*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

1 i 

2 

3 EO12866-LRRP-Clearance-NPRM-FRN-2010-01-19.doc 

4 

5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

6 

7 40 CFR Part 745 

8 

9 i 

10 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–XXXX–X] 

11 

12 i 

13 RIN 2070–AJ57 

14 

15 i 

16 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, 

17 and Painting Program

18 

19 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

20 ACTION: Proposed rule. 

21 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing several revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, 

22 and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, training, certification, 

23 and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons 

24 performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied 

25 facilities. EPA is particularly concerned about dust-lead hazards generated by 

26 renovations because of the well-documented toxicity of lead, especially to younger 

27 children. This proposal includes additional requirements designed to ensure that lead28 based paint hazards generated by renovation work are adequately cleaned after 

29 renovation work is finished and before the work areas are re-occupied. Specifically, EPA 

30 is proposing to require dust wipe testing after many renovations covered by the RRP rule. 

31 For a subset of jobs involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means 

32 or the disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed 

33 operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasters, this proposal would also require the 

34 renovation firm to demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust-lead levels remaining 

35 in the work area are below regulatory levels. 

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

37 publication in the Federal Register]. 

38 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number 

39 EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049, by one of the following methods: 
2

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

41 instructions for submitting comments. 

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

43 Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

44 Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

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

46 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number 

47 EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

48 Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. 

49 Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and 

50 special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

51 Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–

52 2005–0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket 

53 without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, 

54 including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 

55 claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

56 disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

57 or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is 

58 an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 

59 information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail 

60 comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

61 will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 

62 docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA 

63 recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 

64 your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

65 comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 

66 not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 

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

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

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

70 publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

71 Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in 

72 hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at 

73 http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The 

74 OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West 

75 Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading 

76 Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

77 legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 

78 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Docket 

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

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

81 and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at 

82 all times in the building and returned upon departure. 
3

83 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: 

84 Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), 

85 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

86 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 554–

87 1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

88 For technical information contact: Cindy Wheeler, National Program Chemicals 

89 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 

90 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

91 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

92 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

93 

94 I. General Information 

95 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

96 You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform renovations of 

97 target housing or child-occupied facilities for compensation, dust sampling, or dust 

98 testing. You may also be affected by this action if you perform lead-based paint 

99 inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments or abatements in target housing or 

100 child-occupied facilities or if you operate a training program for individuals who perform 

101 any of these activities. “Target housing” is defined in section 401 of TSCA as any 

102 housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with 

103 disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) 

104 or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a 

105 portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 

106 6 years of age, on at least 2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday 

107 period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly 

108 visits last at least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. 

109 Potentially-affected entities may include, but are not limited to: 

110 

111 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single family housing 

112 construction, multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers.

113 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air114 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, 

115 finish carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile 

116 and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors. 

117 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and 

118 dwellings, residential property managers. 

119 

120 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 

121 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary 

122 schools with kindergarten classrooms. 
4

123 

124 • Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training 

125 providers. 

126 

127 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services 

128 (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 

129 

130 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors 

131 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 

132 

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

134 readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not 

135 listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification 

136 System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 

137 whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding 

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

139 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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

141 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 

142 regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 

143 to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

144 outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 

145 CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 

146 specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

147 comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 

148 contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 

149 docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 

150 procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

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

152 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information 

153 (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

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

155 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section 

156 number. 

157 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute 

158 language for your requested changes. 

159 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data 

160 that you used. 

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

162 estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 
5

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

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

165 personal threats. 

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

167 identified. 

168 II. Introduction 

169 A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

170 EPA is proposing several revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

171 Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, training, certification, and 

172 recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing 

173 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. 

174 EPA is particularly concerned about dust-lead hazards generated by renovations because 

175 of the well-documented toxicity of lead, especially to younger children. This proposal 

176 includes additional requirements designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards 

177 generated by renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovation work is finished 

178 and before the areas are re-occupied. Specifically, EPA is proposing to require dust wipe 

179 testing after many renovations covered by the RRP rule. For a subset of jobs involving 

180 demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint 

181 using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as power 

182 sanders or abrasive blasters, this proposal would also require the renovation firm to 

183 demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust-lead levels remaining in the work area 

184 are below regulatory levels. EPA is not, however, reopening other aspects of the work 

185 practices required by the 2008 RRP rule. Nor is EPA reopening for consideration any 

186 aspects of the existing regulations, except as provided in today’s proposal. 

187 

188 EPA is also proposing various minor amendments to the regulations concerning 

189 applications for training provider accreditation, amending accreditations, course 

190 completion certificates, record keeping, State and Tribal program requirements, and 

191 grandfathering (i.e., taking a refresher training in lieu of the initial training). In addition, 

192 the proposed amendments intend to clarify that certain requirements apply to the RRP 

193 rule as well as the Lead-based Paint Activities (abatement) regulations, that the 

194 prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in the RRP rule apply to the disturbance of 

195 any painted surface, that certified renovators need only provide on-the-job training to 

196 other renovation workers in the work practices required by the rule, that a certified 

197 inspector or risk assessor can act as a dust sampling technician, which hands-on training 

198 topics are required for renovator and dust sampling technician courses, and requirements 

199 for States and Tribes that apply to become authorized to implement the RRP program. 

200 

201 B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? 

202 

203 These work practice requirements for dust wipe testing and clearance, training, 

204 certification and accreditation requirements, and State, Territorial and Tribal 
6

205 authorization provisions are being promulgated under the authority of TSCA sections 

206 402(c)(3), 404, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 

207 C. Background 

208 

209 1. Health effects of lead exposure. This Unit describes some of the more 

210 significant health effects of lead exposure and the routes of exposure associated with lead 

211 in paint. Much more information is available in the preamble to the 2008 Lead 

212 Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule (Ref. 1) and the Air Quality Criteria for 

213 Lead document (Ref. 2). 

214 

215 Lead has been known throughout the ages for its useful properties, having been 

216 commonly used in the production of paint, batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and gasoline. 

217 Lead is also known for its “broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems 

218 via widely diverse mechanisms of action.” (Ref. 2) This array of health effects includes 

219 heme biosynthesis and related functions; neurological development and function; 

220 reproduction and physical development; kidney function; cardiovascular function; and 

221 immune function. There is also some evidence of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from 

222 animal studies, together with limited human evidence of suggestive associations. 

223 

224 Of particular interest to EPA during the RRP rulemaking was the delineation of 

225 lowest observed effect levels for those lead-induced effects that are most clearly 

226 associated with blood lead levels of less than 10μg/dL in children and adults (Ref 2, at 8-

227 60). As is evident from the Criteria Document, neurotoxic effects in children and 

228 cardiovascular effects in adults are among those best substantiated as occurring at blood229 lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly lower), so these categories of 

230 effects would result in the greatest public health concern. Other newly demonstrated 

231 immune and renal system effects among general population groups are also emerging as 

232 low-level lead-exposure effects of potential public health concern (Ref. 2, at 8-60). 

233 

234 The nervous system has long been recognized as a target of lead toxicity, with the 

235 developing nervous system affected at lower exposures than the mature system. While 

236 blood lead levels in U.S. children ages 1 to 5 years have decreased notably since the late 

237 1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of effects on the 

238 neurodevelopment of children at population mean concurrent blood lead levels ranging 

239 down to as low as 2 to 8 μg/dL (Ref. 2, at E-9). Functional manifestations of lead 

240 neurotoxicity during childhood include sensory, motor, cognitive and behavioral impacts. 

241 Investigating associations between lead exposure and behavior, mood, and social conduct 

242 of children has been an emerging area of research (see Ref. 2 at 6.2.6). Early studies 

243 indicated linkages between lower-level lead toxicity and behavioral problems (e.g., 

244 aggression, attentional problems, and hyperactivity) in children. 

245 

246 Paint that contains lead can pose a health threat through various routes of 

247 exposure. House dust is the most common exposure pathway through which children are 

248 exposed to lead-based paint hazards. Dust created during normal lead-based paint wear 

249 (especially around windows and doors) can create an invisible film over surfaces in a 

250 house. Children, particularly younger children, are at risk for high exposures of lead-
7

251 based paint dust via hand-to-mouth exposure, and may also ingest lead-based paint chips 

252 from flaking paint on walls, windows, and doors. Lead from exterior house paint can 

253 flake off or leach into the soil around the outside of a home, contaminating children's 

254 play areas. Cleaning and renovation activities may actually increase the threat of lead255 based paint exposure by dispersing lead dust particles in the air and over accessible 

256 household surfaces. In turn, both adults and children can receive hazardous exposures by 

257 inhaling the dust or by ingesting lead-based paint dust during hand-to-mouth activities. 

258 

259 EPA’s Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described more fully in Unit 

260 III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, provides ample evidence of a link 

261 between renovation activities and elevated blood lead levels in resident children (Ref. 3). 

262 This peer-reviewed study concluded that general residential renovation and remodeling is 

263 associated with an increased risk of elevated blood lead levels in children and that 

264 specific renovation and remodeling activities are also associated with an increase in the 

265 risk of elevated blood lead levels in children. In particular, removing paint (using open 

266 flame torches, using heat guns, using chemical paint removers, and wet scraping/sanding) 

267 and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping significantly increased the risk of elevated 

268 blood lead levels. 

269 

270 Three studies from New York support the findings of the Wisconsin Childhood 

271 Blood-Lead Study. In 1995, the New York State Department of Health assessed lead 

272 exposure among children resulting from home renovation and remodeling in 1993–1994. 

273 A review of the health department records of children with blood lead levels equal to or 

274 greater than 20 μg/dL identified 320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood lead levels that were 

275 attributable to renovation and remodeling (Ref. 4). An update to that study with data 

276 from environmental investigations conducted during 2006-2007 in New York State 

277 (excluding New York City) identified renovation, repair, and painting activities as the 

278 probable source of lead exposure in 14% of 972 children with blood lead levels equal to 

279 or exceeding 20 μg/dL (Ref. 5). The authors concluded that children living in housing 

280 undergoing renovation, repair, and painting that was built before 1978, and particularly 

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

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

283 association between elevated blood lead levels in children younger than 5 years and 

284 renovation or repair activities in homes in New York City (Ref. 6). EPA notes that the 

285 authors show that when dust and debris was reported (by respondents via telephone 

286 interviews) to be “everywhere” following a renovation, the blood lead levels were 

287 significantly higher than children at homes that did not report remodeling work. On the 

288 other hand, when the respondent reported either “no visible dust and debris” or that “dust 

289 and debris was limited to the work area,” there was no statistically significant effect on 

290 blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report remodeling work. Although the 

291 study found only a weak and nonsignificant link between a report of any renovation 

292 activity and the likelihood that a resident child had an elevated blood-lead level, the link 

293 to the likelihood of an elevated blood-lead level was statistically significant for surface 

294 preparation by sanding and for renovation work that spreads dust and debris beyond the 

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

296 Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 6, at 509). 
8

297 

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

299 increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Analysis of the National Health and 

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

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

302 years has decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-2004, which is an 84% 

303 decline (Ref. 7). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non304 Hispanic black children aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead levels 

305 equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) 

306 (Ref. 7). In addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the 

307 geometric mean blood lead level was significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 

308 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.8 

309 μg/dL). For children aged 1 to 5 years from families with low income, the geometric 

310 mean blood lead level was 2.4 μg/dL. The analysis indicates that residence in older 

311 housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher 

312 lead levels (Ref. 7). 

313 

314 2. Prior EPA rulemakings under TSCA Sections 402(a) and 403. TSCA section 

315 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering lead-based paint activities, such as 

316 abatements, to ensure persons performing these activities are properly trained, that 

317 training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are 

318 certified. These regulations must contain standards for performing lead-based paint 

319 activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, 

320 EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern lead-based 

321 paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing 

322 and child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the Lead-based Paint Activities 

323 Regulations) (Ref. 8). These regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain 

324 an accreditation program for training providers and training and certification 

325 requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, abatement 

326 supervisors, and abatement workers. Work practice standards for lead-based paint 

327 activities are included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for interested 

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

329 their own lead-based paint activities programs. 

330 

331 The work practice standards for abatements in the Lead-based Paint Activities 

332 Regulations are essentially performance standards. They give a trained and certified 

333 abatement contractor some discretion in determining how best to ensure that an 

334 abatement is performed safely, so long as the contractor can demonstrate that the 

335 abatement has been properly completed and that no lead-based paint hazards remain. 

336 Certain high dust generating practices are prohibited and contractors are required to 

337 prepare occupant protection plans specifically describing the procedures to be followed 

338 on each job to protect occupants from exposures to lead-based paint hazards. In most 

339 cases, residents relocate until the abatement has been completed. Although these 

340 additional procedures are not specified in the regulations, abatement supervisor and 

341 worker courses provide comprehensive training in the specialized techniques these 

342 individuals can use to contain work areas, remove, enclose, or encapsulate lead-based 
9

343 paint and lead-based paint hazards, and clean up after the job is finished. The regulations 

344 are much more detailed in describing the procedures that must be followed to ensure that 

345 the abatement has been properly completed and that the work area is ready for re346 occupancy. These procedures, typically referred to as “clearance,” must be performed by 

347 a certified inspector or risk assessor. First, a visual inspection must be performed to 

348 determine whether deteriorated painted surfaces or visible amounts of dust, debris, or 

349 residue are still present. If so, these conditions must be eliminated before the clearance 

350 procedures may continue. An exterior abatement project is considered complete after a 

351 successful visual inspection. Following a successful visual inspection after an interior 

352 abatement project, the inspector or risk assessor must collect dust wipe samples from 

353 floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area and have them analyzed by a 

354 laboratory accredited under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program 

355 (NLLAP) for analysis. After the sampling results are received, the inspector or risk 

356 assessor must compare them with the established clearance standards for lead in dust. If 

357 all of the samples are below the clearance standards, the abatement is complete and the 

358 area may be re-occupied. If any samples are above the standards, the components 

359 represented by those samples must be re-cleaned and the clearance process must be 

360 repeated until all samples are below the clearance standards. 

361 

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

363 purposes of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous levels of lead in paint, dust, and 

364 soil. These regulations were promulgated on January 5, 2001 and codified at 40 CFR 

365 part 745, subpart D (Ref. 9). These hazard standards define lead-based paint hazards in 

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

367 A paint-lead hazard is defined as any damaged or deteriorated lead-based paint, any 

368 chewable lead-based painted surface with evidence of teeth marks, or any lead-based 

369 paint on a friction surface if lead dust levels underneath the friction surface exceed the 

370 dust-lead hazard standards. A dust-lead hazard is surface dust that contains a mass-perarea concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per square foot (μg/ft2 371 ) 

on floors or 250 μg/ft2 372 on interior windowsills based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard 

373 is bare soil that contains total lead equal to or exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm), 

374 equivalent to 400 micrograms per gram (μg/g), in a play area or average of 1,200 ppm of 

375 bare soil in the rest of the yard based on soil samples. 

376 

377 The TSCA section 403 rulemaking also amended the Lead-based Paint Activities 

378 Regulations to incorporate new dust-lead clearance standards for abatements. These 

standards are 40 μg/ft2

 on floors, 250 μg/ft2 on interior windowsills, and 400 μg/ft2 379 on 

380 window troughs, based on wipe samples. 

381 

382 On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition requesting that EPA lower the 

383 regulatory dust-lead hazard standard and modify the regulatory definition of lead-based 

384 paint. After careful consideration, EPA decided to grant the request and accordingly 

385 intends to begin the appropriate proceedings. Although EPA granted the request, the 

386 Agency did not commit to either a specific rulemaking outcome or a certain date for 

387 promulgation of a final rule. EPA’s primary reason for granting the request was based on 

388 recent epidemiological studies that indicate the current hazard standards are insufficiently 
10

389 protective. The request was granted under section 553(e) of the Administrative 

390 Procedures Act (APA). Additionally, because the Secretary of HUD was given the 

391 statutory authority to establish a lower level of lead in paint for purposes of the definition 

392 of lead-based paint in target housing, EPA plans to work with HUD on this aspect of the 

393 request. 

394 

395 3. The 2008 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule. TSCA section 402(c) 

396 addresses renovation and remodeling. Specifically, TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA 

397 to study the extent to which persons engaged in various types of renovation and 

398 remodeling activities are exposed to lead during such activities or create a lead-based 

399 paint hazard regularly or occasionally. EPA conducted this study in four phases. Phase I, 

400 the Environmental Field Sampling Study (EFSS) (Ref. 10), evaluated the amount of 

401 leaded dust released by the following activities: 

402 

403 • Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 

404 

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

406 

407 • Window replacement. 

408 

409 • Carpet removal. 

410 

411 • HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work. 

412 

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

414 sawing into wood and plaster. 

415 

416 Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 11), involved 

417 collecting data on blood lead and renovation and remodeling activities from workers. 

418 Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood Lead Study (Ref. 3), was a retrospective study 

419 focused on assessing the relationship between renovation and remodeling activities and 

420 children’s blood-lead levels. Phase IV, the Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead 

421 Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 

422 12), was similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals who worked primarily in old 

423 historic buildings. More information on the results of these peer-reviewed studies can be 

424 found in Unit III.C.1. of the preamble to the 2006 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

425 Program Proposed Rule (“2006 Proposal”) (Ref. 13). 

426 

427 TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise the Lead-based Paint 

428 Activities Regulations to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead429 based paint hazards. Accordingly, EPA issued the 2006 Proposal, proposing to conclude 

430 that any renovation activity that disturbs lead-based paint can create significant amounts 

431 of leaded dust, that most activities created lead-based paint hazards, and that some 

432 activities can be reasonably anticipated to create lead-based paint hazards (Ref. 13). This 

433 proposed finding was largely based on the results of the studies conducted under TSCA 

434 section 402(c)(2). 
11

435 

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

437 (Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities) 

438 (the “Dust Study”) to better characterize dust lead levels resulting from various 

439 renovation, repair, and painting activities (Ref. 14). This study, completed in January, 

440 2007, was designed to compare environmental lead levels at appropriate stages after 

441 various types of renovation, repair, and painting preparation activities were performed on 

442 the interiors and exteriors of target housing units and child-occupied facilities. The 

443 renovation activities were conducted by local professional renovation firms, using 

444 personnel who received lead safe work practices training. The activities conducted 

445 represented a range of activities that would have been permitted under the 2006 Proposal, 

446 including work practices that are restricted or prohibited under the final RRP rule. Of 

447 particular interest was the impact of using specific work practices that renovation firms 

448 would be required to use under the proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the 

449 work area and a multi-step cleaning protocol, as opposed to more typical work practices. 

450 

451 The final RRP rule was published in the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008 

452 (Ref. 1). The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, 

453 addresses lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities 

454 that disturb painted surfaces in target housing and child-occupied facilities. “Target 

455 housing” is defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978, except 

456 housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides 

457 or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under the final 

458 RRP rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a portion of a building, constructed 

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

460 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each 

461 day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and 

462 the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied facilities may be 

463 located in public or commercial buildings or in target housing. 

464 

465 In the final RRP rule, EPA issued its determination that renovation, repair, and 

466 painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. This 

467 finding was based on evidence from the TSCA section 402(c)(2) study and the Dust 

468 Study that all such activities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint 

469 hazards. Having made this finding, TSCA section 402(c)(3) then directs EPA to revise 

470 the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations to apply to such renovations. In the final 

471 RRP rule, EPA did not interpret its statutory mandate to require application of the 

472 existing TSCA section 402(a) regulations to renovations without change. EPA stated its 

473 belief that Congress, by using the word “revise,” and creating a separate subsection of the 

474 statute for renovation, intended that EPA make revisions to those existing regulations to 

475 adapt them to a very different regulated community. As discussed in the preamble to the 

476 final RRP rule, there are significant differences between renovations and abatements 

477 (Ref. 1). For example, performing abatement is a highly specialized skill that workers 

478 and supervisors must learn in accredited training courses. However, painters, plumbers 

479 and carpenters already know how to perform renovations, so accredited renovator 

480 training courses are designed to teach renovators how to incorporate principles of lead 
12

481 safety into their typical work. Accordingly, the rule did not merely expand the scope of 

482 the current abatement requirements to cover renovation and remodeling activities. 

483 Instead, EPA considered the elements of the existing abatement regulations and revised 

484 them as necessary to craft a rule that is practical for renovation, remodeling and painting 

485 businesses and their customers, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety as 

486 directed by TSCA section 402(a). 

487 

488 The final RRP rule establishes requirements for training renovators, other 

489 renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust 

490 sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and 

491 dust sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. 

492 Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for and receive authorization 

493 to administer and enforce all of the elements of these new renovation requirements. 

494 

495 The final RRP rule created two new training disciplines in the field of lead-based 

496 paint: renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who successfully complete 

497 renovator training from an accredited training provider are certified renovators. Certified 

498 renovators are responsible for ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are 

499 performed in compliance with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 745.85. 

500 Persons who successfully complete dust sampling technician training from an accredited 

501 training provider are certified dust sampling technicians. Certified dust sampling 

502 technicians may be called upon to collect dust wipe samples after renovation activities 

503 have been completed. While the training disciplines, the work practice standards, and the 

504 recordkeeping requirements of the final RRP rule differ from those established in the 

505 lead-based paint activities regulations, EPA determined that the accreditation 

506 requirements imposed on persons providing lead-based paint activities training would 

507 also be effective for persons providing renovation training. Therefore, the final RRP rule 

508 amended 40 CFR 745.225 to cover persons who provide or wish to provide renovation 

509 training for the purposes of the final RRP rule. 

510 

511 As amended, 40 CFR 745.225 requires training providers who wish to provide 

512 lead-based paint activities or renovation training for the purposes of the EPA's lead-based 

513 paint programs to be accredited by EPA. The requirements for each course of study are 

514 described in detail at 40 CFR 745.225 as are the operational requirements for training 

515 programs and the process for obtaining accreditation. 

516 

517 Under the final RRP rule, covered renovations in target housing and child518 occupied facilities must be performed by certified renovation firms. A certified firm 

519 must ensure that persons who perform renovations on behalf of the firm are properly 

520 trained and that the work practice requirements are followed. Renovations must be 

521 performed or directed by certified renovators, who are also responsible for compliance 

522 with the RRP rule’s requirements. The final RRP rule contains a number of work 

523 practice requirements that must be followed for every covered renovation. These 

524 requirements pertain to warning signs and work area containment, the restriction or 

525 prohibition of certain practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power 

526 planing), waste handling, cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning verification. In contrast, 
13

527 the RRP rule did not apply the same performance standard of an abatement-style 

528 clearance requirement to demonstrate that lead-based paint hazards created by the 

529 renovation have been eliminated. Instead, the RRP rule sets forth the steps that must be 

530 taken to isolate and contain the work area before work begins and the cleaning protocol 

531 that must be followed after the renovation has been completed. 

