55506 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1We note that on January 30, 2009, the litigants 

notified EPA by letter that they believed the Agency 

had discharged its obligation under the consent 

decree and that ‘‘further review of the rule pursuant 

to the Emanuel memo will not violate the consent 

decree.’’ 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

those sources. The EPA is then required 

to review these technology-based 

standards and to revise them ‘‘as 

necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). The second stage 

in standard-setting focuses on reducing 

any remaining ‘‘residual’’ risk according 

to CAA section 112(f). 

On January 16, 2009, then 

Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a 

final rule amending the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries 

and the signed rule was made publicly 

available on EPA’s Web site. The signed 

rule included several different actions. 

First, it promulgated maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards under sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for heat exchange systems, which 

EPA had not addressed in the original 

Refinery MACT 1 rule. Second, 

pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the 

rule addressed residual risk for all 

Refinery MACT 1 sources, including 

heat exchange systems, and it addressed 

the technology review pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(6) for all sources 

addressed in the original Refinery 

MACT 1 rule. Additionally, we updated 

the table in the Refinery MACT 1 

standards (Table 6) that cross-references 

the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart A, and made a few 

additional clarifications to dates and 

cross-references in the Refinery MACT 1 

standards. 

The signed rule was submitted to the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. Rahm Emanuel, Assistant 

to the President and Chief of Staff, 

issued a memorandum on January 20, 

2009, directing Agencies to withdraw 

from the Office of the Federal Register 

‘‘all proposed or final regulations that 

have not been published in the Federal 

Register so that they can be reviewed 

and approved by a department or 

agency head.’’ Although there was an 

exception for ‘‘regulations subject to 

statutory or judicial deadlines,’’ the 

Agency chose not to apply the exception 

in this case. One portion of the final 

rule, the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, 

was performed pursuant to the terms of 

a Consent Decree, which, as modified, 

required that by January 16, 2009, EPA 

‘‘shall sign and promptly forward to the 

Federal Register for publication either 

final revisions to the standards for 

petroleum refineries in 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart CC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

7412(d)(6) or a final determination that 

no revisions are necessary.’’ Former 

Administrator Stephen Johnson signed 

the rule on January 16, 2009, and 

promptly forwarded it to the Federal 

Register office, thus, fulfilling this 

obligation.1

Upon further review, EPA has 

determined that the residual risk and 

technology reviews may not accurately 

characterize the risk posed by this 

source category. We recently responded 

to a Request for Correction under EPA’s 

Information Quality Guidelines from the 

City of Houston. (Letter to U.S. EPA 

Information Quality Guidelines staff 

from the Honorable Bill White, Mayor of 

Houston, July 9, 2008.) In that response, 

we recognized that we are currently 

taking action (and plan to take 

additional action) to gather better 

emissions information from the refining 

industry. Additionally, we note that 

during the comment period on the 

proposed rule, similar issues were 

raised concerning the representativeness 

of the emissions data, and whether they 

provide an accurate basis for 

characterizing the risks posed. 

Accordingly, after additional 

consideration of these issues, we believe 

it is necessary to withdraw the rule that 

was signed on January 16, 2009, so that 

we may develop a more robust analysis 

based on the improved information we 

are developing. 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to 

withdraw the signed final rule that 

included the residual risk and 

technology review for Refinery MACT 1 

sources to provide the Agency with time 

to collect additional data and perform 

these analyses. Once EPA has 

undertaken these activities, we will 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment on a new proposed rule that 

would be issued. 

Simultaneous with the issuance of 

this proposal, we are publishing in the 

Federal Register a final rule identical in 

substance to that signed on January 16, 

2009, for: (1) The technology-based 

MACT standards for heat exchange 

systems under section 112(d)(2) and (3) 

of the CAA; (2) revisions to Table 6 of 

the existing Refinery MACT 1 rule 

(subpart CC), which describes the 

application of the NESHAP General 

Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A 

to subpart CC; and (3) the other 

conforming changes and corrections that 

were included as part of the January 16, 

2009 rule. The portions of the January 

16, 2009 rule that are being published 

as a final rule are included in a new 

Federal Register notice signed by 

Administrator Jackson and, regarding 

those issues, are identical in substance 

to the final rule that was signed by 

former Administrator Stephen Johnson. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 15, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–25453 Filed 10–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–8795–9] 

RIN 2070–AJ55 

Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and 

Recordkeeping Provisions in the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing several 

revisions to the Lead Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule 

that published in the Federal Register 

on April 22, 2008. The rule establishes 

accreditation, training, certification, and 

recordkeeping requirements as well as 

work practice standards on persons 

performing renovations for 

compensation in most pre-1978 housing 

and child-occupied facilities. In this 

document, EPA is proposing to 

eliminate the ‘‘opt-out’’ provision that 

currently exempts a renovation firm 

from the training and work practice 

requirements of the rule where the firm 

obtains a certification from the owner of 

a residence he or she occupies that no 

child under age 6 or pregnant women 

resides in the home and the home is not 

a child-occupied facility. EPA is also 

proposing to require renovation firms to 

provide a copy of the records 

demonstrating compliance with the 

training and work practice requirements 

of the RRP rule to the owner and, if 

different, the occupant of the building 

being renovated or the operator of the 

child-occupied facility. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049, by 

one of the following methods: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55507 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2005–0049. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., 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 

legal 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: 

Marc Edmonds, National Program 

Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (202) 566– 

0758; e-mail address: 

edmonds.marc@epa.gov. 

Hearing- or speech-challenged 

individuals may access the numbers in 

this unit through TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you operate a training 

program required to be accredited under 

40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who 

must be certified to conduct renovation 

activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.89, or if you are a professional 

(individual or firm) who must be 

certified to conduct lead-based paint 

activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.226. 

This proposed rule applies only in 

States, Territories, and Indian Tribal 

areas that do not have authorized 

programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. 

For further information regarding the 

authorization status of States, 

Territories, and Indian Tribes, contact 

the National Lead Information Center 

(NLIC) at 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. 

Hearing- or speech-challenged 

individuals may access this number 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877– 

8339. Potentially affected categories and 

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. 

• Lead abatement professionals 

(NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and 

supervisors engaged in lead-based paint 

activities. 

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 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 

CFR 745.226. 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55508 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 

as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Agency’s Authority for Taking this 

Action 

This proposed rule is being issued 

under the authority of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) sections 

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

2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 

B. Introduction 

In the Federal Register issue of April 

22, 2008, under the authority of sections 

402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, 

EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). 

The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR 

part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses 

lead-based paint hazards created by 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities that disturb painted surfaces 

in target housing and child-occupied 

facilities. 

Shortly after the RRP rule was 

published, several petitions were filed 

challenging the rule. These petitions 

were consolidated in the Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed 

an agreement with the environmental 

and children’s health advocacy groups 

in settlement of their petitions. In this 

agreement EPA committed to propose 

several changes to the RRP rule, 

including the changes discussed in this 

document. 

The RRP 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 the new renovation 

requirements. More information on the 

RRP rule may be found in the Federal 

Register document announcing the RRP 

rule or on EPA’s website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/ 

renovation.htm. 

Many provisions of the RRP rule were 

derived from the existing lead-based 

paint activities regulations at 40 CFR 

part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). These 

existing regulations were promulgated 

in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), 

which defines lead-based paint 

activities in target housing as 

inspections, risk assessments, and 

abatements. The 1996 regulations cover 

lead-based paint activities in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities, 

along with limited screening activities 

called lead hazard screens. These 

regulations established an accreditation 

program for training providers and a 

certification program for individuals 

and firms performing these activities. 

Training course accreditation and 

individual certification was made 

available in five disciplines: Inspector, 

risk assessor, project designer, 

abatement supervisor, and abatement 

worker. In addition, these lead-based 

paint activities regulations established 

work practice standards and 

recordkeeping requirements for leadbased paint activities in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities. 

The RRP rule created two new 

training disciplines in the field of leadbased paint: Renovator and dust 

sampling technician. Persons who 

successfully complete renovator training 

from an accredited training provider are 

certified renovators. Certified renovators 

are responsible for ensuring that 

renovations to which they are assigned 

are performed in compliance with the 

work practice requirements set out in 40 

CFR 745.85. Persons who successfully 

complete dust sampling technician 

training from an accredited training 

provider are certified dust sampling 

technicians. Certified dust sampling 

technicians may be called upon to 

collect dust samples after renovation 

activities have been completed. 

The RRP 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 

followed. 

C. Opt-out Provision 

The RRP rule included a provision 

that exempts a renovation firm from the 

training and work practice requirements 

of the rule where the firm obtains a 

certification from the owner of a 

residence he or she occupies that no 

child under age 6 or pregnant women 

resides in the home and the home is not 

a child-occupied facility. Unless the 

target housing meets the definition of a 

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

child under age 6 and no pregnant 

woman reside there and an 

acknowledgment that the renovation 

firm will not be required to use the leadsafe work practices contained in EPA’s 

RRP rule, the renovation activity is not 

subject to 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 age 6 or no pregnant women 

reside there), or if the owner-occupant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55509 

chooses not sign the opt-out 

certification and acknowledgement for 

other reasons, the renovation is subject 

to the requirements of the RRP rule. 

After further consideration of the optout provision, the Agency believes it is 

in the best interest of the public to 

remove the provision. EPA has decided 

it is important to require the RRP work 

practices and training and certification 

requirements in target housing even if 

there is no child under age 6 or pregnant 

woman residing there. While the RRP 

rule focused mainly on protecting young 

children and pregnant women from lead 

hazards, exposure can result in adverse 

health effects for older children and 

adults as well. By removing the opt-out 

provision the rule will go farther toward 

protecting older children and adults 

occupants of target housing where no 

child under age 6 or pregnant woman 

resides. 

In addition, the opt-out provision may 

not be sufficiently protective for 

children under age 6 and pregnant 

women, the vulnerable populations 

identified in the RRP rule, given that no 

known safe level of lead exposure has 

been identified. The potential adverse 

health effects of lead exposure are 

explained in the preamble to the RRP 

final rule (Ref. 1, p. 21693). As pointed 

out by a number of commenters on the 

RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not 

protect families with young children 

who may purchase recently renovated 

target housing. Removal of the opt-out 

will result in fewer homes being 

purchased with pre-existing lead 

hazards. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out 

provision was limited to owneroccupied target housing and did not 

extend to vacant rental housing because 

of the concern that future tenants could 

unknowingly move into a rental unit 

where dust-lead hazards created by the 

renovation are present. In the same way, 

dust-lead hazards created during 

renovations in an owner-occupied 

residence conducted prior to a sale will 

be present for the next occupants. It is 

common for home owners to perform 

activities that disturb paint before 

selling a house, thus increasing the 

likelihood of lead hazards being present 

for someone buying a home, which may 

include a family with a child under age 

6 or a pregnant woman. 

