPA believes that there are sufficient 

differences between abatement and 

renovation activities to warrant different 

training and work practice 

requirements. Specific activities of an 

abatement contractor may be similar to 

those of a renovator (e.g., sanding, 

caulking, painting, sawing), but because 

the project goal is the permanent 

elimination of hazards, the application 

and methodology differ. Therefore, a 

significant portion of an abatement 

contractor’s training is focused on 

abatement techniques and selection of 

the appropriate course of action for a 

variety of hazards. Renovators, on the 

other hand, do not seek to permanently 

eliminate lead hazards. Renovators 

perform maintenance and improvement 

tasks as directed by the consumer. The 

goal of EPA’s renovator training and 

certification program is not to update 

the methodology a renovator uses to 

accomplish these tasks, with the 

exception of the practices prohibited or 

restricted by this final rule, but rather to 

introduce containment and cleaning 

methods to minimize exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by the 

renovation activity. 

Several commenters saw the need for 

universal, standard renovator training. 

A commenter suggested that training for 

certified renovators be similar to the 

current EPA/HUD renovator and 

remodeler course. One commenter 

thought that standard training would 

make it easier when hiring someone to 

verify that they had completed the 

appropriate training. Another 

mentioned that it would encourage 

state-to-state reciprocity for training 

programs so that renovators would not 

need to take multiple courses with the 

same content. EPA plans to work with 

HUD to update the model EPA/HUD 

renovator training course to cover the 

requirements of this final rule. EPA 

agrees that reciprocity among 

authorized State, Territorial, and Tribal 

programs, and with the Federal 

program, is preferable. However, as with 

the abatement program, authorized 

programs will have the ability to 

customize requirements and course 

content based on their particular needs. 

The Agency encourages jurisdictions 

seeking authorization to consider 

reciprocity of training as they develop 

their individual programs. 

Commenters were also concerned 

about the cost of formal training. 

Commenters thought that EPA could 

provide free training to encourage 

renovator compliance, or that EPA 

funds for enforcement of the final rule 

would be better spent on training. EPA 

agrees that renovator training should be 

as inexpensive as possible. However, 

the training course costs will be 

established by independent training 

programs based on market forces. The 

total cost of conducting a training 

course depends upon the labor cost for 

the instructor(s), the cost of providing a 

classroom and other facilities, and other 

fixed costs. But the cost per trainee also 

depends on the number of trainees per 

class. Due to the large number of 

individuals who will need training, the 

Agency anticipates that demand will be 

high, keeping the cost per trainee lower 

than might otherwise be the case. But 

also due to that large volume, the 

Agency does not anticipate that it will 

be able to provide any significant source 

of funding to support training. 

iii. Other renovation worker training. 

This final rule does not require 

everyone involved in performing a 

regulated renovation project to receive 

training from an accredited training 

provider. To allow flexibility for firms 

undertaking these projects, the rule 

allows firms to use other workers to 

perform renovation activities as long as 

they receive on-the-job training (OJT) in 

work practices from a certified 

renovator. This training must include 

instruction in the specific work 

practices that these workers will be 

responsible for performing. OJT training 

occurs while the worker is engaged in 

productive work and which provides 

knowledge and skills essential to the 

full and adequate performance of the 

job. OJT may also be structured through 

a planned process of developing 

competence on units of work by having 

the certified renovator train the worker 

at the work setting or a location that 

closely resembles the work setting. 

Although there is no specific 

requirement for ‘‘refresher training,’’ 

OJT must be provided for each worker 

for each job to the extent necessary to 

ensure that that worker is adequately 

trained for the tasks he or she will be 

performing. 

If, under the direction of the certified 

renovator, the workers will be posting 

warning signs, establishing 

containment, or cleaning the work area 

after the renovation, the certified 

renovator must provide instruction, 

either verbally or through 

demonstration, to the workers in how to 

perform these tasks. With respect to 

other activities, including work 

performed while the certified renovator 

is not present, the certified renovator 

must provide instruction, either verbally 

or through demonstration, in how to 

perform the work without using work 

practices prohibited by this rule, how to 

maintain the integrity of the 

containment barriers (e.g., taking care 

not to tear the plastic), and how to avoid 

spreading dust or debris beyond the 

work area (e.g., vacuuming clothing and 

tools with a HEPA vacuum before 

leaving the work area). In any event, the 

certified renovator remains responsible 

for ensuring that this work is done in 

compliance with the rule’s 

requirements, e.g., that containment 

sufficient to prevent release of dust or 

debris from the work site has been 

established and that clothing and tools 

were adequately cleaned before leaving 

the work area. 

Workers need not be trained in work 

practices that do not pertain to the 

renovations they will be performing. If 

the certified renovator will be the one 

posting warning signs, establishing 

containment, and cleaning the work 

area after the renovation, it is not 

necessary for the certified renovator to 

provide instruction on these tasks to any 

workers who will be used elsewhere on 

the project. Similarly, workers hired to 

perform only exterior projects need not 

receive training in how to clean an 

interior work area after a renovation. 

EPA chose to allow OJT to alleviate 

industry concerns raised during the 

SBREFA panel process regarding high 

employee turnover rates within the 

industry and the potential for high 

training costs if all workers were 

required to be certified. The Agency 

concluded that allowing OJT could be 

done effectively and would provide 

flexibility for firms undertaking 

renovation projects. EPA determined 

that OJT can be effectively delivered by 

a certified renovator because the 

requirements themselves are simple and 

easy to understand. This final rule also 

requires a certified renovator be 

assigned and responsible for each 

project to ensure compliance with 

required standards. 

Some commenters agreed that OJT by 

a certified renovator is sufficient for 

training workers. One commenter stated 

that as long as a specific person is 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21721 

designated to oversee the job, there is no 

need for all workers on site to have 

formal training. The commenter noted 

the similarity between this approach 

and OSHA’s ‘‘competent person’’ 

standard. EPA agrees that there are some 

similarities between the approach in 

this final rule and OSHA’s ‘‘competent 

person’’ standard. 

However, the majority of commenters 

had concerns about the use of OJT to 

train workers. Many argued that OJT is 

insufficient for providing workers with 

the necessary skills and thought 

renovation workers should receive 

formal LSWP training such as a 1 day 

course equivalent to that required for 

certified renovators. Some of these 

commenters also thought that workers 

should be certified or licensed. 

Some commenters were concerned 

that the content of OJT is not clearly 

defined in the rule. One believed EPA 

should impose a structured OJT 

program in order to produce consistent, 

accurate, and comprehensive training 

outcomes. Others thought more time 

was needed for OJT, with suggestions 

ranging from 5 to 6 hours of training to 

3 to 4 days. EPA has neither established 

a structured OJT program nor required 

a specific length of time for OJT because 

the OJT required will vary widely from 

project to project, depending upon how 

the other workers are used. As 

discussed above, if the worker will not 

be establishing containment, there is no 

need to train the worker in how to 

establish containment. If the worker in 

question is an electrician, and he will 

merely be installing an electrical outlet 

as part of a larger job, then there may 

be no need to provide any training to 

this worker other than instructing him 

not to disturb the plastic on the floor 

and making sure that he and his tools 

are free of dust and debris before leaving 

the work area. 

In addition, as discussed in Unit 

III.C.1.c.iii. of this preamble, EPA will 

‘‘grandfather’’ persons with previous 

EPA/HUD lead-safe work practices 

training or accredited abatement 

supervisor or worker training. To 

become certified renovators, these 

persons must take a renovator refresher 

course in order to ensure that they are 

acquainted with how to use test kits to 

determine whether lead-based paint is 

present on a component and how to 

perform cleaning verification. However, 

even if they do not take the refresher 

course and become certified renovators, 

these individuals have still received 

significant training in the required work 

practices such as establishing 

containment and cleaning the area after 

the job is finished. They are not likely 

to need much, if any OJT, depending 

upon how recent their training was. 

Similarly, although not recognized for 

the purpose of ‘‘grandfathering’’ by EPA, 

HUD’s Lead Maintenance course would 

also provide a great deal of information 

on lead-safe work practices. Someone 

who had taken the Maintenance course 

recently would also not be likely to 

need much, if any, OJT. 

Several commenters thought that 

workers would not receive adequate OJT 

because the certified renovator was not 

qualified to train others. They noted that 

the certified renovators are renovators, 

not professional trainers, and do not 

necessarily have the skills necessary for 

teaching others. 

After consideration of these 

commenters’ concerns, EPA has 

concluded that OJT is sufficient for 

training some renovation employees. 

The work practice standards of this final 

rule are not complex or difficult to 

institute, and those activities critical to 

ensuring the lead safe outcome of the 

project are either conducted by certified 

renovators or directed by certified 

renovators. The remainder of the project 

is often just the renovation itself, and 

EPA was careful when developing these 

final work practices to minimize the 

effect on the way typical renovations are 

conducted. With the exception of the 

prohibition of certain unsafe practices, 

renovation methods are unaffected by 

this rule. For example, the work 

practices of this final rule do not affect 

the method a firm would employ to 

replace a window. A certified renovator 

should be able to demonstrate to other 

firm employees work practices, such as 

how to work within containment and 

how to move into and out of 

containment without spreading lead 

dust and debris. EPA does not believe 

a professional trainer is needed to train 

renovation workers, who will be 

directed by a certified renovator if they 

will be performing any of the key tasks 

associated with the work practices. Most 

of the people performing renovations 

today are not trained by professional 

trainers. They are trained on-the-job by 

experienced firm employees. For 

example, persons learn the various 

techniques for removing and replacing 

windows from others in the firm who 

are experienced in these techniques. 

Renovation workers can learn work 

practices in the same way from a 

certified renovator. 

Although the work practices in the 

final regulation are sufficiently 

straightforward and can be easily 

demonstrated by the certified renovator, 

EPA agrees that renovators do not 

necessarily consider themselves to be 

trainers. Therefore, accredited renovator 

training will include a train-the-trainer 

component to provide instruction on 

providing OJT. In addition, instructors 

will be expected to provide training tips 

to renovators during hands-on 

instruction. As the instructor is showing 

the renovator how to do these work 

practices, he or she can also provide 

instruction on how to show others how 

to do these work practices. Accordingly, 

EPA has concluded that certified 

renovators will be adequately prepared 

to provide OJT that is sufficient and 

appropriate for the purposes of this rule. 

Commenters expressed concerns that 

the rule would not provide appropriate 

training for the large number of nonEnglish speaking workers in the 

renovation field. One of these 

commenters suggested that EPA 

consider such means as graphic 

manuals, video presentations, and 

translators to aid in training non-English 

speaking workers. Another thought that 

a hands-on only training process 

overlooked possible language barriers 

between the certified renovator and 

trainee. EPA agrees that OJT can be 

conducted effectively by demonstration 

by the certified renovator or through the 

use of graphic training materials. The 

Agency plans to develop materials to 

assist certified renovators in conducting 

on-the-job training. To the extent 

possible, these materials will use a 

graphic format that does not require the 

use of any particular language. 

Moreover, renovation firms currently 

communicate job needs to their 

employees, and EPA doubts that firms 

routinely hire people with whom they 

are unable to communicate. Finally, 

EPA emphasizes again that the certified 

renovator and the renovation firm are 

responsible for ensuring compliance 

with this final rule. If the certified 

renovator has doubts about an 

employee’s understanding of or ability 

to comply with the requirements that 

are relevant to the work he or she is to 

undertake, the certified renovator may 

need to be on site and direct the work 

more regularly than he otherwise 

would, or may need to perform certain 

tasks himself. However, given the 

relative simplicity of the work practices 

that are required between establishment 

of containment and cleanup, EPA does 

not expect that this will often be 

necessary. 

Some commenters were concerned 

that OJT does not include a means to 

assess worker competence such as an 

examination. Commenters were also 

concerned about ongoing training needs 

and suggested requiring worker 

refresher training on a periodic or 

annual basis. This final rule requires a 

certified renovator to direct workers 

with OJT as necessary to ensure that 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21722 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

work practices are being followed. This 

will necessarily involve a period of 

observation after OJT is provided to 

ensure that the worker has understood 

and is following the work practices 

pertinent to his assigned duties. In 

addition, to some extent, OJT is 

continuous and certified renovators will 

likely need to continue to provide 

training to workers based on the 

activities that they will be expected to 

perform on a particular job. A certified 

renovator would not need to provide 

OJT to the same worker on consecutive 

jobs if the worker is performing the 

same work, but if the nature of the work 

varies, or if the firm hires a new 

employee, relevant OJT would have to 

be provided for the work to be 

performed. EPA believes that the 

continuous nature of OJT obviates the 

need for a refresher training requirement 

in the rule and will serve as an 

incentive for firms to have their 

permanent employees trained as 

certified renovators. EPA also believes 

that refresher training per se is not 

practical, given that OJT will be specific 

to the job in question. 

Some commenters wanted some form 

of verification that a worker had 

received training, such as a certificate of 

training or a sticker which could be 

placed on an ID card. Because each 

worker is not likely to receive training 

in all aspects of lead safe work 

practices, a certificate or other form of 

training completion that would indicate 

an employee’s OJT is complete is not 

appropriate for this program. It is 

important to note that OJT is not as 

portable as certified renovator training 

nor is it intended to be. Certified 

renovators carry a training certificate 

that they can present to each new 

employer to prove that they have 

received training in the required work 

practices. There is no corresponding 

document that can be used to verify OJT 

by a previous employer. Renovation 

firms will generally need to provide OJT 

each time a new worker is used. It is 

also the renovation firm’s responsibility 

to adequately document the elements of 

OJT provided to each worker on each 

project. 

Because a certified renovator must be 

assigned to each and every renovation 

covered by this regulation, EPA 

anticipates that some renovation 

contractors and property management 

companies will find that they achieve 

maximum efficiency and flexibility by 

qualifying all of their permanent 

employees who perform renovations as 

certified renovators. However, due to 

the industry’s high employee turnover 

rates and short-term labor needs, the 

Agency believes that training flexibility 

in the form of on-the-job training is 

needed. EPA believes that such 

flexibility will provide firms the ability 

to respond to variable labor demands 

and will not compromise the safety of 

this final rule. EPA is concerned that a 

regulation requiring formal, classroom 

training for every worker performing 

any renovation activity would be 

unrealistic for this industry and 

therefore less effective at ensuring that 

the renovation work force is trained in 

work practices than the more balanced 

training requirements in this final rule. 

b. Dust sampling technicians. Except 

as provided in 40 CFR 745.85(c), this 

final rule does not allow dust clearance 

sampling to be performed in lieu of 

post-renovation cleaning verification. 

However, some property owners may 

still choose to have dust clearance 

sampling performed after the 

renovation. Dust sampling technicians 

certified in accordance with this final 

rule will be available to perform dust 

clearance sampling after renovations 

and for purposes of HUD’s Lead Safe 

Housing Rule. 

Some commenters questioned the 

need for dust sampling technicians. One 

stated that there is no benefit to creating 

a third inspection-type discipline that 

has such limited training requirements. 

Two commenters thought that only 

EPA- or State-certified risk assessors 

should be allowed to collect dust wipe 

clearance samples and two commenters 

thought that dust sampling technicians 

should be required to work under a 

certified risk assessor or inspector. 

In 1999, in order to make accurate 

dust testing for lead more available and 

affordable, Congress provided EPA with 

funding for the development of a 1 day 

dust sampling technician course. 

Congress also encouraged the Agency to 

promote the recognition of this 

discipline. EPA completed the 

development of the course, entitled 

Lead Sampling Technician Training 

Course,’’ in July of 2000. This course 

provides instruction on how to conduct 

a visual assessment for deteriorated 

paint, collect samples for lead dust, and 

interpret sample results. The training 

curriculum provides clearance sampling 

instruction that is equivalent to that 

presented in inspector and risk assessor 

courses, in terms of time and quality 

with respect to dust sampling. 

Therefore, EPA can recommend that 

property owners and others who wish to 

have optional dust sampling performed 

use the services of a certified inspector, 

risk assessor, or dust sampling 

technician. 

c. Certification of individuals—i. 

Initial certification. Section 745.90 of 

this final rule addresses renovator and 

dust sampling technician certification. 

To become a certified renovator, a 

person must successfully complete a 

renovator course accredited by EPA or 

by a State, Territorial, or Tribal program 

authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part 

745, subpart Q. The renovator course 

accreditation requirements are based on 

the joint EPA-HUD model curriculum 

entitled Lead Safety for Remodeling, 

Repair, & Painting. EPA is not requiring 

additional education or work experience 

of persons wishing to become certified 

renovators. EPA renovator certification 

will allow the certified individual to 

perform renovations covered by this 

section in any State or Indian Tribal 

area that does not have a renovation 

program authorized under 40 CFR part 

745, subpart Q. To become a certified 

dust sampling technician, a person must 

successfully complete a dust sampling 

technician training course that has been 

accredited either by EPA or by a State, 

Territorial, or Tribal program authorized 

by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

Q. EPA is not requiring additional 

education or work experience of persons 

wishing to become certified dust 

sampling technicians. 

The final rule also establishes, in 40 

CFR 745.91, procedures for suspending, 

revoking, or modifying an individual’s 

or firm’s certification. These procedures 

are very similar to the current 

procedures in place at 40 CFR 745.226(i) 

for suspending, revoking, or modifying 

the certification of an individual who is 

certified to perform lead-based paint 

activities. In addition, under the final 

rule, renovator certification can be 

suspended, revoked, or modified if the 

certified renovator does not conduct 

projects to which he or she is assigned 

in accordance with the work practice 

requirements of this final rule. Finally, 

in order to ensure that the effect of a 

suspension, revocation, or modification 

determination is clear to the certified 

individual or firm, EPA has added 

language to this section ensuring that 

the commencement date and duration of 

a suspension, revocation, or 

modification is identified in the 

Presiding Officer’s decision and order. 

EPA has also added language to this 

section to clarify what steps an 

individual or firm must take after such 

an action in order to exercise the 

privileges of certification again. An 

individual whose certification has been 

suspended must take a refresher training 

course in the appropriate discipline in 

order to make his or her certification 

current, while an individual whose 

certification has been revoked must take 

another initial training course in order 

to be re-certified. A firm whose 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21723 

certification has been suspended need 

not do anything after the suspension 

ends to become current again, as long as 

the suspension ends before the firm’s 

certification expires. If the firm’s 

certificate expires during the 

suspension, the firm must apply for recertification after the suspension ends. 

If a firm’s certification is revoked, the 

firm must apply for certification after 

the revocation period ends in order to 

be certified. 

Some commenters questioned the 

need for a certification requirement, 

emphasizing that it is the training that 

is important rather than the 

certification. One commenter thought 

that, since firms will have to be 

certified, there was no added value in 

certifying renovators. Others supported 

certification and some thought 

renovators should have to apply to EPA 

to receive their certification in the same 

way that abatement workers do, stating 

that no regulatory program can work 

unless the regulating agency can reliably 

identify and contact the regulated 

individuals. One commenter thought 

that there should also be a work 

experience requirement for certified 

renovators. 

EPA believes that renovators must be 

certified so that the Agency has a 

mechanism to verify an individual has 

received the appropriate training. In 

addition, if a contractor does not 

comply with the regulatory standards 

then withdrawal of the renovator’s 

certification is a regulatory remedy 

available to the Agency. The final rule 

includes a certification process that is 

more streamlined than the individual 

certification process of the Agency’s 

abatement regulations. In the abatement 

program, an individual must complete 

training, then submit an application and 

fee to the Agency and, depending on the 

discipline, take a third party exam in 

order to be certified. In contrast, an 

individual will be considered a certified 

renovator upon successful completion 

of an accredited training program, and 

the accredited training program is 

required to submit identifying and 

contact information to EPA regarding 

the individuals that they have trained. 

EPA does not believe that work 

experience requirements are necessary 

because previous experience in the 

construction or renovation industry 

would do little to help an individual 

understand or perform the work 

practices, which are not a standard 

practice in the industry. Consequently, 

there is no relevant work experience for 

EPA to require. In addition, the work 

practices required by this final rule are 

sufficiently straightforward that EPA 

does not believe it is necessary to 

require work experience in addition to 

certified renovator training. 

Because EPA is not requiring any 

additional education or work experience 

requirements, or a third-party 

examination similar to that taken by 

inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor 

candidates, EPA believes that there is 

little value in requiring candidates to 

apply to EPA to receive their renovator 

or dust sampling technician 

certification. Currently, the only 

certified discipline without 

prerequisites in education or 

experience, or a third-party 

examination, is the abatement worker. 

When candidates for worker 

certification apply to EPA, EPA verifies 

that the copy of the training course 

certificate submitted with the 

application is from an accredited 

training provider. Without requiring 

renovators or dust sampling technicians 

to apply to EPA for certification EPA 

will still receive course completion 

information from course providers. With 

this information, EPA will have a 

complete list of certified renovators and 

will be able to check to see if a 

particular course completion certificate 

holder appeared on a course completion 

list submitted by the training course 

provider identified on the certificate. 

When EPA inspects a renovation job for 

compliance with these regulations, EPA 

will have the ability to verify, to the 

same extent, the validity of a course 

completion certificate held by a 

renovator at that job. Therefore, under 

this final rule, EPA is requiring that a 

course completion certificate from an 

accredited training provider serve as a 

renovator’s or dust sampling 

technician’s certification. To facilitate 

compliance monitoring, the rule 

requires a certified renovator or dust 

sampling technician to have a copy of 

the course completion certificate at the 

job site. 

Several commenters saw the need for 

a way to determine that a certified 

renovator was current with applicable 

training requirements. Suggestions for 

proof of training included issuing photo 

IDs, issuing a hard card or certificate, 

and establishing a national database of 

workers with current training. One 

commenter thought that it should be the 

responsibility of the training provider to 

certify that renovators have successfully 

completed the training requirements 

and to then supply EPA with all of the 

information. EPA agrees that there must 

be a way to determine if a renovator is 

certified and is current with training 

requirements. The Agency agrees that a 

database of renovator information 

would be important, and will include 

identifying and training information in 

the Agency’s Federal Lead Paint 

Program (FLPP) database. However, this 

database will only contain information 

about certified renovators working in 

federally administered jurisdictions. In 

addition, the Agency will require 

training programs to include a 

photograph of the individual who 

completes renovator or dust sampling 

technician training on the training 

certificate and to submit that photo to 

the Agency to be included in the 

database record. This will enable 

inspectors to determine whether a 

particular individual has received 

training from an accredited training 

provider. 

Some of the commenters had 

concerns specific to small businesses. 

Two commenters stressed the need for 

outreach programs to inform small 

businesses of new compliance 

requirements. One commenter stated 

that smaller firms should not be exempt 

from training and certification 

requirements; another thought that 

small businesses would continue to 

operate without appropriate training 

and certification unless there was some 

type of enforcement. EPA understands 

that the task of communicating this final 

rule requirements to the renovation 

community will be challenging. 

Therefore, EPA is developing a 

comprehensive outreach and 

communications program to support 

this final rule. This will include 

outreach to contractors as well as 

consumers. In addition the Agency 

plans to roll out a compliance assistance 

effort to complement this undertaking. 

One commenter suggested that 

authorized State, Territorial, or Tribal 

programs include the requirement for 

training as part of a contractor licensing 

function, thereby eliminating the need 

to create a special (new) lead renovator’s 

certification or license. EPA agrees that 

where a State, Territory, or Tribe has a 

pre-existing relationship with 

renovation contactors, such as a 

renovators’ licensing program, the 

simplest and most cost-effective 

approach may be to incorporate a 

requirement for lead safe work practice 

training into that pre-existing program. 

ii. Recertification. Under this final 

rule EPA is requiring that renovators 

and dust sampling technicians who 

wish to remain certified take refresher 

training every 5 years. In addition, EPA 

is requiring that the refresher training 

course be half the length of the initial 

course. This is consistent with current 

practice for certified individuals 

performing lead-based paint activities. If 

an individual does not take a refresher 

course within 5 years of the date he or 

she completed the initial course or the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21724 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

previous refresher course, that 

individual’s certification will expire on 

that date and that individual may no 

longer serve as a certified renovator or 

dust sampling technician. There is no 

grace period. To become certified again, 

the individual must take another initial 

training course. In addition, under this 

final rule a certified renovator may 

choose to take the initial renovator 

course instead of a refresher course to 

allow maximum flexibility, particularly 

if for some reason the person was 

unable to attend a refresher course. 

Some commenters asserted that the 

refresher requirement was of no benefit 

or imposed an unnecessary cost. These 

commenters reasoned that lead-safe 

work practices were not likely to change 

significantly over time. One noted that 

HUD’s experience with lead-safe work 

practices training since 1999 has not 

revealed a need for refresher training in 

their program. Commenters who 

supported refresher training differed on 

the frequency of the training and the 

length of the refresher course. Some 

agreed that refresher training should be 

required every 3 years, others thought it 

should be required biennially, annually, 

or every 3 to 6 months. One commenter 

agreed with the proposed 4–hour 

course, two commenters thought a 4– 

hour course was too short, and one 

thought that instead of completing a 

refresher, certified renovators should be 

required to retake the initial training 

course every 2 to 3 years. One 

commenter stated that a certified 

renovator should have the opportunity 

to take a third party test and allow the 

renovator to ‘‘test out’’ of having to 

complete the refresher course. 

After considering the range of 

concerns raised by the commenters, 

EPA has concluded that refresher 

training is important for renovators and 

dust sampling technicians and for the 

Agency. During the refresher course, 

renovators and dust sampling 

technicians are given the opportunity to 

discuss any point of emphasis and to be 

updated on changes in the regulations 

or technical issues. For example, 

refresher training could be used to 

update renovators on availability of new 

techniques and products, such as test 

kits. Refresher training provides the 

Agency with a mechanism to pass along 

critical information to certified 

individuals and to keep track of the 

workforce. However, EPA has 

determined that these purposes can be 

adequately served by 4–hour refresher 

training every 5 years, instead of every 

3 years. This provides a reasonable 

period between trainings that limits 

training costs while providing an 

opportunity to update renovators and 

dust sampling technicians regarding 

regulations and technical issues. EPA 

believes that most renovators will not 

also be certified abatement 

professionals, so the difference in the 

length of time between required 

refresher courses should not confuse 

individuals about their responsibilities 

under the two programs. 

iii. Grandfathering. Under this final 

rule, individuals who successfully 

completed an accredited abatement 

worker or supervisor course, and 

individuals who successfully completed 

either HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD 

model renovation training courses may 

take an accredited refresher renovation 

training course in lieu of the initial 

renovation training to become a certified 

renovator. In addition, individuals who 

have successfully completed an 

accredited lead-based paint inspector or 

risk assessor course, but are not 

currently certified in the discipline, may 

take an accredited refresher dust 

sampling technician course in lieu of 

the initial training to become a certified 

dust sampling technician. Inspectors 

and risk assessors who are certified by 

EPA or an authorized program are 

qualified to perform dust sampling as 

part of lead hazard screens, risk 

assessments, or abatements. Therefore, 

it would be unnecessary for a certified 

inspector or risk assessor to seek 

certification as a dust sampling 

technician. 

A number of commenters thought that 

certification should be given to those 

who have already attended appropriate 

training. Some of these commenters 

thought that individuals who had 

received EPA, HUD, or State-approved 

Lead Safe Work Practices (LSWP) 

training should be grandfathered. One 

commenter thought individuals that had 

completed OSHA’s 40–hour Hazardous 

Waste Operations and Emergency 

Response course should also be 

grandfathered and another wanted 

individuals that had taken the National 

Apartment Association’s lead worker 

training course to be grandfathered. 

Four commenters were in favor of 

grandfathering dust sampling 

technicians that have previously 

completed a dust sampling course. 

Most of the commenters who 

expressed an opinion agreed with 

grandfathering previously trained 

individuals but suggested that there be 

restrictions. Some of these commenters 

thought that in order to receive credit 

the training needed to have been 

completed in the last 2 to 3 years while 

others thought that certification should 

be given only if a refresher or ‘‘gap’’ 

course were completed. One commenter 

thought that the quality of the previous 

course should be taken into account and 

another commenter thought that a onesize fits all rule would not be 

appropriate and that factors including 

previous course requirements, the 

facility that had provided the training, 

and time elapsed since initial training 

should all be considered in establishing 

requirements for streamlined 

certification. One commenter opposed 

grandfathering, noting that existing 

courses do not cover lead test kits, 

cleaning verification, or recordkeeping 

in accordance with the proposed rule. 

The final rule allows individuals who 

have successfully completed model 

renovation courses developed by HUD 

or EPA and individuals who have taken 

an abatement worker or supervisor 

course accredited by EPA or an 

authorized State or Tribal program to 

become certified renovators by taking 

EPA-accredited renovator refresher 

training. Individuals who have 

successfully completed a risk assessor 

or inspector course accredited by EPA 

or an authorized State or Tribal program 

can become certified dust sampling 

technicians by taking EPA-accredited 

dust sampling technician refresher 

training. EPA is recognizing only EPA 

and HUD model renovation training and 

lead-based paint activities training 

courses accredited by EPA or an 

authorized State, Territorial, or Tribal 

program because EPA has not 

sufficiently evaluated the content of 

other courses. In addition, it would be 

unwieldy to develop the content of 

multiple refresher courses based on the 

content of different initial training 

courses. While the recognized training 

provides meaningful information 

relevant to these disciplines, it does not 

include some specific requirements of 

this final regulation. Therefore, EPA is 

requiring these individuals to receive 

refresher training to ensure they are 

familiar with the requirements of this 

final rule. Training providers are 

required to notify EPA of the 

individuals who become certified by 

successfully completing the refresher 

training. This information will support 

EPA’s compliance assistance programs. 

2. Renovation firms—a. 

Responsibilities of renovation firms. 

Under this final rule, firms must ensure 

that all persons performing renovation 

activities on behalf of the firm are either 

certified renovators or have been trained 

and are directed by a certified renovator 

in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. The 

firm is responsible for assigning a 

certified renovator to each renovation 

performed by the firm and ensuring that 

the certified renovator discharges all of 

the responsibilities identified in this 

final rule. The firm must ensure that the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21725 

information distribution requirements 

in 40 CFR 745.84 are met. As mentioned 

above, the certified renovator is 

responsible for ensuring compliance 

with 40 CFR 745.85 at all renovations to 

which he or she is assigned. The firm is 

also responsible for ensuring that all 

renovations performed by the firm are 

performed using certified renovators 

and in accordance with the work 

practice standards in proposed 40 CFR 

745.85. 

Where multiple contractors are 

involved in a renovation, any contractor 

who disturbs, or whose employees 

disturb, paint in excess of the minor 

maintenance exception is responsible 

for compliance with all of the 

requirements of this final rule. In this 

situation, renovation firms may find it 

advantageous to decide among 

themselves which firm will provide prerenovation education to the owners and 

occupants, which firm will establish 

containment, and which firm will 

perform the post-renovation cleaning 

and cleaning verification. For example, 

a general contractor may be hired to 

conduct a multi-faceted project 

involving the large-scale disturbance of 

paint, which the general contractor then 

divides up among several 

subcontractors. In this situation, having 

the general contractor discharge the 

obligations of the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule is likely to be the most 

efficient approach, since this only needs 

to be done once. With regard to 

containment, the general contractor may 

decide that it is most cost-effective to 

establish one large work area for the 

entire project. In this case, from the time 

that containment is established until 

post-renovation cleaning verification 

occurs, all general contractor and 

subcontractor personnel performing 

renovation tasks within the work area 

must be certified renovators or trained 

and directed by certified renovators in 

accordance with this rule. In addition, 

these personnel are responsible for 

ensuring the integrity of the 

containment barriers. The cleaning and 

post-renovation cleaning verification 

could be performed by any properly 

qualified individuals, without regard to 

whether they are employees of the 

general contractor or a subcontractor. 

However, all contractors involved in the 

disturbance of lead-based paint, or who 

perform work within the work area 

established for the containment of lead 

dust and debris, are responsible for 

compliance with this final rule, 

regardless of any agreements the 

contractors may have made among 

themselves. 

b. Certification of firms—i. Initial 

certification. This final rule requires 

firms that perform renovations, as 

defined by this rule, to be certified by 

EPA. EPA is adding a definition of 

‘‘firm’’ to § 745.83 to make it clear that 

this term includes persons in business 

for themselves, i.e., sole proprietorships, 

as well as Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local governmental agencies, and 

nonprofit organizations. Firms covered 

by this final rule include firms that 

typically perform renovations, such as 

building contractors or home 

improvement contractors, as well as 

property management companies or 

owners of multi-family housing 

performing property maintenance 

activities that include renovations 

within the scope of this final rule. 

This final rule provides information 

about the certification and recertification process, establishes 

procedures for amending and 

transferring certifications, and identifies 

clear deadlines. A firm wishing to 

become certified to perform renovations 

must submit a complete ‘‘Application 

for Firms,’’ signed by an authorized 

agent of the firm, along with the correct 

certification fee. EPA intends to 

establish firm certification fees in a 

separate rulemaking. EPA will approve 

a firm’s initial application within 90 

days of receipt if it is complete, 

including the proper amount of fees, 

and if EPA determines that the 

environmental compliance history of 

the firm, its principals, or its key 

employees does not show an 

unwillingness or inability to comply 

with applicable environmental statutes 

or regulations. EPA will generally 

consider the following to be an 

indication that the applicant is 

unwilling or unable to comply with 

environmental statutes or regulations if, 

during the past 3 years, the applicant 

has: 

• A criminal conviction under a 

Federal environmental statute; 

• An administrative or civil 

judgment against the applicant for a 

willful violation of a Federal 

environmental statutory or regulatory 

requirement; or 

• More than one administrative or 

civil judgment for a violation of a 

Federal environmental statute. 

Violations that involve only 

recordkeeping requirements will not be 

considered. 

If the application is approved, EPA 

will establish the firm’s certification 

expiration date at 5 years from the date 

of EPA’s approval. EPA certification 

will allow the firm to perform 

renovations covered by this section in 

any State or Indian Tribal area that does 

not have a renovation program 

authorized under 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart Q. If the application is 

incomplete, EPA will notify the firm 

within 90 days of receipt that its 

application was incomplete, and ask the 

firm to supplement its application 

within 30 days. If the firm does not 

supplement its application within that 

period of time, or if EPA’s check into 

the compliance history of the firm 

revealed an unwillingness or inability to 

comply with environmental statutes or 

regulations, EPA will not approve the 

application and will provide the 

applicant with the reasons for not 

approving the application. EPA will not 

refund the application fees. A firm 

could reapply for certification at any 

time by filing a new, complete 

application that included the correct 

amount of fees. 

This final rule provides firms with 

more time to amend their certification 

whenever a change occurs. A firm must 

amend its certification within 90 days 

whenever a change occurs to 

information included in the firm’s most 

recent application. If the firm failed to 

amend its certification within 90 days of 

the date the change occurred, the firm 

would not be authorized to perform 

renovations until its certification was 

amended. Examples of amendments 

include a change in the firm’s name 

without transfer of ownership, or a 

change of address or other contact 

information. To amend its certification, 

a firm must submit an application, 

noting on the form that it was submitted 

as an amendment. The firm must 

complete the sections of the application 

pertaining to the new information, and 

sign and date the form. The amendment 

must include the correct amount of fees. 

Amending a certification will not affect 

the validity of the existing certification 

or extend the certification expiration 

date. EPA will issue the firm a new 

certificate if necessary to reflect 

information included in the 

amendment. Firm certifications are not 

transferable--if the firm is sold, the new 

owner must submit a new initial 

application for certification in 

accordance with 40 CFR 745.89(a). The 

final rule also includes procedures for 

suspending, revoking, or modifying a 

firm’s certification. These procedures 

are very similar to the current 

procedures in place for suspending, 

revoking, or modifying the certification 

of a firm that is certified to perform 

lead-based paint activities. 

Some commenters questioned the 

need for firm certification, while others, 

including industry representatives, 

supported it. The Agency believes that 

firm certification is necessary for several 

reasons. First, certification is an 

important tool for the Agency’s 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21726 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

enforcement program. To become 

certified, a firm acknowledges their 

responsibility to use appropriately 

trained and certified employees and 

follow the work practice standards set 

forth in the final rule. This is especially 

important under this final rule, since 

the certified renovator is not required to 

perform or be present during all of the 

renovation activities. Under these 

circumstances, it is important for the 

firm to acknowledge its legal 

responsibility for compliance with all of 

the final rule requirements, since the 

firm both hires and exercises 

supervisory control over all of its 

employees. Should the firm be found to 

violate any requirements, its 

certification can be revoked, giving the 

firm a strong incentive to ensure 

compliance by all employees. 

ii. Recertification. Under 40 CFR 

745.89(b), a certified firm maintains its 

certification by submitting a complete 

and timely ‘‘Application for Firms,’’ 

noting that it is an application for recertification, and paying the required recertification fee. With regard to the 

timeliness of the application for recertification, if a complete application, 

including the proper fee, is postmarked 

90 days or more before the date the 

firm’s current certification expires, the 

application will be considered timely 

and sufficient, and the firm’s existing 

certification will remain in effect until 

its expiration date or until EPA has 

made a final decision to approve therecertification application, or not, 

whichever occurs later. If the firm 

submits a complete re-certification 

application fewer than 90 days before 

the date the firm’s current certification 

expired, EPA might be able to process 

the application and re-certify the 

applicant before the expiration date, but 

this would not be guaranteed. If EPA 

does not approve the re-certification 

application before the existing 

application expired, the firm’s 

certification expires and the firm is not 

able to conduct renovations until EPA 

approves its re-certification application. 