532 

533 A final step in the process for interior renovations is cleaning verification. After 

534 the RRP rule’s specific cleaning protocol has been followed, a visual inspection for 

535 visible dust and debris is performed. If no dust and debris is found, a certified renovator 

536 must wipe the interior windowsills and uncarpeted floors with wet disposable cleaning 

537 cloths and compare each to a cleaning verification card developed and distributed by 

538 EPA. If the cloth matches or is lighter than the image on the card, the surface represented 

539 by the cloth has passed the post-renovation cleaning verification. If the cloth is darker 

540 than the image on the card, the surface represented by the cloth must be re-cleaned and 

541 then wiped with a new wet cloth, which is then compared to the cleaning verification 

542 card. If the cloth is still darker than the image on the card, the surface must be allowed to 

543 dry for at least an hour. At that time, the surface is wiped with a dry electrostatic 

544 cleaning cloth, which completes the cleaning verification process for that surface. When 

545 all surfaces in the work area have completed cleaning verification, the renovation has 

546 been completed and the work area may be re-occupied. 

547 

548 Shortly after the final RRP rule was promulgated, several petitions were filed 

549 challenging the rule. These petitions were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals 

550 for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 26, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with 

551 the environmental and children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. 

552 In this agreement EPA committed to propose several changes to the RRP rule, including 

553 the changes discussed in this notice. 

554 

555 Throughout this notice, EPA will use several different terms to describe the 

556 proposed requirements. EPA will use the term “dust wipe testing” to mean collecting 

557 wipe samples of dust on floors and windowsills and in window troughs, analyzing the 

558 samples for lead content, and reporting the results of the analysis to the owners and 

559 occupants of the building being renovated. Although the term “dust wipe sampling” was 

560 used in the settlement agreement to describe these activities, EPA is using “dust wipe 

561 testing” in this notice to signal that sample analysis may be performed off-site in a 

562 traditional laboratory setting or on-site by a portable laboratory, so long as the entity 

563 performing the analysis is accredited or recognized by the National Lead Laboratory 

564 Accreditation Program (NLLAP). In this notice, EPA will use the term “dust wipe 

565 sampling” to refer to the specific activity of collecting the wipe samples, not to the 

566 analysis or reporting of results. EPA will use the term “clearance” to mean 

567 demonstrating, through dust wipe testing, that the floors, windowsills, and window 

568 troughs in the renovation work area are below the regulatory clearance standards that 

569 have been established for the abatement program and codified at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). 

570 This includes re-cleaning where necessary to achieve the clearance standards. 

571 

572 III. Provisions of this Proposal 
14

573 

574 A. Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance 

575 

576 1. Background. One of the most significant issues arising out of the RRP 

577 rulemaking was the issue of how to determine whether a renovation had been properly 

578 completed. The Lead-based Paint Activities Rule requires clearance to be achieved in an 

579 abatement work area before the abatement is considered complete. As previously 

580 discussed, the abatement clearance process involves a visual inspection, dust wipe 

581 sampling of floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area, analysis by an 

582 NLLAP-accredited laboratory, and comparison of the results to the clearance standards. 

583 If the sample results are below the clearance standards, clearance has been achieved and 

584 the work area may be re-occupied. If the sample results are above the standards, the 

585 work area must be re-cleaned and the clearance process must begin again. For this 

586 reason, abatement projects often include coating floors with a sealant. According to the 

587 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s “Guidelines For the Evaluation 

588 and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing” (HUD Guidelines), the purpose of 

589 sealing floors is not to trap leaded dust underneath the sealant, but to provide a surface 

590 that can be cleaned effectively by the resident (Ref. 15). Although achieving clearance is 

591 not the main reason for sealing floors, the process typically results in a surface than can 

592 achieve clearance and be kept clean by the resident. This is a sensible approach for 

593 abatements, because the goal of abatement is to permanently eliminate lead-based paint 

594 and lead-based paint hazards. The clearance process ensures that no lead-based paint or 

595 lead-based paint hazards remain in the work area. 

596 

597 However, EPA recognized that there are many differences between renovations 

598 and abatements. As discussed in the preamble to the final RRP rule, renovations are 

599 different from abatements in intent, implementation, type of workforce, funding, and goal 

600 (Ref. 1). One of the biggest challenges that faced EPA in revising the TSCA section 

601 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations was how to effectively bridge the 

602 differences between abatement and renovation and remodeling while acknowledging that 

603 many of the activities employed in both (e.g., window replacement) are the same and 

604 generate the same amount of dust. Abatements are generally performed in three 

605 circumstances. First, abatements may be performed in the residences of children who 

606 have been found to have elevated blood lead levels. Second, abatements are performed in 

607 housing receiving financial assistance from HUD when required by HUD’s Lead-Safe 

608 Housing Rule, codified at 24 CFR part 35. Third, state and local laws and regulations 

609 may require abatements in certain situations associated with rental housing. Typically, 

610 when an abatement is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are 

611 temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement has been demonstrated to 

612 have been properly completed through dust clearance testing. Carpet in the housing is 

613 usually removed as part of the abatement because it is difficult to demonstrate that it is 

614 free of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been replaced during 

615 the abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in order to achieve clearance. 

616 Abatements have only one purpose—to permanently eliminate lead-based paint and lead617 based paint hazards. 

618 
15

619 On the other hand, renovations are performed for a myriad of reasons that may 

620 have nothing to do with lead-based paint. Renovations involve activities designed to 

621 update, maintain, or modify all or part of a building. Renovations may be performed 

622 while the property is occupied or unoccupied. If the renovation is performed while the 

623 property is occupied, the occupants do not typically relocate pending the completion of 

624 the project. 

625 

626 EPA also recognized that dust wipe testing and clearance as required after 

627 abatements can be expensive. The costs can be attributed to two major factors: the cost 

628 of trained personnel to collect the samples and the cost of the laboratory analysis. EPA 

629 preliminarily estimated the cost of three dust wipe samples to be $160 to collect and 

630 analyze (Ref. 13). If EPA had required dust wipe testing and clearance after every 

631 renovation project, it would have made up a significant portion of the cost of smaller 

632 projects. In addition, laboratory results may not be available for several days. If EPA 

633 had required traditional abatement-style clearance after renovations, the work area would 

634 not be able to be re-occupied while waiting for the laboratory results. 

635 

636 In addition, EPA was also concerned that requiring clearance after every 

637 renovation job could, in some instances, result in the renovation firm being held 

638 responsible for abating all dust-lead hazards, including such hazards that may have 

639 existed in the area before the renovation commenced. During the stakeholder input 

640 opportunities provided by EPA before issuing the 2006 Proposal, contractors suggested 

641 that, if post-renovation dust wipe testing were required, the contractors would have to 

642 protect themselves by collecting pre-renovation dust wipe samples, to ensure that they 

643 would not be held liable for pre-existing hazards. 

644 

645 To address these various concerns, EPA began looking for an alternative to dust 

646 wipe testing and clearance that would be quick, inexpensive, reliable, and easy to 

647 perform. EPA conducted a series of studies using commercially available disposable 

648 cleaning cloths to determine whether variations of a “white glove” test could serve as an 

649 effective alternative to clearance. Based on the favorable final report of these studies, 

650 entitled “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing” 

651 (Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study) (Ref. 16), EPA’s 2006 Proposal included a cleaning 

652 verification protocol using wet and dry disposable cleaning cloths. 

653 

654 Unlike the earlier Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, the Dust Study was not 

655 designed specifically to evaluate the cleaning verification in isolation from the rest of the 

656 work practices. However, the Dust Study did serve as a valuable field test of the cleaning 

657 verification protocol. The Dust Study involved actual renovations performed by local 

658 renovation contractors who received instruction in how to perform cleaning verification 

659 using wet and dry disposable cleaning cloths and then were left alone to determine 

660 whether the cleaning cloths matched or were lighter than the cleaning verification card 

661 developed by the EPA. In order to maximize the information collected about cleaning 

662 verification in the Dust Study, cleaning verification was conducted after each experiment, 

663 not just those experiments that were being conducted in accordance with the proposed 

664 rule requirements for containment and cleaning. 
16

665 

666 EPA received numerous comments on this aspect of the RRP rulemaking. While 

667 some commenters supported the proposed work practices, including cleaning verification, 

668 many others thought that renovation work areas ought to be tested and cleared for re669 occupancy in the same way that abatement work areas are cleared through the clearance 

670 process, including dust wipe testing. Many commenters believed that renovation firms 

671 should be required to demonstrate that no dust-lead hazards had been left behind in the 

672 work area. These commenters contended that the only reliable, safe, and effective way to 

673 do this was through dust wipe testing and clearance. 

674 

675 These commenters contended that the unreliability of cleaning verification made 

676 it an unsuitable substitute for dust wipe testing and clearance. They pointed to the 

677 sentence in the conclusion section of EPA’s Dust Study that states that the cleaning 

678 verification protocol was not always accurate in identifying the presence of levels above 

679 EPA standards for floors and sills. Some commenters also noted the Dust Study report’s 

680 discussion of factors that affected the effectiveness of cleaning verification, such as floor 

681 condition, contractor performance, job type, and dust particle characteristics. One 

682 commenter observed that while all interior experiments resulted in final passed cleaning 

683 cloths for all floor zones and for all windowsills, nearly half of the experiments in the 

684 study ended with average work room floor lead levels above EPA’s dust-lead hazard 

standard for floors of 40 μg/ft2 685 . The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, who was 

686 asked to review the underlying analysis for the estimation of the effect of the RRP rule on 

687 children’s blood lead levels, stated that in the Dust Study cleaning verification did not 

688 provide sufficiently reliable results, leading to an inaccurate assessment of cleaning 

689 efficiency. 

690 

691 EPA agreed with the commenters who argued that cleaning verification was not a 

692 suitable substitute for dust wipe testing and clearance. EPA noted in the preamble to the 

693 final RRP rule that even though the Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study showed that the 

694 cleaning verification cloths that reached “white glove” were approximately 91% to 97% 

695 likely to be below the regulatory hazard standard, EPA believes the greater variability 

696 seen in the Dust Study, particularly in the experiments where the complete suite of 

697 proposed work practices were not used, does not support the characterization of cleaning 

698 verification as a direct substitute for clearance testing. Cleaning verification, in itself, is 

699 not a substitute for quantitative dust wipe testing. However, EPA continues to believe 

700 that the Dust Study supports the validity of cleaning verification as an effective 

701 component of the RRP rule’s work practices. The cleaning and feedback aspects of 

702 cleaning verification are important to its contribution to the effectiveness of the work 

703 practices (Ref. 1). 

704 

705 In the Dust Study, for renovations not involving practices restricted or prohibited 

706 by the final RRP rule, cleaning verification in combination with the other required work 

707 practices were effective at reducing dust lead levels on surfaces to or below the dust-lead 

708 hazard standards, regardless of the condition of the floor. Of the 10 experiments 

709 performed in compliance with the RRP rule’s work practices, final average lead-based 

710 paint dust levels were at or below the regulatory hazard standard (taking into account the 
17

711 accepted level of uncertainty, i.e., within plus or minus 20%, which is the performance 

712 criteria for the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program). For the experiments 

713 not performed according to the RRP rule’s work practices, the use of cleaning 

714 verification after cleaning reduced, often significantly, the amount of lead dust remaining. 

715 EPA determined that there is sufficient consistency in the Dust Study data to support the 

716 use of cleaning verification as an effective component of the RRP rule’s work practices. 

717 

718 Commenters also expressed concern about the subjectivity of the cleaning 

719 verification process. They noted that the effectiveness of cleaning verification relies 

720 upon the certified renovator’s understanding and application of the protocol, ability to 

721 define the floor sampling area or areas, and use of the cleaning verification card to 

722 determine whether a surface has been adequately cleaned. Some commenters speculated 

723 that the certified renovator's accuracy in comparing the cleaning cloth to the verification 

724 card could depend on factors such as his or her visual acuity, the lighting in the room, or 

725 simply differences in judgment among certified renovators. One thought that the lack of 

726 corrections for surface conditions, the experience of the person conducting the visual 

727 assessment, or pre-existing conditions might bias the results of testing. 

728 

729 EPA agreed that the visual comparison of a cleaning cloth to a cleaning 

730 verification card has an element of subjectivity because the visual comparison of cloth to 

731 card requires some exercise of judgment on the part of the person doing the comparing. 

732 However, EPA did not agree that this necessarily makes the comparison suspect. The 

733 Dust Study represented a real-world test of the ability of renovators to learn how to do 

734 cleaning verification and to apply it in the field. Although one Dust Study participant 

735 expressed concern about subjectivity, cleaning verification was successfully performed 

736 by the renovation contractors in all of the experiments performed in compliance with the 

737 work practices in the final RRP rule. In addition, cleaning verification was predictive of 

738 whether renovators had cleaned-up the lead-based paint hazards created during the 

739 renovation activity to the dust-lead standard, particularly when the proposed work 

740 practices were used. The cleaning verifications performed during the Dust Study were 

741 conducted by various persons in various light conditions and on various surface 

742 conditions. 

743 

744 Other commenters did not support dust wipe testing and clearance. One reason 

745 cited by these commenters was the cost of dust wipe testing, especially if required to be 

746 performed by independent certified inspectors or risk assessors. Some also contended 

747 that dust clearance testing is time consuming and an obstacle to completing the 

748 renovation job. One commenter noted that a major component of the cost of performing 

749 clearance is due to the fact that the portion of the premises affected by the renovation 

750 would have to remain unoccupied. Another commenter noted that it is not uncommon for 

751 the abatement clearance process to be conducted up to three times on a home to make 

752 sure that lead levels are sufficiently low. Again, commenters expressed the concern that 

753 a requirement for dust wipe testing and clearance would have the effect of holding 

754 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. 

755 
18

756 Based on the weight of the evidence in the rulemaking record, primarily from the 

757 Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust Study, EPA determined that, once certain 

758 high dust generating practices were prohibited or restricted, the full suite of work practice 

759 requirements, including containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification, was effective at 

760 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and 

761 painting activities. At the same time, EPA recognizes that cleaning verification is an 

762 imperfect check on whether the dust-lead hazard standard has been achieved. Among 

763 other things, as commenters pointed out, there is an element of subjectivity to cleaning 

764 verification, which is not present in dust wipe testing. 

765 

766 

767 In the final RRP rule, EPA gave significant weight to the cost, timing, and 

768 liability concerns expressed by commenters. In balancing the various considerations, 

769 EPA concluded that cleaning verification, as part of the full suite of work practices, was 

770 an appropriate check on the effectiveness of the work practices. EPA has continued to 

771 balance these considerations in today’s proposal, but has preliminarily concluded that, for 

772 certain jobs, the additional benefits of dust wipe testing, and in some cases clearance, 

773 warrant imposing these additional requirements. 

774 

775 2. Proposed requirements for dust wipe testing after certain renovations. This 

776 proposal contains dust wipe testing requirements for many renovations. In most of these 

777 situations, the renovation firm will only be required to provide the dust wipe testing 

778 results to the building owners and occupants. However, as discussed more fully in Unit 

779 III.A.3. of this preamble below, after two types of renovations, this proposal would also 

780 require renovation firms to achieve clearance. 

781 

782 EPA has evaluated the value of the information that would be available to 

783 renovation firms and building owners and occupants through such testing. EPA expects 

784 two kinds of benefits to flow from proposed dust wipe testing requirements. The first are 

785 the direct benefits of the information to the owners and occupants, the pure value of the 

786 information on dust lead levels remaining in the renovation work area, including leaded 

787 dust that may have been generated during the renovation activity. For building owners 

788 and occupants, this information is likely to improve their understanding and awareness of 

789 dust-lead hazards. It will also greatly improve their ability to make further risk 

790 management decisions. This information is particularly critical where dust lead levels 

791 approach or exceed the regulatory hazard standards. One commenter on the 2008 RRP 

792 rule described the value of dust wipe testing results in this way: “Because the white 

793 glove test does not provide a numeric result, a family is given limited information from 

794 which to make informed decisions and worse yet, may be given a false sense of security.” 

795 (Ref. 17) The commenter then argued that, “although the federal floor dust standard is 

set at 40 μg/ft2 796 , there is sufficient evidence to suggest that floors well below this standard 

797 may endanger children. Property owners and residents should be provided quantitative 

798 information so they can choose what actions to take based on those levels.” The 

799 commenter believed that in instances where floor dust wipe test results are just below the 

800 EPA regulatory standard, the owners or occupants may want to undertake additional 

801 cleaning. The value of this information has new significance in light of recent 
19

802 epidemiological studies that indicate the current lead-based hazard standards are 

803 insufficiently protective. 

804 

805 In addition, in enacting the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 

806 1992, Congress recognized that there is a value in providing information to property 

807 owners and occupants. Section 1018 of the Act requires the disclosure of information on 

808 lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards to purchasers and tenants of target housing. 

809 Even if no specific information on the housing to be sold or rented is available, the seller 

810 or landlord must provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to the purchaser or tenant. 

811 Similarly, TSCA Section 406(b) requires renovators or their firms to provide a lead 

812 hazard information pamphlet to the owners and occupants of target housing before 

813 beginning a renovation in the housing. The information provided by dust wipe testing 

814 after renovations is a different and more targeted benefit, i.e., a more accurate check on 

815 whether the hazard standard has been met at completion of the job, but it is in line with 

816 the broader statutory emphasis on disclosure of information related to possible lead-based 

817 paint hazards. This information is beneficial in the same way that disclosure of known 

818 lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards is beneficial to purchasers and tenants 

819 under Section 1018. 

820 

821 The other benefits that EPA expects to flow from a dust wipe testing requirement 

822 are the benefits that may result from changed behavior on the part of renovation firms. 

823 EPA believes that dust wipe testing results will also provide valuable feedback to 

824 renovation firms on how well they are cleaning up after renovations. It is likely that the 

825 specific dust lead levels contained in dust wipe testing results will increase renovation 

826 firm cleaning efficiency. Renovation firms will be incentivized to lower the dust lead 

827 levels remaining after renovation jobs, even if the levels are at or near the regulatory 

828 standards. In particular, firms that might otherwise be inclined to be less than thorough 

829 in the use of the disposable cleaning cloths in order to avoid darkening the cloths will be 

830 incentivized to perform cleaning verification thoroughly. Because proper cleanup plays 

831 such a vital role in the minimization of dust-lead hazards created by renovations, 

832 providing information on dust lead levels remaining after renovations to building owners 

833 and occupants will serve as an incentive for firms to perform post-renovation cleaning 

834 efficiently, thoroughly, and correctly so that the benefits of the RRP rule may be fully 

835 realized. 

836 

837 EPA is therefore proposing to require that dust wipe testing be performed after 

838 many renovation jobs. EPA has determined that dust wipe testing results will provide a 

839 valuable check on the performance of cleaning verification and the other work practices 

840 for most of the paint-disturbing renovations covered by the Dust Study (Ref. 14). In 

841 reviewing the data from the Dust Study, EPA believes that, of the jobs performed in the 

842 Dust Study, the additional safeguard of dust wipe testing is warranted where the floor 

843 dust-lead levels changed markedly from pre-work to post-cleaning to post-cleaning 

844 verifications. The only jobs where this did not occur were the renovations involving cut845 outs, which also created significantly less dust than most other renovations. 

846 
20

847 Accordingly, today’s proposal would require dust wipe testing on uncarpeted 

848 floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area after the following types of 

849 interior renovations: 

850 

851 • Use of a heat gun at temperatures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

852 

853 • Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 

854 

 • Scraping 60 ft2 855 or more of painted surfaces. 

856 

 • Removing more than 40 ft2 857 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 

858 

859 These jobs represent all of the experiments conducted in the Dust Study other 

860 than those involving cut-outs or practices prohibited or restricted by the final RRP rule. 

861 The experiments labeled “kitchen gut” in the Dust Study mostly involved the removal of 

862 kitchen cabinets and kitchen fixtures. The scraping experiments involved the scraping of 

approximately 60 ft2 863 or more of lead-based paint, so EPA is proposing to limit the dust 

864 wipe testing requirement to renovations during which at least that much painted surface is 

865 scraped. EPA requests comment, information, or data on whether the threshold for dust 

wipe testing after renovations involving scraping should be lowered to 6 ft2 866 , which is the 

867 minor maintenance threshold, or to some other number. Likewise, the trim and molding 

removal experiments all involved the removal of more than 40 ft2 868 of trim or molding, so 

869 EPA is proposing to limit the dust wipe testing requirement to renovations during which 

870 at least that much trim or molding is removed. EPA also requests comment, information, 

871 or data on whether the threshold for dust wipe testing after trim, molding, cabinet, or 

872 fixture removal should be lowered. EPA acknowledges that the benefits identified above 

873 of dust wipe testing would apply for these smaller jobs, as well as the larger jobs covered 

874 by today’s proposal. At the same time, in order to ensure a program that is practical for 

875 renovation activities, EPA has tried in this proposal to maintain some proportionality 

876 between the complexity and cost of the proposed requirements on one hand, and the size 

877 and cost of the renovation job on the other. 

878 

879 EPA wishes to clarify that the size thresholds for scraping painted surfaces and 

880 removing trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures would be calculated on a per-job 

881 basis. This is in contrast to the minor repair and maintenance exception, which is 

882 calculated on a per-room basis for interior projects. 

883 

884 EPA is also requesting comment on whether dust wipe testing should be required 

885 in situations where a surface fails the cleaning verification process twice, i.e., when the 

886 second wet disposable cleaning cloth is darker than the cleaning verification card. In that 

887 case, the surface must be allowed to dry for at least an hour, after which the certified 

888 renovator must wipe the surface with a dry electrostatic cleaning cloth. In the Dust 

889 Study, only four surfaces failed cleaning verification twice, representing two of the sixty 

890 experiments. In one experiment involving cut-outs, a vinyl floor in poor condition failed 

891 cleaning verification twice. The average dust-lead level on the floor after the second wet 

disposable cleaning cloth was 61.5 μg/ft2 892 , and after the dry electrostatic cleaning cloth, 
21

the level was 57.2 μg/ft2 893 . However, this floor was in such poor condition that after two 

894 pre-cleanings, the cleanings done before any experiments were conducted, the floor dust 

lead levels were still 95 μg/ft2 895 . Thus, the floor was cleaner than when it started, even 

896 though it failed cleaning verification twice. In the other experiment, a kitchen gut 

897 performed on a tile floor in fair condition, three floor sections failed the second cleaning 

898 verification. After the second wet disposable cleaning cloth, the average dust lead levels 

on two of the three failed sections were less than 10 μg/ft2 899 , while the other was 

significantly higher at 150 μg/ft2 900 . Nevertheless, after the dry electrostatic cleaning cloth 

wipe, the dust lead levels for all floor sections averaged 41.4 μg/ft2 901 , which is within the 

902 accepted level of uncertainty, i.e., within plus or minus 20%, for the National Lead 

903 Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 

904 

905 The dust wipe testing would have to be performed in a manner similar to the 

906 abatement clearance sampling requirements at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). After the cleaning 

907 required by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5) has been performed, a certified inspector, certified risk 

908 assessor, or certified dust sampling technician would be required to perform a visual 

909 inspection to ensure that the work area is free of visible dust, debris or residue. EPA is 

910 proposing to require this second visual inspection, in addition to the one performed by the 

911 certified renovator before cleaning verification, because, in many cases, the person 

912 performing the dust wipe testing will not be the same person who performed the cleaning 

913 verification. In addition, there may be a delay between the completion of cleaning 

914 verification and the beginning of dust wipe testing. EPA believes that the requirement 

915 for a visual inspection immediately prior to dust wipe testing will give the certified 

916 inspector, risk assessor, or dust sampling technician a means to address any concerns they 

917 may have as to the cleanliness of the work area. The locations for dust wipe samples 

918 would be dependent on the number of rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the work 

919 area. If there is more than 1 room, hallway, or stairwell within the work area, the 

920 following samples would have to be collected: 

921 

922 • 1 windowsill sample, 1 window trough sample, and 1 floor sample within each 

923 room, hallway, or stairwell (no more than 4 rooms, hallways, or stairwells need be 

924 sampled). 