Renovations performed under the optout provision are also likely to result in 

exposures for vulnerable populations in 

other ways. Visiting children who do 

not spend enough time in the housing 

to render it a child-occupied facility 

may nevertheless be exposed to lead 

from playing in dust-lead hazards 

created by renovations. For example, 

children may spend time in the homes 

of grandparents, but those homes may 

be eligible for the opt-out provision of 

the RRP rule. A homeowner who signs 

an opt-out statement may not realize 

that she is pregnant. Eliminating the 

opt-out provision will also protect 

families with young children residing 

near or adjacent to homes undergoing 

renovations. Under the RRP rule, an 

owner occupant can take advantage of 

the opt-out provision even if a child 

under age 6 or a pregnant woman lives 

in an adjacent home. Renovations on the 

exterior of a residence can spread 

leaded dust and debris some distance 

from the renovation activity, which is 

why, for regulated renovations, EPA 

requires renovation firms to cover the 

ground with plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material a distance of 10 

feet from the renovation and take extra 

precautions when in certain situations 

to ensure that dust and debris does not 

contaminate other buildings or other 

areas of the property or migrate to 

adjacent properties. There are 

approximately 2 million owneroccupied, single-family attached homes 

built before 1978. Renovations on the 

exteriors of these homes are likely to 

contaminate neighboring yards and 

porches resulting in exposure outside 

the house as well as inside because dust 

can be tracked into the home. Many 

more owner-occupied, single-family 

detached homes are located in close 

proximity to each other, and 

renovations performed under the optout provision present a similar risk for 

these homes. 

Moreover, EPA believes that 

implementing the regulations without 

the opt-out provision promotes, to a 

greater extent, the statutory directive to 

promulgate regulations covering 

renovation activities in target housing. 

Section 401(17) of TSCA 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.’’ Among other 

things, TSCA section 403(c)(3), in turn, 

directs EPA to promulgate regulations 

that apply to renovation activities in 

target housing. 

Taking these factors into 

consideration, EPA is proposing to 

remove the opt-out provision. EPA 

requests comment on the 

appropriateness of removing this 

provision from the RRP rule. 

D. Alternative Approaches 

In addition to the approach being 

proposed, EPA is considering other 

alternative approaches or work practice 

requirements for owner-occupied target 

housing that is not a child-occupied 

facility and where no children younger 

than 6 or pregnant women reside. EPA 

is therefore requesting comment on 

other possible approaches that would 

meet EPA’s statutory obligation to apply 

the regulations to target housing and 

that the standards be safe, reliable, and 

effective. EPA’s request is expressly 

limited to approaches that might apply 

to this subset of target housing and EPA 

is not reopening any issue related to the 

work practices or other requirements of 

the rule applicable to housing other 

than owner-occupied target housing that 

is not a child-occupied facility and 

where no children under 6 or pregnant 

women reside. 

For example, EPA is requesting 

comment on an option that requires the 

RRP work practices only for exterior 

renovations. Under this option, 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 only be 

required to use the lead-safe work 

practices contained in EPA’s RRP rule 

when renovating exteriors then the 

renovation firm would only be required 

to follow the RRP work practices when 

doing exterior renovations, but not 

when doing interior renovations. This 

option would address exposures to lead 

dust from exterior renovations for 

people living in neighboring homes, 

particularly attached homes or homes in 

close physical proximity. EPA examined 

both interior and exterior work practices 

in EPA’s study entitled 

‘‘Characterization of Dust Lead Levels 

after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities’’ (the ‘‘Dust Study,’’ Ref. 11). 

According to the Dust Study, exterior 

work practices were generally effective 

at reducing lead dust levels generated 

by exterior renovation activities, which 

the Dust Study showed can travel far 

enough from the work site to create lead 

hazards on or in attached homes or 

homes in close physical proximity. 

Additionally, while EPA has not 

conducted an exposure assessment for 

any of the options being considered for 

this proposed rule, individuals residing 

in homes in close physical proximity 

could be exposed during the entire 

renovation and post-renovation phase, 

and their exposure would not 

necessarily be considered by an owneroccupant in choosing not to require 

lead-safe work practices. The duration 

of exposure will vary under the different 

scenarios for which EPA is requesting 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55510 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

comment. For example, individuals 

visiting the interior of the home, or 

moving in after the completion of 

renovations, may not generally be 

exposed for the full duration of the 

renovation and post-renovation phase. 

Limiting the work practice requirements 

to exterior renovations (with the owneroccupant’s permission) would address 

these particular exposures to 

individuals residing in closely 

neighboring homes, while significantly 

reducing the cost of this proposed rule. 

EPA is requesting comment on an 

alternative option under which the only 

work practices applicable to housing 

that is not a child-occupied facility and 

where no children or pregnant women 

reside would be the restriction or 

prohibition on certain work practice 

found at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3). These 

include: 

1. Open-flame burning or torching of 

lead-based paint is prohibited. 

2. 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. 

3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based 

paint is permitted only at temperatures 

below 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

All the other work practice 

requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would 

not be required in target housing that is 

not a child-occupied facility and where 

no children or pregnant women reside. 

Under this option, unless the target 

housing meets the definition of a childoccupied facility, if an owner-occupant 

signed a statement that no child under 

6 and no pregnant woman reside there 

and an acknowledgment that the 

renovation activity is only subject to the 

specific practices contained in 40 CFR 

745.85(a)(3), then the renovation 

activity would not be subject to the 

other work practice requirements of 40 

CFR 745.85. This option would prohibit 

or restrict the highest dust generating 

practices, while reducing costs by not 

requiring the full suite of practices 

under 40 CFR 745.85. 

EPA is requesting comment on 

another option under which this subset 

of target housing would not be subject 

to the RRP work practices but would 

instead be subject to dust wipe testing 

to be performed after the renovation. 

Under this option, unless the target 

housing meets the definition of a childoccupied facility, if an owner-occupant 

signed a statement that no child under 

6 and no pregnant woman reside there 

and an acknowledgment that the 

renovation activity is only subject to 

dust wipe testing after the renovation 

and providing the results to the owneroccupant, then the renovation firm 

would not be required to conduct the 

training, certification, and work practice 

requirements of the rule. The testing 

results would become part of the record 

for that house that must be disclosed 

under section 1018 of Title X of the 

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992 (Public Law 102– 

550). This option would provide 

information that could protect potential 

buyers of a home where renovation was 

completed prior to the sale, because 

they would be notified of the results of 

the dust wipe tests before purchase and 

could take appropriate action (e.g., 

thorough cleaning and retesting of the 

home, or selecting a different home) if 

the lead results were at a level that 

raised concerns for them. This group 

could be of particular concern if the 

move occurred shortly after the 

renovation. 

EPA is requesting comment on other 

options that could apply to this category 

of houses, including any combination of 

the alternatives described in this unit. 

Because one goal of adopting an 

alternative approach would be to reduce 

the cost and burden of compliance, EPA 

also requests comment on whether 

segregating owner-occupied target 

housing that is not a child-occupied 

facility and where no children under 6 

or pregnant women reside in-and-ofitself creates a burdensome complexity 

for renovators and whether it would 

thus be preferable to require the full 

suite of RRP work practice requirements 

for all target housing. We also request 

any qualitative or quantitative estimates 

of what the cost savings (if any) would 

be from any of the options discussed in 

this unit, or any other options that 

commenters wish to suggest. 

As indicated in the RRP rule, EPA has 

found that renovation projects that 

disturb lead-based paint create leadbased paint hazards. EPA’s Dust Study 

(Ref. 11), demonstrated that renovation, 

repair, and painting activities produce 

large quantities of dust significantly 

greater than the dust-lead hazard 

standards. The Dust Study shows that 

renovations on exteriors of homes 

resulted in lead levels many times 

greater than the hazard standard. It also 

demonstrated that work practices other 

than those restricted or prohibited by 

the RRP rule left behind lead dust well 

above the hazard level when the RRP 

rule requirements are not followed. EPA 

requests comment on whether the 

alternate approaches to this proposed 

rule in this unit would adequately 

address lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovation activities, 

including any data that would shed 

light on the reliability, effectiveness, 

and safety in relation to EPA’s lead 

hazard standards of these approaches or 

any other options that commenters may 

suggest. 

E. Effective Date 

EPA is considering a delay in effective 

date of this rule, either 6 months or 1 

year. Assuming renovators are 

specialized, such that they would only 

work in homes subject to the opt-out 

provision, this proposed rule could 

increase the number of renovators that 

need to be certified by 50%. EPA asks 

for comment on this assumption in Unit 

IV.A. A delay in the effective date 

would allow time for certification of 

additional renovators and may allow for 

a smoother transition to the expanded 

coverage proposed in this document. 

However, EPA is not proposing to delay 

the effective date because of concerns 

that a delay would be confusing for the 

regulated entities and fail to prevent 

lead exposures due to RRP activities 

during the transition period. 

Furthermore, EPA is confident that its 

efforts to establish the necessary 

infrastructure of accredited training 

providers is sufficient to allow adequate 

personnel to be trained and available. 

As of October 9, 2009: 

• 169 trainers have applied for 

accreditation. 

• 74 have been accredited, most will 

offer training in multiple locations. 

• The vast majority of the applicants 

should be approved by the end of the 

year. 

Assuming an average of 85 trainers 

teaching in 2009 and 165 in 2010, if 

each gives 3 classes per week beginning 

in October with 25 participants, over 

370,000 renovators would be trained by 

July 1, 2010. That does not include mass 

trainings expected to be given at major 

conferences and other industry 

gatherings. EPA believes that there is 

already training capacity. In fact, 

training providers have reported to EPA 

that they have recently cancelled 

training offerings due to a lack of 

demand. 

To further increase the availability of 

training, EPA has developed a model 

electronic learning (E-learning) 

component for the lecture portion of the 

renovator training (http://www.epa.gov/ 

lead/pubs/training.htm). This allows 

training providers to offer students the 

opportunity to take the lecture portion 

of the training at times convenient to 

them and then go to a physical location 

to complete the hands-on portion of the 

training and take the test. Training 

providers expect to begin offering 

training through this mechanism by the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55511 

end of the year. EPA worked with the 

National Association of Home Builders 

(NAHB), the National Center for Healthy 

Housing (NCHH), and a number of other 

organizations on this E-learning 

component. 

Over the past year, EPA’s activities to 

encourage accreditation and training 

have included: 

• Mass e-mail/mailings to over 1,200 

trainers encouraging them to become 

accredited. 

• Mass e-mail/mailings to over 1,000 

trade organizations, trade magazines, 

unions, and property management 

associations encouraging them to get 

trained and certified. 

• Presented and/or exhibited 

information at numerous major trade 

conferences, reaching tens of thousands 

of attendees. 

• Conducted a trainer webinar with 

the Department of Housing and Urban. 

Development on September 15, 2009, as 

a step-by-step guide to becoming 

accredited. 

• Plan to speak at over a dozen more 

conferences by the end of the calendar 

year. 

