*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Delib erative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***



# i 1

2

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

4

ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY 5

6

40 CFR Part 745 7

8 

# i 9

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL– XXXX

– X ] 10

11 

# i 12

RIN 2070–AJ57 13

14 

# i 15

Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Re quirements for the Renovation, Repair, 16 and Painting Program 17

18

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 19

ACTION: Proposed rule. 20

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing several revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, 21 and Painting Program (RRP) rule that es tablished accreditation, training, certification, 22 and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons 23 performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied 24 facilities. EPA is particularly concer ned about dust-lead hazards generated by 25

renovations because of the well-documented toxicity of lead, especially to younger 26 children. This proposal includes additional re quirements designed to ensure that lead27 based paint hazards generated by renovati on work are adequately cleaned after 28

renovation work is finished and before the wo rk areas are re-occupi ed. Specifically, EPA 29 is proposing to require dust wipe testing af ter many renovations covered by the RRP rule. 30 For a subset of jobs involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means 31 or the disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed 32 operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasters, this pr oposal would also require the 33 renovation firm to demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust-lead levels remaining 34 in the work area are below regulatory levels. 35

DATES: Comments must be recei ved on or before [ insert date 60 days after date of 36 publication in the Federal Register ]. 37

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number 38 EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049, by one of the following methods: 392

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the on-line 40 instructions for submitting comments. 41

• Mail : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and 42 Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protect ion Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 43 Washington, DC 20460–0001. 44

• Hand Delivery : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 45 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number 46 EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005

– 0049. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 47 Friday, excluding legal holidays. The te lephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. 48 Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and 49 special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 50

Instructions : Direct your comments to doc ket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 51 2005–0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket 52 without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov

, 53 including any personal information provide d, unless the comment includes information 54

claimed to be Confidential Business Info rmation (CBI) or other information whose 55 disclosure is restricted by st atute. Do not submit informati on that you consider to be CBI 56 or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is 57 an “anonymous access” system, which means EP A will not know your identity or contact 58 information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail 59 comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address 60 will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 61

docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA 62 recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 63 your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 64

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 65 not be able to consider your comment. El ectronic files should a void the use of special 66 characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 67

Docket : All documents in the docket are list ed in the docket index available at 68 http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not 69 publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is re stricted by statute. 70 Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in 71 hard copy. Publicly available docket mate rials are available electronically at 72 http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The 73

OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West 74 Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading 75 Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 76 legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 77 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Docket 78 visitors are required to show photographic id entification, pass through a metal detector, 79 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are proce ssed through an X-ray machine 80 and subject to search. Visitors will be provi ded an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at 81 all times in the building a nd returned upon departure. 823

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact : 83 Colby Lintner, Regulatory C oordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), 84

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics , Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 85 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 554– 86 1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov

. 87

For technical information contact : Cindy Wheeler, Nationa l Program Chemicals 88 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 89 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 90 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov

. 91

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 92

93

I. General Information 94

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 95

You may be potentially affected by th is action if you perf orm renovations of 96 target housing or child-occupied facili ties for compensation, dust sampling, or dust 97 testing. You may also be affected by th is action if you perform lead-based paint 98 inspections, lead hazard screens, risk asse ssments or abatements in target housing or 99 child-occupied facilities or if you operate a training program for individuals who perform 100 any of these activities. “T arget housing” is defined in section 401 of TSCA as any 101 housing constructed prior to 1978, except hous ing for the elderly or persons with 102 disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) 103 or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a 104 portion of a building, construc ted prior to 1978, visited regu larly by the same child, under 105 6 years of age, on at least 2 different da ys within any week (Sunday through Saturday 106 period), provided that each day's visit last s at least 3 hours and the combined weekly 107 visits last at least 6 hours, and the combin ed annual visits last at least 60 hours. 108 Potentially-affected entities may include, but are not limited to: 109

110 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g. , single family housing 111 construction, multi-family housing co nstruction, residential remodelers. 112

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g. , plumbing, heating, and air113 conditioning contractors, pain ting and wall covering contractor s, electrical contractors, 114 finish carpentry contractors, drywall and insu lation contractors, sidi ng contractors, tile 115 and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors. 116

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g. , lessors of reside ntial buildings and 117 dwellings, residential property managers. 118

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

• Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g. , elementary 121 schools with kindergarten classrooms. 1224

123

• Other technical and trad e schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g. , training 124 providers. 125

126 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services 127 (NAICS code 541350), e.g. , dust sampling technicians. 128

129 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g. , firms and supervisors 130 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 131

132 This listing is not intended to be exha ustive, but rather provides a guide for 133 readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not 134

listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American I ndustrial Classification 135 System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 136 whether this action might apply to certain en tities. If you have a ny questions regarding 137 the applicability of this action to a particul ar entity, consult the technical person listed 138

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 139

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

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through 141 regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the pa rt or all of the information that you claim 142

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

outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 144 CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electro nically within the disk or CD-ROM the 145 specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 146

comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 147 contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 148 docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 149 procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 150

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

i. Identify the document by docket ID nu mber and other identifying information 152 (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 153

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 154 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (C FR) part or section 155

number. 156

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute 157 language for your requested changes. 158

iv. Describe any assumptions and provid e any technical information and/or data 159 that you used. 160

v. If you estimate potential costs or bu rdens, explain how you arrived at your 161 estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 1625

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

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoidi ng the use of profanity or 164 personal threats. 165

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

identified. 167

II. Introduction 168

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 169

EPA is proposing several revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and 170 Painting Program (RRP) rule that establis hed accreditation, traini ng, certification, and 171 recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards fo r persons performing 172 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. 173 EPA is particularly concerned about dust-l ead hazards generated by renovations because 174 of the well-documented toxicity of lead, especially to younger children. This proposal 175 includes additional requirements designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards 176 generated by renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovati on work is finished 177 and before the areas are re-occupied. Specifi cally, EPA is proposing to require dust wipe 178 testing after many renovations covered by the RRP rule. For a subset of jobs involving 179 demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint 180 using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as power 181 sanders or abrasive blasters, this proposal would also require th e renovation firm to 182 demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust-lead levels remain ing in the work area 183 are below regulatory levels. EPA is not, how ever, reopening other aspects of the work 184 practices required by the 2008 RRP rule. No r is EPA reopening for consideration any 185 aspects of the existing re gulations, except as provide d in today’s proposal. 186

187 EPA is also proposing various minor am endments to the regulations concerning 188 applications for training provider accre ditation, amending accreditations, course 189 completion certificates, record keeping, Stat e and Tribal program requirements, and 190 grandfathering (i.e., taking a refr esher training in lieu of the in itial training). In addition, 191 the proposed amendments intend to clarify th at certain requirements apply to the RRP 192

rule as well as the Lead-based Paint Ac tivities (abatement) re gulations, that the 193 prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in the RRP rule apply to the disturbance of 194 any painted surface, that certified renovato rs need only provide on-the-job training to 195 other renovation workers in the work practices required by the rule, that a certified 196 inspector or risk assessor can act as a dust sampling technician, which hands-on training 197 topics are required for renovator and dust samp ling technician courses, and requirements 198 for States and Tribes that apply to become authorized to implement the RRP program. 199

200 B. What is the Agency's Aut hority for Taking this Action? 201

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

certification and accreditati on requirements, and State, Territorial and Tribal 2046

authorization provisions are be ing promulgated under the au thority of TSCA sections 205 402(c)(3), 404, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 206 C. Background 207

208

1. Health effects of lead exposure . This Unit describes some of the more 209 significant health effects of lead exposure and the routes of exposure associated with lead 210 in paint. Much more information is av ailable in the preamble to the 2008 Lead 211 Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule (R ef. 1) and the Air Quality Criteria for 212 Lead document (Ref. 2). 213

214 Lead has been known throughout the ages fo r its useful properties, having been 215 commonly used in the production of paint, batteries, pipes, so lder, pottery, and gasoline. 216 Lead is also known for its “broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ systems 217 via widely diverse mechanisms of action.” (Ref . 2) This array of h ealth effects includes 218 heme biosynthesis and related functions; neurological develo pment and function; 219 reproduction and physical development; kidney function; cardiovascular function; and 220

immune function. There is also some eviden ce of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from 221 animal studies, together with limited hu man evidence of suggestive associations. 222

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

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

associated with blood lead levels of less than 10 μ g/dL in children and adults (Ref 2, at 8- 226 60). As is evident from the Criteria Docu ment, neurotoxic effects in children and 227

cardiovascular effects in adu lts are among those best substa ntiated as occurring at blood228

lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 μ g/dL (or possibly lower), so these categories of 229 effects would result in the gr eatest public health concer n. Other newly demonstrated 230 immune and renal system effects among gene ral population groups are also emerging as 231 low-level lead-exposure effects of potential public health concern (Ref. 2, at 8-60). 232

233 The nervous system has long been recognized as a target of lead toxicity, with the 234 developing nervous system affected at lower exposures than the mature system. While 235 blood lead levels in U.S. children ages 1 to 5 years have decreased notably since the late 236 1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of effects on the 237 neurodevelopment of children at population mean concurrent blood lead levels ranging 238

down to as low as 2 to 8 μ g/dL (Ref. 2, at E-9). Functi onal manifestations of lead 239 neurotoxicity during childhood incl ude sensory, motor, cognitive and behavioral impacts. 240 Investigating associa tions between lead exposure and be havior, mood, and social conduct 241 of children has been an emerging area of re search (see Ref. 2 at 6.2.6). Early studies 242 indicated linkages between lower-level le ad toxicity and behavioral problems ( e.g. , 243 aggression, attentional problems, and hyperactivity) in children. 244

245 Paint that contains lead can pose a he alth threat through various routes of 246 exposure. House dust is the most common e xposure pathway through which children are 247 exposed to lead-based paint hazards. Dust created during normal lead-based paint wear 248 (especially around windows and doors) can create an invisible film over surfaces in a 249 house. Children, particularly younger childre n, are at risk for hi gh exposures of lead- 2507

based paint dust via hand-to-mouth exposure, an d may also ingest l ead-based paint chips 251 from flaking paint on walls, windows, and doors. Lead from exterior house paint can 252

flake off or leach into the soil around the out side of a home, contaminating children's 253 play areas. Cleaning and renova tion activities may actually in crease the thre at of lead254 based paint exposure by dispersing lead dust particles in the air and over accessible 255 household surfaces. In turn, both adults and children can receive hazardous exposures by 256 inhaling the dust or by ingesting lead-based paint dust during hand- to-mouth activities. 257

258

EPA’s Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead St udy, described more fully in Unit 259 III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 Pr oposal, provides ample evidence of a link 260

between renovation activities and elevated bloo d lead levels in resident children (Ref. 3). 261 This peer-reviewed study conc luded that general residentia l renovation and remodeling is 262

associated with an increased risk of elevat ed blood lead levels in children and that 263 specific renovation and remodeli ng activities are also associated with an increase in the 264

risk of elevated blood lead le vels in children. In particul ar, removing paint (using open 265 flame torches, using heat guns, using chemi cal paint removers, and wet scraping/sanding) 266 and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping si gnificantly increased the risk of elevated 267

blood lead levels. 268

269 Three studies from New York support the findings of the Wisconsin Childhood 270 Blood-Lead Study. In 1995, the New York Stat e Department of Health assessed lead 271 exposure among children resulting from ho me renovation and remodeling in 1993–1994. 272 A review of the health department records of children with blood lead levels equal to or 273 greater than 20 μ g/dL identified 320, or 6.9%, with elev ated blood lead levels that were 274 attributable to renovation and remodeling (Ref . 4). An update to that study with data 275 from environmental investigations c onducted during 2006-2007 in New York State 276 (excluding New York City) iden tified renovation, repair, a nd painting activities as the 277 probable source of lead exposur e in 14% of 972 children with blood lead levels equal to 278 or exceeding 20 μ g/dL (Ref. 5). The authors concl uded that children living in housing 279 undergoing renovation, repair, a nd painting that was built before 1978, and particularly 280 before 1950, when concentrations of lead in paint were higher, are at high risk for 281

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

association between elevated blood lead le vels in children younger than 5 years and 283 renovation or repair activities in homes in Ne w York City (Ref. 6). EPA notes that the 284

authors show that when dust and debris was reported (by respondents via telephone 285 interviews) to be “everywhere” following a renovation, the blood lead levels were 286 significantly higher than children at homes that did not report remodeling work. On the 287 other hand, when the respondent reported either “no visible dust and de bris” or that “dust 288 and debris was limited to the work area,” there was no statistically significant effect on 289

blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report remodeling work. Although the 290 study found only a weak and nonsignificant li nk between a report of any renovation 291 activity and the likelihood that a resident child had an elevat ed blood-lead level, the link 292

to the likelihood of an elevated blood-lead level was statisti cally significant for surface 293 preparation by sanding and for renovation work that spreads dust and debris beyond the 294

work area. The researchers noted the consis tency of their results with EPA’s Wisconsin 295 Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 6, at 509). 2968

297 Children in minority populations and child ren from low-income families have an 298 increased risk of exposure to harmful lead le vels. Analysis of the National Health and 299 Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 shows that the 300 prevalence of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 1 to 5 301 years has decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-2004, which is an 84% 302 decline (Ref. 7). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non303 Hispanic black children aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead levels 304 equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) 305 (Ref. 7). In addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the 306 geometric mean blood lead level was signifi cantly higher for non-Hi spanic blacks (2.8 307 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.8 308 μg/dL). For children aged 1 to 5 years fr om families with low income, the geometric 309 mean blood lead level was 2.4 μg/dL. The an alysis indicates that residence in older 310 housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher 311 lead levels (Ref. 7). 312

313

2. Prior EPA rulemakings under TSCA Sections 402(a) and 403 . TSCA section 314 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate regulations co vering lead-based paint activities, such as 315 abatements, to ensure persons performing these activities are pr operly trained, that 316 training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are 317 certified. These regulations must contain standards for performing lead-based paint 318 activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, 319 EPA promulgated final regulations under TS CA section 402(a) that govern lead-based 320 paint inspections, lead hazard sc reens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing 321 and child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the Lead-based Paint Activities 322 Regulations) (Ref. 8). These regulations, codi fied at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain 323 an accreditation program for training pr oviders and training and certification 324 requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, abatement 325 supervisors, and abatement workers. Work practice standards for lead-based paint 326

activities are included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for interested 327 States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to appl y for and receive author ization to administer 328 their own lead-based pa int activities programs. 329

330 The work practice standards for abatements in the Lead-based Paint Activities 331 Regulations are essentially pe rformance standards. They give a trained and certified 332

abatement contractor some discretion in de termining how best to ensure that an 333 abatement is performed safely, so long as the contractor can demonstrate that the 334 abatement has been properly completed and that no lead-based paint hazards remain. 335 Certain high dust generating practices are prohibited and contract ors are required to 336 prepare occupant protection pl ans specifically describing the procedures to be followed 337 on each job to protect occupants from exposures to lead-based paint hazards. In most 338 cases, residents relocate until the abatem ent has been completed. Although these 339 additional procedures are not specified in the regulations , abatement supervisor and 340 worker courses provide comprehensive trai ning in the specialized techniques these 341

individuals can use to contai n work areas, remove, enclose, or encapsulate lead-based 3429

paint and lead-based paint hazards, and clean up after the job is fini shed. The regulations 343 are much more detailed in describing the proc edures that must be followed to ensure that 344 the abatement has been properly completed and that the work area is ready for re345 occupancy. These procedures, typically referre d to as “clearance,” must be performed by 346 a certified inspector or risk assessor. First, a visual inspection must be performed to 347 determine whether deteriorated painted surf aces or visible amounts of dust, debris, or 348 residue are still present. If so, these conditions must be e liminated before the clearance 349 procedures may continue. An exterior abatem ent project is consider ed complete after a 350 successful visual inspection. Following a succes sful visual inspection after an interior 351 abatement project, the inspector or risk a ssessor must collect dust wipe samples from 352 floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area and have them analyzed by a 353 laboratory accredited under the National Lead Laborat ory Accreditation Program 354 (NLLAP) for analysis. After the sampling re sults are received, the inspector or risk 355 assessor must compare them with the establishe d clearance standards fo r lead in dust. If 356 all of the samples are below the clearance st andards, the abatement is complete and the 357 area may be re-occupied. If any samples are above the standards, the components 358 represented by those samples must be re-cl eaned and the clearance process must be 359 repeated until all samples are be low the clearance standards. 360

361 TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promul gate regulations th at identify, for the 362 purposes of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dang erous levels of lead in paint, dust, and 363 soil. These regulations were promulgate d on January 5, 2001 and codified at 40 CFR 364 part 745, subpart D (Ref. 9). These hazard stan dards define lead-bas ed paint hazards in 365 target housing and child-occupied facilities as paint- lead, dust-lead, and soil-lead hazards. 366 A paint-lead hazard is defined as any damage d or deteriorated lead-based paint, any 367 chewable lead-based painted surface with ev idence of teeth marks, or any lead-based 368 paint on a friction surface if lead dust leve ls underneath the fricti on surface exceed the 369

dust-lead hazard standards. A dust-lead haza rd is surface dust that contains a mass-per370 area concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per square foot ( μ g/ft 2 ) 371

on floors or 250 μ g/ft 2 on interior windowsills based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard 372 is bare soil that contains total lead equa l to or exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm), 373 equivalent to 400 micrograms per gram ( μ g/g), in a play area or average of 1,200 ppm of 374 bare soil in the rest of the yard based on soil samples. 375

376 The TSCA section 403 rulemaking also am ended the Lead-based Paint Activities 377 Regulations to incorporate new dust-lead clearance standards for abatements. These 378

standards are 40 μ g/ft 2 on floors, 250 μ g/ft 2 on interior windowsills, and 400 μ g/ft 2 on 379 window troughs, based on wipe samples. 380

381 On August 10, 2009, EPA received a peti tion requesting that EPA lower the 382 regulatory dust-lead hazard standard and modi fy the regulatory defi nition of lead-based 383 paint. After careful consid eration, EPA decided to grant the request and accordingly 384 intends to begin the appropr iate proceedings. Although EP A granted the request, the 385 Agency did not commit to either a specific rulemaking outcome or a certain date for 386 promulgation of a final rule. EPA’s primar y reason for granting the request was based on 387 recent epidemiological studies that indicate th e current hazard standards are insufficiently 38810

protective. The request was granted unde r section 553(e) of the Administrative 389 Procedures Act (APA). Additionally, becau se the Secretary of HUD was given the 390 statutory authority to establish a lower level of lead in paint for pur poses of the definition 391 of lead-based paint in target housing, EPA pl ans to work with HUD on this aspect of the 392

request. 393

394

3. The 2008 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule . TSCA section 402(c) 395 addresses renovation and remodeling. Specifi cally, TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA 396 to study the extent to which persons e ngaged in various types of renovation and 397 remodeling activities are exposed to lead duri ng such activities or create a lead-based 398 paint hazard regularly or occasionally. EPA con ducted this study in four phases. Phase I, 399 the Environmental Field Sampling Study (E FSS) (Ref. 10), evaluated the amount of 400 leaded dust released by the following activities: 401

402 • Paint removal by abrasive sanding. 403

404 • Removal of large structures, includi ng demolition of interior plaster walls. 405

406 • Window replacement. 407

408 • Carpet removal. 409

410 • HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work. 411

412 • Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, including drilling and 413 sawing into wood and plaster. 414

415 Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 11), involved 416 collecting data on blood lead and renovation and remodeling activities from workers. 417 Phase III, the Wisconsin Ch ildhood Blood Lead Study (Ref. 3) , was a retrospective study 418 focused on assessing the relationship between renovation and rem odeling activities and 419 children’s blood-lead levels. Phase IV, th e Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead 420 Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in Reno vations of Old or Historic Homes (Ref. 421 12), was similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals who worked primarily in old 422 historic buildings. More information on the re sults of these peer-reviewed studies can be 423 found in Unit III.C.1. of the preamble to th e 2006 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 424 Program Proposed Rule (“2006 Proposal”) (Ref. 13). 425

426 TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise the Lead-based Paint 427 Activities Regulations to apply to renovation or remodeling activitie s that create lead428 based paint hazards. Accordingly, EPA issu ed the 2006 Proposal, proposing to conclude 429 that any renovation activity th at disturbs lead-based paint can create significant amounts 430 of leaded dust, that most activities create d lead-based paint ha zards, and that some 431 activities can be reasonably anticipated to cr eate lead-based paint ha zards (Ref. 13). This 432 proposed finding was largely based on the results of the studies conducted under TSCA 433 section 402(c)(2). 43411

435 After the 2006 Proposal was i ssued, EPA conducted a field study 436 (Characterization of Dust Lead Levels af ter Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities) 437 (the “Dust Study”) to better characterize dust lead levels resulting from various 438 renovation, repair, and painting activities (Ref . 14). This study, completed in January, 439 2007, was designed to compare environmental le ad levels at appropriate stages after 440 various types of renovation, repair, and painti ng preparation activitie s were performed on 441

the interiors and exteriors of target housing units and ch ild-occupied facilities. The 442 renovation activities were conducted by local professional renovation firms, using 443 personnel who received lead safe work pr actices training. Th e activities conducted 444 represented a range of activities that w ould have been permitted under the 2006 Proposal, 445 including work practices that are restricted or prohibited under the final RRP rule. Of 446 particular interest was the im pact of using specific work practices that renovation firms 447 would be required to use under th e proposed rule, such as the us e of plastic to contain the 448 work area and a multi-step cleaning protocol, as opposed to more typical work practices. 449

450 The final RRP rule was published in th e Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008 451 (Ref. 1). The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, 452 addresses lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, a nd painting activities 453 that disturb painted surfaces in target hous ing and child-occupied facilities. “Target 454 housing” is defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978, except 455 housing for the elderly or persons with disa bilities (unless any ch ild under age 6 resides 456 or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under the final 457 RRP rule, a child-occupied fac ility is a building, or a porti on of a building, constructed 458 prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 year s of age, on at least two 459 different days within any week (Sunday thr ough Saturday period), pr ovided that each 460 day’s visit lasts at least 3 hour s and the combined weekly visi ts last at least 6 hours, and 461

the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied facilities may be 462 located in public or commercial buildings or in target housing. 463

464 In the final RRP rule, EPA issued its determination that renovation, repair, and 465 painting activities that disturb lead-based pa int create lead-based paint hazards. This 466 finding was based on evidence from the TSCA section 402(c)(2) study and the Dust 467 Study that all such activ ities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint 468 hazards. Having made this finding, TSCA sec tion 402(c)(3) then directs EPA to revise 469

the Lead-based Paint Activitie s regulations to apply to su ch renovations. In the final 470 RRP rule, EPA did not interpret its statutor y mandate to require application of the 471 existing TSCA section 402(a) regulations to re novations without change. EPA stated its 472 belief that Congress, by using the word “revis e,” and creating a separate subsection of the 473 statute for renovation, intended that EPA make revisions to those ex isting regulations to 474 adapt them to a very different regulated comm unity. As discussed in the preamble to the 475 final RRP rule, there are si gnificant differences between renovations and abatements 476 (Ref. 1). For example, performing abatement is a highly specialized skill that workers 477 and supervisors must learn in accredited trai ning courses. However, painters, plumbers 478 and carpenters already know how to pe rform renovations, so accredited renovator 479 training courses are designed to teach renovators how to incorporate principles of lead 48012

safety into their typical work. Accordingly, the rule did not merely expand the scope of 481 the current abatement requirements to c over renovation and remodeling activities. 482 Instead, EPA considered the elements of the existing abatement regulations and revised 483 them as necessary to craft a rule that is practical for renovation, remodeling and painting 484 businesses and their customers, ta king into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety as 485 directed by TSCA section 402(a). 486

487 The final RRP rule establishes requir ements for training renovators, other 488 renovation workers, and dust sampling tech nicians; for certifying renovators, dust 489 sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and 490 dust sampling technician traini ng; for renovation work practic es; and for recordkeeping. 491 Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tr ibes may apply for and receive authorization 492

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

494

The final RRP rule created two new traini ng disciplines in the field of lead-based 495 paint: renovator and dust sampling technici an. Persons who successfully complete 496 renovator training from an accredited training pr ovider are certified renovators. Certified 497 renovators are responsible for ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are 498 performed in compliance with the work pr actice requirements set out in 40 CFR 745.85. 499 Persons who successfully complete dust sampli ng technician training from an accredited 500 training provider are certified dust sampli ng technicians. Ce rtified dust sampling 501 technicians may be called upon to collect dus t wipe samples afte r renovation activities 502 have been completed. While the training disc iplines, the work practic e standards, and the 503 recordkeeping requirements of the final RRP rule differ from those established in the 504 lead-based paint activities regulations, EPA determined that the accreditation 505 requirements imposed on persons providing l ead-based paint activ ities training would 506 also be effective for persons providing renova tion training. Therefore, the final RRP rule 507 amended 40 CFR 745.225 to cover persons who provide or wish to provide renovation 508 training for the purposes of the final RRP rule. 509