925 

926 • 1 floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 

927 cleaned. 

928 

929 If the work area is a single room, hallway, or stairwell, or a smaller area, the following 

930 samples would have to be collected: 

931 

932 • 1 windowsill sample, 1 window trough sample, and 1 floor sample. 

933 

934 • 1 floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 

935 cleaned. 

936 

937 If there are no uncarpeted floors in the work area, then no floor samples would need to be 

938 collected. The same would be true for windows and windowsill or trough samples. Dust 
22

939 wipe samples would be collected in accordance with the protocol in “Residential 

940 Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling” (Ref. 18). 

941 

942 EPA requests comment on whether this protocol is sufficient to determine dust 

943 lead levels remaining on floors, windowsills, and window troughs. This protocol has 

944 been used for more than a decade in clearance examinations after lead abatements and 

945 HUD interim lead hazard control work. However, one test per surface may not always be 

946 enough to accurately characterize the dust lead levels over the entire surface. While the 

947 physical variability of dust loadings and lead concentrations across a room has not been 

948 thoroughly investigated, several studies including EPA’s Environmental Field Sampling 

949 Study have found high variability in side-by-side samples collected before and after 

950 various activities (Ref. 10). EPA requests comment on whether more tests should be 

951 required, and, if so, what protocol should be followed in determining the number and 

952 location of additional tests. For example, one option would be to follow the ASTM 

953 International “Standard Practice for Clearance Examinations Following Lead Hazard 

954 Reduction Activities in Dwellings, and Other Child-Occupied Facilities.” This document 

says that for rooms that exceed 500 ft2 955 , the floor should be divided into two or more equal 

parts of 500 ft2 956 or less and a sample collected in each part (Ref. 19). 

957 

958 EPA requests comment on whether the provision for random clearance sampling 

959 in multi-unit buildings in the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations at 40 CFR 

960 745.227(e)(9) should be incorporated into this regulation. This would permit random 

961 testing of individual housing units after renovations affecting multiple individual housing 

962 units in a multi-family dwelling with similarly constructed and maintained residences. 

963 Consistent with 40 CFR 745.227(e)(9), to take advantage of this provision, the certified 

964 renovators and other trained persons who renovate or clean the individual housing units 

965 would not know in advance which units would be selected for random testing. In 

966 addition, the dust wipe testing would have to be performed by a certified inspector or 

967 certified risk assessor and the number of residential units selected for dust wipe testing 

968 would have to be sufficient to provide a 95 percent level of confidence such that, if 

969 clearance were required, no more than 5 percent or 50 of the residential units (whichever 

970 is smaller) in the randomly-sampled population would exceed the applicable clearance 

971 levels. This is the standard for random clearance sampling after abatement projects and 

972 this particular requirement is designed to allow certified inspectors and certified risk 

973 assessors to use the training they have already received on random clearance sampling 

974 after abatement projects to decide which units to test after a renovation in a multi-family 

975 dwelling. Although random dust wipe testing has the potential to reduce costs for a large 

976 multi-unit renovation project, it may not be appropriate for this rule, given that an 

977 important purpose for the proposed dust wipe testing requirements is the provision of 

978 information to building owners and occupants. In addition, the current requirements for 

979 dust sampling technician courses do not include random sampling, so dust sampling 

980 technicians would not be able to select the units and locations for random dust wipe 

981 testing. EPA requests comment on whether EPA should modify the dust sampling 

982 technician course requirements to include random testing in multi-family buildings so 

983 that dust sampling technicians would be able to do this along with certified inspectors and 
23

984 certified risk assessors. EPA also requests comment on whether this could be done and 

985 still allow the course to be taught within a single 8-hour day. 

986 

987 Dust wipe testing results would have to be provided by an entity accredited or 

988 recognized under the NLLAP. EPA established the NLLAP in accordance with TSCA 

989 section 405(b) to assure the public that analytical laboratories recognized by the EPA 

990 have demonstrated that they are capable of accurately analyzing for lead in paint chip, 

991 dust, and soil samples. In January 2008, the Agency announced in the Federal Register 

992 changes to NLLAP that expand the opportunity to participate in the NLLAP to all lead 

993 testing service providers. (73 FR 3967 January 23, 2008) These providers include: 

994 

995 • Fixed-site operations that perform analytical lead testing at a permanent location 

996 under controlled environmental conditions; 

997 

998 • Mobile facilities, or transportable, self-contained operations that can perform 

999 analytical lead testing under controlled environmental conditions; and 

1000 

1001 • Field sampling and measurement organizations (FSMOs), or operations that 

1002 perform on-site sampling and lead testing using portable testing technologies. 

1003 

1004 Portable testing technologies that might be employed by FSMOs, once accredited or 

1005 recognized, include devices such as an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) machine, an anodic 

1006 stripping voltametry (ASV) machine, or any other portable technology that has been 

1007 shown to accurately and verifiably measure lead content in dust, paint chip, or soil. EPA 

1008 believes these NLLAP changes remove barriers and provide a process so that all types of 

1009 lead testing service providers may participate in the NLLAP. This can make the NLLAP 

1010 more efficient and cost-effective while maintaining the high standard of quality, science 

1011 and technology for those who purchase analytical services related to lead hazard 

1012 identification and control. The ability for portable dust testing technologies to become 

1013 accredited under NLLAP is particularly relevant to this rulemaking, because EPA 

1014 believes that this will make dust wipe testing less expensive and time-consuming. 

1015 

1016 EPA requests comment on additional technologies that may be available for 

1017 sampling or testing for lead in dust. EPA is seeking information on what technologies are 

1018 available, along with information on the research or evaluations that may have been 

1019 conducted on these technologies. EPA is also interested in research or other information 

1020 on technologies that show promise for commercial development. 

1021 

1022 Persons performing visual inspections, collecting dust wipe samples, or analyzing 

1023 dust wipe samples would not be required to be third parties independent of the firm 

1024 performing the renovation. This is consistent with the final RRP rule and EPA’s 

1025 abatement regulations. EPA has historically not required independent third parties to 

1026 perform testing for two reasons. The first is the cost savings and convenience of being 

1027 able to hire just one firm to perform all necessary lead-based paint activities. The second 

1028 is the potential regional scarcity of firms to perform the work. As discussed in the 

1029 preamble to the final RRP rule, these considerations are also likely to be applicable to the 
24

1030 renovation sector (Ref. 1, at 21711). EPA does recommend, however, that the renovation 

1031 firm comply with the HUD’s prohibition against the same person performing both the 

1032 renovation activity and the clearance process. (See 24 CFR 35.1340(f)). EPA requests 

1033 comment on whether EPA should impose the same prohibition or a similar prohibition 

1034 with perhaps an exception for single person firms. 

1035 

1036 Under this proposal, dust wipe testing would be performed after cleaning 

1037 verification, not instead of it. Cleaning verification is useful because it combines fine 

1038 cleaning properties with feed-back to the certified renovator on the effectiveness of the 

1039 post-renovation cleaning process. As discussed in the preamble to the final RRP rule, the 

1040 Dust Study demonstrated that cleaning verification is quite often needed to minimize 

1041 exposure to dust-lead hazards created during renovations (Ref. 1, at 21744). In 4 of the 

1042 10 experiments performed in accordance with the final RRP rule requirements for 

1043 containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification, the average post-cleaning floor dust 

1044 lead levels were above the clearance standards. In those experiments, cleaning 

1045 verification was needed to reduce average dust lead levels below the standards. In 

1046 addition, dust wipe testing only tests part of the surface, and, as discussed above, leaded 

1047 dust may not be distributed uniformly over the entire surface. In contrast, cleaning 

1048 verification provides feedback on cleaning effectiveness over the entire surface so 

1049 variability in distribution presents fewer challenges. EPA remains concerned that if dust 

1050 wipe testing were allowed instead of cleaning verification, without an accompanying 

1051 requirement that the renovation firm re-clean until clearance is achieved, the RRP rule 

1052 would actually be less protective because the surfaces in the work area could be left less 

1053 clean than if cleaning verification were performed. Accordingly, dust wipe testing would 

1054 be performed after cleaning verification has been performed in accordance with the 

1055 existing protocol. After the dust wipe samples have been collected, the renovation would 

1056 be considered complete, the warning signs could be removed, and the work area could be 

1057 re-occupied. Re-occupancy would not have to wait until the results of the testing were 

1058 available. 

1059 

1060 However, because re-occupancy can occur immediately after the dust wipe 

1061 samples are collected, it is important to ensure that the results of the dust wipe testing be 

1062 communicated to owners and occupants as soon as practicable. Accordingly, this 

1063 proposal requires the certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

1064 technician to prepare a dust wipe testing report and provide it to the renovation firm 

1065 within 3 days of the date that the results are obtained. If the dust wipe testing results are 

1066 to be determined by a fixed-site laboratory, the samples would have to be sent to the 

1067 laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. The dust wipe testing 

1068 report would include the name and signature of each certified person collecting the 

1069 samples or performing the testing, the name and address of each certified firm employing 

1070 the person(s) conducting the sampling or testing, the start and completion dates of the 

1071 renovation, a brief written description of the renovation, the results of the visual 

1072 inspection, a detailed written description of the specific sampling or testing locations or a 

1073 detailed drawing that clearly identifies the location of each sample or test, the name of the 

1074 NLLAP-recognized entity analyzing the results, the results of each sample or test, and the 

1075 clearance standard that is applicable to each sample or test. EPA does not expect long, 
25

1076 involved narrative descriptions in these reports. The results of the visual inspection could 

1077 be as simple as “no dust, debris, or residue was visible in the work area,” while the brief 

1078 written description of the renovation could be as simple as “replaced all of the windows 

1079 in the upstairs bedrooms.” However, the report should be organized and presented in 

1080 such a way that the recipients of the report will be able to easily understand the 

1081 information presented. The report must be a single document, with clearly-identifiable 

1082 attachments, such as analytical reports from NLLAP laboratories, where appropriate. If a 

1083 significant number of tests are involved, the certified individual preparing the report 

1084 should incorporate an executive summary presenting the overall results, with particular 

1085 attention to those results that exceeded the applicable clearance standards. 

1086 

1087 The renovation firm would be required to provide this report to the owner of 

1088 renovated target housing or child-occupied facilities within 3 days of the date that the 

1089 renovation firm receives the report. The renovation firm would also have to provide the 

1090 report within 3 days of receipt to the occupants of individual housing units that have been 

1091 renovated, if the housing units are not owner-occupied. Similarly, the report would have 

1092 to be provided within 3 days to the proprietor of renovated child-occupied facilities if 

1093 they are not operated by the building owner. If the renovation firm has chosen to notify 

1094 each individual housing unit affected by a renovation in a common area of target housing, 

1095 or each parent or guardian of a child under age 6 using a renovated child-occupied 

1096 facility, the renovation firm would also have to provide these persons with the dust wipe 

1097 testing report within 3 days of the date that the renovation firm receives the report. In 

1098 cases where the renovation firm has chosen to post signs to notify tenants affected by 

1099 common area renovations, or parents and guardians of children under age 6 using a child1100 occupied facility, the renovation firm would have to provide the dust wipe testing report 

1101 upon request. EPA requests comment on whether the renovation firm should be 

1102 required to provide the dust wipe testing report to the building owner and occupants with 

1103 the final invoice or within 3 days of the date that the report is received, whichever is 

1104 earlier. 

1105 

1106 

1107 3. Clearance. For two types of renovations that can create large amounts of 

1108 difficult-to-clean dust, EPA remains concerned about the possibility that dust lead levels 

1109 remaining, even after cleaning verification, may substantially exceed the clearance 

1110 standards. These are renovations that disturb paint using machines designed to remove 

1111 paint through high speed operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasting, when 

1112 equipped with HEPA exhaust controls and the demolition, or removal, through 

1113 destructive means, of plaster and lath walls, ceilings or other building components. If 

1114 renovation firms choose to utilize these methods, EPA is also proposing to require that 

1115 renovation firms demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that they have met the clearance 

1116 standards before the renovation will be considered completed. 

1117 

1118 EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated that machines that remove paint through high1119 speed operation, in the absence of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) exhaust control, 

1120 create enormous amounts of leaded dust that is particularly difficult to clean up. In the 

1121 Dust Study, the geometric mean post-work floor dust lead levels after experiments 
26

involving power planing were 201,902 μg/ft2 1122 . That was the only type of power tool 

1123 experiment done indoors during the Dust Study. However, two additional high speed 

1124 tool experiments were done on exteriors, power sanding and needle gun. In these cases, 

1125 using the Dust Study results from the surface of the plastic containment required by the 

1126 rule, the geometric mean post-work floor dust lead levels that could be expected from 

work done using these types of tools without HEPA exhaust control are 591,491 μg/ft2 1127 

for power sanding, and 195,372 μg/ft2 1128 for the needle gun. 

1129 

1130 In the Dust Study, the work practices required by the final RRP rule, containment, 

1131 specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification, were, in most cases, unable to reduce the 

1132 dust lead levels remaining on the work area floors after power planing to anything close 

to the clearance standard of 40 μg/ft2 1133 . Accordingly, EPA banned the use of machines that 

1134 remove lead-based paint through high speed operation without HEPA exhaust control. 

1135 

1136 EPA did not perform any experiments in the Dust Study with power tools 

1137 equipped with HEPA exhaust control. However, EPA has subsequently reviewed 14 

1138 published studies that examined the effectiveness of HEPA exhaust control on power 

1139 tools (Ref. 20). These 14 studies reported reductions in airborne dust levels ranging from 

1140 70 to 99 percent. However, most studies (9) reported reductions in airborne dust levels 

1141 between 90 and 95 percent. Applying a 90-95 percent reduction to the post-work dust 

1142 lead levels generated by the power tools in the Dust Study results in dust-lead levels of 

20,190 μg/ft2

 to 10,095 μg/ft2 for door planing, 59,149 μg/ft2 to 29,575 μg/ft2 1143 for power 

sanding, and 19,537 μg/ft2

 to 9,769 μg/ft2 1144 for needle gun use. It is likely that the work 

1145 practices required by the final RRP rule will be unable to reduce these levels to anything 

approximating the clearance level of 40 μg/ft2 1146 at the end of the job because of the 

1147 quantity of the dust generated and the particular characteristics of this dust that make it 

1148 hard to clean up. 

1149 

1150 In addition, in order to achieve 90-95 percent effectiveness, the HEPA exhaust 

1151 control must be maintained properly and used correctly. Any lapse in either maintenance 

1152 or use could result in much higher dust lead levels remaining after a renovation. For 

1153 example, when sanding a mantle, if the renovation worker moves half of the sander off 

1154 the edge of the mantle, the HEPA exhaust control will not be operating at maximum 

1155 collection efficiency. The same problem would occur any time that the entire sander is 

1156 not in contact with the surface, such as when sanding a curved surface. 

1157 

1158 With respect to the demolition of plaster, EPA did not perform any experiments 

1159 involving that kind of renovation activity in the Dust Study. However, demolition of 

1160 several different plaster walls was studied in the EFSS. The EFSS measured worker 

1161 exposures by personal air monitoring, and estimated occupant exposures by dust wipe 

1162 sampling. Dust wipe sampling in the EFSS was done from stainless steel dustfall 

1163 collectors placed at various locations adjacent to and at varying distances from the 

activity. The estimated lead loading over a 6 ft2 1164 area resulting from the demolition of a 

1165 plaster wall was 19,500 μg, the highest loading for any of the typical activities studied. 

1166 However, according to the EFSS, no collectors were placed adjacent to demolition 

1167 activities “due to the large amount of debris.” (Ref. 10, at 9-10) EPA was able to 
27

1168 determine the functional relationship between settled dust and distance for the demolition 

1169 activity, but the relationship “does not take into account the amount of lead that settles at 

1170 a location directly adjacent to the activity. Since the settled dust samples associated with 

1171 the demolition were all located at a distance from the activity space, the estimated 6-foot 

1172 by 1-foot gradient lead loading in the demolition activity is interpreted as being the 

1173 amount of lead found in the 6-foot by 1-foot region that was airborne in dust and smaller 

1174 particles, rather than the total amount of lead disturbed.” (Ref. 10, at 9-10) 

1175 

1176 In the EFSS, EPA also reviewed data on plaster wall demolition available from 

1177 OSHA (Ref. 10). The study monitored the demolition of interior plaster walls and 

1178 ceilings in a home using hammers and claw-bars. This study involved only personal air 

1179 monitoring, not settled dust sampling. The geometric mean worker exposure for the 

demolition activities studied by the EFSS was 107 μg/m3 1180 , while the geometric mean 

worker exposure for the OSHA study was 166 μg/m3 1181 . Because of the length of time 

1182 involved in demolishing a plaster wall, both of these activities are likely to substantially 

exceed the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 50 μg/m3 1183 as an 8-hour time-weighted 

1184 average. 

1185 

1186 These studies demonstrate that plaster wall demolition creates large amounts of 

1187 lead-contaminated dust. EPA also believes that this dust is particularly difficult to clean 

1188 up, because of the qualities of plaster and the way in which such demolition is typically 

1189 done through destructive means such as sledgehammers. The dust created by this activity 

1190 is likely to consist of very fine particles. EPA is concerned that, like the dust produced 

1191 by machines that remove paint through high speed operation, the large quantities of dust 

1192 created by plaster wall demolition will overwhelm the containment, specialized cleaning, 

1193 and cleaning verification processes and result in renovation work areas being re-occupied 

1194 with lead-based paint hazards created by the renovation still in place. 

1195 

1196 Given these concerns, EPA is proposing to require renovation firms to follow a 

1197 clearance process similar to that performed after abatement projects after renovations 

1198 involving the disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high 

1199 speed operation or the demolition, or removal, through destructive means, of more than 6 

ft2 1200 of plaster and lath building component. After the cleaning required by 745.85(a)(5) 

1201 and the cleaning verification required by 745.85(b)(1), dust wipe testing would have to be 

1202 performed in exactly the same way that it would be required after the renovations 

1203 discussed in Unit III.A.2. of this preamble. If any of the test results exceed the regulatory 

1204 clearance standards in 40 CFR 745.85(b)(4), the renovation firm would be required to re1205 clean the surfaces represented by those tests in accordance with 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5)(ii). 

1206 Those surfaces would have to be re-tested, and the results compared to the clearance 

1207 standards. 

1208 

1209 With respect to plaster removal, the clearance requirement would apply only to 

1210 walls, ceilings constructed of plaster and lath, not gypsum drywall finished with plaster. 

1211 The experiments performed and reviewed in the EFSS involved plaster and lath walls, not 

1212 drywall. In this country, interior walls were commonly constructed of plaster and lath 

1213 until the 1950’s, when drywall began to replace the lath and plaster construction method. 
28

1214 Again, this clearance requirement would only apply to plaster removal done through 

1215 destructive means, such as sledgehammers. 

1216 

1217 This proposal would not allow renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification 

1218 step when they are required to perform clearance. The Dust Study demonstrates that 

1219 cleaning verification is an important part of the cleaning process. Of the 10 experiments 

1220 completed in the Dust Study in accordance with the final RRP rule requirements, 4 

1221 required the additional cleaning provided by cleaning verification to reach an average 

floor dust lead level below 40 μg/ft2 1222 (Ref. 14). The additional cleaning resulting from 

1223 cleaning verification was particularly dramatic in the window replacement experiments, 

1224 where the dust lead levels on the floor were cut nearly in half by cleaning verification. 

1225 EPA is specifically requesting comment on cleaning verification requirements for 

1226 surfaces that fail clearance due to high dust wipe test results. While the Dust Study 

1227 shows that cleaning verification is a very effective cleaning method, EPA recognizes that 

1228 there is a cost associated with multiple cleaning verification passes over a surface, 

1229 particularly if the surface fails the wet disposable cleaning cloth phase and must be 

1230 allowed to dry for an hour before using a dry electrostatic disposable cleaning cloth. 

1231 Although not specifically studied, the Dust Study suggests that it would be highly 

1232 unlikely for a surface that had been cleaned and had gone through the cleaning 

1233 verification process to fail another round of cleaning verification. Sixty interior 

1234 experiments were performed in the Dust Study; only 3 work room floors failed all rounds 

1235 of cleaning verification. Two of those were performed using only baseline work 

1236 practices, no containment or specialized cleaning, on a vinyl floor in poor condition that 

EPA’s contractor had difficulty pre-cleaning to below 40 μg/ft2 1237 before beginning the 

1238 study. The third was on a tile floor in fair condition, with plastic containment but no 

1239 specialized cleaning. In addition, of the 4 experiments in the Dust Study performed in 

1240 accordance with the final RRP rule that needed cleaning verification to reduce average 

floor dust lead levels below 40 μg/ft2 1241 , failed cleaning verification cloths were only seen 

1242 in 1. The reductions in dust lead levels seen in the window replacement experiments 

1243 occurred after only 1 pass with a wet disposable cleaning cloth. In light of these results, 

1244 this proposal would require surfaces failing clearance due to high dust wipe test results to 

1245 be recleaned in accordance with the RRP rule, HEPA vacuuming followed by wet wiping 

1246 or mopping, followed by one round of cleaning verification using a wet disposable 

1247 cleaning cloth. This cloth would not have to be compared to the cleaning verification 

1248 card, the renovation firm could conduct additional dust wipe testing for clearance 

1249 purposes on the surface as soon as it has dried. 

1250 

1251 EPA is also proposing to eliminate the existing provision that allows renovation 

1252 firms to perform clearance in lieu of cleaning verification when another Federal, State, or 

1253 local law or regulation, or the contract between the renovation firm and the property 

1254 owner, requires the renovation firm to use qualified entities to perform dust wipe testing 

1255 and requires the renovation firm to achieve clearance. Because cleaning verification has 

1256 been shown to be such an important part of the post-renovation cleaning process, and 

1257 because that provision would be inconsistent with this proposal, EPA believes that it 

1258 should be eliminated. Rather, this proposal would require cleaning verification to be 

1259 performed in the same way it would have to be performed after jobs involving demolition 
29

1260 or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint using 

1261 machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation. 

1262 

1263 The renovation would not be considered complete, and the warning signs would 

1264 have to remain in place, until the renovation firm can demonstrate through a dust wipe 

1265 testing report that it has met the clearance standards. The certified inspector, certified 

1266 risk assessor, or certified dust sampling technician performing the sampling or testing 

1267 would be required to prepare a clearance report. The clearance report would include the 

1268 start and completion dates of the renovation; a brief written description of the renovation; 

1269 the name and address of each certified firm employing each certified inspector, certified 

1270 risk assessor, or certified dust sampling technician performing the clearance procedures; 

1271 the name and signature of each certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust 

1272 sampling technician performing the clearance procedures and the dates that the clearance 

1273 procedures were performed; the results of the visual inspection; a detailed written 

1274 description of the specific sampling or testing locations or a detailed drawing that clearly 

1275 identifies the location of each sample or test; the results for each dust wipe sample or test; 

1276 whether or not clearance was achieved; and the name of each recognized entity that 

1277 conducted the analyses. As with the dust testing report, EPA does not expect long, 

1278 involved narrative descriptions in these reports. The results of the visual inspection could 

1279 be as simple as “no dust, debris, or residue was visible in the work area,” while the brief 

1280 written description of the renovation could be as simple as “replaced all of the windows 

1281 in the upstairs bedrooms.” However, the report should be organized and presented in 

1282 such a way that the recipients of the report will be able to easily understand the 

1283 information presented. The report must be a single document, with clearly-identifiable 

1284 attachments, such as analytical reports from NLLAP laboratories, where appropriate. If a 

1285 significant number of tests are involved, the certified individual preparing the report 

1286 should incorporate an executive summary presenting the overall results, with particular 

1287 attention to those results that exceeded the applicable clearance standards. 

1288 

1289 The certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

1290 technician would be required to provide a copy of this report to the renovation firm 

1291 within 3 days of the date that the dust wipe testing results are obtained. If the dust wipe 

1292 testing results are to be determined by a fixed-site laboratory, the samples would have to 

1293 be sent to the laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. The 

1294 renovation firm would be required to provide this report to the owner of renovated target 

1295 housing or child-occupied facilities within 3 days of the date that the renovation firm 

1296 receives the report. The renovation firm would also have to provide the report within 3 

1297 days of receipt to the occupants of individual housing units that have been renovated, if 

1298 the housing units are not owner-occupied. Similarly, the report would have to be 

1299 provided within 3 days to the proprietor of renovated child-occupied facilities if they are 

1300 not operated by the building owner. If the renovation firm has chosen to notify each 

1301 individual housing unit affected by a renovation in a common area of target housing, or 

1302 each parent or guardian of a child under age 6 using a renovated child-occupied facility, 

1303 the renovation firm would also have to provide these persons with the dust wipe testing 

1304 report within 3 days of the date that the renovation firm receives the results. In cases 

1305 where the renovation firm has chosen to post signs to notify tenants affected by common 
30

1306 area renovations, or parents and guardians of children under age 6 using a child-occupied 

1307 facility, the renovation firm would have to provide the dust wipe testing report when 

1308 requested. 

1309 

1310 In most cases, renovation firms will be able to avoid using the work practices that 

1311 would require clearance afterwards. Sanding or scraping could be done by hand instead 

1312 of by power tool. Many plaster removal jobs can be performed by using non-destructive 

1313 means such as saws and pry-bars to remove sections of plaster and lath wall. At the same 

1314 time, EPA also understands that renovation firms may encounter floors, windowsills, and 

1315 window troughs that are in such poor condition that clearance may not be possible. As 

1316 discussed previously, the HUD Guidelines recommend using a sealant on floors if 

1317 necessary to achieve clearance (Ref. 15). The Guidelines suggest that, if any surface fails 

1318 two clearance tests, the “property owner should consider additional hazard control 

1319 measures and/or further sealing of the surface.” (Ref. 15, at 15-10) EPA’s own 

1320 experience with the Dust Study confirms that surface condition may be a problem, at 

1321 least in some instances. After several encounters with work room floors that could not be 

1322 cleaned to the clearance standards in preparation for a new experiment, the Dust Study 

1323 contractors began using a sealant before testing floors in preparation for beginning work 

1324 (Ref. 21). When this occurred with windowsills, the contractors used dust collection 

1325 trays instead of the sill surface for sampling. 

1326 

1327 Various studies have shown that dust lead levels on surfaces are directly 

1328 correlated with the condition of the surface. That is, a surface, such as a floor, in poor 

1329 condition tends to have higher dust lead levels than a floor in fair to good condition. An 

1330 evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program found that the 

1331 “effect of the condition of the wiped surface at clearance was significant in all analyses. 

1332 The surfaces in better condition at clearance had lower clearance dust lead loadings and 

1333 lower failure rates.” (Ref. 22, at 7-20) EPA’s Dust Study also found that floors in poor 

1334 condition had higher dust lead levels across the post-work, post-cleaning, and post1335 cleaning verification sampling stages than floors in better condition, although this could 

1336 have been due to higher-intensity work (Ref. 14, at 6-14). EPA requests comment on 

1337 whether this correlation should affect clearance or dust wipe testing requirements, and if, 

1338 so, in what way. EPA is interested in suggestions on how to address the fact that some 

1339 floors will be more difficult to clean than others. 

1340 

1341 In particular, EPA has wrestled with the issue of how to reconcile a clearance 

1342 requirement when floors are in such poor condition that achieving clearance would 

1343 require the renovation firm to expand the scope of the original job to include additional 

1344 remedial action such as refinishing the floor. In part, this situation raises the concern that 

1345 renovation firms might be required to remediate lead hazards that existed prior to the 

1346 renovation. To address the situation where achieving lead levels below the lead hazard 

1347 standards would require expanding the scope of the renovation job, EPA is proposing an 

1348 exception to the requirement to achieve clearance. Specifically, EPA proposes to allow 

1349 renovation firms to stop after the second failed clearance test, regardless of the result, if 

1350 the renovation firm did not agree to refinish the surface that is failing clearance as part of 

1351 the renovation contract. For example, if a renovation firm is hired to remove plaster and 
31

1352 lath wall sections that partially separate a living and dining room, and repaint the walls 

1353 (including the windows) in both rooms, then the renovation firm would be required to 

1354 ensure that the windowsills in the work area achieve clearance, no matter how many 

1355 times the sills must be re-cleaned and re-tested. However, if the renovation firm was not 

1356 hired to refinish the floor, the renovation firm would only have to re-clean and re-test the 

1357 floor once if it failed clearance the first time, no matter what the second dust wipe testing 

1358 result is. EPA believes that such a provision is necessary, given that renovation firms 

1359 may encounter floors, windowsills, and window troughs that are in such poor condition 

1360 that clearance may not be possible 

1361 

1362 EPA is also requesting comment on whether renovation firms ought to be allowed 

1363 to perform pre-renovation dust wipe testing on surfaces in the work area that are in poor 

1364 condition to help demonstrate that they are not leaving behind dust-lead hazards that they 

1365 created. In this option, the renovation firm would only have to demonstrate that, for 

1366 surfaces in poor condition in the work area, the dust-lead levels on these surfaces (which 

could be windowsills and/or floors) after the renovation are no higher than 150 μg/ft2 1367 

1368 This would ensure that renovation firms are not unduly held accountable for pre-existing 

lead-based paint hazards. EPA believes that 150 μg/ft2 1369 is an appropriate upper limit, 

1370 given that EPA’s contractor was able to clean all of the floors encountered in the 

1371 buildings used for the Dust Study to this level or below (Ref. 14). EPA requests 

1372 comment on whether there is an appropriate alternate upper limit that should be 

1373 considered and the available data to support this alternate limit. Any pre-renovation 

1374 testing option would also include a requirement to provide both the pre-renovation dust 

1375 wipe testing report as well as the post-renovation report to the building owners and 

1376 occupants. 

1377 

1378 EPA believes that window troughs are particularly likely to harbor pre-existing 

1379 dust lead levels at or above the clearance standards. They are also particularly likely to 

1380 be difficult to clean. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on whether EPA should 

1381 allow renovation firms to close windows in the work area and cover them with taped1382 down plastic or other impermeable material to avoid the requirement to ensure that the 

1383 window troughs achieve clearance standards. EPA would still require renovation firms to 

1384 test both the sills and troughs of closed and covered windows, and report the results to the 

1385 building owners and occupants, but firms would only need to ensure that the sills achieve 

1386 the clearance standards. 

1387 

1388 EPA is also requesting comment on whether clearance should be required in other 

1389 situations. In particular, EPA is interested in comment on whether clearance should be 

1390 required after any of the activities for which EPA is proposing a dust wipe testing 

1391 requirement. EPA is also interested in comment on whether clearance should be required 

1392 in rental properties after renovations for which EPA is proposing a dust wipe testing 

1393 requirement, especially if the renovation firm has been informed that the renovation is 

1394 being performed to remedy a violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations or to 

1395 comply with a federal, state, or local government order, such as an order to correct 

1396 building code violations. In this case, EPA is also interested in comment on whether 

1397 EPA should require renovation firms to affirmatively ask whether the work is being 
32

1398 performed to remedy a violation or comply with an order, and whether renovation firms 

1399 should provide this information to owners and occupants after the renovation. Finally, 

1400 EPA requests comment on whether dust wipe testing or clearance should be required in 

1401 any other situations not discussed specifically in this proposal, including situations where 

1402 a surface has failed cleaning verification twice. 

1403 

1404 EPA is also seeking comment on whether there are other regulatory options for 

1405 dust wipe testing or clearance that maximize the potential benefits by targeting those 

1406 activities that are most likely to exceed the clearance standards. For example, should 

1407 different size thresholds be used for some or all of the renovations affected by this 

1408 proposal? As discussed, the proposed thresholds for dust wipe testing are taken from the 

1409 Dust Study. Does the data from the Dust Study, or data from another source, support 

1410 larger thresholds for some or all of these jobs? Another possible regulatory option would 

1411 be to require clearance for renovations involving the demolition of plaster or the use of 

1412 high-speed machines designed to remove paint, or a larger set of renovation types, and 

1413 not require dust wipe testing in the absence of a clearance requirement. EPA requests 

1414 comment on these options and suggestions for other regulatory options that may be less 

1415 burdensome but still justifiable based on the available data. 

1416 

1417 B. Test Kits for Lead in Paint 

1418 

1419 EPA has worked with test kit vendors to develop kits that can more accurately 

1420 identify the presence of regulated lead-based paint. Through its Environmental 

1421 Technology Verification (ETV) program, EPA is currently reviewing five test kits that 

1422 have been submitted by vendors. More information on this process can be found at 

1423 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/testkit.htm#recognize. 

1424 

1425 EPA is also proposing to give certified renovators another option for determining 

1426 whether lead-based paint is present on components to be affected by a renovation. This 

1427 proposal would permit certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from 

1428 components to be affected by a renovation instead of using test kits to test the paint on 

1429 the components. When utilizing this option, the certified renovator would be required to 

1430 send the samples to a recognized NLLAP laboratory. Because renovator training courses 

1431 are already required to include training in how and where to use test kits, EPA believes 

1432 that it would take very little additional time to also provide training in how to collect a 

1433 chip sample such that all paint layers are present and how to submit these samples to an 

1434 NLLAP laboratory for analysis. Such an option would not make a certified renovator the 

1435 equivalent of a certified lead-based paint inspector. Certified renovators would still have 

1436 to test each affected component, they would not be permitted to exclude components 

1437 based on similar painting histories or perform random paint sampling in multi-unit 

1438 buildings. EPA is proposing to allow certified renovators to collect paint chip samples 

1439 instead of using test kits in order to provide maximum flexibility for certified renovators 

1440 and renovation firms. 

1441 

1442 C. Training Provider Accreditation 

1443 
33

1444 Training providers who wish to provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or 

1445 lead-based paint activities training for Federal certification purposes must apply for and 

1446 receive accreditation from EPA. To become accredited, a provider must employ a 

1447 training program manager as well as principal instructor(s) who meet certain education, 

1448 training and work experience requirements. The training provider must indicate on its 

1449 application for accreditation that the training program manager and principal instructor(s) 

1450 meet these requirements; however, currently, no documentation (e.g., resumes) regarding 

1451 the qualifications of these individuals must be submitted to EPA. The Agency believes it 

1452 is important to review this information when determining whether to approve a training 

1453 provider application. When EPA reviews applications for accreditation, it is common for 

1454 the Agency to request this documentation from training providers in order to verify that 

1455 the training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the proper qualifications. 

1456 Requesting this information takes time and can delay the review of an application. 

1457 Therefore, the Agency is proposing to require that training providers submit 

1458 documentation regarding the qualifications of the education, training and work 

1459 experience of training managers and principal instructors with their applications for 

1460 accreditation. 

1461 

1462 EPA is also proposing to clarify the role of principal instructors in teaching 

1463 courses. The current regulation, at 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3), states that principal instructors 

1464 are responsible for the organization of their courses and oversight of the teaching of all 

1465 course material. The regulations also define “principal instructor” as “the individual who 

1466 has the primary responsibility for organizing and teaching a particular course.” 

1467 Nonetheless, the rule also allows training program managers to designate experts in a 

1468 particular field (e.g., doctors or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as needed basis, to 

1469 teach discrete portions of the course. EPA interprets these provisions to require a 

1470 principal instructor to be present and primarily responsible for teaching the course, 

1471 although guest instructors may be used to teach some portion(s) of the course. Principal 

1472 instructors are also responsible for the quality of the instruction delivered by the guest 

1473 instructors. To ensure that the regulation is clear on this point, EPA is proposing to 

1474 amend 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3) to state that principal instructor(s) are primarily responsible 

1475 for teaching the course materials and must be present to provide instruction (or oversight 

1476 of portions of the course taught by guest instructors) for the course for which he has been 

1477 designated the principal instructor. 

1478 

1479 The final RRP rule included requirements for amending the certification of a 

1480 renovation firm. Firms must submit an amendment within 90 days of the date that a 

1481 change occurs to information in its most recent application for certification or re1482 certification. Examples of amendments include a change in the firm’s name without 

1483 transfer of ownership, or a change of address or other contact information. To amend its 

1484 certification, a firm must submit an application, noting on the form that it was submitted 

1485 as an amendment. The firm must complete the sections of the application pertaining to 

1486 the new information, and sign and date the form. EPA has interpreted the training 

1487 provider accreditation regulations to require accredited training providers to submit 

1488 amended applications whenever there is a change to the information provided in the 

1489 training provider’s most recent application for accreditation or re-accreditation, including 
34

1490 information regarding the training manager and any principal instructor(s) teaching 

1491 courses offered by the training provider. However, the existing regulations do not 

1492 specify a time limit for submitting an amendment. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

1493 require training providers to submit amendments within 90 days of the date a change 

1494 occurs to information in each provider’s most recent application. If the training provider 

1495 does not amend its most recent accreditation application within the 90-day time period, it 

1496 must stop providing training until the accreditation application is amended. The Agency 

1497 is also proposing to approve or disapprove amendments for a new training manager, any 

1498 new or additional principal instructor(s), or any new permanent training location within 

1499 30 days of the date EPA receives the amendment. This 30-day time period will give EPA 

1500 sufficient time to check the qualifications of the training manager(s) or principal 

1501 instructor(s) before the training manager begins managing or the principal instructor 

1502 begins teaching a course. This 30-day time period would also give EPA sufficient time to 

1503 verify the suitability of a new permanent training location by visiting the location. The 

1504 training provider would not be permitted to provide training under the new training 

1505 manager or offer courses taught by any new principal instructor(s) or at the new training 

1506 location until EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days has passed. Finally, this 

1507 proposal would also clarify that no fee will be charged for accreditation application or 

1508 certification amendments. 

1509 

1510 To become accredited, a training provider must submit a copy of its training 

1511 course materials with it application for accreditation for review by the Agency. If a 

1512 training provider chooses to use the model course developed by EPA or a course 

1513 approved by an authorized State or Indian Tribe, then it is not currently required to 

1514 submit the course materials with its application. Instead the training provider indicates 

1515 on its application that it will use the EPA model course or a course approved by an 

1516 authorized State or Indian Tribe. Authorized States and Indian Tribes can have 

1517 renovation or abatement programs that are significantly different from the EPA1518 administered program which would be reflected in their approved course materials. In 

1519 these instances, a training course approved by the State or Indian Tribe may not be 

1520 sufficient for the purposes of training someone on the requirements of the federal 

1521 program. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to require training providers who apply to 

1522 EPA for accreditation and wish to use a course approved by an authorized State or Indian 

1523 Tribe to submit the course materials for EPA review. This will give the Agency the 

1524 opportunity to identify and address any significant differences between the requirements 

1525 of EPA and the authorized program that may appear in the course so the Agency can 

1526 ensure that EPA-accredited training providers are using appropriate course materials. 

1527 Training providers wishing to use the EPA model courses would not be required to 

1528 submit those materials with their applications. 

1529 As a matter of clarification, web-based training and other types of alternative 

1530 training delivery are permitted. In fact, EPA has developed a model on-line renovator 

1531 course that could be used to deliver the classroom portion of the renovator course. While 

1532 such alternative training delivery options cannot be used to deliver required hands-on 

1533 training, EPA encourages training providers to make use of such options where 

1534 appropriate to increase access to training and make it more affordable. Web-based 

1535 training courses are considered separate courses and a separate application fee is required 
35

1536 for each. This is because EPA must review not only the content of the course, but the 

1537 mechanics of the delivery of the course. 

1538 

1539 EPA’s model electronic training courses contain certain basic administration and 

1540 delivery requirements. These include assigning a unique identifier to each student, to 

1541 allow the training provider to track student course progress and completion. In addition, 

1542 there are knowledge checks for each chapter, which must be completed before the student 

1543 can go on to the next chapter, and a final test for the electronic learning portion which 

1544 consists of at least 20 questions. Finally, students must be able to save or print an 

1545 uneditable copy of a certificate showing completion of the electronic learning portion of 

1546 the course. Under this proposal, these requirements would be explicitly incorporated into 

1547 40 CFR 745.225 to ensure that all training providers wishing to use electronic learning 

1548 for the classroom portions of lead-based paint courses are aware of these requirements 

1549 and plan their course development accordingly. EPA requests comment on the specifics 

1550 of these requirements, such as whether a course test of 20 questions is sufficient and 

1551 whether a student should be required to score at least 80 percent on the course test in 

1552 order to pass. EPA also requests comment on whether a final test for the electronic 

1553 portion of the course is necessary, given that trainees must pass a hands-on skills 

1554 assessment and the course test in order to receive a course completion certificate. EPA 

1555 also requests comment on whether other requirements should likewise be incorporated 

1556 into the regulations. 

1557 

1558 EPA is requesting comment on whether training providers should be allowed to 

1559 provide a combined Abatement Worker/Renovator refresher course or a combined 

1560 Abatement Supervisor/Renovator refresher course or both. After the RRP rule was 

1561 promulgated, EPA received input from the regulated community and others that indicates 

1562 that many abatement contractors are likely to also become certified renovation firms. If 

1563 this is the case, it would be advantageous for such firms to be able to send their 

1564 employees to combined refreshers so that the employees would more readily be able to 

1565 keep up their dual certifications. EPA request comment on the likelihood that this will be 

1566 the case, and, if combined refreshers are desirable, whether the different certification time 

1567 periods for individual abatement certification (3 years) and individual renovator 

1568 certification (5 years) should be harmonized. 

1569 

1570 Finally, EPA is proposing to require training providers to maintain renovator and 

1571 dust sampling technician training records for a period of 5 years. Under the existing 

1572 regulations, training providers must keep training records for 3 years and 6 months. This 

1573 length of time was chosen because of the length of individual certification periods for 

1574 lead-based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 years and 6 months including 

1575 interim certification. However, the renovator and dust sampling technician certification 

1576 periods are 5 years, with no interim certification. Therefore, in order to ensure that the 

1577 training records from the previous training course are available for certified renovators 

1578 and dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses, the recordkeeping period 

1579 applicable to these disciplines would be increased to 5 years. 

1580 

1581 D. State, Territorial, and Tribal Program Authorization 
36

1582 

1583 Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive 

1584 authorization to, administer and enforce all of the elements of the RRP program. The 

1585 regulations for the State and Tribal program requirements are found in Section 745.326. 

1586 Under this proposed rule EPA is clarifying several parts of this section. First, the Agency 

1587 is amending the regulations to make it clear that State and Tribal programs do not need to 

1588 include requirements for the accreditation of dust sampling technicians if they are going 

1589 to require dust sampling to be performed by a certified inspector or risk assessor. 

1590 Second, the Agency is proposing to amend the regulations to reflect that both individuals 

1591 and firms must receive certification. Finally, EPA is proposing to require State and 

1592 Tribal renovation programs to include procedures and requirements for on-the-job 

1593 training of renovation workers that do not receive accredited training. 

1594 

1595 Strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and 

1596 Tribal programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and 

1597 child occupied facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. The 

1598 State and Tribal program authorization requirements at 40 CFR § 745.327 include 

1599 provisions for approval of compliance and enforcement programs. Specifically, State and 

1600 Tribal programs must have adequate compliance monitoring and enforcement authorities. 

1601 Section 745.327(b)(3)(ii) requires “[a]dministrative or civil actions including penalty 

1602 authority...” but the rule does not establish a minimum penalty level or other 

1603 requirements for enforcement authorities comparable to EPA authorities under TSCA. 

1604 To remedy this, EPA is proposing that in order to be authorized, State or Tribal programs 

1605 demonstrate that: (1) the State or Tribe be able to sue to obtain penalties, (2) civil and 

1606 criminal penalties are assessable for each instance of violation, (3) if violations are 

1607 continuous, the penalties are assessable up to the maximum amount for each day of 

1608 violation, and (4) the burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent of the 

1609 respondent is no greater than it is for EPA under TSCA. EPA is also requesting comment 

1610 on whether a minimum penalty level for civil and criminal fines ought to be established, 

1611 and, if so, what the minimum level for each should be. States and Tribes may be 

1612 authorized to administer a number of EPA programs, some of these programs have 

1613 minimum penalty requirements for State and Tribal programs and some do not. For 

1614 example, under the Clean Air Act implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3) and 

1615 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

1616 271.16(a)(3), State programs must have the authority to assess civil and criminal fines of 

1617 at least $10,000 per day per violation. Other programs have established lower minimum 

1618 penalty requirements. The implementing regulations for the Safe Drinking Water Act 

1619 require State programs to have the authority to impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per 

1620 day per violation on public water systems serving a population of more than 10,000 

1621 individuals. Some EPA programs have set no minimum penalty authority requirements 

1622 for States and Tribes; these programs include the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response 

1623 Act program and the State pesticide applicator certification program under the Federal 

1624 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EPA is proposing that in order to become 

1625 authorized, State and Tribal lead-based paint programs must have minimum civil and 

1626 criminal penalty authorities of at least $10,000 per violation per day. EPA requests 

1627 comment on whether proposing minimum levels for the maximum civil penalty and 
37

1628 criminal fine recoverable under a State or Tribal program is necessary to ensure that 

1629 enforcement is adequate and, if so, whether $10,000 should be the minimum level. EPA 

1630 also requests comment on whether such a minimum requirement would appropriately 

1631 promote consistency across authorized State and Tribal programs. In addition, EPA is 

1632 requesting comment on whether these minimum levels should also be adjusted 

1633 periodically to account for inflation, as required for Federal penalties under Federal Civil 

1634 Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the 

1635 Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3701 note. One way of doing this 

1636 would be to require State and Tribal programs to have minimum civil penalty authority of 

1637 40 percent of the Federal maximum penalty authority under TSCA section 16, as adjusted 

1638 for inflation, at the time the State or Tribe is authorized. However, this approach would 

1639 result in different requirements for States and Tribes depending upon when they apply for 

1640 authorization. Another way of accomplishing inflation adjustments would be to require 

1641 State and Tribal authorized programs to have their own established mechanism for 

1642 adjusting penalties to account for inflation. By requiring all authorized programs to make 

1643 adjustments for inflation, this approach might be more likely to promote enforcement 

1644 consistency across programs. Also in the interests of promoting national enforcement 

1645 consistency, EPA requests comment on what criteria States or Tribes should consider, 

1646 such as the size of a respondent’s business, ability to remain in business, enforcement 

1647 history, or risk posed by the respondent’s actions, in establishing or mitigating penalties. 