In addition, EPA is working with a 

large marketing firm to produce a multimedia advertising campaign to ensure 

that the regulated community knows 

about the RRP rule and the training 

opportunities and the general public 

knows about the benefits of hiring 

certified firms, thus building demand 

for certified firms. Starting in the fall of 

2009 and continuing through the spring, 

EPA will be working with the marketing 

firm to expand its out reach efforts to 

the public and the regulated 

community. 

EPA has cooperated with the 

regulated community in many ways to 

communicate these requirements. Many 

in the regulated community have been 

doing a great deal to inform their 

members and clients about the RRP rule. 

A few examples include: 

• National Association of Home 

Builders: 

—Developed a comprehensive web 

page about the RRP rule at http:// 

www.nahb.org/leadpaint. 

—Sent several memos to their State 

and Local Executive Officers informing 

them of the RRP rule and letting them 

know they need to get trained and 

certified. 

—Provides regular updates to local 

Home Builders Associations through 

website updates and e-mails. 

—Featured panel on the RRP rule at 

periodic national and regional 

conventions/trade shows. 

• National Association of the 

Remodeling Industry (NARI): 

—Produced a webinar for members 

on the RRP rule. 

—Provide information about the 

RRP rule to membership and leadership 

through regular e-mails and snail mail. 

—Provide information about leadbased paint and the RRP rule in all 

renewal and new member information 

packages. 

• National Association of Realtors 

(NAR): 

—EPA collaborated with NAR on a 

comprehensive video series explaining 

the requirements to the real estate 

community. 

• Individual Accredited Training 

Providers: 

—Distributed glossy advertising 

materials and other outreach with 

messages such as ‘‘Be lead safe. It’s the 

law.’’, ‘‘Certify with the best’’, etc. 

EPA has been meeting regularly with 

many stakeholders to share information 

on training and outreach. This group 

includes: NAHB, NCHH, NARI, Alliance 

for Healthy Homes, Andersen Windows, 

Custom Electronic Design and 

Installation Association, Window and 

Door Manufacturers Association, 

Rebuilding Together, Air Conditioning 

Contractors of America, Pella 

Corporation, and the Oregon Home 

Builder’s Association. All of these 

groups are actively working to make 

sure their members and clients are 

aware of the requirements of the RRP 

rule. 

EPA therefore requests comment on 

the need for a delay in the effective date 

of this rule of either 6 months or 1 year. 

Given EPA’s outreach efforts, is there 

reason to believe that sufficient certified 

or trained personnel would not be 

available to work on housing previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision as of 

60 days after publication of this rule as 

final? Would a delay in effective date for 

work on housing previously eligible for 

the opt-out provision be confusing for 

the regulated community or the certified 

personnel? 

F. Quantifying Benefits 

In quantifying the benefits for the RRP 

rulemaking EPA considered only the 

benefits associated with the avoided 

incidence of IQ loss in children under 

the age of 6 from reduced lead exposure. 

These estimates only partially account 

for the benefits of the RRP rule. These 

estimates did not include an assessment 

of at-risk subpopulations or of 

population level effects other than lost 

income. The benefits associated with 

avoiding the other adverse effects 

associated with lead exposure to both 

children and adults were excluded from 

this analysis. 

EPA requests information on how it 

can more fully quantify the benefits 

associated with these effects for 

purposes of this proposed rule. To 

facilitate your preparation of comments 

on this point, the following is an excerpt 

from the preamble of the 2008 final 

Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) (Ref. 3). This 

discussion is based on EPA’s ‘‘Air 

Quality Criteria Document’’ (the 

‘‘Criteria Document,’’ Ref. 13). See also 

the letters dated March 27, 2007 (Ref. 

14) and September 27, 2007 (Ref. 15) 

from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee’s (CASAC) Lead Review 

Panel. The major adverse effects 

associated with exposure to lead are 

also discussed in Chapter 5 of the 

Economic Analysis (Ref. 5). 

1. Array of health effects and at-risk 

subpopulations. Lead has been 

demonstrated to exert ‘‘a broad array of 

deleterious effects on multiple organ 

systems via widely diverse mechanisms 

of action’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–24 and section 

8.4.1). This array of health effects 

includes effects on heme biosynthesis 

and related functions, neurological 

development and function, 

reproduction and physical 

development, kidney function, 

cardiovascular function, and immune 

function. The weight of evidence varies 

across this array of effects and is 

comprehensively described in the 

Criteria Document. There is also some 

evidence of lead carcinogenicity, 

primarily from animal studies, together 

with limited human evidence of 

suggestive associations (Ref. 13, sections 

5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). [Footnote (FN) 1. 

Lead has been classified as a probable 

human carcinogen by the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer 

(inorganic lead compounds), based 

mainly on sufficient animal evidence, 

and as reasonably anticipated to be a 

human carcinogen by the U.S. National 

Toxicology Program (lead and lead 

compounds) (Ref. 13, section 6.7.2). 

EPA considers lead a probable 

carcinogen (http:// www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0277.htm (Ref. 13, p. 6–195)).] 

This review is focused on those 

effects most pertinent to ambient 

exposures, which, given the reductions 

in ambient lead levels over the past 30 

years, are generally those associated 

with individual blood lead levels in 

children and adults in the range of 10 

micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL) and 

lower. These key effects include 

neurological, hematological, and 

immune [FN 2. At mean blood lead 

levels, in children, on the order of 10 

μg/dL, and somewhat lower, 

associations have been found with 

effects to the immune system, including 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

altered macrophage activation, 

increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels 

and associated increased risk for 

autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 13, 

sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6).] effects for 

children, and hematological, 

cardiovascular, and renal effects for 

adults (Ref. 13, Tables 8–5 and 8–6, pp. 

8–60 to 8–62). As evident from the 

discussions in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of 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 

are currently clearly of greatest public 

health concern’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–60). [FN 

3. With regard to blood lead levels in 

individual children associated with 

particular neurological effects, the 

Criteria Document states ‘‘Collectively, 

the prospective cohort and crosssectional studies offer evidence that 

exposure to lead affects the intellectual 

attainment of preschool and school age 

children at blood lead levels <10 μg/dL 

(most clearly in the 5 to 10 μg/dL range, 

but, less definitively, possibly lower).’’ 

(Ref. 13, p. 6–269). FN 4. 

Epidemiological 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 millimeter of 

mercury (mm Hg) increase in systolic 

blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg 

increase in diastolic pressure (Ref. 13, p. 

E–10).] 

The toxicological and epidemiological 

information available since the time of 

the last review ‘‘includes assessment of 

new evidence substantiating risks of 

deleterious effects on certain health 

endpoints being induced by distinctly 

lower than previously demonstrated 

lead exposures indexed by blood lead 

levels extending well below 10 μg/dL in 

children and/or adults’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8– 

25). Some health effects associated with 

individual blood lead levels extend 

below 5 μg/dL, and some studies have 

observed these effects at the lowest 

blood levels considered. With regard to 

population mean levels, the Criteria 

Document points to studies reporting 

‘‘lead effects on the intellectual 

attainment of preschool and school age 

children at population mean concurrent 

blood-lead levels [BLLs] ranging down 

to as low as 2 to 8 μg/dL’’ (Ref. 13, p. 

E–9). 

We note that many studies over the 

past decade, in investigating effects at 

lower blood lead levels, have utilized 

the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

advisory level or level of concern for 

individual children (10 μg/dL) [FN 5. 

This level has variously been called an 

advisory level or level of concern 

(http:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/ 

pblstandards2.html). In addressing 

children’s blood lead levels, CDC has 

stated, ‘‘Specific strategies that target 

screening to high-risk children are 

essential to identify children with BLLs 

≥ 10 μg/dL.’’ (Ref. 4, p.1)] as a 

benchmark for assessment, and this is 

reflected in the numerous references in 

the Criteria Document to 10 μg/dL. 

Individual study conclusions stated 

with regard to effects observed below 10 

μg/dL are usually referring to individual 

blood lead levels. In fact, many such 

study groups have been restricted to 

individual blood lead levels below 10 

μg/dL or below levels lower than 10 μg/ 

dL. We note that the mean blood lead 

level for these groups will necessarily be 

lower than the blood lead level they are 

restricted below. 

Threshold levels, in terms of blood 

lead levels in individual children, for 

neurological effects cannot be discerned 

from the currently available studies 

(Ref. 13, pp. 8–60 to 8–63). The Criteria 

Document states, ‘‘There is no level of 

lead exposure that can yet be identified, 

with confidence, as clearly not being 

associated with some risk of deleterious 

health effects’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–63). As 

discussed in the Criteria Document, ‘‘a 

threshold for lead neurotoxic effects 

may exist at levels distinctly lower than 

the lowest exposures examined in these 

epidemiologic studies’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8– 

67). [FN 6. In consideration of the 

evidence from experimental animal 

studies with regard to the issue of 

threshold for neurotoxic effects, the 

Criteria Document notes that there is 

little evidence that allows for clear 

delineation of a threshold, and that 

‘‘blood-lead levels associated with 

neurobehavioral effects appear to be 

reasonably parallel between humans 

and animals at reasonably comparable 

blood-lead concentrations; and such 

effects appear likely to occur in humans 

ranging down at least to 5–10 μg/dL, or 

possibly lower (although the possibility 

of a threshold for such neurotoxic 

effects cannot be ruled out at lower 

blood-lead concentrations)’’ (Ref. 13, p. 

8–38).] 

[P]hysiological, behavioral and 

demographic factors contribute to 

increased risk of lead-related health 

effects. Potentially at-risk 

subpopulations, also referred to as 

sensitive subpopulations, include those 

with increased susceptibility (i.e., 

physiological factors contributing to a 

greater response for the same exposure), 

as well as those with greater 

vulnerability (i.e., those with increased 

exposure such as through exposure to 

higher media concentrations or resulting 

from behavior leading to increased 

contact with contaminated media), or 

those affected by socioeconomic factors, 

such as reduced access to health care or 

low socioeconomic status. 

While adults are susceptible to lead 

effects at lower blood lead levels than 

previously understood (e.g., Ref. 13, p. 

8–25), the greater influence of past 

exposures on their current blood lead 

levels leads us to give greater 

prominence to children as the sensitive 

subpopulation in this review. Children 

are at increased risk of lead-related 

health effects due to various factors that 

enhance their exposures (e.g., via the 

hand-to-mouth activity that is prevalent 

in very young children, Ref. 13, section 

4.4.3) and susceptibility. While children 

are considered to be at a period of 

maximum exposure around 18–27 

months, the current evidence has found 

even stronger associations between 

blood lead at school age and IQ at 

school age. The evidence ‘‘supports the 

idea that lead exposure continues to be 

toxic to children as they reach school 

age, and [does] not lend support to the 

interpretation that all the damage is 

done by the time the child reaches 2 to 

3 years of age’’ (Ref. 13, section 6.2.12). 

The following physiological and 

demographic factors can further affect 

risk of lead-related effects in some 

children. 