510 As amended, 40 CFR 745.225 requires trai ning providers who wish to provide 511 lead-based paint activities or renovation training for the purpo ses of the EPA's lead-based 512 paint programs to be accredited by EPA. The requirements for each course of study are 513

described in detail at 40 CFR 745.225 as are the operationa l requirements for training 514 programs and the process for obtaining accreditation. 515

516 Under the final RRP rule, covered re novations in target housing and child517 occupied facilities must be performed by cer tified renovation firms. A certified firm 518 must ensure that persons who perform renova tions on behalf of th e firm are properly 519 trained and that the work practice requir ements are followed. Renovations must be 520 performed or directed by certified renovato rs, who are also responsible for compliance 521 with the RRP rule’s requirements. The fi nal RRP rule contains a number of work 522 practice requirements that must be fo llowed for every covered renovation. These 523 requirements pertain to warni ng signs and work area containment, the restriction or 524 prohibition of certain practices ( e.g. , high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power 525 planing), waste handling, cleaning, and post-re novation cleaning verification. In contrast, 52613

the RRP rule did not apply the same perf ormance standard of an abatement-style 527 clearance requirement to demonstrate that lead-based paint hazards created by the 528 renovation have been eliminated. Instead, the RRP rule sets forth the steps that must be 529

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

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

532 A final step in the process for interior renovations is cleani ng verification. After 533 the RRP rule’s specific cleaning protocol has been followed, a visual inspection for 534 visible dust and debris is pe rformed. If no dust and debris is found, a certified renovator 535 must wipe the interior windowsills and uncar peted floors with wet disposable cleaning 536 cloths and compare each to a cleaning veri fication card developed and distributed by 537 EPA. If the cloth matches or is lighter th an the image on the card, the surface represented 538 by the cloth has passed the post-renovation clean ing verification. If the cloth is darker 539 than the image on the card, the surface repres ented by the cloth must be re-cleaned and 540 then wiped with a new wet cloth, which is then compared to the cleaning verification 541

card. If the cloth is st ill darker than the image on the ca rd, the surface must be allowed to 542 dry for at least an hour. At that time, th e surface is wiped with a dry electrostatic 543 cleaning cloth, which completes the cleaning veri fication process for that surface. When 544 all surfaces in the work area have comple ted cleaning verification, the renovation has 545 been completed and the work area may be re-occupied. 546

547 Shortly after the final RRP rule was pr omulgated, several petitions were filed 548 challenging the rule. These petitions were c onsolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals 549

for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 26, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with 550 the environmental and children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. 551 In this agreement EPA committed to propose se veral changes to the RRP rule, including 552 the changes discussed in this notice. 553

554 Throughout this notice, EPA will use seve ral different terms to describe the 555 proposed requirements. EPA will use the term “dust wipe testing” to mean collecting 556 wipe samples of dust on floors and windows ills and in window troughs, analyzing the 557 samples for lead content, a nd reporting the result s of the analysis to the owners and 558 occupants of the building being renovated. Although the term “dust wipe sampling” was 559 used in the settlement agreement to describe these activities, EPA is using “dust wipe 560 testing” in this notice to signal that samp le analysis may be performed off-site in a 561 traditional laboratory setting or on-site by a por table laboratory, so long as the entity 562 performing the analysis is accredited or recognized by the National Lead Laboratory 563 Accreditation Program (NLLAP). In this notice, EPA will use the term “dust wipe 564 sampling” to refer to the specific activity of collecting the wipe samples, not to the 565 analysis or reporting of results. EP A will use the term “clearance” to mean 566 demonstrating, through dust wipe testing, th at the floors, windowsills, and window 567 troughs in the renovation work area are belo w the regulatory clearance standards that 568 have been established for the abatement pr ogram and codified at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). 569 This includes re-cleaning where necessary to achieve the clearance standards. 570

571 III. Provisions of this Proposal 57214

573 A. Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance 574

575 1. Background. One of the most signi ficant issues arising out of the RRP 576 rulemaking was the issue of how to determ ine whether a renovati on had been properly 577 completed. The Lead-based Paint Activities Rule requires clearance to be achieved in an 578

abatement work area before the abatement is considered complete. As previously 579 discussed, the abatement clearance process involves a visual inspection, dust wipe 580 sampling of floors, windowsills, and window tr oughs in the work area, analysis by an 581 NLLAP-accredited laboratory, and comparison of the results to the clearance standards. 582 If the sample results are below the clearance standards, clearance has been achieved and 583 the work area may be re-occupied. If the sample results are above the standards, the 584

work area must be re-cleaned and the clea rance process must begin again. For this 585 reason, abatement projects often include coating floors with a sealant. According to the 586 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Deve lopment’s “Guidelines For the Evaluation 587

and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing” (HUD Guidelines), the purpose of 588 sealing floors is not to trap leaded dust unde rneath the sealant, but to provide a surface 589 that can be cleaned effectively by the reside nt (Ref. 15). Although achieving clearance is 590 not the main reason for sealing floors, the pr ocess typically results in a surface than can 591 achieve clearance and be kept clean by the re sident. This is a sensible approach for 592 abatements, because the goal of abatement is to permanently eliminate lead-based paint 593 and lead-based paint hazards. The clearance process ensures that no lead-based paint or 594 lead-based paint hazards remain in the work area. 595

596 However, EPA recognized that there ar e many differences between renovations 597 and abatements. As discussed in the pream ble to the final RRP rule, renovations are 598 different from abatements in intent, impleme ntation, type of workforce, funding, and goal 599 (Ref. 1). One of the biggest challenges th at faced EPA in revising the TSCA section 600 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulati ons was how to effectively bridge the 601

differences between abatement and renovati on and remodeling while acknowledging that 602 many of the activities employed in both ( e.g. , window replacement) are the same and 603 generate the same amount of dust. Abat ements are generally performed in three 604 circumstances. First, abatements may be performed in the reside nces of children who 605

have been found to have elevated blood lead levels. Second, abatements are performed in 606 housing receiving financial assistance fr om HUD when required by HUD’s Lead-Safe 607 Housing Rule, codified at 24 CFR part 35. Th ird, state and local laws and regulations 608 may require abatements in certain situations associated with rental housing. Typically, 609 when an abatement is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are 610 temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement has been demonstrated to 611 have been properly completed through dust cl earance testing. Carpet in the housing is 612 usually removed as part of the abatement becau se it is difficult to demonstrate that it is 613 free of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been replaced during 614 the abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in order to achieve clearance. 615 Abatements have only one purpose—to permanently eliminate lead-based paint and lead616 based paint hazards. 617

61815

On the other hand, renovations are perfor med for a myriad of reasons that may 619 have nothing to do with lead-based paint. Renovations involve activities designed to 620 update, maintain, or modify all or part of a building. Renovations may be performed 621 while the property is occupied or unoccupie d. If the renovation is performed while the 622 property is occupied, the occupants do not typically relocate pendi ng the completion of 623 the project. 624

625 EPA also recognized that dust wipe testing and cl earance as required after 626 abatements can be expensive. The costs can be attributed to two major factors: the cost 627 of trained personnel to collect the samples and the cost of the laboratory analysis. EPA 628 preliminarily estimated the cost of three dust wipe samples to be $160 to collect and 629 analyze (Ref. 13). If EPA had required dus t wipe testing and clearance after every 630 renovation project, it would have made up a significant portion of the cost of smaller 631 projects. In addition, laborato ry results may not be availabl e for several days. If EPA 632 had required traditional abatement-style clearan ce after renovations, the work area would 633 not be able to be re-occupied while waiting for the laboratory results. 634

635 In addition, EPA was also concerned that requiring clearance after every 636 renovation job could, in some instances, re sult in the renovati on firm being held 637 responsible for abating all dust-lead hazar ds, including such hazards that may have 638

existed in the area before the renovation co mmenced. During the stakeholder input 639 opportunities provided by EPA before issui ng the 2006 Proposal, contractors suggested 640 that, if post-renovation dust wipe testing were required, the contractors would have to 641 protect themselves by collecting pre-renovation du st wipe samples, to ensure that they 642

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

644 To address these various concerns, EPA began looking for an alternative to dust 645 wipe testing and clearance that would be quick, inexpensive, reliable, and easy to 646 perform. EPA conducted a series of studies using commercially available disposable 647 cleaning cloths to determine whether variations of a “white glove” test could serve as an 648

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

entitled “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cl oth Field Study in Residential Housing” 650 (Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study) (Ref. 16) , EPA’s 2006 Proposal included a cleaning 651 verification protocol using wet and dry disposable cleaning cloths. 652

653 Unlike the earlier Disposable Cleani ng Cloth Study, the Dust Study was not 654 designed specifically to evaluate the cleaning ve rification in isolation from the rest of the 655 work practices. However, the Dust Study did se rve as a valuable field test of the cleaning 656 verification protocol. The Dust Study involved actual re novations performed by local 657

renovation contractors who receiv ed instruction in how to perform cleaning verification 658 using wet and dry disposable cleaning cloths and then were left alone to determine 659 whether the cleaning cloths matched or were lighter than the cleaning verification card 660 developed by the EPA. In order to maximi ze the information collected about cleaning 661 verification in the Dust Study, cleaning verification was conduc ted after each experiment, 662 not just those experiments that were bei ng conducted in accordance with the proposed 663 rule requirements for containment and cleaning. 66416

665

EPA received numerous comments on this aspect of the RRP rulemaking. While 666 some commenters supported th e proposed work practices, including cleaning verification, 667 many others thought that renovation work areas ought to be tested and cleared for re668 occupancy in the same way that abatement wo rk areas are cleared through the clearance 669 process, including dust wipe testing. Many commenters believed that renovation firms 670 should be required to demonstrate that no dust- lead hazards had been left behind in the 671

work area. These commenters contended that the only reliable, safe, and effective way to 672 do this was through dust wipe testing and clearance. 673

674

These commenters contended that the unr eliability of cleani ng verification made 675

it an unsuitable substitute fo r dust wipe testing and cleara nce. They pointed to the 676

sentence in the conclusion section of EPA’ s Dust Study that stat es that the cleaning 677 verification protocol was not always accurate in identifying the presence of levels above 678

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

discussion of factors that affected the effectiv eness of cleaning verification, such as floor 680 condition, contractor performance, job type, and dust particle characteristics. One 681

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

cloths for all floor zones and for all windowsill s, nearly half of the experiments in the 683 study ended with average work room floor lead levels above EPA’s dust-lead hazard 684 standard for floors of 40 μg/ft 2 . The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, who was 685 asked to review the underlying analysis for the estimation of the effect of the RRP rule on 686 children’s blood lead levels, st ated that in the Dust Study cleaning verification did not 687 provide sufficiently reliable results, lead ing to an inaccurate assessment of cleaning 688 efficiency. 689

690 EPA agreed with the commenters who ar gued that cleaning verification was not a 691 suitable substitute for dust wipe testing and cl earance. EPA noted in the preamble to the 692 final RRP rule that even though the Dispos able Cleaning Cloth Study showed that the 693 cleaning verification cloths that reached “w hite glove” were approximately 91% to 97% 694 likely to be below the regulatory hazard st andard, EPA believes the greater variability 695 seen in the Dust Study, particularly in th e experiments where the complete suite of 696 proposed work practices were not used, does not support the characte rization of cleaning 697

verification as a direct substitu te for clearance testing. Clea ning verification, in itself, is 698 not a substitute for quantitative dust wipe tes ting. However, EPA continues to believe 699 that the Dust Study supports the validity of cleaning verification as an effective 700 component of the RRP rule’s work practices . The cleaning and f eedback aspects of 701 cleaning verification are importa nt to its contribution to th e effectiveness of the work 702 practices (Ref. 1). 703

704 In the Dust Study, for renovations not invol ving practices restri cted or prohibited 705 by the final RRP rule, cleaning verification in combination w ith the other required work 706 practices were effective at re ducing dust lead levels on surfac es to or below the dust-lead 707 hazard standards, regardless of the condition of the floor. Of the 10 experiments 708 performed in compliance with the RRP rule’s work practices, final average lead-based 709 paint dust levels were at or below the regul atory hazard standard (taking into account the 71017

accepted level of uncertainty, i.e. , within plus or minus 20% , which is the performance 711 criteria for the National Lead Laboratory A ccreditation Program). For the experiments 712 not performed according to the RRP rule’s work practices, the use of cleaning 713 verification after cleaning redu ced, often significantly, the am ount of lead dust remaining. 714

EPA determined that there is sufficient cons istency in the Dust St udy data to support the 715 use of cleaning verification as an effective component of the RRP ru le’s work practices. 716

717 Commenters also expressed concern about the subjectivity of the cleaning 718 verification process. They not ed that the effectiveness of cleaning verification relies 719 upon the certified renovator’s und erstanding and application of the protocol, ability to 720 define the floor sampling area or areas, a nd use of the cleaning verification card to 721 determine whether a surface has been adequa tely cleaned. Some commenters speculated 722 that the certified renovator's accuracy in comp aring the cleaning cloth to the verification 723 card could depend on factors such as his or her visual acuity, the lighting in the room, or 724 simply differences in judgment among certified renovators. One thought that the lack of 725 corrections for surface conditions, the experi ence of the person conducting the visual 726 assessment, or pre-existing conditions might bias the results of testing. 727

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

verification card has an element of subjectivity because the vi sual comparison of cloth to 730 card requires some exercise of judgment on the part of the person doing the comparing. 731 However, EPA did not agree that this nece ssarily makes the comparison suspect. The 732 Dust Study represented a real-wor ld test of the ability of re novators to learn how to do 733 cleaning verification and to apply it in the field. Although one Dust Study participant 734 expressed concern about subjectivity, cleani ng verification was successfully performed 735 by the renovation contractors in all of the experiments perf ormed in compliance with the 736 work practices in the final RRP rule. In a ddition, cleaning verifica tion was predictive of 737 whether renovators had cleaned-up the lead -based paint hazards created during the 738 renovation activity to the dust-lead standar d, particularly when the proposed work 739 practices were used. The cleaning verifica tions performed during the Dust Study were 740 conducted by various persons in various light conditions and on various surface 741

conditions. 742

743 Other commenters did not support dust wi pe testing and clearance. One reason 744 cited by these commenters was the cost of dust wipe testing, especia lly if required to be 745 performed by independent certif ied inspectors or risk assesso rs. Some also contended 746 that dust clearance testing is time cons uming and an obstacle to completing the 747 renovation job. One commenter noted that a ma jor component of the cost of performing 748 clearance is due to the fact that the por tion of the premises affected by the renovation 749 would have to remain unoccupied. Another commenter noted that it is not uncommon for 750 the abatement clearance process to be conduc ted up to three times on a home to make 751 sure that lead levels are sufficiently low. Again, commenters expre ssed the concern that 752 a requirement for dust wipe testing and cl earance would have the effect of holding 753 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. 754

75518

Based on the weight of the evidence in the rulemaking record, primarily from the 756 Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust Study, EPA determined that, once certain 757 high dust generating practices were prohibited or restricted, th e full suite of work practice 758 requirements, including containment, cleani ng, and cleaning verifica tion, was effective at 759 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and 760 painting activities. At the same time, EPA recognizes that cleani ng verification is an 761 imperfect check on whether the dust-lead ha zard standard has been achieved. Among 762 other things, as commenters poi nted out, there is an element of subjectivity to cleaning 763 verification, which is not presen t in dust wipe testing. 764

765

766 In the final RRP rule, EPA gave signi ficant weight to the cost, timing, and 767 liability concerns expressed by commenters. In balancing the va rious considerations, 768 EPA concluded that cleaning veri fication, as part of the full suite of work practices, was 769 an appropriate check on the effectiveness of the work practices. EPA has continued to 770 balance these considerations in today’s propos al, but has preliminarily concluded that, for 771 certain jobs, the additional benefits of dust wipe testing, and in some cases clearance, 772 warrant imposing these additional requirements. 773

774

2. Proposed requirements for dust wipe testing after certain renovations . This 775 proposal contains dust wipe te sting requirements for many renova tions. In most of these 776 situations, the renovation firm will only be required to provide the dust wipe testing 777 results to the building owners and occupants. However, as discussed more fully in Unit 778 III.A.3. of this preamble below, after two types of renovations , this proposal would also 779 require renovation firms to achieve clearance. 780

781

EPA has evaluated the value of the in formation that would be available to 782 renovation firms and building owners and occupa nts through such testing. EPA expects 783 two kinds of benefits to flow from proposed dust wipe testing requirements. The first are 784

the direct benefits of the information to th e owners and occupants, the pure value of the 785 information on dust lead levels remaining in the renovation work area, including leaded 786 dust that may have been generated during th e renovation activity. For building owners 787 and occupants, this information is likely to improve their understan ding and awareness of 788 dust-lead hazards. It will also greatly im prove their ability to make further risk 789 management decisions. This information is pa rticularly critical wh ere dust lead levels 790 approach or exceed the regulatory hazard standards. One commenter on the 2008 RRP 791 rule described the value of dust wipe testi ng results in this way: “Because the white 792 glove test does not provide a numeric result , a family is given limited information from 793 which to make informed decisions and worse yet, may be given a false sense of security.” 794 (Ref. 17) The commenter then argued that, “although the federal floor dust standard is 795

set at 40 μ g/ft 2 , there is sufficient evidence to suggest that floors well below this standard 796 may endanger children. Prope rty owners and residents s hould be provided quantitative 797 information so they can choose what actions to take based on those levels.” The 798

commenter believed that in instances where floor dust wipe test results are just below the 799 EPA regulatory standard, the owners or o ccupants may want to undertake additional 800 cleaning. The value of this informati on has new significance in light of recent 80119

epidemiological studies that indicate the current lead-based hazard standards are 802 insufficiently protective. 803

804 In addition, in enacting the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 805 1992, Congress recognized that there is a va lue in providing information to property 806 owners and occupants. Section 1018 of the Act requires the disclosure of information on 807 lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards to purchasers and tenants of target housing. 808 Even if no specific information on the housing to be sold or rented is available, the seller 809 or landlord must provide a lead hazard inform ation pamphlet to the purchaser or tenant. 810 Similarly, TSCA Section 406(b) requires renova tors or their firms to provide a lead 811 hazard information pamphlet to the owners and occupants of target housing before 812 beginning a renovation in the housing. The in formation provided by dust wipe testing 813

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

whether the hazard standard has been met at completion of the job, but it is in line with 815 the broader statutory emphasis on disclosure of information related to possible lead-based 816 paint hazards. This information is beneficial in the same way that disclosure of known 817 lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards is beneficial to purchasers and tenants 818

under Section 1018. 819

820 The other benefits that EPA expects to flow from a dust wipe testing requirement 821 are the benefits that may result from change d behavior on the part of renovation firms. 822 EPA believes that dust wipe testing results will also provide valuable feedback to 823 renovation firms on how well they are cleaning up after renovations. It is likely that the 824 specific dust lead levels contained in dust wipe testing results will increase renovation 825 firm cleaning efficiency. Renovation firms will be incentivized to lower the dust lead 826 levels remaining after renovation jobs, even if the levels are at or near the regulatory 827 standards. In particular, firms that might ot herwise be inclined to be less than thorough 828 in the use of the disposable cl eaning cloths in order to avoi d darkening the cloths will be 829 incentivized to perform clean ing verification thoroughly. Be cause proper cleanup plays 830

such a vital role in the minimization of dust-lead hazards created by renovations, 831 providing information on dust lead levels rema ining after renovations to building owners 832 and occupants will serve as an incentive fo r firms to perform post-renovation cleaning 833 efficiently, thoroughly, and correc tly so that the benefits of the RRP rule may be fully 834

realized. 835

836 EPA is therefore proposing to require th at dust wipe testing be performed after 837 many renovation jobs. EPA has determined th at dust wipe testing results will provide a 838 valuable check on the performance of cleani ng verification and the other work practices 839 for most of the paint-disturbing renovations covered by the Dust Study (Ref. 14). In 840 reviewing the data from the Dust Study, EPA believes that, of the jobs performed in the 841 Dust Study, the additional safeguard of dust wi pe testing is warranted where the floor 842 dust-lead levels changed markedly from pre-work to post-cleaning to post-cleaning 843 verifications. The only jobs where this di d not occur were the renovations involving cut844 outs, which also created si gnificantly less dust than most other renovations. 845

84620

Accordingly, today’s proposal would require dust wipe testing on uncarpeted 847 floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area after the following types of 848

interior renovations: 849

850 • Use of a heat gun at temperat ures below 1100 degr ees Fahrenheit. 851

852 • Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 853

854 • Scraping 60 ft 2 or more of painted surfaces. 855

856 • Removing more than 40 ft 2 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 857

858 These jobs represent all of the expe riments conducted in the Dust Study other 859 than those involving cut-outs or practices prohibited or restricted by the final RRP rule. 860 The experiments labeled “kitchen gut” in the Dust Study mostly involved the removal of 861

kitchen cabinets and kitchen fixtures. The sc raping experiments involved the scraping of 862 approximately 60 ft 2 or more of lead-based paint, so EPA is proposing to limit the dust 863 wipe testing requirement to renovations during wh ich at least that much painted surface is 864 scraped. EPA requests comment, information, or data on whether the threshold for dust 865 wipe testing after renovat ions involving scraping should be lowered to 6 ft 2 , which is the 866 minor maintenance threshold, or to some othe r number. Likewise, the trim and molding 867 removal experiments all involved th e removal of more than 40 ft 2 of trim or molding, so 868 EPA is proposing to limit the dust wipe tes ting requirement to renovations during which 869 at least that much trim or molding is rem oved. EPA also requests comment, information, 870

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

fixture removal should be lowered. EPA acknow ledges that the benefits identified above 872 of dust wipe testing would apply for these sma ller jobs, as well as th e larger jobs covered 873 by today’s proposal. At the same time, in orde r to ensure a program that is practical for 874 renovation activities, EPA has tried in this proposal to maintain some proportionality 875 between the complexity and cost of the pr oposed requirements on one hand, and the size 876 and cost of the renovation job on the other. 877

878 EPA wishes to clarify that the size thre sholds for scraping painted surfaces and 879 removing trim, molding, cabinets, or other fi xtures would be calculated on a per-job 880

basis. This is in contrast to the minor repair and maintenance exception, which is 881 calculated on a per-room basis for interior projects. 882

883 EPA is also requesting comment on whet her dust wipe testing should be required 884

in situations where a surface fails th e cleaning verification process twice, i.e. , when the 885 second wet disposable cleaning cloth is darker than the cleaning verification card. In that 886 case, the surface must be allowed to dry fo r at least an hour, af ter which the certified 887 renovator must wipe the surface with a dry el ectrostatic cleaning cloth. In the Dust 888 Study, only four surfaces failed cl eaning verification twice, re presenting two of the sixty 889 experiments. In one experiment involving cu t-outs, a vinyl floor in poor condition failed 890 cleaning verification twice. The average dust- lead level on the floor after the second wet 891 disposable cleaning cloth was 61.5 μg/ft 2 , and after the dry elec trostatic cleaning cloth, 89221

the level was 57.2 μg/ft 2 . However, this floor was in su ch poor condition that after two 893 pre-cleanings, the cleanings done before any experiments were conducted, the floor dust 894 lead levels were still 95 μg/ft 2 . Thus, the floor was cleaner than when it started, even 895 though it failed cleaning verification twice. In the other experiment, a kitchen gut 896 performed on a tile floor in fair condition, three floor sections fa iled the second cleaning 897

verification. After the second we t disposable cleaning cloth, th e average dust lead levels 898

on two of the three failed sect ions were less than 10 μg/ft 2 , while the other was 899 significantly higher at 150 μg/ft 2 . Nevertheless, after the dr y electrostatic cleaning cloth 900 wipe, the dust lead levels for a ll floor sections averaged 41.4 μg/ft 2 , which is within the 901 accepted level of uncertainty, i.e. , within plus or minus 20%, for the National Lead 902 Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 903