1648 

1649 E. Other Proposed Amendments to the Final RRP Rule 

1650 

1651 1. Containment. EPA is proposing to be more specific about the vertical 

1652 containment requirements for exterior projects. Under this proposal, the rule would 

1653 specifically state that vertical containment is required for exterior renovation projects that 

1654 are covered by the rule and that affect painted surfaces within 10 feet of the property line. 

1655 In such cases, vertical containment is necessary to ensure that adjacent buildings or 

1656 properties are not contaminated by leaded dust or debris generated by the renovation. 

1657 The rule would also note that vertical containment may be required in other situations, 

1658 such as windy conditions, to prevent contamination of other buildings, other areas of the 

1659 property, or adjacent buildings or properties. Finally, to clarify what is meant by the term 

1660 “containment,” this proposal would add a definition of the term that is based on the 

1661 definition of “Worksite preparation level” from the HUD Guidelines. The definition 

1662 includes additional information on what constitutes vertical containment. 

1663 

1664 2. Prohibited or restricted practices. EPA is proposing to clarify that the 

1665 prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3), e.g., the 

1666 prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painted surfaces, not just 

1667 surfaces where the presence of lead-based paint has been confirmed. The term “lead1668 based paint” was incorrectly and inadvertently used in this subsection, making it 

1669 inconsistent with the rest of the RRP rule, which applies in the presence of known lead1670 based paint as well as paint that has not been tested for lead content. This proposal would 

1671 replace the term “lead-based paint” with “painted surfaces” in this subsection. Of course, 

1672 if the painted surface has been tested and found to be free of lead-based paint, the 

1673 prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in the final RRP rule do not apply. In 
38

1674 addition, EPA wishes to clarify that the restriction on the use of machines that remove 

1675 paint through high speed operation applies where painted surfaces are being disturbed by 

1676 such machines. The restriction is not limited to situations where all of the paint is 

1677 removed by such machines. Finally, EPA has received several requests for clarification 

1678 on what is meant by HEPA exhaust control. In order to better express what is required 

1679 when machines designed to remove paint through high speed operation are used, EPA is 

1680 using terminology from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Technical 

1681 Manual (Ref. 23). The use of shrouded tools to remove lead-based paint is discussed in 

1682 Chapter 3 of Section V, entitled “Controlling Lead Exposures in the Construction 

1683 Industry: Engineering and Work Practice Controls.” Therefore, this proposal would 

1684 amend 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, “The use of machines designed to remove paint 

1685 through high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, 

1686 abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines 

1687 are used shrouded and equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and 

1688 debris at the point of generation.” 

1689 

1690 3. HEPA vacuums. EPA is proposing to clarify that vacuums qualifying as HEPA 

1691 vacuums for the purposes of this rule must be operated and maintained in accordance 

1692 with the manufacturer’s instructions in order to continue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. 

1693 This includes following the manufacturer’s filter change interval recommendations. 

1694 EPA would also like to clarify that the standard for HEPA filters, that they be capable of 

1695 capturing particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency, means that the filters must 

1696 have a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 17 or greater (Ref. 24). EPA 

1697 recommends that renovation firms verify with the manufacturer that the particular 

1698 vacuum that the renovation firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been 

1699 tested in accordance with an applicable test methods, such as ASTM F1471-09, 

1700 “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate 

1701 Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to meet this standard (Ref. 25). 

1702 

1703 4. On-the-job training. EPA is proposing to clarify that the RRP rule requires 

1704 certified renovators to train other renovation workers in only the work practices required 

1705 by the RRP rule that the workers will be using in performing their assigned tasks. EPA 

1706 did not intend to require training in any other subjects, such as how to paint or how to 

1707 connect pipes. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4) to 

1708 refer specifically to the work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a). 

1709 

1710 5. Grandfathering. Under the final RRP rule, individuals who successfully 

1711 completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, and individuals who 

1712 successfully completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model renovation training 

1713 courses may take an accredited refresher renovation training course in lieu of the initial 

1714 renovation training to become a certified renovator. In addition, individuals who have 

1715 successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, 

1716 but are not currently certified in the discipline, may take an accredited refresher dust 

1717 sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust 

1718 sampling technician. EPA inadvertently did not address a time limit in the RRP rule for 

1719 taking the initial course in lieu of the refresher. Many of the commenters who addressed 
39

1720 the issue of grandfathering contended that there should be restrictions based on how 

1721 much time elapsed since the training was taken. Further, under the lead-based paint 

1722 activities regulations at 745.226, EPA allowed a similar grandfathering provision but 

1723 only for a limited time. In today’s notice, EPA is proposing to set a limit on when an 

1724 individual can take advantage of the grandfathering provision under the RRP rule. Under 

1725 today’s proposal, renovators and dust sampling technicians who take the appropriate 

1726 prerequisite course before July 31, 2011, may take an accredited refresher training course 

1727 in lieu of the initial training. This time frame is consistent with some of the time 

1728 limitations suggested in comments on the RRP rule (Ref. 1 at 21724). 

1729 

1730 6. Refresher courses. Section 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that 

1731 training programs must follow to become accredited in order to provide instruction in 

1732 lead-based paint courses. Minimum requirements for training curricula are found in this 

1733 section, which list course topics that must be included in the different training courses 

1734 with an indication of the topics that require hands-on instruction. However, EPA 

1735 inadvertently omitted indicating which course topics required hands-on training for the 

1736 renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. Under this proposed rule, EPA 

1737 identifies which topics in the renovator and dust sampling technician courses require 

1738 hands-on training. For further clarification, EPA is proposing to add a sentence to the 

1739 regulations stating that all disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on 

1740 component. 

1741 

1742 7. Dust sampling technicians. Individuals who successfully complete an 

1743 accredited lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently 

1744 certified in the discipline, may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician 

1745 course in lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust sampling technician. 

1746 Inspectors and risk assessors who are certified by EPA or an authorized state program are 

1747 qualified to perform dust sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or 

1748 abatements. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for a certified inspector or risk assessor 

1749 to seek certification as a dust sampling technician. The regulations promulgated in the 

1750 RRP rule explained who is eligible to take the refresher dust sampling technician course 

1751 in lieu of the initial training. However, the regulations did not explicitly say that a 

1752 certified inspector or risk assessor could perform dust sampling. In order to clarify the 

1753 intent of the regulation, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 745.90(a)(3) to specifically 

1754 state that a certified inspector or risk assessor may act as a dust sampling technician. 

1755 

1756 8. Trainee photographs. Accredited training programs are required to issue a 

1757 course completion certificate for each person who passes a training course. A variety of 

1758 information is required to be on the certificate including the name of the course, the name 

1759 and address of the student, and contact information for the training program. Course 

1760 certificates for renovators or dust sampling technicians must include a photograph of the 

1761 student. Since publishing the RRP rule the Agency has been asked if there is a minimum 

1762 size for the photograph. Currently, there are not size requirements or other specifications 

1763 for the photograph on a course completion certificate. Nonetheless, EPA believes that it 

1764 would be beneficial to have such requirements to ensure that the person in the photograph 

1765 is recognizable. Thus, EPA is proposing to require that the photographs on course 
40

1766 completion certificates be an accurate and recognizable image of the trainee and at least 

1767 one square inch in size. 

1768 

1769 

1770 9. Training requirements. As stated previously, Section 745.225 includes 

1771 requirements and procedures that training programs must follow to become accredited in 

1772 order to provide instruction in renovator, dust sampling technician, and lead-based paint 

1773 activities courses. The final RRP rule amended Section 745.225 to cover persons who 

1774 provide or wish to provide renovator or dust sampling technician training for the 

1775 purposes of the final RRP rule. There are some instances where the regulations do not 

1776 specifically mention the renovator or dust sampling technician courses even though the 

1777 regulations apply to those courses. For example, Section 745.225(c)(14) explains the 

1778 requirements which a training provider must follow when submitting notification to EPA 

1779 after the completion of a training. However, the conforming changes, i.e., to replace 

1780 “lead-based paint activities courses” with “renovator, dust sampling technician, and lead1781 based paint activities courses,” were not made to every subparagraph even though all the 

1782 requirements of that section apply to those courses. Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

1783 clarify that the requirements in Section 745.225 apply to renovator and dust sampling 

1784 technician courses in addition to lead-based paint activities courses. These changes do 

1785 not alter the requirements but merely clarify them. 

1786 

1787 

1788 IV. References 

1789 

1790 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

1791 Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–

1792 8355–7). 

1793 

1794 2. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (October 2006). 

1795 

1796 3. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

1797 Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-99-002, March 1999). 

1798 4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Public Health 

1799 Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Children with 

1800 Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home Renovation and Remodeling Activities--

1801 New York, 1993-1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, 

1802 January 3, 1997). 

1803 5. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Related to Home 

1804 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities – New York State, 2006-2007. Morbidity and 

1805 Mortality Weekly Report (58(03); 55-58, January 30, 2009). 

1806 

1807 6. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. Kaufmann, 

1808 and Jessica Leighton. ‘‘Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk Factor for Exposure to 

1809 Lead Among Children Residing in New York City?’’ Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin 

1810 of the New York Academy of Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005. 

1811 
41

1812 7. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, 

1813 Kathleen L. Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead 

1814 Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” 

1815 Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 

1816 e376-385, March 2009. 

1817 

1818 8. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 

1819 Register (61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996). 

1820 

1821 9. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 

1822 Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001). 

1823 

1824 10. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 

1825 Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 

1826 1997). 

1827 

1828 11. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 

1829 Activities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-96-

1830 006, May 1997). 

1831 

1832 12. EPA. Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

1833 Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R Workers Who 

1834 Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes (EPA 747-R-99-001, March 1999). 

1835 

1836 13. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

1837 Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-8355-7). 

1838 

1839 14. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, And 

1840 Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007). 

1841 

1842 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Guidelines for 

1843 the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995). 

1844 

1845 16. EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing 

1846 (September 2005). 

1847 

1848 17. Rx Solutions International/BTS Laboratories Inc. Comment on EPA’s 

1849 Proposed Renovation, Remodeling, and Painting Program. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-

1850 0483. May 22, 2006. 

1851 

1852 18. EPA. Residential Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling, 

1853 March 1995 (EPA 747-R-95-001). 

1854 

1855 19. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Clearance Examinations 

1856 Following Lead Hazard Reduction Activities in Single-Family Dwellings and Child1857 Occupied Facilities (E 2271-05a). 
42

1858 

1859 20. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. 2009. 

1860 

1861 21. Battelle Memorial Institute. Encapsulation Treatment of Dust Study Floors. 

1862 January 2010. 

1863 

1864 22. HUD. Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant 

1865 Program: Final Report. May 1, 2004. 

1866 

1867 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

1868 (OSHA). Technical Manual TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A]. Revised June 24, 2008. 

1869 

1870 24. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

1871 (ASHRAE). Standard 52.2-2007--Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning 

1872 Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size (ANSI/ASHRAE Approved) 2007. 

1873 

1874 25. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of 

1875 a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System (F1471-09). 

1876 

1877 26. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis 

1878 of the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation, 

1879 Repair, and Painting Program for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. April 

1880 2010. 

1881 

1882 27. EPA. Proposed Clearance Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking entitled 

1883 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 

1884 Painting Program; Proposed Rule. April 2010. 

1885 

1886 28. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Clearance and Clearance 

1887 Testing Requirements for the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed 

1888 Rule. April 2010. 

1889 

1890 29. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead1891 based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. 

1892 March 3, 2000. 

1893 

1894 30. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement; Lead; Clearance and 

1895 Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 

1896 Proposed Rule. April 2010. 

1897 

1898 31. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Collection of Settled Dust 

1899 Samples Using Wipe Sampling Methods for Subsequent Lead Determination (E1728-03). 

1900 

1901 32. ASTM International. Standard Specification for Wipe Sampling Materials for 

1902 Lead in Surface Dust (E1792-03). 

1903 
43

1904 33. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Record Keeping and Record 

1905 Preservation for Lead Hazard Activities (E2239-04). 

1906 

1907 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

1908 A. Executive Order 12866

1909 

1910 Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning 

1911 and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically significant 

1912 regulatory action” because EPA estimates that it will have an annual effect on the 

1913 economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to the Office 

1914 of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any 

1915 changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public 

1916 docket for this rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 

1917 

1918 In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits 

1919 associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the “Economic Analysis of 

1920 the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation, 

1921 Repair, and Painting Program for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities” 

1922 (Economic Analysis, Ref. 26), which is available in the docket for this action and is 

1923 briefly summarized here. 

1924 

1925 1. Options evaluated. The Economic Analysis analyzes several options. In 

1926 addition to the proposed rule option, the Economic Analysis includes options with lower 

1927 and higher thresholds (in terms of the amount of lead-based paint disturbed) for 

1928 renovations which require dust wipe testing or clearance. In the proposed rule, the 

1929 renovation events for which clearance is required (use of high speed machines to remove 

paint, and the demolition or destructive removal of plaster) have a threshold of 6 ft2 1930 of 

1931 lead-based paint disturbed. The thresholds in the proposed rule for the renovation events 

1932 that require the use of dust wipe testing without necessarily achieving clearance vary 

from 6 to 60 ft2 1933 , depending on the type of renovation (use of a heat gun; scraping painted 

1934 surfaces; removing trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures; etc.). In the low threshold 

option, the thresholds are 6 ft2 1935 for all of the affected renovations. In the high threshold 

option, the thresholds for the events where clearance is required are 60 ft2 1936 , while the 

1937 thresholds for the renovations events that require the use of dust wipe testing without 

necessarily achieving clearance vary from 60 to 120 ft2 1938 , depending on the type of 

1939 renovation. The Economic Analysis also includes three options that use the same 

1940 threshold sizes as the proposed rule but apply different requirements to them. There is an 

1941 option that requires dust wipe testing for all of the renovation events covered by the 

1942 proposed rule without requiring clearance for any of them, as well as an option that 

1943 requires clearance for all of these events. Finally, there is an option that applies to the 

1944 same dust wipe testing and clearance events and thresholds as the proposed rule but that 

1945 requires renovation firms to have the dust wipe sampling performed by an independent 

1946 third party. 

1947 

1948 2. Number of facilities and renovations. There are approximately 18.7 million 

1949 renovation events per year covered by EPA’s renovation, repair, and painting program in 
44

1950 the 78 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities. The number of 

1951 renovations affected by this proposed rule depends on the option selected. The low 

1952 threshold option affects an estimated 1.8 million dust wipe testing only events and 69,000 

1953 clearance events per year. The proposed rule is estimated to affect 1.5 million dust wipe 

1954 testing only events and 69,000 clearance events a year. The high threshold option affects 

1955 an estimated 1.2 million dust wipe testing only events and 58,000 clearance events per 

1956 year. The remaining three options (only dust wipe testing is required for all renovations 

1957 covered by the proposed rule, clearance is required for all renovations covered by the 

1958 proposed rule, and third-party dust wipe sampling is required for all renovations covered 

1959 by the proposed rule) all affect an estimated 1.6 million events per year. 

1960 

1961 3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health 

1962 effects attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These 

1963 health effects include impaired cognitive function in children and several illnesses in 

1964 children and adults, such as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including 

1965 increased blood pressure, increased incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity 

1966 and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 

1967 

1968 The proposed rule will generate benefits by providing greater assurance that dust1969 lead hazards created by renovations are adequately cleaned up, primarily by requiring 

1970 renovation firms to provide building owners and occupants with information on dust lead 

1971 levels remaining in the work area after many renovation projects, but also by requiring 

1972 renovation firms to demonstrate that they have achieved regulatory clearance levels after 

1973 some of the dustiest renovations. These changes will protect individuals residing in 

1974 target housing or attending a child-occupied facility where these renovation events are 

1975 performed. It will also protect individuals who move into target housing after such a 

1976 renovation is performed, or who visit a friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where such a 

1977 renovation is performed. 

1978 

1979 EPA has estimated the number of individuals residing in target housing units or 

1980 attending COFs where renovation events are performed. The proposed rule will benefit 

1981 809,000 children under the age of 6 and 7,547,000 individuals age 6 and older (including 

1982 96,000 pregnant women) per year by minimizing their exposure to lead dust generated by 

1983 renovations. The low threshold option would protect 882,000 children under the age of 6 

1984 and 8,193,000 individuals age 6 and older, including 105,000 pregnant women. The high 

1985 threshold option protects 706,000 children and 6,590,000 individuals age 6 and older, 

1986 including 83,000 pregnant women. The remaining three alternative options (dust wipe 

1987 testing only, clearance only, and third party dust wipe testing) would affect the same 

1988 number of individuals as the proposed rule, although the amount of protection provided 

1989 to some of those individuals may differ from the proposed rule. 

1990 

1991 4. Costs. Firms performing the renovation events covered by the proposed rule 

1992 will incur costs associated with having a third party perform dust wipe sampling and 

1993 testing (or with having a firm staff member trained as a dust sampling technician so that 

1994 they can take their own dust wipe samples and send them to a lab). For jobs subject to 

1995 the clearance requirements in the proposed rule, firms may incur re-cleaning costs if dust 
45

1996 wipe testing after clean-up yields results that exceed the clearance standards. Firms will 

1997 also incur small costs to provide the dust wipe testing results to owners and occupants of 

1998 the target housing units and child-occupied facilities where the renovations are 

1999 performed. 

2000 

2001 EPA’s updated estimate is that the average cost for a renovation firm to hire a 

2002 third-party lead evaluation firm to take four dust samples, send them to a lab for analysis, 

2003 and provide a short report is slightly over $260. However, many renovation firms may 

2004 find it more cost effective to have a staff member trained and certified as a dust sampling 

2005 technician rather than hiring a third party to take the samples. 

2006 

2007 Renovation firms would incur the same dust wipe testing costs for renovations 

2008 where achieving clearance is required. If dust levels exceed the clearance standards after 

2009 cleaning verification, the renovation firm will incur additional costs for re-cleaning the 

2010 work area up to two times. These re-cleaning costs vary from job to job, depending on 

2011 the size of the space that must be cleaned. 

2012 

2013 Annualized costs for the rule options are calculated using both a 3% and a 7% 

2014 discount rate. Total annualized costs for the proposed rule are $272 million per year 

2015 using a 3% discount rate and $293 million per year using a 7% discount rate. Under the 

2016 low threshold option, costs are $312 million per year with a 3% discount rate and $336 

2017 million per year with a 7% rate. Under the high threshold option, costs are $224 million 

2018 per year with a 3% discount rate and $242 million per year with a 7% discount rate. The 

2019 option that only requires dust wipe testing costs $268 million per year with a 3% discount 

2020 rate and $288 million per year with a 7% discount rate. The option requiring clearance 

2021 for all renovations covered by the proposed rule costs $367 million with a 3% discount 

2022 rate and $394 million with a 7% discount rate. The option requiring the use of a third 

2023 party for dust wipe sampling costs $431 million per year with a 3% discount rate and 

2024 $459 million per year with a 7% discount rate. 

2025 

2026 B. Paperwork Reduction Act

2027 

2028 The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have 

2029 been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 

2030 Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information 

2031 Collection Request (ICR) document to amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR 

2032 document, referred to as the Proposed Clearance Rule ICR Addendum and identified 

2033 under EPA ICR No. 1715.12 and OMB Control Number 2070-0155, has been placed in 

2034 the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 27). The information collection requirements are 

2035 not enforceable until OMB approves them. 

2036 

2037 Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial resources 

2038 expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or 

2039 for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, 

2040 acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 

2041 validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
46

2042 disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 

2043 previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond 

2044 to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 

2045 information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

2046 

2047 The information collection activities contained in this proposed rule are designed 

2048 to assist the Agency in meeting the core objectives of TSCA section 402. EPA has 

2049 carefully tailored the recordkeeping requirements so they will permit the Agency to 

2050 achieve statutory objectives without imposing an undue burden on those firms that 

2051 choose to be involved in renovation, repair, and painting activities. 

2052 

2053 This proposed rule requires renovation firms to provide owners and occupants 

2054 with a report including the results of the dust wipe testing. Although firms have the 

2055 option of choosing to engage in the covered activities, once a firm chooses to do so, the 

2056 information collection activities become mandatory for that firm. The rule may result in 

2057 an increase in the number of individuals becoming trained as dust sampling technicians, 

2058 resulting in additional paperwork requirements for training providers. 

2059 

2060 The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated paperwork 

2061 burden and costs resulting from this proposed rule. The burden to firms engaged in 

2062 renovation, repair, and painting activities and to training providers are summarized in this 

2063 unit. 

2064 

2065 The requirement for renovation firms to provide a dust wipe testing report for the 

2066 renovations covered by the rule will impact about 224,000 firms. The additional burden 

2067 for these firms arising from the proposed rule is estimated to average slightly more than 

2068 13 hours per firm annually, resulting in a total burden of approximately 2,861,000 hours 

2069 per year for these firms. 

2070 

2071 Many certified renovators may become trained and certified as dust sampling 

2072 technicians so that they can take their own dust wipe samples and send them to a lab for 

2073 analysis. This will increase the paperwork burden for training providers, since they must 

2074 submit records to EPA (or an authorizing State, Tribe, or Territory) pertaining to each 

2075 student attending a training course to become a dust sampling technician. Around 170 

2076 training providers are estimated to incur an average burden of about 82 hours, resulting in 

2077 an increase of approximately 14,000 hours per year in training provider burden as a result 

2078 of the proposed rule. 

2079 

2080 Total respondent burden for renovation firms and training providers is estimated 

2081 to average approximately 2.9 million hours per year during the 3 year period covered by 

2082 the ICR. 

2083 

2084 The proposed rule may also result in additional government costs to administer 

2085 the program (to process the additional training provider notifications and to administer 

2086 and enforce the program). States, Tribes, and Territories are allowed, but are under no 

2087 obligation, to apply for and receive authorization to administer these requirements. EPA 
47

2088 will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, and Territories that do not become 

2089 authorized. Because the number of States, Tribes, and Territories that will become 

2090 authorized is not known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA will 

2091 administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government entities become 

2092 authorized, EPA’s administrative costs will be lower. 

2093 

2094 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to 

2095 a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 

2096 OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in chapter 40 of the CFR, after 

2097 appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 

2098 either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on 

2099 the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by 

2100 OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal 

2101 Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 

2102 requirements contained in the final rule. 

2103 

2104 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the 

2105 provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent 

2106 burden, EPA has established a docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, 

2107 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. Submit any comments related to 

2108 the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. 

2109 Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

2110 Management and Budget, 725 17th St, N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

2111 Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 

2112 30 and 60 days after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register], a comment to 

2113 OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [Insert date 30 days 

2114 after publication in the Federal Register]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or 

2115 public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposed 

2116 rule. 

2117 

2118 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

2119 

2120 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, generally requires an 

2121 agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 

2122 comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other 

2123 statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 

2124 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

2125 small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

2126 

2127 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, 

2128 small entity is defined in accordance with section 601 of the RFA as: 

2129 

2130 (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

2131 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

2132 
48

2133 (2) A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

2134 school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

2135 

2136 (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

2137 independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

2138 

2139 As required by section 603 of the RFA, EPA has prepared an initial regulatory 

2140 flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule. The IRFA is available for review in the 

2141 docket and is summarized in this unit (Ref. 28). 

2142 

2143 1. Reasons why action by the Agency is being considered. The Agency believes it 

2144 is in the best interest of the public to require dust wipe testing for many types of 

2145 renovations (and to require renovation firms to achieve clearance for certain types of 

2146 renovations). EPA expects two kinds of benefits to flow from the proposed dust wipe 

2147 testing requirements. The first are the direct benefits of the information to the owners 

2148 and occupants, the pure value of the information on dust lead levels remaining in the 

2149 renovation work area. For building owners and occupants, this information is likely to 

2150 improve their understanding and awareness of dust-lead hazards. It will also greatly 

2151 improve their ability to make further risk management decisions, especially in light of 

2152 mounting evidence suggesting that the current dust-lead hazard standards are too high. 

2153 This information is particularly critical where dust lead levels approach or exceed the 

2154 regulatory hazard standards. The other benefits that EPA expects to flow from a dust 

2155 wipe testing requirement are the benefits that may result from changed behavior on the 

2156 part of renovation firms. EPA believes that dust wipe testing results will also provide 

2157 valuable feedback to renovation firms on how well they are cleaning up after renovations. 

2158 It is likely that the specific dust lead levels contained in dust wipe testing results will 

2159 increase renovation firm cleaning efficiency. Renovation firms will be incentivized to 

2160 lower the dust lead levels remaining after renovation jobs, even if the levels are at or near 

2161 the regulatory standards. For two types of renovations that can create large amounts of 

2162 difficult-to-clean dust, EPA remains concerned about the possibility that dust lead levels 

2163 remaining, even after cleaning verification, may substantially exceed the clearance 

2164 standards. If renovation firms choose to utilize these methods, the firms would be 

2165 required to demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that they have met the clearance 

2166 standards before the renovation will be considered completed. 

2167 

2168 2. Legal basis and objectives for this proposed rule. These work practice 

2169 requirements for dust wipe testing and clearance, training, certification and accreditation 

2170 requirements, and State, Territorial and Tribal authorization provisions are being 

2171 promulgated under the authority of TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 

2172 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. A central objective of this proposed rule is to provide 

2173 greater assurance that dust-lead hazards created by renovations are adequately cleaned 

2174 up, primarily by requiring renovation firms to provide building owners and occupants 

2175 with information on dust lead levels remaining in the work area after many renovation 

2176 projects, but also by requiring renovation firms to demonstrate that they have achieved 

2177 regulatory clearance levels after some of the dustiest renovations. 

2178 
49

2179 3. Potentially affected small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

2180 small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The small entities that are 

2181 potentially directly regulated by this proposed rule include: small businesses (such as 

2182 renovation contractors and property owners and managers); small nonprofits (certain 

2183 childcare centers and private schools); and small governments (school districts which 

2184 operate pre-schools, kindergartens and certain child care centers). 

2185 

2186 In determining the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule, the 

2187 Agency applied U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA’s definition of small business. 

2188 However, applying the U.S. Economic Census data requires either under or 

2189 overestimating the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule. For 

2190 example, for many construction establishments, the SBA defines small businesses as 

2191 having revenues of less than $14 million. With respect to those establishments, the U.S. 

2192 Economic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10 million or more 

2193 into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data for the entire industry would 

2194 overestimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule and would 

2195 defeat the purpose of estimating impacts on small business. It would also underestimate 

2196 the proposed rule’s impact on small businesses because the impacts would be calculated 

2197 using the revenues of large businesses in addition to small businesses. On the other hand, 

2198 applying the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket would underestimate the number of 

2199 small businesses affected by the proposed rule while at the same time overestimating the 

2200 impacts. Similar issues arose in estimating the fraction of property owners and managers 

2201 that are small businesses. EPA has concluded that a substantial number of small 

2202 businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen to be more 

2203 conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, 

2204 revenue bracket for which U.S. Economic Census data is available. For other sectors 

2205 (nonprofits operating childcare centers or private schools), EPA assumed that all affected 

2206 firms are small, which may overestimate the number of small entities affected by the 

2207 proposed rule. 

2208 

2209 The vast majority of entities in the industries affected by this proposed rule are 

2210 small. Using EPA’s estimates, these revisions to the renovation, repair, and painting 

2211 program will affect over 203,000 small entities per year. 

2212 

2213 4. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA evaluated two factors in its 

2214 analysis of the proposed rule’s requirements on small entities, the number of firms that 

2215 would experience the impact, and the size of the impact. Average annual compliance 

2216 costs as a percentage of average annual revenues were used to assess the potential 

2217 average impacts of the rule on small businesses and small governments. This ratio is a 

2218 good measure of entities’ ability to afford the costs attributable to a regulatory 

2219 requirement, because comparing compliance costs to revenues provides a reasonable 

2220 indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available 

2221 measure of economic activity. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a 

2222 typical entity’s revenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on such entities may be 

2223 considered as not significant. For non-profit organizations, impacts were measured by 

2224 comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, 
50

2225 however, revenue information was used as a proxy for expenditures. It is appropriate to 

2226 calculate the impact ratios using annualized costs, because these costs are more 

2227 representative of the continuing costs entities face to comply with the proposed rule. 

2228 

2229 The cost of the proposed rule to a typical small business averages approximately 

2230 $1,200 per year. This represents 0.4% to 1.1% of revenues depending on the industry 

2231 sector. Overall, an estimated 203,000 small renovation contractors would be affected by 

2232 the proposed rule, with average impacts of 0.5% of revenues. Approximately 100 small 

2233 governments per year would incur a cost of about $800, resulting in an average impact of 

2234 less than 0.01%. And around 200 small non-profits per year would incur a cost of about 

2235 $600, resulting in an impact of approximately 0.1%. 

2236 

2237 Some of the small renovation contractors subject to the rule have employees while 

2238 others are non-employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer jobs than firms 

2239 with employees, and thus have lower work practice compliance costs. However, they 

2240 also have lower average revenues than entities with employees, so their impacts 

2241 (measured as costs divided by revenues) can be higher. Impact estimates for non2242 employers should be interpreted with caution, as some non-employers may have 

2243 significant issues related to understatement of income, which would tend to exaggerate 

2244 the average impact ratio for this class of small entities. There are 151,000 non-employer 

2245 renovation contractors estimated to be affected by the proposed rule. The average cost to 

2246 these contractors is estimated to be approximately $700 apiece. This represents 0.7% to 

2247 2.6% of reported revenues, depending on the industry sector. 

2248 

2249 5. Relevant Federal rules. The requirements in this proposed rule will fit within 

2250 an existing framework of other Federal regulations that address lead-based paint. 

2251 Notably, the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovation firms 

2252 to distribute a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants before 

2253 conducting a renovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. This proposed 

2254 rule’s requirement that renovation firms provide owners and occupants with dust wipe 

2255 testing and clearance reports complements the existing pre-renovation education 

2256 requirements. 

2257 

2258 6. Skills needed for compliance. Under the lead renovation, repair, and painting 

2259 program requirements, renovators and dust sampling technicians working in target 

2260 housing and child-occupied facilities have to take courses to learn the proper techniques 

2261 for accomplishing the tasks (including dust sampling, preparing a report with the results, 

2262 and performing specialized cleaning) they will perform during renovations. These 

2263 courses are intended to provide them with the information they would need to comply 

2264 with the rule based on the skills they already have. Other renovation workers that have 

2265 not been formally trained and certified must receive training on the work practices they 

2266 will be using in performing their assigned tasks from a certified renovator, and a certified 

2267 renovator must regularly direct work being performed by other renovation workers to 

2268 ensure that the work practices are being followed, including maintaining the integrity of 

2269 the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work 

2270 area. 
51

2271 

2272 7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. EPA has been concerned with 

2273 potential small entity impacts since the earliest stages of planning for the RRP program 

2274 under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA. EPA conducted outreach to small entities and, 

2275 pursuant to section 609 of the RFA, convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

2276 (the Panel) in 1999 to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the 

2277 regulated small entities. EPA identified eight key elements of a potential renovation and 

2278 remodeling regulation for the Panel’s consideration. These elements were: applicability 

2279 and scope, firm certification, individual training and certification, accreditation of 

2280 training courses, work practice standards, prohibited practices, exterior clearance, and 

2281 interior clearance. 

2282 

2283 Details on the Panel and its recommendations are provided in the Panel Report 

2284 (Ref. 29). Information on how EPA implemented the Panel’s recommendations in the 

2285 development of the RRP program is available in Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the 2006 

2286 proposed rule (Ref. 13) and in Unit V.C. of the preamble to the 2008 final rule (Ref. 1). 

2287 EPA believes that the conclusions it made in 2008 regarding these recommendations are 

2288 applicable to this proposal. Indeed, EPA has considered input from the 1999 Panel 

2289 process in this rule precisely because it is so closely related that EPA considers it an 

2290 extension of the 2008 RRP rulemaking. (See 5 U.S.C. § 605(c)) 

2291 

2292 8. Alternatives considered. EPA considered alternatives to this proposed rule that 

2293 could affect the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. These 

2294 alternatives would have applied to both small and large entities, but given the number of 

2295 small entities in the affected industries, these alternatives would primarily affect small 

2296 entities. For the reasons described in this unit, EPA believes these alternatives are not 

2297 consistent with the objectives of the rule. 

2298 

2299 i. Higher thresholds. EPA considered an option under which the size thresholds 

2300 for determining whether renovation jobs would need to perform dust wipe testing or 

2301 achieve clearance would be higher than those in the proposed rule. By reducing the 

2302 number of renovations where dust wipe testing or clearance are required, this option 

2303 would reduce the costs of the rule and thus the estimated small entity impacts. However, 

2304 higher thresholds would result in more jobs where occupants do not have information on 

2305 the dust lead levels they are exposed to, or where they are exposed to dust lead levels 

2306 above the hazard standard. EPA believes that the proposed rule provides the best balance 

2307 between the benefits of the rule (the value of information from dust wipe testing and the 

2308 benefits of reduced exposure to lead dust from achieving clearance) compared to the 

2309 costs (and resulting small business impacts) of dust wipe testing, re-cleaning, and the 

2310 other requirements of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA believes that an option with 

2311 higher thresholds is not consistent with the stated objectives of the proposed rule. 

2312 

2313 ii. Dust Testing Only. EPA considered an option that would require dust wipe 

2314 testing but not clearance for any of these renovation events. EPA remains concerned that 

2315 renovations that disturb paint using machines designed to remove lead-based paint 

2316 through high speed operation (such as power sanders or abrasive blasting) can create 
52

2317 large amounts of difficult-to-clean dust, creating the possibility that dust lead levels may 

2318 substantially exceed the clearance standards even after cleaning verification. The same is 

2319 true for the demolition or removal through destructive means of plaster and lath walls, 

2320 ceilings or other building components with lead-based paint. Therefore, EPA believes 

2321 that this option is not consistent with the stated objectives of the proposed rule. 

2322 

2323 As required by section 212 of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

2324 Act (SBREFA), P.L. 104-121, EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide (the Guide) 

2325 in December 2008 to help small entities comply with the RRP rule. The Guide is 

2326 available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National 

2327 Lead Information Center by calling 1(800) 424-LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech2328 challenged individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free 

2329 Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessary, to 

2330 reflect this rulemaking activity. 

2331 

2332 EPA invites comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impact on small 

2333 entities. 

2334 

2335 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

2336 

2337 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-

2338 1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects 

2339 of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 

2340 This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 

2341 more by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by 

2342 State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared 

2343 under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is summarized below. 

2344 Consistent with section 205 of the UMRA, EPA has identified and considered a 

2345 reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, also summarized below. 

2346 

2347 

2348 1. Authorizing legislation. This proposed rule is issued under the authority of 

2349 TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687). 

2350 

2351 2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits 

2352 associated with this proposed rule, a copy of which is available in the docket for this 

2353 proposed rule (Ref. 26). The Economic Analysis presents the costs of this proposed rule 

2354 as well as various regulatory options and is summarized in Unit V.A. EPA has estimated 

2355 the total annualized costs of this proposed rule are $272 million per year using a 3% 

2356 discount rate and $293 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 

2357 

2358 The benefits of the proposed rule result from the prevention of adverse health 

2359 effects attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These 

2360 health effects include impaired cognitive function in children and several illnesses in 

2361 children and adults, such as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including 
53

2362 increased blood pressure, increased incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity 

2363 and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 

2364 

2365 3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input from State, 

2366 local and Tribal government representatives throughout the development of the 

2367 renovation, repair, and painting program. EPA’s experience in administering the existing 

2368 lead-based paint activities program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that these 

2369 governments will play a critical role in the successful implementation of a national 

2370 program to reduce exposures to lead-based paint hazards associated with renovation, 

2371 repair, and painting activities. Consequently, as discussed in Unit III.C.2. of the 

2372 preamble to the 2006 proposed rule (Ref. 13), the Agency has met with State, local, and 

2373 Tribal government officials on numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 

2374 

2375 4. Least burdensome option. EPA has considered a wide variety of options for 

2376 addressing the risks presented by renovation activities where lead-based paint is present. 

2377 As part of the development of the renovation, repair, and painting program, EPA 

2378 considered different options for the scope of the proposed rule, various combinations of 

2379 training and certification requirements for individuals who perform renovations, various 

2380 combinations of work practice requirements, and various methods for ensuring that no 

2381 lead-based paint hazards are left behind by persons performing renovations. The 

2382 Economic Analysis for this proposed rule analyzed several additional options for the 

2383 scope of the work practices required, in terms of the size threshold and whether dust wipe 

2384 testing or clearance is required. As described in Unit V.C., EPA has preliminarily 

2385 concluded that the options for reducing the scope would result in an unacceptable number 

2386 of jobs where occupants do not have information on the dust lead levels they are exposed 

2387 to, or where they are exposed to dust lead levels above the hazard standard. 

2388 

2389 Currently, EPA believes that the preferred option is the least burdensome option 

2390 available that achieves a central objective of this proposed rule, which is to provide 

2391 greater assurance that dust-lead hazards created by renovations are adequately cleaned 

2392 up, primarily by requiring renovation firms to provide building owners and occupants 

2393 with information on dust lead levels remaining in the work area after many renovation 

2394 projects, but also by requiring renovation firms to demonstrate that they have achieved 

2395 regulatory clearance levels after some of the dustiest renovations. 

2396 

2397 

2398 This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

2399 contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

2400 governments. Based on the definition of “small government jurisdiction” in RFA section 

2401 601, 5 U.S.C. 601, no State governments can be considered small. Small Territorial or 

2402 Tribal governments may apply for authorization to administer and enforce this program, 

2403 which would entail costs, but these small jurisdictions are under no obligation to do so. 

2404 Small governments operate schools that are child-occupied facilities. If these 

2405 governments perform renovations in these facilities, they may incur additional costs to 

2406 perform dust wipe testing or achieve clearance, and to provide residents, parents or 

2407 guardians with copies of the report documenting the dust wipe testing results. EPA 
54

2408 generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, in the 

2409 aggregate, of more than 1% of small government revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 

2410 Unit V.C.4., the proposed rule is expected to result in small government impacts well 

2411 under 1% of revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect 

2412 small governments. Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governments, as the 

2413 proposed rule is not targeted at small governments, does not primarily affect small 

2414 governments, and does not impose a different burden on small governments than on other 

2415 entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 

2416 

2417 E. Executive Order 13132

2418 

2419 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 

2420 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have “federalism 

2421 implications,” because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

2422 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of 

2423 power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in 

2424 Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed 

2425 rule. States are able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer the lead 

2426 renovation, repair, and painting program requirements, but are under no obligation to do 

2427 so. In the absence of a State authorization, EPA will administer the requirements. 

2428 Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, and consistent with 

2429 EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and State and local 

2430 governments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local governments in 

2431 developing the renovation, repair, and painting program. These consultations were 

2432 described in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 13). 

2433 

2434 F. Executive Order 13175

2435 

2436 This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

2437 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not 

2438 have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 

2439 governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 

2440 or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and 

2441 Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to apply for and receive 

2442 authorization to administer the lead renovation, repair, and painting program on Tribal 

2443 lands, but Tribes are under no obligation to do so. In the absence of a Tribal 

2444 authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. While Tribes may operate public 

2445 housing or child-occupied facilities covered by the rule such as kindergartens, pre2446 kindergartens, and daycare facilities, EPA has determined that this rule would not have 

2447 substantial direct effects on the Tribal governments that operate these facilities. 

2448 

2449 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. Although 

2450 Executive Order 13175 does not apply, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by 

2451 discussing potential renovation regulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painting 

2452 program at several national lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested 
55

2453 Federal agencies. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action 

2454 from tribal officials. 

2455 

2456 G. Executive Order 13045

2457 

2458 This action is subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children 

2459 from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

2460 because it is an “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive 

2461 Order 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action 

2462 may have a disproportionate effect on children. 

2463 

2464 A central purpose of this proposed rule is to provide greater assurance that dust2465 lead hazards created by renovations are adequately cleaned up, primarily by requiring 

2466 renovation firms to provide building owners and occupants with information on dust lead 

2467 levels remaining in the work area after many renovation projects, but also by requiring 

2468 renovation firms to demonstrate that they have achieved regulatory clearance levels after 

2469 some of the dustiest renovations. In the absence of this regulation, owners and occupants 

2470 would not have information on the dust lead levels remaining following these renovation 

2471 events, and dust lead levels may substantially exceed the clearance standards for certain 

2472 renovations that can create large amounts of difficult-to-clean dust. 

2473 

2474 The proposed rule will protect children who reside in housing units or attend 

2475 child-occupied facilities where such renovations occur; who visit a friend, relative, or 

2476 caregiver’s house where such renovations are performed; or who move into such housing 

2477 when their family purchases it after such a renovation has been performed. 

2478 

2479 H. Executive Order 13211

2480 

2481 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive 

2482 Order 13211, entitled “Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 

2483 Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to 

2484 have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

2485 

2486 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

2487 

2488 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

2489 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use 

2490 voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 

2491 inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 

2492 are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 

2493 and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

2494 bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

2495 when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 

2496 standards. 

2497 
56

2498 This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes to use the 

2499 government-unique technical standards described in Unit III of this preamble. EPA has 

2500 identified several potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards developed by 

2501 ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) that 

2502 address dust wipe sampling, recordkeeping, and clearance procedures. These standards 

2503 are: “Standard Practice for Collection of Settled Dust Samples Using Wipe Sampling 

2504 Methods for Subsequent Lead Determination,” “Standard Specification for Wipe 

2505 Sampling Materials for Lead in Surface Dust,” “Standard Practice for Record Keeping 

2506 and Record Preservation for Lead Hazard Activities,” and “Standard Practice for 

2507 Clearance Examinations Following Lead Hazard Reduction Activities in Single-Family 

2508 Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities” (Refs. 31, 32, 33, 19). Each of these ASTM 

2509 documents represents state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the performance of these 

2510 particular aspects of lead-based paint hazard evaluation and control practices and EPA 

2511 recommends the use of these documents where appropriate. EPA believes that the 

2512 proposed amendments to the RRP rule as well as EPA’s model training courses for lead2513 based paint inspectors, risk assessors, and dust sampling technicians are consistent with 

2514 these ASTM standards. However, because each of these documents is extremely 

2515 detailed and encompasses many circumstances beyond the scope of this rulemaking, EPA 

2516 determined that it would be impractical to incorporate these voluntary consensus 

2517 standards into the rule. 

2518 

2519 In addition, EPA has identified a potentially-applicable voluntary consensus 

2520 standard developed by ASTM International for evaluating the performance of HEPA 

2521 filtration systems, the “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High2522 Efficiency Particulate Air- Filter System” (Ref. 25). EPA does recommend that 

2523 renovation firms in the market for a HEPA vacuum verify that the filter has been tested in 

2524 accordance with the ASTM standard or an equivalent test method. However, EPA has 

2525 determined that it would be impractical to incorporate this test method into the rule. 

2526 

2527 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

2528 specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus 

2529 standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. 

2530 

2531 Executive Order 12898 

2532 

2533 Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

2534 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

2535 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 

2536 directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

2537 environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

2538 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

2539 programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

2540 the United States. 

2541 

2542 EPA has determined that Agency has determined that this proposed rule will not 

2543 have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 
57

2544 minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 

2545 protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 

2546 adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority 

2547 or low-income population. EPA has assessed the potential impact of this proposed rule 

2548 on minority and low-income populations. The results of this assessment are presented in 

2549 the Economic Analysis, which is available in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 26). 

2550 

2551 

2552 

2553 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

2554 

2555 Environmental protection, Child-occupied facility, Housing renovation, Lead, 

2556 Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

2557 

2558 Dated: ________ 

2559 

2560 ________________ 

2561 

2562 Administrator 

2563 

2564 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: 

2565 1. The authority citation for part 745 would continue to read as follows: 

2566 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d 

2567 

2568 2. Section 745.82 would be amended by adding a new paragraph 745.82(a)(3). 

2569 § 745.82 Applicability. 

2570 

2571 (a) * * * 

2572 (3) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a certified 

2573 renovator has collected a paint chip sample from each painted component affected by the 

2574 renovation and a laboratory recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of TSCA as 

2575 being capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in paint chip samples has 

2576 determined that the samples are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead 

equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 2577 or 0.5% by weight. If the components make up an 

2578 integrated whole, such as the individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the 

2579 renovator is required to test only one of the individual components, unless the individual 

2580 components appear to have been repainted or refinished separately. 

2581 3. Section 745.83 would be amended by adding a new definition as follows: 

2582 § 745.82 Definitions. 

2583 

2584 * * * 
58

2585 Containment means a set of measures designed to protect residents and the 

2586 environment from leaded dust, paint chips, or other forms of lead contamination created 

2587 by renovations through the erection of barriers and warning signs and the establishment 

2588 of access control, modifications to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and 

2589 other strategies. Vertical containment, required for some exterior renovations, is a 

2590 vertical barrier consisting of plastic sheeting over scaffolding or a wood or metal frame, 

2591 or an equivalent system. 

2592 

2593 * * * 

2594 4. Section 745.85 would be amended as follows: 

2595 a. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D) would be revised. 

2596 b. Paragraph (a)(3) would be revised. 

2597 c. Paragraph 745.85(b) would be redesignated as 745.85(c), paragraph 745.85(c) 

2598 would be deleted, and paragraph 745.85(d) would be redesignated as 745.85(e). 

2599 d. A new paragraph 745.85(b) would be added. 

2600 e. Newly-redesignated paragraph 745.85(c)(1)(i) would be revised. 

2601 f. A new paragraph 745.85(d) would be added. 

2602 g. Newly-redesignated paragraph 745.85(e) would be revised. 

2603 § 745.85 Work practice standards.

2604 

2605 (a) * * * 

2606 (2) * * * 

2607 (ii) * * * 

2608 (D) If the renovation will affect surfaces within 10 feet of the property line, the 

2609 renovation firm must erect vertical containment to ensure that dust and debris from the 

2610 renovation does not contaminate adjacent buildings or migrate to adjacent properties. 

2611 Vertical containment may also be necessary in other situations, such as in windy 

2612 conditions, in order to prevent contamination of other buildings, other areas of the 

2613 property, or adjacent buildings or properties. 

2614 (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed below are 

2615 prohibited or restricted during a renovation as follows: 

2616 (i) Open-flame burning or torching of painted surfaces is prohibited. 
59

2617 (ii) The use of machines designed to remove paint through high speed operation 

2618 such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, 

2619 is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines are shrouded and equipped with a 

2620 HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point of generation. 

2621 (iii) Operating a heat gun on painted surfaces is permitted only at temperatures 

2622 below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

2623 (4) * * * * * 

2624 (b) Clearance. (1) Mandatory clearance. Clearance is required after renovations 

involving the demolition, or removal through destructive means, of more than 6 ft2 2625 of 

2626 plaster and lath building component, or the disturbance of paint using machines designed 

2627 to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as sanding, grinding, power planning, 

2628 needle gun, abrasive blasting or sandblasting. When clearance is required, the following 

2629 clearance procedures must be performed: 

2630 

2631 (i) A certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

2632 technician must perform a visual inspection to determine whether dust, debris or residue 

2633 is still present in the renovation work area. If dust, debris or residue is present, these 

2634 conditions must be removed by re-cleaning and another visual inspection must be 

2635 performed.

2636 

2637 (ii) A certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

2638 technician must collect dust wipe samples in accordance with EPA’s “Residential 

2639 Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling, EPA-747-R-95-001” or an 

2640 equivalent protocol that incorporates adequate quality control procedures. Samples must 

2641 be collected in the following locations:

2642 

2643 (A) If there is more than 1 room, hallway, or stairwell within the work area, the 

2644 following samples must be collected: 

2645 

2646 (1) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample 

2647 within each room, hallway, or stairwell in the work area. If there are more than four 

2648 rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the work area, only four rooms, hallways, or 

2649 stairwells must be sampled. 

2650 

2651 (2) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 

2652 cleaned. 

2653 

2654 (B) If the work area is a single room, hallway, stairwell, or smaller area, the 

2655 following samples must be collected: 

2656 

2657 (1) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample. 

2658 

2659 (2) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 

2660 cleaned. 
60

2661 

2662 (C) No window sill or trough samples must be collected if there are no windows 

2663 in the work area.

2664 

2665 (iii) Dust wipe samples must be analyzed by a laboratory or other entity 

2666 recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act as 

2667 being capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in dust samples. If a fixed-site 

2668 laboratory is to be used, the dust wipe samples must be mailed or otherwise transmitted to 

2669 the laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. 

2670 

2671 (iv) A certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

2672 technician must compare the residual lead level reported by the EPA-recognized 

2673 laboratory for each dust sample or test with the applicable clearance level. If the residual 

2674 lead level in a particular dust sample or test equals or exceeds the applicable clearance 

2675 level, the components represented by the failed sample or test shall be re-cleaned and re2676 tested. The applicable clearance levels are: 

2677 

 (A) 40 μg/ft2 2678 for floors.

2679 

 (B) 250 μg/ft2 2680 for interior window sills. 

2681 

(C) 400 μg/ft2 2682 for window troughs. 

2683 

2684 (v) For surfaces in poor condition that the renovation firm did not specifically 

2685 agree to refinish in the renovation contract, the renovation firm may stop re-cleaning and 

2686 re-testing after the second failed dust wipe test on that surface. 

2687 

2688 

2689 (vi) The certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

2690 technician performing the clearance procedures must prepare a clearance report and 

2691 provide it to the renovation firm within 3 days of the date that the final dust wipe testing 

2692 results are obtained. The report must be a single document, with attachments, and must 

2693 include the following information: 

2694 

2695 (A) Start and completion dates of the renovation. 

2696 

2697 (B) A brief written description of the renovation. 

2698 

2699 (C) The name and address of the certified firm employing the certified inspector, 

2700 certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling technician performing the clearance 

2701 procedures. 

2702 

2703 (D) The name and signature of each certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or 

2704 certified dust sampling technician performing clearance procedures and the date(s) that 

2705 clearance procedures were performed. 

2706 
61

2707 (E) The results of the visual inspection. 

2708 

2709 (F) A detailed written description of the specific sampling or testing locations or a 

2710 detailed drawing that clearly identifies the location of each sample or test.

2711 

2712 (G) The results for each dust wipe sample or test, whether or not clearance was 

2713 achieved, and the name of each recognized laboratory or other entity that conducted the 

2714 analyses. 

2715 

2716 (2) Optional clearance. Renovation firms that choose to comply with all of the 

2717 requirements of this paragraph (745.85(b)) need not comply with the requirements of 

2718 paragraphs 745.85 (d). 

2719 

2720 (c) * * *

2721 

2722 (d) Dust wipe testing. (1) Dust wipe testing must be performed after all 

2723 renovations involving: 

2724 

2725 (i) Use of a heat gun at temperatures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

2726 

2727 (ii) Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 

2728 

2729 (iii) Scraping 60 ft2 or more of painted surfaces. 

2730 

2731 (iv) Removing more than 40 ft2 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures.

2732 

2733 (2) After cleaning verification has been performed in accordance with 40 CFR 

2734 745.85(c), a certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

2735 technician must collect dust wipe samples in accordance with EPA’s “Residential 

2736 Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling, EPA-747-R-95-001” or an 

2737 equivalent protocol that incorporates adequate quality control procedures. Samples must 

2738 be collected in the following locations: 

2739 

2740 (i) If there is more than 1 room, hallway, or stairwell within the work area, the 

2741 following samples must be collected: 

2742 

2743 (A) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample 

2744 within each room, hallway, or stairwell in the work area. If there are more than four 

2745 rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the work area, only four rooms, hallways, or 

2746 stairwells must be sampled. 

2747 

2748 (B) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 

2749 cleaned. 

2750 

2751 (ii) If the work area is a single room, hallway, stairwell, or smaller area, the 

2752 following samples must be collected: 
62

2753 

2754 (A) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample. 

2755 

2756 (B) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 

2757 cleaned. 

2758 

2759 (iii) No window sill or trough samples must be collected if there are no windows 

2760 in the work area. 

2761 

2762 (3) Dust wipe samples must be analyzed by a laboratory or other entity 

2763 recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act as 

2764 being capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in dust samples. If a fixed-site 

2765 laboratory is to be used, the dust wipe samples must be mailed or otherwise transmitted to 

2766 the laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. 

2767 

2768 (4) The certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 

2769 technician performing the dust wipe testing must prepare a dust wipe testing report and 

2770 provide it to the renovation firm within 3 days of the date that the dust wipe testing 

2771 results are obtained. The report must be a single document, with attachments, and must 

2772 include the following information: 

2773 

2774 (i) Start and completion dates of the renovation. 

2775 

2776 (ii) A brief written description of the renovation.

2777 

2778 (iii) The name and address of the certified firm employing the certified inspector, 

2779 certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling technician performing the dust wipe 

2780 testing. 

2781 

2782 (iv) The name and signature of each certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or 

2783 certified dust sampling technician performing sampling or testing and the date(s) that 

2784 samples were collected or testing performed. 

2785 

2786 (v) The results of the visual inspection. 

2787 

2788 (vi) A detailed written description of the specific sampling or testing locations or 

2789 a detailed drawing that clearly identifies the location of each sample or test.

2790 

2791 (vii) The results for each dust wipe test and the name of each recognized 

2792 laboratory or other entity that conducted the analyses. 

2793 

2794 (viii) The clearance standard from Sec. 745.85(b)(1)(iv) that is applicable to each 

2795 dust wipe test. 

2796 

2797 (e) Activities conducted after post-renovation clearance, dust wipe testing, or 

2798 cleaning verification. Activities that do not disturb paint, such as applying paint to walls 
63

2799 that have already been prepared, are not regulated by this subpart if they are conducted 

2800 after post-renovation clearance, dust wipe testing, or cleaning verification has been 

2801 performed. 

2802 

2803 3. Section 745.86 would be amended by revising paragraph 745.86(d) to read as 

2804 follows: 

2805 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

2806 

2807 * * * * * 

2808 (d) If clearance or dust wipe testing is performed in accordance with Sec. 745.85, 

2809 the renovation firm must provide, within 3 days of the date the renovation firm receives 

2810 the report, a copy of the clearance or dust wipe testing report to: 

2811 

2812 (i) The owner of the building; and, if different,

2813 

2814 (ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place 

2815 within a residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied facility, if 

2816 the renovation took place within a child-occupied facility. 

2817 

2818 4. Section 745.90 would be amended as follows: 

2819 a. By revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 

2820 

2821 b. By revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4). 

2822 

2823 c. By revising paragraph (b)(8). 

2824 

2825 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 

2826 

2827 (a) * * * 

2828 

2829 (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker 

2830 or supervisor course, or individuals who successfully completed an EPA, HUD, or 

2831 EPA/HUD model renovation training course may take an accredited refresher renovator 

2832 training course before April 22, 2011 in lieu of the initial renovator training course to 

2833 become a certified renovator. 

2834 

2835 (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint 

2836 inspector or risk assessor course may take an accredited refresher dust sampling 

2837 technician course before April 22, 2011 in lieu of the initial training to become a certified 

2838 dust sampling technician. Individuals who are currently certified as lead-based paint 

2839 inspectors or risk assessors may act as dust sampling technicians without further training. 

2840 

2841 * * * 
64

2842 (b) * * * 

2843 (2) Must provide training to workers on the work practices required by § 

2844 745.85(a) that they will be using in performing their assigned tasks. 

2845 * * * 

2846 (4) Must regularly direct work being performed by other individuals to ensure that 

2847 the work practices required by § 745.85(a) are being followed, including maintaining the 

2848 integrity of the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread 

2849 beyond the work area. 

2850 * * * 

2851 (8) Must prepare the records required by Sec. 745.86(b)(1) and (6). 

2852 

2853 * * * * * 

2854 5. Section 745.92 would be amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

2855 follows: 

2856 § 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician 

2857 training and the certification of renovation firms. 

2858 (b) * * * 

2859 (3) No fee will be charged for accreditation or certification amendments. 

2860 6. Section 745.225 would be amended by revising it to read as follows: 

2861 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied 

2862 facilities. 

2863 

2864 (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offer courses in any 

2865 of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, 

2866 abatement worker, renovator, and dust sampling technician. A training program may also 

2867 seek accreditation to offer refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines. 

2868 

2869 (2) Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their lead-based 

2870 paint activities courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after August 31, 

2871 1998. Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or 

2872 dust sampling technician courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after 

2873 April 22, 2009. 

2874 

2875 (3) A training program must not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA2876 accredited lead-based paint activities courses without applying for and receiving 

2877 accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph (b) of this section on or after March 

2878 1, 1999. A training program must not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited 
65

2879 renovator or dust sampling technician courses without applying for and receiving 

2880 accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph (b) of this section on or after June 

2881 23, 2008. 

2882 

2883 (b) Application process. The following are procedures a training program must 

2884 follow to receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator 

2885 courses, or dust sampling technician courses: 

2886 

2887 (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit a written application to 

2888 EPA containing the following information: 

2889 

2890 (i) The training program's name, address, and telephone number. 

2891 

2892 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. For the purposes of 

2893 this section, courses taught in different languages and electronic learning courses are 

2894 considered different courses, and each must independently meet the accreditation 

2895 requirements. 

2896 

2897 (iii) The name and documentation of the qualifications of the training program 

2898 manager. 

2899 

2900 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of qualifications of any principal 

2901 instructor(s). 

2902 

2903 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the 

2904 training program meets the requirements established in paragraph (c) of this section. If a 

2905 training program uses EPA- recommended model training materials, or training materials 

2906 approved by a State or Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA under subpart Q of 

2907 this part, the training program manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 

2908 

2909 (vi) If a training program does not use EPA-recommended model training 

2910 materials, its application for accreditation shall also include: 

2911 

2912 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals, or other materials to be used for 

2913 each course. 

2914 

2915 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 

2916 

2917 (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other than English, 

2918 a signed statement from a qualified, independent translator that they had compared the 

2919 course to the English language version and found the translation to be accurate. 

2920 

2921 (vii) All training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 

2922 following: 

2923 
66

2924 (A) A description of the facilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands2925 on training. 

2926 

2927 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 

2928 

2929 (C) A description of the activities and procedures that will be used for conducting 

2930 the assessment of hands-on skills for each course. 

2931 

2932 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 

2933 section. 

2934 

2935 (2) If a training program meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section, 

2936 then EPA shall approve the application for accreditation no more than 180 days after 

2937 receiving a complete application from the training program. In the case of approval, a 

2938 certificate of accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a 

2939 letter describing the reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to 

2940 disapproval, EPA may, at its discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies 

2941 in the application for accreditation. EPA may also request additional materials retained 

2942 by the training program under paragraph (i) of this section. If a training program's 

2943 application is disapproved, the program may reapply for accreditation at any time. 

2944 

2945 (3) A training program may apply for accreditation to offer courses or refresher 

2946 courses in as many disciplines as it chooses. A training program may seek accreditation 

2947 for additional courses at any time as long as the program can demonstrate that it meets 

2948 the requirements of this section. 

2949 

2950 (4) A training program applying for accreditation must submit the appropriate 

2951 fees in accordance with Sec. 745.238. 

2952 

2953 (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. For a training 

2954 program to obtain accreditation from EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, 

2955 renovator courses, or dust sampling technician courses, the program must meet the 

2956 following requirements: 

2957 

2958 (1) The training program shall employ a training manager who has: 

2959 

2960 (i) At least 2 years of experience, education, or training in teaching workers or 

2961 adults; or 

2962 

2963 (ii) A bachelor's or graduate degree in building construction technology, 

2964 engineering, industrial hygiene, safety, public health, education, business administration 

2965 or program management or a related field; or 

2966 

2967 (iii) Two years of experience in managing a training program specializing in 

2968 environmental hazards; and 

2969 
67

2970 (iv) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in the construction industry 

2971 including: lead or asbestos abatement, painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, 

2972 occupational safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 

2973 

2974 (2) The training manager shall designate a qualified principal instructor for each 

2975 course who has: 

2976 

2977 (i) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; 

2978 and 

2979 

2980 (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA2981 authorized State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training; and 

2982 

2983 (iii) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in lead or asbestos 

2984 abatement, painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational safety and health, or 

2985 industrial hygiene. 

2986 

2987 (3) The principal instructor shall be responsible for the organization of the course, 

2988 course delivery, and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The training 

2989 manager may designate guest instructors as needed for a portion of the course to provide 

2990 instruction specific to the lecture, hands-on activities, or work practice components of a 

2991 course. However, the principal instructor is primarily responsible for teaching the course 

2992 materials and must be present to provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the 

2993 course taught by guest instructors) for the course for which he has been designated the 

2994 principal instructor. 

2995 

2996 (4) The following documents shall be recognized by EPA as evidence that 

2997 training managers and principal instructors have the education, work experience, training 

2998 requirements or demonstrated experience, specifically listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

2999 (c)(2) of this section. This documentation must be submitted with the accreditation 

3000 application and retained by the training program as required by the recordkeeping 

3001 requirements contained in paragraph (i) of this section. Those documents include the 

3002 following: 

3003 

3004 (i) Official academic transcripts or diploma as evidence of meeting the education 

3005 requirements. 

3006 

3007 (ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or documentation of work experience, as 

3008 evidence of meeting the work experience requirements. 

3009 

3010 (iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer courses and lead-specific training courses, 

3011 as evidence of meeting the training requirements. 

3012 

3013 (5) The training program shall ensure the availability of, and provide adequate 

3014 facilities for, the delivery of the lecture, course test, hands-on training, and assessment 
68

3015 activities. This includes providing training equipment that reflects current work practices 

3016 and maintaining or updating the equipment and facilities as needed. 

3017 

3018 (6) To become accredited in the following disciplines, the training program shall 

3019 provide training courses that meet the following training requirements: 

3020 

3021 (i) The inspector course shall last a minimum of 24 training hours, with a 

3022 minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

3023 requirements for the inspector course are contained in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

3024 

3025 (ii) The risk assessor course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 

3026 minimum of 4 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

3027 requirements for the risk assessor course are contained in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

3028 

3029 (iii) The supervisor course shall last a minimum of 32 training hours, with a 

3030 minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on activities. The minimum curriculum 

3031 requirements for the supervisor course are contained in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

3032 

3033 (iv) The project designer course shall last a minimum of 8 training hours. The 

3034 minimum curriculum requirements for the project designer course are contained in 

3035 paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

3036 

3037 (v) The abatement worker course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with 

3038 a minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

3039 requirements for the abatement worker course are contained in paragraph (d)(5) of this 

3040 section. 

3041 

3042 (vi) The renovator course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a 

3043 minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

3044 requirements for the renovator course are contained in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 

3045 

3046 (vii) The dust sampling technician course must last a minimum of 8 training 

3047 hours, with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum 

3048 curriculum requirements for the dust sampling technician course are contained in 

3049 paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 

3050 

3051 (viii) Electronic learning and other alternative course delivery methods are 

3052 permitted for the classroom portion of renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 

3053 paint activities courses but not the hands-on portion of these courses. Electronic learning 

3054 courses must comply with the following requirements: 

3055 

3056 (A) A unique identifier must be assigned to each student for them to use to launch 

3057 and re-launch the course. 

3058 
69

3059 (B) The training provider must track each student’s course log-ins, launches, 

3060 progress, and completion, and maintain these records in accordance with paragraph (i) of 

3061 this section. 

3062 

3063 (C) The course must include knowledge checks for each module, which must be 

3064 successfully completed before the student can go on to the next module. 

3065 

3066 (D) There must be a test of at least 20 questions at the end of the electronic 

3067 learning portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctly by the student 

3068 for successful completion of the electronic learning portion of the course. 

3069 

3070 (E) Each student must be able to save or print an uneditable copy of an electronic 

3071 learning course completion certificate. 

3072 

3073 (7) For each course offered, the training program shall conduct either a course test 

3074 at the completion of the course, and if applicable, a hands-on skills assessment, or in the 

3075 alternative, a proficiency test for that discipline. Each individual must successfully 

3076 complete the hands-on skills assessment and receive a passing score on the course test to 

3077 pass any course, or successfully complete a proficiency test. 

3078 

3079 (i) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity 

3080 of the hands-on skills assessment or proficiency test to ensure that it accurately evaluates 

3081 the trainees' performance of the work practices and procedures associated with the course 

3082 topics contained in paragraph (d) of this section. 

3083 

3084 (ii) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity 

3085 of the course test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees' knowledge and 

3086 retention of the course topics. 

3087 

3088 (iii) The course test shall be developed in accordance with the test blueprint 

3089 submitted with the training accreditation application. 

3090 

3091 (8) The training program shall issue unique course completion certificates to each 

3092 individual who passes the training course. The course completion certificate shall 

3093 include: 

3094 

3095 (i) The name, a unique identification number, and address of the individual. 

3096 

3097 (ii) The name of the particular course that the individual completed. 

3098 

3099 (iii) Dates of course completion/test passage. 

3100 

3101 (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, project designer, supervisor, or abatement 

3102 worker course completion certificates, the expiration date of interim certification, which 

3103 is 6 months from the date of course completion. 

3104 
70

3105 (v) The name, address, and telephone number of the training program. 

3106 

3107 (vi) The language in which the course was taught. 

3108 

3109 (vii) For renovator and dust sampling technician course completion certificates, a 

3110 photograph of the individual. The photograph must be an accurate and recognizable 

3111 image of the individual. As reproduced on the certificate, the photograph must not be 

3112 smaller than 1 square inch. 

3113 

3114 (9) The training manager shall develop and implement a quality control plan. The 

3115 plan shall be used to maintain and improve the quality of the training program over time. 

3116 This plan shall contain at least the following elements: 

3117 

3118 (i) Procedures for periodic revision of training materials and the course test to 

3119 reflect innovations in the field. 

3120 

3121 (ii) Procedures for the training manager's annual review of principal instructor 

3122 competency. 

3123 

3124 (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work practice 

3125 standards contained in Sec. 745.85 or Sec. 745.227, as applicable, in such a manner that 

3126 trainees are provided with the knowledge needed to perform the renovations or lead3127 based paint activities they will be responsible for conducting. 

3128 

3129 (11) The training manager shall be responsible for ensuring that the training 

3130 program complies at all times with all of the requirements in this section. 

3131 

3132 (12) The training manager shall allow EPA to audit the training program to verify 

3133 the contents of the application for accreditation as described in paragraph (b) of this 

3134 section. 

3135 

3136 (13) The training manager must provide notification of renovator, dust sampling 

3137 technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. 

3138 

3139 (i) The training manager must provide EPA with notification of all renovator, dust 

3140 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. The original 

3141 notification must be received by EPA at least 7 business days prior to the start date of any 

3142 renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities course. 

3143 

3144 (ii) The training manager must provide EPA updated notification when renovator, 

3145 dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses will begin on a date other 

3146 than the start date specified in the original notification, as follows: 

3147 

3148 (A) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

3149 beginning prior to the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be 

3150 received by EPA at least 7 business days before the new start date. 
71

3151 

3152 (B) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

3153 beginning after the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received 

3154 by EPA at least 2 business days before the start date provided to EPA. 

3155 

3156 (iii) The training manager must update EPA of any change in location of 

3157 renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses at least 7 

3158 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 

3159 

3160 (iv) The training manager must update EPA regarding any course cancellations, or 

3161 any other change to the original notification. Updated notifications must be received by 

3162 EPA at least 2 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 

3163 

3164 (v) Each notification, including updates, must include the following: 

3165 

3166 (A) Notification type (original, update, cancellation). 

3167 

3168 (B) Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and telephone 

3169 number. 

3170 

3171 (C) Course discipline, type (initial/ refresher), and the language in which 

3172 instruction will be given. 

3173 

3174 (D) Date(s) and time(s) of training. 

3175 

3176 (E) Training location(s) telephone number, and address. 

3177 

3178 (F) Principal instructor's name. 

3179 

3180 (G) Training manager's name and signature. 

3181 

3182 (vi) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: 

3183 Written notification, or electronically using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). 

3184 Written notification of lead-based paint activities course schedules can be accomplished 

3185 by using either the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training Notification” or a 

3186 similar form containing the information required in paragraph (c)(13)(v) of this section. 

3187 All written notifications must be delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercial 

3188 delivery service, or hand delivery (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service 

3189 are reminded that they should allow 3 additional business days for delivery in order to 

3190 ensure that EPA receives the notification by the required date). Instructions and sample 

3191 forms can be obtained from the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at 

3192 http://www.epa.gov/ lead. 

3193 

3194 (vii) Renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

3195 must not begin on a date, or at a location other than that specified in the original 

3196 notification unless an updated notification identifying a new start date or location is 
72

3197 submitted, in which case the course must begin on the new start date and/or location 

3198 specified in the updated notification. 

3199 

3200 (viii) No training program shall provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or 

3201 lead-based paint activities courses without first notifying EPA of such activities in 

3202 accordance with the requirements of this paragraph. 

3203 

3204 (14) The training manager must provide notification following completion of 

3205 renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses. 

3206 

3207 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of 

3208 any lead-based paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later than 

3209 10 business days following course completion. 

3210 

3211 (ii) The notification must include the following: 

3212 

3213 (A) Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and telephone 

3214 number. 

3215 

3216 (B) Course discipline and type (initial/refresher). 

3217 

3218 (C) Date(s) of training. 

3219 

3220 (D) The following information for each student who took the course: 

3221 

3222 (1) Name. 

3223 

3224 (2) Address. 

3225 

3226 (3) Date of birth. 

3227 

3228 (4) Course completion certificate number. 

3229 

3230 (5) Course test score. 

3231 

3232 (6) For renovator or dust sampling technician courses, a digital photograph of the 

3233 student. 

3234 

3235 (E) Training manager's name and signature. 

3236 

3237 (iii) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: 

3238 Written notification, or electronically using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). 

3239 Written notification following renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint 

3240 activities training courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form titled 

3241 “Lead-Based Paint Training Course Follow-up” or a similar form containing the 

3242 information required in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) of this section. All written notifications must 
73

3243 be delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery 

3244 (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service are reminded that they should 

3245 allow 3 additional business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the 

3246 notification by the required date). Instructions and sample forms can be obtained from the 

3247 NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ lead. 

3248 

3249 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. To become accredited to offer 

3250 lead-based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed below, training programs must 

3251 ensure that their courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 

3252 Requirements ending in an asterisk (*) indicate areas that require hands-on activities as 

3253 an integral component of the course. 

3254 

3255 (1) Inspector. (i) Role and responsibilities of an inspector. 

3256 

3257 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

3258 

3259 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance 

3260 that pertains to lead-based paint and lead- based paint activities. 

3261 

3262 (iv) Lead-based paint inspection methods, including selection of rooms and 

3263 components for sampling or testing.* 

3264 

3265 (v) Paint, dust, and soil sampling methodologies.* 

3266 

3267 (vi) Clearance standards and testing, including random sampling.* 

3268 

3269 (vii) Preparation of the final inspection report.* 

3270 

3271 (viii) Recordkeeping. 

3272 

3273 (2) Risk assessor. (i) Role and responsibilities of a risk assessor. 

3274 

3275 (ii) Collection of background information to perform a risk assessment. 

3276 

3277 (iii) Sources of environmental lead contamination such as paint, surface dust and 

3278 soil, water, air, packaging, and food. 

3279 

3280 (iv) Visual inspection for the purposes of identifying potential sources of lead3281 based paint hazards.* 

3282 

3283 (v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 

3284 

3285 (vi) Sampling for other sources of lead exposure.* 

3286 
74

3287 (vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint and other lead sampling results, including 

3288 all applicable State or Federal guidance or regulations pertaining to lead-based paint 

3289 hazards.* 

3290 

3291 (viii) Development of hazard control options, the role of interim controls, and 

3292 operations and maintenance activities to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 

3293 

3294 (ix) Preparation of a final risk assessment report. 

3295 

3296 (3) Supervisor. (i) Role and responsibilities of a supervisor. 

3297 

3298 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

3299 

3300 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance 

3301 that pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 

3302 

3303 (iv) Liability and insurance issues relating to lead-based paint abatement. 

3304 

3305 (v) Risk assessment and inspection report interpretation.* 

3306 

3307 (vi) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan and 

3308 abatement report 

3309 

3310 (vii) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control.* 

3311 

3312 (viii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 

3313 including restricted practices.* 

3314 

3315 (ix) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard control and 

3316 reduction methods.* 

3317 

3318 (x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or lead-based paint hazard control and 

3319 reduction methods.* 

3320 

3321 (xi) Clearance standards and testing. 

3322 

3323 (xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 

3324 

3325 (xiii) Recordkeeping. 

3326 

3327 (4) Project designer. (i) Role and responsibilities of a project designer. 

3328 

3329 (ii) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan for large 

3330 scale abatement projects. 

3331 
75

3332 (iii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 

3333 including restricted practices for large-scale abatement projects. 

3334 

3335 (iv) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead hazard control and reduction methods 

3336 for large-scale abatement projects. 

3337 

3338 (v) Clearance standards and testing for large scale abatement projects. 

3339 

3340 (vi) Integration of lead-based paint abatement methods with modernization and 

3341 rehabilitation projects for large scale abatement projects. 

3342 

3343 (5) Abatement worker. (i) Role and responsibilities of an abatement worker. 

3344 

3345 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

3346 

3347 (iii) Background information on Federal, State and local regulations and guidance 

3348 that pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 

3349 

3350 (iv) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control.* 

3351 

3352 (v) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 

3353 including restricted practices.* 

3354 

3355 (vi) Interior dust abatement methods/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard 

3356 reduction.* 

3357 

3358 (vii) Soil and exterior dust abatement methods or lead-based paint hazard 

3359 reduction.* 

3360 

3361 (6) Renovator. (i) Role and responsibility of a renovator. 

3362 

3363 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

3364 

3365 (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, and 

3366 local regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 

3367 

3368 (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether paint is lead3369 based paint.* 

3370 

3371 (v) Procedures for collecting a paint chip sample and sending it to a laboratory 

3372 recognized by EPA under section 405(b) of TSCA.* 

3373 

3374 (vi) Renovation methods to minimize the creation of dust and lead- based paint 

3375 hazards.* 

3376 

3377 (vii) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods.* 
76

3378 

3379 (viii) Methods to ensure that the renovation has been properly completed, 

3380 including cleaning verification, and clearance testing.* 

3381 

3382 (ix) Waste handling and disposal.* 

3383 

3384 (x) Providing on-the-job training to other workers. 

3385 

3386 (xi) Record preparation. 

3387 

3388 (7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role and responsibility of a dust sampling 

3389 technician. 

3390 

3391 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

3392 

3393 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance 

3394 that pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 

3395 

3396 (iv) Dust sampling methodologies.* 

3397 

3398 (v) Clearance standards and testing. 

3399 

3400 (vi) Report preparation.* 

3401 

3402 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training 

3403 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training courses in any of the following 

3404 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, 

3405 renovator, and dust sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer refresher 

3406 training, a training program must meet the following minimum requirements: 

3407 

3408 (1) Each refresher course shall review the curriculum topics of the full-length 

3409 courses listed under paragraph (d) of this section, as appropriate. In addition, to become 

3410 accredited to offer refresher training courses, training programs shall ensure that their 

3411 courses of study include, at a minimum, the following: 

3412 

3413 (i) An overview of current safety practices relating to lead-based paint in general, 

3414 as well as specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

3415 

3416 (ii) Current laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as 

3417 specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

3418 

3419 (iii) Current technologies relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as 

3420 specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

3421 

3422 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement 

3423 worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, 
77

3424 renovator, and dust sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. 

3425 Refresher courses for all disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on 

3426 component. 

3427 

3428 (3) For each course offered, the training program shall conduct a hands-on 

3429 assessment (for all courses except project designer), and at the completion of the course, 

3430 a course test. 

3431 

3432 (4) A training program may apply for accreditation of a refresher course 

3433 concurrently with its application for accreditation of the corresponding training course as 

3434 described in paragraph (b) of this section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedure 

3435 described in paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, the minimum requirements 

3436 contained in paragraphs (c) (except for the requirements in paragraph (c)(6)), and (e)(1), 

3437 (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section shall also apply. 

3438 

3439 (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher training courses 

3440 only shall submit a written application to EPA containing the following information: 

3441 

3442 (i) The refresher training program's name, address, and telephone number. 

3443 

3444 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. 

3445 

3446 (iii) The name and documentation of the qualifications of the training program 

3447 manager. 

3448 

3449 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of the qualifications of the principal 

3450 instructor(s). 

3451 

3452 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the 

3453 refresher training program meets the minimum requirements established in paragraph (c) 

3454 of this section, except for the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. If a training 

3455 program uses EPA-developed model training materials, or training materials approved by 

3456 a State or Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA under Sec. 745.324 to develop its 

3457 refresher training course materials, the training manager shall include a statement 

3458 certifying that, as well. 

3459 

3460 (vi) If the refresher training course materials are not based on EPA-developed 

3461 model training materials, the training program's application for accreditation shall 

3462 include: 

3463 

3464 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals to be used for each course. 

3465 

3466 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 

3467 

3468 (vii) All refresher training programs shall include in their application for 

3469 accreditation the following: 
78

3470 

3471 (A) A description of the facilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands3472 on training. 

3473 

3474 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 

3475 

3476 (C) A description of the activities and procedures that will be used for conducting 

3477 the assessment of hands-on skills for each course (if applicable). 

3478 

3479 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 

3480 section. 

3481 

3482 (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5), and (c)(7) through 

3483 (c)(14) of this section apply to refresher training providers. 

3484 

3485 (ix) If a refresher training program meets the requirements listed in this 

3486 paragraph, then EPA shall approve the application for accreditation no more than 180 

3487 days after receiving a complete application from the refresher training program. In the 

3488 case of approval, a certificate of accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of 

3489 disapproval, a letter describing the reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. 

3490 Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its discretion, work with the applicant to address 

3491 inadequacies in the application for accreditation. EPA may also request additional 

3492 materials retained by the refresher training program under paragraph (i) of this section. If 

3493 a refresher training program's application is disapproved, the program may reapply for 

3494 accreditation at any time. 

3495 

3496 (f) Re-accreditation of training programs. (1) Unless re-accredited, a training 

3497 program's accreditation (including refresher training accreditation) shall expire 4 years 

3498 after the date of issuance. If a training program meets the requirements of this section, the 

3499 training program shall be re-accredited. 

3500 

3501 (2) A training program seeking re-accreditation shall submit an application to 

3502 EPA no later than 180 days before its accreditation expires. If a training program does not 

3503 submit its application for re-accreditation by that date, EPA cannot guarantee that the 

3504 program will be re-accredited before the end of the accreditation period. 

3505 

3506 (3) The training program's application for re-accreditation shall contain: 

3507 

3508 (i) The training program's name, address, and telephone number. 

3509 

3510 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for re- accreditation. 

3511 

3512 (iii) The name and qualifications of the training program manager. 

3513 

3514 (iv) The name(s) and qualifications of the principal instructor(s). 

3515 
79

3516 (v) A description of any changes to the training facility, equipment or course 

3517 materials since its last application was approved that adversely affects the students’ 

3518 ability to learn. 

3519 

3520 (vi) A statement signed by the program manager stating: 

3521 

3522 (A) That the training program complies at all times with all requirements in 

3523 paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, as applicable; and 

3524 

3525 (B) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of paragraph (i) of this section 

3526 shall be followed. 

3527 

3528 (vii) A payment of appropriate fees in accordance with Sec. 745.238. 

3529 

3530 (4) Upon request, the training program shall allow EPA to audit the training 

3531 program to verify the contents of the application for re- accreditation as described in 

3532 paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 

3533 

3534 (g) Suspension, revocation, and modification of accredited training programs. (1) 

3535 EPA may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, suspend, revoke, or modify 

3536 training program accreditation (including refresher training accreditation) if a training 

3537 program, training manager, or other person with supervisory authority over the training 

3538 program has: 

3539 

3540 (i) Misrepresented the contents of a training course to EPA and/or the student 

3541 population. 

3542 

3543 (ii) Failed to submit required information or notifications in a timely manner. 

3544 

3545 (iii) Failed to maintain required records. 

3546 

3547 (iv) Falsified accreditation records, instructor qualifications, or other 

3548 accreditation-related information or documentation. 

3549 

3550 (v) Failed to comply with the training standards and requirements in this section. 

3551 

3552 (vi) Failed to comply with Federal, State, or local lead-based paint statutes or 

3553 regulations. 

3554 

3555 (vii) Made false or misleading statements to EPA in its application for 

3556 accreditation or re-accreditation which EPA relied upon in approving the application. 

3557 

3558 (2) In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of violation, execution of a 

3559 consent agreement in settlement of an enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this 

3560 section, evidence of a failure to comply with relevant statutes or regulations. 

3561 
80

3562 (h) Procedures for suspension, revocation or modification of training program 

3563 accreditation. (1) Prior to taking action to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of 

3564 a training program, EPA shall notify the affected entity in writing of the following: 

3565 

3566 (i) The legal and factual basis for the suspension, revocation, or modification. 

3567 

3568 (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the suspension, 

3569 revocation, or modification. 

3570 

3571 (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entity may take to avoid suspension, 

3572 revocation, or modification, or to receive accreditation in the future. 

3573 

3574 (iv) The opportunity and method for requesting a hearing prior to final EPA 

3575 action to suspend, revoke or modify accreditation. 

3576 

3577 (v) Any additional information, as appropriate, which EPA may provide. 

3578 

3579 (2) If a hearing is requested by the accredited training program, EPA shall: 

3580 

3581 (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunity to offer written statements in 

3582 response to EPA's assertions of the legal and factual basis for its proposed action, and any 

3583 other explanations, comments, and arguments it deems relevant to the proposed action. 

3584 

3585 (ii) Provide the affected entity such other procedural opportunities as EPA may 

3586 deem appropriate to ensure a fair and impartial hearing. 

3587 

3588 (iii) Appoint an official of EPA as Presiding Officer to conduct the hearing. No 

3589 person shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior connection with the 

3590 specific matter. 

3591 

3592 (3) The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section 

3593 shall: 

3594 

3595 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days of the request for 

3596 a hearing. 

3597 

3598 (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and argument 

3599 submitted. 

3600 

3601 (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing within 90 days of completion of the 

3602 hearing of his or her decision and order. Such an order is a final agency action which may 

3603 be subject to judicial review. 

3604 

3605 (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare warrants 

3606 immediate action to suspend the accreditation of any training program prior to the 

3607 opportunity for a hearing, it shall: 
81

3608 

3609 (i) Notify the affected entity of its intent to immediately suspend training program 

3610 accreditation for the reasons listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If a suspension, 

3611 revocation, or modification notice has not previously been issued pursuant to paragraph 

3612 (g)(1) of this section, it shall be issued at the same time the emergency suspension notice 

3613 is issued. 

3614 

3615 (ii) Notify the affected entity in writing of the grounds for the immediate 

3616 suspension and why it is necessary to suspend the entity's accreditation before an 

3617 opportunity for a suspension, revocation or modification hearing. 

3618 

3619 (iii) Notify the affected entity of the anticipated commencement date and duration 

3620 of the immediate suspension. 

3621 

3622 (iv) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing on the immediate 

3623 suspension within 15 days of the suspension taking place and the procedures for the 

3624 conduct of such a hearing. 

3625 

3626 (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this section, any 

3627 transcripts or other verbatim record of oral testimony, and any documents filed by an 

3628 accredited training program in a hearing under this section shall be available to the 

3629 public, except as otherwise provided by section 14 of TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any 

3630 such hearing at which oral testimony is presented shall be open to the public, except that 

3631 the Presiding Officer may exclude the public to the extent necessary to allow presentation 

3632 of information which may be entitled to confidential treatment under section 14 of TSCA 

3633 or part 2 of this title. 

3634 

3635 (6) The public shall be notified of the suspension, revocation, modification or 

3636 reinstatement of a training program's accreditation through appropriate mechanisms. 

3637 

3638 (7) EPA shall maintain a list of parties whose accreditation has been suspended, 

3639 revoked, modified or reinstated. 

3640 

3641 (i) Training program recordkeeping requirements. (1) Accredited training 

3642 programs shall maintain, and make available to EPA, upon request, the following 

3643 records: 

3644 

3645 (i) All documents specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section that demonstrate the 

3646 qualifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section of the training manager 

3647 and principal instructors. 

3648 

3649 (ii) Current curriculum/course materials and documents reflecting any changes 

3650 made to these materials. 

3651 

3652 (iii) The course test blueprint. 

3653 
82

3654 (iv) Information regarding how the hands-on assessment is conducted including, 

3655 but not limited to: 

3656 

3657 (A) Who conducts the assessment. 

3658 

3659 (B) How the skills are graded. 

3660 

3661 (C) What facilities are used. 

3662 

3663 (D) The pass/fail rate. 

3664 

3665 (v) The quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

3666 

3667 (vi) Results of the students' hands-on skills assessments and course tests, and a 

3668 record of each student's course completion certificate. 

3669 

3670 (vii) Any other material not listed above in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(vi) 

3671 of this section that was submitted to EPA as part of the program's application for 

3672 accreditation. 

3673 

3674 (viii) For renovator refresher and dust sampling technician refresher courses, a 

3675 copy of each trainee’s prior course completion certificate showing that each trainee was 

3676 eligible to take the refresher course. 

3677 

3678 (ix) For course modules delivered in an electronic format, a record of each 

3679 student’s log-ins, launches, progress, and completion, and a copy of the electronic 

3680 learning completion certificate for each student. 

3681 

3682 (2) The training program must retain records pertaining to lead-based paint 

3683 activities courses at the address specified on the training program accreditation 

3684 application (or as modified in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section) for a 

3685 minimum of 3 years and 6 months. Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling 

3686 technician courses must be retained at the address specified on the training program 

3687 accreditation application (or as modified in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this 

3688 section) for a minimum of 5 years. 

3689 

3690 (3) The training program shall notify EPA in writing within 30 days of changing 

3691 the address specified on its training program accreditation application or transferring the 

3692 records from that address. 

3693 

3694 (j) Amendment of accreditation. (1) A training program must amend its 

3695 accreditation within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information included in the 

3696 program’s most recent application. If the training program fails to amend its accreditation 

3697 within 90 days of the date the change occurs, the program may not provide renovator, 

3698 dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities training until its accreditation is 

3699 amended. 
83

3700 

3701 (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must submit a completed 

3702 “Accreditation Application for Training Providers,” signed by an authorized agent of the 

3703 training provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating 

3704 the information that has changed. 

3705 

3706 (3) If the amendment includes a new training program manager, any new or 

3707 additional principal instructor(s), or any new permanent training location(s), the training 

3708 provider is not permitted to provide training under the new training manager or offer 

3709 courses taught by any new principal instructor(s) or at the new training location(s) until 

3710 EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days have elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. 

3711 

3712 7. Section 745.238 would be amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as 

3713 follows: 

3714 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 

3715 

3716 * * * * * 

3717 

3718 (c) * * * 

3719 

3720 (5) No fee will be charged for accreditation amendments. 

3721 

3722 8. Section 745.326 would be amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) 

3723 and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

3724 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements. 

3725 

3726 (a) * * * 

3727 

3728 (2) * * * 

3729 

3730 (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation and dust 

3731 sampling technician training programs. (Note: a State and Tribal program is not required 

3732 to include procedures and requirements for the dust sampling technician training 

3733 discipline if the State or Tribal program requires dust sampling to be performed by a 

3734 certified lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor.) 

3735 

3736 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited initial and refresher training for 

3737 renovators and dust sampling technicians and on-the-job training for other individuals 

3738 who perform renovations. 

3739 

3740 * * * * * 

3741 

3742 (d) Certification of individuals and/or renovation firms. To be considered at least 

3743 as protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must: 

3744 
84

3745 (1) Establish procedures and requirements that ensure that individuals who 

3746 perform or direct renovations are properly trained. These procedures and requirements 

3747 must include: 

3748 

3749 (i) A requirement that renovations be performed and directed by at least one 

3750 individual who has been trained by an accredited training program. 

3751 

3752 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited refresher training for these 

3753 individuals. 

3754 

3755 (iii) Procedures and requirements for certified renovators to provide on-the-job 

3756 training for those individuals who perform renovations but do not receive accredited 

3757 training. 

3758 

3759 (2) Establish procedures and requirements for the formal certification and re3760 certification of either individuals or renovation firms. 

3761 

3762 (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or modification of 

3763 certifications. 

3764 

3765 (e) * * * 

3766 

3767 (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified individuals and/or certified 

3768 renovation firms. 

3769 

3770 (2) * * * 

3771 

3772 (3) Certified individuals and/or renovation firms must retain appropriate records. 

3773 

3774 (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. If EPA revises the renovation 

3775 program requirements contained in subparts E and L: 

3776 

3777 (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the effective date 

3778 of the revisions must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section no later 

3779 than the first report that it submits pursuant to §745.324(h) no later than one year after the 

3780 effective date of the revisions. 

3781 

3782 (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a renovation program 

3783 submitted but not approved before the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate 

3784 that it meets the requirements of this section either by amending its application or in the 

3785 first report that it submits pursuant to §745.324(h) of this part no later than one year after 

3786 the effective date of the revisions. 

3787 

3788 (3) A State or Indian Tribe submitting its application for approval of a renovation 

3789 program on or after the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application 

3790 that it meets the requirements of this section. 
85

3791 

3792 9. Section 745.327 would be amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 

3793 as follows: 

3794 § 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 

3795 programs. 

3796 

3797 * * * * * 

3798 

3799 (b) * * * 

3800 

3801 (1) Lead-based paint activities or renovation requirements. State or Tribal lead3802 based paint compliance and enforcement programs will be considered adequate if the 

3803 State or Indian Tribe demonstrates, in its application at Sec. 745.324(b)(2), that it has 

3804 established a lead-based paint program that contains all of the elements specified in Sec. 

3805 745.325 or Sec. 745.326, or both, as applicable. 

3806 

3807 (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to enter, through 

3808 consent, warrant, or other authority, premises or facilities where lead-based paint 

3809 violations may occur for purposes of conducting inspections. 

3810 

3811 (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or facilities where those 

3812 engaged in training for lead-based paint activities or renovations conduct business. 

3813 

3814 (ii) * * * 

3815 

3816 (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples and review 

3817 records as part of the lead-based paint inspection process. 

3818 

3819 (3) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 

3820 enforcement program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of enforcement 

3821 statutory and regulatory authorities and remedies. At a minimum, these authorities and 

3822 remedies, which must also be reflected in an enforcement response policy, must include 

3823 the following: 

3824 

3825 (i) the authority to issue warning letters, Notices of Noncompliance, Notices of 

3826 Violation, or the equivalent; 

3827 

3828 (ii) the authority to assess administrative or civil fines, including a maximum 

3829 penalty authority for any violation in an amount no less than $10,000 per violation per 

3830 day; 

3831 

3832 (iii) the authority to assess the maximum penalties or fines for each instance of 

3833 violation and, if the violation is continuous, the authority to assess penalties or fines up to 

3834 the maximum amount for each day of violation, with all penalties assessed or collected 

3835 being appropriate for the violation after consideration of the size or viability of the 
86

3836 business, enforcement history, risks to human health or the environment posed by the 

3837 violation, and other similar factors; 

3838 

3839 (iv) the authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 

3840 competent jurisdiction to recover penalties; 

3841 

3842 (v) the authority to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of any training 

3843 provider or the certification of any individual or firm; 

3844 

3845 (vi) the authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 

3846 competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program 

3847 requirement, without the necessity of a prior suspension or revocation of a trainer’s 

3848 accreditation or a firm’s or individual’s certification; 

3849 

3850 (vii) the authority to apply criminal sanctions, including recovering fines; and 

3851 (viii) the authority to enforce its authorized program using a burden of proof standard, 

3852 including the degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent that is no greater than it is 

3853 for EPA under TSCA. 

3854 (c) * * * 

3855 

3856 (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 

3857 enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated 

3858 community to facilitate awareness and understanding of and compliance with State or 

3859 Tribal requirements governing the conduct of lead-based paint activities or renovations. 

3860 The type and nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to 

3861 achieve this goal. 

3862 

3863 

3864 [FR Doc. 09–????? Filed ??–??–09; 8:45 am] 

3865 BILLING CODE 6560–50–S