• Children with particular genetic 

polymorphisms (e.g., presence of the daminolevulinic acid dehydratase-2 

[ALAD-2] allele) have increased 

sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may 

be due to increased susceptibility to the 

same internal dose and/or to increased 

internal dose associated with same 

exposure (Ref. 13, p. 8–71, sections 

6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6). 

• Some children may have blood lead 

levels higher than those otherwise 

associated with a given lead exposure 

(Ref. 13, section 8.5.3) as a result of 

nutritional status (e.g., iron deficiency, 

calcium intake), as well as genetic and 

other factors (Ref. 13, chapter 4 and 

sections 3.4, 5.3.7, and 8.5.3). 

• Situations of elevated exposure, 

such as residing near sources of ambient 

lead, as well as socioeconomic factors, 

such as reduced access to health care or 

low socioeconomic status (SES) can also 

contribute to increased blood lead levels 

and increased risk of associated health 

effects from air-related lead. 

• [C]hildren in poverty and black, 

non-Hispanic children have notably 

higher blood lead levels than do 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55513 

economically well-off children and 

white children, in general. 

2. Neurological effects in children. 

Among the wide variety of health 

endpoints associated with lead 

exposures, there is general consensus 

that the developing nervous system in 

children is among the, if not the, most 

sensitive. While blood lead levels in 

U.S. children have decreased notably 

since the late 1970s, newer studies have 

investigated and reported associations 

of effects on the neurodevelopment of 

children with these more recent blood 

lead levels (Ref. 13, chapter 6). 

Functional manifestations of lead 

neurotoxicity during childhood include 

sensory, motor, cognitive, and 

behavioral impacts. Numerous 

epidemiological studies have reported 

neurocognitive, neurobehavioral, 

sensory, and motor function effects in 

children with blood lead levels below 

10 μg/dL (Ref. 13, sections 6.2 and 8.4). 

[FN 7. Further, neurological effects in 

general include behavioral effects, such 

as delinquent behavior (Ref. 13, sections 

6.2.6 and 8.4.2.2), sensory effects, such 

as those related to hearing and vision 

(Ref. 13, sections 6.2.7 and 8.4.2.3), and 

deficits in neuromotor function (Ref. 13, 

p. 8–36).] As discussed in the Criteria 

Document, ‘‘extensive experimental 

laboratory animal evidence has been 

generated that (a) substantiates well the 

plausibility of the epidemiologic 

findings observed in human children 

and adults and (b) expands our 

understanding of likely mechanisms 

underlying the neurotoxic effects’’ (Ref. 

13, p. 8–25; section 5.3). 

Cognitive effects associated with lead 

exposures that have been observed in 

epidemiological studies have included 

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 (Ref. 

13, section 6.2.16 and pp. 8–29 to 8–30). 

As noted in the Criteria Document with 

regard to the latter, ‘‘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. 13, pp. 8–29 to 8– 

30). 

With regard to potential implications 

of lead effects on IQ, the Criteria 

Document recognizes the ‘‘critical’’ 

distinction between population and 

individual risk, identifying issues 

regarding declines in IQ for an 

individual and for the population. The 

Criteria Document further states that a 

‘‘point estimate indicating a modest 

mean change on a health index at the 

individual level can have substantial 

implications at the population level’’ 

(Ref. 13, p. 8–77). [FN 8. As an example, 

the Criteria Document states, ‘‘although 

an increase of a few mm Hg in blood 

pressure might not be of concern for an 

individual’s well-being, the same 

increase in the population mean might 

be associated with substantial increases 

in the percentages of individuals with 

values that are sufficiently extreme that 

they exceed the criteria used to diagnose 

hypertension’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–77).] A 

downward shift in the mean IQ value is 

associated with both substantial 

decreases in percentages achieving very 

high scores and substantial increases in 

the percentage of individuals achieving 

very low scores (Ref. 13, p. 8–81). [FN 

9. For example, for a population mean 

IQ of 100 (and standard deviation of 15), 

2.3% of the population would score 

above 130, but a shift of the population 

to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% 

of the population scoring above 130 

(Ref. 13, pp. 8–81 to 8–82).] For an 

individual functioning in the low IQ 

range due to the influence of 

developmental risk factors other than 

lead, a lead-associated IQ decline of 

several points might be sufficient to 

drop that individual into the range 

associated with increased risk of 

educational, vocational, and social 

failure (Ref. 13, p. 8–77). 

Other cognitive effects observed in 

studies of children have included effects 

on attention, executive functions, 

language, memory, learning, and 

visuospatial processing (Ref. 13, 

sections 5.3.5, 6.2.5, and 8.4.2.1), with 

attention and executive function effects 

associated with lead exposures indexed 

by blood lead levels below 10 μg/dL 

(Ref. 13, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8–30 to 

8–31). The evidence for the role of lead 

in this suite of effects includes 

experimental animal findings (Ref. 13, 

section 8.4.2.1; p. 8–31), which provide 

strong biological plausibility of lead 

effects on learning ability, memory and 

attention (Ref. 13, section 5.3.5), as well 

as associated mechanistic findings. 

The persistence of such lead-induced 

effects is described in the proposal and 

the Criteria Document (e.g., Ref. 13, 

sections 5.3.5, 6.2.11, and 8.5.2). The 

persistence or irreversibility of such 

effects can be the result of damage 

occurring without adequate repair 

offsets or of the persistence of lead in 

the body (Ref. 13, section 8.5.2). It is 

additionally important to note that there 

may be long-term consequences of such 

deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic 

skills and achievement can have 

‘‘enduring and important effects on 

objective parameters of success in real 

life,’’ as well as increased risk of 

antisocial and delinquent behavior (Ref. 

13, section 6.2.16). 

Multiple epidemiologic studies of 

lead and child development have 

demonstrated inverse associations 

between blood lead concentrations and 

children’s IQ and other cognitive-related 

outcomes at successively lower lead 

exposure levels over the past 30 years 

(Ref. 13, section 6.2.13). For example, 

the overall weight of the available 

evidence, described in the Criteria 

Document, provides clear substantiation 

of neurocognitive decrements being 

associated in children with mean blood 

lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 μg/ 

dL, and some analyses indicate lead 

effects on intellectual attainment of 

children for which population mean 

blood lead levels in the analysis ranged 

from 2 to 8 μg/dL (Ref. 13, sections 6.2, 

8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, while blood 

lead levels in U.S. children have 

decreased notably since the late 1970s, 

newer studies have investigated and 

reported associations of effects on the 

neurodevelopment of children with 

blood lead levels similar to the more 

recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 13, 

chapter 6). 

G. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

EPA has also determined that public 

policy would be better served by using 

the renovation firm recordkeeping 

requirements to increase awareness of 

the RRP rule requirements among 

owners and occupants of renovated 

target housing or child-occupied 

facilities. EPA’s stated purposes in 

promulgating the recordkeeping 

requirements were two-fold. ‘‘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’’ (Ref. 1, p. 21745). Several 

commenters suggested that the 

recordkeeping requirements could also 

be used to provide valuable information 

about the renovation to the owners and 

occupants of buildings being renovated. 

EPA responded to these comments by 

stating that some of the information 

identified by these commenters was 

included in the ‘‘Renovate Right’’ 

pamphlet and that the pamphlet was the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

best way to get that information to the 

owners and occupants. With respect to 

the other items identified by these 

commenters, EPA stated its belief that 

the renovation firms were already 

providing much of this information (Ref. 

1, p. 21718). 

As part of EPA’s preparations to 

administer the RRP program, EPA has 

been developing an education and 

outreach campaign aimed at consumers. 

In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA 

recognized the importance of education 

and outreach to consumers, to teach 

them about lead-safe work practices and 

to encourage them to hire certified 

renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). 

EPA’s work on the education and 

outreach campaign has continued to 

highlight the importance of an informed 

public to the success of the RRP 

program at minimizing exposures to 

lead-based paint hazards that may be 

created by renovations. As a result, EPA 

has determined that copies of the 

records required to be maintained by 

renovation firms to document 

compliance with the work practice 

requirements, if provided to the owners 

and occupants of the renovated 

buildings, would serve to reinforce the 

information provided by the ‘‘Renovate 

Right’’ pamphlet on the potential 

hazards of renovations and on the RRP 

rule requirements. While the ‘‘Renovate 

Right’’ pamphlet provides valuable 

information about the requirements of 

the RRP rule, the records that a firm 

would give to owners and occupants 

would provide useful information 

regarding rule compliance that is not 

found in the pamphlet. In covering the 

significant training and work practice 

provisions of the RRP rule, these records 

would enable building owners and 

occupants to better understand what the 

renovation firm did to comply with the 

RRP rule and how the RRP rule’s 

provisions affected their specific 

renovation. Educating the owners and 

occupants in this way is likely to 

improve their ability to assist the EPA 

in monitoring compliance with the RRP 

rule. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to require 

that, when the final invoice for the 

renovation is delivered, or within 30 

days of the completion of the 

renovation, whichever is earlier, the 

renovation firm provide information 

demonstrating compliance with the 

training and work practice requirements 

of the RRP rule to the owner of the 

building being renovated and, if 

different, to the occupants of the 

renovated housing or the operator of the 

child-occupied facility. For renovations 

in common areas of target housing, the 

renovation firm would have to provide 

the occupants of the affected housing 

units instructions on how to review or 

obtain this information from the 

renovation firm at no charge to the 

occupant. These instructions would 

have to be included in the notice 

provided to each affected unit under 40 

CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on the signs 

posted in the common areas under 40 

CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is proposing 

similar requirements for renovations in 

child-occupied facilities. Under this 

proposed rule, the renovation firm 

would be required to provide interested 

parents or guardians instructions on 

how to review or obtain a copy of these 

records at no cost to the parents or 

guardians. This could be accomplished 

by mailing or hand delivering these 

instructions, or by including them on 

the signs posted under 40 CFR 

745.84(c)(2)(ii). 

Renovation firms would have to 

provide training and work practice 

information to owners and occupants in 

a short, easily read checklist or other 

form. EPA’s ‘‘Sample Renovation 

Recordkeeping Checklist’’ may be used 

for this purpose, but firms may develop 

their own forms or checklists so long as 

they include all of the required 

information in a similar format. The 

specific information that would be 

required to be provided are the training 

and work practice compliance 

information required to be maintained 

by 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as well as 

identifying information on the 

manufacturer and model of the test kits 

used, if any, a description of the 

components that were tested including 

their locations, and the test kit results. 

The checklist or form must include 

documentation 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 the RRP rule, and that 

the certified renovator performed the 

post-renovation cleaning verification. 

This documentation must include a 

certification by the certified renovator 

that the work practices were followed, 

with narration as applicable. However, 

EPA is not proposing to require that the 

renovation firm automatically provide a 

copy of the certified renovator’s training 

certificate, which must be maintained in 

the firm’s records pursuant to 40 CFR 

745.86(b)(7), as an attachment to the 

checklist or other form. 