In any case, the firm’s new certification 

expiration date will be 5 years from the 

date the existing certification expired. 

If the firm submits an incomplete 

application for re-certification and EPA 

does not receive all of the required 

information and fees before the date the 

firm’s current certification expires, or if 

the firm does not submit its application 

until after its certification expired, EPA 

will not approve the firm’s recertification application. The firm 

cannot cure any deficiencies in its 

application package by postmarking 

missing information or fees by its 

certification expiration date. All 

required information and fees must be 

in EPA’s possession as of the expiration 

date for EPA to approve the application. 

If EPA does not approve the application, 

the Agency will provide the applicant 

with the reasons for not approving the 

re-certification application. Any fees 

submitted by the applicant will not be 

refunded, but the firm can submit a new 

application for certification, along with 

the correct amount of fees, at any time. 

As with initial applications, this final 

rule includes a description of the 

actions EPA may take in response to an 

application for re-certification and the 

reasons why EPA will take a particular 

action. This section is identical to the 

process for initial applications, except 

that EPA will not require an incomplete 

application to be supplemented within 

30 days of the date EPA requests 

additional information or fees. In the recertification context, the firm must 

make its application complete by the 

date that its current certification 

expires. 

Several commenters thought that 

firms should not be required to be recertified because the firm’s certification 

is not based on knowledge or 

technology, but rather on a promise to 

abide by the rules. The Agency believes 

that firm re-certification is an important 

element of the final regulation. Firm recertification provides a mechanism for 

EPA to keep its records current with 

respect to firms actively engaged in 

renovations. Re-certification also 

provides a means for EPA to ensure that 

it has updated firm contact information. 

Re-certification also prompts the firm to 

positively reaffirm their commitment to 

adhere to the requirements set forth in 

this regulation. Finally, re-certification 

allows EPA an opportunity to review a 

firm’s compliance history before it 

obtains re-certification. However, EPA 

has determined that these purposes can 

be adequately served by re-certifying 

renovation firms every 5 years instead of 

every 3 years as proposed. 

D. Training Provider Accreditation and 

Recordkeeping 

EPA is amending the general 

accreditation requirements of 40 CFR 

745.225 to apply to training programs 

that offer renovator or dust sampling 

technician courses for certification 

purposes. The regulations describe 

training program qualifications, quality 

control measures, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, as well as 

suspension, revocation, and 

modification procedures. Amendments 

to § 745.225 add specific requirements 

for the renovator and dust sampling 

technician disciplines. Also included 

are minimum training curriculum, 

training hour, and hands-on 

requirements for courses leading to 

certification as a renovator or a dust 

sampling technician. As discussed in 

the previous Unit of this preamble, to 

assist EPA compliance inspectors in 

determining whether a renovator at a 

renovation work site successfully 

completed an accredited renovator 

training course, this final rule also 

requires providers of renovator training 

to take a digital photograph of each 

individual who successfully completes 

a renovator training course, include that 

photograph on the individual’s course 

completion certificate, and provide that 

photograph to EPA along with the 

training course provider’s post-training 

notification required by 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(14). 

Training course providers that 

obtained accreditation to offer renovator 

or dust sampling technician training 

would have to comply with the existing 

recordkeeping requirements for leadbased paint activities training course 

providers. These existing recordkeeping 

provisions require providers to maintain 

records of course materials, course test 

blueprints, information on how handson training is delivered, and the results 

of the students’ skills assessments and 

course tests. EPA received no comments 

on this aspect of the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

requirements are currently working well 

for lead-based paint activities training 

providers and EPA believes they will 

work equally well for renovation 

training providers. Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing this requirement as proposed. 

Training course providers who receive 

accreditation to provide renovator or 

dust sampling technician courses must 

comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements of 40 CFR 745.225(i). 

1. Renovator training. The minimum 

curriculum requirements for an initial 

renovator course are described in 40 

CFR 745.225(d)(6). The topics include 

the roles and responsibilities of a 

renovator; background information on 

lead and its health effects; background 

on applicable Federal, State, and local 

regulations and guidance; use of 

acceptable test kits to test paint to 

determine whether it is lead-based 

paint; methods to minimize the creation 

of lead-based paint hazards during 

renovations; containment and clean-up 

methods; ways to verify that a 

renovation project has been properly 

completed, including cleaning 

verification; and waste handling and 

disposal. Hands-on activities relating to 

renovation methods, containment and 

clean-up, cleaning verification, and 

waste handling would be required in all 

courses. Section 745.225(c)(6)(vi) 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21727 

establishes the minimum length for an 

initial renovator course at 8 training 

hours, with 2 hours being devoted to 

hands-on activities. 

Commenters raised concerns and had 

suggestions regarding how certified 

renovator training should be conducted 

in three broad areas: Course length; 

course content and format; and training 

of non-English speaking renovators. 

a. Course length. Several commenters 

raised concerns about the length of the 

certified renovator training course. 

Some agreed with the training length as 

defined in the rule, others stated it was 

too short or too long, and one said that 

the length of the training should not be 

defined in the rule. In establishing the 

minimum requirements for the 

renovator course, the Agency 

considered the many types of activities 

that would likely be performed during 

renovation, remodeling, and painting 

activities and tried to balance that with 

the need for a training course that 

would address the necessary skills 

without being overly burdensome on the 

part of the trainee. The suggested course 

schedule for the EPA/HUD lead-safe 

work practices curriculum ‘‘Lead Safety 

for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting’’ 

calls for an 8–hour training day, 

including lunch, two breaks, and an 

hour-long course test. The course is 

designed in a modular format, so that it 

can be delivered in 1 day or over two 

or more days, at the discretion of the 

training provider. Based on a review of 

the material and the suggested schedule, 

EPA believes that ‘‘Lead Safety for 

Remodeling, Repair, and Painting’’ can 

be modified to include material on the 

use of test kits and performing cleaning 

verification and still fit within eight 

training hours. However, any attempt to 

cover all of the required elements in a 

shorter period of time would likely 

result in a significant reduction in the 

level of detail with which the elements 

are presented. A minimum requirement 

for eight training hours represents a 

reasonable minimum requirement for 

the renovator course and gives training 

course providers an indication of the 

amount of time that EPA has 

determined through experience with the 

EPA/HUD curriculum that it takes to 

adequately cover each required training 

element. 

b. Course content and format. Most 

commenters agree that the certified 

renovator course should include a 

hands-on training portion and several of 

these agree that the hands-on portion 

should not be any shorter than two 

hours as proposed. Other commenters 

suggested that the hands-on portion of 

the training should be allowed to be 

conducted as a demonstration via a 

remote delivery system (DVD or 

Internet). EPA agrees that development 

of a procedure to address the hands-on 

component of the renovator course via 

remote delivery systems would be 

beneficial. This final rule does not 

preclude training providers from 

developing alternative methods for the 

delivery and evaluation of training for 

submission for approval to EPA. 

Several commenters had suggestions 

as to the certified renovator training 

content. Two recommended that the 

renovator course include training on 

recordkeeping requirements. EPA agrees 

with these commenters, and has added 

the element of recordkeeping to the 

required training course elements for 

renovators. Because EPA has modified 

the recordkeeping requirements, as 

discussed below, to require the certified 

renovator to prepare the records 

associated with renovations to which he 

or she is assigned, the renovation 

training course will include a 

recordkeeping component. Three 

commenters suggested that, if the 

certified renovator is responsible for 

providing OJT to other renovation 

workers, the renovator training course 

should include a train-the-trainer 

component. EPA agrees with these 

commenters and has added a train-thetrainer element to the required elements 

for the renovator training course. In 

addition, EPA will develop a train-thetrainer component for its model 

renovator training course. Other 

commenters suggested that the required 

training elements include OSHA health 

and personal safety requirements. The 

Agency agrees that these are relevant 

topics and considers an overview of the 

OSHA requirements to be part of the 

required element of background on 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

regulations and requirements. To ensure 

that this is clear, EPA has modified this 

provision to state that the background 

information must include EPA, HUD, 

OSHA, and other Federal, State, and 

local regulations and guidance. 

Consistent with its approach in other 

courses related to lead-based paint 

activities, the Agency believes that 

identifying potential OSHA 

requirements, rather than requiring indepth curriculum components, is the 

best way to make trainees aware of those 

requirements and yet avoid 

redundancies between EPA- and OSHArequired courses. 

c. Training of non-English speaking 

renovators. Renovator and dust 

sampling technician courses, both 

initial and refresher, can be taught in 

any language, but accreditation would 

be required for each specific language 

the provider wished to present the 

course in. All course materials and 

instruction for the course would have to 

be in the language of the course. The 

modification to § 745.225(b)(1)(ii) 

clarifies that all lead-based paint 

courses taught in different languages are 

considered different courses, and 

accreditation must be obtained for each. 

To facilitate accreditation of courses in 

languages other than English, EPA is 

requiring that the training provider 

include in its application both the 

English version as well as the nonEnglish version of all training materials, 

in addition to a signed statement from 

a qualified, independent translator that 

the translator has compared the nonEnglish language version of the course 

materials to the English-language 

version and that the translation is 

accurate. This requirement applies to 

any course for which accreditation is 

sought, including lead-based paint 

activities courses. Finally, to assist EPA 

in monitoring compliance with these 

requirements, EPA is requiring that 

course completion certificates include 

the language in which the course was 

taught. 

Several commenters agreed that the 

needs of non-English speaking workers 

should be considered. Commenters 

suggested that EPA translate its model 

course into other languages and/or 

facilitate free access to such 

translations. EPA agrees that it is 

important to have renovator training 

available in languages other than 

English. EPA anticipates translating its 

revised model renovator course into 

Spanish. EPA will also consider 

translating the course into other 

languages. However, EPA is not able to 

make available proprietary material 

developed by training course providers 

that is then translated by those 

providers into other languages. 

2. Dust sampling technician training. 

The minimum curriculum requirements 

for an initial dust sampling technician 

course are described in 40 CFR 

745.225(d)(7). The topics include the 

roles and responsibilities of a dust 

sampling technician; background 

information on lead and its adverse 

health effects; background information 

on Federal, State, and local regulations 

and guidance that pertains to lead-based 

paint and renovation activities; dust 

sampling methodologies; clearance 

standards and testing; and report 

preparation and recordkeeping 

requirements. Section 745.225(c)(6)(vii) 

establishes the minimum length for an 

initial dust sampling technician course 

at 8 training hours, with 2 hours being 

devoted to hands-on activities. EPA 

received relatively few comments 

specifically on the content of dust 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

sampling technician training; most had 

to do with the length of the training 

course. EPA has developed a model dust 

sampling technician course (Ref. 33). 

This course has been designed to be 

delivered in one 8–hour training day, 

including lunch, breaks, and a course 

test. As with the EPA/HUD ‘‘Lead Safety 

for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting’’ 

curriculum, EPA believes that this is a 

reasonable minimum requirement for 

the dust sampling technician course and 

it gives training course providers an 

indication of the amount of time that 

EPA has determined it takes to 

adequately cover each required training 

element. 

E. Work Practices 

This final rule requires that all 

renovations subject to this rule be 

conducted in accordance with a defined 

set of work practice standards. Again, 

this final rule is a revision of the 

existing TSCA section 402(a) Leadbased Paint Activities Regulations to 

extend training, certification, and work 

practice requirements to certain 

renovation and remodeling projects in 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities. In so doing, EPA did not 

merely modify the scope of the current 

abatement requirements to cover 

renovation and remodeling activities. 

Rather, EPA has carefully considered 

the elements of the existing abatement 

regulations and is revising those 

regulations in a manner that reflects the 

differences between abatement and 

renovation activities. 

Work practices for abatement are part 

of larger range of activities that are 

intended to identify and eliminate leadbased paint hazards. When abatements 

are conducted, residents typically are 

removed from the home until after the 

abatement activities are completed, 

which is demonstrated through the use 

of clearance testing. This may require 

the removal of carpeting, refinishing, 

sealing, or replacement of floors to 

achieve clearance. Accordingly, 

clearance testing is part of a broader set 

of activities that comprise abatement, 

with the purpose of permanently 

eliminating existing lead-based paint 

hazards. 

Renovation, repair, and painting 

activities typically are conducted while 

the residents are present in the dwelling 

and are not activities intended to 

eliminate lead-based paint hazards. 

Work practices for renovation, repair, 

and painting are designed to minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created by the renovation both during 

the renovation, while residents are 

likely to be present in the dwelling, and 

after the renovation. The work practices 

are not intended to address pre-existing 

hazards. 

1. In general. This final rule 

incorporates work practice standards 

generally derived from the HUD 

Guidelines, EPA’s draft technical 

specifications for renovations, and the 

model training curriculum entitled Lead 

Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & 

Painting (Refs. 18, 34, and 35). For more 

information on the development of 

these documents, please consult Unit 

III.C. of the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal. To reduce exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by 

renovation activities, the work practices 

standards in this regulation provide 

basic requirements for occupant 

protection, site preparation, and cleanup. 

Commenters generally felt that work 

practices are important and should be 

clear and correctly followed. One 

commenter stated that the rule has 

‘‘tremendous potential for making a 

difference,’’ especially in establishing 

and ‘‘reinforcing the industry norm.’’ 

One commenter noted that EPA should 

‘‘set simple and flexible work 

practices.’’ Another commenter asked 

for less specificity. EPA believes that 

this final rule provides certified 

renovators an appropriate blend of 

flexibility and specificity. EPA believes 

that, due to the highly variable nature of 

renovation activities, flexibility is 

needed for certain tasks, such as 

establishing containment, and that other 

tasks, such as specialized cleaning, 

require a greater degree of specificity. 

2. Occupant protection. This final 

rule requires the firm to post signs 

clearly defining the work area and 

warning occupants and other persons 

not involved in renovation activities to 

remain outside of the work area. In 

addition, it requires that the certified 

renovator be physically present at the 

work site when the required signs are 

posted. These signs must be posted 

before beginning the renovation and 

must remain in place until the 

renovation has been completed and 

cleaning verification has been 

completed. The signs must be, to the 

extent practicable, provided in the 

occupants’ primary language. If warning 

signs have been posted in accordance 

with HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule (24 

CFR 35.1345(b)(2)) or OSHA’s Lead in 

Construction Standard (29 CFR 

1926.62(m)), additional signs are not 

required. 

Three commenters stated that the 

required signs for posting at a work site 

should be in the language of the 

occupant. One commenter stated that 

such a requirement would be consistent 

with HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 

requirements. EPA agrees that having 

signs in the language of the occupant is 

preferable. However, the Agency is 

concerned that renovators will not have 

the ability to provide signs in every 

language, and that it may be the case 

that occupants, especially in multifamily dwellings, will speak a variety of 

languages. In the HUD Lead Safe 

Housing Rule, HUD addressed this issue 

by requiring that signs, to the extent 

practicable, be provided in the 

occupants’ primary language. Therefore, 

consistent with HUD’s Lead Safe 

Housing Rule, this final rule requires 

warning signs, to the extent practicable, 

to be provided in the occupants’ 

primary language. 

3. Containment. This final rule 

requires that the firm isolate the work 

area so that dust or debris does not leave 

the work area while the renovation is 

being performed. In addition, EPA has 

clarified that the firm must maintain the 

integrity of the containment by ensuring 

that any plastic or other impermeable 

materials are not torn or displaced, and 

taking any other steps necessary to 

ensure that dust or debris does not leave 

the work area while the renovation is 

being performed. 

In addition, EPA has made 

conforming changes to the performance 

standard that renovators and renovation 

firms are being held to in this final rule. 

EPA was concerned that the rule text 

and preamble were confusing because 

there were references to ‘‘visible’’ dust 

and debris or ‘‘identifiable’’ dust and 

debris and ‘‘all’’ dust and debris. For 

example, in the 2006 Proposal ‘‘work 

area’’ was defined as the area 

established by the certified renovator to 

‘‘contain all the dust and debris 

generated by a renovation.’’ In the 

renovator responsibilities (as proposed 

at 40 CFR 745.90(b)(4)), the renovator 

was responsible for ensuring ‘‘that dust 

and debris is not spread beyond the 

work area.’’ In describing the 

containment to be established, the rule 

text referred to ‘‘visible’’ dust and debris 

and in the section on waste from 

renovations (as proposed at 40 CFR 

745.85(a)(3)) the rule text referred to 

‘‘identifiable’’ dust. It was not EPA’s 

intention to create subjectivity as to 

whether dust and debris were being 

dispersed. By conforming its 

terminology EPA is clarifying that 

certified renovators and renovation 

firms must ensure that the dust and 

debris (as opposed to ‘‘visible’’ or 

‘‘indentifiable’’ dust and debris) 

generated by the renovation is 

contained. Should an EPA inspector 

observe dust or debris escaping from the 

containment, the certified renovator and 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21729 

the renovation firm would be in 

violation of this final rule. 

This final rule also requires that the 

certified renovator be physically present 

at the work site when the required 

containment is established. This means 

the certified renovator must determine 

for each regulated project the size and 

type of containment necessary to 

prevent dust and debris from leaving the 

established work area. This 

determination will be based on the 

certified renovator’s evaluation of the 

extent and nature of the activity and the 

specific work practices that will be 

used. 

Containment refers to methods of 

preventing leaded dust from 

contaminating objects in the work area 

and from migrating beyond the work 

area. It includes, among other possible 

measures, the use of disposable plastic 

drop cloths to cover floors and objects 

in the work area, and sealing of 

openings with plastic sheeting where 

necessary to prevent dust and debris 

from leaving the work area. When 

planning a renovation project, it is the 

certified renovator’s responsibility to 

determine the type of work site 

preparation necessary to prevent dust 

and debris from leaving the work area. 

Renovation projects generate varying 

amounts of leaded dust, paint chips, 

and other lead-contaminated materials 

depending on the type of work, area 

affected, and work methods used. 

Because of this variability, the size of 

the area that must be isolated and the 

containment methods used will vary 

from project to project. Large renovation 

projects could involve one or more 

rooms and potentially encompass an 

entire home or building, while small 

projects may require only a relatively 

small amount of containment. The 

necessary work area preparations will 

depend on the size of the surface(s) 

being disturbed, the method used in 

disturbing the surface, and the building 

layout. For example, repairing a small 

area of damaged drywall would most 

likely require the containment of a 

smaller work area and less preparation 

than demolition work, which would 

most likely require a containment of a 

larger work area and more extensive 

preparation in order to prevent the 

migration of dust and debris from the 

work area. The Environmental Field 

Sampling Study, which found that the 

following activities created dust-lead 

hazards at a distance of 6 feet from 

where the work was being performed: 

• Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 

• Window replacement. 

• HVAC duct work. 

• Demolition of interior plaster 

walls. 

• Drilling into wood. 

• Sawing into wood. 

• Sawing into plaster. 

Based on these data, EPA believes that 

at least 6 feet of containment is 

necessary to contain dust generated by 

most renovation projects. 

Under this final rule, at a minimum, 

interior work area preparations must 

include removing all objects in the work 

area or covering them with plastic 

sheeting or other impermeable material. 

This includes fixed objects, such as 

cabinets and countertops, and objects 

that may be difficult to move, such as 

appliances. Interior preparations must 

also include closing all forced air HVAC 

ducts in the work area and covering 

them with plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material; closing all 

windows in the work area; closing and 

sealing all doors in the work area; and 

covering the floor surface in the work 

area, including installed carpet, with 

taped-down plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material in the work area 

6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to contain the dust, whichever 

is greater. 

To ensure that dust and debris do not 

leave the work area, it may be necessary 

to close forced air HVAC ducts or 

windows near the work area. Doors 

within the work area that will be used 

while the job is being performed must 

be covered with plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material in a manner that 

allows workers to pass through, while 

confining dust and debris to the work 

area. In addition, all personnel, tools, 

and other items, including the exterior 

of containers of waste, must be free of 

dust and debris when leaving the work 

area. 

For exterior projects, the same 

performance standard applies; namely, 

the certified renovator or a worker 

under the direction of the certified 

renovator must contain the work area so 

that dust or debris does not leave the 

work area while the renovation is being 

performed. Additionally, in response to 

comments suggesting that EPA follow 

the HUD Guidelines with respect to 

exterior containment requirements, EPA 

has incorporated a similar 10 foot 

minimum. Consequently, this final rule 

requires that exterior containment 

include covering the ground 10 feet 

beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to collect falling paint debris, 

whichever is greater, unless the 

property line prevents 10 feet of such 

ground covering. EPA has concluded 

that this is an appropriate and 

reasonable precaution for exterior work, 

given the fact that some amount of 

dispersal of dust or debris is likely as a 

result of air movement, even on 

relatively calm days. In addition, EPA 

sees value in maintaining appropriate 

consistency between this regulation and 

related HUD rules and guidelines. 

In addition to such ground covering, 

exterior work area preparations must 

include, at a minimum, closing all doors 

and windows within 20 feet of the 

outside of the work area on the same 

floor as the renovation, and closing all 

doors and windows on the floors below 

that area. For example, if the renovation 

involves sanding a 5-foot by 5-foot area 

of paint in the middle of the third floor 

of a building, and that side of the 

building is only 40 feet long, all doors 

and windows on that side of the third 

floor must be closed, as well as all of the 

doors and windows on that side of the 

second and first floors. In situations 

where other buildings are in close 

proximity to the work area, where the 

work area abuts a property line, or 

weather conditions dictate the need for 

additional containment (i.e., windy 

conditions) the certified renovator or a 

worker under the direction of the 

certified renovator performing the 

renovation may have to take extra 

precautions in containing the work area 

to ensure that dust and debris from the 

renovation does not contaminate other 

buildings or migrate to adjacent 

property. This may include erecting 

vertical containment designed to 

prevent dust and debris from 

contaminating the ground or any object 

beyond the work area. In addition, doors 

within the work area that will be used 

while the job is being performed must 

be covered with plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material in a manner that 

allows workers to pass through while 

confining dust and debris to the work 

area. 

Some commenters agreed with the 

proposed procedures. One commenter 

agreed that with containment, dust can 

be contained and cleaned up 

sufficiently to pass the wipe test 

screening results. Another commenter 

supported the use of standard 

containment and cleaning practices 

known to reduce dust lead levels on 

both interior and exterior surfaces and 

to protect soils and gardens surrounding 

the house. 

Some commenters asserted that the 

containment procedures were not 

stringent enough. Some suggested that 

EPA follow the HUD Guidelines with 

respect to exterior containment 

requirements. Others asked EPA to 

strengthen exterior containment 

requirements by specifying that 

containment extend at least twenty feet 

to collect all debris and residue and that 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the rule address circumstances such as 

wind and rain. One commenter asserted 

that allowing the certified renovator 

complete discretion to determine what 

is appropriate renders the worksite 

containment requirements completely 

unenforceable and asked EPA to 

consider providing a minimum 

performance standard that all renovators 

must meet. EPA agrees that a minimum 

performance standard is necessary and 

that is why under this final rule EPA is 

requiring certified renovators to 

establish containment that prevents dust 

and debris from leaving the work area. 

In addition, in this rule EPA has 

established minimum containment 

requirements for both interior and 

exterior renovation requirements. While 

the certified renovator has discretion 

regarding the specific components and 

extent of containment, the renovator 

and firm will be in violation of this final 

rule if dust or debris leaves the work 

area for both interior and exterior 

renovations. If dust or debris migrates 

beyond the work area, that migration 

constitutes a violation of the rule. 

Accordingly, EPA does not agree with 

the commenter that the rule is 

unenforceable. 

This final rule provides the certified 

renovator with some discretion to define 

the specific size and configuration of the 

containment to accommodate the 

variability in size and scope of 

renovations. EPA considered requiring 

that in all cases the entire room in 

which a renovation is occurring be 

contained, but concluded that doing so 

would be unwarranted. For example, a 

small manual sanding job in a large 

room would not necessarily require full 

room containment to isolate the work 

area. EPA has concluded that the most 

appropriate approach is to impose a 

minimum size for containment coupled 

with a performance standard--

preventing dust or debris from leaving 

the workarea--and to prescribe with 

reasonable specificity the containment 

measures that are required--e.g., use of 

plastic of other impermeable material, 

removal or covering of objects in the 

work area - but to provide some measure 

of discretion with regards to the casespecific approaches to containment. 

In response to EPA’s request for 

comments on whether there are any 

situations where some or all of the 

proposed work practices are not 

necessary, commenters suggested that 

work practices were not needed during 

a gut rehabilitation, although two of the 

commenters suggested a waiver rather 

than an exemption in these situations. 

Several commenters thought that work 

in unoccupied structures should not 

require the use of lead safe work 

practices, or should have an adapted set 

of work practices. A commenter opined 

that certain interior containments may 

not be necessary in vacant and empty 

housing, but that exterior work always 

should use lead safe work practices to 

protect the environment and 

neighborhood. A commenter stated that 

there are certain activities common to 

multifamily and rental housing that 

warrant special consideration from the 

Agency. For example, simple painting 

activities that occur when rental 

properties turn over should not require 

a full suite of work practices, 

particularly given that most state laws 

require apartment owners to paint each 

unit at turnover. The commenter 

suggested that EPA consider a less 

restrictive set of guidelines for those 

properties simply undergoing routine 

painting during the turnover process. 

EPA believes that whole house gut 

rehabilitation projects may demolish 

and rebuild a structure to a point where 

it is effectively new construction. In this 

case, it would not be a modification of 

an existing structure, and therefore not 

a renovation. However, a partial-house 

gut rehabilitation such as a kitchen or 

bathroom gut rehabilitation project 

clearly falls within the scope of this 

final rule. 

EPA disagrees that temporarily 

unoccupied or vacant housing should be 

per se exempt from the requirements of 

this final rule. EPA’s primary concern 

with exempting renovations in such 

housing from the work practices 

required by this final rule is the 

exposure to returning residents to leadbased paint hazards created by the 

renovation. However, EPA recognizes 

that if no child under 6 or no pregnant 

woman resides there, the owneroccupant may so state in writing and the 

requirements of this rule would not 

apply. In addition, for routine painting, 

such as at unit turnover, if such painting 

activity does not involve disturbing 

more than 6 ft2 of painted surfaces per 

room for interiors or 20 ft2 for exteriors, 

and otherwise meet the definition of 

‘‘minor repair and maintenance,’’ the 

requirements of this final rule would 

not apply. EPA cannot see a basis for 

imposing a less restrictive set of 

requirements for projects that disturb 

more than 6 ft2 of painted surfaces per 

room for interiors or 20 ft2 for exteriors. 

Some commenters believed that the 

Proposal did not adequately address the 

decontamination of workers and 

equipment involved in a renovation. 

They supported the proposed 

requirement that all personnel, tools 

and other items, including the exteriors 

of containers of waste, be free of dust 

and debris before leaving the work area. 

However, they believed that the 

proposed alternative, covering the paths 

used to reach the exterior of the 

building with plastic, was not 

sufficiently protective. One contended 

that significant lead dust contamination 

can be tracked or carried out of a work 

area if workers and equipment are not 

properly decontaminated. This 

commenter further noted that workers 

with contaminated clothing can take 

that contamination home to their own 

children and taking contaminated 

equipment to another jobsite could 

potentially create a lead hazard at a new 

site. EPA agrees with these commenters 

and has deleted the alternative 

language. The final rule requires 

renovation firms to use precautions to 

ensure that all personnel, tools and 

other items, including the exteriors of 

containers of waste, to be free of dust 

and debris before leaving the work area. 

There are several ways of accomplishing 

this. For example, tacky mats may be 

put down immediately adjacent to the 

plastic sheeting covering the work area 

floor to remove dust and debris from the 

bottom of the workers’ shoes as they 

leave the work area, workers may 

remove their shoe covers (booties) as 

they leave the work area, and clothing 

and materials may be wet-wiped and/or 

HEPA-vacuumed before they are 

removed from the work area. 

Finally, in response to a commenter 

who was concerned about containment 

not impeding occupant egress in an 

emergency, EPA has modified the 

regulatory text to specify that 

containment must be installed in such 

a manner that it does not interfere with 

occupant and worker egress in an 

emergency. This can be accomplished, 

as noted in chapter 17 of the HUD 

Guidelines, by installing plastic over 

doors with a weak tape. 

4. Prohibited and restricted practices. 

The final rule prohibits or restricts the 

use of certain work practices during 

regulated renovations. These practices 

are open flame burning or torching of 

lead-based paint; the use of machines 

that remove lead-based paint through 

high speed operation such as sanding, 

grinding, power planing, needle gun, 

abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, 

unless such machines are used with 

HEPA exhaust control; and operating a 

heat gun above 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

These are essentially the same practices 

as are currently prohibited or restricted 

under the Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations, 40 CFR 745.227(e)(6), with 

the exception of dry hand scraping of 

lead-based paint. While this final rule 

and EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities 

Regulations do not prohibit or restrict 

the use of volatile paint strippers or 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21731 

other hazardous substances to remove 

paint, the use of these substances are 

prohibited for use in poorly ventilated 

areas by HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 

and they are regulated by OSHA. 

EPA did not propose to prohibit or 

restrict any work practices, but instead 

asked for public comment regarding 

their prohibition or restriction. The 

Agency was concerned that, because 

these practices are commonly used 

during renovation work, prohibiting 

such practices could make certain jobs, 

such as preparing detailed or historic 

millwork for new painting, extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. In addition, 

EPA believed that use of the proposed 

package of training, containment, 

cleanup, and cleaning verification 

requirements would be effective in 

preventing the introduction of new leadbased paint hazards, even when such 

practices were used. EPA is modifying 

the proposal based on new data 

evaluating specific work practices and 

in response to comments received. 

a. The Dust Study. EPA understood 

when developing the proposed rule that 

considerable data existed showing the 

potential for significant lead 

contamination when lead paint is 

disturbed by practices restricted under 

EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations for abatements. EPA 

conducted the Dust Study, in part, to 

determine the effectiveness of the 

proposed work practices. The Dust 

Study evaluated a variety of renovation 

activities, including activities that 

involved several practices restricted or 

prohibited under the abatement 

regulations. For example, power planing 

was included in the Dust Study as a 

representative of machines that remove 

lead-based paint through high speed 

operation. Similarly, the Dust Study 

also included experiments with power 

sanding and a needle gun. Each of these 

activities generated very high levels of 

dust. The Dust Study thus evaluated the 

proposed work practice standards, using 

a range of typical practices currently 

used by contractors. 

In particular, the Dust Study found 

that renovation activities involving 

power planing and high temperature 

heat gun resulted in higher post-job 

renovation dust lead levels than 

activities using other practices. The 

geometric mean post-work, pre-cleaning 

floor dust lead levels in the work room 

were 32,644 μg/ft2 for power planing 

and 7,737 μg/ft2 for high temperature 

heat guns. More importantly, in 

experiments performed in compliance 

with this rule’s requirements for 

containment, cleaning, and cleaning 

verification, the geometric mean postjob floor dust lead levels were still 148 

μg/ft2 for power planing, well over the 

TSCA section 403 hazard standard for 

floors. While the geometric mean postjob floor dust levels for the 3 similar 

experiments involving high temperature 

heat guns, i.e., experiments performed 

in compliance with this rule’s 

requirements, were 36 μg/ft2, the 

average post-cleaning-verification floor 

dust lead levels for the individual 

experiments were 147.5, 65.5, and less 

than 10 μg/ft2. Thus, in 2 of these 3 

experiments, the requirements of this 

final rule were insufficient to reduce the 

floor dust lead levels below the TSCA 

section 403 hazard standards for floors. 

In addition, power planing and use of a 

high temperature heat gun generated 

fine particle-size dust that was difficult 

to clean. In fact, almost all of the high 

post-renovation lead levels were 

associated with activities involving 

power planing and high temperature 

heat guns. Moreover, activities 

involving power planing and high 

temperature heat gun jobs also resulted 

in higher post-job tool room and 

observation room lead levels than other 

practices. 

Thus, while the Dust Study confirmed 

that most practices prohibited or 

restricted under EPA’s Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations do indeed 

produce large quantities of lead dust, it 

also demonstrated that, with respect to 

lead-based paint hazards created by 

machines that remove lead-based paint 

through high speed operation and high 

temperature heat guns, the use of the 

proposed work practices were not 

effective at containing or removing dustlead hazards from the work area. 

b. Alternatives to certain practices. As 

discussed above, in the proposed rule, 

EPA stated a concern that, because 

practices prohibited or restricted under 

EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations are commonly used during 

renovation work, prohibiting or 

restricting such practices could make 

certain jobs, such as preparing detailed 

or historic millwork for new painting, 

extremely difficult or, in some cases, 

impossible. In response to its request for 

comment, the Agency received 

information on techniques including 

benign strippers, steam stripping, closed 

planing with vacuums, and infrared 

removal that the commenter believed 

are far superior, far safer and far cheaper 

than some of the traditionally 

prohibited or restricted practices. 

Another commenter noted that window 

removal and off-site chemical stripping 

in a well-ventilated setting is an 

alternative to using heat or mechanical 

methods to remove lead paint on-site. 

Alternatively, chemical strippers can be 

used on-site, given adequate ventilation 

and protection for workers and building 

occupants. EPA is therefore persuaded 

that there are sufficient alternatives to 

these practices. 

c. Conclusion. Based on the results of 

the Dust Study and in response to the 

voluminous persuasive public 

comments, this final rule prohibits or 

restricts the use of the following 

practices during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities that are subject to the 

work practice requirements of this rule: 

• Open-flame burning or torching. 

• Machines that remove lead-based 

paint through high speed operation such 

as sanding, grinding, power planing, 

needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 

sandblasting, unless such machines are 

used with HEPA exhaust control. 

• Operating a heat gun above 1100 

degrees Fahrenheit. 

EPA has concluded that these 

practices must be prohibited or 

restricted during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities that disturb leadbased paint because the work practices 

in this final rule are not effective at 

containing the spread of leaded dust 

when these practices are used, or at 

cleaning up lead-based paint hazards 

created by these practices. Thus, the 

work practices are not effective at 

minimizing exposure to lead-based 

paint hazards created during renovation 

activities when these activities are used. 

This final rule does not prohibit or 

restrict the use of dry hand scraping. 

EPA has concluded based primarily on 

the Dust Study as corroborated by other 

data described below that it is not 

necessary to prohibit or restrict dry 

scraping because the containment, 

cleaning, and cleaning verification 

requirements of this rule are effective at 

minimizing exposure to lead-based 

paint hazards created by renovations 

and the migration of dust-lead hazards 

beyond the work area when dry hand 

scraping is employed. 

The Dust Study evaluated dry hand 

scraping, which is restricted under 

EPA’s lead abatement program. In 

contrast to the results of the activities 

using power planing and high 

temperature heat gun, average post-job 

dust lead levels in the two experiments 

in which paint was disturbed by dry 

hand scraping and the work practices 

required by this rule were used were 

below the regulatory dust-lead hazard 

standard for floors. In addition, the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a 

Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the 

request of the Rhode Island Department 

of Health, and published a final report 

in June of 2000 (Ref. 36). The purpose 

of the evaluation was to measure worker 

exposure during various tasks and to 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21732 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

determine whether workers were 

exposed to hazardous amounts of leadbased paint. Notably worker exposures 

were compared when scraping painted 

surfaces using wet and dry scraping 

methods (wet scraping is the customary 

substitute for dry scraping in abatement 

applications). A comparison of worker 

exposure found statistically equivalent 

worker exposures. Based on the NIOSH 

study, EPA has determined that dry 

scraping is the equivalent of its only 

practical alternative, wet scraping. 

In sum, EPA has determined based on 

the studies described above and the 

persuasive comments, including those 

summarized below, provided by the 

overwhelming majority of commenters 

that its approach of prohibiting or 

restricting certain practices in 

combination with the containment, 

cleaning, and cleaning verification, will 

be effective in minimizing exposure to 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

renovation activities, provide an 

appropriate measure of consistency with 

other regulatory programs, and cause 

minimal disruption for renovation 

firms. 

i. Substantial exposures. Numerous 

commenters argued that the rule should 

prohibit certain practices based on 

potential health hazards, many backed 

up by well-documented scientific 

studies and proven health-protective 

standards. One commenter stated, after 

citing several scientific studies, that 

removing or disturbing lead paint 

without proper controls causes 

substantial contamination, posing 

serious risks to occupants, workers and 

others. Another cited numerous 

scientific studies demonstrating the 

adverse public health implications of 

permitting these work practices and the 

availability of alternative work methods. 

Still another cited the EPA renovation 

and remodeling study and a State of 

Maryland study as evidence that 

prohibited work practices may be 

associated with elevated blood lead 

levels. One commenter cited health 

hazard evaluations of residential lead 

renovation work showing that these 

activities produce hazardous worker 

exposures. Another commenter noted 

that the hazards of activities that are 

likely to produce large amounts of lead 

dust or fumes are well documented, 

stating that, for example, the Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study found that 

the odds of a resident child having a 

blood lead level in excess of 10 μg/dL 

increased by 5 times after renovation 

using open flame torching, and by 4.6 

times after heat gun use. Another 

commenter was concerned that 

previously collected data may not 

account for different particle-size 

distribution, a factor in both the 

potential cleaning efficacy of work areas 

and the toxicology of lead poisoning. 

ii. Consistency with other standards. 

Some commenters urged EPA to 

prohibit certain high dust generating 

practices for the sake of consistency 

with other work practice standards. 

Numerous commenters asserted EPA’s 

rule should be consistent with HUD 

requirements to avoid confusion on the 

part of contractors and to conform to the 

standard that has been in place for 

nearly 6 years. One commenter noted 

that the regulations of several other 

federal agencies that administer housing 

programs, such as the Department of 

Defense, Department of Agriculture, and 

Veterans Affairs include prohibited 

practices. Other commenters noted that 

the proposed rule conflicted with OSHA 

rules and would cause confusion among 

contractors. 

Some commenters noted that EPA’s 

proposed rule would conflict with 

individual state or local regulations 

prohibiting some or all of these 

practices. One commenter listed the 

following states and some cities that 

have prohibited work practices: 

California, Indiana, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, 

Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, Chicago, Cleveland, New 

Orleans, New York City, Rochester, and 

San Francisco. Two commenters cited 

state law in Indiana, under which 

certain work practices are prohibited 

and contractors using such work 

practices are committing a Class D 

felony (422, 449). 

Other commenters noted that 

practices that are prohibited under 

EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations should also be prohibited 

for renovation work in pre-1978 

properties, and noted that in developing 

the abatement rule EPA demonstrated 

through its own studies that these 

practices may increase the risk of 

elevated blood lead levels in children. 

5. Waste from renovations. Under this 

final rule the certified renovator or a 

worker trained by and under the 

direction of the certified renovator is 

required to ensure that all personnel, 

tools, and other items including waste 

are free of dust and debris when leaving 

the work area. The certified renovator or 

a worker trained by and under the 

direction of the certified renovator must 

also contain waste to prevent releases of 

dust and debris before the waste is 

removed from the work area for storage 

or disposal. If a chute is used to remove 

waste from the work area, it must be 

covered. At the conclusion of each work 

day and at the conclusion of the 

renovation, the certified renovator or a 

worker trained by and under the 

direction of the certified renovator must 

ensure that waste that has been 

collected from renovation activities is 

stored under containment, in an 

enclosure, or behind a barrier that 

prevents release of dust and debris from 

the work area and prevents access to 

dust and debris. This final rule also 

requires the certified renovator or a 

worker trained by and under the 

direction of the certified renovator 

transporting lead-based paint waste 

from a work site to contain the waste to 

prevent releases, e.g., inside a plastic 

garbage bag. As described in more detail 

in Unit IV.D.2.c. of the preamble to the 

2006 Proposal, EPA revised its solid 

waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 257 

and 258 to make clear that lead-based 

paint waste generated through 

renovation and remodeling activities in 

residential settings may be disposed of 

in municipal solid waste landfill units 

or in construction and demolition (C&D) 

landfills. Requirements for waste 

disposal may vary by jurisdiction and 

state and local requirements may be 

more stringent than Federal 

requirements. When disposing of waste, 

including waste water, from renovation 

activities, the renovation firm must 

ensure that it complies with all 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

requirements. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

should consider requiring that leadcontaminated waste be stored in a 

locked area or in a lockable storage 

container. This commenter also 

suggested that to prevent any confusion 

on what constitutes a covered chute, a 

definition or clarification should be 

provided in the rule. Another 

commenter recommended the use of 

‘‘sealed’’ rather than ‘‘covered’’ chutes 

for waste removal, as a covered chute 

may not be protective enough to prevent 

the release of significant amounts of 

lead-contaminated dust. This final rule 

requires that waste must be contained to 

prevent releases of dust and debris 

before the waste is removed from the 

work area for storage or disposal. With 

respect to the use of chutes for waste 

removal, the requirement for a covered 

chute was proposed merely to facilitate 

the removal of bagged or sealed waste so 

that it is deposited in an appropriate 

waste disposal container and does not 

fall to the ground. EPA does not, 

therefore, believe that this term either 

needs to be further defined or to require 

the use of a ‘‘sealed’’ chute. 

EPA understands that renovation 

projects can generate a considerable 

amount and variety of waste material. 

However, EPA believes that the 

requirements of the final rule protect 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21733 

occupants and others from potential 

lead-based paint hazards presented by 

this waste. While storing the waste in a 

locked container is one way to meet the 

performance standard of this final rule, 

EPA does not believe that is necessary 

to specify that as a requirement. The 

waste may be stored in the work area, 

which will already be delineated with 

signs cautioning occupants and others 

to keep out. EPA believes the owner/ 

occupants have some responsibility for 

observing these signs. Renovation sites 

pose potential hazards other than leadbased paint hazards—including the 

potential fall hazards, sharp protrusions, 

etc. In sum, the certified renovator is 

responsible for ensuring that leadcontaminated building components and 

work area debris that are stored under 

containment, in an enclosure, or behind 

a barrier that prevents release of dust 

and debris and prevents access to the 

debris. Under this final rule the certified 

renovator must ensure that waste 

leaving the work area is contained (e.g., 

in a heavy duty plastic bag or sealed in 

plastic sheeting) and free of dust or 

debris. This imposes a reasonable 

performance standard without requiring 

a specific approach. The certified 

renovator is responsible for evaluating 

the waste generated and the 

characteristics of the work site to 

determine the most effective way of 

meeting this standard. 

6. Cleaning the work area—a. Final 

rule requirements. Under this final rule 

the certified renovator or a worker 

under the direction of the certified 

renovator must clean the work area to 

remove dust, debris or residue. All 

renovation activities that disturb 

painted surfaces can produce dangerous 

quantities of leaded dust. Because very 

small particles of leaded dust are easily 

absorbed by the body when ingested or 

inhaled, it can create a health hazard for 

children. Unless this dust is properly 

removed, renovation and remodeling 

activities are likely to introduce new 

lead-based paint hazards. Therefore, the 

rule requires prescriptive cleaning 

practices. Ultimately, improper cleaning 

can increase the cost of a project 

because additional cleaning may be 

necessary during post-renovation 

cleaning verification. 

This final rule requires that, upon 

completion of interior renovation 

activities, all paint chips and debris 

must be picked up. Protective sheeting 

must be misted and folded dirty side 

inward. Sheeting used to isolate 

contaminated rooms from noncontaminated rooms must remain in 

place until after the cleaning and 

removal of other sheeting; this sheeting 

must then be misted and removed last. 

Removed sheeting must be either folded 

and taped shut to seal or sealed in 

heavy-duty bags and disposed of as 

waste. After the sheeting has been 

removed from the work area, the entire 

area must be cleaned including the 

adjacent surfaces that are within 2 feet 

of the work area. The walls, starting 

from the ceiling and working down to 

the floor, must be vacuumed with a 

HEPA vacuum or wiped with a damp 

cloth. The final rule requires that all 

remaining surfaces and objects in the 

work area, including floors, furniture, 

and fixtures be thoroughly vacuumed 

with a HEPA vacuum. When cleaning 

carpets, the HEPA vacuum must be 

equipped with a beater bar to aid in 

dislodging and collecting deep dust and 

lead from carpets. The beater bar must 

be used on all passes on the carpet face 

during dry vacuuming. This cleaning 

step is intended to remove as much dust 

and remaining debris as possible. After 

vacuuming, all surfaces and objects in 

the work area, except for walls and 

carpeted or upholstered surfaces, must 

be wiped with a damp cloth. Wet 

disposable cleaning cloths of any color 

may be used for this purpose. In 

contrast, as discussed in the next 

section, only wet disposable cleaning 

cloths that are white may be used for 

cleaning verification. Uncarpeted floors 

must be thoroughly mopped using a 2-

bucket mopping method that keeps the 

wash water separate from the rinse 

water, or using a wet mopping system 

with disposable absorbent cleaning pads 

and a built-in mechanism for 

distributing or spraying cleaning 

solution from a reservoir onto a floor. 

When cleaning following an exterior 

renovation, all paint chips and debris 

must be picked up. Protective sheeting 

used for containment must be misted 

with water. All sheeting must be folded 

from the corners or ends to the middle 

to trap any remaining dust and either 

taped shut to seal or sealed in heavy 

duty bags. The sheeting must be 

disposed of as waste. 

b. Comments on the cleaning 

protocol. Several commenters proposed 

minor changes to the cleaning 

procedures. Three commenters 

recommended that daily clean-up be 

required for projects lasting more than 

1 day. One commenter stated that all 

tools and equipment should be cleaned 

prior to leaving the job site. One 

commenter indicated concern that there 

is no mention of wet wiping areas such 

as window sills. This final rule requires 

cleaning both in and around the work 

area to ensure no dust or debris remains 

following the renovation. The final rule 

also requires that all personnel, tools, 

and other items including waste are free 

of dust and debris when leaving the 

work area. EPA recommends that 

contractors keep work areas as clean 

and free of dust and debris as practical. 

Daily cleaning is a good practice, and it 

may be necessary in some cases to 

ensure no dust or debris leaves the work 

area as required by this final rule. 

However, EPA has no basis to believe 

that daily cleaning is necessary in every 

case or even most cases. EPA also notes 

that the work area must be delineated by 

signs so that occupants and others do 

not enter the area. This final rule 

requires the work area to be contained, 

and to ensure that all tools, personnel, 

and other items, including waste, to be 

free of dust and debris when leaving the 

work area. Under this final rule, interior 

windowsills and most other interior 

surfaces in the work area must be wet 

wiped. The exceptions are upholstery 

and carpeting, which must be vacuumed 

with a HEPA vacuum, and walls, which 

may be wet wiped or vacuumed with a 

HEPA vacuum. 

Some commenters requested 

clarification of the requirement to clean 

‘‘in and around the work area.’’ In 

response to the two commenters that 

noted that the HUD Guidelines 

recommend cleaning 2 feet beyond the 

work area, EPA has modified the 

regulatory text to require cleaning of 

surfaces and objects in and within 2 feet 

of the work area. 

One commenter argued that 

vacuuming was not necessary because 

40 CFR 745.85 requires the certified 

renovator to cover all furnishings not 

removed from the work area, so 

additional cleaning is unnecessary. EPA 

disagrees with this commenter. Carpets 

and upholstered objects that remained, 

covered with plastic, in the work area 

during the renovation must be 

vacuumed after the plastic is removed to 

ensure that the surfaces did not become 

contaminated during the renovation due 

to a breach in the containment or during 

the removal of the containment during 

clean-up. 

One commenter asserted that some 

requirements for cleaning were not 

prescriptive enough. The commenter 

suggested that the rule text, which states 

that the certified renovator or a worker 

under the direction of the certified 

renovator must ‘‘pick up all paint chips 

and debris,’’ could be re-worded to state 

that the certified renovator or a worker 

under the direction of the certified 

renovator must ‘‘collect all paint chips, 

debris, and dust, and, without 

dispersing any of it, seal this material in 

a heavy-duty plastic bag.’’ EPA agrees 

that additional detail would be helpful 

in this instance and has modified the 

final rule to include this 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

recommendation, with the exception of 

dust, which is collected when the 

protective sheeting is misted and folded 

inward. 

One commenter stated that the 

cleaning procedures were excessive and 

problematic. This commenter asserted 

that the two-bucket mopping system is 

inappropriate for some floor types such 

as wood floors for which excessive 

water could damage the floor. The 

commenter suggested that EPA allow a 

cleaning method employing a dry or 

damp cloth, or any other specified 

methodology, to be used in order to 

achieve a no dust or debris level of 

cleaning. Three commenters asserted 

that EPA’s definition of wet mopping 

system was too specific. One commenter 

stated that to include ‘‘a long handle, a 

mop head...’’ in the description of the 

wet mopping system is too prescriptive 

and favors a particular model of 

commercial product. EPA understands 

that the two bucket mopping system 

may not be appropriate for all floor 

types due to the quantity of water 

involved. However, the HUD Guidelines 

recommend and the Dust Study 

demonstrates that wet cleaning is best 

able to achieve desired results. This 

final rule allows for the use of a wet 

mopping system instead of the two 

bucket system for the cleaning of 

flooring. EPA has included a definition 

of a wet mopping system in order to 

allow the regulated community to use 

such a system in place of the traditional 

two-bucket mop method. EPA’s 

Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field 

Study in Residential Housing study 

(‘‘Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study’’), 

discussed in more detail in Unit IV.E.2. 

of the 2006 Proposal, indicates that a 

wet mopping system is an effective 

method for cleaning up leaded dust 

(Ref. 37). EPA believes that allowing the 

use of a wet mopping system like those 

widely available in a variety of stores 

should alleviate concerns regarding the 

quantity of water used in the cleanup. 

In addition, EPA disagrees that the 

description of a wet mopping system 

favors a particular model of commercial 

product. Rather, it generally describes 

any number of wet mopping systems 

widely available in most stores. 

However, to alleviate concerns that a 

particular model of commercial product 

is preferred, EPA has added the phrase 

‘‘or a method of equivalent efficacy’’ to 

the end of the definition of ‘‘wet 

mopping system.’’ 

One commenter recommended that 

instead of referencing a two bucket 

method, EPA should consider simply 

stating that a method be used that keeps 

the wash water separate from the rinse 

water. EPA agrees and has revised the 

regulatory text to specify a method that 

keeps wash water separate from rinse 

water, giving as an example the two 

bucket method. 

One commenter questioned the 

requirement to vacuum underneath a 

rug or carpet where feasible. The 

commenter suggested that EPA clarify 

that this does not include permanently 

affixed wall-to-wall carpeting. The 

commenter notes that it is highly 

unlikely that the renovation or 

remodeling activity conducted in a 

carpeted room would have created the 

dust embedded underneath both the 

layer of plastic sheeting and the 

installed carpeting. EPA agrees with this 

commenter. EPA did not intend to 

require vacuuming beneath permanently 

affixed carpets, i.e., wall to wall 

carpeting, but rather that removable rugs 

should be removed and the area beneath 

vacuumed. However, small, movable, 

area rugs should be removed from the 

work area prior to the renovation and 

the floor beneath would be cleaned as 

required under this final rule. Therefore, 

in response to this commenter, EPA has 

deleted the requirement to vacuum 

beneath rugs where feasible. 

One commenter recommended four 

options for cleaning carpets: Removing 

the carpet and pad, cleaning the 

underlying flooring, then replacing the 

carpet and pad; shampooing the carpet 

using a vacuum attachment that 

removes the suds; steam cleaning the 

carpet using a vacuum attachment that 

removes the moisture; or HEPA filtered 

vacuuming. This final rule seeks to 

minimize the introduction of lead-based 

paint hazards to carpeted floors by 

requiring the certified renovator to cover 

the floor of the work area with plastic 

sheeting, carefully clean up and remove 

the plastic sheeting following work, and 

thoroughly vacuum the carpet using a 

HEPA vacuum with a beater bar. EPA 

believes this containment and cleanup 

protocol will minimize exposure to 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

renovation activities. EPA does not 

believe a renovation contractor should 

be responsible for removing and 

replacing carpet in a home when such 

a requirement was not within the scope 

of the renovation project. Also, in 

contrast to the effectiveness of using a 

HEPA on carpets, EPA does not have 

sufficient data on steam cleaning or 

shampooing to evaluate its 

effectiveness. Without data to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of 

shampooing or steam cleaning carpets 

EPA is not prepared to require these 

methods be used in lieu of vacuuming 

with a HEPA vacuum. EPA further notes 

that the HUD lead-safe Housing Rule 

only requires HEPA vacuuming, not 

steam cleaning or shampooing. 

c. Vacuums equipped with HEPA 

filters. Given that the HUD Guidelines 

recommend the use of HEPA vacuums 

and the OSHA Lead in Construction 

standard requires that vacuums be 

equipped with HEPA filters where 

vacuums are used, EPA proposed 

requiring the use of HEPA vacuums in 

its proposed work practices. 

Nonetheless, EPA requested comment 

on whether the rule should allow the 

use of vacuums other than vacuums 

equipped with HEPA filters given. 

Specifically, EPA requested comment 

on whether there are other vacuums that 

have the same efficiency at capturing 

the smaller lead particles as HEPAequipped vacuums, along with any data 

that would support this performance 

equivalency and whether this 

performance specification is appropriate 

for leaded dust cleanup. 

i. Background. HEPA filters were first 

developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission during World War II to 

capture microscopic radioactive 

particles that existing filters could not 

remove. HEPA filters have the ability to 

capture particles of 0.3 microns with 

99.97% efficiency. Particles both larger 

and smaller than 0.3 microns are easier 

to catch. Thus, HEPA filters capture 

those particles at 100%. Available 

information indicates that lead particles 

generated by renovation activities range 

in size from over 20 microns to 0.3 

microns or less (Ref. 38). 

OSHA recently completed a public 

review of their Lead in Construction 

standard (Ref. 39). OSHA concluded 

that the principal concerns regarding 

HEPA vacuums (i.e., cost and 

availability) have been significantly 

reduced since the standard was 

established in 1994. HEPA vacuum 

cleaners have an increased presence in 

the marketplace and their cost has 

decreased significantly. Therefore, 

OSHA continues to require the use of 

HEPA vacuums in work subject to the 

Lead in Construction Standard. 

ii. Final rule requirements. Vacuums 

used as part of the work practices being 

finalized in this final rule must be 

HEPA vacuums, which are to be used 

and emptied in a manner that 

minimizes the reentry of lead into the 

workplace. The term ‘‘HEPA vacuum’’ is 

defined as a vacuum which has been 

designed with a HEPA filter as the last 

filtration stage. A HEPA filter is a filter 

that is capable of capturing particles of 

0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency. The 

vacuum cleaner must be designed so 

that all the air drawn into the machine 

is expelled through the filter with none 

of the air leaking past it. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21735 

iii. Comments. Many commenters 

supported the use of HEPA vacuums. 

Some of these commenters supported 

the requirement that they be used 

because they are also required by the 

OSHA Lead in Construction standard. 

One commenter noted that the price of 

HEPA vacuums had decreased and were 

no longer significantly more expensive 

than non-HEPA vacuums. 

Another commenter cited the Dust 

Study, the NAHB Lead Safe Work 

Practices Survey, and several other 

studies as supporting the conclusion 

that lead-safe work practices and 

modified lead-safe work practices, along 

with a two-step or three-step cleaning 

process using a HEPA-equipped vacuum 

and wet washing, greatly reduce dust 

lead levels and should be regarded as 

best management practices for 

renovation jobs. The commenter notes 

that the NAHB study found significant 

reductions in loading levels after 

cleanup using HEPA-equipped vacuum 

and then either wet washing or using a 

wet disposable cleaning cloth mop. 

One commenter contended that HEPA 

vacuums with beater bars were not 

currently available on the market at the 

time comments were submitted. 

However, EPA has been able to identify 

commercial vacuum manufacturers as 

well as department store brands that 

currently offer HEPA vacuums with 

beater bar attachments. 

Several commenters noted that 

vacuum cleaners other than HEPA 

vacuums were effective at removing 

lead dust. They cited several papers 

which they asserted support their 

conclusion, including Comparison of 

Home Lead Dust Reduction Techniques 

on Hard Surfaces: The New Jersey 

Assessment of Cleaning Techniques 

Trial (2002) by Rich, et al (Ref. 40), a 

study by the California Department of 

Health Services (Ref. 41) which the 

commenter contends concluded that 

some non-HEPA vacuums performed 

better than the HEPA units tested, 

Comparison of Techniques to Reduce 

Residential Lead Dust on Carpet and 

Upholstery: The New Jersey Assessment 

of Cleaning Techniques Trial (2002) by 

Yiin, et al (Ref. 42), and Effectiveness of 

Clean up Techniques for Leaded Paint 

Dust (1992) by the Canadian Mortgage 

and Housing Corporation (Ref. 43). 

The commenter that cited the Rich, et 

al paper contended that the authors 

found no clear difference between the 

efficacy of HEPA and non-HEPA 

vacuums on hard surfaces (non-carpeted 

floors, windowsills, and window 

troughs), and found that non-HEPA 

vacuums appeared more efficient in 

removing particles on uncarpeted floors, 

which are the hard surfaces that may 

best reflect exposure to children. One 

commenter stated that given the 

research literature demonstrates that 

there is no performance difference in 

lead dust removal, EPA should allow 

cleanup with either a HEPA or nonHEPA vacuum. Another commenter 

contended that a vacuum cleaner 

retrofitted with a HEPA filter rather than 

a HEPA vacuum should be required to 

be used as part of the work practices. 

EPA disagrees with the commenters 

who state that the literature does not 

demonstrate a difference between HEPA 

vacuums and non-HEPA vacuums. In 

the Yiin, et al study, the authors stated 

that for carpets, data from the 

‘‘[Environmental and Occupational 

Health Sciences Institute] vacuum 

sampling method showed a significant 

reduction (50.6%, p = 0.014) in mean 

lead loading for cleaning using the 

HEPA vacuum cleaner but did not result 

in a significant difference (14.0% 

reduction) for cleaning using the nonHEPA vacuum cleaner.’’ They also note 

that when they used wipe sampling ‘‘the 

results indicated that neither of the 

cleaning methods yielded a significant 

reduction in lead loading.’’ EPA 

believes the results from the wipe 

sampling method is less useful because 

as discussed in Unit III.E.8.iv. of this 

preamble, the Agency believes that wipe 

sampling on carpets is not a reliable 

indicator of the lead-based paint dust in 

the carpet. The authors report that in 

their study non-HEPA vacuums were 

more effective than HEPA vacuums on 

upholstery but note ‘‘[t]he reduced 

efficiency of the HEPA vacuum cleaner 

in cleaning upholstery [as compared to 

carpets] may be, at least partially, due 

to the lower pre-cleaning dust lead level 

and the smaller sample data set for the 

HEPA vacuum cleaner than for the nonHEPA vacuum cleaner.’’ 

In the Rich, et al study, the authors 

noted that ‘‘On windowsills, the HEPA 

vacuum cleaner produced 22% (95% CI, 

11-32%) larger reductions than the nonHEPA vacuum cleaner, and on the 

window troughs it produced 16% (95% 

CI, -4 to 33%) larger reductions than the 

non-HEPA vacuum cleaner.’’ Not only 

were the percent reductions greater, the 

post-cleaning geometric mean lead 

loadings for the experiments in which 

the HEPA vacuums were used was 

lower than the post-geometric mean 

lead loadings for the experiments in 

which the non-HEPA vacuums were 

used. On hard floors, the authors 

reported that the non-HEPA vacuum 

removed the largest quantities of leadbased paint dust. They note that this 

may be due in part to the fact that the 

initial loadings were higher where the 

non-HEPA vacuums were used (Precleaning geometric mean lead loadings 

were 200 and 155 μg/ft2 for the two 

types of experiments where non-HEPA 

vacuum were used) as compared to the 

lead loadings for the experiments in 

which the HEPA vacuum was used (Precleaning geometric mean lead loading of 

100 μg/ft2). However, the post-cleaning 

geometric mean lead loading for the 

experiments in which the HEPA 

vacuum was used was lower than for 

either of the two types of experiments 

where non-HEPA vacuums were used. 

The post-cleaning geometric mean lead 

loading was lower for each set of 

experiments in which the HEPA 

vacuum was used. In considering these 

data, EPA believes that the data on the 

post-cleaning lead loadings are 

particularly important. In assessing the 

performance of cleaning methods, it is 

not only the percent reduction that is 

important but also the ability to clean 

down to very low levels. Several studies 

have demonstrated that reducing lead 

loadings from relatively high levels to 

about 100 ug/ft2 is more readily 

accomplished than reductions below 

100 ug/ft2 and becomes progressively 

harder at lower levels (Ref. 44). 

One commenter stated that EPA did 

not have sufficient evidence showing 

that HEPA vacuums are significantly 

better at removing lead dust than nonHEPA vacuums and cited a Canadian 

Mortgage and Housing Corporation 

study from 1992 (Ref. 43). That study 

was a laboratory study done in a 

dynamic chamber under controlled 

conditions and used simulated lead 

dust. Lead stearate, a compound not 

typically used in lead-based paint, was 

used to spike the construction dust used 

in the experiments. This study has 

various limitations. It focused on how 

much of the quantity of leaded dust 

applied to a surface was present in the 

vacuum bag after vacuuming. There was 

no assessment of the size of the dust 

particles collected. Most importantly, 

the study did not measure the quantity 

of leaded dust that remained on the 

floor. Without this data, the efficacy of 

the non-HEPA vacuums cannot be 

assessed. In addition, the study is not 

very informative as to what will occur 

under real world conditions. 

Two years later, the same group (Ref. 

45) studied 20 test rooms where they 

produced lead-containing dust by power 

sanding walls of known lead levels. 

Four cleaning methods were used, of 

which only two produced acceptable 

results. The two cleaning methods that 

did not produce acceptable clean-ups 

were: (1) Dry sweeping the floor with a 

corn broom followed by vacuuming 

with a utility vacuum; and (2) 

vacuuming the floor with a household 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

vacuum cleaner followed by wet 

mopping with a commercial household 

cleaner. The other two methods that 

achieved clean-ups resulting in floors 

that passed dust clearance testing were: 

(3) vacuuming the floor with a utility 

vacuum followed by wet mopping with 

a 2% solution of a commercial leadcleaning product, followed by a rinse 

with clean water; and (4) vacuuming 

with a HEPA vacuum, followed by wet 

mopping with trisodium phosphate, 

followed by a clean water rinse, 

followed by more vacuuming with a 

HEPA vacuum. The report concludes 

that ‘‘. . .Cleaning Methods 1 and 2 were 

inadequate to meet the cleanliness 

criteria. . .’’ Later it states ‘‘Cleaning 

Methods 3 and 4 did meet both the 

current and proposed HUD criteria.’’ 

The same commenter also referred to 

a report submitted to HUD by the 

California Department of Health 

Services (Ref. 41). This study evaluated 

a range of vacuums. The efficacy of the 

non-HEPA vacuums varied, particularly 

in comparison with the HEPA vacuums. 

The authors of the report did not 

identify the attributes of the non-HEPA 

vacuums that were instrumental in 

determining their effectiveness. At best, 

vacuums that were effective at picking 

up and retaining lead-based paint dust 

could be classified as high performing 

although there were no criteria that 

could be discerned on what made a high 

performing vacuum. The report also 

states that HEPA models without floor 

tool brushes performed poorly. This 

may be the case. The HEPA vacuums 

used in EPA’s Dust Study performed 

adequately and all of these vacuums 

were equipped with flip down brushes 

on the floor tool. 

The California report contained 

another finding of interest. ‘‘Of special 

concern is the direct observation under 

the scanning electron microscope of 

lead dust particles dissolving on 

exposure to water to release large 

numbers of sub-micron lead particles. 

Although requiring further study, this 

effect suggests that vacuuming to 

remove most of the water soluble lead 

dust, followed by wet-washing would be 

the best cleaning strategy.’’ The cleaning 

protocol in this final rule follows this 

strategy by requiring, for all surfaces in 

and around the work area except for 

walls, HEPA vacuuming, followed by 

wet wiping or wet mopping, followed 

by the cleaning verification protocol. 

EPA has determined that the weight 

of the evidence provided by these 

studies demonstrate that the HEPA 

vacuums consistently removed 

significant quantities of lead-based paint 

dust and reduced lead loadings to lower 

levels then did other vacuums. 

While there may be some vacuums 

cleaners that are as effective as HEPA 

vacuums, EPA has not been able to 

define quantitatively the specific 

attributes of those vacuums. That is, 

EPA is not able to identify what criteria 

should be used to identify vacuums that 

are equivalent to HEPA vacuums in 

performance. The authors of the studies 

discussed above do not state that the 

vacuums used are representative of all 

vacuums nor do they try to identify 

particular aspects of the non-HEPA 

vacuums. Thus, EPA does not believe 

that it can identify in this final rule 

what types of vacuums can be used as 

substitutes for HEPA-vacuums. EPA 

believes it would be ineffective to 

identify specific makes or models of 

vacuums (e.g., the ones used in the 

studies) in this final rule given how 

quickly manufactures change models, 

nor would that take into account new 

manufacturers. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that suggested that vacuums 

that are retrofitted with a HEPA filter 

should be considered sufficient for 

purposes of this rule. These vacuums 

are not necessarily properly sealed or 

designed so that the air flow goes 

exclusively through the HEPA filter. 

EPA agrees with the commenter who 

stated that HEPA vacuums are vacuums 

which have been designed for the 

integral use of HEPA filters, in which 

the contaminated air flows through the 

HEPA filter in accordance with the 

instructions of its manufacturer and for 

which the performance standard for the 

operation of the filter is defined. EPA 

also agrees with those commenters that 

contended that the rule should contain 

a more-specific definition of HEPA 

vacuum. Accordingly, this final rule 

defines ‘‘HEPA vacuum’’ as a vacuum 

which has been designed with a HEPA 

filter as the last filtration stage and 

includes a description of what the term 

HEPA means. The definition of ‘‘HEPA 

vacuum’’ also specifies that the vacuum 

cleaner must be designed so that all the 

air drawn into the machine is expelled 

through the filter with none of the air 

leaking past it. 

Furthermore, EPA agrees that OSHA’s 

requirement that HEPA vacuums should 

be an important consideration in 

determining whether HEPA vacuums 

should be required to be used as part of 

the work practices being finalized today. 

Because OSHA’s standard covers 

practically all work subject the to EPA’s 

final Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

program regulations, and applies to all 

firms having an employee/employer 

relationship with few exceptions, there 

is no reason to create a separate 

standard for those firms not subject to 

the OSHA standard, particularly in light 

of the data on the efficacy of HEPA 

vacuums versus non-HEPA vacuums 

discussed above. Even if EPA were able 

to define vacuums that were acceptable 

substitutes to HEPA vacuums, it is not 

clear that the benefits would outweigh 

the complications associated with 

creating an EPA standard that is 

different than that required by OSHA. 

7. Cleaning verification. This final 

rule requires the certified renovator to 

use disposable cleaning cloths after 

cleaning both as a fine cleaning step and 

as verification that the containment and 

cleaning have sufficiently cleaned up 

the lead-paint dust created by the 

renovation activity. Cleaning 

verification’s usefulness is based on the 

combination of its fine cleaning 

properties and the fact that it provides 

feed-back to the certified renovator on 

the effectiveness of the cleaning. 

Cleaning verification is an important 

component of the work practices set 

forth in this rule and contributes to the 

effectiveness of the combination of 

training, containment, cleaning and 

verification at minimizing exposure to 

lead-based paint hazards created during 

renovation, remodeling and painting 

activities. 

a. Background. As described in 

greater detail in Unit IV.E.2. of the 

preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3), 

EPA began looking for an alternative to 

dust clearance sampling that would be 

quick, inexpensive, reliable, and easy to 

perform. EPA believed that a 

verification method was needed because 

studies have consistently shown that 

interior visual clearance resulted in a 

high percentage of false negatives, that 

is falsely indicating that lead loadings 

were below the standards used. This 

occurred even when using a clearance 

standard of 100 μg/ft2. 

i. Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study. 

The Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study 

used commercially available disposable 

cleaning cloths to determine whether 

variations of a ‘‘white glove’’ test could 

serve as an effective alternative (Ref. 

37). White disposable wet and dry 

cleaning cloths were used to wipe 

windowsills and wipe floors, then they 

were examined to determine whether 

dust was visible on the cloth. This 

determination was made by visually 

comparing the cloth to a photographic 

standard that EPA developed to 

correlate to a level of contamination that 

is at or below the dust-lead hazard 

standard in 40 CFR 745.65(b). Cloths 

that matched or were lighter than the 

photographic standard were considered 

to have achieved ‘‘white glove.’’ This 

series of studies found that on 

uncarpeted floors, 91.5% of the surfaces 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21737 

that achieved ‘‘white glove’’ using only 

dry cloths were confirmed by dust wipe 

sampling to be below the dust lead 

hazard standard for floors, while 97.3% 

of the floors that achieved ‘‘white glove’’ 

using only wet cloths were also below 

the hazard standard. In addition, 10 of 

the 11 floors where ‘‘white glove’’ was 

not achieved using dry cloths, and 20 of 

the 21 floors where ‘‘white glove’’ was 

not achieved using wet cloths, were 

nonetheless below the dust lead hazard 

standard. There were very few instances 

where ‘‘white glove’’ was achieved but 

the dust lead level was above the dust 

lead hazard standard. Thus, the study 

showed that for floors, the white glove 

test results were biased towards false 

positives. Windowsills were also tested. 

For the dry cloth protocol, 96.4% of the 

sills that achieved ‘‘white glove’’ were 

also confirmed by dust wipe sampling 

to be below the dust lead hazard 

standard for windowsills, and the one 

sill that did not achieve ‘‘white glove’’ 

was also below the standard. For the 

wet cloth protocol, all of the sills that 

achieved ‘‘white glove’’ were also below 

the dust lead hazard standard, as were 

the four sills that did not reach ‘‘white 

glove.’’ 

Based on the results of the Disposable 

Cleaning Cloth Study, the 2006 Proposal 

included for interior renovations, as part 

of the work practices, a post-renovation 

cleaning verification process that would 

follow the visual inspection and 

cleaning. Cleaning verification would 

consist of wiping the interior 

windowsills and uncarpeted floors with 

wet disposable cleaning cloths and, if 

necessary dry disposable cleaning 

cloths, and comparing each to a 

cleaning verification card developed 

and distributed by EPA. 

ii. The Dust Study. The Dust Study 

(Ref. 17), which is described elsewhere 

in this preamble, assessed the proposed 

work practices. As one component of 

the proposed work practices, the 

cleaning verification was evaluated in 

the Dust Study. It should be noted that 

the Dust Study was not designed 

specifically to evaluate the cleaning 

verification in isolation of the rest of the 

work practices. Unlike the earlier 

Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study that 

was intended to test the effectiveness of 

the use of the ‘‘white glove’’ test in 

isolation, the Dust Study was meant to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the 

proposed work practices, including 

cleaning verification. Unlike the earlier 

Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, the 

Dust Study involved actual renovations 

performed by local renovation 

contractors who received instruction in 

how to perform cleaning verification 

and then were left alone to determine 

whether cleaning cloths matched or 

were lighter than the cleaning 

verification card. In order to maximize 

the information collected about cleaning 

verification in the Dust Study, cleaning 

verification was conducted after each 

experiment, not just those experiments 

that were being conducted in 

accordance with the proposed rule 

requirements for containment and 

cleaning. 

One of the Dust Study conclusions 

was that cleaning verification resulted 

in decreases in lead levels, but was not 

always accurate in identifying the 

presence of levels above EPA dust lead 

hazard standards for floors and sills. 

This refers to the experiments involving 

power planing and high temperature 

heat guns. An examination of the 

cleaning verification data in the study 

shows that, if power planing and high 

temperature heat gun experiments are 

excluded, the values for post-renovation 

cleaning verification when the proposed 

rule work practices were used were at 

or below the regulatory hazard standard 

for floors, often significantly below the 

regulatory hazard standard. These 

results were similar for windowsills. 

Excluding power planing and high 

temperature heat gun experiments, all of 

the post-renovation cleaning verification 

windowsill sample averages for 

experiments conducted in accordance 

with the proposed rule requirements 

were below the regulatory dust lead 

hazard standard for windowsills. In 

addition, 26 of the 30 other experiments 

(using only some elements of the 

proposed containment and cleaning 

requirements) not involving power 

planing or high temperature heat guns 

had post-renovation cleaning 

verification sill sample averages well 

below the hazard standards. 

b. Cleaning verification as an 

alternative to clearance testing. In 

determining whether cleaning 

verification could be seen as a 

qualitative alternative to clearance 

testing, EPA considered both the 

Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study and 

the Dust Study. Even though the 

Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study 

showed that the cleaning verification 

cloths that reached ‘‘white glove’’ were 

approximately 91% to 97% likely to be 

below the regulatory hazard standard, 

EPA believes the greater variability seen 

in the Dust Study, particularly in the 

experiments where the complete suite of 

proposed work practices were not used 

does not support the characterization of 

cleaning verification as a direct 

substitute for clearance testing. Cleaning 

verification, when used apart from the 

other work practices, is not as reliable 

a test for determining whether the 

hazard standard has been achieved as 

clearance testing. However, the Dust 

Study supports the validity of cleaning 

verification as an effective component of 

the work practices. The cleaning and 

feedback aspects of cleaning verification 

are important to its contribution to the 

effectiveness of the work practices. 

c. Final rule requirements. Based on a 

review of the Dust Study and the 

Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, EPA 

concluded that if the practices 

prohibited in this final rule are avoided 

and the required work practices are 

followed, then cleaning verification is 

an effective component of the work 

practices. EPA believes that the suite of 

work practices as a whole are effective 

at addressing the lead-paint dust that is 

generated during renovation, repair, and 

painting preparation activities. 

Therefore, the final rule does not require 

dust clearance sampling after any 

renovations, nor does it allow the signs 

delineating the work area to be removed 

based solely on the results of a visual 

inspection. The final rule does require 

a certified renovator to perform a visual 

inspection to determine whether dust, 

debris, or residue is still present in the 

work area, and, if these conditions exist, 

they must be eliminated by re-cleaning 

and another visual inspection must be 

performed. In addition, the rule requires 

that after an interior work area passes 

the visual inspection, the cleaning of 

each windowsill and uncarpeted floor 

within the work area must be verified, 

as explained below. After an exterior 

work area passes the visual inspection, 

the renovation has been properly 

completed. In response to one 

commenter who was concerned about 

the dust that could collect on exterior 

windowsills during exterior projects, 

the final rule clarifies that the visual 

inspection must confirm that no dust, 

debris or residue remains on surfaces in 

and below the work area, including 

windowsills and the ground. 

For interior renovations, after the 

work area has been cleaned and has 

passed a visual inspection, a certified 

renovator must wipe each interior 

windowsill in the work area with a wet 

disposable cleaning cloth and compare 

the cloth to a cleaning verification card 

developed by EPA. If the cloth matches 

or is lighter than the image on the card, 

that windowsill has passed the postrenovation cleaning verification. If the 

cloth is darker than the image on the 

card, that windowsill must be recleaned in accordance with 

§ 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B) and (C) and the 

certified renovator must wipe that 

windowsill with a new wet cloth, or the 

same one folded so that an unused 

surface is exposed, and compare it to 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the cleaning verification card. If the 

cloth matches or is lighter than the card, 

that windowsill has passed. If not, the 

certified renovator must then wait for 

one hour after the surface was wiped 

with the second wet cleaning 

verification cloth or until the surface 

has dried, whichever is longer. Then, 

the certified renovator must wipe the 

windowsill with a dry disposable 

cleaning cloth. Based on the Dust Study, 

EPA concluded that this process need 

not be repeated after the first dry cloth. 

At that point, that windowsill has 

passed the post-renovation cleaning 

verification process. Each windowsill in 

the work area must pass the postrenovation cleaning verification process. 

The cleaning verification protocol in 

the final rule is similar to what was in 

2006 Proposal. By not requiring the 

surface to be re-cleaned after the second 

wet wipe and by ending the cleaning 

verification process after one dry cloth, 

this final rule is different from the 

Proposal. The 2006 Proposal required 

that the dry cloths be used until one 

passed verification (i.e., reached ‘‘white 

glove’’). EPA’s final rule does not 

require more than one dry cloth because 

only 3 experiments out of the 60 

performed in the Dust Study failed the 

second wet cloth. None of these 3 

experiments were performed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this final rule; all experiments 

performed in accordance with the 

requirements of this final rule passed 

after either the first or second wet cloth. 

Based on the Dust Study, it is unlikely 

that dust containing lead will remain in 

excess of the hazard standard following 

two wet and one dry wipes; however 

EPA is concerned about the possibility 

of requiring potentially indefinite 

cleaning by renovation contractors, with 

the potential of making them 

responsible for cleaning up pre-existing 

dirt or grime, whether leadcontaminated or not. 

After the windowsills in the work 

area have passed the post-renovation 

cleaning verification, a certified 

renovator must proceed with the 

cleaning verification process for the 

floors and countertops in the work area. 

A certified renovator must wipe no 

more than 40 ft2 of floor or countertop 

area at a time with a wet disposable 

cleaning cloth. For floors, the renovator 

must use an application device 

consisting of a long handle and a head 

to which a wet disposable cleaning 

cloth is attached. If the floor and 

countertop surfaces in the work area 

exceed 40 ft2, the certified renovator 

must divide the surfaces into sections, 

each section being no more than 40 ft2, 

and perform the post-renovation 

cleaning verification on each section 

separately. If the wet cloth used to wipe 

a particular section of surface matches 

or is lighter than the image on the 

cleaning verification card, that section 

has passed the post-renovation cleaning 

verification. If, however, on the first 

wiping of a section of the surface, the 

wet cloth does not match and is darker 

than the image on the cleaning 

verification card, the surface of that 

section must be re-cleaned in 

accordance with § 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B) and 

(C). After re-cleaning, the certified 

renovator must wipe that section of the 

surface again using a new wet 

disposable cleaning cloth. If the second 

wet cloth matches or is lighter than the 

image on the cleaning verification card, 

that section of the floor has passed. If 

the second wet cloth does not match 

and is darker than the image on the 

verification card, the certified renovator 

must wait for 1 hour or until the surface 

has dried, whichever is longer. Then, 

the certified renovator must wipe each 

of those 40 ft2 sections of the floor or 

countertop surfaces that did not achieve 

post-renovation cleaning verification 

using the wet cloths with a dry 

disposable cleaning cloth. On floors, 

this wiping must also be performed 

using an application device with a long 

handle and a head to which the dry 

cloth is attached. At that point, the 

floors and countertops have passed the 

post-renovation cleaning verification 

process and the warning signs may be 

removed. 

In finalizing the work practices in this 

final rule, EPA has taken into 

consideration safety, reliability and 

effectiveness. EPA has concluded that 

these work practices, including cleaning 

verification, are an effective and reliable 

method for minimizing exposure to 

lead-based paint hazards created by the 

renovation, both during and after the 

renovation. 

d. Comments. EPA received many 

comments on cleaning verification. The 

majority of the comments supported the 

use of dust wipe clearance testing and 

did not consider cleaning verification as 

a suitable substitute. Some of these 

commenters supported the use of dust 

wipe clearance testing for purposes of 

clearance. Some commenters did not 

support either dust wipe clearance 

testing or cleaning verification; they 

contended that visual inspection alone 

was sufficient and that dust clearance 

testing is too costly. Others questioned 

whether cleaning verification had been 

demonstrated to be valid, reliable, and 

effective in establishing that the work 

area had been adequately cleaned or 

that the clearance standards were met. 

Some contended that the cleaning 

verification method showed promise, 

but should be subjected to additional 

testing, including field trials, to 

demonstrate its effectiveness when used 

by certified renovators. A minority of 

commenters supported the use of 

cleaning verification. Some supported 

its use rather than dust wipe-clearance 

testing and clearance, particularly given 

that renovations are not intended to 

remove lead-based paint. Some 

supported cleaning verification because 

it is faster, easier to implement, and less 

expensive than clearance testing. 

i. Cleaning verification is not a 

substitute for clearance testing. Many 

commenters contended that cleaning 

verification is not a substitute 

technology for dust-wipe clearance 

testing and should not be used in this 

manner. EPA agrees with the 

commenters. As discussed in Unit 

III.E.8.b., based on a careful 

consideration of the Disposable 

Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust 

Study, EPA has concluded that, in itself, 

cleaning verification should not be used 

as a substitute for dust wipe clearance 

testing. 

ii. Dust clearance testing and 

clearance. Many commenters asserted 

that the rule should require dust 

clearance testing instead of the cleaning 

verification. Some further contended 

that dust clearance testing is the only 

proven method for verifying lead dust 

levels. Others supported the use of dust 

wipe clearance testing for purposes of 

clearance for the renovation. One 

commenter noted that even when dust 

clearance testing is performed it is not 

uncommon for clearance to be 

conducted up to three times on a home 

to make sure that lead levels are 

sufficiently low. Some commenters 

suggested that cleaning verification be 

used as a screen before dust clearance 

testing. Other commenters contended 

that dust clearance testing should not be 

required because it is expensive and 

time consuming and is an obstacle to 

completing the renovation job. Other 

commenters contended that dust 

clearance testing has been done in some 

jurisdictions quickly and relatively 

inexpensively. A few commenters 

contended that EPA should not require 

dust clearance testing because there is a 

difference between abatement, which is 

intended to eliminate lead-based paint 

hazards, and renovations in which the 

focus should be to not create any new 

lead-based paint hazards. Some 

commenters asserted that dust clearance 

testing should not be required because 

this would result in the renovator being 

responsible for existing lead-based paint 

hazards. One commenter used the 

example of a window replacement 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21739 

project to illustrate this point. The 

commenter argued that, where the floor 

in the work area is in poor condition but 

outside the scope of the renovation 

contract, the window replacement 

contractor should not be responsible for 

making sure the floor passes a clearance 

standard, which may not be possible 

without modifying the floor. 

EPA disagrees that dust clearance 

testing and clearance should be 

components of the renovation activities 

subject to this final rule. Dust clearance 

testing is used in abatement to 

determine whether lead-based paint 

hazards have been eliminated. This test 

is part of a specific process that involves 

a specialized work force (e.g., inspector, 

risk-assessor), typically removal of 

residents, and modifications to the 

housing in some instances to eliminate 

lead-based hazards (e.g., removing 

carpet or refinishing or sealing 

uncarpeted floors). Dust clearance 

testing is needed to determine if leadbased paint hazards have been 

eliminated and residents can re-occupy 

a house and not be exposed to leadbased paint hazards. As noted by a 

commenter, a home may require 

clearance testing be conducted up to 

three times before the home is 

determined to be free of lead-based 

paint hazards and it may require that 

floors be refinished or that carpets be 

replaced. 

The Disposal Cleaning Cloth Study 

showed that wet wipes can pick up 

accumulated grime from floors. 

Applying this to the renovation context, 

if EPA were to require clearance, 

renovators might be held responsible for 

cleaning up pre-existing lead dust 

hazards that had accumulated in the 

grime on the floor.Based on the Dust 

Study, EPA has determined that all of 

the leaded dust generated by the 

renovation will have been cleaned up by 

two wet wipes followed by one dry 

wipe, where necessary. EPA is 

concerned about the possibility of 

requiring potentially indefinite cleaning 

by renovation contractors, with the 

potential of making them responsible for 

cleaning up pre-existing dirt or grime, 

whether lead-contaminated or not. Even 

assuming EPA has authority to require 

replacement of carpets and floors under 

some circumstances as part of a 

renovation project, EPA does not think 

as a policy matter that such an approach 

in which pre-existing hazards must be 

eliminated is appropriate. It could 

fundamentally change the scope of a 

renovation job. The time and cost of 

conducting clearance testing and 

achieving clearance is an acceptable 

part of the time and cost of conducting 

the abatement given the goal of an 

abatement, the range of activities that 

are inherent in an abatement, and the 

activities that are required to be 

conducted to achieve clearance. Given 

the effectiveness of the work practices 

being finalized in this rulemaking, 

including the role of cleaning 

verification in minimizing exposure to 

lead-based paint dust generated during 

renovations, dust clearance testing does 

not provide the added value to balance 

the time and effort and the cost to home 

and building owners associated with 

requiring this additional step to the 

work practices. 

As discussed in Unit II.A.6.b., there 

are many differences between 

renovations and abatements. 

Renovations are different from 

abatements in intent, implementation, 

type of workforce, workforce makeup, 

funding, and goal. Renovations are 

focused not on eliminating lead-based 

paint hazards, but rather on making 

repairs or improvements to a building. 

The vast majority of abatements are 

either done with funding from HUD 

and/or a State or local government. In 

addition, residents are not typically 

present in a residence during an 

abatement while they are typically 

present in a residence during a 

renovation. Thus, the purpose of dust 

wipe clearance testing and clearance 

would necessarily be different if it were 

used in a renovation than in an 

abatement. For abatements, clearance 

testing and clearance are used to 

minimize potential exposure by 

eliminating lead-based paint hazards 

after completion of the job. Clearance 

acts as the means to ensure that 

minimization and signal the end of the 

job. For renovations, given the presence 

of residents, the concern is for potential 

exposure both during and after the job. 

Dust clearance testing and clearance 

would only address the second part of 

the exposure equation. Thus, dust 

clearance testing conducted after 

renovation activities have been 

completed would not provide the 

equivalent determination of potential 

exposure that it does for abatement. EPA 

has considered this difference as one 

factor in its determination that given the 

effectiveness of the work practices being 

finalized in this rulemaking, including 

the role of cleaning verification in 

minimizing exposure to lead-based 

paint dust generated during renovations, 

dust clearance testing does not provide 

the added value to balance the time and 

effort and the cost to home and building 

owners associated with requiring this 

additional step to the work practices. 

Although renovators should be 

required to address lead-based paint 

dust generated by renovation activities, 

the Agency is not requiring renovators 

to take the actions required under the 

abatement rules to achieve clearance for 

lead-based paint dust not associated 

with the renovation and to address 

housing conditions not associated with 

the renovation. 

EPA agrees that having dust wipe 

samples collected by a qualified person 

and analyzed by a qualified laboratory 

is an effective way to determine the 

quantity of lead in dust remaining after 

a renovation activity, but it would not 

necessarily show that the dust was due 

to the specific renovation activity. EPA 

also notes that in addition to providing 

a numerical value, dust clearance 

testing costs more than cleaning 

verification and takes longer to produce 

results. Results can take from 24 to 48 

hours or longer and cleaning, sampling 

and analysis may have to be repeated 

depending upon the initial results. 

During this period, the warning signs 

delineating the work area would need to 

be maintained to protect occupants and 

others from the risk of exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by the 

renovation. Thus, EPA believes that 

dust clearance sampling is a poor fit for 

renovation work for a variety of reasons, 

including the greater expense associated 

with clearance testing, the time 

necessary to obtain the results of the 

testing and the consequent delay in the 

completion of the job, and the potential 

to expand the scope of the renovation. 

EPA believes that dust clearance 

testing and clearance are not necessary 

given that the Dust Study demonstrates 

that cleaning verification, as an effective 

component of the work practices, 

minimizes exposure to lead-based paint 

hazards created by the renovation, both 

during and after the renovation. The 

cleaning and feedback aspects of 

cleaning verification are important to its 

contribution to the effectiveness of the 

work practices. EPA notes that unlike 

dust wipe clearance testing in which a 

small part of the work area would be 

tested, cleaning verification is 

conducted over the whole work area. 

Each repetition of the cleaning 

verification protocol further cleans the 

surface. 

The work practices, including 

cleaning verification, required by this 

final rule are expected to minimize 

exposure to any newly created leadbased paint hazards created by a 

renovation by removing newly 

deposited dust, while requiring cleanup 

of pre-existing hazards only 

incidentally, to the extent such cleanup 

is unavoidable to address the newly 

created hazards. The Dust Study 

demonstrates that the cleaning 

verification protocol, used in 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21740 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

conjunction with the other work 

practices in this final rule, is effective 

and reliable in achieving this result. 

While the requirements of this rule 

will, in some cases, have the ancillary 

benefit of removing some pre-existing 

dust-lead hazards, it strikes the proper 

balance of addressing the lead-based 

paint hazards create during the 

renovation but at the same time not 

requiring renovators to remediate or 

eliminate hazards that are beyond the 

scope of the work they were hired to do. 

iii. Visual inspection in lieu of 

cleaning verification. Some commenters 

urged EPA to require only visual 

inspection of the work area after the 

cleaning following a renovation. They 

contend that cleaning verification is not 

needed. Some commenters argued that 

thorough cleaning in combination with 

a requirement that no visible dust or 

debris remain is adequate to address the 

lead dust created by the renovation 

activity. Most of these commenters also 

noted that because renovation and 

abatement are different that it would be 

inappropriate for EPA to impose 

additional requirements on renovation 

firms beyond visual inspection. Some 

commenters contended that the lead 

dust from a renovation is usually in the 

form of debris such as chips and 

splinters that can be seen with the 

naked eye, and the presence of this 

debris is an indicator to workers that the 

job site requires additional cleaning 

until no visible debris remains. 

One commenter contended that 

cleaning after the renovation activity 

until the worksite passed a visual 

inspection was the most important 

determinant of whether a job would 

pass a dust clearance test. In support of 

this contention, the commenter cited the 

Reissman study (Ref. 22). The 

commenter contended that the study 

demonstrates that when there was no 

visible dust and debris present after 

completion of renovation or remodeling 

activity, there was no added risk of a 

child having an elevated blood lead 

level as compared to the risk for 

children living in homes where there 

was no reported renovation or 

remodeling work. 

Two commenters offered an analysis 

of two sets of data collected by an 

environmental testing firm. One dataset 

consists of post-renovation dust samples 

collected in Maryland apartment units; 

the other consists of dust samples 

collected for risk assessment purposes 

in 41 states. No information on 

renovation activity is provided for the 

second dataset. The commenters argue 

that because 96.7% of the Maryland 

post-renovation samples and 96.1% of 

the other samples were below the 

applicable hazard standard for the 

surface (floor or windowsill) tested, this 

suggests that visual inspection in those 

cases was sufficient to ensure that no 

dust-lead hazard existed. 

One commenter cited the Dust Study 

(Ref. 17), the NAHB Lead Safe Work 

Practices Survey (Ref. 19), and several 

other studies as supporting the 

conclusion that lead-safe work practices 

and modified lead-safe work practices, 

along with a two-step or three-step 

cleaning process using a HEPAequipped vacuum and wet washing, 

greatly reduce dust lead levels and 

should be regarded as best management 

practices for renovation jobs. The 

commenter notes that the NAHB study 

found significant reductions in loading 

levels after cleanup using HEPAequipped vacuum and then either wet 

washing or using a wet mopping system. 

The commenter argues that if the work 

area is cleaned using these practices, it 

is appropriate to adopt a visual 

clearance standard allowing no visible 

dust or debris in the work area at the 

conclusion of the job. 

Other commenters contended that 

visual inspection following cleaning 

after a renovation is not a reliable 

method for determining whether a leadbased paint hazard remains after 

cleaning. Some commenters cited a 

study conducted by the National Center 

for Healthy Housing (NCHH) showing 

that 67% of the visual inspections that 

initially passed failed when checked 

more carefully and 54% that eventually 

passed a visual inspection were found 

to be above the hazard standard. 

However, one commenter contended 

this was a poorly conducted study. 

Another commenter referred to the 

study ‘‘An Evaluation of the Efficacy of 

the Lead Hazard Reduction Treatments 

Prescribed in Maryland Environmental 

Article 6-8’’ conducted by NCHH for the 

Baltimore City Health Department in 

which 53% of housing identified by 

visual inspection as being below the 

hazard standard was actually above the 

hazard standard. Another commenter 

argued that NIOSH research indicates 

that significant lead contamination may 

remain on surfaces that appear clean. 

During inter-Agency review, one 

commenter pointed to 2007 studies from 

Maryland and Rochester, New York that 

they contend show trained workers and 

visual inspection for dust and debris 

can achieve 85–90% compliance with 

the hazard standards following 

renovations in previously occupied 

housing. Given the lateness of the 

submission, EPA did not review this 

information. However, EPA notes that in 

a cover letter, the commenter states that 

the 2007 Maryland Study was 

conducted by workers that had taken a 

2–day training course, which is more 

training than required by this rule. Even 

if the studies do demonstrate this 

effectiveness by highly trained workers, 

EPA does not believe that a 85–90% 

effectiveness is sufficiently protective 

for residents. 

EPA disagrees with those commenters 

that contended that a visual inspection 

following cleaning after a renovation is 

sufficient to ensure the lead-based paint 

dust generated by a renovation has been 

sufficiently cleaned-up. The weight-ofthe-evidence clearly demonstrates that 

visual inspection following cleaning 

after a renovation is insufficient at 

detecting dust-lead hazards, even at 

levels significantly above the regulatory 

hazard standards. Further, EPA 

disagrees with the implication that 

easily visible paint chips and splinters 

are necessarily the primary materials 

generated during a renovation. EPA 

studies, including the Dust Study, show 

that renovation activities generate dust 

as well as chips and splinters. Finally, 

EPA disagrees with those commenters 

who requested the work practices in this 

final rule not include any verification 

beyond visual inspection. In the Dust 

Study, there were 10 renovations 

performed in accordance with the 2006 

proposed work practices that did not 

involve practices prohibited by this 

final rule. Of those 10 renovations, 5 

needed the additional cleaning 

verification step in order to achieve 

EPA’s regulatory dust-lead hazard 

standards for floors. (EPA notes that the 

Dust Study Protocol did not explicitly 

specify that all dust and debris be 

eliminated prior to the cleaning 

verification step, only that visible debris 

be removed. However, the contractor 

running the study for EPA reported that, 

in practice, the renovators participating 

in the study eliminated all visible dust 

and debris as part of their typical 

cleaning regimen. Thus, the study 

protocol was slightly different from the 

rule requirements, which state that the 

renovation firm must remove all dust 

and debris and conduct a visual 

inspection before beginning the cleaning 

verification procedure.) 

EPA does not believe that the 

Reissman, et al. study is supportive of 

the contention that visual inspection of 

the work area is sufficient because it did 

not evaluate the effectiveness of a visual 

inspection requirement. The study did 

not measure dust lead levels, which are 

the basis for this rule. Instead, it 

characterized the relationships between 

elevated blood lead levels and 

renovation dust and debris that spread 

throughout the housing. EPA notes that 

Reissman, et al. concluded that there 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21741 

was a correlation between renovation 

activities and elevated blood lead levels. 

EPA concluded that the dataset 

referenced by one commenter that 

consists of dust samples collected for 

risk assessment purposes in 41 States is 

not informative because there was no 

information on renovation activity 

collected with these dust samples. With 

respect to the Maryland renovation 

study,96.7% is an overstatement. The 

author who conducted the analysis 

stated that: 

[W]hen the maximum test values are 

examined rather than the mean, 9.8% of the 

MD sample and 12.5% of the national sample 

of properties with LBP surpassed at least one 

of the hazard thresholds of 40 μg/sf for floors 

and 250 μg/sf for sills. As illustrated in 

Exhibit 1, a fairly sizable percentage of the 

lead tests exceed the clearance thresholds. 

The failure rates are about 20 percent lower 

for Maryland than for the national LBP 

sample. However, even for Maryland, nearly 

one in ten apartments would fail the hazard 

test. 

Thus, even if these were the only data 

available, it would not support the 

conclusion that visual clearance is 

effective. 

After reviewing the NAHB Lead Safe 

Work Practices Survey, EPA concluded 

that it does not support the contention 

that visual inspection is sufficient to 

detect whether lead-based paint dust 

remains. While EPA agrees that use of 

a HEPA-vacuum and wet-washing are 

effective at cleaning lead-based paint 

dust, this does not support the case for 

relying on visual inspection without 

subsequent cleaning verification. In the 

NAHB study, the levels of lead-based 

paint dust that remained after the 

renovation activities were sometimes 

higher and sometimes lower than at the 

start of the renovation, but they were 

always at relatively high levels after the 

renovation--as high as 11,400 ug/ft2. 

In addition, the two studies 

conducted by the National Center for 

Healthy Housing as noted by 

commenters demonstrate that visual 

inspection was not effective at 

determining the presence of dust-lead 

hazards. The study ‘‘Evaluation of the 

HUD lead-Based Paint Hazard Control 

Grant Program’’ study conducted by 

NCHH corroborates these findings. 

iv. Carpets and other horizontal 

surfaces within the work area. Some 

commenters were concerned that 

cleaning verification is not intended for 

use on carpeted floors. They were not 

confident that thorough cleaning was 

adequate to address potential lead 

hazards that might remain in carpet 

after the renovation. One commenter 

pointed to studies showing a significant 

correlation between dust lead in carpets 

and children’s blood lead. As cleaning 

verification is not required for carpet, 

commenters criticized the lack of a 

required method for determining that 

lead hazards in carpet had been 

eliminated. Commenters suggested EPA 

require clearance testing for carpeted 

rooms in the work area, which some 

argued has been demonstrated to be 

effective, or rely on the HUD protocol, 

which they asserted is widely accepted 

and used. 

As discussed in detail in Unit IV.E. of 

the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, EPA 

did not design cleaning verification for 

use on carpeted floors. This was based 

on EPA’s concerns about the validity of 

dust wipe sampling on carpeted floors. 

EPA noted that the decision to apply the 

clearance standard promulgated in the 

TSCA section 403 rulemaking to 

carpeted floors ultimately had little 

consequence, given the context in 

which clearance standards are used--to 

ensure that lead-based paint hazards 

have been eliminated. Typically, during 

an abatement, carpets that are in poor 

condition or are known to be highly 

contaminated are removed and 

disposed. EPA further notes that the 

HUD Lead-safe Housing Rule only 

requires HEPA vacuuming, not steam 

cleaning or shampooing. 

While an abatement might require the 

removal of a lead-contaminated carpet, 

EPA has concluded that it is not 

appropriate to require carpet removal 

following a renovation. Even assuming 

EPA has authority to require removal of 

carpet following a renovation, this could 

significantly expand the cost of a 

renovation, and fundamentally expand 

the scope of the renovation activity 

contracted for by the homeowner or 

building owner by requiring removal of 

carpets as a result of pre-existing lead 

contamination. 

Dust Study data on containment and 

information on the effectiveness of 

HEPA vacuums show that the use of 

containment and post-renovation 

cleaning with HEPA vacuums to remove 

the lead-based paint dust potentially 

deposited on the carpets during the 

renovation would reliably and 

effectively address lead-based paint dust 

generated during a renovation. Thus, 

rather than rely upon a dust clearance 

sample that may not be accurate and 

may require the replacement of the 

carpet for renovation projects in which 

a carpet is present, EPA is finalizing the 

work practices which require 

containment and the use of a HEPA 

vacuum equipped with a beater bar for 

cleaning. 

In the absence of a practical, effective 

way of determining how much lead dust 

has been added to a carpet and whether 

it has been fully removed, EPA is 

adopting a technology-based approach 

for carpets that differs from the 

approach used for hard-surfaced floors, 

by requiring use of a HEPA vacuum 

with a beater bar. EPA is not aware of, 

and commenters have not identified, a 

practicable approach similar to the one 

EPA has adopted for floors as a basis to 

evaluate the results of the application of 

work practice standards to carpets. In 

the absence of such an approach, EPA 

believes the approach adopted today is 

the most effective, reliable approach 

available for minimizing potential leadbased paint hazards in carpets created 

by renovations. 

One commenter suggested that 

cleaning verification be required on 

other horizontal surfaces within the 

work area, in addition to windowsills 

and uncarpeted floors. EPA agrees with 

this commenter because the Dust Study 

demonstrated that, in nearly all cases, 

the cleaning verification step resulted in 

lower dust lead levels and, in most 

cases, the verification step was needed 

in order to achieve cleanup of all of the 

leaded dust deposited on the floors by 

the renovation. EPA is also concerned 

about the possible contamination of 

surfaces that are used to prepare, serve, 

and consume meals. EPA expects that 

movable surfaces, such as tables and 

desks, will be moved from the work area 

before work begins. Therefore, EPA has 

modified the rule to require cleaning 

verification on all countertops in the 

work area. 

v. Reliability of cleaning verification. 

EPA received comments prior to the 

2007 request for comments on the 

proposed work practices in light of the 

Dust Study. Those pre-Dust Study 

comments are summarized here. 

Commenters questioned whether 

cleaning verification had been 

demonstrated to be valid, reliable, 

effective, or efficient in establishing that 

the work area had been adequately 

cleaned or that the clearance standards 

were met. Some commenters contended 

that the cleaning verification method 

showed promise, but should be 

subjected to additional testing, 

including field trials, to demonstrate its 

effectiveness when used by certified 

renovators. Commenters on the 2006 

Proposal observed that the cleaning 

verification protocol was supported by a 

single study that was conducted under 

conditions unlike those presented by 

the typical renovation. Specifically, a 

commenter noted that most of the 

housing units studied had undergone 

some form of abatement that would 

likely have reduced dust levels and the 

study used professional inspectors or 

other highly trained individuals to 

collect the samples according to 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21742 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

specified protocols. The commenter was 

concerned that a renovator with no 

experience with sample collection and 

little training could replicate the work 

of the professionals used in the study. 

The commenter pointed out that the 

study avoided testing the procedure on 

rough surfaces, a condition that will 

frequently occur in real world 

applications, and used a different set of 

wipe protocols than actually utilized by 

the EPA in the 2006 Proposal. Another 

commenter on the 2006 Proposal noted 

that cleaning verification had never 

been employed in a real-world practical 

setting. In addition, some of these 

commenters contended that the cleaning 

verification protocol was too 

complicated or too confusing to follow. 

A number of commenters who 

provided comments in response to 

EPA’s request for comments on the 

proposed work practices in light of the 

Dust Study quoted the sentence in the 

conclusion section of EPA’s Dust Study 

that states that the cleaning verification 

protocol was not always accurate in 

identifying the presence of levels above 

EPA standards for floors and sills. Some 

of these commenters also noted the Dust 

Study report’s discussion of factors that 

affected the effectiveness of cleaning 

verification, such as floor condition, 

contractor performance, job type, and 

dust particle characteristics. One 

commenter observed that while all 

interior experiments resulted in final 

passed cleaning cloths for all floor zones 

and for all windowsills, nearly half of 

the experiments in the study ended with 

average work room floor lead levels 

above EPA’s dust lead hazard standard 

for floors of 40 μg/ft2. The Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee, while 

not asked to comment on the efficacy of 

the cleaning verification, contended that 

in the Dust Study cleaning verification 

did not provide sufficiently reliable 

results, leading to an inaccurate 

assessment of cleaning efficiency. 

EPA disagrees with these 

commenters. The Dust Study did 

provide a real-world practical setting in 

which to assess the use of cleaning 

verification. Local renovation 

contractors performed actual 

renovations for each experiment in the 

study. The contractors performed 

cleaning verification on floors of wood, 

vinyl, or tile, in good, fair, or poor 

condition. The Dust Study used the 

protocols that were consistent with 

those in the 2006 Proposal. While the 

Dust Study was not designed 

specifically to assess cleaning 

verification, it did assess the 

effectiveness of cleaning verification 

both when it was used as part of the 

proposed rule work practices and as a 

separate step after the other experiments 

which did not follow all the proposed 

work practices. Each experiment 

included a cleaning verification step. 

The contractors were instructed in how 

to perform cleaning verification. They 

independently determined whether 

particular cloths matched or were 

lighter than the cleaning verification 

card. In most renovations not involving 

the practices that EPA is prohibiting in 

this rule, i.e., power planing (power 

sanding) and high temperature heat 

guns, cleaning verification in 

combination with the other work 

practices were effective at reducing dust 

lead levels on surfaces to or below the 

dust lead hazard standards, regardless of 

the condition of the floor. Cleaning 

verification, as well as the other 

components of the work practices being 

finalized today were not effective when 

high dust generation practices such as 

power planing (including power 

sanding) and high temperature heat 

guns were used. These practices, as well 

as torching, are being prohibited in this 

rulemaking. Thus, EPA, in its 

determination on the effectiveness of 

cleaning verification, is focusing on the 

results of the experiments in the Dust 

Study that did not involve these 

prohibited practices. 

Of the 10 experiments in which the 

proposed rule practices were used and 

in which the practices being prohibited 

in this final rule were not used, all final 

lead-based paint dust levels were at or 

below the regulatory hazard standard 

(taking into account the accepted level 

of uncertainty, i.e., within plus or minus 

20%, which is the performance criteria 

for the National Lead Laboratory 

Accreditation Program). In fact, four 

experiments resulted in levels that were 

less than 10 μg/ft2, three resulted in 

levels less than 30 μg/ft2, and three 

resulted in levels that were 

approximately 40 μg/ft2 (all were well 

within the level of uncertainty for this 

value). In four of the experiments, at 

least one floor area failed verification on 

the first wet disposable cleaning cloth, 

all passed on the second wet cloth. In 

one of the experiments, a windowsill 

failed the first wet cloth, but passed the 

second. These results were seen on 

floors in a variety of conditions, 

including good, fair and poor 

conditions. As a general case, in the 

other experiments that did not follow all 

the proposed work practices, the use of 

cleaning verification after cleaning (both 

baseline cleaning and cleaning 

following the proposed work practices) 

reduced, often significantly, the amount 

of lead dust remaining. 

EPA agrees with commenters that 

cleaning verification should not be used 

for clearance. However, while cleaning 

verification is not clearance testing, as 

described above the use of cleaning 

verification consistently resulted in 

levels of lead-based paint dust at or 

below the hazard standard Also, the use 

of cleaning verification consistently 

resulted in lower levels of lead-based 

paint dust than remained after all types 

of cleaning studied when only followed 

by visual inspection. There is sufficient 

consistency in the data to support the 

use of cleaning verification as an 

effective component of the work 

practices being finalized today. 

In response to the comment that the 

Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study used 

professional inspectors or other highly 

trained individuals following specified 

protocols, EPA intends to include 

cleaning verification in its training 

course for renovators and will use the 

results of the Dust Study and the 

Agency’s observations on the experience 

of the contractors in the study in its 

development of this course. 

vi. Subjectivity of cleaning 

verification. Many commenters objected 

to the ‘‘white glove’’ standard as 

inherently subjective, and doubted 

whether it would be protective. The 

commenters were concerned that the 

effectiveness of cleaning verification 

relies upon a renovation worker’s 

understanding and application of the 

protocol, ability to define the floor 

sampling area or areas, and use of the 

cleaning verification card to determine 

whether a surface has been adequately 

cleaned. One commenter contended 

that, based on its experience as a subcontractor to EPA on the Disposable 

Cleaning Cloth Study, making the visual 

pass/fail determination can be quite 

subjective and open to interpretation. 

The commenter believes that it may be 

unrealistic to expect that renovation 

workers will consistently make the 

proper decision using the proposed 

verification card. Some commenters 

speculated that the renovator’s accuracy 

in comparing the cleaning cloth to the 

verification card could depend on 

factors such as the renovator’s visual 

acuity, the lighting in the room, or 

simply differences in judgment among 

renovators. Another commenter thought 

that the lack of corrections for surface 

conditions, the experience of the person 

conducting the visual assessment, or 

pre-existing conditions might bias the 

results of testing. 

EPA agrees that visual comparison of 

a cleaning cloth to a cleaning 

verification card has an element of 

subjectivity because the visual 

comparison of cloth to card requires 

some exercise of judgment on the part 

of the person doing the comparing. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21743 

However, this does not necessarily 

mean that the comparison is suspect. As 

previously stated, the Dust Study 

represents a real-world test of the ability 

of renovators to learn how to do 

cleaning verification and to apply it in 

the field. Although one participant in 

the Dust Study expressed concern about 

the subjectivity of the test, the fact 

remains that cleaning verification was 

successfully performed by the 

renovation contractors in all of the 

experiments involving the work 

practices being finalized in this final 

rule (excluding those involving power 

planing (power sanding) and high 

temperature heat guns) and was 

predictive of whether renovators had 

cleaned-up the lead-based paint hazards 

created during the renovation activity to 

the dust-lead standard, particularly 

when the proposed work practices were 

used. These cleaning verifications were 

conducted by various persons in various 

light conditions and on various surface 

conditions. Further, EPA notes that 

cleaning verification is not simply 

qualitative clearance. Unlike the 

sampling for dust clearance testing, the 

cleaning verification involves a cleaning 

component. The act of doing the 

cleaning verification has been shown to 

lower, often significantly, the dust lead 

levels. Finally, in the development of its 

training course for contractors, EPA 

plans to use its data on the contractors’ 

use of cleaning verification in the Dust 

Study, including their use of the 

cleaning verification cards. 

vii. Cost of cleaning verification. 

Some commenters were concerned that 

the cleaning verification protocols are 

too impractical, burdensome, or timeconsuming for many contractors to 

perform. However, the Dust Study 

found that cleaning verification only 

took, on average, slightly less than 13 

minutes for experiments where the 

proposed rule requirements were 

followed. EPA’s Final Economic 

Analysis estimates that the average cost 

of cleaning verification ranges from less 

than $10 to $30 in residences, and in 

public and commercial building COFs it 

ranges from less than $10 to less than 

$50. 

viii. Availability of cleaning 

verification card. One commenter asked 

about the availability of the cleaning 

verification card, specifically, who 

would produce them, where would they 

be available, and how often do they 

need to be replaced. EPA intends to 

produce the cleaning verification cards 

and to make them available at 

accredited renovator training courses 

and upon request from the National 

Lead Information Center. 

ix. Third-parties. Several commenters 

argued that a third party should perform 

cleaning verification (or visual 

inspection, in the case of exterior jobs) 

rather than the certified renovator. 

Commenters saw a conflict of interest, 

since by performing the cleaning 

verification the certified renovator is 

evaluating the effectiveness of his or her 

own work. Some thought the subjective 

nature of the method left it open to 

misinterpretation or fraud. Commenters 

were concerned that given the 

competitive pressures of the renovation 

industry and lack of independent 

oversight, it was not realistic to expect 

all renovators to follow the cleaning 

verification protocol in good faith. 

Others worried that a renovator might 

feel pressured to produce a passing 

result, perhaps to the point of recording 

false results. One commenter stated that 

those who would not comply with the 

cleaning procedure are unlikely to 

comply with cleaning verification. 