904 The dust wipe testing would have to be performed in a manner similar to the 905 abatement clearance sampling requirements at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8). After the cleaning 906 required by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5) has been perfor med, a certified inspecto r, certified risk 907 assessor, or certified dust sa mpling technician would be re quired to perform a visual 908 inspection to ensure that the work area is free of visible dust, debris or residue. EPA is 909 proposing to require this second visual inspection, in addition to the one performed by the 910 certified renovator before cleaning veri fication, because, in many cases, the person 911 performing the dust wipe testing will not be the same person who performed the cleaning 912 verification. In addition, there may be a delay between the completion of cleaning 913 verification and the beginning of dust wipe te sting. EPA believes that the requirement 914 for a visual inspection immedi ately prior to dust wipe te sting will give the certified 915 inspector, risk assessor, or dust sampling tec hnician a means to address any concerns they 916 may have as to the cleanliness of the work area. The locations for dust wipe samples 917 would be dependent on the number of rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the work 918 area. If there is more than 1 room, hallw ay, or stairwell within the work area, the 919 following samples would ha ve to be collected: 920

921 • 1 windowsill sample, 1 window trough sample, and 1 floor sample within each 922 room, hallway, or stairwell (no more than 4 rooms, hallways, or stairwells need be 923 sampled). 924

925 • 1 floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 926

cleaned. 927

928 If the work area is a single room, hallway, or stairwell, or a smaller area, the following 929 samples would have to be collected: 930

931 • 1 windowsill sample, 1 window trough sample, and 1 floor sample. 932

933 • 1 floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 934

cleaned. 935

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

collected. The same would be true for wi ndows and windowsill or trough samples. Dust 93822

wipe samples would be collected in accord ance with the protocol in “Residential 939 Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling” (Ref. 18). 940

941 EPA requests comment on whether this pr otocol is sufficient to determine dust 942 lead levels remaining on floors, windowsills , and window troughs. This protocol has 943

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

HUD interim lead hazard control work. Howeve r, one test per surface may not always be 945 enough to accurately characterize the dust lead levels over the entire surface. While the 946 physical variability of dust loadings and lead concentrations across a room has not been 947 thoroughly investigated, severa l studies including EPA’s Environmental Field Sampling 948 Study have found high variability in side-by- side samples collected before and after 949 various activities (Ref. 10). EPA requests comment on whether more tests should be 950 required, and, if so, what protocol should be followed in determining the number and 951 location of additional tests. For example, one option would be to follow the ASTM 952 International “Standard Practice for Clearance Examinations Following Lead Hazard 953 Reduction Activities in Dwellings, and Other Ch ild-Occupied Facilities.” This document 954 says that for rooms that exceed 500 ft 2 , the floor should be divide d into two or more equal 955 parts of 500 ft 2 or less and a sample collected in each part (Ref. 19). 956

957 EPA requests comment on whether the provision for random clearance sampling 958 in multi-unit buildings in the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations at 40 CFR 959 745.227(e)(9) should be incorporated into th is regulation. This would permit random 960 testing of individual housing units after re novations affecting multiple individual housing 961 units in a multi-family dwelling with similarl y constructed and main tained residences. 962 Consistent with 40 CFR 745.227(e)(9), to take advantage of this provision, the certified 963

renovators and other trained persons who renovate or clean the individual housing units 964 would not know in advance which units would be selected for random testing. In 965 addition, the dust wipe testing would have to be performed by a certified inspector or 966

certified risk assessor and the number of resi dential units selected for dust wipe testing 967 would have to be sufficient to provide a 95 percent level of conf idence such that, if 968 clearance were required, no more than 5 percen t or 50 of the residential units (whichever 969 is smaller) in the randomly-sampled populatio n would exceed the applicable clearance 970

levels. This is the standard for random cl earance sampling after abatement projects and 971 this particular requirement is designed to allow certified inspectors and certified risk 972 assessors to use the training they have al ready received on random clearance sampling 973 after abatement projects to deci de which units to test afte r a renovation in a multi-family 974 dwelling. Although random dust wipe testing ha s the potential to reduce costs for a large 975 multi-unit renovation project, it may not be appropriate for this rule, given that an 976 important purpose for the proposed dust wipe testing requirements is the provision of 977 information to building owners and occupants. In addition, the current requirements for 978 dust sampling technician courses do not include random sampling, so dust sampling 979

technicians would not be able to select the units and locations for random dust wipe 980 testing. EPA requests comment on whethe r EPA should modify the dust sampling 981 technician course requirements to include random testing in multi-family buildings so 982 that dust sampling technicians w ould be able to do this alon g with certified inspectors and 98323

certified risk assessors. EP A also requests comment on whet her this could be done and 984 still allow the course to be taught within a single 8-hour day. 985

986 Dust wipe testing results would have to be provided by an entity accredited or 987 recognized under the NLLAP. EPA establis hed the NLLAP in accordance with TSCA 988 section 405(b) to assure the public that analytical labor atories recognized by the EPA 989 have demonstrated that they are capable of accurately analyzing for lead in paint chip, 990 dust, and soil samples. In January 2008, the Agency announced in the Federal Register 991 changes to NLLAP that expand the opportunity to participate in the NLLAP to all lead 992 testing service providers. (73 FR 3967 Janua ry 23, 2008) These providers include: 993

994 • Fixed-site operations that perform analyt ical lead testing at a permanent location 995 under controlled environmental conditions; 996

997 • Mobile facilities, or transportable, self-contained operations that can perform 998 analytical lead testing under controlled envir onmental conditions; and 999

1000 • Field sampling and measurement organi zations (FSMOs), or operations that 1001 perform on-site sampling and lead testing using portable testing technologies. 1002

1003 Portable testing technologies that might be employed by FSMOs, once accredited or 1004 recognized, include devices such as an x -ray fluorescence (XRF) machine, an anodic 1005 stripping voltametry (ASV) m achine, or any other portable technology that has been 1006 shown to accurately and verifiably measure lead content in dust, pain t chip, or soil. EPA 1007 believes these NLLAP changes remove barriers and provide a process so that all types of 1008 lead testing service providers may participat e in the NLLAP. This can make the NLLAP 1009

more efficient and cost-effective while mainta ining the high standard of quality, science 1010 and technology for those who purchase analyt ical services related to lead hazard 1011 identification and control. The ability for portable dust testing technologies to become 1012 accredited under NLLAP is particularly re levant to this rulemaking, because EPA 1013 believes that this will make dust wipe te sting less expensive and time-consuming. 1014

1015 EPA requests comment on additional t echnologies that may be available for 1016 sampling or testing for lead in dust. EPA is seeking information on what technologies are 1017 available, along with information on the res earch or evaluations that may have been 1018 conducted on these technologies. EPA is also in terested in research or other information 1019 on technologies that show promise for commercial development. 1020

1021 Persons performing visual inspections, co llecting dust wipe samp les, or analyzing 1022 dust wipe samples would not be required to be third parties independent of the firm 1023 performing the renovation. This is consiste nt with the final RRP rule and EPA’s 1024 abatement regulations. EPA has historically not required independe nt third parties to 1025 perform testing for two reasons. The first is the cost savings and convenience of being 1026 able to hire just one firm to perform all ne cessary lead-based paint activities. The second 1027 is the potential regional scarcity of firms to perform the work. As discussed in the 1028 preamble to the final RRP rule, these considerati ons are also likely to be applicable to the 102924

renovation sector (Ref. 1, at 21711). EPA does recommend, however, that the renovation 1030 firm comply with the HUD’s prohibition ag ainst the same person performing both the 1031 renovation activity and the clearance proce ss. (See 24 CFR 35.1340(f)). EPA requests 1032 comment on whether EPA should impose the sa me prohibition or a similar prohibition 1033 with perhaps an exception for single person firms. 1034

1035 Under this proposal, dust wipe testin g would be performed after cleaning 1036 verification, not instead of it. Cleaning veri fication is useful because it combines fine 1037 cleaning properties with feed-b ack to the certified renovator on the effectiveness of the 1038 post-renovation cleaning process. As discussed in the preamble to the final RRP rule, the 1039 Dust Study demonstrated that cleaning verifi cation is quite often needed to minimize 1040 exposure to dust-lead hazards created during renovations (Ref. 1, at 21744). In 4 of the 1041 10 experiments performed in accordance with the final RRP rule requirements for 1042 containment, cleaning, and cleaning verifi cation, the average pos t-cleaning floor dust 1043

lead levels were above the clearance sta ndards. In those experiments, cleaning 1044 verification was needed to reduce average dus t lead levels below the standards. In 1045 addition, dust wipe testing only tests part of the surface, and, as discussed above, leaded 1046 dust may not be distributed uniformly over the entire surface. In contrast, cleaning 1047 verification provides feedback on cleaning effectiveness over the entire surface so 1048 variability in distribution presents fewer chal lenges. EPA remains concerned that if dust 1049 wipe testing were allowed instead of cl eaning verification, without an accompanying 1050 requirement that the renovation firm re-clean until clearance is achieved, the RRP rule 1051 would actually be less protective because the su rfaces in the work area could be left less 1052 clean than if cleaning verification were perf ormed. Accordingly, dust wipe testing would 1053 be performed after cleaning verification ha s been performed in accordance with the 1054 existing protocol. After the dust wipe samp les have been collected, the renovation would 1055 be considered complete, the warning signs c ould be removed, and the work area could be 1056 re-occupied. Re-occupancy would not have to wait until the results of the testing were 1057

available. 1058

1059 However, because re-occupancy can o ccur immediately after the dust wipe 1060 samples are collected, it is important to ensure that the results of th e dust wipe testing be 1061 communicated to owners and occupants as soon as practicable. Accordingly, this 1062 proposal requires the certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or ce rtified dust sampling 1063 technician to prepare a dust wipe testing report and provide it to the renovation firm 1064 within 3 days of the date that the results are obtained. If the dust wi pe testing results are 1065 to be determined by a fixed-site laboratory, the samples would have to be sent to the 1066 laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. The dust wipe testing 1067 report would include the name and signature of each certified person collecting the 1068 samples or performing the testing, the name and address of each certified firm employing 1069 the person(s) conducting the sampling or tes ting, the start and completion dates of the 1070 renovation, a brief written desc ription of the renovation, th e results of the visual 1071 inspection, a detailed written description of th e specific sampling or testing locations or a 1072 detailed drawing that clearly identifies the lo cation of each sample or test, the name of the 1073 NLLAP-recognized entity analyzing the results, the results of each sample or test, and the 1074 clearance standard that is applicable to each sample or test. EP A does not expect long, 107525

involved narrative descriptions in these reports. The results of the visual inspection could 1076 be as simple as “no dust, debris, or residue was visible in the work area,” while the brief 1077 written description of the renovation could be as simple as “replaced all of the windows 1078 in the upstairs bedrooms.” However, the re port should be organized and presented in 1079 such a way that the recipients of the re port will be able to easily understand the 1080 information presented. The report must be a single document, with clearly-identifiable 1081 attachments, such as analytical reports from NLLAP laboratories, wh ere appropriate. If a 1082 significant number of tests ar e involved, the certified indivi dual preparing the report 1083 should incorporate an executive summary presenting the ove rall results, with particular 1084

attention to those results that exceeded the applicable clearance standards. 1085

1086 The renovation firm would be required to provide this report to the owner of 1087 renovated target housing or child-occupied faci lities within 3 days of the date that the 1088 renovation firm receives the report. The renova tion firm would also have to provide the 1089 report within 3 days of receipt to the occupa nts of individual housing units that have been 1090 renovated, if the housing units are not owner-occ upied. Similarly, the report would have 1091 to be provided within 3 days to the proprietor of renovate d child-occupied facilities if 1092 they are not operated by the building owner. If the renovation firm has chosen to notify 1093 each individual housing unit affected by a re novation in a common area of target housing, 1094 or each parent or guardian of a child under age 6 using a renovated child-occupied 1095 facility, the renovation firm would also have to provide these persons with the dust wipe 1096 testing report within 3 days of the date th at the renovation firm receives the report. In 1097

cases where the renovation firm has chosen to post signs to notify tenants affected by 1098 common area renovations, or parents and guardia ns of children under age 6 using a child1099 occupied facility, the renovati on firm would have to provide the dust wipe testing report 1100 upon request. EPA requests comment on whether the renovation firm should be 1101 required to provide the dust wi pe testing report to the building owner and occupants with 1102 the final invoice or within 3 days of the date that the report is received, whichever is 1103

earlier. 1104

1105

1106

3. Clearance . For two types of renovations th at can create large amounts of 1107 difficult-to-clean dust, EPA remains concerned about the possibility th at dust lead levels 1108 remaining, even after cleaning verificati on, may substantially exceed the clearance 1109

standards. These are renovations that disturb paint using ma chines designed to remove 1110 paint through high speed operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasting, when 1111 equipped with HEPA exhaust controls and the demolition, or removal, through 1112 destructive means, of plaster and lath walls, ceilings or other building components. If 1113

renovation firms choose to utilize these methods , EPA is also proposing to require that 1114 renovation firms demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that they have met the clearance 1115

standards before the renovation wi ll be considered completed. 1116

1117 EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated that m achines that remove paint through high1118 speed operation, in the absence of high-efficien cy particulate air (HEPA) exhaust control, 1119

create enormous amounts of leaded dust that is particularly difficu lt to clean up. In the 1120 Dust Study, the geometric mean post-work fl oor dust lead levels after experiments 112126

involving power planing were 201,902 μg/ft 2 . That was the only type of power tool 1122 experiment done indoors during the Dust St udy. However, two additional high speed 1123 tool experiments were done on exteriors, pow er sanding and needle gun. In these cases, 1124 using the Dust Study results from the surface of the plastic containment required by the 1125 rule, the geometric mean post-work floor dust lead levels that could be expected from 1126 work done using these types of tools without HEPA exha ust control are 591,491 μg/ft 2 1127 for power sanding, and 195,372 μg/ft 2 for the needle gun. 1128

1129 In the Dust Study, the work practices requi red by the final RRP rule, containment, 1130 specialized cleaning, an d cleaning verification, were, in most cases, unable to reduce the 1131 dust lead levels remaining on the work area floors after power plan ing to anything close 1132 to the clearance standard of 40 μg/ft 2 . Accordingly, EPA banned the use of machines that 1133 remove lead-based paint through high speed operation without HEPA exhaust control. 1134

1135 EPA did not perform any experiments in the Dust Study with power tools 1136 equipped with HEPA exhaust control. Ho wever, EPA has subsequently reviewed 14 1137 published studies that examined the effec tiveness of HEPA exha ust control on power 1138 tools (Ref. 20). These 14 studies reported reductions in airborne dust levels ranging from 1139 70 to 99 percent. However, most studies (9) reported reductions in airborne dust levels 1140 between 90 and 95 percent. Applying a 90- 95 percent reduction to the post-work dust 1141 lead levels generated by the power tools in th e Dust Study results in dust-lead levels of 1142 20,190 μg/ft 2 to 10,095 μg/ft 2 for door planing, 59,149 μg/ft 2 to 29,575 μg/ft 2 for power 1143 sanding, and 19,537 μg/ft 2 to 9,769 μg/ft 2 for needle gun use. It is likely that the work 1144 practices required by the final RRP rule will be unable to re duce these levels to anything 1145 approximating the clearance level of 40 μg/ft 2 at the end of the job because of the 1146 quantity of the dust generated a nd the particular characteristic s of this dust that make it 1147 hard to clean up. 1148

1149 In addition, in order to achieve 90-95 percent effec tiveness, the HEPA exhaust 1150 control must be maintained properly and used correctly. Any lapse in either maintenance 1151 or use could result in much higher dust le ad levels remaining after a renovation. For 1152 example, when sanding a mantle, if the renova tion worker moves half of the sander off 1153 the edge of the mantle, the HEPA exhaus t control will not be operating at maximum 1154 collection efficiency. The same problem w ould occur any time that the entire sander is 1155 not in contact with the surface, such as when sanding a curved surface. 1156

1157 With respect to the demolition of plas ter, EPA did not perform any experiments 1158 involving that kind of renovation activity in the Dust Study. However, demolition of 1159 several different plaster walls was studied in the EFSS. The EFSS measured worker 1160 exposures by personal air monitoring, and es timated occupant exposures by dust wipe 1161 sampling. Dust wipe sampling in the E FSS was done from stainless steel dustfall 1162 collectors placed at various lo cations adjacent to and at varying distances from the 1163 activity. The estimated lead loading over a 6 ft 2 area resulting from the demolition of a 1164 plaster wall was 19,500 μg, the highest loading fo r any of the typical activities studied. 1165 However, according to the EFSS, no colle ctors were placed adjacent to demolition 1166 activities “due to the large amount of debris.” (Ref. 10, at 9-10) EPA was able to 116727

determine the functional relationship between settled dust and distance for the demolition 1168 activity, but the relations hip “does not take into account th e amount of lead that settles at 1169 a location directly adjacent to the activity. Si nce the settled dust samples associated with 1170

the demolition were all located at a distance fr om the activity space, the estimated 6-foot 1171 by 1-foot gradient lead loading in the de molition activity is interpreted as being the 1172 amount of lead found in the 6-foot by 1-foot re gion that was airborne in dust and smaller 1173 particles, rather than th e total amount of lead dist urbed.” (Ref. 10, at 9-10) 1174

1175 In the EFSS, EPA also reviewed data on plaster wall demolition available from 1176 OSHA (Ref. 10). The study monitored the de molition of interior plaster walls and 1177 ceilings in a home using hamme rs and claw-bars. This st udy involved only personal air 1178 monitoring, not settled dust sampling. The geometric mean worker exposure for the 1179 demolition activities studied by the EFSS was 107 μg/m 3 , while the geometric mean 1180 worker exposure for the OSHA study was 166 μg/m 3 . Because of the length of time 1181 involved in demolishing a plaster wall, both of these activities are likely to substantially 1182 exceed the OSHA permissible exposure limit of 50 μg/m 3 as an 8-hour time-weighted 1183

average. 1184

1185 These studies demonstrate that plaster wall demolition creates large amounts of 1186

lead-contaminated dust. EPA also believes that this dust is particularly difficult to clean 1187 up, because of the qualities of plaster and the way in whic h such demolition is typically 1188 done through destructive means such as sledge hammers. The dust created by this activity 1189 is likely to consist of very fi ne particles. EPA is concerne d that, like the dust produced 1190 by machines that remove pain t through high speed operation, th e large quantit ies of dust 1191 created by plaster wall demolition will overwhe lm the containment, specialized cleaning, 1192 and cleaning verification proce sses and result in renovation wo rk areas being re-occupied 1193 with lead-based paint ha zards created by the renova tion still in place. 1194

1195 Given these concerns, EPA is proposing to require renovation firms to follow a 1196 clearance process similar to that performed after abatemen t projects after renovations 1197 involving the disturbance of pa int using machines designed to remove paint through high 1198 speed operation or the demolition, or removal, through destructive means, of more than 6 1199

ft 2 of plaster and lath building component . After the cleani ng required by 745.85(a)(5) 1200 and the cleaning verification required by 745.85(b)(1 ), dust wipe testing would have to be 1201 performed in exactly the same way that it would be required af ter the renovations 1202

discussed in Unit III.A.2. of this preamble. If any of the test results exceed the regulatory 1203 clearance standards in 40 CFR 745.85(b)(4), the renovation firm would be required to re1204 clean the surfaces represented by those tests in accordance with 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5)(ii). 1205 Those surfaces would have to be re-tested, and the results compared to the clearance 1206

standards. 1207

1208 With respect to plaster removal, the clearance requirement would apply only to 1209 walls, ceilings constructed of plaster and lat h, not gypsum drywall finished with plaster. 1210 The experiments performed and reviewed in th e EFSS involved plaster and lath walls, not 1211 drywall. In this country, interior walls were commonly c onstructed of plaster and lath 1212 until the 1950’s, when drywall began to repl ace the lath and plaster construction method. 121328

Again, this clearance requirement would onl y apply to plaster removal done through 1214 destructive means, such as sledgehammers. 1215

1216 This proposal would not allow renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification 1217 step when they are required to perform cl earance. The Dust Study demonstrates that 1218 cleaning verification is an important part of the cleaning process. Of the 10 experiments 1219 completed in the Dust Study in accordance with the final RRP rule requirements, 4 1220 required the additional cleaning provided by cleaning verification to reach an average 1221 floor dust lead level below 40 μg/ft 2 (Ref. 14). The additional cleaning resulting from 1222 cleaning verification was particularly drama tic in the window replacement experiments, 1223

where the dust lead levels on the floor were cut nearly in half by cleaning verification. 1224 EPA is specifically requesting comment on cleaning verification requirements for 1225 surfaces that fail clearance due to high dust wipe test results. While the Dust Study 1226 shows that cleaning verification is a very effective cleaning method, EPA recognizes that 1227 there is a cost associated with multiple cleaning verification passes over a surface, 1228 particularly if the surface fails the wet di sposable cleaning clot h phase and must be 1229 allowed to dry for an hour before using a dr y electrostatic disposable cleaning cloth. 1230 Although not specifically studied, the Dust Study suggests that it would be highly 1231 unlikely for a surface that had been cleaned and had gone through the cleaning 1232 verification process to fail another round of cleaning verificati on. Sixty interior 1233 experiments were performed in the Dust Study; only 3 work room floors failed all rounds 1234 of cleaning verification. Tw o of those were performed using only baseline work 1235 practices, no containment or specialized cleaning, on a vinyl floor in poor condition that 1236 EPA’s contractor had difficulty pre-cleaning to below 40 μg/ft 2 before beginning the 1237 study. The third was on a tile floor in fair condition, with plastic containment but no 1238 specialized cleaning. In addition, of the 4 experiments in the Dust Study performed in 1239

accordance with the final RRP rule that need ed cleaning verification to reduce average 1240 floor dust lead levels below 40 μg/ft 2 , failed cleaning verificati on cloths were only seen 1241

in 1. The reductions in dust lead levels seen in the window replacement experiments 1242 occurred after only 1 pass with a wet disposable cleaning cloth. In light of these results, 1243 this proposal would require surfaces failing clear ance due to high dust wipe test results to 1244 be recleaned in accordance with the RRP rule, HEPA vacuuming followed by wet wiping 1245 or mopping, followed by one round of cleani ng verification using a wet disposable 1246 cleaning cloth. This cloth would not have to be compared to the cleaning verification 1247 card, the renovation firm could conduct a dditional dust wipe testing for clearance 1248 purposes on the surface as soon as it has dried. 1249

1250 EPA is also proposing to eliminate the existing provision thatallows renovation 1251 firms to perform clearance in lieu of cleaning verification when another Federal, State, or 1252 local law or regulation, or the contract between the re novation firm and the property 1253 owner, requires the renovation firm to use qua lified entities to perform dust wipe testing 1254 and requires the renovation firm to achieve cl earance. Because cleaning verification has 1255 been shown to be such an important part of the post-renovation cleaning process, and 1256 because that provision would be inconsistent with this proposal, EPA believes that it 1257 should be eliminated. Rather, this proposal would require cleani ng verification to be 1258 performed in the same way it would have to be performed after jobs involving demolition 125929

or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint using 1260 machines designed to remove pain t through high-speed operation. 1261

1262 The renovation would not be considered complete, and the warning signs would 1263 have to remain in place, until the renovati on firm can demonstrate through a dust wipe 1264 testing report that it has met the clearance st andards. The certified inspector, certified 1265 risk assessor, or certified dust sampling tec hnician performing the sampling or testing 1266 would be required to prepare a clearance repo rt. The clearance repo rt would include the 1267 start and completion dates of th e renovation; a brief written de scription of the renovation; 1268

the name and address of each certified firm employing each certifie d inspector, certified 1269 risk assessor, or certified dust sampling tec hnician performing the clearance procedures; 1270 the name and signature of each certified inspec tor, certified risk asse ssor, or certified dust 1271 sampling technician performing the clearance pr ocedures and the dates that the clearance 1272 procedures were performed; the results of the visual inspection; a detailed written 1273 description of the specific sampling or testing locations or a detailed drawing that clearly 1274 identifies the location of each sample or test; the results for each dust wipe sample or test; 1275 whether or not clearance was achieved; a nd the name of each recognized entity that 1276 conducted the analyses. As with the dust testing report, EPA does not expect long, 1277 involved narrative descriptions in these reports. The results of the visual inspection could 1278 be as simple as “no dust, debris, or residue was visible in the work area,” while the brief 1279 written description of the renovation could be as simple as “replaced all of the windows 1280 in the upstairs bedrooms.” However, the re port should be organized and presented in 1281 such a way that the recipients of the re port will be able to easily understand the 1282 information presented. The report must be a single document, with clearly-identifiable 1283 attachments, such as analytical reports from NLLAP laboratories, wh ere appropriate. If a 1284 significant number of tests ar e involved, the certified indivi dual preparing the report 1285 should incorporate an executive summary presenting the ove rall results, with particular 1286

attention to those results that exceeded the applicable clearance standards. 1287