With respect to the option for dust 

clearance in lieu of cleaning verification 

under 40 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule 

requires the renovation firm to provide 

the associated results from dust wipe 

sampling to the person who contracted 

for the renovation. This requirement 

was promulgated in response to public 

comments on the applicability of the 

Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart F, to dust lead testing reports. 

These commenters stated that a 

requirement for the information to be 

provided to the owner of the property 

was necessary in order to make sure that 

the information would be available to be 

disclosed in the future (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 

However, in agreeing with these 

commenters and acknowledging the 

importance of having the dust sampling 

reports available to disclose to future 

purchasers and tenants, EPA neglected 

to consider the importance of making 

dust sampling information available to 

the current occupants of renovated 

rental target housing or child-occupied 

facilities. While 40 CFR 745.107 would 

require renovation-related dust 

sampling reports to be disclosed to 

target housing tenants at the next lease 

renewal, this may be months or years 

after the renovation was completed. In 

addition, the Lead Disclosure Rule does 

not apply to child-occupied facilities in 

public or commercial buildings, so 

those tenants may never receive this 

information. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to require 

that, if dust clearance is performed in 

lieu of cleaning verification, the 

renovation firm provide a copy of the 

dust wipe sampling report(s) to the 

owner of the building that was 

renovated as well as to the occupants, 

if different. With respect to renovations 

in common areas of target housing or in 

child-occupied facilities, EPA is also 

proposing to require that these records 

be made available to the tenants of the 

affected housing units or the parents 

and guardians of children under age 6 

using the child-occupied facilities. Dust 

sampling reports may be made available 

to these groups in the same way as 

training and work practice records, by 

providing information on how to review 

or obtain copies in individual 

notifications or on posted signs. 

H. Accreditation and Certification 

Requirements 

EPA was made aware by stakeholders 

that some renovators want to take the 

training course closer to April 2010 

because they want to maximize their 5– 

year certification which is not required 

until the RRP rule becomes effective on 

April 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 

5–year certification begins when the 

renovator completes the training. The 

Agency is concerned that if enough 

renovators wait until April 2010 to take 

the training it may cause training 

courses to fill up resulting in a lack of 

available courses near the effective date. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55515 

In order to give renovators incentive to 

take the course well in advance of the 

April 2010 effective date, the Agency is 

considering a change to the 

requirements that would allow 

renovator certifications issued on or 

before the effective date of the RRP rule 

to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency 

requests comment on whether it should 

extend the certification for renovators 

that get their certification by April 22, 

2010. 

Another modification EPA is 

considering involves the requirements 

for training providers. Under the current 

requirements for the accreditation of 

training providers, Principle Instructors 

must take a 16–hour lead-paint course 

taught by EPA or an authorized State, 

Tribe, or Territory. EPA is aware that 

16–hours courses are not available in 

every State, making it difficult for some 

instructors to get the required training. 

To address this problem, EPA is 

considering reducing the hourly 

requirement to 8 hours. This would 

allow future instructors to take the 8– 

hour renovator or dust sampling 

technician trainings instead of a 16– 

hour or longer abatement course. The 

Agency believes that the renovator or 

dust sampling technician courses would 

be appropriate training for instructors 

that want to teach these courses. The 

Agency requests comment on whether 

the 16–hour training requirement for 

Principle Instructors should be reduced 

to 8 hours. 

I. State Authorization 

As part of the authorization process, 

States and Indian Tribes must 

demonstrate to EPA that they meet the 

requirements of the RRP rule. The 

Agency is proposing to give States and 

Indian Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that 

their programs include any new 

requirements the EPA may promulgate, 

such as the requirements in this 

proposed rule. A State or Indian Tribe 

would have to indicate that it meets the 

requirements of the renovation program 

in its application for approval or the 

first report it submits under 40 CFR 

745.324(h). 

III. References 

1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) 

(FRL–8355–7). Available on-line at: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for LeadBased Paint Activities in Target Housing 

and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, 

August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 

Available on-line at: http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

3. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Lead; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 66964, November 12, 

2008) (FRL–8732–9). Available on-line 

at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

4. CDC. Preventing Lead Poisoning in 

Young Children: A Statement by the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service. August 

2005. 

5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis 

for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program Opt-out and 

Recordkeeping Proposed Rule for Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. 

October 2009. 

6. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 

1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross 

Domestic Product. August 17, 2009. 

7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping 

Proposed Rule ICR Addendum for the 

rulemaking entitled Lead: Elimination 

of the Opt-Out Provision and Other 

Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

August 2009. 

8. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for the Elimination of the OptOut Provision and Other Amendments 

to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

August 2009. 

9. EPA. Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on the Leadbased Paint Certification and Training; 

Renovation and Remodeling 

Requirements. March 3, 2000. 

10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 

10, 2006) (FRL–7755–5). Available online at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

11. EPA. Characterization of Dust 

Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Activities. November 13, 

2007. 

12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act Statement; Lead: Elimination of the 

Opt-Out Provision and Other 

Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

August 2009. 

13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. 

October 2006. 

14. CASAC. ‘‘Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee’s (CASAC) Review 

of the 1st Draft Lead Staff Paper and 

Draft Lead Exposure and Risk 

Assessments. March 27, 2007. Available 

on-line at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/989B57DCD

436111B852572AC0079DA8A/$File/ 

casac-07-003.pdf. 

15. CASAC. Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee’s (CASAC) Review 

of the 2nd Draft Lead Human Exposure 

and Health Risk Assessments 

Document. September 27, 2007. 

Available on-line at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

2DCD6EF49CDD37B28525736

4005F93E4/$File/casac-07-007.pdf. 

IV. 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 

proposed rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1) 

of the Executive Order because EPA 

estimates that it will have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. Accordingly, this action was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and any changes 

made based on OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the public 

docket for this rulemaking as required 

by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive 

Order. 

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 for the TSCA 

Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping 

Proposed Rule for Target Housing and 

Child-Occupied Facilities (Economic 

Analysis, Ref. 5), which is available in 

the docket for this action and is briefly 

summarized here. 

1. Number of facilities and 

renovations. This proposed rule applies 

to 78 million target housing units and 

child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 

facilities. There are approximately 40 

million target housing units potentially 

affected by the removal of the opt-out 

provision (i.e., owner occupied housing 

units where no child under age 6 or 

pregnant woman resides and that do not 

meet the definition of a child-occupied 

facility). There are an additional 38 

million facilities potentially affected by 

the requirement that renovators provide 

owners and occupants with copies of 

the records required to be maintained by 

the renovator to document compliance 

with the training and work practice 

requirements. Approximately 100,000 of 

these facilities are child-occupied 

facilities located in public or 

commercial buildings, and the 

remainder are located in target housing 

(either in rental housing, owneroccupied housing where a child under 

age 6 or pregnant woman resides, or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

owner-occupied housing that meets the 

definition of a child-occupied facility). 

The removal of the opt-out provision 

will affect approximately 7.2 million 

renovation events per year in the 40 

million housing units previously 

eligible to use the opt-out provision. In 

the first year, there will be an estimated 

5.4 million renovation, repair, and 

painting events in these housing units 

where the rule will cause lead-safe work 

practices to be used. (In the remaining 

1.8 million renovation events, test kits 

for determining whether a surface 

contains lead-based paint will indicate 

that lead-based paint is not present.) 

EPA expects test kits that more 

accurately determine whether a painted 

surface qualifies as lead-based paint will 

become available in late 2010. Once the 

improved test kits are available, the 

number of renovation, repair, and 

painting events using lead-safe work 

practices due to the rule in housing 

previously eligible for the opt-out 

provision is expected to drop to 3.0 

million events per year. 

The requirement for renovators to 

provide owners and occupants with 

records demonstrating compliance with 

the training and work practice 

requirements will affect all of the 7.2 

million renovation events per year in 

housing units previously eligible for the 

opt-out provision. This new 

recordkeeping requirement will also 

affect an additional 11.4 million 

renovation events per year in the 38 

million facilities ineligible for the optout provision. 

EPA’s estimates are based on the 

assumption that owners of housing 

eligible for the opt-out provision would 

always choose to exercise that 

provision. To the extent that some 

eligible homeowners would decline to 

opt out, the number of renovation 

events affected by the removal of the 

opt-out would be lower than EPA has 

estimated, as would the costs of this 

action and the estimated number of 

people protected by this action, since 

they will choose to be protected by the 

requirements of the RRP rule. 

2. Options evaluated. EPA considered 

a variety of options for addressing the 

risks created by renovation, repair, and 

painting activities disturbing lead-based 

paint in housing previously eligible for 

the opt-out provision. The Economic 

Analysis analyzed several options, 

including different options for the 

effective date of the final rule when 

published; an option phasing out the 

opt-out provision depending on when 

the facility was built (pre-1960 or pre1978); and different options for the work 

practices (such as containment, 

cleaning, and cleaning verification) 

required in housing previously eligible 

for the opt-out provision. 

All options evaluated in the Economic 

Analysis would also require renovation 

firms to provide owners and occupants 

of the buildings with a copy of the 

records demonstrating compliance with 

the training and work practice 

requirements of the RRP rule. This 

additional recordkeeping requirement 

would apply to renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in all 78 million 

target housing units and child-occupied 

facilities. 

3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule 

result from the prevention of adverse 

health effects attributable to lead 

exposure from renovations in pre-1978 

buildings. These health effects include 

impaired cognitive function in children 

and several illnesses in children and 

adults, such as increased adverse 

cardiovascular outcomes (including 

increased blood pressure, increased 

incidence of hypertension, 

cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) 

and decreased kidney function. 

Removing the opt-out provision will 

protect children under the age of 6 who 

visit a friend, relative, or caregiver’s 

house where a renovation would have 

been performed under the opt-out 

provision; children who move into such 

housing when their family purchases it 

after such a renovation would have been 

performed; and children who live in a 

property adjacent to housing where 

renovation would have been performed 

under the opt-out provision. Removing 

the opt-out provision will also protect 

individuals age 6 and older who live in 

houses that would have been renovated 

under the opt-out provision; who move 

into such housing; and who live in 

adjacent properties. 

EPA has estimated some of the 

benefits of the rule by performing 

calculations based on estimates of the 

number of individuals in each of these 

situations and the average benefit per 

individual in similar situations from 

previous RRP rule analyses with some 

simple adjustments. The resulting 

calculations provide a sense of the 

magnitude of benefits from this action 

but should not be interpreted as strict 

upper or lower bound estimates of total 

benefits. Based on two scenarios for 

each of the situations described in the 

previous paragraph, annualized benefits 

for the proposed rule may range from 

approximately $870 million to $3.2 

billion assuming a discount rate of 3%, 

and $920 million to $3.3 billion 

assuming a discount rate of 7%. Within 

these scenarios, 10% of these benefits 

are attributable to avoided losses in 

expected earnings due to IQ drop in 

children under 6, and 90% to avoided 

medical costs (or other proxies for 

willingness to pay) for hypertension, 

coronary heart disease, stroke, and the 

resulting incidence of deaths in older 

individuals. For children under 6, the 

largest proportion of these benefits 

derive from moving into recently 

renovated housing; for older 

individuals, the largest proportion 

derives from on-going residence in 

houses that would have been renovated 

under the opt-out provision. 