Again, as described above, EPA 

addressed potential conflicts-of-interest 

in its lead-based paint program in the 

preamble to the final Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations. That discussion 

outlined two reasons for not requiring 

that inspections or risk assessments, 

abatements, and post-abatement 

clearance testing all be performed by 

different entities. The first was the cost 

savings and convenience of being able 

to hire just one firm to perform all 

necessary lead-based paint activities. 

The second was the potential regional 

scarcity of firms to perform the work. 

EPA believes that these considerations 

may be equally applicable to 

renovations, and perhaps more 

compelling, given the objective of 

keeping this rule simple and relatively 

inexpensive. EPA is concerned that a 

requirement that contractors engage a 

third party for every renovation job will 

add undue complication and expense to 

home renovations, and that it could 

delay completion of renovation jobs. 

There are estimated to be 8.4 million 

renovation events annually. Moreover, 

as stated above, it is not uncommon for 

regulated entities to make 

determinations relating to their 

regulated status. Thus, after weighing 

these competing considerations, EPA 

has decided to take an approach that is 

consistent with the approach taken in 

the 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulation and not require third party 

visual inspections, testing, or cleaning 

verification. 

x. Relationship between cleaning 

verification and the regulatory leadbased paint hazard standards. Some 

commenters contend that cleaning 

verification is not protective because it 

was designed to pass based on the 

regulatory hazard standard for floors. 

These commenters contend that this 

level is too high to be protective and 

that continuing to use this level is 

unwarranted given more recent data that 

demonstrates that lead causes 

neurocognitive effects at levels much 

lower than 10 μg/dL, the current CDC 

blood lead level of concern which was 

used in establishing the regulatory 

hazard standards. 

EPA interprets the statutory directive 

to take into account safety when 

promulgating work practice standards as 

meaning that such work practice 

standards should be established in 

relation to lead-based paint hazards—as 

identified pursuant to TSCA section 

403. There is no level of lead exposure 

that can yet be clearly identified, with 

confidence, as clearly not being 

associated with potentially increased 

risk of deleterious health effects. EPA 

does not believe the intent of Congress 

was to require elimination of all 

possible risk arising from a renovation, 

nor is EPA aware of a method that could 

reliably and effectively accomplish this. 

Given that the hazard standards are the 

trigger for regulation under section 

402(c)(3) and that they are set through 

rulemaking, EPA has concluded that it 

makes most sense to use the same 

standards as the target level for safe 

work practices. Otherwise, the potential 

is created for a scheme under which any 

renovation activities found not to create 

hazards are not regulated at all, whereas 

renovation activities found to create 

hazards trigger requirements designed to 

leave the renovation site cleaner than 

the unregulated renovations. Given the 

Congressional intent that the section 

403 hazard standards apply for purposes 

of subchapter IV of TSCA, EPA is 

applying them as the target level for safe 

work practices, which include the 

cleaning verification process, in this 

rule. 

8. Consistency with HUD. Several 

commenters recommended that EPA 

adopt HUD’s clearance requirement for 

activities other than abatement, which 

some commenters noted has been 

successfully implemented in projects in 

federally assisted housing. One pointed 

out that renovators have accepted 

HUD’s clearance testing protocol, and 

implementing the ‘‘white glove’’ method 

will cause confusion in the industry and 

give contractors a reason for not 

following lead-safe work practices. A 

commenter recommended that EPA 

adopt HUD’s standard for exterior 

clearance of visual inspection of the 

work area and a soil test. Commenters 

expressed concern that the final rule 

could undermine more stringent State 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21744 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

and local standards, and asked EPA to 

make clear that more stringent state and 

local requirements for clearance would 

apply despite the lack of mandatory 

clearance in the final rule. 

This final regulation does not 

supersede more stringent or different 

requirements for interim control 

projects or renovations regulated by 

HUD, the States, or local jurisdictions. 

Renovation firms are still responsible 

for complying with all applicable 

Federal, State, or local laws when 

conducting renovations. In some cases, 

this may mean that dust clearance 

testing must be performed at the 

conclusion of a renovation rather than 

cleaning verification. EPA believes that 

renovation firms will be able to integrate 

these new requirements into their 

existing business practices with very 

little difficulty. 

EPA also notes that the scope of the 

housing covered by HUD is different 

than the scope covered by this final 

rule. As noted by the commenter, HUD 

covers activities in projects in federally 

assisted housing. The occupancy 

patterns, including turn-over, will be 

different than in the general population 

covered by this final rule. While there 

is some overlap, there are substantial 

differences. Thus, EPA believes that 

total consistency with HUD is not 

needed. 

9. Optional use of clearance. In the 

2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to allow 

optional dust clearance sampling at the 

completion of renovation activities 

instead of the post-renovation cleaning 

verification described in § 745.85(b). 

Some commenters agreed that the 

decision whether to perform clearance 

at the conclusion of the job should be 

left to the homeowner. One commenter 

asked EPA to require that, if a resident 

arranged for clearance testing and found 

lead hazards, the contractor would have 

to re-clean to the resident’s satisfaction. 

As discussed, dust clearance sampling 

and cleaning verification are not 

surrogates and EPA is not requiring 

renovation firms to perform an 

abatement, i.e., eliminate all lead-based 

paint hazards, as part of a renovation. 

The Dust Study demonstrated that 

cleaning verification is quite often 

needed to minimize exposure to dustlead hazards created during renovations. 

EPA is concerned that if dust clearance 

sampling were allowed instead of 

cleaning verification, without an 

accompanying requirement that the 

renovation firm re-clean until clearance 

is achieved, the rule would actually be 

less protective because the surfaces in 

the work area could be left less clean 

than if cleaning verification were 

performed. 

In response to these comments, EPA 

has further considered the issue and 

decided to allow dust clearance 

sampling instead of cleaning 

verification only in certain limited 

situations. EPA agrees with the 

commenters that, if the rule were to 

allow clearance sampling instead of 

verification, EPA would have to require 

the renovator to achieve clearance, 

otherwise, there would be no check on 

whether the renovation had been safely 

performed. HUD’s Lead Safe Housing 

Rule requires clearance to be achieved 

in many situations, as do several States. 

For example, the State of New Jersey 

requires dust clearance sampling and 

clearance in certain situations in multiunit rental housing.As noted in Unit 

III.G. of this preamble, States, 

Territories, and Tribes may choose to 

have as protective as or more protective 

requirements than this final rule. One 

example of a more protective 

requirement would be a requirement to 

perform dust clearance testing and 

achieve clearance after renovations. 

Another example may be requiring that 

trained renovation workers demonstrate 

achievement of clearance levels by other 

cleaning verification methods, such as 

using newer technologies. If a firm can 

demonstrate, for example, using data 

obtained in the field, that it regularly 

meets the clearance standards without 

using the EPA specified approach but 

rather by using newer technology or 

alternative methods, a State may request 

that EPA evaluate such a provision as 

being as protective as or more protective 

than the methods described in this final 

rule. 

Therefore, in situations where the 

contract between the renovation firm 

and the property owner or another 

regulation, such as HUD’s Lead-Safe 

Housing Rule or a state regulation, 

requires dust clearance sampling by a 

properly qualified person and requires 

the certified renovator or a worker 

under the direction of the certified 

renovator to re-clean until clearance is 

achieved, EPA will allow the renovation 

firm to use both dust clearance testing 

and clearance instead of the cleaning 

verification step. 

Property owners in other situations 

may still choose to perform dust testing 

at any time, such as after a renovation, 

including cleaning verification, has 

been completed. EPA recommends that 

property owners who choose to have 

dust testing performed use certified dust 

sampling professionals such as 

inspectors, risk assessors, or dust 

sampling technicians. EPA also 

recommends that property owners who 

wish to have dust testing performed 

after a renovation reach an agreement 

with the renovation firm up front as to 

what will happen based on the results 

of the dust testing, such as whether 

additional cleaning will be performed if 

the surfaces do not achieve the 

clearance standards in 40 CFR 

745.227(e)(8)(viii). 

F. Recordkeeping for Renovation Firms 

1. Recordkeeping—a. Pre-renovation 

education. 40 CFR 745.86 already 

requires that persons performing 

renovations in target housing document 

compliance with the lead hazard 

information distribution provisions of 

the Pre-Renovation Education Rule. 

Consistent with the 2006 Proposal, this 

final rule deletes existing 40 CFR 745.88 

because it contains only sample 

acknowledgment statements for the 

purpose of documenting compliance 

with the information distribution 

requirements and is thus unnecessary. 

EPA received no comments on this 

proposed deletion. In addition, EPA 

received no substantive comments on 

the sample acknowledgment form 

provided with the proposed rule. New 

sample acknowledgment forms 

incorporating language consistent with 

this final rule and reflecting commenter 

editorial suggestions are available on 

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/ 

lead and from the National Lead 

Information Center at 1-(800)-424-LEAD 

(5323). 

In addition, as proposed in the 2006 

Proposal, EPA has modified paragraph 

(a) of 40 CFR 745.86 to make 

compliance with the recordkeeping 

requirements the responsibility of the 

renovation firm, not the certified 

renovator. Although, as discussed 

below, this final rule requires the 

certified renovator assigned to a 

renovation to certify compliance with 

the work practice requirements for that 

renovation, the renovation firm may 

choose to delegate other tasks associated 

with recordkeeping requirements to 

someone other than a certified 

renovator. For example, this rule does 

not require a certified renovator to 

distribute lead hazard information to 

owners and occupants before a 

renovation, nor does it require a 

certified renovator to obtain the 

necessary acknowledgment statements 

or certified mail receipts. The 

renovation firm may decide that it is 

more efficient to have someone other 

than the certified renovator perform 

these tasks. 

As described in Unit III.B.2. of this 

preamble, this final rule expands the 

information distribution requirements to 

renovations in child-occupied facilities. 

In proposing this expansion, the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal included 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21745 

associated recordkeeping requirements 

for firms performing renovations in 

child-occupied facilities. Although EPA 

did receive comments on extending the 

information distribution requirements to 

child-occupied facilities, none of these 

comments specifically addressed the 

recordkeeping provisions themselves. 

EPA has determined that the 

recordkeeping requirements are an 

important part of monitoring 

compliance with and ensuring the 

effectiveness of the information 

distribution provisions of this rule. 

Therefore, this final rule retains the 

existing recordkeeping requirements for 

pre-renovation lead hazard information 

distribution in target housing and 

extends those recordkeeping 

requirements to renovations in childoccupied facilities. Firms performing 

renovations in target housing or childoccupied facilities must obtain and 

retain signed and dated 

acknowledgements of receipt of the lead 

hazard information from building 

owners or a certificate of mailing for 

such information. In addition, 

renovation firms must obtain and retain 

signed and dated acknowledgments of 

receipt from the occupant (the resident 

of the housing unit being renovated or 

the proprietor of the child-occupied 

facility) or certificates of mailing for 

such information, or the firm must 

prepare a certification that documents 

the attempts made to provide this 

information to the occupants. For 

renovations in common areas in target 

housing, the firm must also document 

the steps taken to provide information 

to the tenants with access to the 

common area being renovated. Finally, 

firms performing renovations in childoccupied facilities must take steps to 

provide information to the parents and 

guardians of children under age 6 using 

the facility. Firms may do this by either 

mailing each parent or guardian the lead 

hazard information pamphlet and a 

general description of the renovation or 

by posting informational signs where 

parents and guardians are likely to see 

them. Informational signs must be 

accompanied by a posted copy of the 

pamphlet or information on how to 

obtain the pamphlet at no charge to 

interested parents or guardians. The 

firm’s activities with respect to parents 

and guardians must also be 

documented. 

b. Documentation of compliance with 

other regulatory provisions. This final 

rule provides for a number of 

exceptions. Unit III.A.3. of this 

preamble describes an exception for 

renovations in owner-occupied target 

housing that is neither the residence of 

a child under age 6 or apregnant 

woman, nor a child-occupied facility. In 

order for a renovation to be eligible for 

this exception, the renovation firm must 

obtain a signed statement from the 

owner of the housing to the effect that 

he or she is the owner of the housing to 

be renovated, that he or she resides in 

the housing to be renovated, that no 

child under 6 or no pregnant woman 

resides there, that the housing is not a 

child-occupied facility, and that the 

owner acknowledges that the work 

practices to be used during the 

renovation will not necessarily include 

all of the work practices contained in 

EPA’s renovation, repair, and painting 

rule. Consistent with the 2006 Proposal 

and the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, 

this final rule requires renovation firms 

to maintain this signed statement, 

which must include the address of the 

housing being renovated, for 3 years 

after the completion of the renovation. 

Again, although EPA received 

comments on the merits of this 

exception, no comments were directed 

specifically to the recordkeeping 

requirement. EPA has determined that 

the recordkeeping requirement is 

necessary to allow EPA to monitor 

compliance with the terms of this 

exception. 

This final rule also requires firms 

performing renovations to retain 

documentation of compliance with the 

work practices and other requirements 

of the rule. Specifically, the firm must 

document that a certified renovator was 

assigned to the project, that the certified 

renovator provided on-the-job training 

for workers used on the project, that the 

certified renovator performed or 

directed workers who performed the 

tasks required by this final rule, and that 

the certified renovator performed the 

post-renovation cleaning verification. 

This documentation must include a 

copy of the certified renovator’s training 

certificate. Finally, the documentation 

must include a certification by the 

certified renovator that the work 

practices were followed with narration 

as applicable. The certification must 

include the specific information listed 

in § 745.86(b)(7). The firm must keep 

this information for 3 years after the 

completion of the renovation. 

The 2006 Proposal also included a 

requirement that renovation firms 

maintain documentation of compliance 

with the renovator and worker training 

requirements and the work practice 

requirements. This documentation 

would have had to include signed and 

dated descriptions of how activities 

performed by the certified renovator 

were conducted in compliance with the 

proposed requirements. To demonstrate 

how these recordkeeping requirements 

might be met, EPA prepared and placed 

into the docket a draft recordkeeping 

checklist. 

EPA received many comments on the 

substance of these recordkeeping 

requirements and on the draft 

recordkeeping checklist. Some 

commenters thought that the purpose of 

the recordkeeping requirement should 

be to provide important information to 

consumers or to serve as part of the 

record of whether a particular structure 

was lead-safe. Some, but not all of these 

commenters suggested that there was no 

need for the renovation firm to retain 

the records it prepares. Rather, the 

records should be given to the owners 

and occupants of the building either 

before or after the renovation. However, 

as proposed, the recordkeeping 

requirement served two purposes. The 

first is to allow EPA or an authorized 

State to review a renovation firm’s 

compliance with the substantive 

requirements of the regulation through 

reviewing the records maintained for all 

of the renovation jobs the firm has done. 

The second is to remind a renovation 

firm what it must do to comply. EPA 

envisioned that renovation firms would 

use the recordkeeping requirements and 

checklist as an aid to make sure that 

they have done everything that they are 

required to do for a particular 

renovation. For these two purposes, 

there is no substitute for recordkeeping 

by renovation firms. 

However, EPA agrees with those 

commenters that felt that the 

recordkeeping requirements were vague, 

particularly in light of the draft 

recordkeeping checklist itself and the 

amount of time that EPA estimated it 

would take a renovation firm to 

complete the checklist. Many 

commenters said that it was unclear 

how much detail EPA would be looking 

for in descriptions of how the firm 

complied with the various work 

practices, and some noted that an 

extensive narrative would contribute no 

more to compliance or enforcement than 

a box checked to indicate that the 

requirements had been complied with. 

In response to these commenters, EPA 

has revised that draft recordkeeping 

checklist to be more in the nature of a 

checklist, with a certification that the 

representations on the form are true and 

correct. Narrative information is still 

required where necessary, such as an 

identification of the brand of test kits 

used, the locations where they were 

used, and the results. EPA has also 

revised the regulatory text to describe 

the specific information that must be 

provided and the specific items for 

which a certification of compliance is 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21746 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

required. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 

745.86(b)(7) now contains a list of work 

practice elements that must be certified 

as having been performed. In response 

to two commenters that suggested that 

the only person truly capable of 

certifying that the lead-safe work 

practices were followed on a particular 

job would be the certified renovator 

assigned to that job, EPA is requiring the 

certification to be completed by the 

certified renovator assigned to the 

renovation. EPA has determined that a 

review of the records maintained by 

renovation firms will be an effective 

method of determining whether a 

particular firm is generally complying 

with the regulations or not. 

2. Notification to EPA. In the 2006 

Proposal, EPA requested comment on, 

but did not propose, a requirement that 

renovation firms notify EPA before 

beginning a covered renovation project. 

Most commenters supported a 

notification requirement, arguing 

notifications would provide information 

to EPA about where renovation 

activities will be occuring, so EPA could 

inspect ongoing renovation projects for 

compliance with the requirements of 

this rule. These commenters stated that 

EPA would be unable to enforce the 

requirements of the rule without a 

notification provision. Some 

commenters also suggested that the act 

of informing EPA of their activities 

provides a powerful incentive for 

renovation firms to comply. Other 

commenters observed that prior 

notification for every covered 

renovation would be too burdensome 

for the regulated community and for the 

Agency. Some of these commenters 

suggested that notifications only be 

required for renovations involving highrisk methods, housing where a child 

under age 6 or a pregnant woman 

resides, or renovations involving 

multiple rooms in a housing unit. 

This final rule does not include a 

prior notification requirement. EPA 

disagrees with the notion that there is 

no way to enforce this regulation 

without a prior notification 

requirement. As stated above in the 

discussion on recordkeeping, EPA 

believes that a review of a renovation 

firm’s records will demonstrate whether 

or not a renovation firm generally 

complies with the regulations. In 

addition, as at least one commenter 

noted, many renovations require a 

building permit from the local 

permitting authority. EPA can work 

with the local authorities to identify 

inspection targets. EPA can also follow 

up on tips and complaints. 

EPA agrees with those commenters 

that believe that prior notification for 

every project is simply too burdensome 

for the regulated community and for the 

Agency. If the streamlined, telephonebased system recommended by some of 

the commenters were implemented, it 

would reduce the initial burden on the 

renovation firms. However, EPA would 

still have to process millions of such 

notifications annually, and the 

collective burden on renovation firms 

and the government would be 

considerable. Rather than require 

millions of notifications annually, the 

great majority of which would never be 

reviewed, EPA prefers to use other 

methods for targeting renovation 

projects for inspections. 

An initially attractive option 

considered by EPA was a prior 

notification requirement for a subset of 

covered renovation projects. This option 

could potentially reduce the 

notifications received to a manageable 

level, while preserving the benefits of a 

prior notification requirement, but EPA 

was unable to develop appropriate 

criteria for defining which renovations 

would require prior notification. EPA 

considered requiring prior notification 

for renovations using certain high-risk 

practices, the practices prohibited by 

the HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule and 

EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations. However, EPA ultimately 

decided, as described in Unit III.E.6. of 

this preamble, to prohibit most of those 

practices for covered renovations. 

Requiring prior notifications only for 

renovations in housing where a child 

under age 6 resides and in childoccupied facilities would not 

significantly reduce the notifications 

that would be required. EPA determined 

that a prior notification requirement tied 

to project size would not be feasible or 

effective, because the hazard potential 

from a renovation job is a combination 

of the size of the project and the activity 

being performed. 

With regard to the compliance 

mindset mentioned by some 

commenters, EPA believes that the 

recordkeeping requirements are a less 

burdensome way to achieve the same 

goal. In fact, a prior notification 

requirement could lead to EPA targeting 

for inspection those persons who are 

most likely to be making an effort to 

comply with the substantive 

requirements of the regulation. The 

person who would not bother to comply 

with the substantive provisions of this 

rule would most likely avoid filing a 

prior notification to EPA before 

beginning a covered renovation, repair, 

or painting project. These persons are 

more likely to be performing 

renovations in a non-compliant manner 

than are persons who have complied 

with a prior notification requirement 

and told EPA where to find them. 

EPA has therefore determined that a 

prior notification requirement is not an 

effective or efficient means of 

facilitating the monitoring of 

compliance with this regulation. States, 

Territories, and Tribes developing their 

own renovation, repair, and painting 

programs may come to a different 

conclusion. These jurisdictions are free 

to establish prior notification schemes 

that make sense for their community. 

G. State, Territorial, and Tribal 

Programs 

1. In general. Because of the 

enormous number of renovation 

activities that occur in this country on 

an annual basis, EPA welcomes the help 

of its State, Territorial, and Tribal 

partners to ensure that these renovations 

are performed by trained persons in 

accordance with this final rule. This 

final rule establishes, in accordance 

with TSCA section 404 and EPA’s 

Policy for the Administration of 

Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations (Ref. 46), requirements for 

the authorization of State, Territorial, 

and Tribal renovation, repair, and 

painting programs. The process for 

obtaining authorization to operate these 

programs in lieu of the Federal program 

is the same process used to authorize 

State, Territorial, and Tribal lead-Based 

Paint Activity or Pre-Renovation 

Education programs found in 40 CFR 

part 745, subpart Q. 

Interested States, Territories, and 

Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive 

authorization to, administer and enforce 

all of the elements of the new subpart 

E, as amended. States, Territories and 

Tribes may choose to administer and 

enforce just the existing requirements of 

subpart E, the pre-renovation education 

elements, or all of the requirements of 

the proposed subpart E, as amended. 

The 2006 Proposal and the 2007 

Supplemental Proposal would not have 

provided for the authorization of State, 

Territorial, or Tribal programs that 

include only the training, certification, 

accreditation, and work practice 

requirements for renovation, repair, and 

painting programs and not the prerenovation education provisions of 

subpart E. EPA proposed this approach 

because the Agency believes that the 

pre-renovation education provisions are 

an integral part of ensuring that 

consumers have the information they 

need to make informed decisions about 

renovation practices in their homes and 

other buildings. In addition, consistent 

with the proposals, this final rule 

encourage renovation firms to use the 

existing pamphlet acknowledgment 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21747 

process to provide owner-occupants of 

target housing with the opportunity to 

opt out of the training, certification, and 

work practice requirements of the rule 

if they reside in the housing to be 

renovated, there is no child under age 

6 orpregnant woman in residence, the 

housing does not otherwise meet the 

definition of child-occupied facility, 

and the owner acknowledges that the 

work practices to be used during the 

renovation will not necessarily include 

all of the lead-safe work practices 

contained in EPA’s renovation, repair, 

and painting rule. 

One State commenter disagreed with 

EPA’s proposed approach and requested 

that EPA authorize State, Territorial or 

Tribal programs that incorporate only 

the training, certification, accreditation, 

and work practices of this final rule 

because TSCA section 404 allows states 

to administer and enforce the standards, 

regulations, or other requirements 

established under TSCA section 402 or 

TSCA section 406 or both. EPA agrees 

with this commenter’s reading of TSCA. 

Therefore, this final rule provides for 

the authorization of State, Territorial, or 

Tribal programs that include either the 

pre-renovation education requirements 

of 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, or the 

training, certification, accreditation and 

work practice requirements of this rule, 

or both. 

States, Territories, and Tribes that 

wish to administer and enforce the prerenovation education provisions of 

subpart E, as amended, must include 

both target housing and child-occupied 

facilities within the scope of their 

program. Similarly, States, Territories, 

and Tribes that are also interested in 

obtaining authorization to administer 

and enforce the training, certification, 

accreditation, work practice, and 

recordkeeping elements of subpart E, as 

amended, must include both target 

housing and child-occupied facilities 

within the scope of their program. States 

with existing authorized pre-renovation 

education programs are required to 

demonstrate that they have modified 

their programs to include childoccupied facilities. These States must 

provide this demonstration no later than 

the first report submitted pursuant to 40 

CFR 745.324(h) on or after April 22, 

2009. 

2. Process. The authorization process 

currently codified at 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart Q, will be used for the purpose 

of authorizing State, Territorial, and 

Tribal renovation, repair, and painting 

programs. States, Territories, and Tribes 

seeking authority for their programs 

must obtain public input, then submit 

an application to EPA. Applications 

must contain a number of items, 

including a description of the State, 

Territorial, or Tribal program, copies of 

all applicable statutes, regulations, and 

standards, and a certification by the 

State Attorney General, Tribal Counsel, 

or an equivalent official, that the 

applicable legislation and regulations 

provide adequate legal authority to 

administer and enforce the program. 

The program description must 

demonstrate that the State, Territorial, 

or Tribal program is at least as 

protective as the Federal program. In 

this case, the Federal program consists 

of the requirements for training, 

certification, and accreditation and the 

work practice standards of this final 

rule. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

require States with a currently 

authorized TSCA 402(a) lead-based 

paint activities program to submit only 

an amended application for 

incorporating the TSCA section 

402(c)(3) renovation, repair, and 

painting program requirements since 

many of the required documents would 

be the same as those submitted for the 

original TSCA 402(a) application. 

Furthermore, the commenter 

recommended that a letter from the 

State agency identified in the original 

402(a) authorization application with a 

synopsis detailing how the State 

proposes to administer and enforce the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program serve as an amended 

application. EPA has determined that a 

new application for authorization for 

the renovation, repair, and painting 

program is necessary because there may 

be a different State agency or consortia 

of agencies implementing and enforcing 

this program, a long time may have 

elapsed since most States submitted 

their TSCA section 402(a) program 

application, and many of the 

requirements within the elements of the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program differ from their counterparts 

in the lead-based paint activities 

program. 

To be eligible for authorization to 

administer and enforce the training, 

certification, accreditation, and work 

practice requirements of this final rule, 

State, Territorial, and Tribal renovation 

programs must contain certain 

minimum elements, e.g., work practice 

standards and procedures and 

requirements for the certification of 

individuals and/or firms, that are very 

similar to the existing minimum 

elements specified in 40 CFR 745.326(a) 

for lead-based paint activities programs. 

In order to be authorized, State, 

Territorial, or Tribal programs must 

have procedures and requirements for 

the accreditation of training programs, 

which can be as simple as procedures 

for accepting training provided by an 

EPA-accredited provider, or a provider 

accredited by another authorized State, 

Territorial, or Tribal program. 

Procedures and requirements for the 

certification of renovators are also 

necessary. At a minimum, these must 

include a requirement that certified 

renovators have taken accredited 

training, and procedures and 

requirements for re-certification. State, 

Territorial, and Tribal programs 

applying for authorization must also 

include work practice standards for 

renovations that ensure that renovations 

are conducted only by certified 

renovation firms and the renovations are 

conducted using work practices at least 

as protective as those of the Federal 

program. As is the current practice with 

lead-based paint activities, EPA will not 

require State, Territorial, or Tribal 

programs to certify both firms and 

individuals that perform renovations. 

States, Territories and Tribes may 

choose to certify either firms or 

individuals, so long as the individuals 

that perform the duties of renovators are 

required to take accredited training. 

3. Implementation. In order to provide 

interested States, Territories and Tribes 

time to develop, or begin developing 

renovation, repair, and painting 

programs in accordance with this rule, 

EPA will not begin to actively 

implement the Federal program until 

April 22, 2009, at which time EPA will 

begin accepting applications for training 

program accreditation. Several 

commenters thought 1 year would be 

adequate for the purpose of allowing 

States, Territories, and Tribes to develop 

their own programs, while others 

expressed concern that 1 year would not 

be enough time to get these programs 

developed and authorized. Most 

commenters who expressed an opinion 

on this topic generally agreed that an 

implementation delay is necessary. 

Reasons given in support of a delay 

were conservation of State financial and 

administrative resources and the fact 

that some States have had difficulties in 

retraining contractors to new Statespecific requirements after the 

contractors had become accustomed to 

working under the Federal program. In 

contrast, some commenters argued that, 

in light of the 2010 goal, no delay 

whatsoever was warranted. This final 

rule retains the 1 year implementation 

delay set forth in the 2006 Proposal. 

EPA has determined that this period of 

time represents an appropriate balance 

between the need to implement this rule 

quickly and concerns over potential 

duplication of effort and additional 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21748 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

costs incurred by the regulated 

community if EPA begins accrediting 

training providers and certifying firms 

in jurisdictions that are also working 

towards implementing their own 

programs. States, Territories, and Tribes 

may begin the authorization process at 

any time after the effective date of this 

final rule, even after the Federal 

program has been implemented in their 

jurisdiction. 

Some commenters were concerned 

about the effect of this rule on existing 

State programs. Several commenters 

asked EPA to expressly state that this 

rule does not pre-empt existing State 

programs and that State programs that 

are more stringent than the Federal 

program will be eligible for 

authorization. One commenter noted 

that the number of houses with lead 

contaminated paint is 

disproportionately distributed 

throughout the U.S. This commenter 

pointed out that this apparent disparity 

supports the need for State control of 

lead programs and for EPA to practice 

‘‘regulatory restraint.’’ According to this 

commenter, this ‘‘regulatory restraint’’ 

will allow States with more severe lead 

paint problems to impose stricter 

standards and requirements regarding 

certification and work practices without 

imposing unnecessary burdens on States 

with less severe problems. 

This final rule does not preempt 

existing programs that address 

renovations. However, to the extent that 

these programs are less protective than 

the requirements of this final rule, the 

requirements of this final rule will 

apply. To be eligible for authorization, 

State, Territorial, and Tribal programs 

need not exactly duplicate the Federal 

program contained in this final rule, but 

they must still meet the requirement of 

TSCA section 404 that they be ‘‘at least 

as protective as’’ the Federal program. It 

would be difficult for the Agency to 

describe specific requirements that 

would make a program more or less 

‘‘protective.’’ EPA will review each 

program application separately against 

the protections provided by this final 

rule. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern regarding the uniformity and 

consistency of State programs. Some 

recommended that EPA take States’ 

concerns into account, but guarantee 

uniformity of State programs by 

prohibiting States from arbitrarily 

deviating from program elements. 

Others noted that if there are uniform 

regulations for approved training 

courses for State certification, there 

should be reciprocity between States 

since many people work in multiple 

States. One commenter suggested that, 

in an effort to promote consistency, 

States institute a lead-safety test that 

renovators must pass prior to receiving 

permits to conduct work. Several 

commenters noted that a lack of 

reciprocity between States and/or 

duplicative or divergent certification 

requirements will add an unnecessary 

burden and level of complexity for 

renovation and remodeling firms, 

especially those working in multi-State 

areas. One commenter argued that this 

could lead to a problem in maintaining 

certifications similar to the problem the 

commenter believes exists in 

maintaining lead-based paint inspector, 

risk assessor, and other certifications 

associated with TSCA section 402 

abatements. One suggested that EPA 

should exert control over the right to 

refuse approval of State programs unless 

they provide for reciprocity with the 

Federal program and programs of other 

jurisdictions approved by EPA. 

The standard of EPA review for State, 

Territorial, and Tribal programs under 

TSCA section 404 is that they be ‘‘at 

least as protective’’ as the Federal 

program. In addition, TSCA section 404 

(e) reserves the right of States and their 

political subdivisions to impose 

requirements that are more stringent 

than the Federal program. EPA 

interprets this to mean that EPA cannot 

compel States, Territories, and Tribes to 

adopt programs identical to the Federal 

program or to establish reciprocity 

provisions. However, EPA continues to 

encourage States, Territories, and Tribes 

that may be considering establishing 

their own renovation programs to keep 

reciprocity in mind as they move 

forward. The benefits to be derived from 

reciprocity arrangements with the 

Federal program and other authorized 

jurisdictions include potential costsavings from reducing duplicative 

activity and the development of a 

professional renovation workforce more 

quickly, thus providing maximum 

flexibility to State, Territorial, or Tribal 

residents. In addition, the Agency 

encourages States, Territories and Tribes 

to consider the use of existing 

certification and accreditation 

procedures as they develop their 

programs. These existing programs need 

not be limited to lead-based paint. For 

example, a State may choose to add 

lead-safe renovation requirements to 

their existing contractor licensing 

programs. 

H. Effective Date and Implementation 

Dates 

This final rule is effective on June 23, 

2008. This final rule will be 

implemented according to the following 

schedule: 

1. As of June 23, 2008. 

a. States, Territories, and Tribes may 

begin applying for authorization to 

administer and enforce their own 

renovation, repair, and painting 

programs. EPA will begin authorizing 

States, Territories, and Tribes as soon as 

it receives their complete applications. 

b. No training program may provide, 

offer, or claim to provide training or 

refresher training for EPA certification 

as a renovator or a dust sampling 

technician without accreditation from 

EPA under 40 CFR 745.225. 

2. As of April 22, 2009. Training 

programs for renovators or dust 

sampling technicians may begin 

applying for accreditation under 40 CFR 

745.225. EPA will begin accrediting 

training programs as soon as it receives 

complete applications from training 

providers. Individuals who wish to 

become certified renovators or dust 

sampling technicians may begin taking 

accredited training as soon as it is 

available. 

3. As of October 22, 2009. Renovation 

firms may begin applying for 

certification under 40 CFR 745.89. EPA 

will begin certifying renovation firms as 

soon as it receives their complete 

applications. 

4. As of April 22, 2010. The rule will 

be fully implemented. 

a. No firm may perform, offer, or 

claim to perform renovations without 

certification from EPA under 40 CFR 

745.89 in target housing or childoccupied facilities, unless, in the case of 

owner-occupied target housing, the firm 

has obtained a statement signed by the 

owner that the renovation will occur in 

the owner’s residence, no child under 

age 6 resides there, the housing is not 

a child-occupied facility, and the owner 

acknowledges that the work practices to 

be used during the renovation will not 

necessarily include all of the lead-safe 

work practices contained in EPA’s 

renovation, repair, and painting rule. 

b. All renovations must be directed by 

renovators certified in accordance with 

40 CFR 745.90(a) and performed by 

certified renovators or individuals 

trained in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.90(b)(2) in target housing or childoccupied facilities, unless, in the case of 

owner-occupied target housing, the firm 

performing the renovation has obtained 

a statement signed by the owner that the 

renovation will occur in the owner’s 

residence, no child under age 6 resides 

there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner 

acknowledges that the work practices to 

be used during the renovation will not 

necessarily include all of the lead-safe 

work practices contained in EPA’s 

renovation, repair, and painting rule. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21749 

c. All renovations must be performed 

in accordance with the work practice 

standards in 40 CFR 745.85 and the 

associated recordkeeping requirements 

in 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) in 

target housing or child-occupied 

facilities, unless, in the case of owneroccupied target housing, the firm 

performing the renovation has obtained 

a statement signed by the owner that the 

renovation will occur in the owner’s 

residence, no child under age 6 resides 

there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner 

acknowledges that the work practices to 

be used during the renovation will not 

necessarily include all of the lead-safe 

work practices contained in EPA’s 

renovation, repair, and painting rule. 

With respect to the new renovationspecific pamphlet and the requirements 

of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, 

as of the effective date of the rule June 

23, 2008, renovators or renovation firms 

performing renovations in States and 

Indian Tribal areas without an 

authorized Pre-Renovation Education 

Rule program may provide owners and 

occupants with either of the following 

EPA pamphlets: Protect Your Family 

From Lead in Your Home; or Renovate 

Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools. As of December 

22, 2008, Renovate Right: Important 

Lead Hazard Information for Families, 

Child Care Providers and Schools must 

be used exclusively. 

IV. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this final rule and placed 

in the public docket that was 

established under Docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. For 

information on accessing the docket, 

refer to the ADDRESSES unit at the 

beginning of this document. 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). Air Quality Criteria 

for Lead (September 29, 2006). 

2. President’s Task Force on 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks to Children. Eliminating 

Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal 

Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards 

(February 2000). 

3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 

10, 2006). 

4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for 

Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 

29, 1996). 

5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for 

Accreditation of Training Programs and 

Certification of Lead-based Paint 

Activities Contractors; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 

1999). 

6. USEPA. Lead; Notification 

Requirements for Lead-Based Paint 

Abatement Activities and Training; 

Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 

18489, April 8, 2004). 

7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead 

in Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June 

2003). 

8. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for 

Hazard Education Before Renovation of 

Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (63 FR 29907, June 1, 1998). 

9. USEPA. Lead; Identification of 

Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 

2001). 

10. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards 

When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-

K-97-001, September 1997). 

11. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field 

Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, 

May 1997). 

12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase II, Worker 

Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 

(EPA 747-R-96-006, May 1997). 

13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin 

Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-

R-99-002, March 1999). 

14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated 

With Renovation and Remodeling 

Activities: Phase IV, Worker 

Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 

of R&R Workers Who Specialize in 

Renovation of Old or Historic Homes 

(EPA 747-R-99-001, March 1999). 

15. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal 

Register (72 FR 31022, June 5, 2007). 

16. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Notice of 

Availability. Federal Register (72 FR 

12582, March 16, 2007). 

17. USEPA. Characterization of Dust 

Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, 

And Painting Activities. (November 13, 

2007). 

18. USEPA. Lead Safety for 

Remodeling, Repair, And Painting. Joint 

EPA/HUD Renovation Training 

Curriculum (EPA 747-B-03-001/2, July 

2003). 

19. National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB). Lead Safe Work 

Practices Survey Project Report. 

Prepared by Atrium Environmental 

Health and Safety Services (November 

9, 2006). 