1288 The certified inspector, certified ri sk assessor, or certified dust sampling 1289 technician would be required to provide a copy of this report to the renovation firm 1290 within 3 days of the date that the dust wipe testing results are obtained. If the dust wipe 1291 testing results are to be determined by a fixe d-site laboratory, the samples would have to 1292 be sent to the laboratory with in 1 business day of the date that they are collected. The 1293 renovation firm would be required to provide th is report to the owne r of renovated target 1294 housing or child-occupied facilities within 3 da ys of the date that the renovation firm 1295 receives the report. The renovation firm would also have to provide the report within 3 1296 days of receipt to the occupants of indivi dual housing units that have been renovated, if 1297 the housing units are not owner-occupied. Si milarly, the report would have to be 1298 provided within 3 days to the proprietor of re novated child-occupied f acilities if they are 1299 not operated by the building owner. If the renovation firm has chosen to notify each 1300 individual housing unit affect ed by a renovation in a common area of target housing, or 1301 each parent or guardian of a child under ag e 6 using a renovated ch ild-occupied facility, 1302 the renovation firm would also have to provi de these persons with the dust wipe testing 1303 report within 3 days of the date that the re novation firm receives the results. In cases 1304 where the renovation firm has chosen to post signs to notify tenants affected by common 130530

area renovations, or parents and guardians of children under age 6 us ing a child-occupied 1306 facility, the renovation firm would have to provide the dust wipe testing report when 1307 requested. 1308

1309 In most cases, renovation firms will be able to avoid using the work practices that 1310 would require clearance afterwards. Sanding or scrapi ng could be done by hand instead 1311 of by power tool. Many plaster removal jobs can be performed by using non-destructive 1312 means such as saws and pry-bars to remove sec tions of plaster and lath wall. At the same 1313 time, EPA also understands that renovation firms may encounter floors, windowsills, and 1314 window troughs that are in such poor condition that clearance may not be possible. As 1315 discussed previously, the HUD Guidelines recommend using a sealant on floors if 1316 necessary to achieve clearance (Ref. 15). The Guidelines suggest that, if any surface fails 1317 two clearance tests, the “property owner should consider additi onal hazard control 1318 measures and/or further sealing of the surface.” (Ref. 15, at 15-10) EPA’s own 1319 experience with the Dust Study confirms th at surface condition may be a problem, at 1320

least in some instances. Afte r several encounters with work room floors that could not be 1321 cleaned to the clearance standards in prepar ation for a new experiment, the Dust Study 1322 contractors began using a sealant before tes ting floors in preparation for beginning work 1323 (Ref. 21). When this occurred with window sills, the contractors used dust collection 1324 trays instead of the sill su rface for sampling. 1325

1326

Various studies have shown that dust lead levels on surfaces are directly 1327

correlated with the condition of the surface. Th at is, a surface, such as a floor, in poor 1328 condition tends to have higher dus t lead levels than a floor in fair to good condition. An 1329

evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Haza rd Control Grant Program found that the 1330 “effect of the condition of the wiped surface at clearance was significant in all analyses. 1331

The surfaces in better condition at clearance had lower clearance dust lead loadings and 1332 lower failure rates.” (Ref. 22, at 7-20) EP A’s Dust Study also found that floors in poor 1333 condition had higher dust lead levels acro ss the post-work, post -cleaning, and post1334 cleaning verification sampling stages than fl oors in better conditi on, although this could 1335 have been due to higher-intensity work (Ref. 14, at 6-14). EPA requests comment on 1336

whether this correlation should affect clearanc e or dust wipe testing requirements, and if, 1337 so, in what way. EPA is interested in sugge stions on how to address the fact that some 1338

floors will be more difficult to clean than others. 1339

1340 In particular, EPA has wrestled with th e issue of how to reconcile a clearance 1341 requirement when floors are in such poor condition that achieving clearance would 1342 require the renovation firm to expand the scope of the original job to include additional 1343

remedial action such as refinish ing the floor. In part, this s ituation raises the concern that 1344 renovation firms might be required to remediat e lead hazards that existed prior to the 1345

renovation. To address the situation where ach ieving lead levels be low the lead hazard 1346 standards would require expanding the scope of the renovation job, EPA is proposing an 1347 exception to the requirement to achieve clea rance. Specifically, EPA proposes to allow 1348 renovation firms to stop after the second failed cl earance test, regardless of the result, if 1349 the renovation firm did not agree to refinish th e surface that is failing clearance as part of 1350

the renovation contract. For ex ample, if a renovation firm is hired to remove plaster and 135131

lath wall sections that partially separate a living and dining room, and repaint the walls 1352 (including the windows) in both rooms, then the renovation firm would be required to 1353

ensure that the windowsills in the work area achieve clearance, no matter how many 1354

times the sills must be re-cleaned and re-tes ted. However, if the renovation firm was not 1355 hired to refinish the floor, the renovation firm would only have to re-clean and re-test the 1356

floor once if it failed clearance the first time , no matter what the second dust wipe testing 1357 result is. EPA believes that such a provisi on is necessary, given that renovation firms 1358 may encounter floors, windowsills, and window troughs that are in such poor condition 1359 that clearance may not be possible 1360

1361 EPA is also requesting comment on whet her renovation firms ought to be allowed 1362 to perform pre-renovation dust wipe testing on surfaces in the work area that are in poor 1363 condition to help demonstrate that they are not leaving behind dust-lead hazards that they 1364 created. In this option, the renovation firm would only have to demonstrate that, for 1365 surfaces in poor condition in the work area, the dust-lead levels on these surfaces (which 1366 could be windowsills and/or floors) after the renovation are no higher than 150 μg/ft 2 1367

This would ensure that renovation firms ar e not unduly held accountable for pre-existing 1368 lead-based paint hazards. EPA believes that 150 μg/ft 2 is an appropriate upper limit, 1369 given that EPA’s contractor was able to clean all of the floors encountered in the 1370 buildings used for the Dust Study to this level or below (Ref. 14). EPA requests 1371 comment on whether there is an appropriate alternate upper limit that should be 1372 considered and the available data to suppor t this alternat e limit. Any pre-renovation 1373 testing option would also incl ude a requirement to provide both the pre-renovation dust 1374 wipe testing report as well as the post-renovation report to the building owners and 1375

occupants. 1376

1377 EPA believes that window troughs are part icularly likely to harbor pre-existing 1378

dust lead levels at or above the clearance standa rds. They are also particularly likely to 1379 be difficult to clean. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on whether EPA should 1380

allow renovation firms to close windows in the work area and cover them with taped1381 down plastic or other impermeable material to avoid the requirement to ensure that the 1382 window troughs achieve clearance standards. EPA would still requir e renovation firms to 1383 test both the sills and troughs of closed a nd covered windows, and report the results to the 1384 building owners and occupants, but firms would only need to ensure th at the sills achieve 1385

the clearance standards. 1386

1387 EPA is also requesting comment on whethe r clearance should be required in other 1388 situations. In particular, EPA is interest ed in comment on whether clearance should be 1389 required after any of the ac tivities for which EPA is pr oposing a dust wipe testing 1390 requirement. EPA is also interested in co mment on whether clearan ce should be required 1391 in rental properties after renovations for which EPA is proposing a dust wipe testing 1392 requirement, especially if the renovation firm has been informed that the renovation is 1393 being performed to remedy a violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations or to 1394 comply with a federal, state, or local govern ment order, such as an order to correct 1395 building code violations. In this case, EP A is also interested in comment on whether 1396 EPA should require renovation firms to affi rmatively ask whether the work is being 139732

performed to remedy a violation or comply with an order, and whether renovation firms 1398 should provide this information to owners and occupants after th e renovation. Finally, 1399 EPA requests comment on whether dust wipe testing or clearance should be required in 1400 any other situations not discu ssed specifically in this proposa l, including situations where 1401 a surface has failed cleaning verification twice. 1402

1403 EPA is also seeking comment on whether there are other regu latory options for 1404 dust wipe testing or clearance that maximize the potential benefits by targeting those 1405 activities that are most likely to exceed the clearance stan dards. For example, should 1406

different size thresholds be used for some or all of the renovations affected by this 1407 proposal? As discussed, the proposed thresholds for dust wipe testing are taken from the 1408 Dust Study. Does the data from the Dust Study, or data from another source, support 1409 larger thresholds for some or all of these jobs? Another possible regulatory option would 1410 be to require clearance for renovations involvi ng the demolition of plaster or the use of 1411 high-speed machines designed to remove paint, or a larger set of renovation types, and 1412 not require dust wipe testing in the absen ce of a clearance requirement. EPA requests 1413 comment on these options and suggestions for other regulatory options that may be less 1414 burdensome but still justifiable based on the available data. 1415

1416 B. Test Kits for Lead in Paint 1417

1418

EPA has worked with test kit vendors to develop kits that can more accurately 1419 identify the presence of regulated lead-b ased paint. Through its Environmental 1420 Technology Verification (ETV) progr am, EPA is currently review ing five test kits that 1421 have been submitted by vendors. More information on this process can be found at 1422 http://www.epa.gov/lead/ pubs/testkit.htm#recognize

. 1423

1424 EPA is also proposing to give certifie d renovators another option for determining 1425 whether lead-based paint is present on com ponents to be affected by a renovation. This 1426 proposal would permit certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from 1427 components to be affected by a renovation instea d of using test kits to test the paint on 1428 the components. When utilizing this option, the certified renovator would be required to 1429 send the samples to a recognized NLLAP labor atory. Because renova tor training courses 1430 are already required to include training in how and where to use test kits, EPA believes 1431 that it would take very little additional time to also provide traini ng in how to collect a 1432 chip sample such that all paint layers are present and how to submit these samples to an 1433 NLLAP laboratory for analysis. Such an op tion would not make a certified renovator the 1434 equivalent of a certified lead-b ased paint inspector. Certif ied renovators would still have 1435 to test each affected component, they w ould not be permitted to exclude components 1436 based on similar painting histories or pe rform random paint sampling in multi-unit 1437 buildings. EPA is proposing to allow certifie d renovators to collect paint chip samples 1438 instead of using test kits in order to provi de maximum flexibility for certified renovators 1439

and renovation firms. 1440

1441 C. Training Provider Accreditation 1442

144333

Training providers who wish to provid e renovator, dust sampling technician, or 1444 lead-based paint activities training for Federa l certification purposes must apply for and 1445

receive accreditation from EP A. To become accredited, a provider must employ a 1446 training program manager as well as principa l instructor(s) who m eet certain education, 1447 training and work experience requirements. The training provider must indicate on its 1448 application for accreditation that the training program manager and principal instructor(s) 1449 meet these requirements; however, currently, no documentation ( e.g. , resumes) regarding 1450 the qualifications of these individuals must be submitted to EPA. The Agency believes it 1451 is important to review this information when determining whether to approve a training 1452 provider application. When EP A reviews applications for a ccreditation, it is common for 1453 the Agency to request this documentation from training providers in order to verify that 1454 the training program manager and principal inst ructor(s) have the proper qualifications. 1455 Requesting this information takes time and can delay the review of an application. 1456 Therefore, the Agency is proposing to require that traini ng providers submit 1457 documentation regarding the qualifications of the education, training and work 1458 experience of training managers and principal instructors wi th their applications for 1459

accreditation. 1460

1461 EPA is also proposing to clarify the role of principal instructors in teaching 1462 courses. The current regulation, at 40 CFR 745. 227(c)(3), states that principal instructors 1463 are responsible for the organization of their courses and oversight of the teaching of all 1464 course material. The regulations also define “principal instructor” as “the individual who 1465 has the primary responsibility for organi zing and teaching a particular course.” 1466 Nonetheless, the rule also allows training program managers to designate experts in a 1467 particular field (e.g., doctors or lawyers) as gue st instructors, on an as needed basis, to 1468 teach discrete portions of the course. EPA interprets these provisions to require a 1469 principal instructor to be present and pr imarily responsible for teaching the course, 1470 although guest instructors may be used to teach some portion(s) of the course. Principal 1471 instructors are also responsible for the quali ty of the instruction delivered by the guest 1472

instructors. To ensure that the regulation is clear on this point, EPA is proposing to 1473 amend 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3) to state that principa l instructor(s) are primarily responsible 1474 for teaching the course materials and must be present to provide instruction (or oversight 1475 of portions of the course taught by guest instru ctors) for the course for which he has been 1476 designated the principal instructor. 1477

1478 The final RRP rule included requirement s for amending the certification of a 1479

renovation firm. Firms must submit an amendm ent within 90 days of the date that a 1480 change occurs to information in its most recent application fo r certification or re1481 certification. Examples of amendments incl ude a change in the firm’s name without 1482 transfer of ownership, or a change of addre ss or other contact information. To amend its 1483 certification, a firm must submit an applic ation, noting on the form that it was submitted 1484 as an amendment. The firm must complete the sections of the a pplication pertaining to 1485 the new information, and sign and date the form. EPA has interpreted the training 1486 provider accreditation regulati ons to require accredited tr aining providers to submit 1487 amended applications whenever there is a change to the information provided in the 1488 training provider’s most recent application fo r accreditation or re-accreditation, including 148934

information regarding the training manager and any principal instructor(s) teaching 1490 courses offered by the training provider. However, the existi ng regulations do not 1491 specify a time limit for submitting an amendment. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 1492 require training providers to submit amendments within 90 days of the date a change 1493 occurs to information in each provider’s most recent application. If the training provider 1494 does not amend its most recent accreditation ap plication within the 90-day time period, it 1495 must stop providing training until the accredita tion application is amended. The Agency 1496 is also proposing to approve or disapprove amendments for a new training manager, any 1497 new or additional principal instructor(s), or any new permanent training location within 1498 30 days of the date EPA receives the amendment. This 30-day time period will give EPA 1499 sufficient time to check the qualifications of the training manager(s) or principal 1500 instructor(s) before the training manager be gins managing or the principal instructor 1501 begins teaching a course. This 30-day time period would also give EPA sufficient time to 1502 verify the suitability of a new permanent tr aining location by visi ting the location. The 1503 training provider would not be permitted to provide training under the new training 1504 manager or offer courses taught by any new prin cipal instructor(s) or at the new training 1505 location until EPA either approves the amendm ent or 30 days has pa ssed. Finally, this 1506 proposal would also clarify that no fee will be charged for accreditation application or 1507

certification amendments. 1508

1509 To become accredited, a training provider must submit a copy of its training 1510 course materials with it application for acc reditation for review by the Agency. If a 1511 training provider chooses to use the mode l course developed by EPA or a course 1512 approved by an authorized State or Indian Tr ibe, then it is not currently required to 1513 submit the course materials with its applica tion. Instead the trai ning provider indicates 1514 on its application that it will use the EPA m odel course or a course approved by an 1515

authorized State or Indian Tribe. Author ized States and Indian Tribes can have 1516 renovation or abatement programs that are significantly different from the EPA1517 administered program which would be reflecte d in their approved course materials. In 1518 these instances, a training course approved by the State or Indian Tribe may not be 1519 sufficient for the purposes of training some one on the requirements of the federal 1520 program. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to require training pr oviders who apply to 1521

EPA for accreditation and wish to use a course approved by an authorized State or Indian 1522

Tribe to submit the course materials for EP A review. This will give the Agency the 1523 opportunity to identify and addr ess any significant differences between the requirements 1524 of EPA and the authorized program that may appear in the course so the Agency can 1525 ensure that EPA-accredited training providers are using appropriate course materials. 1526 Training providers wishing to use the EPA model courses would not be required to 1527 submit those materials with their applications. 1528

As a matter of clarification, web-based training and other ty pes of alternative 1529 training delivery are permitted. In fact, EPA has developed a model on-line renovator 1530

course that could be used to deliver the classroom portion of the renovator course. While 1531 such alternative training delivery options ca nnot be used to deliver required hands-on 1532 training, EPA encourages training providers to make use of such options where 1533 appropriate to increase acce ss to training and make it more affordable. Web-based 1534 training courses are considered separate course s and a separate application fee is required 153535

for each. This is because EPA must review not only the content of the course, but the 1536 mechanics of the delivery of the course. 1537

1538

EPA’s model electronic tr aining courses contain certai n basic administration and 1539 delivery requirements. These include assign ing a unique identifier to each student, to 1540 allow the training provider to track student course progre ss and completion. In addition, 1541 there are knowledge checks for each chapter, which must be completed before the student 1542 can go on to the next chapter, and a final te st for the electronic learning portion which 1543 consists of at least 20 questions. Finally, st udents must be able to save or print an 1544 uneditable copy of a certificate showing comple tion of the electronic learning portion of 1545 the course. Under this proposal, these requireme nts would be explicitly incorporated into 1546 40 CFR 745.225 to ensure that all training prov iders wishing to use electronic learning 1547 for the classroom portions of lead-based pa int courses are aware of these requirements 1548 and plan their course development accordingl y. EPA requests comment on the specifics 1549 of these requirements, such as whether a co urse test of 20 questi ons is sufficient and 1550 whether a student should be required to score at least 80 percent on the course test in 1551 order to pass. EPA also requests comment on whether a final test for the electronic 1552 portion of the course is n ecessary, given that trainees must pass a hands-on skills 1553 assessment and the course test in order to receive a course completion certificate. EPA 1554 also requests comment on whether other re quirements should likewise be incorporated 1555 into the regulations. 1556

1557 EPA is requesting comment on whether tr aining providers s hould be allowed to 1558 provide a combined Abatement Worker/Re novator refresher course or a combined 1559 Abatement Supervisor/Renovator refresher co urse or both. After the RRP rule was 1560 promulgated, EPA received input from the regul ated community and ot hers that indicates 1561 that many abatement contractors are likely to al so become certified renovation firms. If 1562 this is the case, it would be advantageous for such firms to be able to send their 1563 employees to combined refreshers so that the employees would more readily be able to 1564 keep up their dual certifications. EPA request comment on the likelihood that this will be 1565 the case, and, if combined refreshers are desi rable, whether the diffe rent certification time 1566 periods for individual abatement certificat ion (3 years) and individual renovator 1567 certification (5 years) should be harmonized. 1568

1569 Finally, EPA is proposing to require trai ning providers to maintain renovator and 1570 dust sampling technician training records for a period of 5 years. Under the existing 1571 regulations, training providers must keep traini ng records for 3 years and 6 months. This 1572 length of time was chosen because of the length of individual certification periods for 1573 lead-based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 years and 6 months including 1574 interim certification. However, the renovator and dust sampling technician certification 1575 periods are 5 years, with no inte rim certification. Therefore, in order to ensure that the 1576 training records from the prev ious training course are ava ilable for certified renovators 1577 and dust sampling technicians taking refr esher courses, the recordkeeping period 1578 applicable to these disciplines would be increased to 5 years. 1579

1580
D. State, Territorial, and Tribal Program Authorization 158136

1582 Interested States, Territories, and Indi an Tribes may apply for, and receive 1583 authorization to, administer and enforce all of the elements of the RRP program. The 1584 regulations for the State and Tribal progr am requirements are found in Section 745.326. 1585 Under this proposed rule EPA is clarifying severa l parts of this section. First, the Agency 1586 is amending the regulations to make it clear th at State and Tribal programs do not need to 1587 include requirements for the accreditation of dust sampling te chnicians if they are going 1588 to require dust sampling to be performed by a certified inspector or risk assessor. 1589 Second, the Agency is proposing to amend the re gulations to reflect th at both individuals 1590

and firms must receive certif ication. Finally, EPA is pr oposing to require State and 1591 Tribal renovation programs to include pr ocedures and requirements for on-the-job 1592 training of renovation workers that do not receive accredited training. 1593

1594 Strong enforcement of the lead-based pa int regulations by au thorized State and 1595 Tribal programs is critical to ensuring the sa fety of the occupants of target housing and 1596 child occupied facilities unde rgoing lead abatement, renovatio n, repair or painting. The 1597 State and Tribal program authorization requirements at 40 CFR § 745.327 include 1598 provisions for approval of compliance and enfo rcement programs. Specifically, State and 1599 Tribal programs must have adequate complian ce monitoring and enforcement authorities. 1600 Section 745.327(b)(3)(ii) require s “[a]dministrative or civ il actions including penalty 1601 authority...” but the rule does not estab lish a minimum penalty level or other 1602 requirements for enforcement authorities comp arable to EPA authorities under TSCA. 1603 To remedy this, EPA is proposing that in order to be authorized, State or Tribal programs 1604 demonstrate that: (1) the State or Tribe be ab le to sue to obtain pe nalties, (2) civil and 1605 criminal penalties are assessable for each inst ance of violation, (3) if violations are 1606 continuous, the penalties are assessable up to the maximum amount for each day of 1607 violation, and (4) the burden of proof a nd degree of knowledge or intent of the 1608 respondent is no greater than it is for EPA under TSCA. EP A is also requesting comment 1609 on whether a minimum penalty level for civil and criminal fines ought to be established, 1610 and, if so, what the minimum level for each should be. States and Tribes may be 1611

authorized to administer a number of EPA programs, some of these programs have 1612 minimum penalty requirements for State and Tribal programs and some do not. For 1613 example, under the Clean Air Act implemen ting regulations at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3) and 1614 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1615 271.16(a)(3), State programs must have the author ity to assess civil and criminal fines of 1616 at least $10,000 per day per violation. Othe r programs have established lower minimum 1617 penalty requirements. The implementing re gulations for the Safe Drinking Water Act 1618 require State programs to have the authority to impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per 1619 day per violation on public water system s serving a population of more than 10,000 1620 individuals. Some EPA pr ograms have set no minimum penalty authority requirements 1621 for States and Tribes; these programs incl ude the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response 1622 Act program and the State pesticide applicat or certification program under the Federal 1623 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rode nticide Act. EPA is proposi ng that in order to become 1624 authorized, State and Tribal lead-based pa int programs must have minimum civil and 1625 criminal penalty authorities of at leas t $10,000 per violation per day. EPA requests 1626 comment on whether proposing minimum leve ls for the maximum civil penalty and 162737

criminal fine recoverable under a State or Tr ibal program is necessary to ensure that 1628 enforcement is adequate and, if so, whethe r $10,000 should be the minimum level. EPA 1629 also requests comment on whether such a minimum requirement would appropriately 1630 promote consistency across authorized State and Tribal programs. In addition, EPA is 1631 requesting comment on whether these minimu m levels should also be adjusted 1632 periodically to account for infl ation, as required for Federal penalties under Federal Civil 1633 Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the 1634 Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3701 note. One way of doing this 1635 would be to require State and Tribal programs to have minimu m civil penalty authority of 1636 40 percent of the Federal maximum penalty au thority under TSCA section 16, as adjusted 1637 for inflation, at the time the State or Tribe is authorized. However, this approach would 1638 result in different requirements for States and Tribes depending upon when they apply for 1639 authorization. Another way of accomplishing in flation adjustments would be to require 1640 State and Tribal authorized programs to have their own established mechanism for 1641 adjusting penalties to account for inflation. By requiring all authorized programs to make 1642 adjustments for inflation, this approach mi ght be more likely to promote enforcement 1643 consistency across programs. Also in the interests of promoting national enforcement 1644 consistency, EPA requests comment on what cr iteria States or Tribes should consider, 1645 such as the size of a respondent’s business, ability to remain in business, enforcement 1646 history, or risk posed by the respondent’s actio ns, in establishing or mitigating penalties. 1647

1648 E. Other Proposed Amendments to the Final RRP Rule 1649

1650

1. Containment. EPA is proposing to be more specific about the vertical 1651 containment requirements for exterior projec ts. Under this proposal, the rule would 1652 specifically state that vertical containment is required for exterior renovation projects that 1653 are covered by the rule and that affect painted surfaces within 10 feet of the property line. 1654 In such cases, vertical containment is nece ssary to ensure that adjacent buildings or 1655 properties are not contaminated by leaded dus t or debris generated by the renovation. 1656

The rule would also note that vertical containment may be required in other situations, 1657 such as windy conditions, to prevent contamin ation of other buildings, other areas of the 1658 property, or adjacent buildings or properties. Finally, to clarify what is meant by the term 1659 “containment,” this proposal would add a de finition of the term that is based on the 1660 definition of “Worksite preparation level” from the HUD Guidelines. The definition 1661

includes additional information on what constitutes vertical containment. 1662

1663

2. Prohibited or restricted practices

. EPA is proposing to clarify that the 1664 prohibitions and restrictions on work pr actices in 40 CFR 745 .85(a)(3), e.g., the 1665 prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painted surfaces, not just 1666 surfaces where the presence of lead-based pa int has been confirmed. The term “lead1667 based paint” was incorrectly and inadvertently used in this subsection, making it 1668

inconsistent with the rest of the RRP rule, which applies in the presence of known lead1669 based paint as well as paint that has not been tested for lead content. This proposal would 1670 replace the term “lead-based paint” with “pai nted surfaces” in this subsection. Of course, 1671 if the painted surface has been tested and found to be free of lead-based paint, the 1672 prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in the fina l RRP rule do not apply. In 167338

addition, EPA wishes to clarify that the restriction on the us e of machines that remove 1674 paint through high speed operation applies wh ere painted surfaces are being disturbed by 1675

such machines. The restriction is not limite d to situations where all of the paint is 1676 removed by such machines. Finally, EPA has received several requests for clarification 1677 on what is meant by HEPA exhaust control. In order to better express what is required 1678 when machines designed to remove paint th rough high speed operation are used, EPA is 1679 using terminology from the Occupational Safe ty and Health Administration’s Technical 1680 Manual (Ref. 23). The use of shrouded tools to remove lead-based paint is discussed in 1681 Chapter 3 of Section V, entitled “Control ling Lead Exposures in the Construction 1682 Industry: Engineering and Work Practice Controls.” Therefore, this proposal would 1683 amend 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, “The us e of machines designed to remove paint 1684 through high speed operation such as sa nding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, 1685 abrasive blasting, or sandblas ting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines 1686 are used shrouded and equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and 1687 debris at the point of generation.” 1688

1689

3. HEPA vacuums . EPA is proposing to clarify that vacuums qualifying as HEPA 1690 vacuums for the purposes of this rule must be operated and main tained in accordance 1691

with the manufacturer’s instruct ions in order to continue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. 1692 This includes following the manufacturer’s f ilter change interval recommendations. 1693 EPA would also like to clarify that the standard for HEPA filters, that they be capable of 1694 capturing particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency, means that the filters must 1695 have a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 17 or grea ter (Ref. 24). EPA 1696 recommends that renovation firms verify w ith the manufacturer that the particular 1697

vacuum that the renovation firm intends to us e, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been 1698 tested in accordance with an applicable test methods, such as ASTM F1471-09, 1699 “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Perf ormance of a High-Effi ciency Particulate 1700 Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to meet this standard (Ref. 25). 1701

1702

4. On-the-job training . EPA is proposing to clarif y that the RRP rule requires 1703

certified renovators to train other renovation workers in only the work practices required 1704 by the RRP rule that the workers will be usi ng in performing their assigned tasks. EPA 1705 did not intend to require trai ning in any other subjects, such as how to paint or how to 1706 connect pipes. Therefore, EPA is propos ing to amend 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4) to 1707 refer specifically to the work pract ice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a). 1708

1709

5. Grandfathering . Under the final RRP rule, individuals who successfully 1710 completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, and individuals who 1711 successfully completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model renovation training 1712 courses may take an accredited refresher renov ation training course in lieu of the initial 1713 renovation training to become a certified renova tor. In addition, individuals who have 1714 successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, 1715 but are not currently certified in the discip line, may take an accredited refresher dust 1716 sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to be come a certified dust 1717 sampling technician. EPA inadvertently did not address a time limit in the RRP rule for 1718 taking the initial course in lieu of the refr esher. Many of the commenters who addressed 171939

the issue of grandfathering contended that there should be restri ctions based on how 1720 much time elapsed since the training was take n. Further, under th e lead-based paint 1721 activities regulations at 745.226, EPA allowe d a similar grandfathering provision but 1722 only for a limited time. In today’s notice, EPA is proposing to set a limit on when an 1723 individual can take advantage of the grandf athering provision under the RRP rule. Under 1724 today’s proposal, renovators and dust sampli ng technicians who ta ke the appropriate 1725 prerequisite course before July 31, 2011, may take an accredited refresher training course 1726 in lieu of the initial training. This time frame is consistent with some of the time 1727 limitations suggested in comments on the RRP rule (Ref. 1 at 21724). 1728

1729

6. Refresher courses . Section 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that 1730 training programs must follow to become accr edited in order to provide instruction in 1731 lead-based paint courses. Minimum requireme nts for training curricu la are found in this 1732 section, which list course topics that must be included in the different training courses 1733 with an indication of the topics that re quire hands-on instruction. However, EPA 1734 inadvertently omitted indicating which course topics required hands-on training for the 1735 renovator and dust sampling technician disc iplines. Under this proposed rule, EPA 1736 identifies which topics in the renovator and dust sampling techni cian courses require 1737 hands-on training. For further clarification, EPA is proposin g to add a sentence to the 1738 regulations stating that all disciplines except project desi gner must include a hands-on 1739

component. 1740

1741

7. Dust sampling technicians . Individuals who successfully complete an 1742 accredited lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently 1743 certified in the discipline, may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician 1744 course in lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust sampling technician. 1745 Inspectors and risk assessors who are certified by EPA or an authorized state program are 1746 qualified to perform dust sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or 1747 abatements. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for a certified inspector or risk assessor 1748 to seek certification as a dust sampling tec hnician. The regulations promulgated in the 1749 RRP rule explained who is eligible to take the refresher dust sampli ng technician course 1750 in lieu of the initial training. However, th e regulations did not e xplicitly say that a 1751 certified inspector or risk assessor could pe rform dust sampling. In order to clarify the 1752 intent of the regulation, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 745.90(a)(3) to specifically 1753 state that a certified inspector or risk asse ssor may act as a dust sampling technician. 1754

1755

8. Trainee photographs . Accredited training progra ms are required to issue a 1756 course completion certificate for each person who passes a training c ourse. A variety of 1757 information is required to be on the certifi cate including the name of the course, the name 1758 and address of the student, and contact info rmation for the training program. Course 1759 certificates for renovators or dust sampling t echnicians must include a photograph of the 1760 student. Since publishing the RRP rule the Ag ency has been asked if there is a minimum 1761 size for the photograph. Currently, there are not size requirements or other specifications 1762 for the photograph on a course completion certifi cate. Nonetheless, EPA believes that it 1763 would be beneficial to have such requiremen ts to ensure that th e person in the photograph 1764 is recognizable. Thus, EPA is proposing to require that the photographs on course 176540

completion certificates be an accurate and reco gnizable image of the trainee and at least 1766 one square inch in size. 1767

1768

1769

9. Training requirements . As stated previous ly, Section 745.225 includes 1770 requirements and procedures that training pr ograms must follow to become accredited in 1771 order to provide instruction in renovator, dus t sampling technician, and lead-based paint 1772

activities courses. The final RRP rule amended Section 745.225 to cover persons who 1773 provide or wish to provid e renovator or dust sampling technician training for the 1774 purposes of the final RRP rule. There are some instances where the regulations do not 1775 specifically mention the renovator or dust sa mpling technician courses even though the 1776 regulations apply to those c ourses. For example, Secti on 745.225(c)(14) explains the 1777 requirements which a training provider must follow when submitting notification to EPA 1778 after the completion of a training. However, the conforming changes, i.e., to replace 1779 “lead-based paint activities courses” with “r enovator, dust sampling technician, and lead1780 based paint activities courses,” were not made to ever y subparagraph even though all the 1781 requirements of that section a pply to those courses. Cons equently, EPA is proposing to 1782 clarify that the requirement s in Section 745.225 apply to renovator and dust sampling 1783

technician courses in addition to lead-based paint activities courses. These changes do 1784 not alter the requirements but merely clarify them. 1785

1786

1787

IV. References 1788

1789 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA). Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 1790 Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL– 1791 8355–7). 1792

1793 2. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (October 2006). 1794

1795 3. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated W ith Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1796 Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-L ead Study (EPA 747-R-99-002, March 1999). 1797 4. U.S. Department of Health and Huma n Services (HHS), U.S. Public Health 1798 Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Cont rol and Prevention (CDC). Children with 1799

Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home Renovation and Remodeling Activities-- 1800 New York, 1993-1994. Morbidity and Mortal ity Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, 1801 January 3, 1997). 1802 5. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevat ed Blood Lead Levels Related to Home 1803 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities – New York St ate, 2006-2007. Morbidity and 1804 Mortality Weekly Report (58( 03); 55-58, January 30, 2009). 1805

1806 6. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte , Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. Kaufmann, 1807 and Jessica Leighton. ‘‘Is Home Renovation or Repair a Ri sk Factor for Exposure to 1808 Lead Among Children Residing in New York City?’’ Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin 1809 of the New York Academy of Medici ne. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005. 1810

181141

7. Jones, Robert L., David M. Ho ma, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, 1812 Kathleen L. Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, a nd Mary Jean Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead 1813 Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” 1814

Pediatrics: Official Journal of the Ameri can Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 1815 e376-385, March 2009. 1816

1817 8. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 1818 Register (61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996). 1819

1820 9. EPA. Lead; Identification of Da ngerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 1821 Register ( 66 FR 1206 , January 5, 2001). 1822

1823 10. EPA. Lead Exposure Associat ed With Renovation and Remodeling 1824 Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1825 1997). 1826

1827 11. EPA. Lead Exposure Associat ed With Renovation and Remodeling 1828 Activities: Phase II, Worker Characte rization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-96- 1829 006, May 1997). 1830

1831 12. EPA. Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 1832 Phase IV, Worker Characterization a nd Blood-Lead Study of R&R Workers Who 1833 Specialize in Renovation of Old or Histor ic Homes (EPA 747-R-99-001, March 1999). 1834

1835 13. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, a nd Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 1836 Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-8355-7). 1837

1838

14. EPA. Characterization of Dust L ead Levels After Renovation, Repair, And 1839 Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007). 1840

1841 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Guidelines for 1842

the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995). 1843

1844

16. EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing 1845 (September 2005). 1846

1847

17. Rx Solutions International/BTS Laboratories Inc. Comment on EPA’s 1848 Proposed Renovation, Remodeling, and Pa inting Program. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049- 1849 0483. May 22, 2006. 1850

1851 18. EPA. Residential Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust and Soil Sampling, 1852 March 1995 (EPA 747-R-95-001). 1853

1854

19. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Clearance Examinations 1855 Following Lead Hazard Reduction Activities in Single-Family Dwellings and Child1856 Occupied Facilities (E 2271-05a). 185742

1858 20. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. 2009. 1859

1860 21. Battelle Memorial Institute. Encaps ulation Treatment of Dust Study Floors. 1861 January 2010. 1862

1863

22. HUD. Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Bas ed Paint Hazard Control Grant 1864 Program: Final Report. May 1, 2004. 1865

1866 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration 1867 (OSHA). Technical Manual TED 01-00-015 [T ED 1-0.15A]. Revised June 24, 2008. 1868

1869 24. American Society of Heating, Refr igerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 1870 (ASHRAE). Standard 52.2-2007--Method of Te sting General Ventilation Air-Cleaning 1871 Devices for Removal Efficiency by Partic le Size (ANSI/ASHRAE Approved) 2007. 1872

1873

25. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of 1874 a High-Efficiency Particulat e Air-Filter System (F1471-09). 1875

1876 26. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis 1877 of the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation, 1878 Repair, and Painting Program for Target H ousing and Child-Occupied Facilities. April 1879

2010. 1880

1881 27. EPA. Proposed Clearance Rule I CR Addendum for the rulemaking entitled 1882 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Re quirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 1883 Painting Program; Proposed Rule. April 2010. 1884

1885 28. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Clearance and Clearance 1886 Testing Requirements for the Lead Renovati on, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed 1887 Rule. April 2010. 1888

1889 29. EPA. Report of the Small Busine ss Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead1890

based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. 1891 March 3, 2000. 1892

1893 30. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement; Lead; Clearance and 1894 Clearance Testing Requirements for th e Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 1895 Proposed Rule. April 2010. 1896

1897

31. ASTM International. Standard Pr actice for Collection of Settled Dust 1898 Samples Using Wipe Sampling Methods for S ubsequent Lead Determination (E1728-03). 1899

1900 32. ASTM International. Standard Speci fication for Wipe Sampling Materials for 1901 Lead in Surface Dust (E1792-03). 1902

190343

33. ASTM International. Standard Pr actice for Record Keeping and Record 1904 Preservation for Lead Hazard Activities (E2239-04). 1905

1906 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1907

A. Executive Order 12866 1908

1909 Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning 1910 and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically significant 1911 regulatory action” because EPA estimates th at it will have an annual effect on the 1912 economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to the Office 1913 of Management and Budget (OMB) for re view under Executive Order 12866 and any 1914 changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public 1915 docket for this rulemaking as required by sect ion 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 1916

1917 In addition, EPA has prepared an analys is of the potential costs and benefits 1918 associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the “Economic Analysis of 1919 the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation, 1920 Repair, and Painting Program for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities” 1921 (Economic Analysis, Ref. 26), which is ava ilable in the docket for this action and is 1922 briefly summarized here. 1923

1924

1. Options evaluated. The Economic Analysis analyzes several options. In 1925 addition to the proposed rule option, the Econom ic Analysis includes options with lower 1926 and higher thresholds (in terms of the am ount of lead-based paint disturbed) for 1927 renovations which require dust wi pe testing or clearance. In the proposed rule, the 1928 renovation events for which clearance is required (use of high speed machines to remove 1929 paint, and the demolition or destructive removal of plaster) have a threshold of 6 ft 2 of 1930 lead-based paint disturbed. The thresholds in the proposed rule for the renovation events 1931 that require the use of dust wipe testing w ithout necessarily achi eving clearance vary 1932

from 6 to 60 ft 2 , depending on the type of renovation (u se of a heat gun; scraping painted 1933 surfaces; removing trim, molding, cabinets, or ot her fixtures; etc.). In the low threshold 1934 option, the thresholds are 6 ft 2 for all of the affected renovations. In the high threshold 1935 option, the thresholds for the events where clearance is required are 60 ft 2 , while the 1936

thresholds for the renovations events that require the use of dust wipe testing without 1937 necessarily achieving clearance vary from 60 to 120 ft 2 , depending on the type of 1938 renovation. The Economic Analysis also incl udes three options that use the same 1939 threshold sizes as the proposed rule but apply different requirements to them. There is an 1940 option that requires dust wipe testing for all of the renovation events covered by the 1941 proposed rule without requiring clearance for any of them, as well as an option that 1942 requires clearance for all of these events. Fina lly, there is an option that applies to the 1943 same dust wipe testing and clearance events a nd thresholds as the pr oposed rule but that 1944 requires renovation firms to have the dust wipe sampling performed by an independent 1945 third party. 1946

1947

2. Number of facilities and renovations. There are approximately 18.7 million 1948 renovation events per year covered by EPA’ s renovation, repair, and painting program in 194944

the 78 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities. The number of 1950 renovations affected by this proposed rule depends on the option selected. The low 1951 threshold option affects an estimated 1.8 m illion dust wipe testing only events and 69,000 1952 clearance events per year. The proposed rule is estimated to affect 1.5 million dust wipe 1953 testing only events and 69,000 cl earance events a year. The high threshold option affects 1954 an estimated 1.2 million dust wipe testing onl y events and 58,000 clearance events per 1955 year. The remaining three options (only dust wipe testing is required for all renovations 1956 covered by the proposed rule, clearance is required for all renova tions covered by the 1957 proposed rule, and third-party dust wipe sampli ng is required for a ll renovations covered 1958 by the proposed rule) all a ffect an estimated 1.6 mill ion events per year. 1959

1960

3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health 1961

effects attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These 1962 health effects include impaired cognitive function in childr en and several illnesses in 1963 children and adults, such as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including 1964 increased blood pressure, increased inciden ce of hypertension, cardi ovascular morbidity 1965 and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 1966

1967 The proposed rule will generate benefits by providing greater assurance that dust1968 lead hazards created by renovations are ade quately cleaned up, primarily by requiring 1969 renovation firms to provide building owners a nd occupants with information on dust lead 1970 levels remaining in the work area after many renovation projects, but also by requiring 1971 renovation firms to demonstrate that they have achieved regulatory clearance levels after 1972 some of the dustiest renovations. These changes will protect individuals residing in 1973 target housing or attending a child-occupied facility where these renovation events are 1974 performed. It will also protect individuals who move into target housing after such a 1975 renovation is performed, or who visit a friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where such a 1976 renovation is performed. 1977

1978

EPA has estimated the number of indivi duals residing in target housing units or 1979 attending COFs where renovation events are pe rformed. The proposed rule will benefit 1980 809,000 children under the age of 6 and 7,547,000 i ndividuals age 6 a nd older (including 1981 96,000 pregnant women) per year by minimizing their exposure to lead dust generated by 1982 renovations. The low threshold option would protect 882,000 children under the age of 6 1983 and 8,193,000 individuals age 6 and older, in cluding 105,000 pregnant women. The high 1984 threshold option protects 706,000 children and 6,590,000 individuals age 6 and older, 1985 including 83,000 pregnant women. The remain ing three alternative options (dust wipe 1986 testing only, clearance only, and third party dust wipe tes ting) would affect the same 1987 number of individuals as the proposed ru le, although the amount of protection provided 1988 to some of those individuals may differ from the proposed rule. 1989

1990

4. Costs. Firms performing the renovation even ts covered by the proposed rule 1991 will incur costs associated with having a third party perform dust wipe sampling and 1992 testing (or with having a firm staff member tr ained as a dust sampling technician so that 1993 they can take their own dust wipe samples and send them to a lab). For jobs subject to 1994 the clearance requirements in the proposed rule, firms may in cur re-cleaning costs if dust 199545

wipe testing after clean-up yields results that exceed the clearance standards. Firms will 1996 also incur small costs to provide the dust wipe testing results to ow ners and occupants of 1997 the target housing units and child-occupied facilitie s where the renovations are 1998 performed. 1999

2000 EPA’s updated estimate is that the averag e cost for a renovation firm to hire a 2001 third-party lead evaluation firm to take four dust samples, send them to a lab for analysis, 2002 and provide a short report is slightly over $260. Howeve r, many renovation firms may 2003

find it more cost effective to have a staff me mber trained and certified as a dust sampling 2004 technician rather than hiring a th ird party to take the samples. 2005

2006

Renovation firms would incur the same dust wipe testing costs for renovations 2007 where achieving clearance is required. If dust levels exceed the clear ance standards after 2008 cleaning verification, the renovation firm will incur additional costs for re-cleaning the 2009 work area up to two times. These re-cleani ng costs vary from job to job, depending on 2010 the size of the space that must be cleaned. 2011

2012 Annualized costs for the rule options ar e calculated using both a 3% and a 7% 2013

discount rate. Total annualized costs for the proposed rule are $272 million per year 2014 using a 3% discount rate and $293 million per y ear using a 7% discount rate. Under the 2015 low threshold option, costs are $312 million per year with a 3% discount rate and $336 2016 million per year with a 7% rate. Under the high threshold option, costs are $224 million 2017 per year with a 3% discount rate and $242 milli on per year with a 7% discount rate. The 2018 option that only requires dust wipe testing costs $268 million per year with a 3% discount 2019 rate and $288 million per year with a 7% discount rate. The option requiring clearance 2020 for all renovations covered by the proposed rule costs $367 million with a 3% discount 2021
rate and $394 million with a 7% discount rate . The option requiring the use of a third 2022 party for dust wipe sampling costs $431 million per year with a 3% discount rate and 2023 $459 million per year with a 7% discount rate. 2024

2025 B. Paperwork Reduction Act 2026

2027 The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have 2028 been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 2029 Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . EPA has prepared an Information 2030 Collection Request (ICR) document to ame nd an existing approved ICR. The ICR 2031 document, referred to as the Proposed Clear ance Rule ICR Adde ndum and identified 2032

under EPA ICR No. 1715.12 and OMB Control Number 2070-0155, has been placed in 2033 the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 27). The information collection requirements are 2034 not enforceable until OMB approves them. 2035

2036

Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial resources 2037 expended by persons to generate, maintain, reta in, disclose, or provide information to or 2038 for a Federal agency. This includes the tim e needed to review instructions; develop, 2039 acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 2040 validating, and verifying information, pro cessing and maintaining information, and 204146

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 2042 previously applicable instruc tions and requirements; train pe rsonnel to be able to respond 2043 to a collection of information; search data s ources; complete and re view the collection of 2044 information; and transmit or othe rwise disclose the information. 2045

2046

The information collection activities cont ained in this proposed rule are designed 2047 to assist the Agency in meeting the core objectives of TSCA section 402. EPA has 2048 carefully tailored the recordkeeping require ments so they will permit the Agency to 2049 achieve statutory objectives without impos ing an undue burden on those firms that 2050

choose to be involved in renovati on, repair, and painting activities. 2051

2052 This proposed rule requires renovation firms to provide owners and occupants 2053 with a report includ ing the results of the dust wipe testing. Although firms have the 2054 option of choosing to engage in the covered activ ities, once a firm chooses to do so, the 2055 information collection activities become mandatory for that firm. The rule may result in 2056

an increase in the number of individuals b ecoming trained as dust sampling technicians, 2057 resulting in additional paperwork requirements for training providers. 2058

2059 The ICR document provides a detailed pr esentation of the estimated paperwork 2060 burden and costs resulting from this proposed rule. The burden to firms engaged in 2061 renovation, repair, and painting activities and to training providers ar e summarized in this 2062

unit. 2063

2064 The requirement for renovation firms to pr ovide a dust wipe te sting report for the 2065 renovations covered by the rule will impact about 224,000 firms. The additional burden 2066 for these firms arising from the proposed rule is estimated to average slightly more than 2067 13 hours per firm annually, resulting in a total burden of approximately 2,861,000 hours 2068 per year for these firms. 2069

2070 Many certified renovators may become tr ained and certified as dust sampling 2071 technicians so that they can take their own dust wipe samples and send them to a lab for 2072 analysis. This will increase the paperwork bur den for training providers, since they must 2073 submit records to EPA (or an authorizing Stat e, Tribe, or Territory ) pertaining to each 2074 student attending a training course to become a dust sampling technician. Around 170 2075 training providers are estimated to incur an av erage burden of about 82 hours, resulting in 2076 an increase of approximately 14,000 hours per year in training provider burden as a result 2077 of the proposed rule. 2078

2079 Total respondent burden for renovation fi rms and training providers is estimated 2080 to average approximately 2.9 million hours per year during the 3 year period covered by 2081

the ICR. 2082

2083 The proposed rule may also result in a dditional government costs to administer 2084 the program (to process the a dditional training provider notifi cations and to administer 2085 and enforce the program). States, Tribes, and Territories are allowed, but are under no 2086 obligation, to apply for and receive authorizat ion to administer these requirements. EPA 208747

will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, and Territories that do not become 2088 authorized. Because the number of States, Tribes, and Territories that will become 2089 authorized is not known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA will 2090 administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other govern ment entities become 2091 authorized, EPA’s administrati ve costs will be lower. 2092

2093 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to 2094 a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 2095 OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations co dified in chapter 40 of the CFR, after 2096 appearing in the preamble of the final rule , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed 2097 either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on 2098 the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by 2099 OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal 2100 Register to display the OMB control number fo r the approved information collection 2101 requirements contained in the final rule. 2102

2103 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the 2104 provided burden estimates, and any sugge sted methods for minimizing respondent 2105 burden, EPA has established a docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, 2106 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. Submit any comments related to 2107

the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. 2108

Send comments to OMB at the Office of Info rmation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 2109 Management and Budget, 725 17th St, N.W ., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 2110 Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 2111 30 and 60 days after [ insert date of publication in the Federal Register ], a comment to 2112 OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ Insert date 30 days 2113 after publication in the Federal Register ]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or 2114 public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposed 2115

rule. 2116

2117 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 2118

2119 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq , generally requires an 2120 agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 2121 comment rulemaking requirements under the Ad ministrative Procedure Act or any other 2122 statute unless the agency certi fies that the rule will not have a significant economic 2123 impact on a substantial number of small entitie s. Small entities include small businesses, 2124 small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 2125

2126 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, 2127 small entity is defined in accordance with section 601 of the RFA as: 2128

2129 (1) A small business as defined by th e Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 2130 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 2131

213248

(2) A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 2133 school district, or spec ial district with a popul ation of less than 50,000. 2134

2135 (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 2136 independently owned and operated a nd is not dominant in its field. 2137

2138 As required by section 603 of the RFA, EPA has prepared an initial regulatory 2139 flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule . The IRFA is availa ble for review in the 2140 docket and is summarized in this unit (Ref. 28). 2141

2142

1 . Reasons why action by the Agency is being considered. The Agency believes it 2143 is in the best interest of the public to require dust wipe tes ting for many types of 2144 renovations (and to require renovation firms to achieve clearance for certain types of 2145 renovations). EPA expects two kinds of bene fits to flow from the proposed dust wipe 2146 testing requirements. The first are the direct benefits of the info rmation to the owners 2147 and occupants, the pure value of the inform ation on dust lead levels remaining in the 2148 renovation work area. For building owners and occupants, this information is likely to 2149 improve their understanding and awareness of du st-lead hazards. It will also greatly 2150 improve their ability to make further risk management decisions, especially in light of 2151 mounting evidence suggesting that the current dust-lead hazard standards are too high. 2152 This information is particular ly critical where dust lead le vels approach or exceed the 2153 regulatory hazard standards. The other benefi ts that EPA expects to flow from a dust 2154 wipe testing requirement are th e benefits that may result from changed behavior on the 2155 part of renovation firms. EPA believes that dust wipe testing result s will also provide 2156

valuable feedback to renovation firms on how well they are cleaning up after renovations. 2157 It is likely that the specific dust lead levels contained in dust wipe testing results will 2158 increase renovation firm cleaning efficienc y. Renovation firms will be incentivized to 2159 lower the dust lead levels remaining after renovat ion jobs, even if the levels are at or near 2160 the regulatory standards. Fo r two types of renovations that can create large amounts of 2161 difficult-to-clean dust, EPA remains concerned about the possibility th at dust lead levels 2162 remaining, even after cleaning verificati on, may substantially exceed the clearance 2163

standards. If renovation firms choose to utilize these methods, the firms would be 2164 required to demonstrate, through dust wipe te sting, that they have met the clearance 2165

standards before the renovation will be considered completed. 2166

2167

2. Legal basis and objectives for this proposed rule. These work practice 2168 requirements for dust wipe testing and cleara nce, training, certifi cation and accreditation 2169 requirements, and State, Territorial and Tribal authorization provisions are being 2170 promulgated under the authority of TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2171 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. A central objective of this proposed rule is to provide 2172 greater assurance that dust-lead hazards cr eated by renovations are adequately cleaned 2173 up, primarily by requiring renovation firms to provide building owners and occupants 2174

with information on dust lead levels remaining in the wo rk area after many renovation 2175 projects, but also by requiring renovation firm s to demonstrate that they have achieved 2176 regulatory clearance levels after so me of the dustiest renovations. 2177

217849

3. Potentially affected small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 2179 small organizations, and small governmental ju risdictions. The small entities that are 2180 potentially directly regulated by this proposed rule includ e: small businesses (such as 2181 renovation contractors and prope rty owners and managers); small nonprofits (certain 2182 childcare centers and private schools); a nd small governments (school districts which 2183 operate pre-schools, kindergartens a nd certain child care centers). 2184

2185 In determining the number of small busin esses affected by the proposed rule, the 2186 Agency applied U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA’s definition of small business. 2187 However, applying the U.S. Economic Ce nsus data requires either under or 2188 overestimating the number of small businesse s affected by the proposed rule. For 2189 example, for many construction establishments, the SBA defines small businesses as 2190 having revenues of less than $14 million. With respect to those establishments, the U.S. 2191 Economic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10 million or more 2192 into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data for the en tire industry would 2193

overestimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule and would 2194 defeat the purpose of estimating impacts on sm all business. It would also underestimate 2195 the proposed rule’s impact on small businesse s because the impacts would be calculated 2196 using the revenues of large businesses in add ition to small businesses. On the other hand, 2197 applying the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket would underest imate the number of 2198 small businesses affected by the proposed rule while at the same time overestimating the 2199 impacts. Similar issues arose in estimating the fraction of property owners and managers 2200

that are small businesses. EPA has conc luded that a substantial number of small 2201 businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen to be more 2202 conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, 2203

revenue bracket for which U.S. Economic Census data is available. For other sectors 2204 (nonprofits operating childcare cen ters or private schools), EPA assumed that all affected 2205 firms are small, which may overestimate th e number of small entit ies affected by the 2206 proposed rule. 2207

2208 The vast majority of enti ties in the industries affected by this proposed rule are 2209 small. Using EPA’s estimates, these revi sions to the renovation, repair, and painting 2210 program will affect over 203,000 small entities per year. 2211

2212

4. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA evaluated two factors in its 2213 analysis of the proposed rule’s requirements on small entities, the number of firms that 2214 would experience the impact, and the size of the impact. Average annual compliance 2215 costs as a percentage of average annual revenues were used to assess the potential 2216 average impacts of the rule on small businesse s and small governments. This ratio is a 2217 good measure of entities’ abi lity to afford the costs attributable to a regulatory 2218 requirement, because comparing compliance co sts to revenues provides a reasonable 2219 indication of the magnitude of the regulato ry burden relative to a commonly available 2220 measure of economic activity. Where regulat ory costs represent a small fraction of a 2221 typical entity’s revenues, the financial imp acts of the regulation on such entities may be 2222 considered as not significant. For non-pr ofit organizations, impacts were measured by 2223 comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, 222450

however, revenue information was used as a proxy for expenditures. It is appropriate to 2225 calculate the impact ratios using annualiz ed costs, because these costs are more 2226 representative of the continuing costs entities face to comply with the proposed rule. 2227

2228 The cost of the proposed rule to a typi cal small business averages approximately 2229 $1,200 per year. This represents 0.4% to 1.1% of revenues depending on the industry 2230 sector. Overall, an estimated 203,000 small renovation contractors would be affected by 2231 the proposed rule, with average impacts of 0.5% of revenues. Approximately 100 small 2232 governments per year would incur a cost of a bout $800, resulting in an average impact of 2233 less than 0.01%. And around 200 small non-profits per year would incur a cost of about 2234 $600, resulting in an impact of approximately 0.1%. 2235

2236

Some of the small renovation contractors su bject to the rule have employees while 2237 others are non-employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer jobs than firms 2238 with employees, and thus have lower work practice compliance costs. However, they 2239 also have lower average revenues than en tities with employees, so their impacts 2240 (measured as costs divided by revenues) can be higher. Impact estimates for non2241 employers should be interpreted with caution, as some non-employers may have 2242 significant issues related to understatement of income, which would tend to exaggerate 2243 the average impact ratio for this class of small entities. There are 151,000 non-employer 2244

renovation contractors estimated to be affected by the proposed rule. The average cost to 2245 these contractors is estimated to be approxi mately $700 apiece. This represents 0.7% to 2246 2.6% of reported revenues, dependi ng on the industry sector. 2247

2248

5. Relevant Federal rules. The requirements in this pr oposed rule will fit within 2249 an existing framework of other Federal regul ations that address lead-based paint. 2250 Notably, the Pre-Renovation Education Ru le, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovation firms 2251

to distribute a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants before 2252 conducting a renovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. This proposed 2253 rule’s requirement that renovation firms provi de owners and occupants with dust wipe 2254 testing and clearance reports complement s the existing pre-renovation education 2255 requirements. 2256

2257

6. Skills needed for compliance. Under the lead renovati on, repair, and painting 2258 program requirements, renovators and dust sampling technicians working in target 2259 housing and child-occupied faciliti es have to take courses to learn the proper techniques 2260 for accomplishing the tasks (including dust samp ling, preparing a report with the results, 2261 and performing specialized cleaning) they will perform during renovations. These 2262 courses are intended to provide them with th e information they would need to comply 2263 with the rule based on the skills they alrea dy have. Other renovation workers that have 2264 not been formally trained and certified must receive training on the work practices they 2265 will be using in performing their assigned ta sks from a certified renova tor, and a certified 2266 renovator must regularly direct work bei ng performed by other renovation workers to 2267 ensure that the work practices are being follo wed, including maintaining the integrity of 2268 the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work 2269

area. 227051

2271

7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. EPA has been concerned with 2272 potential small entity impacts since the earlie st stages of planning for the RRP program 2273 under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA. EPA conducted outre ach to small entities and, 2274 pursuant to section 609 of the RFA, convene d a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 2275 (the Panel) in 1999 to obtain advice and r ecommendations of representatives of the 2276 regulated small entities. EPA identified ei ght key elements of a potential renovation and 2277 remodeling regulation for the Panel’s consider ation. These elements were: applicability 2278 and scope, firm certification, individual training and certification, accreditation of 2279 training courses, work practice standards, pr ohibited practices, exte rior clearance, and 2280

interior clearance. 2281

2282

Details on the Panel and its recommenda tions are provided in the Panel Report 2283 (Ref. 29). Information on how EPA implemen ted the Panel’s recommendations in the 2284 development of the RRP program is available in Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the 2006 2285 proposed rule (Ref. 13) and in Unit V.C. of the preamble to the 2008 final rule (Ref. 1). 2286

EPA believes that the conclusions it made in 2008 regarding these recommendations are 2287 applicable to this proposal. Indeed, EPA has considered input from the 1999 Panel 2288 process in this rule precisely because it is so closely related that EPA considers it an 2289 extension of the 2008 RRP rulemaking. (See 5 U.S.C. § 605(c)) 2290

2291

8. Alternatives considered . EPA considered alternatives to this proposed rule that 2292 could affect the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. These 2293 alternatives would have applied to both sma ll and large entities, but given the number of 2294 small entities in the affected industries, thes e alternatives would pr imarily affect small 2295

entities. For the reasons described in this unit, EPA believes these alternatives are not 2296 consistent with the objectives of the rule. 2297

2298

i. Higher thresholds . EPA considered an option under which the size thresholds 2299 for determining whether renovation jobs woul d need to perform dust wipe testing or 2300

achieve clearance would be hi gher than those in the proposed rule. By reducing the 2301 number of renovations where dust wipe testi ng or clearance are re quired, this option 2302

would reduce the costs of the rule and thus th e estimated small entity impacts. However, 2303 higher thresholds would result in more jobs where occupants do not have information on 2304 the dust lead levels they are exposed to, or where they are exposed to dust lead levels 2305

above the hazard standard. EPA believes that the proposed rule provides the best balance 2306

between the benefits of the ru le (the value of information from dust wipe testing and the 2307 benefits of reduced exposure to lead dust from achieving clearance) compared to the 2308 costs (and resulting small business impacts) of dust wipe testing, re-cleaning, and the 2309 other requirements of the proposed rule. Th erefore, EPA believes that an option with 2310 higher thresholds is not consistent with th e stated objectives of the proposed rule. 2311

2312

ii. Dust Testing Only . EPA considered an option th at would require dust wipe 2313 testing but not clearance for any of these re novation events. EPA remains concerned that 2314 renovations that disturb paint using machin es designed to remove lead-based paint 2315 through high speed operation (such as power sa nders or abrasive blasting) can create 231652

large amounts of difficult-to-cl ean dust, creating the possibility that dust lead levels may 2317 substantially exceed the clearan ce standards even after cleaning verification. The same is 2318 true for the demolition or removal through dest ructive means of plaster and lath walls, 2319 ceilings or other building components with l ead-based paint. Therefore, EPA believes 2320 that this option is not consis tent with the stated object ives of the proposed rule. 2321

2322 As required by section 212 of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 2323 Act (SBREFA), P.L. 104-121, EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide (the Guide) 2324 in December 2008 to help small entities comp ly with the RRP rule. The Guide is 2325

available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National 2326 Lead Information Center by calling 1(800) 424-LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech2327 challenged individuals may access this num ber through TTY by calling the toll-free 2328 Federal Relay Service at 800- 877-8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessary, to 2329 reflect this rulemaking activity. 2330

2331 EPA invites comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impact on small 2332

entities. 2333

2334 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 2335

2336

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Re form Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531- 2337 1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwis e prohibited by law, to assess the effects 2338 of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governme nts and the private sector. 2339

This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 2340 more by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by 2341 State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared 2342

under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is summarized below. 2343

Consistent with section 205 of the UMRA , EPA has identified and considered a 2344 reasonable number of regulatory altern atives, also summarized below. 2345

2346

2347

1. Authorizing legislation. This proposed rule is i ssued under the authority of 2348 TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 4 07 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687). 2349

2350

2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits 2351 associated with this proposed rule, a copy of which is available in the docket for this 2352 proposed rule (Ref. 26). The Economic Analysis presents the costs of this proposed rule 2353 as well as various regulatory options and is summarized in Unit V.A. EPA has estimated 2354 the total annualized costs of this propos ed rule are $272 million per year using a 3% 2355 discount rate and $293 million per y ear using a 7% discount rate. 2356

2357 The benefits of the proposed rule resu lt from the prevention of adverse health 2358

effects attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These 2359 health effects include impaired cognitive function in childr en and several illnesses in 2360 children and adults, such as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including 236153

increased blood pressure, increased inciden ce of hypertension, cardi ovascular morbidity 2362 and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 2363

2364

3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input from State, 2365 local and Tribal government representati ves throughout the development of the 2366 renovation, repair, and painting pr ogram. EPA’s experience in administering the existing 2367 lead-based paint activities program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that these 2368 governments will play a critical role in th e successful implementation of a national 2369 program to reduce exposures to lead-based paint hazards associated with renovation, 2370 repair, and painting activities. Consequen tly, as discussed in Unit III.C.2. of the 2371 preamble to the 2006 proposed rule (Ref. 13), the Agency has met w ith State, local, and 2372 Tribal government officials on numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 2373

2374

4. Least burdensome option. EPA has considered a wide variety of options for 2375 addressing the risks presented by renovation activ ities where lead-based paint is present. 2376 As part of the development of the ren ovation, repair, and painting program, EPA 2377 considered different options for the scope of the proposed rule, vari ous combinations of 2378 training and certification requi rements for individuals who perform renovations, various 2379 combinations of work practice requirements , and various methods for ensuring that no 2380 lead-based paint hazards are left behi nd by persons performing renovations. The 2381 Economic Analysis for this proposed rule analyzed several additional options for the 2382 scope of the work practices re quired, in terms of the size th reshold and whether dust wipe 2383 testing or clearance is requi red. As described in Unit V.C., EPA has preliminarily 2384 concluded that the options for reducing the sc ope would result in an unacceptable number 2385 of jobs where occupants do not have informa tion on the dust lead levels they are exposed 2386 to, or where they are exposed to dust l ead levels above the hazard standard. 2387

2388 Currently, EPA believes that the preferre d option is the leas t burdensome option 2389 available that achieves a central objective of this proposed rule, which is to provide 2390 greater assurance that dust-lead hazards cr eated by renovations are adequately cleaned 2391 up, primarily by requiring renovation firms to provide building owners and occupants 2392

with information on dust lead levels remaining in the wo rk area after many renovation 2393 projects, but also by requiring renovation firm s to demonstrate that they have achieved 2394 regulatory clearance levels after so me of the dustiest renovations. 2395

2396

2397 This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 2398 contains no regulatory require ments that might significantly or uniquely affect small 2399 governments. Based on the definition of “sma ll government jurisdiction” in RFA section 2400 601, 5 U.S.C. 601, no State governments can be c onsidered small. Small Territorial or 2401 Tribal governments may apply fo r authorization to administer and enforce this program, 2402 which would entail costs, but these small ju risdictions are under no obligation to do so. 2403 Small governments operate schools that are child-occupied facilities. If these 2404 governments perform renovations in these facilities, they ma y incur additional costs to 2405 perform dust wipe testing or achieve clearance, and to pr ovide residents, parents or 2406 guardians with copies of the report documenting the dust wipe testing results. EPA 240754

generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, in the 2408 aggregate, of more than 1% of small governme nt revenues in any 1 y ear. As explained in 2409 Unit V.C.4., the proposed rule is expected to result in small government impacts well 2410

under 1% of revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect 2411 small governments. Nor does the rule uni quely affect small governments, as the 2412 proposed rule is not targeted at small gove rnments, does not primarily affect small 2413 governments, and does not impose a different burden on small governments than on other 2414 entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 2415

2416

E. Executive Order 13132 2417

2418 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, enti tled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 2419 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have “federalism 2420 implications,” because it will not have subs tantial direct effects on the States, on the 2421 relationship between the nati onal government and the States, or on the distribution of 2422 power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in 2423 Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed 2424 rule. States are able to apply for, and r eceive authorization to administer the lead 2425 renovation, repair, and painting program requi rements, but are under no obligation to do 2426

so. In the absence of a State authoriza tion, EPA will administer the requirements. 2427 Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, and consistent with 2428 EPA policy to promote communications be tween the Agency and State and local 2429 governments, EPA consulted with representa tives of State and local governments in 2430 developing the renovation, repair, and painti ng program. These consultations were 2431 described in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 13). 2432

2433

F. Executive Order 13175 2434

2435 This action does not have tribal implicati ons, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 2436 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not 2437 have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 2438 governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 2439 or on the distribution of power and responsib ilities between the Federal government and 2440 Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to apply for and receive 2441

authorization to administer the lead renovation, repair, a nd painting program on Tribal 2442 lands, but Tribes are under no obligation to do so. In the absence of a Tribal 2443 authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. While Tribes may operate public 2444 housing or child-occupied fac ilities covered by the rule su ch as kindergartens, pre2445 kindergartens, and daycare facili ties, EPA has determined that this rule would not have 2446

substantial direct effects on the Tribal governments that operate these facilities. 2447

2448 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not appl y to this proposed rule. Although 2449 Executive Order 13175 does not apply, EPA consu lted with Tribal officials and others by 2450 discussing potential renovation regulatory options for the re novation, repair, and painting 2451 program at several national lead program m eetings hosted by EPA and other interested 245255

Federal agencies. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action 2453

from tribal officials. 2454

2455

G. Executive Order 13045 2456

2457 This action is subject to Executive Or der 13045, entitled “Protection of Children 2458

from Environmental Health Risks and Sa fety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 2459 because it is an “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive 2460 Order 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action 2461 may have a disproportionate effect on children. 2462

2463 A central purpose of this proposed rule is to provide greate r assurance that dust2464 lead hazards created by renovations are ade quately cleaned up, primarily by requiring 2465 renovation firms to provide building owners a nd occupants with information on dust lead 2466 levels remaining in the work area after many renovation projects, but also by requiring 2467 renovation firms to demonstrate that they have achieved regulatory clearance levels after 2468

some of the dustiest renovations. In the abse nce of this regulation, owners and occupants 2469

would not have information on the dust lead levels remaining following these renovation 2470 events, and dust lead levels may substantiall y exceed the clearance standards for certain 2471 renovations that can create large am ounts of difficult-to-clean dust. 2472

2473 The proposed rule will protect children who reside in housing units or attend 2474 child-occupied facilities wher e such renovations occur; who visit a friend, relative, or 2475 caregiver’s house where such renovations are performed; or who move into such housing 2476 when their family purchases it after such a renovation has been performed. 2477

2478

H. Executive Order 13211 2479

2480 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive 2481 Order 13211, entitled “Actions concerning Regul ations that Signifi cantly Affect Energy 2482 Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, Ma y 22, 2001) because it is not likely to 2483 have any adverse effect on the s upply, distribution, or use of energy. 2484

2485 I. National Technology Transfe r and Advancement Act of 1995 2486

2487 Section 12(d) of the Na tional Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 2488 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use 2489 voluntary consensus standards in its regulat ory activities unless to do so would be 2490 inconsistent with applicable law or otherwis e impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 2491 are technical standards (e.g., materials specifi cations, test methods, sampling procedures, 2492 and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 2493

bodies. The NTTAA directs EP A to provide Congress, th rough OMB, explanations 2494 when the Agency decides not to use avai lable and applicable voluntary consensus 2495

standards. 2496

249756

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes to use the 2498 government-unique technical sta ndards described in Unit III of this preamble. EPA has 2499 identified several potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards developed by 2500 ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing a nd Materials) that 2501 address dust wipe sampling, recordkeeping, a nd clearance procedures. These standards 2502

are: “Standard Practice for Collection of Settled Dust Samples Using Wipe Sampling 2503 Methods for Subsequent Lead Determina tion,” “Standard Specification for Wipe 2504 Sampling Materials for Lead in Surface Dust ,” “Standard Practice for Record Keeping 2505

and Record Preservation for Lead Hazard Activities,” and “Standard Practice for 2506 Clearance Examinations Following Lead H azard Reduction Activities in Single-Family 2507 Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities” (R efs. 31, 32, 33, 19). Each of these ASTM 2508 documents represents state-of-the-art know ledge regarding the performance of these 2509 particular aspects of lead-based paint h azard evaluation and control practices and EPA 2510

recommends the use of these documents wh ere appropriate. EP A believes that the 2511 proposed amendments to the RRP rule as well as EPA’s model training courses for lead2512 based paint inspectors, risk assessors, and dus t sampling technicians are consistent with 2513 these ASTM standards. However, because each of these documents is extremely 2514 detailed and encompasses many circumstances beyond the scope of this rulemaking, EPA 2515 determined that it would be impractical to incorporate these voluntary consensus 2516

standards into the rule. 2517

2518 In addition, EPA has identified a pote ntially-applicable vol untary consensus 2519 standard developed by ASTM International for evaluating the performance of HEPA 2520 filtration systems, the “Standard Test Me thod for Air Cleaning Performance of a High2521 Efficiency Particulate Air- Filter System ” (Ref. 25). EPA does recommend that 2522

renovation firms in the market for a HEPA vacuum verify that the filter has been tested in 2523

accordance with the ASTM standard or an e quivalent test method. However, EPA has 2524 determined that it would be impractical to in corporate this test method into the rule. 2525

2526 EPA welcomes comments on this asp ect of the proposed rulemaking and, 2527 specifically, invites the public to identif y potentially-applicable voluntary consensus 2528 standards and to explain why such standa rds should be used in this regulation. 2529

2530

Executive Order 12898 2531

2532 Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 2533 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-In come Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 2534 1994) establishes federal executive policy on en vironmental justice. Its main provision 2535 directs Federal agencies, to the greatest exte nt practicable and permitted by law, to make 2536 environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 2537 disproportionately high and a dverse human health or environmental effects of their 2538 programs, policies, and activ ities on minority populations an d low-income populations in 2539

the United States. 2540

2541 EPA has determined that Agency has determined that this proposed rule will not 2542 have disproportionately high and adverse hum an health or environmental effects on 254357

minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 2544 protection for all affected populations wit hout having any disproportionately high and 2545

adverse human health or environmental eff ects on any population, including any minority 2546 or low-income population

. EPA has assessed the potential impact of this proposed rule 2547 on minority and low-income populations. The re sults of this assessm ent are presented in 2548 the Economic Analysis, which is available in th e docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 26). 2549

2550

2551

2552 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 2553

2554 Environmental protection, Child-occupi ed facility, Housing renovation, Lead, 2555 Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporti ng and recordkeeping requirements. 2556

2557 Dated: ________ 2558

2559

________________ 2560

2561

Administrator 2562

2563 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: 2564

1. The authority citation for part 745 would continue to read as follows: 2565

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d 2566

2567 2. Section 745.82 would be amended by adding a new paragraph 745.82(a)(3). 2568

§ 745.82 Applicability

. 2569

2570 (a) * * * 2571

(3) Renovations in target hous ing or child-occupied facili ties in which a certified 2572 renovator has collected a paint chip sample from each painted component affected by the 2573 renovation and a laboratory recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of TSCA as 2574 being capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in paint chip samples has 2575 determined that the samples are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead 2576 equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm 2 or 0.5% by weight. If the components make up an 2577 integrated whole, such as the individual stai r treads and risers of a single staircase, the 2578 renovator is required to test only one of the individual comp onents, unless the individual 2579 components appear to have been repa inted or refinished separately. 2580

3. Section 745.83 would be amended by adding a new definition as follows: 2581

§ 745.82 Definitions

. 2582

2583

* * * 258458

Containment means a set of measures designe d to protect residents and the 2585 environment from leaded dust, paint chips, or other forms of lead contamination created 2586 by renovations through the erection of barriers and warning signs and the establishment 2587 of access control, modifications to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and 2588 other strategies. Vertical containment, re quired for some exterior renovations, is a 2589

vertical barrier consis ting of plastic sheeting over scaffo lding or a wood or metal frame, 2590 or an equivalent system. 2591

2592

* * * 2593

4. Section 745.85 would be amended as follows: 2594

a. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D) would be revised. 2595

b. Paragraph (a)(3) would be revised. 2596

c. Paragraph 745.85(b) would be rede signated as 745.85(c), paragraph 745.85(c) 2597 would be deleted, and paragraph 745.85(d) would be redesignated as 745.85(e). 2598

d. A new paragraph 745.85(b) would be added. 2599

e. Newly-redesignated paragraph 74 5.85(c)(1)(i) would be revised. 2600

f. A new paragraph 745.85(d) would be added. 2601

g. Newly-redesignated paragraph 745.85(e) would be revised. 2602

§ 745.85 Work practice standards. 2603

2604 (a) * * * 2605

(2) * * * 2606

(ii) * * * 2607

(D) If the renovation will a ffect surfaces within 10 f eet of the property line, the 2608

renovation firm must erect vertical containmen t to ensure that dust and debris from the 2609 renovation does not contaminate adjacent buildin gs or migrate to adjacent properties. 2610 Vertical containment may also be necessary in other situations, such as in windy 2611 conditions, in order to prevent contaminati on of other buildings, other areas of the 2612 property, or adjacent buildings or properties. 2613

(3) Prohibited and restricted practices . The work practices listed below are 2614 prohibited or restricted during a renovation as follows: 2615

(i) Open-flame burning or torching of painted surfaces is prohibited. 261659

(ii) The use of machines designed to remove paint through high speed operation 2617 such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, 2618 is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines are shrouded and equipped with a 2619

HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust a nd debris at the point of generation. 2620

(iii) Operating a heat gun on painted su rfaces is permitted only at temperatures 2621 below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 2622

(4) * * * * * 2623

(b) Clearance . (1) Mandatory clearance . Clearance is require d after renovations 2624 involving the demolition, or removal through destructive means, of more than 6 ft 2 of 2625 plaster and lath building compone nt, or the disturbance of pa int using machines designed 2626 to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as sanding, grinding, power planning, 2627 needle gun, abrasive blasting or sandblasting. When clearanc e is required, the following 2628 clearance procedures must be performed: 2629

2630 (i) A certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 2631 technician must perform a visual inspection to determine whether dust, debris or residue 2632 is still present in the renovation work area. If dust, debris or residue is present, these 2633

conditions must be removed by re-cleaning and another vi sual inspection must be 2634 performed. 2635

2636 (ii) A certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 2637 technician must collect dust wipe sample s in accordance with EPA’s “Residential 2638 Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust a nd Soil Sampling, EPA-747-R-95-001” or an 2639 equivalent protocol that inco rporates adequate quality cont rol procedures. Samples must 2640 be collected in the following locations: 2641

2642 (A) If there is more than 1 room, hallwa y, or stairwell within the work area, the 2643 following samples must be collected: 2644

2645 ( 1 ) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample 2646 within each room, hallway, or stairwell in th e work area. If there are more than four 2647 rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the work area, only four rooms, hallways, or 2648 stairwells must be sampled. 2649

2650 ( 2 ) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 2651

cleaned. 2652

2653 (B) If the work area is a single room , hallway, stairwell, or smaller area, the 2654 following samples must be collected: 2655

2656 ( 1 ) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample. 2657

2658 ( 2 ) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 2659

cleaned. 266060

2661 (C) No window sill or trough samples must be collected if there are no windows 2662

in the work area. 2663

2664 (iii) Dust wipe samples must be an alyzed by a laboratory or other entity 2665 recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act as 2666 being capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in dust samples. If a fixed-site 2667 laboratory is to be used, the dust wipe sample s must be mailed or otherwise transmitted to 2668 the laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. 2669

2670 (iv) A certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 2671 technician must compare the residual lead level reported by the EPA-recognized 2672 laboratory for each dust sample or test with the applicable clearance level. If the residual 2673 lead level in a particular dus t sample or test equals or exceeds the applicable clearance 2674 level, the components represente d by the failed sample or test shall be re-cleaned and re2675 tested. The applicable clearance levels are: 2676

2677 (A) 40 μg/ft 2 for floors. 2678

2679 (B) 250 μg/ft 2 for interior window sills. 2680

2681 (C) 400 μg/ft 2 for window troughs. 2682

2683 (v) For surfaces in poor cond ition that the renovation fi rm did not specifically 2684 agree to refinish in the re novation contract, the renovation fi rm may stop re-cleaning and 2685 re-testing after the second failed dust wi pe test on that surface. 2686

2687

2688 (vi) The certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 2689 technician performing the clearance proce dures must prepare a clearance report and 2690 provide it to the renovation firm within 3 days of the date that the final dust wipe testing 2691 results are obtained. The report must be a single document, with attachments, and must 2692 include the following information: 2693

2694 (A) Start and completion dates of the renovation. 2695

2696 (B) A brief written descri ption of the renovation. 2697

2698 (C) The name and address of the certified firm employing the certified inspector, 2699 certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling technician performing the clearance 2700 procedures. 2701

2702 (D) The name and signature of each certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or 2703 certified dust sampling technician performing clearance procedures and the date(s) that 2704 clearance procedures were performed. 2705

270661

(E) The results of the visual inspection. 2707

2708 (F) A detailed written description of the specific sampling or testing locations or a 2709 detailed drawing that clearly identifies the location of each sample or test. 2710

2711 (G) The results for each dust wipe sample or test, whether or not clearance was 2712 achieved, and the name of each recognized labor atory or other entity that conducted the 2713 analyses. 2714

2715 (2) Optional clearance. Renovation firms that choose to comply with all of the 2716 requirements of this paragraph (745.85(b)) ne ed not comply with the requirements of 2717 paragraphs 745.85 (d). 2718

2719 (c) * * * 2720

2721 (d) Dust wipe testing . (1) Dust wipe testing must be performed after all 2722 renovations involving: 2723

2724 (i) Use of a heat gun at temperat ures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 2725

2726 (ii) Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 2727

2728 (iii) Scraping 60 ft2 or more of painted surfaces. 2729

2730 (iv) Removing more than 40 ft2 of trim , molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 2731

2732 (2) After cleaning verification has been performed in accordance with 40 CFR 2733 745.85(c), a certified inspector , certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 2734 technician must collect dust wipe sample s in accordance with EPA’s “Residential 2735 Sampling for Lead: Protocols for Dust a nd Soil Sampling, EPA-747-R-95-001” or an 2736 equivalent protocol that inco rporates adequate quality cont rol procedures. Samples must 2737 be collected in the following locations: 2738

2739 (i) If there is more than 1 room, hallway, or stairwell within the work area, the 2740 following samples must be collected: 2741

2742 (A) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample 2743 within each room, hallway, or stairwell in th e work area. If there are more than four 2744 rooms, hallways, or stairwells within the work area, only four rooms, hallways, or 2745 stairwells must be sampled. 2746

2747 (B) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 2748

cleaned. 2749

2750 (ii) If the work area is a single room, hallway, stairwell, or smaller area, the 2751 following samples must be collected: 275262

2753 (A) One windowsill sample, one window trough sample, and one floor sample. 2754

2755 (B) One floor sample adjacent to the work area, but not in an area that has been 2756

cleaned. 2757

2758 (iii) No window sill or trough samples mu st be collected if there are no windows 2759

in the work area. 2760

2761 (3) Dust wipe samples must be analy zed by a laboratory or other entity 2762 recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act as 2763 being capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in dust samples. If a fixed-site 2764 laboratory is to be used, the dust wipe sample s must be mailed or otherwise transmitted to 2765 the laboratory within 1 business day of the date that they are collected. 2766

2767 (4) The certified inspector, certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling 2768 technician performing the dust wipe testing mu st prepare a dust wi pe testing report and 2769 provide it to the renovation firm within 3 days of the date that the dust wipe testing 2770 results are obtained. The report must be a single document, with attachments, and must 2771 include the following information: 2772

2773 (i) Start and completion dates of the renovation. 2774

2775 (ii) A brief written desc ription of the renovation. 2776

2777 (iii) The name and address of the certif ied firm employing the certified inspector, 2778 certified risk assessor, or certified dust sampling technician performing the dust wipe 2779 testing. 2780

2781 (iv) The name and signature of each certifi ed inspector, certified risk assessor, or 2782 certified dust sampling technician performing sampling or testing and the date(s) that 2783 samples were collected or testing performed. 2784

2785 (v) The results of the visual inspection. 2786

2787 (vi) A detailed written description of the specific sampling or testing locations or 2788 a detailed drawing that clearly identifies the location of each sample or test. 2789

2790 (vii) The results for each dust wipe test and the name of each recognized 2791 laboratory or other entity th at conducted the analyses. 2792

2793 (viii) The clearance standard from Sec. 745.85(b)(1)(iv) that is applicable to each 2794 dust wipe test. 2795

2796 (e) Activities conducted after post-renovation clearance, dust wipe testing, or 2797 cleaning verification . Activities that do not disturb paint, such as applying paint to walls 279863

that have already been prepared, are not re gulated by this subpart if they are conducted 2799 after post-renovation clearance, dust wipe te sting, or cleaning ve rification has been 2800 performed. 2801

2802 3. Section 745.86 would be amended by re vising paragraph 745.86(d) to read as 2803

follows: 2804

§ 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 2805

2806

* * * * * 2807

(d) If clearance or dust wipe testing is performed in accordance with Sec. 745.85, 2808 the renovation firm must provide, within 3 da ys of the date the renovation firm receives 2809 the report, a copy of the clearan ce or dust wipe testing report to: 2810

2811 (i) The owner of the building; and, if different, 2812

2813 (ii) An adult occupant of the resident ial dwelling, if the renovation took place 2814

within a residential dw elling, or an adult representative of the child-occupi ed facility, if 2815 the renovation took place within a child-occupied facility. 2816

2817

4. Section 745.90 would be amended as follows: 2818

a. By revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 2819

2820 b. By revising paragr aphs (b)(2) and (b)(4). 2821

2822 c. By revising paragraph (b)(8). 2823

2824
§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sa mpling technician certification. 2825

2826 (a) * * * 2827

2828 (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker 2829 or supervisor course, or individuals who successfully completed an EPA, HUD, or 2830

EPA/HUD model renovation trai ning course may take an accredited refresher renovator 2831 training course before April 22, 2011 in lieu of the initial renovato r training course to 2832

become a certified renovator. 2833

2834 (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint 2835 inspector or risk assessor course may ta ke an accredited refresher dust sampling 2836 technician course before April 22, 2011 in lieu of the initial training to become a certified 2837 dust sampling technician. Individuals who ar e currently certified as lead-based paint 2838 inspectors or risk assessors may act as dus t sampling technicians w ithout further training. 2839

2840

* * * 284164

(b) * * * 2842

(2) Must provide training to worker s on the work practices required by § 2843 745.85(a) that they will be using in performing their assigned tasks. 2844

* * * 2845

(4) Must regularly direct work being perf ormed by other individuals to ensure that 2846 the work practices required by § 745.85(a) ar e being followed, includ ing maintaining the 2847 integrity of the containment barriers and en suring that dust or debris does not spread 2848 beyond the work area. 2849

* * * 2850

(8) Must prepare the records re quired by Sec. 745.86(b)(1) and (6). 2851

2852

* * * * * 2853

5. Section 745.92 would be amended by a dding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 2854

follows: 2855

§ 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician 2856 training and the certification of renovation firms

. 2857

(b) * * * 2858

(3) No fee will be charged for accred itation or certification amendments. 2859

6. Section 745.225 would be amended by revising it to read as follows: 2860

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied 2861

facilities. 2862

2863 (a) Scope . (1) A training program may seek acc reditation to offer courses in any 2864 of the following disciplines: Inspector, ri sk assessor, supervisor, project designer, 2865 abatement worker, renovator, and dust sampli ng technician. A training program may also 2866

seek accreditation to offer refresher course s for each of the above listed disciplines. 2867

2868 (2) Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their lead-based 2869 paint activities courses or refresher courses pursuant to this secti on on or after August 31, 2870 1998. Training programs may first apply to EP A for accreditation of their renovator or 2871 dust sampling technician courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after 2872 April 22, 2009. 2873

2874 (3) A training program must not prov ide, offer, or claim to provide EPA2875 accredited lead-based paint activities cour ses without applying for and receiving 2876 accreditation from EPA as required under paragra ph (b) of this section on or after March 2877 1, 1999. A training program must not provide, o ffer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited 287865

renovator or dust sampling technician courses without applying for and receiving 2879 accreditation from EPA as required under paragra ph (b) of this section on or after June 2880 23, 2008. 2881

2882 (b) Application process . The following are procedures a training program must 2883

follow to receive EPA accreditation to offer l ead-based paint activities courses, renovator 2884 courses, or dust sampling technician courses: 2885

2886 (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit a written application to 2887 EPA containing the following information: 2888

2889 (i) The training program's name , address, and telephone number. 2890

2891 (ii) A list of courses for which it is a pplying for accreditation. For the purposes of 2892 this section, courses taught in different languages and elec tronic learning courses are 2893 considered different courses, and each must independently m eet the accreditation 2894 requirements. 2895

2896 (iii) The name and documentation of th e qualifications of the training program 2897

manager. 2898

2899 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of qualifications of any principal 2900 instructor(s). 2901

2902 (v) A statement signed by the traini ng program manager certifying that the 2903 training program meets the requirements establ ished in paragraph (c) of this section. If a 2904 training program uses EPA- r ecommended model training materi als, or training materials 2905 approved by a State or Indian Tribe that ha s been authorized by EP A under subpart Q of 2906 this part, the training program manager shall in clude a statement certifying that, as well. 2907

2908 (vi) If a training program does not use EPA-recommended model training 2909 materials, its application for accreditation shall also include: 2910

2911 (A) A copy of the student and instructor ma nuals, or other materials to be used for 2912

each course. 2913

2914 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 2915

2916 (C) When applying for accreditation of a c ourse in a language other than English, 2917 a signed statement from a qualified, independent translator that they had compared the 2918 course to the English language version and found the translation to be accurate. 2919

2920 (vii) All training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 2921 following: 2922

292366

(A) A description of the f acilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands2924 on training. 2925

2926 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 2927

2928 (C) A description of the ac tivities and procedures that will be used for conducting 2929

the assessment of hands-on skills for each course. 2930

2931 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 2932

section. 2933

2934 (2) If a training program meets the require ments in paragraph (c) of this section, 2935 then EPA shall approve the application fo r accreditation no more than 180 days after 2936 receiving a complete application from the tr aining program. In the case of approval, a 2937

certificate of accreditation shall be sent to th e applicant. In the case of disapproval, a 2938 letter describing the reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to 2939 disapproval, EPA may, at its discretion, work w ith the applicant to address inadequacies 2940 in the application for accreditation. EPA may also request additiona l materials retained 2941 by the training program under paragraph (i) of this section. If a training program's 2942 application is disapproved, the program ma y reapply for accreditation at any time. 2943

2944 (3) A training program may apply for acc reditation to offer courses or refresher 2945 courses in as many disciplines as it chooses. A training pr ogram may seek accreditation 2946 for additional courses at any time as long as the program can demonstrate that it meets 2947 the requirements of this section. 2948

2949 (4) A training program applying for accreditation must submit the appropriate 2950

fees in accordance with Sec. 745.238. 2951

2952 (c) Requirements for the accred itation of training programs . For a training 2953 program to obtain accreditation from EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, 2954 renovator courses, or dust sampling technici an courses, the progr am must meet the 2955 following requirements: 2956

2957 (1) The training program shall em ploy a training manager who has: 2958

2959 (i) At least 2 years of ex perience, education, or trai ning in teaching workers or 2960 adults; or 2961

2962 (ii) A bachelor's or graduate de gree in building co nstruction technology, 2963 engineering, industrial hygiene, safety, pub lic health, education, business administration 2964 or program management or a related field; or 2965

2966 (iii) Two years of experience in mana ging a training program specializing in 2967 environmental hazards; and 2968

296967

(iv) Demonstrated experience, educati on, or training in the construction industry 2970 including: lead or asbestos abatement, painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, 2971 occupational safety and hea lth, or industrial hygiene. 2972

2973 (2) The training manager shall designate a qualified principal instructor for each 2974

course who has: 2975

2976 (i) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; 2977

and 2978

2979 (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA2980

authorized State or Tribal-accred ited lead-specific training; and 2981

2982 (iii) Demonstrated experience, educat ion, or training in lead or asbestos 2983 abatement, painting, carpentry, renovation, remo deling, occupational safety and health, or 2984 industrial hygiene. 2985

2986 (3) The principal instructor shall be responsible for the organization of the course, 2987 course delivery, and oversight of the teach ing of all course material. The training 2988 manager may designate guest inst ructors as needed for a porti on of the course to provide 2989 instruction specific to the le cture, hands-on activities, or work practice components of a 2990 course. However, the principa l instructor is primarily res ponsible for teaching the course 2991 materials and must be present to provide in struction (or oversight of portions of the 2992 course taught by guest instructors) for the co urse for which he has been designated the 2993 principal instructor. 2994

2995 (4) The following documents shall be recognized by EPA as evidence that 2996 training managers and principal instructors ha ve the education, work experience, training 2997 requirements or demonstrated experience, spec ifically listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and 2998 (c)(2) of this section. This documentation must be submitted with the accreditation 2999 application and retained by the training program as required by the recordkeeping 3000 requirements contained in paragraph (i) of this section. Those documents include the 3001 following: 3002

3003 (i) Official academic transcripts or di ploma as evidence of meeting the education 3004 requirements. 3005

3006 (ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or documentation of work experience, as 3007 evidence of meeting the work experience requirements. 3008

3009 (iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer courses and lead-speci fic training courses, 3010 as evidence of meeting th e training requirements. 3011

3012 (5) The training program shall ensure the availability of, and provide adequate 3013 facilities for, the delivery of the lecture, course test, hands-on training, and assessment 301468

activities. This includes provi ding training equipment that reflects current work practices 3015 and maintaining or updating the equipm ent and facilities as needed. 3016

3017 (6) To become accredited in the followi ng disciplines, the training program shall 3018 provide training courses that meet the following training requirements: 3019

3020 (i) The inspector course shall last a minimum of 24 training hours, with a 3021

minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 3022 requirements for the inspector course are contai ned in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 3023

3024 (ii) The risk assessor course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 3025

minimum of 4 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 3026 requirements for the risk assesso r course are contained in para graph (d)(2) of this section. 3027

3028 (iii) The supervisor course shall last a minimum of 32 training hours, with a 3029

minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands- on activities. The minimum curriculum 3030 requirements for the supervisor course are cont ained in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 3031

3032 (iv) The project designer course shall last a minimum of 8 training hours. The 3033 minimum curriculum requirements for the pr oject designer course are contained in 3034 paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 3035

3036 (v) The abatement worker course shall la st a minimum of 16 training hours, with 3037

a minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on tr aining activities. Th e minimum curriculum 3038 requirements for the abatement worker course are contained in para graph (d)(5) of this 3039

section. 3040

3041 (vi) The renovator course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a 3042

minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 3043 requirements for the renovator course are contai ned in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 3044

3045 (vii) The dust sampling technician cour se must last a minimum of 8 training 3046 hours, with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activ ities. The minimum 3047 curriculum requirements for the dust sampli ng technician course are contained in 3048 paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 3049

3050 (viii) Electronic learning and other alternative cour se delivery methods are 3051 permitted for the classroom portion of renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 3052 paint activities courses but not the hands-on por tion of these courses. Electronic learning 3053 courses must comply with the following requirements: 3054

3055 (A) A unique identifier must be assigned to each student for them to use to launch 3056

and re-launch the course. 3057

305869

(B) The training provider must track each student’s course log-ins, launches, 3059 progress, and completion, and maintain these r ecords in accordance wi th paragraph (i) of 3060

this section. 3061

3062 (C) The course must include knowledge checks for each module, which must be 3063 successfully completed before the stude nt can go on to the next module. 3064

3065 (D) There must be a test of at least 20 questions at the end of the electronic 3066 learning portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctly by the student 3067 for successful completion of the elec tronic learning portion of the course. 3068

3069 (E) Each student must be able to save or print an uneditable copy of an electronic 3070 learning course completion certificate. 3071

3072 (7) For each course offered, the training program shall conduct ei ther a course test 3073 at the completion of the course, and if appli cable, a hands-on skills assessment, or in the 3074 alternative, a proficiency test for that di scipline. Each individual must successfully 3075 complete the hands-on skills assessment and receive a passing score on the course test to 3076 pass any course, or successfully complete a proficiency test. 3077

3078 (i) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity 3079 of the hands-on skills assessment or proficiency test to ensure that it accurately evaluates 3080 the trainees' performance of the work practices and procedures associated with the course 3081 topics contained in paragr aph (d) of this section. 3082

3083 (ii) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity 3084

of the course test to ensure that it ac curately evaluates the trainees' knowledge and 3085 retention of the course topics. 3086

3087 (iii) The course test shall be developed in accordance with the test blueprint 3088 submitted with the training accreditation application. 3089

3090 (8) The training program shall issue unique course completion certificates to each 3091 individual who passes the training course. The course completion certificate shall 3092

include: 3093

3094 (i) The name, a unique identification nu mber, and address of the individual. 3095

3096 (ii) The name of the particular c ourse that the individual completed. 3097

3098 (iii) Dates of course completion/test passage. 3099

3100 (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, project designer, supervisor, or abatement 3101 worker course completion certificates, the ex piration date of interim certification, which 3102 is 6 months from the date of course completion. 3103

310470

(v) The name, address, and telephon e number of the training program. 3105

3106 (vi) The language in which the course was taught. 3107

3108 (vii) For renovator and dust sampling tec hnician course completion certificates, a 3109 photograph of the individual. The photogra ph must be an accurate and recognizable 3110 image of the individual. As reproduced on the certificate, the photograph must not be 3111 smaller than 1 square inch. 3112

3113 (9) The training manager shall develop and implement a quality control plan. The 3114 plan shall be used to maintain and improve the quality of the training program over time. 3115 This plan shall contain at least the following elements: 3116

3117 (i) Procedures for periodic revision of training materials and the course test to 3118

reflect innovations in the field. 3119

3120 (ii) Procedures for the training manager' s annual review of principal instructor 3121

competency. 3122

3123 (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work practice 3124

standards contained in Sec. 745.85 or Sec. 745.2 27, as applicable, in such a manner that 3125 trainees are provided with the knowledge n eeded to perform the renovations or lead3126 based paint activities they will be responsible for conducting. 3127

3128 (11) The training manager shall be re sponsible for ensuring that the training 3129 program complies at all times with all of the requirements in this section. 3130

3131 (12) The training manager shall allow EPA to audit the training program to verify 3132 the contents of the application for accreditat ion as described in paragraph (b) of this 3133

section. 3134

3135 (13) The training manager must provide notification of re novator, dust sampling 3136 technician, or lead-based pain t activities courses offered. 3137

3138 (i) The training manager mu st provide EPA with notific ation of all renovator, dust 3139 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. The original 3140 notification must be received by EPA at least 7 business days pr ior to the start date of any 3141 renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint ac tivities course. 3142

3143 (ii) The training manager must provide EPA updated notification when renovator, 3144 dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses will begin on a date other 3145 than the start date specified in th e original notification, as follows: 3146

3147 (A) For renovator, dust sampling technicia n, or lead-based paint activities courses 3148 beginning prior to the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be 3149 received by EPA at least 7 business days before the new start date. 315071

3151 (B) For renovator, dust sampling technicia n, or lead-based paint activities courses 3152 beginning after the start date provided to EP A, an updated notification must be received 3153 by EPA at least 2 business days before the start date provided to EPA. 3154

3155 (iii) The training manager must update EPA of any change in location of 3156 renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead -based paint activities courses at least 7 3157 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 3158

3159 (iv) The training manager must update EP A regarding any course cancellations, or 3160 any other change to the origin al notification. Updated notific ations must be received by 3161 EPA at least 2 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 3162

3163 (v) Each notification, including update s, must include the following: 3164

3165 (A) Notification type (ori ginal, update, cancellation). 3166

3167 (B) Training program name, EPA accred itation number, address, and telephone 3168

number. 3169

3170 (C) Course discipline, t ype (initial/ refresher), and the language in which 3171 instruction will be given. 3172

3173 (D) Date(s) and time(s) of training. 3174

3175 (E) Training location(s) te lephone number, and address. 3176

3177 (F) Principal instructor's name. 3178

3179 (G) Training manager's name and signature. 3180

3181 (vi) Notification must be accomplishe d using any of the following methods: 3182 Written notification, or electronically using th e Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). 3183 Written notification of lead-based paint activities course schedules can be accomplished 3184 by using either the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training Notification” or a 3185 similar form containing the information require d in paragraph (c)(13)(v ) of this section. 3186

All written notifications must be delivere d by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercial 3187 delivery service, or hand delivery (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service 3188 are reminded that they should allow 3 additi onal business days for delivery in order to 3189

ensure that EPA receives the notification by the required date ). Instructions and sample 3190

forms can be obtained from the NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at 3191 http://www.epa.gov/ lead. 3192

3193 (vii) Renovator, dust sampli ng technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 3194 must not begin on a date, or at a location other than that specified in the original 3195 notification unless an updated notification identifying a new start date or location is 319672

submitted, in which case the course must be gin on the new start date and/or location 3197 specified in the updated notification. 3198

3199 (viii) No training program shall provid e renovator, dust sampling technician, or 3200 lead-based paint activities c ourses without first notifying EPA of such activities in 3201 accordance with the requiremen ts of this paragraph. 3202

3203 (14) The training manager must provi de notification following completion of 3204 renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses. 3205

3206 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of 3207 any lead-based paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later than 3208 10 business days following course completion. 3209

3210 (ii) The notification must include the following: 3211

3212 (A) Training program name, EPA accred itation number, address, and telephone 3213

number. 3214

3215 (B) Course discip line and type (initi al/refresher). 3216

3217 (C) Date(s) of training. 3218

3219 (D) The following information for each student who took the course: 3220

3221 (1) Name. 3222

3223 (2) Address. 3224

3225 (3) Date of birth. 3226

3227 (4) Course completion certificate number. 3228

3229 (5) Course test score. 3230

3231 (6) For renovator or dust sampling techni cian courses, a digital photograph of the 3232

student. 3233

3234 (E) Training manager's name and signature. 3235

3236 (iii) Notification must be accomplishe d using any of the following methods: 3237 Written notification, or electronically using th e Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). 3238 Written notification following renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint 3239 activities training courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form titled 3240 “Lead-Based Paint Training Course Follow- up” or a similar form containing the 3241 information required in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) of this section. All wri tten notifications must 324273

be delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, co mmercial delivery service, or hand delivery 3243 (persons submitting notification by U.S. Post al Service are reminded that they should 3244 allow 3 additional business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the 3245 notification by the requir ed date). Instructions and sample forms can be obtained from the 3246 NLIC at 1-800-424-LEAD(5323), or on the Inte rnet at http://www.epa.gov/ lead. 3247

3248 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. To become accredited to offer 3249 lead-based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed below, training programs must 3250 ensure that their courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 3251 Requirements ending in an aste risk (*) indicate areas that require hands-on activities as 3252 an integral component of the course. 3253

3254 (1) Inspector. (i) Role and responsibili ties of an inspector. 3255

3256 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 3257

3258 (iii) Background information on Federal, St ate, and local regulations and guidance 3259 that pertains to lead-based paint and lead- based paint activities. 3260

3261 (iv) Lead-based paint inspection met hods, including selection of rooms and 3262 components for sampling or testing.* 3263

3264 (v) Paint, dust, and soil sampling methodologies.* 3265

3266 (vi) Clearance standards and tes ting, including random sampling.* 3267

3268 (vii) Preparation of the final inspection report.* 3269

3270 (viii) Recordkeeping. 3271

3272 (2) Risk assessor. (i) Role and responsibiliti es of a risk assessor. 3273

3274 (ii) Collection of background informati on to perform a risk assessment. 3275

3276 (iii) Sources of environmental lead cont amination such as paint, surface dust and 3277 soil, water, air, packaging, and food. 3278

3279 (iv) Visual inspection for the purposes of identifying potential sources of lead3280 based paint hazards.* 3281

3282 (v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 3283

3284 (vi) Sampling for other sources of lead exposure.* 3285

328674

(vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint and other lead sampling results, including 3287 all applicable State or Federal guidance or regulations pertaining to lead-based paint 3288

hazards.* 3289

3290 (viii) Development of hazard control op tions, the role of interim controls, and 3291 operations and maintenance activities to reduce lead-b ased paint hazards. 3292

3293 (ix) Preparation of a fina l risk assessment report. 3294

3295 (3) Supervisor. (i) Role and responsibilitie s of a supervisor. 3296

3297 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 3298

3299 (iii) Background information on Federal, St ate, and local regulations and guidance 3300 that pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 3301

3302 (iv) Liability and insurance issues rela ting to lead-based paint abatement. 3303

3304 (v) Risk assessment and inspection report interpretation.* 3305

3306 (vi) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan and 3307 abatement report 3308

3309 (vii) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control.* 3310

3311 (viii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based pa int hazard reduction methods, 3312 including restricted practices.* 3313

3314 (ix) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard control and 3315

reduction methods.* 3316

3317 (x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or lead-based paint hazard control and 3318

reduction methods.* 3319

3320 (xi) Clearance standards and testing. 3321

3322 (xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 3323

3324 (xiii) Recordkeeping. 3325

3326 (4) Project designer. (i) Role and responsibilities of a project designer. 3327

3328 (ii) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan for large 3329 scale abatement projects. 3330

333175

(iii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 3332 including restricted practices for large-scale abatement projects. 3333

3334 (iv) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead hazard control and reduction methods 3335 for large-scale abatement projects. 3336

3337 (v) Clearance standards and testing for large scale abatement projects. 3338

3339 (vi) Integration of lead -based paint abatement met hods with modernization and 3340 rehabilitation projects for larg e scale abatement projects. 3341

3342 (5) Abatement worker. (i) Role and responsibilities of an abatement worker. 3343

3344 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 3345

3346 (iii) Background information on Federal, State and local regulations and guidance 3347 that pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 3348

3349 (iv) Lead-based paint hazar d recognition and control.* 3350

3351 (v) Lead-based paint abat ement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 3352 including restricted practices.* 3353

3354 (vi) Interior dust abatement methods /cleanup or lead-based paint hazard 3355

reduction.* 3356

3357 (vii) Soil and exterior dust abatemen t methods or lead-based paint hazard 3358

reduction.* 3359

3360 (6) Renovator. (i) Role and responsibility of a renovator. 3361

3362 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 3363

3364 (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, and 3365 local regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based pain t and renovation activities. 3366

3367 (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether paint is lead3368 based paint.* 3369

3370 (v) Procedures for collec ting a paint chip sample and sending it to a laboratory 3371 recognized by EPA under sec tion 405(b) of TSCA.* 3372

3373 (vi) Renovation methods to minimize the creation of dust and lead- based paint 3374

hazards.* 3375

3376 (vii) Interior and exterior c ontainment and cleanup methods.* 337776

3378 (viii) Methods to ensure that the renovation has been properly completed, 3379 including cleaning verificati on, and clearance testing.* 3380

3381 (ix) Waste handling and disposal.* 3382

3383 (x) Providing on-the-job trai ning to other workers. 3384

3385 (xi) Record preparation. 3386

3387 (7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role and responsibility of a dust sampling 3388

technician. 3389

3390 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 3391

3392 (iii) Background information on Federal, St ate, and local regulations and guidance 3393 that pertains to lead-based pa int and renovation activities. 3394

3395 (iv) Dust sampli ng methodologies.* 3396

3397 (v) Clearance standa rds and testing. 3398

3399 (vi) Report preparation.* 3400

3401 (e) Requirements for the accreditati on of refresher training programs. A training 3402 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training co urses in any of the following 3403 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, superv isor, project designer, abatement worker, 3404 renovator, and dust sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer refresher 3405 training, a training program must meet th e following minimum requirements: 3406

3407 (1) Each refresher course shall review the curriculum topics of the full-length 3408 courses listed under paragraph (d) of this section, as appropria te. In addition, to become 3409 accredited to offer refresher training courses, training programs shall ensure that their 3410 courses of study include, at a minimum, the following: 3411

3412 (i) An overview of current safety practices relating to lead-based paint in general, 3413 as well as specific information pertaini ng to the appropriate discipline. 3414

3415 (ii) Current laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as 3416 specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 3417

3418 (iii) Current technologies relating to lead -based paint in general, as well as 3419 specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 3420

3421 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, ri sk assessor, supervisor, and abatement 3422 worker must last a minimum of 8 training hou rs. Refresher courses for project designer, 342377

renovator, and dust sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. 3424 Refresher courses for all disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on 3425

component. 3426

3427 (3) For each course offered, the tr aining program shall conduct a hands-on 3428 assessment (for all courses except project design er), and at the completion of the course, 3429

a course test. 3430

3431 (4) A training program may apply fo r accreditation of a refresher course 3432 concurrently with its applic ation for accreditati on of the corresponding training course as 3433 described in paragraph (b) of this section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedure 3434 described in paragraph (b) of this sect ion. In addition, the minimum requirements 3435 contained in paragraphs (c) (except for the requirements in paragraph (c)(6)), and (e)(1), 3436 (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this s ection shall also apply. 3437

3438 (5) A training program seeking accredita tion to offer refresher training courses 3439 only shall submit a written application to EP A containing the followi ng information: 3440

3441 (i) The refresher training program's na me, address, and telephone number. 3442

3443 (ii) A list of courses for whic h it is applying for accreditation. 3444

3445 (iii) The name and documentation of th e qualifications of the training program 3446

manager. 3447

3448 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of the qualifications of the principal 3449 instructor(s). 3450

3451 (v) A statement signed by the traini ng program manager certifying that the 3452 refresher training program meet s the minimum requirements established in paragraph (c) 3453 of this section, except for the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. If a training 3454 program uses EPA-developed model training ma terials, or training materials approved by 3455

a State or Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA und er Sec. 745.324 to develop its 3456 refresher training course materials, the training manager shall include a statement 3457 certifying that, as well. 3458

3459 (vi) If the refresher training course materials are not based on EPA-developed 3460 model training materials, th e training program's applic ation for accreditation shall 3461

include: 3462

3463 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals to be used for each course. 3464

3465 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 3466

3467 (vii) All refresher training programs shall include in their application for 3468 accreditation the following: 346978

3470 (A) A description of the f acilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands3471 on training. 3472

3473 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 3474

3475 (C) A description of the ac tivities and procedures that will be used for conducting 3476

the assessment of hands-on skills fo r each course (if applicable). 3477

3478 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 3479

section. 3480

3481 (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5 ), and (c)(7) through 3482 (c)(14) of this section apply to refresher training providers. 3483

3484 (ix) If a refresher training program meets the requirements listed in this 3485 paragraph, then EPA shall approve the appl ication for accreditation no more than 180 3486 days after receiving a complete application from the refresher training program. In the 3487 case of approval, a certificate of accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of 3488 disapproval, a letter describing the reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. 3489 Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its discre tion, work with the applicant to address 3490 inadequacies in the application for accreditation. EPA may also request additional 3491 materials retained by the refresher training prog ram under paragraph (i) of this section. If 3492 a refresher training program's application is disapproved, the program may reapply for 3493 accreditation at any time. 3494

3495 (f) Re-accreditation of training programs . (1) Unless re-accredited, a training 3496 program's accreditation (including refresher tr aining accreditation) shall expire 4 years 3497 after the date of issuance. If a training progr am meets the requirement s of this section, the 3498 training program shall be re-accredited. 3499

3500 (2) A training program seeking re-accre ditation shall submit an application to 3501 EPA no later than 180 days before its accredit ation expires. If a tr aining program does not 3502 submit its application for re -accreditation by that date, EPA cannot guarantee that the 3503 program will be re-accredited before the end of the accreditation period. 3504

3505 (3) The training program's application for re-accreditation shall contain: 3506

3507 (i) The training program's name, address, and telephone number. 3508

3509 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for re- accreditation. 3510

3511 (iii) The name and qualifications of the training program manager. 3512

3513 (iv) The name(s) and qualifications of the principal instructor(s). 3514

351579

(v) A description of any changes to th e training facility, equipment or course 3516 materials since its last application was a pproved that adversely affects the students’ 3517 ability to learn. 3518

3519 (vi) A statement signed by the program manager stating: 3520

3521 (A) That the training program complies at all times with all requirements in 3522 paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, as applicable; and 3523

3524 (B) The recordkeeping and re porting requirements of para graph (i) of this section 3525

shall be followed. 3526

3527 (vii) A payment of appropriate f ees in accordance with Sec. 745.238. 3528

3529 (4) Upon request, the training program shall allow EPA to audit the training 3530 program to verify the contents of the app lication for re- accreditation as described in 3531 paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 3532

3533 (g) Suspension, revocation, and modification of accredited training programs . (1) 3534 EPA may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, suspend, revoke, or modify 3535 training program accreditation (including refr esher training accredita tion) if a training 3536 program, training manager, or other person with supervisory authority over the training 3537 program has: 3538

3539 (i) Misrepresented the cont ents of a training course to EPA and/or the student 3540 population. 3541

3542 (ii) Failed to submit required information or notifications in a timely manner. 3543

3544 (iii) Failed to maintain required records. 3545

3546 (iv) Falsified accreditati on records, instructor qualifications, or other 3547

accreditation-related information or documentation. 3548

3549 (v) Failed to comply with the training st andards and requirements in this section. 3550

3551 (vi) Failed to comply with Federal, Stat e, or local lead-based paint statutes or 3552 regulations. 3553

3554 (vii) Made false or misleading statem ents to EPA in its application for 3555

accreditation or re-acc reditation which EPA relied upon in approving the application. 3556

3557 (2) In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of violation, execution of a 3558 consent agreement in settlement of an enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this 3559 section, evidence of a failure to comply w ith relevant statutes or regulations. 3560

356180

(h) Procedures for suspension, revocation or modification of training program 3562

accreditation . (1) Prior to taking action to suspend, revoke, or modify th e accreditation of 3563 a training program, EPA shall no tify the affected entity in writing of the following: 3564

3565 (i) The legal and factual basis for the suspension, revocation, or modification. 3566

3567 (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the suspension, 3568 revocation, or modification. 3569

3570 (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entity may take to avoid suspension, 3571 revocation, or modification, or to receive accredita tion in the future. 3572

3573 (iv) The opportunity and method for re questing a hearing prior to final EPA 3574 action to suspend, revoke or modify accreditation. 3575

3576 (v) Any additional information, as a ppropriate, which EPA may provide. 3577

3578 (2) If a hearing is requested by the ac credited training program, EPA shall: 3579

3580 (i) Provide the affected entity an oppor tunity to offer written statements in 3581 response to EPA's assertions of the legal a nd factual basis for its proposed action, and any 3582 other explanations, comments, and arguments it deems relevant to the proposed action. 3583

3584 (ii) Provide the affected entity such other procedural oppor tunities as EPA may 3585 deem appropriate to ensure a fair and impartial hearing. 3586

3587 (iii) Appoint an official of EPA as Pr esiding Officer to c onduct the hearing. No 3588 person shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior connection with the 3589 specific matter. 3590

3591 (3) The Presiding Officer appointed pursu ant to paragraph (h)(2 ) of this section 3592

shall: 3593

3594 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, a nd impartial hearing within 90 days of the request for 3595 a hearing. 3596

3597 (ii) Consider all relevant eviden ce, explanation, comment, and argument 3598

submitted. 3599

3600 (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing within 90 days of completion of the 3601 hearing of his or her decision and order. Such an order is a final agency action which may 3602 be subject to judicial review. 3603

3604 (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare warrants 3605 immediate action to suspend the accreditation of any trai ning program prior to the 3606 opportunity for a hearing, it shall: 360781

3608 (i) Notify the affected entity of its inte nt to immediately suspend training program 3609 accreditation for the reasons listed in paragra ph (g)(1) of this section. If a suspension, 3610 revocation, or modification notice has not prev iously been issued pursuant to paragraph 3611 (g)(1) of this section, it shall be issued at the same time the emergency suspension notice 3612

is issued. 3613

3614 (ii) Notify the affected entity in wr iting of the grounds for the immediate 3615 suspension and why it is necessary to susp end the entity's accreditation before an 3616 opportunity for a suspension, revocat ion or modification hearing. 3617

3618 (iii) Notify the affected entity of the anticipated commencement date and duration 3619 of the immediate suspension. 3620

3621 (iv) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing on the immediate 3622 suspension within 15 days of the suspensi on taking place and the procedures for the 3623 conduct of such a hearing. 3624

3625 (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this section, any 3626 transcripts or other verbatim record of oral testimony, and any documents filed by an 3627 accredited training program in a hearing under this section shall be available to the 3628 public, except as otherwise prov ided by section 14 of TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any 3629 such hearing at which oral testimony is presen ted shall be open to the public, except that 3630 the Presiding Officer may exclude the public to the extent necessary to allow presentation 3631 of information which may be entitled to c onfidential treatment unde r section 14 of TSCA 3632 or part 2 of this title. 3633

3634 (6) The public shall be notified of the suspension, revocati on, modification or 3635 reinstatement of a training program's accr editation through appropriate mechanisms. 3636

3637 (7) EPA shall maintain a list of part ies whose accreditation has been suspended, 3638 revoked, modified or reinstated. 3639

3640 (i) Training program recordkeeping requirements . (1) Accredited training 3641 programs shall maintain, and make available to EPA, upon request, the following 3642

records: 3643

3644 (i) All documents specified in paragraph (c )(4) of this section that demonstrate the 3645 qualifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section of the training manager 3646 and principal instructors. 3647

3648 (ii) Current curriculum/course materi als and documents reflecting any changes 3649

made to these materials. 3650

3651 (iii) The course test blueprint. 3652

365382

(iv) Information regarding how the hands-on assessment is conducted including, 3654

but not limited to: 3655

3656 (A) Who conducts the assessment. 3657

3658 (B) How the skills are graded. 3659

3660 (C) What facilities are used. 3661

3662 (D) The pass/fail rate. 3663

3664 (v) The quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 3665

3666 (vi) Results of the students' hands-on sk ills assessments and course tests, and a 3667 record of each student's course completion certificate. 3668

3669 (vii) Any other material not listed above in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(vi) 3670 of this section that was submitted to EPA as part of the program's application for 3671

accreditation. 3672

3673 (viii) For renovator refresher and dust sampling technician refresher courses, a 3674 copy of each trainee’s prior course completi on certificate showing that each trainee was 3675 eligible to take the refresher course. 3676

3677 (ix) For course modules delivered in an electronic format, a record of each 3678 student’s log-ins, launches, progress, a nd completion, and a copy of the electronic 3679 learning completion certific ate for each student. 3680

3681 (2) The training program must retain records pertaining to lead-based paint 3682 activities courses at the address specif ied on the training program accreditation 3683 application (or as modified in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section) for a 3684 minimum of 3 years and 6 months. Records pertaining to renovato r or dust sampling 3685

technician courses must be retained at th e address specified on the training program 3686 accreditation application (or as modified in accordance with paragr aph (i)(3) of this 3687 section) for a minimum of 5 years. 3688

3689 (3) The training program shall notify EPA in writing within 30 days of changing 3690 the address specified on its training program accreditation application or transferring the 3691

records from that address. 3692

3693 (j) Amendment of accreditation . (1) A training program must amend its 3694 accreditation within 90 days of the date a chan ge occurs to information included in the 3695 program’s most recent applicati on. If the training program fails to amend its accreditation 3696 within 90 days of the date the change o ccurs, the program may not provide renovator, 3697 dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities training until its accreditation is 3698

amended. 369983

3700 (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must submit a completed 3701 “Accreditation Application for Training Provide rs,” signed by an aut horized agent of the 3702 training provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating 3703 the information that has changed. 3704

3705 (3) If the amendment includes a new training program manager, any new or 3706 additional principal instructor (s), or any new permanent tr aining location(s), the training 3707 provider is not permitted to provide traini ng under the new training manager or offer 3708 courses taught by any new principal instructor (s) or at the new training location(s) until 3709 EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days ha ve elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. 3710

3711 7. Section 745.238 would be amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as 3712

follows: 3713

§ 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certificatio n of lead-based paint activities. 3714

3715

* * * * * 3716

3717 (c) * * * 3718

3719 (5) No fee will be charged for accreditation amendments. 3720

3721 8. Section 745.326 would be amended by revi sing paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) 3722 and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 3723

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements. 3724

3725 (a) * * * 3726

3727 (2) * * * 3728

3729 (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation and dust 3730 sampling technician training progr ams. (Note: a State and Tr ibal program is not required 3731 to include procedures and requirements fo r the dust sampling technician training 3732 discipline if the State or Tribal program requires dust sampling to be performed by a 3733 certified lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor.) 3734

3735 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited initial and refresher training for 3736 renovators and dust sampling technicians and on-the-job training for other individuals 3737 who perform renovations. 3738

3739

* * * * * 3740

3741 (d) Certification of individual s and/or renovation firms. To be considered at least 3742 as protective as the Federal program , the State or Tribal program must: 3743

374484

(1) Establish procedures and requireme nts that ensure that individuals who 3745 perform or direct renovations are properly trained. These proce dures and requirements 3746

must include: 3747

3748 (i) A requirement that renovations be performed and directed by at least one 3749

individual who has been trained by an accredited training program. 3750

3751 (ii) Procedures and requirements fo r accredited refresher training for these 3752

individuals. 3753

3754 (iii) Procedures and requirements for cer tified renovators to provide on-the-job 3755 training for those individuals who perform renovations but do not receive accredited 3756 training. 3757

3758 (2) Establish procedures and requireme nts for the formal certification and re3759

certification of either indi viduals or renovation firms. 3760

3761 (3) Establish procedures for the su spension, revocation, or modification of 3762

certifications. 3763

3764 (e) * * * 3765

3766 (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified individuals and/or certified 3767

renovation firms. 3768

3769 (2) * * * 3770

3771 (3) Certified individuals a nd/or renovation firms must re tain appropriate records. 3772

3773 (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. If EPA revises the renovation 3774 program requirements containe d in subparts E and L: 3775

3776 (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation pr ogram approved before the effective date 3777

of the revisions must demonstrate that it m eets the requirements of this section no later 3778 than the first report that it submits pursuant to §745.324(h) no later than one year after the 3779

effective date of the revisions. 3780

3781 (2) A State or Tribe with an applicat ion for approval of a renovation program 3782 submitted but not approved before the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate 3783 that it meets the requirements of this secti on either by amending its application or in the 3784 first report that it submits pursuant to §745.324(h) of this part no later than one year after 3785

the effective date of the revisions. 3786

3787 (3) A State or Indian Tribe submitting its application for approval of a renovation 3788 program on or after the effectiv e date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application 3789 that it meets the requirements of this section. 379085

3791 9. Section 745.327 would be amended by revi sing paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 3792

as follows: 3793

§ 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 3794

programs. 3795

3796

* * * * * 3797

3798 (b) * * * 3799

3800 (1) Lead-based paint activities or renovation requirements. State or Tribal lead3801 based paint compliance and enforcement progr ams will be considered adequate if the 3802 State or Indian Tribe demonstrates, in its application at Sec. 7 45.324(b)(2), that it has 3803 established a lead-based paint pr ogram that contains all of the elements specified in Sec. 3804 745.325 or Sec. 745.326, or both, as applicable. 3805

3806 (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to enter, through 3807 consent, warrant, or other authority, prem ises or facilities where lead-based paint 3808 violations may occur for purpos es of conducting inspections. 3809

3810 (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or facilities where those 3811 engaged in training for lead-based paint activities or renovati ons conduct business. 3812

3813 (ii) * * * 3814

3815 (iii) State or Tribal officials must ha ve authority to take samples and review 3816 records as part of the lead-b ased paint inspection process. 3817

3818 (3) Flexible remedies . A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 3819 enforcement program must provide for a di verse and flexible array of enforcement 3820 statutory and regulatory author ities and remedies. At a minimum, these authorities and 3821 remedies, which must also be reflected in an enforcement response policy, must include 3822 the following: 3823

3824 (i) the authority to issue warning letter s, Notices of Noncom pliance, Notices of 3825 Violation, or the equivalent; 3826

3827 (ii) the authority to assess administra tive or civil fines, including a maximum 3828 penalty authority for any violation in an amount no less than $10,000 per violation per 3829 day; 3830

3831 (iii) the authority to assess the maximu m penalties or fines for each instance of 3832 violation and, if the viol ation is continuous, the authority to assess penalties or fines up to 3833 the maximum amount for each day of violation, with all penalties as sessed or collected 3834 being appropriate for the violation after consideration of the size or viability of the 383586

business, enforcement history, risks to huma n health or the environment posed by the 3836 violation, and other similar factors; 3837

3838 (iv) the authority to commence an administ rative proceeding or to sue in courts of 3839 competent jurisdiction to recover penalties; 3840

3841 (v) the authority to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of any training 3842 provider or the certification of any individual or firm; 3843

3844 (vi) the authority to commence an administ rative proceeding or to sue in courts of 3845 competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threaten ed or continuing viol ation of any program 3846 requirement, without the necessity of a prio r suspension or revocation of a trainer’s 3847

accreditation or a firm’s or individual’s certification; 3848

3849 (vii) the authority to apply criminal sanctions, including r ecovering fines; and 3850 (viii) the authority to enforce its authori zed program using a burden of proof standard, 3851 including the degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent th at is no greater than it is 3852

for EPA under TSCA. 3853 (c) * * * 3854

3855 (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 3856 enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated 3857 community to facilitate awareness and unders tanding of and compliance with State or 3858 Tribal requirements governing the conduct of lead-based pa int activities or renovations. 3859 The type and nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to 3860 achieve this goal. 3861

3862

3863 [FR Doc. 09–????? Filed ??–??–09; 8:45 am] 3864

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 3865