EPA did not estimate benefits for 

those who live near a house renovated 

under the opt-out provision unless in a 

contiguous attached home; those who 

spend time in a friend’s or relative’s 

house renovated under the opt-out 

provision; and for health effects other 

than IQ loss in children under 6 and 

blood pressure effects in older 

individuals. 

To the extent that some eligible 

homeowners would have declined to 

opt out, the benefits of this action will 

be lower than estimated, since exposed 

persons will already be protected by the 

requirements of the RRP program. 

4. Costs. Removing the opt-out 

provision will require firms performing 

renovation, repair, and painting work 

for compensation in housing previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision to 

follow the training, certification, and 

work practice requirements of the RRP 

rule. This may result in additional costs 

for these firms. Furthermore, the 

additional recordkeeping requirements 

in this proposed rule will increase costs 

of renovations in all target housing and 

child-occupied facilities. Costs may be 

incurred by contractors that work in 

these buildings, landlords that use their 

own staff to work in buildings they lease 

out; and child-occupied facilities that 

use their own staff to work in buildings 

they occupy. 

The proposed rule is estimated to cost 

approximately $500 million in the first 

year. The cost is estimated to drop to 

approximately $300 million per year 

starting with the second year, when 

improved test kits for detecting the 

presence of lead-based paint are 

assumed to become available. Over $200 

million per year of the cost in 

subsequent years is due to the work 

practice requirements in housing 

previously covered by the opt-out 

provision. Training for renovators and 

workers and certification for firms 

working in housing previously covered 

by the opt-out provision is estimated to 

add approximately $50 million per year 

to the cost. Requiring renovators to 

provide owners and occupants with 

copies of the recordkeeping required to 

document compliance with the RRP rule 

training and work practice requirements 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55517 

costs approximately $30 million per 

year, with about two thirds of this 

incurred in housing that was previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision. 

Note that the costs of this proposed 

rule as estimated in the Economic 

Analysis are expressed in 2005 dollars. 

To express values in terms of current 

dollars, the Implicit Price Deflator for 

Gross Domestic Product as determined 

by the Bureau of Economic Analysis can 

be consulted for an indication of how 

nominal prices for goods and services 

produced in the economy have changed 

over time. From 2005 to the second 

quarter of 2009, the implicit price 

deflator increased from 100 to 109.753, 

a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 

6). 

The cost estimates for training and 

certification assume that renovation 

firms are somewhat specialized in terms 

of whether they work in facilities where 

the RRP rule is applicable. However, 

there may be many instances where 

firms working in opt-out housing will 

already have become certified, and their 

staff been trained, because they also 

work in regulated facilities ineligible for 

the opt-out provision. If firms are less 

specialized than the analysis assumed, 

there may be little to no incremental 

training and certification costs due to 

the proposed rule. Furthermore, to the 

extent that some eligible homeowners 

would have declined to opt out, the 

work practice costs for removing the 

opt-out provision will be less than 

estimated. EPA requests comment on 

the degree to which the same firms and 

renovators are likely to work both in 

opt-out housing and in child-occupied 

facilities and target housing that are 

ineligible for the opt-out provision. 

The options EPA analyzed with a 

phase in or a delayed effective date for 

removing the opt-out provision have a 

lower cost in the first 2 years but have 

identical costs to the proposed rule 

beginning in the third year. Costs of the 

options with different work practice 

requirements for the housing previously 

eligible for the opt-out provision would 

be 1% to 17% lower than the proposed 

rule. This difference would all be due to 

lower work practice costs, as the 

training, certification, and 

recordkeeping costs would be the same 

for these options as for this proposed 

rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA 

has prepared an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document to amend an 

existing approved ICR. The ICR 

document, referred to as the Opt-out 

and Recordkeeping Proposed Rule ICR 

Addendum and identified under EPA 

ICR No. 1715.11 and OMB Control 

Number 2070–0155, has been placed in 

the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 

7). The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

Burden under PRA means the total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements; train personnel to be 

able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

The information collection activities 

contained in this proposed rule are 

designed to assist the Agency in meeting 

the core objectives of TSCA section 402. 

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. 

The information collection 

requirements under this proposed rule 

may affect training providers as well as 

firms that perform renovation, repair, or 

painting for compensation. Removing 

the opt-out provision may cause 

additional renovators to become trained 

and firms to become certified, and there 

are paperwork requirements for both of 

these activities. Removing the opt-out 

provision will also create paperwork 

due to the requirement to maintain 

records documenting compliance with 

the training and work practice 

requirements. This proposed rule also 

requires renovation firms to provide 

owners and occupants with these 

records. Although firms have the option 

of choosing to engage in the covered 

activities, once a firm chooses to do so, 

the information collection activities 

become mandatory for that firm. 

The ICR document provides a detailed 

presentation of the estimated paperwork 

burden and costs resulting from this 

proposed rule. The burden to training 

providers and firms engaged in 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities is summarized in this unit. 

Because this analysis assumes that 

renovation firms are somewhat 

specialized in terms of whether they 

work in facilities where the RRP rule 

requirements are applicable, removing 

the opt-out provision is estimated to 

result in additional renovators becoming 

trained and additional renovation firms 

becoming certified. Training additional 

renovators will increase the paperwork 

burden for training providers, since they 

must submit records to EPA (or an 

authorizing State, Tribe, or Territory) 

pertaining to each student attending a 

training course. Approximately 170 

training providers are estimated to incur 

an average burden of about 40 hours 

each for additional notifications, 

resulting in an increase in training 

provider burden averaging 7,000 hours 

per year as a result of the removal of the 

opt-out provision. 

Removing the opt-out provision is 

estimated to result in up to 111,000 

additional firms becoming 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 keep records of the 

work they perform; this recordkeeping 

is estimated to average approximately 5 

hours per year per firm. And under this 

proposed rule, firms must also provide 

a copy of the records demonstrating 

compliance with the training and work 

practice requirements of the RRP rule to 

the owners and occupants of buildings 

being renovated. This additional 

recordkeeping requirement is estimated 

to average approximately 3.3 hours per 

year per firm. The total annual burden 

for these 111,000 firms is estimated to 

average 1,072,000 hours, of which 

362,000 hours is due to the 

recordkeeping requirement to provide 

owners and occupants with 

documentation of the training and work 

practices used. 

To the extent that firms working in 

housing eligible for the opt-out 

provision will already have incurred the 

training and certification burdens 

because they also work in regulated 

facilities ineligible for the opt-out 

provision, the training and certification 

burden for this action will be lower than 

estimated. 

The requirement that firms provide 

owners and occupants with a copy of 

the records demonstrating compliance 

with the training and work practice 

requirements of the RRP rule also 

applies to firms working in buildings 

that were not eligible for the opt-out 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

provision. There are an estimated 

211,000 such firms with an average 

annual burden of approximately 2.7 

hours per firm, resulting in a total 

burden of 568,000 hours per year for 

these firms. 

Total respondent burden for training 

providers and certified firms from 

removing the opt-out provision and 

requiring additional recordkeeping is 

estimated to average approximately 

1,647,000 hours per year during the 3 

year period covered by the ICR. 

The proposed rule may also result in 

additional government costs to 

administer the program (to process the 

additional training provider 

notifications and to administer and 

enforce the program for firms working 

in housing previously eligible for the 

opt-out provision). 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 I of title 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 

the 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 the final rule. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a docket for this proposed rule, which 

includes this ICR, under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES for 

where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after October 28, 2009, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by November 

27, 2009. The final rule will respond to 

any OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposed 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 proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined in accordance 

with section 601 of 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. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

As required by section 603 of RFA, 

EPA has prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this 

proposed rule. The IRFA is available for 

review in the docket and is summarized 

in this unit (Ref. 8). 

1. Reasons why action by the Agency 

is being considered. After further 

consideration of the opt-out provision, 

the Agency believes it is in the best 

interest of the public to remove the 

provision. EPA believes that the opt-out 

provision is not sufficiently protective 

for children under age 6 and pregnant 

women, because it does not provide 

protection from improperly performed 

renovations for visiting children and 

pregnant women; for children and 

pregnant women who move into a 

newly purchased house that was 

recently renovated under the opt-out 

provision; and for children and 

pregnant women who live adjacent to a 

home where the exterior is being 

renovated under the opt-out provision. 

In addition, while the RRP rule focused 

mainly on protecting young children 

and pregnant women from lead hazards, 

exposure can result in adverse health 

effects for older children and adults as 

well. Removing the opt-out provision 

will protect older children and adult 

occupants of target housing where no 

child under age 6 or pregnant woman 

resides, as well as residents of adjacent 

properties. Finally, EPA believes that 

implementing the regulations without 

the opt-out provision promotes, to a 

greater extent, the statutory directive to 

promulgate regulations covering 

renovation activities in target housing. 

EPA has determined that providing 

owners and occupants of renovated 

buildings with copies of the records 

documenting the renovation firm’s 

compliance with the RRP rule’s training 

and work practice requirements will 

serve to reinforce information on both 

the potential hazards of renovations and 

on the RRP rule’s requirements. It will 

also enable building owners and 

occupants to better understand what the 

renovation firm did to comply with the 

RRP rule and how the rule’s provisions 

affected their specific renovation. 

Educating the owners and occupants in 

this way is likely to improve their 

ability to assist the EPA in monitoring 

compliance with the RRP rule. These 

improvements in education and 

monitoring will improve compliance 

with the RRP rule, which will 

ultimately protect children and adults 

from exposure to lead hazards due to 

renovation activities. 

2. Legal basis and objectives for this 

proposed rule. 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 

issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In 

issuing the RRP rule, EPA revised the 

TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme 

to apply to individuals and firms 

engaged in renovation, repair, and 

painting activities. In this proposed 

rule, EPA is revising the TSCA section 

402(c)(3) rule to cover renovations in all 

target housing and child-occupied 

facilities. In so doing, EPA has also 

taken into consideration the 

environmental, economic, and social 

impact of this proposed rule as provided 

in TSCA section 2(c). A central objective 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55519 

of this proposed rule is to minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in all target housing 

and other buildings frequented by 

children under age 6. 

3. 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 proposed rule include: 

Small businesses (including contractors 

and property owners and managers); 

small nonprofits (certain childcare 

centers and private schools); and small 

governments (school districts which 

operate pre-schools, kindergartens and 

certain child care centers). 

In determining the number of small 

businesses affected by the proposed 

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 proposed rule. For example, for 

many construction establishments, the 

SBA defines small businesses as having 

revenues of less than $14 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 proposed rule and would defeat 

the purpose of estimating impacts on 

small business. It would also 

underestimate the proposed 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 proposed 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 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 

U.S. Economic Census data is available. 