20. McMillan Associates. Response to 

SBREFA Panel Recommendations for 

Further Analysis of Existing Phase III 

Data (August 6, 2001). 

21. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), U.S. Public 

Health Service (PHS), CDC. Children 

with Elevated Blood Lead Levels 

Attributed to Home Renovation and 

Remolding Activities--New York, 1993-

1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January 3, 

1997). 

22. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. 

Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. 

Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ‘‘Is 

Home Renovation or Repair a Risk 

Factor for Exposure to Lead Among 

Children Residing in New York City?’’ 

Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the 

New York Academy of Medicine. Vol. 

79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005). 

23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for 

Lead-based Paint Activities; Proposed 

Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 45872, 

September 2, 1994). 

24. USEPA. Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

‘‘Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program Final Rule for Target Housing 

and Child-Occupied Facilities’’ (March 

2008). 

25. S. Rep. 102-332, P.L. 102-550, 

Housing and Community Development 

Act of 1992 (July 23, 1992). 

26. National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). Spot Test Kits 

for Detecting Lead in Household Paint, 

a Laboratory Evaluation (NISTIR 6398, 

May 2000). 

27. HUD. National Survey of Lead and 

Allergens in Housing, Volume I: 

Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, 

Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002). 

28. ASTM International. Standard 

Practice for Evaluating the Performance 

Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical 

Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint (E 1828-

01). 

29. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint PreRenovation Education Rule; Interpretive 

Guidance, Part I (May 28, 1999). 

30. USEPA and HUD. Lead; 

Requirements for Disclosure of 

Information Concerning Lead-Based 

Paint in Housing; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996). 

31. USEPA, HUD. Renovate Right: 

Important Lead Hazard Information for 

Families, Child Care Providers and 

Schools. (March 2008). 

32. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint PreRenovation Education Rule; Interpretive 

Guidance, Part II (October 15, 1999). 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21750 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

33. USEPA. Lead Sampling 

Technician Course (EPA 747-B-00-002, 

July 2000). 

34. HUD. Guidelines for the 

Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 

Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995). 

35. USEPA. Lead Dust Minimization 

Work Practices for Renovation, 

Remodeling and Repainting; Draft 

Technical Manual (September 29, 1998). 

36. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH). Health Hazard Evaluation; 

Rhode Island Department of Health; 

HETA 96-0200-2799 (June 2000). 

37. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and 

Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 

Housing (September 2005). 

38. United States Department of 

Energy. Office of Health, Safety and 

Security. http://www.hss.energy.gov/ 

csa/csp/hepa. 

39. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor (DOL). Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Review of the Occupational Safety 

Standard for Lead in Construction Labor 

(72 FR 54826, September 27, 2007). 

40. Rich, David Q. George G. Rhoads, 

Lih-Ming Yiin, Junfeng Zhang, Zhipeng 

Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, and 

Paul J. Lioy. ‘‘Comparison of Home Lead 

Dust Reduction Techniques on Hard 

Surfaces: the New Jersey Assessment of 

Cleaning Techniques Trial.’’ 

Environmental Health Perspectives 

110(9): 889-893 (September 2002). 

41. HUD. Evaluation of Household 

Vacuum Cleaners in the Removal of 

Settled Lead Dust from Hard Surface 

Floors. (December 27, 2002, revised 

February 2006). 

42. Lih-Ming Yiin, George G. Rhoads, 

David Q. Rich, Junfeng Zhang, Zhipeng 

Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, and 

Paul J. Lioy. ‘‘Comparison of 

Techniques to Reduce Residential Lead 

Dust on Carpet and Upholstery: the New 

Jersey Assessment of Cleaning 

Techniques Trial.’’ Environmental 

Health Perspectives 110(12): 1233-1237. 

(December 2002). 

43. Canadian Mortgage and Housing 

Corporation (CMHC). ‘‘Effectiveness of 

Clean up Techniques for Leaded Paint 

Dust.’’ (1992). 

44. USEPA. A Comparison of PostRenovation and Remodeling Surface 

Cleaning Techniques. Prepared by 

Clemson Environmental Technologies 

Laboratory (December 14, 2001) 

45. CMHC. ‘‘Evaluation of the 

Cleanup of Lead Paint Dust In Houses.’’ 

Prepared by Pinchin Environmental 

Consultants (1995). 

46. USEPA. EPA Policy for the 

Administration of Environmental 

Programs on Indian Reservations 

(November 8, 1984). 

47. USEPA. ICR Final Rule 

Addendum for rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule’’ (March 2008). 

48 USEPA. Report of the Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel on the 

Lead-based Paint Certification and 

Training; Renovation and Remodeling 

Requirements (March 3, 2000). 

49. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for the Lead; Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program; Final 

Rule (March 2008). 

50. ASTM International. Standard 

Practice for Clearance Examinations 

Following Lead Hazard Reduction 

Activities in Single-Family Dwellings 

and Child-Occupied Facilities (E 2271-

05). 

51. ASTM International. Standard 

Guide for Evaluation, Management, and 

Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E 

2052-99). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

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

it has been determined that this rule is 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order 

because EPA estimates that it will have 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. Accordingly, this 

action was submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made based on OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the public docket for 

this rulemaking as required by section 

6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 

In addition, EPA has prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this 

rulemaking. This analysis is contained 

in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 24), 

which is available in the docket for this 

action and is briefly summarized here. 

1. Types of facilities. This rule applies 

to an estimated 37.8 million pre-1978 

facilities. Of these, approximately 37.7 

million facilities are located in target 

housing, either in rental housing, 

owner-occupied housing where a child 

under age 6 resides, or owner-occupied 

housing where no child under age 6 

resides but that otherwise meets the 

definition of a child-occupied facility. 

Approximately 100,000 facilities are 

child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 

public or commercial buildings. 

2. Options evaluated. EPA considered 

a variety of options for addressing the 

risks presented by renovation, repair, 

and painting actions where lead-based 

paint is present. The Economic Analysis 

analyzed several different options for 

the scope of the rule, which would limit 

the coverage of the rule’s substantive 

provisions depending on when the 

facility was built (such as pre-1960 or 

pre-1978), and whether or not there are 

children under the age of 6 or a 

pregnant woman residing in owneroccupied housing. In some options, 

coverage of the rule was phased in over 

time. EPA also considered different 

options for work practices, such as 

containment, cleaning, and cleaning 

verification. 

3. Number of events and individuals 

affected. In the first year that all of the 

rule requirements will be in effect, there 

will be an estimated 8.4 million 

renovation, repair, and painting events 

where lead-safe work practices will be 

used due to the rule. As a result, there 

will be approximately 1.4 million 

children under the age of 6 who will be 

affected by having their exposure to lead 

dust minimized due to the rule. There 

will also be about 5.4 million adults 

who will be affected. After improved 

test kits for determining whether a 

painted surface contains lead-based 

paint become available (which is 

assumed in the analysis to occur by the 

second year of the rule), the number of 

renovation, repair, and painting events 

using lead-safe work practices is 

expected to drop to 4.4 million events 

per year. No change in the number of 

exposures avoided due to the rule is 

expected because the improved test kit 

will more accurately identify paint 

without lead, thus reducing the number 

of events unnecessarily using the 

required work practices. 

4. Benefits. The Economic Analysis 

describes the estimated benefits of the 

rulemaking in qualitative and 

quantitative terms. Benefits result from 

the prevention of adverse health effects 

attributable to lead exposure. These 

health effects include impaired 

cognitive function in children and 

several illnesses in children and adults. 

EPA estimated the benefits of avoided 

incidence of IQ loss due to reduced lead 

exposure to children under the age of 6. 

There are not sufficient data at this time 

to develop dose-response functions for 

other health effects in children or for 

pregnant women. The benefits of 

avoided exposure to adults were not 

quantified due to uncertainties about 

the exposure of adults to lead in dust 

from renovation, repair, and painting 

activities in these facilities. 

The rule is estimated to result in 

quantified benefits of approximately 

$700 million to $1,700 million in the 

first year. The 50–year annualized 

benefits provide a measure of the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21751 

steady-state benefits. The quantified IQ 

benefits to children are expected to be 

approximately $700 million to $1,700 

million per year when annualized using 

a 3% discount rate, and $700 million to 

$1,800 million per year when using a 

7% discount rate. The estimated 

benefits for the other scope options 

range from approximately $300 million 

to $1,700 million using a 3% discount 

rate and from $300 million to $1,800 

million using a 7% discount rate. The 

benefits from prohibiting certain paint 

preparation and removal practices in 

renovations requiring lead-safe work 

practices under the rule are estimated to 

be $400 million to $900 million per year 

using a 3% discount rate. There are 

additional unquantified benefits, 

including other avoided health effects in 

children and adults. 

5. Costs. The Economic Analysis 

estimates the costs of complying with 

the rule. Costs may be incurred by 

contractors that perform renovation, 

repair, and painting work for 

compensation, landlords that use their 

own staff to perform renovation, repair, 

and painting work in leased buildings; 

and child-occupied facilities that use 

their own staff to perform renovation, 

repair, and painting work. 

The rule is estimated to result in a 

total cost of approximately $800 million 

in the first year that all of the rule 

requirements will be in effect. The cost 

is estimated to drop to approximately 

$400 million per year in the second year 

when the improved test kits are 

assumed to become available. The 50– 

year annualized costs provide a measure 

of the steady-state cost. Annualized 

costs of the rule are estimated to be 

approximately $400 million per year 

using either a 3% discount rate or a 7% 

discount rate. Annualized costs for the 

other scope options range from 

approximately $300 million to 

approximately $700 million per year 

using a 3% discount rate and $400 

million to $700 million per year using 

a 7% discount rate. The cost of 

prohibiting certain paint preparation 

and removal practices is estimated to 

cost less than $10 million per year using 

either a 3% or a 7% discount rate 

6. Net benefits. Net benefits are the 

difference between benefits and costs. 

The rule is estimated to result in net 

benefits of--$50 million to $1,000 

million in the first year, based on 

children’s IQ benefits alone. The 50– 

year annualized net benefits for the rule 

based on children’s benefits are 

estimated to be $300 million to $1,300 

million per year using either a 3% or a 

7% discount rate. The annualized net 

benefits for the other scope options 

range from approximately--$50 million 

to $1,300 million per year using either 

a 3% or a 7% discount rate. The net 

benefits of prohibiting certain paint 

preparation and removal practices for 

renovations requiring lead-safe work 

practices are estimated to be 

approximately $400 million to $900 

million per year using either a 3% or a 

7% discount rate. There are additional 

unquantified benefits, including other 

avoided health effects in children and 

adults that are not included in the net 

benefits estimates. 

It is important to note that the EPA 

analysis generates certain results that 

seem to indicate that more stringent 

control options yield smaller 

improvements reducing the risks of 

elevated blood lead levels in children 

than do less stringent control options. 

For example, the analysis estimates that 

using only containment of dust and 

debris generated during a RRP activity 

yields higher benefits than using all of 

the rule’s work practices (containment, 

specialized cleaning, and cleaning 

verification). This is the opposite of 

what one might expect and of what is 

observed in the Dust Study for the 10 

experiments that used the proposed rule 

cleaning and containment, since the 

benefits analysis implies that the 

combination of rule-style containment 

with rule-style cleaning and verification 

would result in more exposure than 

when such containment is combined 

with conventional cleaning. This is 

inconsistent with the Dust Study which 

shows that the largest decreases were 

observed in the 10 experiments where 

this final rule’s practices of 

containment, specialized cleaning, and 

cleaning verification were used. 

Therefore, the anomalous results are 

likely to be artifacts of sparse 

underlying data and modeling 

assumptions. Although EPA 

summarizes some of the potential 

causes of these unexpected results in 

the Economic Analysis, at this time EPA 

is unclear as to precisely what is leading 

to these unexpected results. Because 

EPA has not determined why the 

benefits analyses contain anomalous 

results, EPA has limited confidence in 

the estimated benefits. EPA does not 

view the results as being sufficiently 

robust to represent the difference in 

magnitude of the benefits across 

regulatory alternatives. Nevertheless, 

EPA is confident that there are positive 

benefits. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA, an 

amendment to an existing ICR and 

referred to as the ICR Final Rule 

Addendum (EPA ICR No. 1715.10, OMB 

Control Number 2070–0155) has been 

placed in the public docket for this rule 

(Ref. 47). The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The new information collection 

activities contained in this rule are 

designed to assist the Agency in meeting 

the core objectives of TSCA section 402, 

including ensuring the integrity of 

accreditation programs for training 

providers, providing for the certification 

of renovators, and determining whether 

work practice standards are being 

followed. EPA has carefully tailored the 

recordkeeping requirements so they will 

permit the Agency to achieve statutory 

objectives without imposing an undue 

burden on those firms that choose to be 

involved in renovation, repair, and 

painting activities. 

Burden under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

disclose or provide information to or for 

a Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

Under this rule, the new information 

collection requirements may affect 

training providers and firms that 

perform renovation, repair, or painting 

for compensation. Although these firms 

have the option of choosing to engage in 

the covered activities, once a firm 

chooses to do so, the information 

collection activities contained in this 

rule become mandatory for that firm. 

The ICR document provides a detailed 

presentation of the estimated burden 

and costs for 3 years of the program. The 

aggregate burden varies by year due to 

changes in the number of firms that will 

seek certification each year. The burden 

and cost to training providers and firms 

engaged in renovation, repair, and 

painting activities is summarized below. 

It is estimated that approximately 170 

training providers will incur burden to 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21752 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

notify EPA (or an authorizing State, 

Tribe, or Territory) before and after 

training courses. The average burden for 

training provider notifications is 

estimated at 20 to 100 hours per year, 

depending on the number of training 

courses provided. Total training 

provider burden is estimated to average 

9,000 hours per year. There are 

approximately 211,000 firms estimated 

to become certified to engage in 

renovation, repair, or painting activities. 

The average certification burden is 

estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the 

year a firm is initially certified, and 0.5 

hours in years that it is re-certified 

(which occurs every 5 years). Firms 

must also distribute lead hazard 

information to the owners and 

occupants of public or commercial 

buildings that contain child-occupied 

facilities and in target housing 

containing child-occupied facilities. 

Finally, firms must keep records of the 

work they perform; this recordkeeping 

is estimated to average approximately 5 

hours per year per firm. Total burden for 

these certified firms is estimated to 

average 1,373,000 hours per year. Total 

respondent burden during the period 

covered by the ICR is estimated to 

average approximately 1,382,000 hours 

per year. 

There are also government costs to 

administer the program. States, Tribes, 

and Territories are allowed, but are 

under no obligation, to apply for and 

receive authorization to administer 

these requirements. EPA will directly 

administer programs for States, Tribes, 

and Territories that do not become 

authorized. Because the number of 

States, Tribes, and Territories that will 

become authorized is not known, 

administrative costs are estimated 

assuming that EPA will administer the 

program everywhere. To the extent that 

other government entities become 

authorized, EPA’s administrative costs 

will be lower. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations codified 

in Chapter 40 of the CFR, after 

appearing in the preamble of the final 

rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are 

displayed either by publication in the 

Federal Register or by other appropriate 

means, such as on the related collection 

instrument or form, if applicable. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined in accordance with 

section 601 of the RFA as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 

EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the 

proposed rule and convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel to 

obtain advice and recommendations of 

representatives of the regulated small 

entities. A summary of the IRFA, a 

description of the Panel process, and a 

summary of the Panel’s 

recommendations can be found in Unit 

VIII.C. of the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal (Ref. 3). A detailed discussion 

of the Panel’s advice and 

recommendations is found in the Panel 

Report (Ref. 48). 

As required by section 604 of the 

RFA, we also prepared a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final 

rule. The FRFA addresses the issues 

raised by public comments on the IRFA, 

which was part of the proposal of this 

rule. The FRFA is available for review 

in the docket and is summarized below 

(Ref. 49). 

1. Legal basis and objectives for the 

rule. As discussed in Unit II.A. of this 

preamble, TSCA section 402(c)(2) 

directs EPA to study the extent to which 

persons engaged in renovation, repair, 

and painting activities are exposed to 

lead or create lead-based paint hazards 

regularly or occasionally. After 

concluding this study, TSCA section 

402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise 

its Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) 

to apply to renovation or remodeling 

activities that create lead-based paint 

hazards. Because EPA’s study found 

that activities commonly performed 

during renovation and remodeling 

create lead-based paint hazards, EPA is 

revising the TSCA section 402(a) 

regulatory scheme to apply to 

individuals and firms engaged in 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities. In so doing, EPA has also 

taken into consideration the 

environmental, economic, and social 

impact of this final rule as provided in 

TSCA section 2(c). The primary 

objective of the rule is to minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in housing where 

children under age 6 reside and in 

housing where a pregnant woman 

resides and in housing or other 

buildings frequented by children under 

age 6. 

2. Potentially affected small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The small 

entities that are potentially directly 

regulated by this rule include: small 

businesses (including contractors and 

property owners and managers); small 

nonprofits (certain day care centers and 

private schools); and small governments 

(school districts). 

In determining the number of small 

businesses affected by the rule, the 

Agency applied U.S. Economic Census 

data to the SBA’s definition of small 

business. However, applying the U.S. 

Economic Census data requires either 

under or overestimating the number of 

small businesses affected by the rule. 

For example, for many construction 

establishments, the SBA defines small 

businesses as having revenues of less 

than $13 million. With respect to those 

establishments, the U.S. Economic 

Census data groups all establishments 

with revenues of $10 million or more 

into one revenue bracket. On the one 

hand, using data for the entire industry 

would overestimate the number of small 

businesses affected by the rule and 

would defeat the purpose of estimating 

impacts on small business. It would also 

underestimate the rule’s impact on 

small businesses because the impacts 

would be calculated using the revenues 

of large businesses in addition to small 

businesses. On the other hand, applying 

the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket 

would underestimate the number of 

small businesses affected by the rule 

while at the same time overestimating 

the impacts. Similar issues arose in 

estimating the fraction of property 

owners and managers that are small 

businesses. EPA has concluded that a 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21753 

substantial number of small businesses 

will be affected by the rule. 

Consequently, EPA has chosen to be 

more conservative in estimating the cost 

impacts of the rule by using the closest, 

albeit lower, revenue bracket for which 

Census data is available. For other 

sectors (nonprofits operating day care 

centers or private schools), EPA 

assumed that all affected firms are 

small, which may overestimate the 

number of small entities affected by the 

rule. 

The vast majority of entities in the 

industries affected by this rule are 

small. Using EPA’s estimates, the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program will affect an average of 

approximately 189,000 small entities. 

3. Potential economic impacts on 

small entities. EPA evaluated two 

factors in its analysis of the rule’s 

requirements on small entities, the 

number of firms that would experience 

the impact, and the size of the impact. 

Average annual compliance costs as a 

percentage of average annual revenues 

were used to assess the potential 

average impacts of the rule on small 

businesses and small governments. This 

ratio is a good measure of entities’ 

ability to afford the costs attributable to 

a regulatory requirement, because 

comparing compliance costs to revenues 

provides a reasonable indication of the 

magnitude of the regulatory burden 

relative to a commonly available 

measure of economic activity. Where 

regulatory costs represent a small 

fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, 

the financial impacts of the regulation 

on such entities may be considered as 

not significant. For non-profit 

organizations, impacts were measured 

by comparing rule costs to annual 

expenditures. When expenditure data 

were not available, however, revenue 

information was used as a proxy for 

expenditures. It is appropriate to 

calculate the impact ratios using 

annualized costs, because these costs 

are more representative of the 

continuing costs entities face to comply 

with the rule. 

EPA estimates that there are an 

average of 189,000 small entities that 

would be affected by the renovation, 

repair, and painting activities program. 

Of these, there are an estimated 165,000 

small businesses with an average impact 

of 0.7%, 17,000 small non-profits with 

an average impact of 0.1%, and 6,000 

small governments with an average 

impact of 0.004%. These estimates are 

based on an average cost of 

approximately $35 per renovation. 

4. Relevant Federal rules. The 

requirements in this rulemaking will fit 

within an existing framework of other 

Federal regulations that address leadbased paint. The Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule, discussed in Unit 

II.A.2. of this preamble, requires 

renovators to distribute a lead hazard 

information pamphlet to owners and 

occupants before conducting a 

renovation in target housing. This rule 

has been carefully crafted to harmonize 

with the existing pre-renovation 

education requirements. 

Disposal of waste from renovation 

projects that would be regulated by this 

rule is covered by the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

regulations for solid waste. This rule 

does not contain specific requirements 

for the disposal of waste from 

renovations. 

HUD has extensive regulations that 

address the conduct of interim controls, 

as well as other lead-based paint 

activities, in federally assisted housing. 

Some of HUD’s interim controls are 

regulated under this rule as renovations, 

depending upon whether the particular 

interim control measure disturbs more 

than the threshold amount of paint. In 

most cases, the HUD regulations are 

comparable to, or more stringent than 

this rule. In general, persons performing 

HUD-regulated interim controls must 

have taken a course in lead-safe work 

practices, which is also a requirement of 

this rule. However, this rule does not 

require dust clearance testing, a process 

required by HUD after interim control 

activities that disturb more than a 

minimal amount of lead-based paint. 

Finally, OSHA’s Lead Exposure in 

Construction standard covers potential 

worker exposures to lead during many 

construction activities, including 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities. Although this standard may 

cover many of the same projects as this 

final rule, the requirements themselves 

do not overlap. The OSHA rule 

addresses the protection of the worker, 

this EPA rule principally addresses the 

protection of the building occupants, 

particularly children under age 6 and 

pregnant women. 

5. Skills needed for compliance. This 

rule establishes requirements for 

training renovators, other renovation 

workers, and dust sampling technicians; 

certifying renovators, dust sampling 

technicians, and entities engaged in 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities; accrediting providers of 

renovation and dust sampling 

technician training; and for renovation 

work practices. Renovators and dust 

sampling technicians would have to 

take a course to learn the proper 

techniques for accomplishing the tasks 

they will perform during renovations. 

These courses are intended to provide 

them with the information they would 

need to comply with the rule based on 

the skills they already have. Renovators 

would then provide on-the-job training 

in work practices to any other 

renovation workers used on a particular 

renovation. They would also need to 

document the work they have done 

during renovations. This does not 

require any special skills. Renovation 

firms would be required to apply for 

certification to perform renovations; this 

process does not require any special 

skills other than the ability to complete 

the application. Training providers must 

be knowledgeable about delivering 

technical training. Training providers 

would be required to apply for 

accreditation to offer renovator and dust 

sampling technician courses. They 

would also be required to provide prior 

notification of such courses and provide 

information on the students trained after 

each such course. Completing the 

accreditation application and providing 

the required notification information 

does not require any special skills. 

6. Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel. Since the earliest stages of 

planning for this regulation under 

section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, EPA has been 

concerned with potential small entity 

impacts. EPA conducted outreach to 

small entities, and, in 1999, convened a 

Small Business Advocacy Review 

(SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the small entities that would potentially 

be subject to this regulation’s 

requirements. At that time, EPA was 

planning an initial regulation that 

would apply to renovations in target 

housing, with requirements for public 

and commercial building renovations, 

including child-occupied facility 

renovations, to follow at a later date. 

The small entity representatives (SERs) 

chosen for consultation reflect that 

initial emphasis. They included 

maintenance and renovation 

contractors, painting and decorating 

contractors, multi-family housing 

owners and operators, training 

providers/consultants, and 

representatives from several national 

contractor associations, the National 

Multi-Housing Council, and the 

National Association of Home Builders. 

After considering the existing Leadbased Paint Activities Regulations, and 

taking into account preliminary 

stakeholder feedback, EPA identified 

eight key elements of a potential 

renovation and remodeling regulation 

for the SBAR Panel’s consideration. 

These elements were: 

• Applicability and scope. 

• Firm certification. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21754 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

• Individual training and 

certification. 

• Accreditation of training courses. 

• Work practice standards. 

• Prohibited practices. 

• Exterior clearance. 

• Interior clearance. 

EPA also developed several options 

for each of these key elements. Although 

the scope and applicability options 

specifically presented to the SBAR 

Panel covered only target housing, 

background information presented to 

the SERs and to the SBAR Panel 

members shows that EPA was also 

considering a regulation covering childoccupied facilities. The 2007 

Supplemental Proposal (Ref. 15) 

extended the potentially regulated 

universe to include child-occupied 

facilities. When the 2007 Supplemental 

Proposal was issued, EPA conducted a 

targeted mailing campaign to 

specifically solicit input on the rule 

from child-occupied facilities, such as 

child care providers and kindergartens, 

in public or commercial buildings. More 

information on the SBAR Panel, its 

recommendations, and how EPA 

implemented them in the development 

of the program, is provided in Unit 

VIII.C.6. of the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal (Ref. 3). 

7. Alternatives considered. The 

following is a discussion of significant 

alternatives to the rule, originated by 

EPA or by commenters, that could affect 

the economic impacts of the rule on 

small entities. These alternatives would 

have applied to both small and large 

entities, but, given the large number of 

small entities in the industry, these 

alternatives would primarily affect 

small entities. For the reasons described 

below, these alternatives are not 

consistent with the objectives of the 

rule. 

a. Applicability and scope. EPA 

considered a number of options for the 

scope and applicability of the rule: 

include all pre-1978 housing, all pre1978 rental housing, all pre-1960 

housing, and all pre-1960 rental 

housing. Although the scope and 

applicability options specifically 

presented to the SBAR Panel covered 

only target housing, background 

information presented to the SERs and 

to the SBAR Panel members shows that 

EPA was also considering a regulation 

covering child-occupied facilities. 

The SBAR Panel recommended that 

EPA request public comment in the 

proposal on the option of limiting the 

housing stock affected by the rule to that 

constructed prior to 1960, as well as the 

option of covering all pre-1978 housing 

and other options that may help to 

reduce costs while achieving the 

protection of public health. EPA asked 

for comment in the proposed rule on 

alternative scope options, including an 

option limited to buildings constructed 

prior to 1960. After considering the 

public comments, EPA has determined 

that limiting the rule to exclude 

buildings constructed on or after 1960 is 

not consistent with the stated objectives 

of the rule, in part because this would 

not protect children under the age of 6 

and pregnant women. 

b. Staged approach. EPA proposed a 

staged approach that would initially 

address renovations in pre-1960 target 

housing and child-occupied facilities, or 

where a child had an increased bloodlead level. EPA requested comment 

about whether to delay implementation 

for post-1960 target housing and childoccupied facilities for 1 year. Most 

commenters objected to the phased 

implementation, expressing concerns 

about adding complexity to 

implementation and about potential 

exposures to children in buildings built 

between 1960 and 1978 during the first 

year. After reviewing the comments, 

EPA determined the reduced burdens of 

a staged approach did not outweigh the 

complexity that it added to 

implementation. 

c. Exclude categories of contractors or 

renovation activities. EPA requested 

comment on whether to exclude any 

categories of specialty contractors and 

whether certain renovation activities 

should be specifically included or 

excluded. In response, no commenter 

offered any data to show that any 

category of contractor or type of 

renovation activity should be exempt 

because they do not create lead-based 

paint hazards. All of the renovation 

activities in the Dust Study and the 

other studies in the record for the rule 

created lead-based paint hazards. EPA 

determined that it had no basis on 

which to exempt any category of 

contractor or type of renovation. 

However, some small jobs will be 

exempt from the requirements of the 

rule under the minor maintenance 

exception. 

d. Prohibited practices. The current 

abatement regulations in 40 CFR part 

745, subpart L prohibit the following 

work practices during abatement 

projects: Open-flame burning or 

torching, machine sanding or grinding, 

abrasive blasting or sandblasting, dry 

scraping of large areas, and operating a 

heat gun in excess of 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. EPA presented four options 

to the SBAR Panel on this topic: 

prohibit these practices during 

renovations; allow dry scraping and 

exterior flame-burning or torching; 

allow dry scraping and interior and 

exterior flame-burning or torching; or 

allow all of these practices. The SBAR 

Panel recognized industry concerns over 

the feasibility of prohibiting these 

practices, especially when no costeffective alternatives exist. The SBAR 

Panel was also concerned about the 

potential risks associated with these 

practices, but noted that reasonable 

training, performance, containment, and 

clean-up requirements may adequately 

address these risks. 

EPA followed the SBAR Panel’s 

recommendation and requested public 

comment on the cost, benefit, and 

feasibility of prohibiting certain work 

practices. In response to its request for 

comment in the proposed rule, the 

Agency received information on 

techniques including benign strippers, 

steam stripping, closed planing with 

vacuums, infrared removal, and 

chemical stripping. Therefore, EPA 

believes that there are cost-effective 

alternatives to these prohibited or 

restricted practices. In addition, the 

Dust Study (Characterization of Dust 

Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Activities) found that most 

practices prohibited or restricted under 

EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities 

Regulations produce large quantities of 

lead dust, and that the use of the 

proposed work practices were not 

effective at containing or removing dustlead hazards from the work area. 

EPA has concluded that these 

practices should be prohibited or 

restricted during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities that disturb leadbased paint because the work practices 

in the rule are not effective at containing 

the spread of leaded dust when these 

practices are used, or at cleaning up 

lead-based paint hazards created by 

these practices. Thus, the work practices 

are not effective at minimizing exposure 

to lead-based paint hazards created 

during renovation activities when these 

activities are used. 

e. HEPA vacuums. The proposed rule 

required the use of a HEPA vacuum as 

part of the work practice standards for 

renovation activities. One commenter 

stated that EPA did not have sufficient 

evidence showing that HEPA vacuums 

are significantly better at removing lead 

dust than non-HEPA vacuums. EPA has 

determined that the weight of the 

evidence provided by the studies it 

reviewed demonstrates that the HEPA 

vacuums consistently removed 

significant quantities of lead-based paint 

dust and reduced lead loadings to lower 

levels then did other vacuums. While 

there may be some vacuums cleaners 

that are as effective as HEPA vacuums, 

EPA has not been able to define 

quantitatively the specific attributes of 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21755 

those vacuums. That is, EPA is not able 

to identify what criteria should be used 

to identify vacuums that are equivalent 

to HEPA vacuums in performance. 

Thus, EPA does not believe that it can 

identify in the final rule what types of 

vacuums can be used as substitutes for 

HEPA-vacuums. Therefore, EPA has not 

adopted this alternative. 

f. Visual inspection in lieu of cleaning 

verification. EPA requested comment on 

whether cleaning verification is 

necessary given the cleaning required by 

the rule. Some commenters contended 

that a visual inspection following 

cleaning after a renovation is sufficient 

to ensure the lead-based paint dust 

generated by a renovation has been 

sufficiently cleaned-up. EPA disagrees 

with those commenters who requested 

that the work practices in the final rule 

not include any verification beyond 

visual inspection. The weight of the 

evidence clearly demonstrates that 

visual inspection following cleaning 

after a renovation is insufficient at 

detecting dust-lead hazards, even at 

levels significantly above the regulatory 

hazard standards. Further, EPA 

disagrees with the implication that 

easily visible paint chips and splinters 

are necessarily the primary materials 

generated during a renovation. EPA 

studies, including the Dust Study, show 

that renovation activities generate dust 

as well as chips and splinters. 

Therefore, EPA has not adopted this 

alternative. 

8. Significant issues raised by 

comments on the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. A commenter 

requested that the plumbing-heatingcooling industry be exempted from the 

rule, claiming that the rule is 

impractical for the industry. The 

commenter did not provide any 

supporting data as to why the rule is 

impractical for the plumbing-heatingcooling industry, or any data indicating 

that renovations conducted by 

plumbing, heating, or cooling 

contractors do not create lead hazards. 

By contrast, the Dust Study indicated 

that cutting open drywall (an activity 

often performed by plumbing, heating, 

and cooling contractors) can create a 

lead hazard. Therefore, EPA believes 

that plumbing, heating, and cooling 

contractors who disturb more than an 

exempt amount of lead-based paint can 

create lead hazards. EPA does not 

believe that there is a factual basis for 

exempting this, or any other, industry 

from the rule. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s 

proposed rule gave little deference to 

HUD’s rules, and thus is inconsistent 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s 

requirements to fit new rules within the 

framework of existing Federal 

regulations. The commenter stated that 

EPA’s rule needed to give greater 

deference to the framework established 

in HUD’s rules (especially HUD’s 

requirements for independent clearance 

examinations and its prohibition of 

dangerous work practices), and to 

clearly explain how the Renovation, 

Repair and Painting Rule will interface 

with HUD’s rules to avoid confusion. 

Regarding HUD’s requirements for 

independent clearance examinations, 

EPA’s final rule clarifies that dust 

clearance sampling is allowed in lieu of 

post-renovation cleaning verification in 

cases where another Federal, State, 

Territorial, Tribal, or local regulation 

requires dust clearance testing and 

requires the renovation firm to clean the 

work area until it passes clearance. This 

would apply to HUD-regulated 

renovations. Regarding the prohibition 

of dangerous work practices, EPA’s final 

rule prohibits the use of the following 

work practices during regulated 

renovations: Open flame burning or 

torching of lead-based paint; the use of 

machines that remove lead-based paint 

through high speed operation such as 

sanding, grinding, power planing, 

needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 

sandblasting unless such machines are 

used with HEPA exhaust control; and 

operating a heat gun above 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. EPA believes that the 

provisions in the final rule provide an 

appropriate measure of consistency with 

other regulatory programs (including 

HUD’s), and will cause minimal 

disruption for renovation firms. 

One commenter contended that EPA 

said that ‘‘[n]one of the housing 

authorities identified in section 8.2.1 as 

operating public housing that does not 

receive HUD funding qualifies as a 

small government under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act.’’ According to the 

commenter, public housing authorities 

are government entities, and hundreds 

of them are located in and are part of 

communities with a population of less 

than 50,000. 

EPA’s small entity analysis was not 

claiming that no small governments 

operate housing authorities, but that 

they would not be significantly 

impacted by the rule. EPA’s reasoning 

was as follows: 

• The only public housing 

authorities that EPA could identify that 

do not receive HUD funds are operated 

by Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, 

Connecticut, and New York City. 

• Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, 

Connecticut, and New York City have 

populations over 50,000 and thus do not 

qualify as small governments. 

• To the best of EPA’s knowledge, 

governments with populations under 

50,000 that operate public housing 

authorities all receive HUD funds. 

• Public housing that receives 

funding from HUD already must comply 

with HUD regulations regarding lead 

paint and so are not likely to incur 

significant additional costs due to this 

rule. 

The commenter has offered no factual 

information to dispute this reasoning. 

Therefore, the Agency believes its 

conclusions regarding public housing 

authorities operated by small 

governments were appropriate. 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

rule will have a significant impact on 

small businesses, and that EPA’s own 

economic analysis of this rule finds that 

residential property managers and 

lessors of residential real estate will bear 

the largest share of costs in association 

with the rule. EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s claim that residential 

property managers and lessors of 

residential real estate will bear the 

largest share of costs in association with 

the rule. EPA analyzed small business 

impacts by estimating the average cost 

impact ratio for each industry, 

calculated as the average annual 

compliance cost as a percentage of 

average annual revenues. The average 

cost impact ratio for lessors of real estate 

is below the average cost impact ratio 

for all small businesses under the rule. 

And while the average cost impact ratio 

for residential property managers is 

above the average cost impact for all 

small businesses under the rule, small 

residential property managers make up 

approximately 3% of the small entities 

impacted by the rule. Therefore, it is not 

accurate to claim that residential 

property managers and lessors of 

residential real estate will bear the 

largest share of costs in association with 

the rule. 

Another commenter stated that given 

the lack of evidence showing that HEPA 

vacuums are significantly better at 

removing lead dust from floors, and 

because HEPA vacuums are 

significantly more costly than nonHEPA units, EPA should modify its 

proposed rule to allow cleanup with 

either a HEPA or non-HEPA vacuum. 

According to the commenter, doing so 

would reduce the cost to small entities 

in the renovation and lead mitigation 

businesses without compromising the 

level of lead dust clearance achieved by 

the standard. 

EPA disagrees that it should modify 

its proposed rule to allow cleanup with 

a non-HEPA vacuum. EPA has 

determined that the weight of the 

evidence provided by various studies 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21756 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

demonstrate that the HEPA vacuums 

consistently removed significant 

quantities of lead-based paint dust and 

reduced lead loadings to lower levels 

then did other vacuums. While there 

may be some vacuums that are as 

effective as HEPA vacuums, EPA has 

not been able to define quantitatively 

the specific attributes of those vacuums. 

That is, EPA is not able to identify what 

criteria should be used to identify 

vacuums that are equivalent to HEPA 

vacuums in performance. Thus, EPA 

does not believe that it can identify 

what types of vacuums can be used as 

substitutes for HEPA-vacuums. EPA also 

notes that non-HEPA vacuums that 

perform as well as HEPA vacuums may 

not be less expensive than HEPA 

vacuums. For these reasons, EPA has 

determined that modifying its proposed 

rule to allow cleanup with non-HEPA 

vacuums would compromise the level of 

lead dust clearance achieved by the 

standard, and might not result in 

meaningful cost reductions. 

As required by section 212 of 

SBREFA, EPA also is preparing a Small 

Entity Compliance Guide to help small 

entities comply with this rule. Before 

the date that this rule’s requirements 

take effect for training providers, 

renovation firms, and renovators, the 

guide will be available on EPA’s website 

at http://www.epa.gov/lead or from the 

National Lead Information Center by 

calling 1–800–424–LEAD (5323). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under UMRA Title II, EPA has 

determined that this rule contains a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures that exceed the inflationadjusted UMRA threshold of $100 

million by the private sector in any 1 

year, but it will not result in such 

expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the aggregate. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared a 

written statement under section 202 of 

UMRA which has been placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking and is 

summarized here. 

1. Authorizing legislation. This rule is 

issued under the authority of TSCA 

sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407, 15 

U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687. 

2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has 

prepared an analysis of the costs and 

benefits associated with this 

rulemaking, a copy of which is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 

24). The Economic Analysis presents 

the costs of the rule as well as various 

regulatory options and is summarized in 

Unit III.A. of this preamble.EPA has 

estimated that the total annualized costs 

of this rulemaking are approximately 

$400 million per year using either a 3% 

or a 7% discount rate,and that benefits 

are approximately $700 to $1,700 

million per year using a 3% discount 

rate and $700 to $1,800 million per year 

using a 7% discount. 

3. State, local, and Tribal government 

input. EPA has sought input from State, 

local and Tribal government 

representatives throughout the 

development of the renovation, repair, 

and painting program. EPA’s experience 

in administering the existing lead-based 

paint activities program under TSCA 

section 402(a) suggests that these 

governments will play a critical role in 

the successful implementation of a 

national program to reduce exposures to 

lead-based paint hazards associated 

with renovation, repair, and painting 

activities. Consequently, as discussed in 

Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal (Ref. 3), the Agency has met 

with State, local, and Tribal government 

officials on numerous occasions to 

discuss renovation issues. 

4. Least burdensome option. EPA 

considered a wide variety of options for 

addressing the risks presented by 

renovation activities where lead-based 

paint is present. As part of the 

development of the renovation, repair, 

and painting program, EPA has 

considered different options for the 

scope of the rule, various combinations 

of training and certification 

requirements for individuals who 

perform renovations, various 

combinations of work practice 

requirements, and various methods for 

ensuring that no lead-based paint 

hazards are left behind by persons 

performing renovations. The Economic 

Analysis analyzed several different 

options for the scope of the rule. 

Additional information on the options 

considered is available in Unit VIII.C.6. 

of the preamble for the 2006 Proposal 

(Ref. 3), and in the Economic Analysis 

(Ref. 24). EPA has determined that the 

preferred option is the least burdensome 

option available that achieves the 

primary objective of this rule, which is 

to minimize exposure to lead-based 

paint hazards created during renovation, 

repair, and painting activities in 

housing where children under age 6 

reside and where a pregnant woman 

resides and in housing or other 

buildings frequented by children under 

age 6. 

This rule does not contain a 

significant Federal intergovernmental 

mandate as described by section 203 of 

UMRA. Based on the definition of 

‘‘small government jurisdiction’’ in RFA 

section 601, no State governments can 

be considered small. Small Territorial or 

Tribal governments may apply for 

authorization to administer and enforce 

this program, which would entail costs, 

but these small jurisdictions are under 

no obligation to do so. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Small governments 

operate schools that are child-occupied 

facilities. EPA generally measures a 

significant impact under UMRA as 

being expenditures, in the aggregate, of 

more than 1% of small government 

revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 

Unit III.C.3., the rule is expected to 

result in small government impacts well 

under 1% of revenues. So EPA has 

determined that the rule does not 

significantly affect small governments. 

Nor does the rule uniquely affect small 

governments, as the rule is not targeted 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21757 

at small governments, does not 

primarily affect small governments, and 

does not impose a different burden on 

small governments than on other 

entities that operate child-occupied 

facilities. 

E. Federalism 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), EPA has determined 

that this rule does not have ‘‘federalism 

implications,’’ because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

States would be able to apply for, and 

receive authorization to administer 

these requirements, but would be under 

no obligation to do so. In the absence of 

a State authorization, EPA will 

administer these requirements. 

Nevertheless, in the spirit of the 

objectives of this Executive Order, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between the Agency 

and State and local governments, EPA 

has consulted with representatives of 

State and local governments in 

developing the renovation, repair, and 

painting program. These consultations 

are as described in the preamble to the 

2006 Proposal (Ref. 3). 

F. Tribal Implications 

As required by Executive Order 

13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951, November 

9, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

rule does not have tribal implications 

because it will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in the Order. Tribes would be 

able to apply for, and receive 

authorization to administer these 

requirements on Tribal lands, but Tribes 

would be under no obligation to do so. 

In the absence of a Tribal authorization, 

EPA will administer these requirements. 

While Tribes may operate childoccupied facilities covered by the rule 

such as kindergartens, prekindergartens, and day care facilities, 

EPA has determined that this rule 

would not have substantial direct effects 

on the Tribal governments that operate 

these facilities. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. Although Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, 

EPA consulted with Tribal officials and 

others by discussing potential 

renovation regulatory options for the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program at several national lead 

program meetings hosted by EPA and 

other interested Federal agencies. 

G. Children’s Health Protection 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

applies to this rule because it is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined by Executive Order 

12866, and because the environmental 

health or safety risk addressed by this 

action may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. Accordingly, EPA 

has evaluated the environmental health 

or safety effects of renovation, repair, 

and painting projects on children. 

Various aspects of this evaluation are 

discussed in the preamble to the 2006 

Proposal (Ref. 3). 

The primary purpose of this rule is to 

minimize exposure to lead-based paint 

hazards created during renovation, 

repair, and painting activities in 

housing where children under age 6 

reside and in housing or other buildings 

frequented by children under age 6. In 

the absence of this regulation, adequate 

work practices are not likely to be 

employed during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities. EPA’s analysis 

indicates that there will be 

approximately 1.4 million children 

under age 6 affected by the rule. These 

children are projected to receive 

considerable benefits due to this 

regulation. 

H. Energy Effects 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, entitled Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have any adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. Technology Standards 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. In the 

2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to adopt 

a number of work practice requirements 

that could be considered technical 

standards for performing renovation 

projects in residences that contain leadbased paint. As discussed in Unit VIII.I. 

of the 2006 Proposal, EPA identified 

two potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards (Ref. 3 at 1626). 

ASTM International (formerly the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials) has developed two 

potentially applicable documents: 

Standard Practice for Clearance 

Examinations Following Lead Hazard 

Reduction Activities in Single-Family 

Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities 

(Ref. 50), and ‘‘Standard Guide for 

Evaluation, Management, and Control of 

Lead Hazards in Facilities’’ (Ref. 51). 

With respect to the first document, EPA 

did not propose to require traditional 

clearance examinations, including dust 

sampling, following renovation projects. 

However, EPA did propose to require 

that a visual inspection for dust, debris, 

and residue be conducted after cleaning 

and before post-renovation cleaning 

verification is performed. The first 

ASTM document does contain 

information on conducting a visual 

inspection before collecting dust 

clearance samples. The second ASTM 

document is a comprehensive guide to 

identifying and controlling lead-based 

paint hazards. Some of the information 

in this document is relevant to the work 

practices required by the rule. Each of 

these ASTM documents represents 

state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the 

performance of these particular aspects 

of lead-based paint hazard evaluation 

and control practices and EPA 

continues to recommend the use of 

these documents where appropriate. 

However, because each of these 

documents is extremely detailed and 

encompasses many circumstances 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

EPA determined that it would be 

impractical to incorporate these 

voluntary consensus standards into the 

rule. 

In addition, this final rule contains 

performance standards and a process for 

recognizing test kits that may be used by 

certified renovators to determine 

whether components to be affected by a 

renovation contain lead-based paint. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21758 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA will recognize those kits that meet 

certain performance standards for 

limited false positives and negatives. 

EPA will also recognize only those kits 

that have been properly validated by a 

laboratory independent of the kit 

manufacturer. For most kits, this will 

mean participating in EPA’s 

Environmental Technology Verification 

(ETV) program. With stakeholder input, 

EPA is adapting a volunary consensus 

standard, ASTM’s ‘‘Standard Practice 

for Evaluating the Performance 

Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical 

Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint’’ (Ref. 

28), for use as a testing protocol to 

determine whether a particular kit has 

met the performance standards 

established in this final rule. 

J. Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has assessed the potential impact 

of this rule on minority and low-income 

populations. The results of this 

assessment are presented in the 

Economic Analysis, which is available 

in the public docket for this rulemaking 

(Ref. 24). As a result of this assessment, 

the Agency has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

VI. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule is effective 

June 23, 2008. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Childoccupied facility, Housing renovation, 

Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 31, 2008, 

Steven L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 745—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 745 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 

and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

■ 2. Section 745.80 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.80 Purpose. 

This subpart contains regulations 

developed under sections 402 and 406 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 

U.S.C. 2682 and 2686) and applies to all 

renovations performed for 

compensation in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities. The purpose of 

this subpart is to ensure the following: 

(a) Owners and occupants of target 

housing and child-occupied facilities 

receive information on lead-based paint 

hazards before these renovations begin; 

and 

(b) Individuals performing 

renovations regulated in accordance 

with§ 745.82 are properly trained; 

renovators and firms performing these 

renovations are certified; and the work 

practices in § 745.85 are followed 

during these renovations. 

■ 3. Section 745.81 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.81 Effective dates. 

(a) Training, certification and 

accreditation requirements and work 

practice standards. The training, 

certification and accreditation 

requirements and work practice 

standards in this subpart are applicable 

in any State or Indian Tribal area that 

does not have a renovation program that 

is authorized under subpart Q of this 

part. The training, certification and 

accreditation requirements and work 

practice standards in this subpart will 

become effective as follows: 

(1) Training programs. Effective June 

23, 2008, no training program may 

provide, offer, or claim to provide 

training or refresher training for EPA 

certification as a renovator or a dust 

sampling technician without 

accreditation from EPA under § 745.225. 

Training programs may apply for 

accreditation under § 745.225 beginning 

April 22, 2009. 

(2) Firms. (i) Firms may apply for 

certification under § 745.89 beginning 

October 22, 2009. 

(ii) On or after April 22, 2010, no firm 

may perform, offer, or claim to perform 

renovations without certification from 

EPA under § 745.89 in target housing or 

child-occupied facilities, unless the 

renovation qualifies for one of the 

exceptions identified in § 745.82(a) or 

(c). 

(3) Individuals. On or after April 22, 

2010, all renovations must be directed 

by renovators certified in accordance 

with § 745.90(a) and performed by 

certified renovators or individuals 

trained in accordance with 

§ 745.90(b)(2) in target housing or childoccupied facilities, unless the 

renovation qualifies for one of the 

exceptions identified in § 745.82(a) or 

(c). 

(4) Work practices. On or after April 

22, 2010, all renovations must be 

performed in accordance with the work 

practice standards in § 745.85 and the 

associated recordkeeping requirements 

in § 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) in target 

housing or child-occupied facilities, 

unless the renovation qualifies for one 

of the exceptions identified in 

§ 745.82(a) or (c). 

(5) The suspension and revocation 

provisions in § 745.91 are effectiveApril 

22, 2010. 

(b) Renovation-specific pamphlet. 

Before December 22, 2008, renovators or 

firms performing renovations in States 

and Indian Tribal areas without an 

authorized program may provide 

owners and occupants with either of the 

following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your 

Family From Lead in Your Home or 

Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools. After that date, 

Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools must be used 

exclusively. 

(c) Pre-Renovation Education Rule. 

With the exception of the requirement 

to use the pamphlet entitled Renovate 

Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21759 

Providers and Schools, the provisions of 

the Pre-Renovation Education Rule in 

this subpart have been in effect since 

June 1999. 

■ 4. Section 745.82 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.82 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart applies to all 

renovations performed for 

compensation in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities, except for the 

following: 

(1) Renovations in target housing or 

child-occupied facilities in which a 

written determination has been made by 

an inspector or risk assessor (certified 

pursuant to either Federal regulations at 

§ 745.226 or a State or Tribal 

certification program authorized 

pursuant to § 745.324) that the 

components affected by the renovation 

are free of paint or other surface 

coatings that contain lead equal to or in 

excess of 1.0 milligrams/per square 

centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight, 

where the firm performing the 

renovation has obtained a copy of the 

determination. 

(2) Renovations in target housing or 

child-occupied facilities in which a 

certified renovator, using an EPA 

recognized test kit as defined in § 745.83 

and following the kit manufacturer’s 

instructions, has tested each component 

affected by the renovation and 

determined that the components are free 

of paint or other surface coatings that 

contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 

mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. If the 

components make up an integrated 

whole, such as the individual stair 

treads and risers of a single staircase, 

the renovator is required to test only one 

of the individual components, unless 

the individual components appear to 

have been repainted or refinished 

separately. 

(b) The information distribution 

requirements in § 745.84 do not apply to 

emergency renovations, which are 

renovation activities that were not 

planned but result from a sudden, 

unexpected event (such as non-routine 

failures of equipment) that, if not 

immediately attended to, presents a 

safety or public health hazard, or 

threatens equipment and/or property 

with significant damage. Interim 

controls performed in response to an 

elevated blood lead level in a resident 

child are also emergency renovations. 

Emergency renovations other than 

interim controls are also exempt from 

the warning sign, containment, waste 

handling, training, and certification 

requirements in §§ 745.85, 745.89, and 

745.90 to the extent necessary to 

respond to the emergency. Emergency 

renovations are not exempt from the 

cleaning requirements of § 745.85(a)(5), 

which must be performed by certified 

renovators or individuals trained in 

accordance with § 745.90(b)(2), the 

cleaning verification requirements of 

§ 745.85(b), which must be performed 

by certified renovators, and the 

recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7). 

(c) The training requirements in 

§ 745.90 and the work practice 

standards for renovation activities in 

§ 745.85 apply to all renovations 

covered by this subpart, except for 

renovations in target housing for which 

the firm performing the renovation has 

obtained a statement signed by the 

owner that the renovation will occur in 

the owner’s residence, no child under 

age 6 resides there, no pregnant woman 

resides there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner 

acknowledges that the renovation firm 

will not be required to use the work 

practices contained in EPA’s renovation, 

repair, and painting rule. For the 

purposes of this section, a child resides 

in the primary residence of his or her 

custodial parents, legal guardians, and 

foster parents. A child also resides in 

the primary residence of an informal 

caretaker if the child lives and sleeps 

most of the time at the caretaker’s 

residence. 

■ 5. Section 745.83 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Remove the definitions of 

‘‘Emergency renovation operations’’ and 

‘‘Multi-family housing.’’ 

■ b. Revise the definitions of 

‘‘Pamphlet,’’ ‘‘Renovation,’’ and 

‘‘Renovator.’’ 

■ c. Add 13 definitions in alphabetical 

order. 

§ 745.83 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Child-occupied facility means a 

building, or portion of a building, 

constructed prior to 1978, visited 

regularly by the same child, under 6 

years of age, on at least two different 

days within any week (Sunday through 

Saturday period), provided that each 

day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the 

combined weekly visits last at least 6 

hours, and the combined annual visits 

last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied 

facilities may include, but are not 

limited to, day care centers, preschools 

and kindergarten classrooms. Childoccupied facilities may be located in 

target housing or in public or 

commercial buildings. With respect to 

common areas in public or commercial 

buildings that contain child-occupied 

facilities, the child-occupied facility 

encompasses only those common areas 

that are routinely used by children 

under age 6, such as restrooms and 

cafeterias. Common areas that children 

under age 6 only pass through, such as 

hallways, stairways, and garages are not 

included. In addition, with respect to 

exteriors of public or commercial 

buildings that contain child-occupied 

facilities, the child-occupied facility 

encompasses only the exterior sides of 

the building that are immediately 

adjacent to the child-occupied facility or 

the common areas routinely used by 

children under age 6. 

Cleaning verification card means a 

card developed and distributed, or 

otherwise approved, by EPA for the 

purpose of determining, through 

comparison of wet and dry disposable 

cleaning cloths with the card, whether 

post-renovation cleaning has been 

properly completed. 

Component or building component 

means specific design or structural 

elements or fixtures of a building or 

residential dwelling that are 

distinguished from each other by form, 

function, and location. These include, 

but are not limited to, interior 

components such as: Ceilings, crown 

molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door 

trim, floors, fireplaces, radiators and 

other heating units, shelves, shelf 

supports, stair treads, stair risers, stair 

stringers, newel posts, railing caps, 

balustrades, windows and trim 

(including sashes, window heads, 

jambs, sills or stools and troughs), built 

in cabinets, columns, beams, bathroom 

vanities, counter tops, and air 

conditioners; and exterior components 

such as: Painted roofing, chimneys, 

flashing, gutters and downspouts, 

ceilings, soffits, fascias, rake boards, 

cornerboards, bulkheads, doors and 

door trim, fences, floors, joists, lattice 

work, railings and railing caps, siding, 

handrails, stair risers and treads, stair 

stringers, columns, balustrades, 

windowsills or stools and troughs, 

casings, sashes and wells, and air 

conditioners. 

Dry disposable cleaning cloth means 

a commercially available dry, 

electrostatically charged, white 

disposable cloth designed to be used for 

cleaning hard surfaces such as 

uncarpeted floors or counter tops. 

Firm means a company, partnership, 

corporation, sole proprietorship or 

individual doing business, association, 

or other business entity; a Federal, State, 

Tribal, or local government agency; or a 

nonprofit organization. 

HEPA vacuum means a vacuum 

cleaner which has been designed with a 

high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 

filter as the last filtration stage. A HEPA 

filter is a filter that is capable of 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21760 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

capturing particles of 0.3 microns with 

99.97% efficiency. The vacuum cleaner 

must be designed so that all the air 

drawn into the machine is expelled 

through the HEPA filter with none of 

the air leaking past it. 

Interim controls means a set of 

measures designed to temporarily 

reduce human exposure or likely 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards, 

including specialized cleaning, repairs, 

maintenance, painting, temporary 

containment, ongoing monitoring of 

lead-based paint hazards or potential 

hazards, and the establishment and 

operation of management and resident 

education programs. 

Minor repair and maintenance 

activities are activities, including minor 

heating, ventilation or air conditioning 

work, electrical work, and plumbing, 

that disrupt 6 square feet or less of 

painted surface per room for interior 

activities or 20 square feet or less of 

painted surface for exterior activities 

where none of the work practices 

prohibited or restricted by § 745.85(a)(3) 

are used and where the work does not 

involve window replacement or 

demolition of painted surface areas. 

When removing painted components, or 

portions of painted components, the 

entire surface area removed is the 

amount of painted surface disturbed. 

Jobs, other than emergency renovations, 

performed in the same room within the 

same 30 days must be considered the 

same job for the purpose of determining 

whether the job is a minor repair and 

maintenance activity. 

Pamphlet means the EPA pamphlet 

titled Renovate Right: Important Lead 

Hazard Information for Families, Child 

Care Providers and Schools developed 

under section 406(a) of TSCA for use in 

complying with section 406(b) of TSCA, 

or any State or Tribal pamphlet 

approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 

745.326 that is developed for the same 

purpose. This includes reproductions of 

the pamphlet when copied in full and 

without revision or deletion of material 

from the pamphlet (except for the 

addition or revision of State or local 

sources of information). Before 

December 22, 2008, the term 

‘‘pamphlet’’ also means any pamphlet 

developed by EPA under section 406(a) 

of TSCA or any State or Tribal pamphlet 

approved by EPA pursuant to § 745.326. 

* * * * * 

Recognized test kit means a 

commercially available kit recognized 

by EPA under § 745.88 as being capable 

of allowing a user to determine the 

presence of lead at levels equal to or in 

excess of 1.0 milligrams per square 

centimeter, or more than 0.5% lead by 

weight, in a paint chip, paint powder, 

or painted surface. 

Renovation means the modification of 

any existing structure, or portion 

thereof, that results in the disturbance of 

painted surfaces, unless that activity is 

performed as part of an abatement as 

defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223). 

The term renovation includes (but is not 

limited to): The removal, modification 

or repair of painted surfaces or painted 

components (e.g., modification of 

painted doors, surface restoration, 

window repair, surface preparation 

activity (such as sanding, scraping, or 

other such activities that may generate 

paint dust)); the removal of building 

components (e.g., walls, ceilings, 

plumbing, windows); weatherization 

projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted 

surfaces to install blown-in insulation or 

to gain access to attics, planing 

thresholds to install weather-stripping), 

and interim controls that disturb 

painted surfaces. A renovation 

performed for the purpose of converting 

a building, or part of a building, into 

target housing or a child-occupied 

facility is a renovation under this 

subpart. The term renovation does not 

include minor repair and maintenance 

activities. 

Renovator means an individual who 

either performs or directs workers who 

perform renovations. A certified 

renovator is a renovator who has 

successfully completed a renovator 

course accredited by EPA or an EPAauthorized State or Tribal program. 

Training hour means at least 50 

minutes of actual learning, including, 

but not limited to, time devoted to 

lecture, learning activities, small group 

activities, demonstrations, evaluations, 

and hands-on experience. 

Wet disposable cleaning cloth means 

a commercially available, pre-moistened 

white disposable cloth designed to be 

used for cleaning hard surfaces such as 

uncarpeted floors or counter tops. 

Wet mopping system means a device 

with the following characteristics: A 

long handle, a mop head designed to be 

used with disposable absorbent cleaning 

pads, a reservoir for cleaning solution, 

and a built-in mechanism for 

distributing or spraying the cleaning 

solution onto a floor, or a method of 

equivalent efficacy. 

Work area means the area that the 

certified renovator establishes to contain 

the dust and debris generated by a 

renovation. 

§ 745.84 [Removed] 

■ 6. Section 745.84 is removed. 

§ 745.85 [Redesignated as § 745.84] 

■ 7. Section 745.85 is redesignated as 

§ 745.84. 

■ 8. Newly designated § 745.84 is 

amended as follows: 

■ a. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) and revise paragraph 

(a)(2)(i). 

■ b. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (b) and revise paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (b)(4). 

■ c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (d). 

■ d. Add a new paragraph (c). 

■ e. Revise the introductory text of 

newly designated paragraph (d). 

§ 745.84 Information distribution 

requirements. 

(a) Renovations in dwelling units. No 

more than 60 days before beginning 

renovation activities in any residential 

dwelling unit of target housing, the firm 

performing the renovation must: 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Obtain, from the adult occupant, a 

written acknowledgment that the 

occupant has received the pamphlet; or 

certify in writing that a pamphlet has 

been delivered to the dwelling and that 

the firm performing the renovation has 

been unsuccessful in obtaining a written 

acknowledgment from an adult 

occupant. Such certification must 

include the address of the unit 

undergoing renovation, the date and 

method of delivery of the pamphlet, 

names of the persons delivering the 

pamphlet, reason for lack of 

acknowledgment (e.g., occupant refuses 

to sign, no adult occupant available), the 

signature of a representative of the firm 

performing the renovation, and the date 

of signature. 

* * * * * 

(b) Renovations in common areas. No 

more than 60 days before beginning 

renovation activities in common areas of 

multi-unit target housing, the firm 

performing the renovation must: 

* * * * * 

(2) Comply with one of the following. 

(i) Notify in writing, or ensure written 

notification of, each affected unit and 

make the pamphlet available upon 

request prior to the start of renovation. 

Such notification shall be accomplished 

by distributing written notice to each 

affected unit. The notice shall describe 

the general nature and locations of the 

planned renovation activities; the 

expected starting and ending dates; and 

a statement of how the occupant can 

obtain the pamphlet, at no charge, from 

the firm performing the renovation, or 

(ii) While the renovation is ongoing, 

post informational signs describing the 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21761 

general nature and locations of the 

renovation and the anticipated 

completion date. These signs must be 

posted in areas where they are likely to 

be seen by the occupants of all of the 

affected units. The signs must be 

accompanied by a posted copy of the 

pamphlet or information on how 

interested occupants can review a copy 

of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from 

the renovation firm at no cost to 

occupants. 

* * * * * 

(4) If the scope, locations, or expected 

starting and ending dates of the planned 

renovation activities change after the 

initial notification, and the firm 

provided written initial notification to 

each affected unit, the firm performing 

the renovation must provide further 

written notification to the owners and 

occupants providing revised 

information on the ongoing or planned 

activities. This subsequent notification 

must be provided before the firm 

performing the renovation initiates work 

beyond that which was described in the 

original notice. 

(c) Renovations in child-occupied 

facilities. No more than 60 days before 

beginning renovation activities in any 

child-occupied facility, the firm 

performing the renovation must: 

(1)(i) Provide the owner of the 

building with the pamphlet, and comply 

with one of the following: 

(A) Obtain, from the owner, a written 

acknowledgment that the owner has 

received the pamphlet. 

(B) Obtain a certificate of mailing at 

least 7 days prior to the renovation. 

(ii) If the child-occupied facility is not 

the owner of the building, provide an 

adult representative of the childoccupied facility with the pamphlet, 

and comply with one of the following: 

(A) Obtain, from the adult 

representative, a written 

acknowledgment that the adult 

representative has received the 

pamphlet; or certify in writing that a 

pamphlet has been delivered to the 

facility and that the firm performing the 

renovation has been unsuccessful in 

obtaining a written acknowledgment 

from an adult representative. Such 

certification must include the address of 

the child-occupied facility undergoing 

renovation, the date and method of 

delivery of the pamphlet, names of the 

persons delivering the pamphlet, reason 

for lack of acknowledgment (e.g., 

representative refuses to sign), the 

signature of a representative of the firm 

performing the renovation, and the date 

of signature. 

(B) Obtain a certificate of mailing at 

least 7 days prior to the renovation. 

(2) Provide the parents and guardians 

of children using the child-occupied 

facility with the pamphlet and 

information describing the general 

nature and locations of the renovation 

and the anticipated completion date by 

complying with one of the following: 

(i) Mail or hand-deliver the pamphlet 

and the renovation information to each 

parent or guardian of a child using the 

child-occupied facility. 

(ii) While the renovation is ongoing, 

post informational signs describing the 

general nature and locations of the 

renovation and the anticipated 

completion date. These signs must be 

posted in areas where they can be seen 

by the parents or guardians of the 

children frequenting the child-occupied 

facility. The signs must be accompanied 

by a posted copy of the pamphlet or 

information on how interested parents 

or guardians can review a copy of the 

pamphlet or obtain a copy from the 

renovation firm at no cost to the parents 

or guardians. 

(3) The renovation firm must prepare, 

sign, and date a statement describing the 

steps performed to notify all parents and 

guardians of the intended renovation 

activities and to provide the pamphlet. 

(d) Written acknowledgment. The 

written acknowledgments required by 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this 

section must: 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 745.85 is added to subpart 

E to read as follows: 

§ 745.85 Work practice standards. 

(a) Standards for renovation activities. 

Renovations must be performed by 

certified firms using certified renovators 

as directed in § 745.89. The 

responsibilities of certified firms are set 

forth in § 745.89(d) and the 

responsibilities of certified renovators 

are set forth in § 745.90(b). 

(1) Occupant protection. Firms must 

post signs clearly defining the work area 

and warning occupants and other 

persons not involved in renovation 

activities to remain outside of the work 

area. To the extent practicable, these 

signs must be in the primary language 

of the occupants. These signs must be 

posted before beginning the renovation 

and must remain in place and readable 

until the renovation and the postrenovation cleaning verification have 

been completed. If warning signs have 

been posted in accordance with 24 CFR 

35.1345(b)(2) or 29 CFR 1926.62(m), 

additional signs are not required by this 

section. 

(2) Containing the work area. Before 

beginning the renovation, the firm must 

isolate the work area so that no dust or 

debris leaves the work area while the 

renovation is being performed. In 

addition, the firm must maintain the 

integrity of the containment by ensuring 

that any plastic or other impermeable 

materials are not torn or displaced, and 

taking any other steps necessary to 

ensure that no dust or debris leaves the 

work area while the renovation is being 

performed. The firm must also ensure 

that containment is installed in such a 

manner that it does not interfere with 

occupant and worker egress in an 

emergency. 

(i) Interior renovations. The firm 

must: 

(A) Remove all objects from the work 

area, including furniture, rugs, and 

window coverings, or cover them with 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material with all seams and edges taped 

or otherwise sealed. 

(B) Close and cover all ducts opening 

in the work area with taped-down 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material. 

(C) Close windows and doors in the 

work area. Doors must be covered with 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material. Doors used as an entrance to 

the work area must be covered with 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material in a manner that allows 

workers to pass through while confining 

dust and debris to the work area. 

(D) Cover the floor surface, including 

installed carpet, with taped-down 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material in the work area 6 feet beyond 

the perimeter of surfaces undergoing 

renovation or a sufficient distance to 

contain the dust, whichever is greater. 

(E) Use precautions to ensure that all 

personnel, tools, and other items, 

including the exteriors of containers of 

waste, are free of dust and debris before 

leaving the work area. 

(ii) Exterior renovations. The firm 

must: 

(A) Close all doors and windows 

within 20 feet of the renovation. On 

multi-story buildings, close all doors 

and windows within 20 feet of the 

renovation on the same floor as the 

renovation, and close all doors and 

windows on all floors below that are the 

same horizontal distance from the 

renovation. 

(B) Ensure that doors within the work 

area that will be used while the job is 

being performed are covered with 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material in a manner that allows 

workers to pass through while confining 

dust and debris to the work area. 

(C) Cover the ground with plastic 

sheeting or other disposable 

impermeable material extending 10 feet 

beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21762 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to collect falling paint debris, 

whichever is greater, unless the 

property line prevents 10 feet of such 

ground covering. 

(D) In certain situations, the 

renovation firm must take extra 

precautions in containing the work area 

to ensure that dust and debris from the 

renovation does not contaminate other 

buildings or other areas of the property 

or migrate to adjacent properties. 

(3) Prohibited and restricted practices. 

The work practices listed below shall be 

prohibited or restricted during a 

renovation as follows: 

(i) Open-flame burning or torching of 

lead-based paint is prohibited. 

(ii) The use of machines that remove 

lead-based paint through high speed 

operation such as sanding, grinding, 

power planing, needle gun, abrasive 

blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited 

unless such machines are used with 

HEPA exhaust control. 

(iii) Operating a heat gun on leadbased paint is permitted only at 

temperatures below 1100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. 

(4) Waste from renovations—(i) Waste 

from renovation activities must be 

contained to prevent releases of dust 

and debris before the waste is removed 

from the work area for storage or 

disposal. If a chute is used to remove 

waste from the work area, it must be 

covered. 

(ii) At the conclusion of each work 

day and at the conclusion of the 

renovation, waste that has been 

collected from renovation activities 

must be stored under containment, in an 

enclosure, or behind a barrier that 

prevents release of dust and debris out 

of the work area and prevents access to 

dust and debris. 

(iii) When the firm transports waste 

from renovation activities, the firm must 

contain the waste to prevent release of 

dust and debris. 

(5) Cleaning the work area. After the 

renovation has been completed, the firm 

must clean the work area until no dust, 

debris or residue remains. 

(i) Interior and exterior renovations. 

The firm must: 

(A) Collect all paint chips and debris 

and, without dispersing any of it, seal 

this material in a heavy-duty bag. 

(B) Remove the protective sheeting. 

Mist the sheeting before folding it, fold 

the dirty side inward, and either tape 

shut to seal or seal in heavy-duty bags. 

Sheeting used to isolate contaminated 

rooms from non-contaminated rooms 

must remain in place until after the 

cleaning and removal of other sheeting. 

Dispose of the sheeting as waste. 

(ii) Additional cleaning for interior 

renovations. The firm must clean all 

objects and surfaces in the work area 

and within 2 feet of the work area in the 

following manner, cleaning from higher 

to lower: 

(A) Walls. Clean walls starting at the 

ceiling and working down to the floor 

by either vacuuming with a HEPA 

vacuum or wiping with a damp cloth. 

(B) Remaining surfaces. Thoroughly 

vacuum all remaining surfaces and 

objects in the work area, including 

furniture and fixtures, with a HEPA 

vacuum. The HEPA vacuum must be 

equipped with a beater bar when 

vacuuming carpets and rugs. 

(C) Wipe all remaining surfaces and 

objects in the work area, except for 

carpeted or upholstered surfaces, with a 

damp cloth. Mop uncarpeted floors 

thoroughly, using a mopping method 

that keeps the wash water separate from 

the rinse water, such as the 2-bucket 

mopping method, or using a wet 

mopping system. 

(b) Standards for post-renovation 

cleaning verification—(1) Interiors. (i) A 

certified renovator must perform a 

visual inspection to determine whether 

dust, debris or residue is still present. If 

dust, debris or residue is present, these 

conditions must be removed by recleaning and another visual inspection 

must be performed. 

(ii) After a successful visual 

inspection, a certified renovator must: 

(A) Verify that each windowsill in the 

work area has been adequately cleaned, 

using the following procedure. 

(1) Wipe the windowsill with a wet 

disposable cleaning cloth that is damp 

to the touch. If the cloth matches or is 

lighter than the cleaning verification 

card, the windowsill has been 

adequately cleaned. 

(2) If the cloth does not match and is 

darker than the cleaning verification 

card, re-clean the windowsill as 

directed in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and 

(a)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, then either 

use a new cloth or fold the used cloth 

in such a way that an unused surface is 

exposed, and wipe the surface again. If 

the cloth matches or is lighter than the 

cleaning verification card, that 

windowsill has been adequately 

cleaned. 

(3) If the cloth does not match and is 

darker than the cleaning verification 

card, wait for 1 hour or until the surface 

has dried completely, whichever is 

longer. 

(4)After waiting for the windowsill to 

dry, wipe the windowsill with a dry 

disposable cleaning cloth. After this 

wipe, the windowsill has been 

adequately cleaned. 

(B) Wipe uncarpeted floors and 

countertops within the work area with 

a wet disposable cleaning cloth. Floors 

must be wiped using anapplication 

device with a long handle and a head 

to which the cloth is attached. The cloth 

must remain damp at all times while it 

is being used to wipe the surface for 

post-renovation cleaning verification. If 

the surface within the work area is 

greater than 40 square feet, the surface 

within the work area must be divided 

into roughly equal sections that are each 

less than 40 square feet. Wipe each such 

section separately with a new wet 

disposable cleaning cloth. If the cloth 

used to wipe each section of the surface 

within the work area matches the 

cleaning verification card, the surface 

has been adequately cleaned. 

(1) If the cloth used to wipe a 

particular surface section does not 

match the cleaning verification card, reclean that section of the surface as 

directed in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and 

(a)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, then use a 

new wet disposable cleaning cloth to 

wipe that section again. If the cloth 

matches the cleaning verification card, 

that section of the surface has been 

adequately cleaned. 

(2) If the cloth used to wipe a 

particular surface section does not 

match the cleaning verification card 

after the surface has been re-cleaned, 

wait for 1 hour or until the entire 

surface within the work area has dried 

completely, whichever is longer. 

(3) After waiting for the entire surface 

within the work area to dry, wipe each 

section of the surface that has not yet 

achieved post-renovation cleaning 

verification with a dry disposable 

cleaning cloth. After this wipe, that 

section of the surface has been 

adequately cleaned. 

(iii) When the work area passes the 

post-renovation cleaning verification, 

remove the warning signs. 

(2) Exteriors. A certified renovator 

must perform a visual inspection to 

determine whether dust, debris or 

residue is still present on surfaces in 

and below the work area, including 

windowsills and the ground. If dust, 

debris or residue is present, these 

conditions must be eliminated and 

another visual inspection must be 

performed. When the area passes the 

visual inspection, remove the warning 

signs. 

(c) Optional dust clearance testing. 

Cleaning verification need not be 

performed if the contract between the 

renovation firm and the person 

contracting for the renovation or another 

Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal, or 

local law or regulation requires: 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21763 

(1) The renovation firm to perform 

dust clearance sampling at the 

conclusion of a renovation covered by 

this subpart. 

(2) The dust clearance samples are 

required to be collected by a certified 

inspector, risk assessor or dust sampling 

technician. 

(3) The renovation firm is required to 

re-clean the work area until the dust 

clearance sample results are below the 

clearance standards in § 745.227(e)(8) or 

any applicable State, Territorial, Tribal, 

or local standard. 

(d) Activities conducted after postrenovation cleaning verification. 

Activities that do not disturb paint, such 

as applying paint to walls that have 

already been prepared, are not regulated 

by this subpart if they are conducted 

after post-renovation cleaning 

verification has been performed. 

■ 10. Section 745.86 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

(a) Firms performing renovations 

must retain and, if requested, make 

available to EPA all records necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart for a period of 3 years following 

completion of the renovation. This 3– 

year retention requirement does not 

supersede longer obligations required by 

other provisions for retaining the same 

documentation, including any 

applicable State or Tribal laws or 

regulations. 

(b) Records that must be retained 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 

shall include (where applicable): 

(1) Reports certifying that a 

determination had been made by an 

inspector (certified pursuant to either 

Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an 

EPA-authorized State or Tribal 

certification program) that lead-based 

paint is not present on the components 

affected by the renovation, as described 

in § 745.82(b)(1). 

(2) Signed and dated 

acknowledgments of receipt as 

described in§ 745.84(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), 

(b)(1)(i), (c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(1)(ii)(A). 

(3) Certifications of attempted 

delivery as described in § 745.84(a)(2)(i) 

and (c)(1)(ii)(A). 

(4) Certificates of mailing as described 

in § 745.84(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), 

(c)(1)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii)(B). 

(5) Records of notification activities 

performed regarding common area 

renovations, as described in 

§ 745.84(b)(3) and (b)(4), and 

renovations in child-occupied facilities, 

as described in § 745.84(c)(2). 

(6) Any signed and dated statements 

received from owner-occupants 

documenting that the requirements of 

§ 745.85 do not apply. These statements 

must include a declaration that the 

renovation will occur in the owner’s 

residence, a declaration that no children 

under age 6 reside there, a declaration 

that no pregnant woman resides there, 

a declaration that the housing is not a 

child-occupied facility, the address of 

the unit undergoing renovation, the 

owner’s name, an acknowledgment by 

the owner that the work practices to be 

used during the renovation will not 

necessarily include all of the lead-safe 

work practices contained in EPA’s 

renovation, repair, and painting rule, 

the signature of the owner, and the date 

of signature. These statements must be 

written in the same language as the text 

of the renovation contract, if any. 

(7) Documentation of compliance 

with the requirements of § 745.85, 

including documentation that a certified 

renovator was assigned to the project, 

that the certified renovator provided onthe-job training for workers used on the 

project, that the certified renovator 

performed or directed workers who 

performed all of the tasks described in 

§ 745.85(a), and that the certified 

renovator performed the post-renovation 

cleaning verification described in 

§ 745.85(b). If the renovation firm was 

unable to comply with all of the 

requirements of this rule due to an 

emergency as defined in § 745.82, the 

firm must document the nature of the 

emergency and the provisions of the 

rule that were not followed. This 

documentation must include a copy of 

the certified renovator’s training 

certificate, and a certification by the 

certified renovator assigned to the 

project that: 

(i) Training was provided to workers 

(topics must be identified for each 

worker). 

(ii) Warning signs were posted at the 

entrances to the work area. 

(iii) If test kits were used, that the 

specified brand of kits was used at the 

specified locations and that the results 

were as specified. 

(iv) The work area was contained by: 

(A) Removing or covering all objects 

in the work area (interiors). 

(B) Closing and covering all HVAC 

ducts in the work area (interiors). 

(C) Closing all windows in the work 

area (interiors) or closing all windows in 

and within 20 feet of the work area 

(exteriors). 

(D) Closing and sealing all doors in 

the work area (interiors) or closing and 

sealing all doors in and within 20 feet 

of the work area (exteriors). 

(E) Covering doors in the work area 

that were being used to allow passage 

but prevent spread of dust. 

(F) Covering the floor surface, 

including installed carpet, with tapeddown plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material in the work area 

6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to contain the dust, whichever 

is greater (interiors) or covering the 

ground with plastic sheeting or other 

disposable impermeable material 

anchored to the building extending 10 

feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to collect falling paint debris, 

whichever is greater, unless the 

property line prevents 10 feet of such 

ground covering, weighted down by 

heavy objects (exteriors). 

(G) Installing (if necessary) vertical 

containment to prevent migration of 

dust and debris to adjacent property 

(exteriors). 

(v) Waste was contained on-site and 

while being transported off-site. 

(vi) The work area was properly 

cleaned after the renovation by: 

(A) Picking up all chips and debris, 

misting protective sheeting, folding it 

dirty side inward, and taping it for 

removal. 

(B) Cleaning the work area surfaces 

and objects using a HEPA vacuum and/ 

or wet cloths or mops (interiors). 

(vii) The certified renovator 

performed the post-renovation cleaning 

verification (the results of which must 

be briefly described, including the 

number of wet and dry cloths used). 

(c) When test kits are used, the 

renovation firm must, within 30 days of 

the completion of the renovation, 

provide identifying information as to 

the manufacturer and model of the test 

kits used, a description of the 

components that were tested including 

their locations, and the test kit results to 

the person who contracted for the 

renovation. 

(d) If dust clearance sampling is 

performed in lieu of cleaning 

verification as permitted by § 745.85(c), 

the renovation firm must provide, 

within 30 days of the completion of the 

renovation, a copy of the dust sampling 

report to the person who contracted for 

the renovation. 

■ 11. Section 745.87 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 745.87 Enforcement and inspections. 

* * * * * 

(e) Lead-based paint is assumed to be 

present at renovations covered by this 

subpart. EPA may conduct inspections 

and issue subpoenas pursuant to the 

provisions of TSCA section 11 (15 

U.S.C. 2610) to ensure compliance with 

this subpart. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21764 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 12. Section 745.88 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.88 Recognized test kits. 

(a) Effective June 23, 2008, EPA 

recognizes the test kits that have been 

determined by National Institute of 

Standards and Technology research to 

meet the negative response criteria 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. This recognition will last until 

EPA publicizes its recognition of the 

first test kit that meets both the negative 

response and positive response criteria 

in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) No other test kits will be 

recognized until they are tested through 

EPA’s Environmental Technology 

Verification Program or other equivalent 

EPA approved testing program. 

(1) Effective September 1, 2008, to 

initiate the testing process, a test kit 

manufacturer must submit a sufficient 

number of kits, along with the 

instructions for using the kits, to EPA. 

The test kit manufacturer should first 

visit the following website for 

information on where to apply:http:// 

www.epa.gov/etv/howtoapply.html. 

(2) After the kit has been tested 

through the Environmental Technology 

Verification Program or other equivalent 

approved EPA testing program, EPA 

will review the report to determine 

whether the required criteria have been 

met. 

(3) Before September 1, 2010, test kits 

must meet only the negative response 

criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. The recognition of kits that 

meet only this criteria will last until 

EPA publicizes its recognition of the 

first test kits that meets both of the 

criteria in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(4) After September 1, 2010, test kits 

must meet both of the criteria in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(5) If the report demonstrates that the 

kit meets the required criteria, EPA will 

issue a notice of recognition to the kit 

manufacturer, provide them with the 

report, and post the information on 

EPA’s website. 

(6) If the report demonstrates that the 

kit does not meet the required criteria, 

EPA will notify the kit manufacturer 

and provide them with the report. 

(c) Response criteria—(1) Negative 

response criteria. For paint containing 

lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 

mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight, a 

demonstrated probability (with 95% 

confidence) of a negative response less 

than or equal to 5% of the time. 

(2) Positive response criteria. For 

paint containing lead below the 

regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by 

weight, a demonstrated probability 

(with 95% confidence) of a positive 

response less than or equal to 10% of 

the time. 

■ 13. Section 745.89 is added to subpart 

E to read as follows: 

§ 745.89 Firm certification. 

(a) Initial certification. (1) Firms that 

perform renovations for compensation 

must apply to EPA for certification to 

perform renovations or dust sampling. 

To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a 

completed ‘‘Application for Firms,’’ 

signed by an authorized agent of the 

firm, and pay at least the correct amount 

of fees. If a firm pays more than the 

correct amount of fees, EPA will 

reimburse the firm for the excess 

amount. 

(2) After EPA receives a firm’s 

application, EPA will take one of the 

following actions within 90 days of the 

date the application is received: 

(i) EPA will approve a firm’s 

application if EPA determines that it is 

complete and that the environmental 

compliance history of the firm, its 

principals, or its key employees does 

not show an unwillingness or inability 

to maintain compliance with 

environmental statutes or regulations. 

An application is complete if it contains 

all of the information requested on the 

form and includes at least the correct 

amount of fees. When EPA approves a 

firm’s application, EPA will issue the 

firm a certificate with an expiration date 

not more than 5 years from the date the 

application is approved. EPA 

certification allows the firm to perform 

renovations covered by this section in 

any State or Indian Tribal area that does 

not have a renovation program that is 

authorized under subpart Q of this part. 

(ii) EPA will request a firm to 

supplement its application if EPA 

determines that the application is 

incomplete. If EPA requests a firm to 

supplement its application, the firm 

must submit the requested information 

or pay the additional fees within 30 

days of the date of the request. 

(iii) EPA will not approve a firm’s 

application if the firm does not 

supplement its application in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 

this section or if EPA determines that 

the environmental compliance history 

of the firm, its principals, or its key 

employees demonstrates an 

unwillingness or inability to maintain 

compliance with environmental statutes 

or regulations. EPA will send the firm 

a letter giving the reason for not 

approving the application. EPA will not 

refund the application fees. A firm may 

reapply for certification at any time by 

filing a new, complete application that 

includes the correct amount of fees. 

(b) Re-certification. To maintain its 

certification, a firm must be re-certified 

by EPA every 5 years. 

(1) Timely and complete application. 

To be re-certified, a firm must submit a 

complete application for re-certification. 

A complete application for recertification includes a completed 

‘‘Application for Firms’’ which contains 

all of the information requested by the 

form and is signed by an authorized 

agent of the firm, noting on the form 

that it is submitted as a re-certification. 

A complete application must also 

include at least the correct amount of 

fees. If a firm pays more than the correct 

amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the 

firm for the excess amount. 

(i) An application for re-certification 

is timely if it is postmarked 90 days or 

more before the date the firm’s current 

certification expires. If the firm’s 

application is complete and timely, the 

firm’s current certification will remain 

in effect until its expiration date or until 

EPA has made a final decision to 

approve or disapprove the recertification application, whichever is 

later. 

(ii) If the firm submits a complete recertification application less than 90 

days before its current certification 

expires, and EPA does not approve the 

application before the expiration date, 

the firm’s current certification will 

expire and the firm will not be able to 

conduct renovations until EPA approves 

its re-certification application. 

(iii) If the firm fails to obtain 

recertification before the firm’s current 

certification expires, the firm must not 

perform renovations or dust sampling 

until it is certified anew pursuant to 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) EPA action on an application. 

After EPA receives a firm’s application 

for re-certification, EPA will review the 

application and take one of the 

following actions within 90 days of 

receipt: 

(i) EPA will approve a firm’s 

application if EPA determines that it is 

timely and complete and that the 

environmental compliance history of 

the firm, its principals, or its key 

employees does not show an 

unwillingness or inability to maintain 

compliance with environmental statutes 

or regulations. When EPA approves a 

firm’s application for re-certification, 

EPA will issue the firm a new certificate 

with an expiration date 5 years from the 

date that the firm’s current certification 

expires. EPA certification allows the 

firm to perform renovations or dust 

sampling covered by this section in any 

State or Indian Tribal area that does not 

have a renovation program that is 

authorized under subpart Q of this part. 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21765 

(ii) EPA will request a firm to 

supplement its application if EPA 

determines that the application is 

incomplete. 

(iii) EPA will not approve a firm’s 

application if it is not received or is not 

complete as of the date that the firm’s 

current certification expires, or if EPA 

determines that the environmental 

compliance history of the firm, its 

principals, or its key employees 

demonstrates an unwillingness or 

inability to maintain compliance with 

environmental statutes or regulations. 

EPA will send the firm a letter giving 

the reason for not approving the 

application. EPA will not refund the 

application fees. A firm may reapply for 

certification at any time by filing a new 

application and paying the correct 

amount of fees. 

(c) Amendment of certification. A 

firm must amend its certification within 

90 days of the date a change occurs to 

information included in the firm’s most 

recent application. If the firm fails to 

amend its certification within 90 days of 

the date the change occurs, the firm may 

not perform renovations or dust 

sampling until its certification is 

amended. 

(1) To amend a certification, a firm 

must submit a completed ‘‘Application 

for Firms,’’ signed by an authorized 

agent of the firm, noting on the form 

that it is submitted as an amendment 

and indicating the information that has 

changed. The firm must also pay at least 

the correct amount of fees. 

(2) If additional information is needed 

to process the amendment, or the firm 

did not pay the correct amount of fees, 

EPA will request the firm to submit the 

necessary information or fees. The 

firm’s certification is not amended until 

the firm complies with the request. 

(3) Amending a certification does not 

affect the certification expiration date. 

(d) Firm responsibilities. Firms 

performing renovations must ensure 

that: 

(1) All individuals performing 

renovation activities on behalf of the 

firm are either certified renovators or 

have been trained by a certified 

renovator in accordance with § 745.90. 

(2) A certified renovator is assigned to 

each renovation performed by the firm 

and discharges all of the certified 

renovator responsibilities identified in 

§ 745.90. 

(3) All renovations performed by the 

firm are performed in accordance with 

the work practice standards in § 745.85. 

(4) The pre-renovation education 

requirements of § 745.84 have been 

performed. 

(5) The recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 745.86 are met. 

■ 14. Section 745.90 is added to subpart 

E to read as follows: 

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust 

sampling technician certification. 

(a) Renovator certification and dust 

sampling technician certification. (1) To 

become a certified renovator or certified 

dust sampling technician, an individual 

must successfully complete the 

appropriate course accredited by EPA 

under § 745.225 or by a State or Tribal 

program that is authorized under 

subpart Q of this part. The course 

completion certificate serves as proof of 

certification. EPA renovator certification 

allows the certified individual to 

perform renovations covered by this 

section in any State or Indian Tribal 

area that does not have a renovation 

program that is authorized under 

subpart Q of this part. EPA dust 

sampling technician certification allows 

the certified individual to perform dust 

clearance sampling under § 745.85(c) in 

any State or Indian Tribal area that does 

not have a renovation program that is 

authorized under subpart Q of this part. 

(2) Individuals who have successfully 

completed an accredited abatement 

worker or supervisor course, or 

individuals who have successfully 

completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD 

model renovation training course may 

take an accredited refresher renovator 

training course in lieu of the initial 

renovator training course to become a 

certified renovator. 

(3) Individuals who have successfully 

completed an accredited lead-based 

paint inspector or risk assessor course 

may take an accredited refresher dust 

sampling technician course in lieu of 

the initial training to become a certified 

dust sampling technician. 

(4) To maintain renovator certification 

or dust sampling technician 

certification, an individual must 

complete a renovator or dust sampling 

technician refresher course accredited 

by EPA under § 745.225 or by a State or 

Tribal program that is authorized under 

subpart Q of this part within 5 years of 

the date the individual completed the 

initial course described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. If the individual 

does not complete a refresher course 

within this time, the individual must retake the initial course to become 

certified again. 

(b) Renovator responsibilities. 

Certified renovators are responsible for 

ensuring compliance with § 745.85 at all 

renovations to which they are assigned. 

A certified renovator: 

(1) Must perform all of the tasks 

described in § 745.85(b) and must either 

perform or direct workers who perform 

all of the tasks described in § 745.85(a). 

(2) Must provide training to workers 

on the work practices they will be using 

in performing their assigned tasks. 

(3) Must be physically present at the 

work site when the signs required by 

§ 745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work 

area containment required by 

§ 745.85(a)(2) is being established, and 

while the work area cleaning required 

by § 745.85(a)(5) is performed. 

(4) Must regularly direct work being 

performed by other individuals to 

ensure that the work practices are being 

followed, including maintaining the 

integrity of the containment barriers and 

ensuring that dust or debris does not 

spread beyond the work area. 

(5) Must be available, either on-site or 

by telephone, at all times that 

renovations are being conducted. 

(6) When requested by the party 

contracting for renovation services, 

must use an acceptable test kit to 

determine whether components to be 

affected by the renovation contain leadbased paint. 

(7) Must have with them at the work 

site copies of their initial course 

completion certificate and their most 

recent refresher course completion 

certificate. 

(8) Must prepare the records required 

by § 745.86(b)(7). 

(c) Dust sampling technician 

responsibilities. When performing 

optional dust clearance sampling under 

§ 745.85(c), a certified dust sampling 

technician: 

(1) Must collect dust samples in 

accordance with § 745.227(e)(8), must 

send the collected samples to a 

laboratory recognized by EPA under 

TSCA section 405(b), and must compare 

the results to the clearance levels in 

accordance with § 745.227(e)(8). 

(2) Must have with them at the work 

site copies of their initial course 

completion certificate and their most 

recent refresher course completion 

certificate. 

■ 15. Section 745.91 is added to subpart 

E to read as follows: 

§ 745.91 Suspending, revoking, or 

modifying an individual’s or firm’s 

certification. 

(a)(1) Grounds for suspending, 

revoking, or modifying an individual’s 

certification. EPA may suspend, revoke, 

or modify an individual’s certification if 

the individual fails to comply with 

Federal lead-based paint statutes or 

regulations. EPA may also suspend, 

revoke, or modify a certified renovator’s 

certification if the renovator fails to 

ensure that all assigned renovations 

comply with § 745.85. In addition to an 

administrative or judicial finding of 

violation, execution of a consent 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21766 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

agreement in settlement of an 

enforcement action constitutes, for 

purposes of this section, evidence of a 

failure to comply with relevant statutes 

or regulations. 

(2) Grounds for suspending, revoking, 

or modifying a firm’s certification. EPA 

may suspend, revoke, or modify a firm’s 

certification if the firm: 

(i) Submits false or misleading 

information to EPA in its application for 

certification or re-certification. 

(ii) Fails to maintain or falsifies 

records required in § 745.86. 

(iii) Fails to comply, or an individual 

performing a renovation on behalf of the 

firm fails to comply, with Federal leadbased paint statutes or regulations. In 

addition to an administrative or judicial 

finding of violation, execution of a 

consent agreement in settlement of an 

enforcement action constitutes, for 

purposes of this section, evidence of a 

failure to comply with relevant statutes 

or regulations. 

(b) Process for suspending, revoking, 

or modifying certification. (1) Prior to 

taking action to suspend, revoke, or 

modify an individual’s or firm’s 

certification, EPA will notify the 

affected entity in writing of the 

following: 

(i) The legal and factual basis for the 

proposed suspension, revocation, or 

modification. 

(ii) The anticipated commencement 

date and duration of the suspension, 

revocation, or modification. 

(iii) Actions, if any, which the 

affected entity may take to avoid 

suspension, revocation, or modification, 

or to receive certification in the future. 

(iv) The opportunity and method for 

requesting a hearing prior to final 

suspension, revocation, or modification. 

(2) If an individual or firm requests a 

hearing, EPA will: 

(i) Provide the affected entity an 

opportunity to offer written statements 

in response to EPA’s assertions of the 

legal and factual basis for its proposed 

action. 

(ii) Appoint an impartial official of 

EPA as Presiding Officer to conduct the 

hearing. 

(3) The Presiding Officer will: 

(i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and 

impartial hearing within 90 days of the 

request for a hearing. 

(ii) Consider all relevant evidence, 

explanation, comment, and argument 

submitted. 

(iii) Notify the affected entity in 

writing within 90 days of completion of 

the hearing of his or her decision and 

order. Such an order is a final agency 

action which may be subject to judicial 

review. The order must contain the 

commencement date and duration of the 

suspension, revocation, or modification. 

(4) If EPA determines that the public 

health, interest, or welfare warrants 

immediate action to suspend the 

certification of any individual or firm 

prior to the opportunity for a hearing, it 

will: 

(i) Notify the affected entity in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

through (b)(1)(iii) of this section, 

explaining why it is necessary to 

suspend the entity’s certification before 

an opportunity for a hearing. 

(ii) Notify the affected entity of its 

right to request a hearing on the 

immediate suspension within 15 days of 

the suspension taking place and the 

procedures for the conduct of such a 

hearing. 

(5) Any notice, decision, or order 

issued by EPA under this section, any 

transcript or other verbatim record of 

oral testimony, and any documents filed 

by a certified individual or firm in a 

hearing under this section will be 

available to the public, except as 

otherwise provided by section 14 of 

TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any such 

hearing at which oral testimony is 

presented will be open to the public, 

except that the Presiding Officer may 

exclude the public to the extent 

necessary to allow presentation of 

information which may be entitled to 

confidential treatment under section 14 

of TSCA or part 2 of this title. 

(6) EPA will maintain a publicly 

available list of entities whose 

certification has been suspended, 

revoked, modified, or reinstated. 

(7) Unless the decision and order 

issued under paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this 

section specify otherwise: 

(i) An individual whose certification 

has been suspended must take a 

refresher training course (renovator or 

dust sampling technician) in order to 

make his or her certification current. 

(ii) An individual whose certification 

has been revoked must take an initial 

renovator or dust sampling technician 

course in order to become certified 

again. 

(iii) A firm whose certification has 

been revoked must reapply for 

certification after the revocation ends in 

order to become certified again. If the 

firm’s certification has been suspended 

and the suspension ends less than 5 

years after the firm was initially 

certified or re-certified, the firm does 

not need to do anything to re-activate its 

certification. 

■ 16. Section 745.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 745.220 Scope and applicability. 

(a) This subpart contains procedures 

and requirements for the accreditation 

of training programs for lead-based 

paint activities and renovations, 

procedures and requirements for the 

certification of individuals and firms 

engaged in lead-based paint activities, 

and work practice standards for 

performing such activities. This subpart 

also requires that, except as discussed 

below, all lead-based paint activities, as 

defined in this subpart, be performed by 

certified individuals and firms. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 745.225 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a). 

■ b. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (b), revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii), 

and add paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C). 

■ c. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (c), add paragraphs (c)(6)(vi), 

(c)(6)(vii), (c)(8)(vi), and (c)(8)(vii), and 

revise paragraphs (c)(8)(iv) and (c)(10). 

■ d. Remove the phrase ‘‘lead-based 

paint activities’’ and add in its place the 

phrase ‘‘renovator, dust sampling 

technician, or lead-based paint 

activities’’ wherever it appears in 

paragraph (c)(13). 

■ e. Add paragraph (c)(14)(ii)(D)(6). 

■ f. Add paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7). 

■ g. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (e). 

■ h. Remove the word ‘‘activities’’ 

wherever it appears in paragraph (e)(1). 

■ i. Revise paragraph (e)(2). 

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training 

programs; target housing and childoccupied facilities. 

(a) Scope. (1) A training program may 

seek accreditation to offer courses in 

any of the following disciplines: 

Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, 

project designer, abatement worker, 

renovator, and dust sampling 

technician. A training program may also 

seek accreditation to offer refresher 

courses for each of the above listed 

disciplines. 

(2) Training programs may first apply 

to EPA for accreditation of their leadbased paint activities courses or 

refresher courses pursuant to this 

section on or after August 31, 1998. 

Training programs may first apply to 

EPA for accreditation of their renovator 

or dust sampling technician courses or 

refresher courses pursuant to this 

section on or after April 22, 2009. 

(3) A training program must not 

provide, offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited lead-based paint activities 

courses without applying for and 

receiving accreditation from EPA as 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section on or after March 1, 1999. A 

training program must not provide, 

offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited renovator or dust sampling 

technician courses without applying for 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21767 

and receiving accreditation from EPA as 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section on or after June 23, 2008. 

(b) Application process. The 

following are procedures a training 

program must follow to receive EPA 

accreditation to offer lead-based paint 

activities courses, renovator courses, or 

dust sampling technician courses: 

(1) * * * 

(ii) A list of courses for which it is 

applying for accreditation. For the 

purposes of this section, courses taught 

in different languages are considered 

different courses, and each must 

independently meet the accreditation 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(C) When applying for accreditation of 

a course in a language other than 

English, a signed statement from a 

qualified, independent translator that 

they had compared the course to the 

English language version and found the 

translation to be accurate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Requirements for the accreditation 

of training programs. For a training 

program to obtain accreditation from 

EPA to offer lead-based paint activities 

courses, renovator courses, or dust 

sampling technician courses, the 

program must meet the following 

requirements: 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(vi) The renovator course must last a 

minimum of 8 training hours, with a 

minimum of 2 hours devoted to handson training activities. The minimum 

curriculum requirements for the 

renovator course are contained in 

paragraph (d)(6) of this section. Handson training activities must cover 

renovation methods that minimize the 

creation of dust and lead-based paint 

hazards, interior and exterior 

containment and cleanup methods, and 

post-renovation cleaning verification. 

(vii) The dust sampling technician 

course must last a minimum of 8 

training hours, with a minimum of 2 

hours devoted to hands-on training 

activities. The minimum curriculum 

requirements for the dust sampling 

technician course are contained in 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section. Handson training activities must cover dust 

sampling methodologies. 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, 

project designer, supervisor, or 

abatement worker course completion 

certificates, the expiration date of 

interim certification, which is 6 months 

from the date of course completion. 

* * * * * 

(vi) The language in which the course 

was taught. 

(vii) For renovator and dust sampling 

technician course completion 

certificates, a photograph of the 

individual. 

* * * * * 

(10) Courses offered by the training 

program must teach the work practice 

standards contained in § 745.85 or 

§ 745.227, as applicable, in such a 

manner that trainees are provided with 

the knowledge needed to perform the 

renovations or lead-based paint 

activities they will be responsible for 

conducting. 

* * * * * 

(14) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(6) A digital photograph of the 

student. 

(d) * * * 

(6) Renovator. (i) Role and 

responsibility of a renovator. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on EPA, 

HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, 

and local regulations and guidance that 

pertains to lead-based paint and 

renovation activities. 

(iv) Procedures for using acceptable 

test kits to determine whether paint is 

lead-based paint. 

(v) Renovation methods to minimize 

the creation of dust and lead-based 

paint hazards. 

(vi) Interior and exterior containment 

and cleanup methods. 

(vii) Methods to ensure that the 

renovation has been properly 

completed, including cleaning 

verification, and clearance testing. 

(viii) Waste handling and disposal. 

(ix) Providing on-the-job training to 

other workers. 

(x) Record preparation. 

(7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role 

and responsibility of a dust sampling 

technician. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on 

Federal, State, and local regulations and 

guidance that pertains to lead-based 

paint and renovation activities. 

(iv) Dust sampling methodologies. 

(v) Clearance standards and testing. 

(vi) Report preparation. 

* * * * * 

(e) Requirements for the accreditation 

of refresher training programs. A 

training program may seek accreditation 

to offer refresher training courses in any 

of the following disciplines: Inspector, 

risk assessor, supervisor, project 

designer, abatement worker, renovator, 

and dust sampling technician. To obtain 

EPA accreditation to offer refresher 

training, a training program must meet 

the following minimum requirements: 

* * * * * 

(2) Refresher courses for inspector, 

risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement 

worker must last a minimum of 8 

training hours. Refresher courses for 

project designer, renovator, and dust 

sampling technician must last a 

minimum of 4 training hours. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 745.320 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 745.320 Scope and purpose. 

* * * * * 

(c) A State or Indian Tribe may seek 

authorization to administer and enforce 

all of the provisions of subpart E of this 

part, just the pre-renovation education 

provisions of subpart E of this part, or 

just the training, certification, 

accreditation, and work practice 

provisions of subpart E of this part. The 

provisions of §§ 745.324 and 745.326 

apply for the purposes of such program 

authorizations. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Section 745.324 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(1). 

■ b. Remove the phrase ‘‘lead-based 

paint training accreditation and 

certification’’ from the second sentence 

of paragraph (b)(1)(iii). 

■ c. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii). 

■ d. Revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and 

(e)(4). 

■ e. Revise paragraph (f)(2). 

■ f. Revise paragraph (i)(8). 

§ 745.324 Authorization of State or Tribal 

programs. 

(a) Application content and 

procedures. (1) Any State or Indian 

Tribe that seeks authorization from EPA 

to administer and enforce the provisions 

of subpart E or subpart L of this part 

must submit an application to the 

Administrator in accordance with this 

paragraph. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) An analysis of the State or Tribal 

program that compares the program to 

the Federal program in subpart E or 

subpart L of this part, or both. This 

analysis must demonstrate how the 

program is, in the State’s or Indian 

Tribe’s assessment, at least as protective 

as the elements in the Federal program 

at subpart E or subpart L of this part, or 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21768 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

both. EPA will use this analysis to 

evaluate the protectiveness of the State 

or Tribal program in making its 

determination pursuant to paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The State or Tribal program is at 

least as protective of human health and 

the environment as the corresponding 

Federal program under subpart E or 

subpart L of this part, or both; and 

* * * * * 

(4) If the State or Indian Tribe applies 

for authorization of State or Tribal 

programs under both subpart E and 

subpart L, EPA may, as appropriate, 

authorize one program and disapprove 

the other. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) If a State or Indian Tribe does not 

have an authorized program to 

administer and enforce the prerenovation education requirements of 

subpart E of this part by August 31, 

1998, the Administrator will, by such 

date, enforce those provisions of subpart 

E of this part as the Federal program for 

that State or Indian Country. If a State 

or Indian Tribe does not have an 

authorized program to administer and 

enforce the training, certification and 

accreditation requirements and work 

practice standards of subpart E of this 

part by April 22, 2009, the 

Administrator will, by such date, 

enforce those provisions of subpart E of 

this part as the Federal program for that 

State or Indian Country. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(8) By the date of such order, the 

Administrator will establish and enforce 

the provisions of subpart E or subpart L 

of this part, or both, as the Federal 

program for that State or Indian 

Country. 

■ 20. Section 745.326 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal 

program requirements. 

(a) Program elements. To receive 

authorization from EPA, a State or 

Tribal program must contain the 

following program elements: 

(1) For pre-renovation education 

programs, procedures and requirements 

for the distribution of lead hazard 

information to owners and occupants of 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities before renovations for 

compensation. 

(2) For renovation training, 

certification, accreditation, and work 

practice standards programs: 

(i) Procedures and requirements for 

the accreditation of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training programs. 

(ii) Procedures and requirements for 

the certification of renovators and dust 

sampling technicians. 

(iii) Procedures and requirements for 

the certification of individuals and/or 

firms. 

(iv) Requirements that all renovations 

be conducted by appropriately certified 

individuals and/or firms. 

(v) Work practice standards for the 

conduct of renovations. 

(3) For all renovation programs, 

development of the appropriate 

infrastructure or government capacity to 

effectively carry out a State or Tribal 

program. 

(b) Pre-renovation education. To be 

considered at least as protective as the 

Federal program, the State or Tribal 

program must: 

(1) Establish clear standards for 

identifying renovation activities that 

trigger the information distribution 

requirements. 

(2) Establish procedures for 

distributing the lead hazard information 

to owners and occupants of housing and 

child-occupied facilities prior to 

renovation activities. 

(3) Require that the information to be 

distributed include either the pamphlet 

titled Renovate Right: Important Lead 

Hazard Information for Families, Child 

Care Providers and Schools, developed 

by EPA under section 406(a) of TSCA, 

or an alternate pamphlet or package of 

lead hazard information that has been 

submitted by the State or Tribe, 

reviewed by EPA, and approved by EPA 

for that State or Tribe. Such information 

must contain renovation-specific 

information similar to that in Renovate 

Right: Important Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools, must meet the 

content requirements prescribed by 

section 406(a) of TSCA, and must be in 

a format that is readable to the diverse 

audience of housing and child-occupied 

facility owners and occupants in that 

State or Tribe. 

(i) A State or Tribe with a prerenovation education program approved 

before June 23, 2008, must demonstrate 

that it meets the requirements of this 

section no later than the first report that 

it submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) on or 

after April 22, 2009. 

(ii) A State or Tribe with an 

application for approval of a prerenovation education program 

submitted but not approved before June 

23, 2008, must demonstrate that it meets 

the requirements of this section either 

by amending its application or in the 

first report that it submits pursuant 

to§ 745.324(h) of this part on or after 

April 22, 2009. 

(iii) A State or Indian Tribe 

submitting its application for approval 

of a pre-renovation education program 

on or after June 23, 2008, must 

demonstrate in its application that it 

meets the requirements of this section. 

(c) Accreditation of training programs. 

To be considered at least as protective 

as the Federal program, the State or 

Tribal program must meet the 

requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) 

or (c)(2) of this section: 

(1) The State or Tribal program must 

establish accreditation procedures and 

requirements, including: 

(i) Procedures and requirements for 

the accreditation of training programs, 

including, but not limited to: 

(A) Training curriculum 

requirements. 

(B) Training hour requirements. 

(C) Hands-on training requirements. 

(D) Trainee competency and 

proficiency requirements. 

(E) Requirements for training program 

quality control. 

(ii) Procedures and requirements for 

the re-accreditation of training 

programs. 

(iii) Procedures for the oversight of 

training programs. 

(iv) Procedures and standards for the 

suspension, revocation, or modification 

of training program accreditations; or 

(2) The State or Tribal program must 

establish procedures and requirements 

for the acceptance of renovation training 

offered by training providers accredited 

by EPA or a State or Tribal program 

authorized by EPA under this subpart. 

(d) Certification of renovators. To be 

considered at least as protective as the 

Federal program, the State or Tribal 

program must: 

(1) Establish procedures and 

requirements for individual certification 

that ensure that certified renovators are 

trained by an accredited training 

program. 

(2) Establish procedures and 

requirements for re-certification. 

(3) Establish procedures for the 

suspension, revocation, or modification 

of certifications. 

(e) Work practice standards for 

renovations. To be considered at least as 

protective as the Federal program, the 

State or Tribal program must establish 

standards that ensure that renovations 

are conducted reliably, effectively, and 

safely. At a minimum, the State or 

Tribal program must contain the 

following requirements: 

(1) Renovations must be conducted 

only by certified contractors. 

(2) Renovations are conducted using 

lead-safe work practices that are at least 

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 21769 

as protective to occupants as the 

requirements in § 745.85. 

(3) Certified contractors must retain 

appropriate records. 

■ 21. Section 745.327 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and 

(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based 

paint compliance and enforcement 

programs. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Requirements that regulate the 

conduct of renovation activities as 

described at § 745.326. 

(2) * * * 

(ii) For the purposes of enforcing a 

renovation program, State or Tribal 

officials must be able to enter a firm’s 

place of business or work site. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Section 745.339 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.339 Effective date. 

States and Indian Tribes may seek 

authorization to administer and enforce 

subpart L of this part pursuant to this 

subpart at any time. States and Indian 

Tribes may seek authorization to 

administer and enforce the prerenovation education provisions of 

subpart E of this part pursuant to this 

subpart at any time. States and Indian 

Tribes may seek authorization to 

administer and enforce all of subpart E 

of this part pursuant to this subpart 

effective June 23, 2008. 

[FR Doc. E8–8141 Filed 4–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2004–0126; FRL–8358–6] 

Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; 

Notice of Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 


Agency (EPA). 


ACTION: Notice of availability. 


SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of EPA’s new lead hazard 

information pamphlet for renovation 

activities, Renovate Right: Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools (Renovate Right). 

There is an increased risk of exposure 

to lead-based paint hazards during 

renovation activities, particularly for 

children under 6 years of age. To better 

inform families, child care providers, 

and schools about the risks and to 

encourage greater public health and 

safety during renovation activities in 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities, EPA has developed a 

renovation-specific information 

pamphlet. This new pamphlet gives 

information on lead-based paint 

hazards, lead testing, how to select a 

contractor, what precautions to take 

during the renovation, and proper 

cleanup activities. 

DATES: After June 23, 2008, the new 

pamphlet or Protect Your Family From 

Lead in Your Home may be used for 

compliance with the Pre-Renovation 

Education Rule under TSCA section 

406(b). After December 22, 2008, the 

new pamphlet must be used 

exclusively. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Mike Wilson, National Program 

Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number (201) 566– 

0521; e-mail address: 

wilson.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you perform renovations of 

target housing or child-occupied 

facilities for compensation. ‘‘Target 

housing’’ is defined in section 401 of 

TSCA as any housing constructed prior 

to 1978, except housing for the elderly 

or persons with disabilities (unless any 

child under age 6 resides or is expected 

to reside in such housing) or any 0-

bedroom dwelling. EPA’s Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting rule defines a 

child-occupied facility as a building, or 

a portion of a building, constructed 

prior to 1978, visited regularly by the 

same child, under 6 years of age, on at 

least 2 different days within any week 

(Sunday through Saturday period), 

provided that each day’s visit lasts at 

least 3 hours and the combined weekly 

visits last at least 6 hours, and the 

combined annual visits last at least 60 

hours. Child-occupied facilities may be 

located in public or commercial 

buildings or in target housing. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Building construction (NAICS 

code 236), e.g., single family housing 

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

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

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

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

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary 

schools with kindergarten classrooms. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

40 CFR 745.82. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the technical person listed under FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of the 

Pamphlet and Other Related 

Information? 

1. The pamphlet. Single copies of the 

pamphlet may be obtained by calling 

the National Lead Information 

Clearinghouse (NLIC) at 1–800–424– 

LEAD or TDD: 1–800–526–5456, or the 

EPA Public Information Center at (202) 

260–2080. Multiple copies are available 

through the Government Printing Office 

(GPO). The public may order by calling 

the GPO Order Desk at (202) 512–1800, 

faxing (202) 512–2233, or writing to 

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 

371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954. 

Request the publication by title, 

Renovate Right: Lead Hazard 

Information for Families, Child Care 

Providers and Schools. The pamphlet is 

also available on EPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/lead. The pamphlet 

may be reproduced by an individual or 

corporation without permission from 

EPA.