For other sectors (nonprofits operating 

childcare centers or private schools), 

EPA assumed that all affected firms are 

small, which may overestimate the 

number of small entities affected by the 

proposed rule. 

The vast majority of entities in the 

industries affected by this proposed rule 

are small. Using EPA’s estimates, the 

revisions to the renovation, repair, and 

painting program will affect 

approximately 289,000 small entities. 

4. Potential economic impacts on 

small entities. EPA evaluated two 

factors in its analysis of the proposed 

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 proposed rule. 

Of the approximately 289,000 small 

entities estimated to incur costs due to 

the proposed rule, an estimated 101,000 

small residential contractors are 

assumed to seek certification as a result 

of the removal of the opt-out provision; 

therefore, they would incur training, 

certification, work practice, and 

recordkeeping costs. The remaining 

estimated 189,000 small entities 

(working in buildings that were not 

eligible for the opt-out) are only 

expected to incur costs due to the 

additional recordkeeping provisions in 

the proposed rule. 

The average cost to a typical small 

renovation contractor of removing the 

opt-out provision ranges from about 

$1,100 to about $6,400, depending on 

the industry sector. This represents 

0.8% to 1.7% of revenues depending on 

the industry sector. Overall, an 

estimated 101,000 small businesses 

would be affected by the removal of the 

opt-out provision, with average impacts 

of 1.10%of revenues. 

This proposed rule’s new 

recordkeeping requirement has an 

average cost of $1 to $280 for entities 

not affected by removal of the opt-out 

provision. This results in incremental 

cost impacts ranging from 0.0001% to 

0.08% of revenues. An estimated 

189,000 small entities would be affected 

solely by the additional recordkeeping 

requirement, including 165,000 small 

businesses with average impacts of 

0.03% of revenues, 17,000 small nonprofits with average impacts of 

0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments 

with average impacts of 0.0001%. 

Combining the removal of the opt-out 

provision with the new recordkeeping 

requirement, a total of 289,000 small 

entities would be affected by the 

proposed rule, including 266,000 small 

businesses with average impacts of 

0.4%, 17,000 small non-profits with 

average impacts of 0.0005%, and 6,000 

small governments with average impacts 

of 0.0001%. 

To the extent that renovators and 

firms working in housing eligible for the 

opt-out provision will already have 

become trained and certified because 

they also work in regulated facilities 

ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to 

the extent that eligible homeowners 

would decline to opt out, the average 

impacts of this action will be lower than 

estimated. 

Some of the small entities subject to 

the rule have employees while others 

are non-employers. The non-employers 

typically perform fewer jobs than firms 

with employees, and thus have lower 

work practice compliance costs. 

However, they also have lower average 

revenues than entities with employees, 

so their impacts (measured as costs 

divided by revenues) can be higher. 

Impact estimates for non-employers 

should be interpreted with caution, as 

some non-employers may have 

significant issues related to 

understatement of income, which would 

tend to exaggerate the average impact 

ratio for this class of small entities. 

There are 75,000 non-employer 

renovation contractors estimated to be 

affected by the removal of the opt-out 

provision. The average cost to these 

contractors is estimated to be $1,193 

apiece. This represents 1.3% to 4.7% of 

reported revenues, depending on the 

industry sector. This proposed rule’s 

new recordkeeping requirement is 

estimated to affect an additional 96,000 

non-employer renovation contractors 

not affected by removal of the opt-out 

provision. The costs to these contractors 

are estimated to be $42 apiece. This 

represents 0.05% to 0.17% of revenues, 

depending on the industry sector. 

5. Relevant Federal rules. The 

requirements in this proposed rule will 

fit within an existing framework of other 

Federal regulations that address leadbased paint. Notably, the Premstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55520 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 

745.85, requires renovators to distribute 

a lead hazard information pamphlet to 

owners and occupants before 

conducting a renovation in target 

housing and child-occupied facilities. 

This proposed rule’s requirement that 

renovators provide owners and 

occupants with records documenting 

compliance with the program’s training 

and work practice requirements 

complements the existing prerenovation education requirements. 

6. Skills needed for compliance. 

Under the lead renovation, repair, and 

painting program requirements, 

renovators and dust sampling 

technicians working in target housing 

and child-occupied facilities 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 

then provide on-the-job training in work 

practices to any other renovation 

workers used on a particular renovation. 

Entities are required to apply for 

certification to perform renovations; this 

process does not require any special 

skills other than the ability to complete 

the application. They also need to 

document their training and the work 

practices used during renovations. This 

does not require any special skills. 

7. Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel. EPA has been concerned with 

potential small entity impacts since the 

earliest stages of planning for the RRP 

program under section 402(c)(3) of 

TSCA. EPA conducted outreach to small 

entities and, pursuant to section 609 of 

RFA, convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel (the Panel) in 

1999 to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the regulated small entities. EPA 

identified eight key elements of a 

potential renovation and remodeling 

regulation for the Panel’s consideration. 

These elements were: Applicability and 

scope, firm certification, individual 

training and certification, accreditation 

of training courses, work practice 

standards, prohibited practices, exterior 

clearance, and interior clearance. 

Details on the Panel and its 

recommendations are provided in the 

Panel Report (Ref. 9). Information on 

how EPA implemented the Panel’s 

recommendations in the development of 

the RRP program is available in Unit 

VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed 

RRP rule (Ref. 10) and in Unit V.C. of 

the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). 

EPA believes that the conclusions it 

made in 2008 regarding these 

recommendations are applicable to this 

proposal, particularly with respect to 

the removal of the opt-out provision. 

8. Alternatives considered. EPA 

considered several significant 

alternatives to this proposed rule that 

could affect the economic impacts of the 

proposed rule on small entities. These 

alternatives would have applied to both 

small and large entities, but given the 

number of small entities in the affected 

industries, these alternatives would 

primarily affect small entities. For the 

reasons described in this unit, EPA 

believes these alternatives are not 

consistent with the objectives of the 

rule. 

i. Delayed effective date. EPA 

considered an option that would delay 

the removal of the opt-out provision by 

6 months, and another option that 

would delay the date by 12 months. 

These options would make the RRP 

program more complex to implement 

and might lead to confusion by 

renovators and homeowners. These 

options would also lead to increased 

exposures during the delay period, 

including exposures to children under 

the age of 6 and pregnant women. 

Therefore, EPA believes that these 

options are not consistent with the 

stated objectives of the proposed rule. 

ii. Staged approach. EPA considered 

a staged approach that would initially 

remove the opt-out provision in pre1960 housing, and then remove it in 

housing built between 1960 and 1978 a 

year later. This would make the RRP 

program more complex to implement 

and might lead to confusion by 

renovators and homeowners. It would 

also increase exposures during the first 

year of the rule from renovations in 

houses built between 1960 and 1978, 

including exposures to children under 

the age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA 

does not believe that the reduced 

burden of a staged approach outweighs 

the implementation complexity and 

additional exposures that it would 

create. Therefore, EPA believes that this 

option is not consistent with the stated 

objectives of the rule. 

iii. Alternate work practices. EPA also 

considered different options for the 

work practice requirements in housing 

that was previously eligible for the optout provision. Specifically, EPA 

considered options: With the 

containment requirements specified in 

40 CFR 745.85, but without any 

cleaning or cleaning verification work 

practices; with the cleaning and 

cleaning verification requirements 

specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 

any containment work practices; with 

the cleaning requirements specified in 

40 CFR 745.85, but without any 

containment or cleaning verification 

work practices; and with the 

containment, cleaning, and cleaning 

verification requirements specified in 40 

CFR 745.85, but without the 

prohibitions or restrictions on paint 

removal practices specified in 40 CFR 

745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame burning or 

torching, the use of machines that 

remove paint through high-speed 

operation without HEPA exhaust 

control, and heat guns operating in 

excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). 

EPA’s Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated 

that renovation, repair, and paint 

preparation activities produce large 

quantities of lead dust that create dustlead hazards. The Dust Study showed 

that the largest decreases in dust levels 

were observed in the experiments where 

the rule’s practices of containment, 

specialized cleaning, and cleaning 

verification were all used. The Dust 

Study indicated that if the prohibited 

and restricted practices are avoided, the 

suite of work practices as a whole are 

effective at addressing the lead-paint 

dust that is generated during renovation 

activities. This is discussed in more 

detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 

21696–21697). 

As required by section 212 of Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA issued a 

Small Entity Compliance Guide (the 

Guide) in December 2008 to help small 

entities comply with the RRP rule. The 

Guide is available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/ 

sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the 

National Lead Information Center by 

calling 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. 

Hearing- or speech-challenged 

individuals may access this number 

through TTY by calling the toll-free 

Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877– 

8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as 

necessary, to reflect this rulemaking 

activity. 

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 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 UMRA generally requires 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55521 

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 proposal rules 

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 proposed rule 

contains a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted 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 

docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 12) 

and is summarized here. 

1. Authorizing legislation. This 

proposed 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 proposed 

rule, a copy of which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 5). 

The Economic Analysis presents the 

costs of this proposed rule as well as 

various regulatory options and is 

summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA has 

estimated the total costs of this 

proposed rule at $500 million in the 

first year and $300 million per year 

thereafter. 

The benefits of the proposed rule 

result from the prevention of adverse 

health effects attributable to lead 

exposure from renovations in pre-1978 

buildings. These health effects include 

impaired cognitive function in children 

and several illnesses in children and 

adults, such as increased adverse 

cardiovascular outcomes (including 

increased blood pressure, increased 

incidence of hypertension, 

cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) 

and decreased kidney function. 

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 

proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), the Agency 

has met with State, local, and Tribal 

government officials on numerous 

occasions to discuss renovation issues. 

4. Least burdensome option. EPA has 

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 considered 

different options for the scope of the 

proposed 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 for this proposed rule analyzed 

several additional options for the 

phasing, effective date, and work 

practices required for the additional 

owner-occupied housing affected by the 

removal of the opt-out provision. As 

described in Unit IV.C., EPA has 

preliminarily concluded that the 

options for delaying or phasing the 

effective date would make the RRP 

program more complex to implement, 

might lead to confusion by renovators 

and homeowners, and would lead to 

increased exposures. Currently EPA 

believes that the preferred option is the 

least burdensome option available that 

achieves a central objective of this 

proposed rule, which is to minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in all target housing 

and other buildings frequented by 

children under age 6. 

This proposed 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 

proposed rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Small governments operate public 

housing, and schools that are childoccupied facilities. If these governments 

perform renovations in these facilities, 

they may incur very small additional 

costs to provide residents, parents or 

guardians with copies of the records 

documenting compliance with the 

training and work practice 

requirements. 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 IV.C.4., the proposed 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 proposed rule is not targeted 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. Executive Order 13132 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), EPA has determined 

that this proposed rule does not have 

‘‘federalism implications,’’ because it 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. States are 

able to apply for, and receive 

authorization to administer the lead 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program requirements, but are under no 

obligation to do so. In the absence of a 

State authorization, EPA will administer 

the 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 consulted with 

representatives of State and local 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55522 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

governments in developing the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program. These consultations were 

described in the preamble to the 

proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10). 

F. Executive Order 13175 

As required by Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951, November 

6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have Tribal 

implications because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

Tribes, as specified in the Order. Tribes 

are able to apply for and receive 

authorization to administer the lead 

renovation, repair, and painting 

program on Tribal lands, but Tribes are 

under no obligation to do so. In the 

absence of a Tribal authorization, EPA 

will administer these requirements. 

While Tribes may operate public 

housing or child-occupied facilities 

covered by the rule such as 

kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, and 

daycare 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 proposed rule. Although 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply, 

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. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

applies to this proposed rule because it 

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. 

A central purpose of this proposed 

rule is to minimize exposure to leadbased paint hazards created during 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities in all housing and 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 in housing 

eligible for the opt-out provision. 

Removing the opt-out provision will 

protect children under the age of 6 who 

visit a friend, relative, or caregiver’s 

house where a renovation would have 

been performed under the opt-out 

provision; children who move into such 

housing when their family purchases it 

after such a renovation would have been 

performed; and children who live in a 

property adjacent to owner-occupied 

housing where renovation would have 

been performed under the opt-out 

provision. Removing the opt-out 

provision will also protect children age 

6 and older who live in houses that 

would have been renovated under the 

opt-out provision; who move into such 

housing; and who live in adjacent 

properties. 

H. Executive Order 13211 

This proposed 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. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 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. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, 

entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994), EPA has assessed the potential 

impact of this rule on minority and lowincome populations. The results of this 

assessment are presented in the 

Economic Analysis, which is available 

in the public docket for this rulemaking 

(Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, 

the Agency has determined that this 

proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Lead, 

Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 20, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

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 745.81 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.81 Effective dates. 

(a) * * * 

(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)(1) and (b)(6) in target 

housing or child-occupied facilities, 

unless the renovation qualifies for one 

of the exceptions identified in § 

745.82(a). 

* * * * * 

§ 745.82 [Amended] 

3. Section 745.82 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c). 

4. Section 745.84 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2) 

introductory text, and (c)(2)(ii) to read 

as follows: 

§ 745.84 Information distribution 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 55523 

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 and a copy of the 

records required by § 745.86(c) and (d), 

at no cost to the occupants, or 

(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 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. The signs must also include 

information on how interested 

occupants can review a copy of the 

records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) 

or obtain a copy from the renovation 

firm at no cost to the occupants. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Provide the parents and guardians 

of children using the child-occupied 

facility with the pamphlet, information 

describing the general nature and 

locations of the renovation and the 

anticipated completion date, and 

information on how interested parents 

or guardians of children frequenting the 

child-occupied facility can review a 

copy of the records required by § 

745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from 

the renovation firm at no cost to the 

occupants by complying with one of the 

following: 

* * * * * 

(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 of children frequenting the 

child-occupied facility can review a 

copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy 

from the renovation firm at no cost to 

the parents or guardians. The signs must 

also include information on how 

interested parents or guardians of 

children frequenting the child-occupied 

facility can review a copy of the records 

required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain 

a copy from the renovation firm at no 

cost to the parents or guardians. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 745.86 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b)(6) and 

redesignating paragraph (b)(7) as 

paragraph (b)(6) and by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Records or reports certifying that 

a determination had been made that 

lead-based paint was not present on the 

components affected by the renovation, 

as described in § 745.82(a). These 

records or reports include: 

(i) Reports prepared by a certified 

inspector or certified risk assessor 

(certified pursuant to either Federal 

regulations at § 745.226 or an EPAauthorized State or Tribal certification 

program). 

(ii) Records prepared by a certified 

renovator after using EPA-recognized 

test kits, including an identification of 

the manufacturer and model of any test 

kits used, a description of the 

components that were tested including 

their locations, and the result of each 

test kit used. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) When the final invoice for the 

renovation is delivered or within 30 

days of the completion of the 

renovation, whichever is earlier, the 

renovation firm must provide 

information pertaining to compliance 

with this subpart to the following 

persons: 

(i) The owner of the building; and, if 

different, 

(ii) An adult occupant of the 

residential dwelling, if the renovation 

took place within a residential dwelling, 

or an adult representative of the childoccupied facility, if the renovation took 

place within a child-occupied facility. 

(2) When performing renovations in 

common areas of multi-unit target 

housing, renovation firms must post the 

information required by this subpart or 

instructions on how interested 

occupants can obtain a copy of this 

information. This information must be 

posted in areas where it is likely to be 

seen by the occupants of all of the 

affected units. 

(3) The information required to be 

provided by paragraph (c) of this section 

may be provided by completing the 

sample form titled ‘‘Sample Renovation 

Recordkeeping Checklist’’ or a similar 

form containing the test kit information 

required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and the 

training and work practice compliance 

information required by § 745.86(b)(6). 

(d) If dust clearance sampling is 

performed in lieu of cleaning 

verification as permitted by § 745.85(c), 

the renovation firm must provide, when 

the final invoice for the renovation is 

delivered or within 30 days of the 

completion of the renovation, 

whichever is earlier, a copy of the dust 

sampling report to: 

(1) The owner of the building; and, if 

different, 

(2) An adult occupant of the 

residential dwelling, if the renovation 

took place within a residential dwelling, 

or an adult representative of the childoccupied facility, if the renovation took 

place within a child-occupied facility. 

(3) When performing renovations in 

common areas of multi-unit target 

housing, renovation firms must post 

these dust sampling reports or 

information on how interested 

occupants of the housing being 

renovated can obtain a copy of the 

report. This information must be posted 

in areas where they are likely to be seen 

by the occupants of all of the affected 

units. 

6. Section 745.90 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust 

sampling technician certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) Must prepare the records required 

by § 745.86(b)(1) and (6). 

* * * * * 

7. Section 745.326 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal 

program requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) Revisions to renovation program 

requirements. When EPA publishes in 

the Federal Register revisions to the 

renovation program requirements 

contained in subparts E and L of this 

part: 

(1) A State or Tribe with a renovation 

program approved before the effective 

date of the revisions to the renovation 

program requirements in subparts E and 

L of this part must demonstrate that it 

meets the requirements of this section 

no later than the first report that it 

submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) but no 

later than 1 year after the effective date 

of the revisions. 

(2) A State or Tribe with an 

application for approval of a renovation 

program submitted but not approved 

before the effective date of the revisions 

to the renovation program requirements 

in subparts E and L of this part 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

55524 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

§ 745.324(h) of this part but no later 

than 1 year after the effective date of the 

revisions. 

(3) A State or Tribe submitting its 

application for approval of a renovation 

program on or after the effective date of 

the revisions must demonstrate in its 

application that it meets the 

requirements of the new renovation 

program requirements in subparts E and 

L of this part. 

[FR Doc. E9–25986 Filed 10–23–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0065] 

[MO 9221050083-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Status Review of Arctic 

Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the 

Upper Missouri River System 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to conduct 

status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act), give notice 

of our intent to conduct a status review 

of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) 

in the upper Missouri River system. We 

conduct status reviews to determine 

whether the entity should be listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

Through this notice, we encourage all 

interested parties to provide us 

information regarding Arctic grayling in 

the upper Missouri River basin. 

DATES: We must receive information no 

later than November 27, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Via e-mail to: 

fw6_arcticgrayling@fws.gov 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Arctic 

Grayling Status Review, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, 

585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 

59601. 

We will not accept faxes. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Wilson, Montana Field Office; 

telephone (406) 449-5225. Individuals 

who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1-800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

To ensure that the status review is 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information and to 

provide an opportunity to any interested 

parties to provide information for 

consideration during the status 

assessment, we are requesting 

information concerning Arctic grayling 

in the upper Missouri River system. We 

request information be provided within 

30 days. We request information from 

the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested party. We are seeking: 

(1) General information concerning 

the taxonomy, biology, ecology, 

genetics, and status of the Arctic 

grayling of the upper Missouri River 

system; 

(2) Specific information relevant to 

the consideration of the potential 

distinct population segment (DPS) 

status of Arctic grayling in the upper 

Missouri River system in accordance 

with our Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996) (known as the DPS 

Policy), which specifically considers 

two elements: (i) discreteness of the 

population segment in relation to the 

remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; and (ii) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs. Per our recent 

settlement, we will consider various 

DPS designations that include different 

life histories of Arctic grayling in the 

upper Missouri River system. 

Specifically, we may consider DPS 

configurations that include the fluvial 

(relating to, or inhabiting, a river or 

stream) and/or adfluvial (fish that live 

in lakes and migrate into streams to 

spawn) Arctic grayling in the upper 

Missouri River system; 

(3) Specific information on the 

conservation status of Arctic grayling in 

the upper Missouri River system, 

including information on distribution, 

abundance, and population trends; 

(4) Specific information on threats to 

Arctic grayling in the upper Missouri 

River, including: (i) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (ii) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (iii) disease or predation; (iv) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (v) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence; and 

(5) Specific information on 

conservation actions designed to 

improve Arctic grayling habitat or 

reduce threats to grayling in the upper 

Missouri River system. 

If you submit information, we request 

you support it with documentation such 

as data, maps, bibliographic references, 

methods used to gather and analyze the 

data, or copies of any pertinent 

publications, reports, or letters by 

knowledgeable sources. 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs 

that determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information that 

includes personal identifying 

information, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

personal identifying information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we receive and use 

in preparing this finding will be 

available for you to review by 

appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Montana Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

The Arctic grayling is a fish belonging 

to the family Salmonidae (salmon, trout, 

charr, whitefishes), subfamily 

Thymallinae (graylings), and is 

represented by a single genus, 

Thymallus (Scott and Crossman 1973, 

pp. 301–302; Behnke 2002, pp. 327– 

331). Arctic grayling have long, thin 

bodies with deeply forked tails, and 

adults typically average 254 to 330 

millimeters (10 to 13 inches) in length. 

Coloration varies from silvery or 

iridescent blue and lavender, to dark 

blue (Behnke 2002, pp. 327–328). Arctic 

grayling have a prominent sail-like 

dorsal fin, which is large and vividly 

colored with rows of orange to bright 

green spots, and often has an orange 

border. Dark spots often appear on the 

body toward the head (Behnke 2002, pp. 

327–328). 

Arctic grayling are native to Arctic 

Ocean drainages of northwestern 

Canada and Alaska; the Peace, 

Saskatchewan, and Athabasca River 

drainages in Alberta, eastward to 

Hudson Bay and westward to the Bering 

Straits; and eastern Siberia and northern 

Eurasia (Scott and Crossman 1973, pp. 

301–302). Arctic grayling also are native 

to Pacific coast drainages of Alaska and 

Canada as far south as the Stikine River 

in British Columbia (Scott and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS