Att 2 - 2008 RRP Rule

Tuesday,
April 22, 2008

Part II

Environmental
Protection Agency

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

40 CFR Part 745
Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program; Lead Hazard Information
Pamphlet; Notice of Availability; Final
Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

21692

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 745
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–8355–7]
RIN 2070–AC83

Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program
Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final rule
under the authority of section 402(c)(3)
of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) to address lead-based paint
hazards created by renovation, repair,
and painting activities that disturb leadbased paint in target housing and childoccupied facilities. ‘‘Target housing’’ is
defined in TSCA section 401 as any
housing constructed before 1978, except
housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age
6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.
Under this rule, a child-occupied
facility is a building, or a portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978,
visited regularly by the same child,
under 6 years of age, on at least two
different days within any week (Sunday
through Saturday period), provided that
each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and
the combined weekly visits last at least
6 hours, and the combined annual visits
last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied
facilities may be located in public or
commercial buildings or in target
housing. This rule establishes
requirements for training renovators,
other renovation workers, and dust
sampling technicians; for certifying
renovators, dust sampling technicians,
and renovation firms; for accrediting
providers of renovation and dust
sampling technician training; for
renovation work practices; and for
recordkeeping. Interested States,
Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply
for and receive authorization to
administer and enforce all of the
elements of these new renovation
requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective June
23, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0049. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access
the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced
Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert
the docket ID number where indicated

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow
the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or
access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The telephone number
of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566–0280. Docket visitors are required
to show photographic identification,
pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are
processed through an X-ray machine
and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times in the building and
returned upon departure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:
[email protected].
For technical information contact:
Mike Wilson, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-0521; e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you perform renovations of
target housing or child-occupied
facilities for compensation or dust
sampling. ‘‘Target housing’’ is defined
in section 401 of TSCA as any housing
constructed prior to 1978, except
housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age
6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Under this rule, a child-occupied
facility is a building, or a portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978,
visited regularly by the same child,
under 6 years of age, on at least 2
different days within any week (Sunday
through Saturday period), provided that
each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and
the combined weekly visits last at least
6 hours, and the combined annual visits
last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied
facilities may be located in public or
commercial buildings or in target
housing. Potentially affected entities
may include, but are not limited to:
• Building construction (NAICS
code 236), e.g., single family housing
construction, multi-family housing
construction, residential remodelers.
• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS
code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and
air-conditioning contractors, painting
and wall covering contractors, electrical
contractors, finish carpentry contractors,
drywall and insulation contractors,
siding contractors, tile and terrazzo
contractors, glass and glazing
contractors.
• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g.,
lessors of residential buildings and
dwellings, residential property
managers.
• Child day care services (NAICS
code 624410).
• Elementary and secondary schools
(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary
schools with kindergarten classrooms.
• Other technical and trade schools
(NAICS code 611519), e.g., training
providers.
• Engineering services (NAICS code
541330) and building inspection
services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust
sampling technicians.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
Unit III. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed underFOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA is issuing a final rule under the
authority of section 402(c)(3) of the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
address lead-based paint hazards
created by renovation, repair, and
painting activities (hereinafter also
referred to as renovation activities or
renovation projects) that disturb leadbased paint in target housing and childoccupied facilities. ‘‘Target housing’’ is
defined in TSCA section 401 as any
housing constructed before 1978, except
housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age
6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.
Under this rule, a child-occupied
facility is a building, or a portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978,
visited regularly by the same child,
under 6 years of age, on at least two
different days within any week (Sunday
through Saturday period), provided that
each day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and
the combined weekly visits last at least
6 hours, and the combined annual visits
last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied
facilities may be located in public or
commercial buildings or in target
housing. This rule establishes
requirements for training renovators,
other renovation workers, and dust
sampling technicians; for certifying
renovators, dust sampling technicians,
and renovation firms; for accrediting
providers of renovation and dust
sampling technician training; for
renovation work practices; and for
recordkeeping. Interested States,
Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply
for and receive authorization to
administer and enforce all of the
elements of these new renovation
requirements.
1. Information on lead and its health
effects. Lead is a soft, bluish metallic
chemical element mined from rock and
found in its natural state all over the
world. Lead is virtually indestructible,
is persistent, and has been known since
antiquity for its adaptability in making
various useful items. In modern times,
it has been used to manufacture many
different products, including paint,
batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and
gasoline. Through the 1940’s, paint
manufacturers frequently used lead as a
primary ingredient in many oil-based
interior and exterior house paints. Usage
gradually decreased through the 1950’s
and 1960’s as titanium dioxide replaced
lead and as latex paints became more
widely available.
Lead has been demonstrated to exert
‘‘a broad array of deleterious effects on
multiple organ systems via widely
diverse mechanisms of action.’’ This
array of health effects, the evidence for
which is comprehensively described in
EPA’s Air Quality Criteria for Lead
document (Ref. 1), includes heme

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

biosynthesis and related functions;
neurological development and function;
reproduction and physical
development; kidney function;
cardiovascular function; and immune
function. There is also some evidence of
lead carcinogenicity, primarily from
animal studies, together with limited
human evidence of suggestive
associations.
Of particular interest for present
purposes is the delineation of lowest
observed effect levels for those leadinduced effects that are most clearly
associated with blood lead less 10 µg/dL
in children and/or adults and are,
therefore, of greatest public health
concern (Ref. 1, at 8-60). As evident
from the Criteria Document, neurotoxic
effects in children and cardiovascular
effects in adults are among those best
substantiated as occurring at blood-lead
concentrations as low as 5 to 10 µg/dL
(or possibly lower); and these categories
of effects are currently clearly of greatest
public health concern. Other newly
demonstrated immune and renal system
effects among general population groups
are also emerging as low-level leadexposure effects of potential public
health concern. (Ref. 1, at 8-60)
The overall weight of the available
evidence provides clear substantiation
of neurocognitive decrements being
associated in young children with blood
lead concentrations in the range of 5–10
micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), and
possibly somewhat lower. Some newly
available analyses appear to show lead
effects on the intellectual attainment of
preschool and school age children at
population mean concurrent blood-lead
levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8
µg/dL. A decline of 6.2 points in full
scale IQ for an increase in concurrent
blood lead levels from 1 to 10 µg/dL has
been estimated, based on a pooled
analysis of results derived from seven
well-conducted prospective
epidemiologic studies (Ref. 1, at E-9).
Epidemiologic studies have
consistently demonstrated associations
between lead exposure and enhanced
risk of deleterious cardiovascular
outcomes, including increased blood
pressure and incidence of hypertension.
A meta-analysis of numerous studies
estimates that a doubling of blood lead
level (e.g., from 5 to 10 µg/dL) is
associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase in
systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg
increase in diastolic pressure. (Ref. 1, at
E-10).
Both epidemiologic and toxicologic
studies have shown that
environmentally relevant levels of lead
affect many different organ systems (Ref.
1, at E-8). Please see Ref. 1 for further
information.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21693

The nervous system has long been
recognized as a target of lead toxicity,
with the developing nervous system
affected at lower exposures than the
mature system. While blood lead levels
in U.S. children ages 1 to 5 years have
decreased notably since the late 1970’s,
newer studies have investigated and
reported associations of effects on the
neurodevelopment of children at
population mean concurrent blood lead
levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8
µg/dL (Ref. 1, at E-9). Functional
manifestations of lead neurotoxicity
during childhood include sensory,
motor, cognitive and behavioral
impacts. Investigating associations
between lead exposure and behavior,
mood, and social conduct of children
has been an emerging area of research
(see Ref. 1, at 6.2.6). Early studies
indicated linkages between lower-level
lead toxicity and behavioral problems
(e.g., aggression, attentional problems,
and hyperactivity) in children.
Effects of lead on neurobehavior have
been reported with remarkable
consistency across numerous studies of
various designs, populations studied,
and developmental assessment
protocols. The negative impact of lead
on IQ and other neurobehavioral
outcomes persist in most recent studies
following adjustment for numerous
confounding factors including social
class, quality of caregiving, and parental
intelligence. Moreover, these effects
appear to persist into adolescence and
young adulthood. Cognitive effects
associated with lead exposures that
have been observed in some studies
include decrements in intelligence test
results, such as the widely used IQ
score, and in academic achievement as
assessed by various standardized tests
as well as by class ranking and
graduation rates. Associations between
lead exposure and academic
achievement observed in the abovenoted studies were significant even after
adjusting for IQ, suggesting that leadsensitive neuropsychological processing
and learning factors not reflected by
global intelligence indices might
contribute to reduced performance on
academic tasks (Ref. 1, at 8–29).
Other cognitive effects observed in
studies of children have included effects
on attention, executive functions,
language, memory, learning and
visuospatial processing with attention
and executive function effects observed.
The evidence for the role of lead in this
suite of effects includes experimental
animal findings.These animal
toxicology findings provide strong
biological plausibility in support of the
concept that lead may impact one or
more of these specific cognitive

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21694

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

functions in humans (Ref. 1, at 8–30).
Further, lead-induced deficits observed
in animal and epidemiological studies,
for the most part, have been found to be
persistent in the absence of markedly
reduced environmental exposures. It is
additionally important to note that there
may be long-term consequences of such
deficits over a lifetime. Studies
examining aspects of academic
achievement related to lead exposure
indicate the association of deficits in
academic skills and performance, which
in turn lead to enduring and important
effects on objective parameters of
success in real life (Ref. 1, at 6–76).
Lead bioaccumulates, and is only
slowly removed, with bone lead serving
as a blood lead source for years after
exposure and may serve as a significant
source of exposure. Bone accounts for
more than 90% of the total body burden
of lead in adults and 70% in children
(Ref. 1, at 4–42). In comparison to
adults, bone mineral turns over much
more quickly in children as a result of
growth. Changes in blood lead
concentration in children are thought to
parallel more closely to changes in total
body burden. Therefore, blood lead
concentration is often used in
epidemiologic and toxicological studies
as an index of exposure and body
burden for children.
Paint that contains lead can pose a
health threat through various routes of
exposure. House dust is the most
common exposure pathway through
which children are exposed to leadbased paint hazards. Dust created
during normal lead-based paint wear
(especially around windows and doors)
can create an invisible film over
surfaces in a house. Children,
particularly younger children, are at risk
for high exposures of lead-based paint
dust via hand-to-mouth exposure, and
may also ingest lead-based paint chips
from flaking paint on walls, windows,
and doors. Lead from exterior house
paint can flake off or leach into the soil
around the outside of a home,
contaminating children’s play areas.
Cleaning and renovation activities may
actually increase the threat of leadbased paint exposure by dispersing lead
dust particles in the air and over
accessible household surfaces. In turn,
both adults and children can receive
hazardous exposures by inhaling the
dust or by ingesting lead-based paint
dust during hand-to-mouth activities.
2. Statutory and regulatory
background. In 1992, Congress found
that low-level lead poisoning was
widespread among American children,
affecting, at that time, as many as
3,000,000 children under age 6; that the
ingestion of household dust containing

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

lead from deteriorating or abraded leadbased paint was the most common cause
of lead poisoning in children; and that
the health and development of children
living in as many as 3,800,000 American
homes was endangered by chipping or
peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts
of lead-contaminated dust in their
homes. Congress further determined
that the prior Federal response to this
threat was insufficient and enacted Title
X of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992, Public Law
102–550 (also known as the Residential
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
of 1992) (‘‘the Act’’ or ‘‘Title X’’). Title
X established a national goal of
eliminating lead-based paint hazards in
housing as expeditiously as possible
and provided a leadership role for the
Federal government in building the
infrastructure necessary to achieve this
goal.
Subsequently, President Clinton
created the President’s Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Co-chaired by the
Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) and the
Administrator of EPA, the Task Force
consisted of representatives from 16
Federal departments and agencies. The
Task Force set a Federal goal of
eliminating childhood lead poisoning
by the year 2010 (Ref. 2). In October
2001, President Bush extended the work
of the Task Force for an additional 18
months beyond its original charter.
Reducing lead poisoning in children
was the Task Force’s top priority.
Although more work remains to be
done, significant progress has been
made towards reducing lead poisoning
in children. The estimated percentage of
children with blood lead levels above
the CDC level of concern declined from
4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1.6%
between 2003 and 2004. More
information on Federal efforts to
address lead poisoning, including the
responsibilities of EPA and other
Federal Agencies under Title X, can be
found in Units III.A. and III.B. of the
preamble to the 2006 Lead; Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program Proposed
Rule (‘‘2006 Proposal’’) (Ref. 3).
The Act added a new title to TSCA
entitled ‘‘Title IV–Lead Exposure
Reduction.’’ Most of EPA’s
responsibilities for addressing leadbased paint hazards can be found in this
title, with section402 of TSCA being one
source of the rulemaking authority to
carry out these responsibilities. TSCA
section 402(a) directs EPA to
promulgate regulations covering leadbased paint activities to ensure persons
performing these activities are properly
trained, that training programs are

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

accredited, and that contractors
performing these activities are certified.
These regulations must contain
standards for performing lead-based
paint activities, taking into account
reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On
August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final
regulations under TSCA section 402(a)
that govern lead-based paint
inspections, lead hazard screens, risk
assessments, and abatements in target
housing and child-occupied facilities
(also referred to as the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations). These
regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart L, contain an accreditation
program for training providers and
training and certification requirements
for lead-based paint inspectors, risk
assessors, project designers, abatement
supervisors, and abatement workers.
Work practice standards for lead-based
paint activities are included. Pursuant
to TSCA section 404, provision was
made for interested States, Territories,
and Indian Tribes to apply for and
receive authorization to administer their
own lead-based paint activities
programs.
On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations were amended to
include a fee schedule for training
programs seeking EPA accreditation and
for individuals and firms seeking EPA
certification (Ref. 5). These fees were
established as directed by TSCA section
402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover
the cost of administering and enforcing
the lead-based paint activities
requirements in unauthorized States.
The most recent amendment to the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations
occurred on April 8, 2004, when
notification requirements were added to
help EPA monitor compliance with the
training and certification provisions and
the abatement work practice standards
(Ref. 5).
Another of EPA’s responsibilities
under Title X is to require that
purchasers and tenants of target housing
and occupants of target housing
undergoing renovation are provided
information on lead-based paint and
lead-based paint hazards. As directed by
TSCA section 406(a), the Consumer
Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and EPA, in
consultation with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
jointly developed a lead hazard
information pamphlet entitled Protect
Your Family From Lead in Your Home
(‘‘PYF’’) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was
designed to be distributed as part of the
disclosure requirements of section 1018
of Title X and TSCA section 406(b), to
provide home purchasers, renters,

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
owners, and occupants with the
information necessary to allow them to
make informed choices when selecting
housing to buy or rent, or deciding on
home renovation projects. The pamphlet
contains information on the health
effects of lead, how exposure can occur,
and steps that can be taken to reduce or
eliminate the risk of exposure during
various activities in the home.
TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to
promulgate regulations requiring
persons who perform renovations for
compensation in target housing to
provide a lead hazard information
pamphlet to owners and occupants of
the home being renovated. These
regulations, promulgated on June 1,
1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart E (Ref. 8). The term
‘‘renovation’’ is not defined in the
statute, but the regulation, at 40 CFR
745.83, defines a ‘‘renovation’’ as the
modification of any existing structure,
or portion of a structure, that results in
the disturbance of painted surfaces. The
regulations specifically exclude leadbased paint abatement projects as well
as small projects that disturb 2 square
feet or less of painted surface per
component, emergency projects, and
renovations affecting components that
have been found to be free of lead-based
paint, as that term is defined in the
regulations, by a certified inspector or
risk assessor. These regulations require
the renovation firm to document
compliance with the requirement to
provide the owner and the occupant
with the PYF pamphlet. TSCA section
404 also allows States to apply for, and
receive authorization to administer, the
TSCA section 406(b) requirements.
TSCA section 403 directs EPA to
promulgate regulations that identify, for
the purposes of Title X and Title IV of
TSCA, dangerous levels of lead in paint,
dust, and soil. These regulations were
promulgated on January 5, 2001, and
codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart D
(Ref. 9). These hazard standards define
lead-based paint hazards in target
housing and child-occupied facilities as
paint-lead, dust-lead, and soil-lead
hazards. A paint-lead hazard is defined
as any damaged or deteriorated leadbased paint, any chewable lead-based
painted surface with evidence of teeth
marks, or any lead-based paint on a
friction surface if lead dust levels
underneath the friction surface exceed
the dust-lead hazard standards. A dustlead hazard is surface dust that contains
a mass-per-area concentration of lead
equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per
square foot (µg/ft2) on floors or 250 µg/
ft2 on interior windowsills based on
wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is bare
soil that contains total lead equal to or

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm)
in a play area or average of 1,200 ppm
of bare soil in the rest of the yard based
on soil samples.
TSCA section 402(c) addresses
renovation and remodeling. For the
stated purpose of reducing the risk of
exposure to lead in connection with
renovation and remodeling activities,
section 402(c)(1) of TSCA requires EPA
to promulgate and disseminate
guidelines for the conduct of such
activities that may create a risk of
exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In
response to this statutory directive, EPA
developed the guidance document
entitledReducing Lead Hazards when
Remodeling Your Home in consultation
with industry and trade groups (Ref. 10).
This document has been widely
disseminated to renovation and
remodeling stakeholders through the
National Lead Information Center, EPA
Regions, and EPA’s State and Tribal
partners and is available at http://
www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf.
TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to
study the extent to which persons
engaged in various types of renovation
and remodeling activities are exposed to
lead during such activities or create a
lead-based paint hazard regularly or
occasionally. EPA conducted this study
in four phases. Phase I, the
Environmental Field Sampling Study
(Ref. 11), evaluated the amount of
leaded dust released by the following
activities:
• Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
• Removal of large structures,
including demolition of interior plaster
walls.
• Window replacement.
• Carpet removal.
• HVAC repair or replacement,
including duct work.
• Repairs resulting in isolated small
surface disruptions, including drilling
and sawing into wood and plaster.
Phase II, the Worker Characterization
and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 12),
involved collecting data on blood lead
and renovation and remodeling
activities from workers. Phase III, the
Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study
(Ref. 13.), was a retrospective study
focused on assessing the relationship
between renovation and remodeling
activities and children’s blood-lead
levels. Phase IV, the Worker
Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
of R&R Workers Who Specialize in
Renovations of Old or Historic Homes
(Ref. 14), was similar to Phase II, but
focused on individuals who worked
primarily in old historic buildings. More
information on the results of these peerreviewed studies can be found in Unit

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21695

III.C.1. of the preamble to the 2006
Proposal.
3. Summary of 2006 Proposal. TSCA
section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise
the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations to apply to renovation or
remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards. In the 2006
Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude
that any renovation activity that
disturbs lead-based paint can create
significant amounts of leaded dust, that
most activities created lead-based paint
hazards, and that some activities can be
reasonably anticipated to create leadbased paint hazards. Accordingly, on
January 10, 2006, EPA issued a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking covering
renovation performed for compensation
in target housing (Ref. 3). The 2006
Proposal contained requirements
designed to address lead-based paint
hazards created by renovation, repair,
and painting activities that disturb leadbased paint. The 2006 Proposal
included requirements for training
renovators, other renovation workers,
and dust sampling technicians; for
certifying renovators, dust sampling
technicians, and renovation firms; for
accrediting providers of renovation and
dust sampling technician training; for
renovation work practices; and for
recordkeeping. The 2006 Proposal
would have made the rule effective in
two stages. Initially, the rule would
have applied to all renovations for
compensation performed in target
housing where a child with an increased
blood lead level resided and rental
target housing built before 1960. The
rule would also have applied to owneroccupied target housing built before
1960, unless the person performing the
renovation obtained a statement signed
by the owner-occupant that the
renovation would occur in the owner’s
residence and that no child under age 6
resided there. As proposed, the rule
would take effect 1 year later in all
rental target housing built between 1960
and 1978 and owner-occupied target
housing built between 1960 and 1978.
EPA also proposed to allow interested
States, Territories, and Indian Tribes the
opportunity to apply for and receive
authorization to administer and enforce
all of the elements of the new
renovation provisions.
4. Summary of 2007 Supplemental
Proposal. EPA received approximately
250 comments on its 2006 Proposal.
These comments came from a wide
variety of commenters, including State
and local governments, industry groups,
advocacy groups, renovation
contractors, training providers, and
individuals. A significant number of
these commenters observed that the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21696

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

proposal did not cover buildings where
children under age 6 spend a great deal
of time, such as day care centers and
schools. Commenters noted that the risk
posed to children from lead-based paint
hazards in schools and day care centers
is likely to be equal to, if not greater
than, the risk posed from these hazards
at home. These commenters suggested
that EPA expand its proposal to include
such places, and several suggested that
EPA use the existing definition of
‘‘child-occupied facility’’ in 40 CFR
745.223 to define the expanded scope of
coverage. EPA felt that these comments
had merit, and, because adding childoccupied facilities was beyond the
scope of the 2006 Proposal, an
expansion of the 2006 Proposal was
necessary to give this issue full and fair
consideration. Accordingly, on June 5,
2007, EPA issued a Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2007
Supplemental Proposal) to add childoccupied facilities to the universe of
buildings covered by the 2006 Proposal
(Ref. 15).
EPA proposed to use the definition of
‘‘child-occupied facility’’ from 40 CFR
745.223 with some modifications to
make it consistent with the statutory
focus on children under age 6 and to
better describe the applicability of the
term in target housing and in public or
commercial buildings. The 2007
Supplemental Proposal would apply all
of the accreditation, training,
certification, work practice, and
recordkeeping requirements to
renovations in child-occupied facilities
in the same way that the requirements
would apply to renovations in target
housing. In addition, EPA proposed to
extend the lead hazard information
distribution requirements of the PreRenovation Education Rule, 40 CFR part
745, subpart E, to renovations in childoccupied facilities. Specifically, EPA
proposed that persons performing
renovations in child-occupied facilities
in public or commercial buildings
would have to provide a lead hazard
information pamphlet to the owner of
the building and to the proprietor of the
child-occupied facility. In addition,
general information about the
renovation would have to be provided
to parents and guardians of children
under age 6 using the child-occupied
facility. The 2007 Supplemental
Proposal further provided that a lead
hazard information pamphlet would
have to be provided to parents and
guardians or made available upon
request. EPA received 12 comments on
its 2007 Supplemental Proposal.
5. 2007 Notice of Data Availability.
After the 2006 proposal, two new
studies assessing hazards associated

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

with renovation activities were
completed. On March 16, 2007, EPA
announced the availability of these new
studies in the docket for this rulemaking
(Ref. 16). EPA requested comment on
how these studies might inform
provisions of the final rule. EPA
received nearly 100 comments in
response to its notice. Comments
specifically on the studies are discussed
below. Comments on how the studies
might affect the final rule are discussed
along with the provisions of the final
rule in Unit III.E. of this preamble.
a. Characterization of Dust Lead
Levels after Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Activities. EPA conducted a
field study (Characterization of Dust
Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Activities) (the ‘‘Dust
Study’’) to characterize dust lead levels
resulting from various renovation,
repair, and painting activities (Ref. 17).
This study, completed in January 2007,
was designed to compare environmental
lead levels at appropriate stages after
various types of renovation, repair, and
painting preparation activities were
performed on the interiors and exteriors
of target housing units and childoccupied facilities. All of the jobs
disturbed more than 2 square feet of
lead-based paint, so they would not
have been eligible for the minor
maintenance exception from the 2006
Proposal. The renovation activities were
conducted by local professional
renovation firms, using personnel who
received lead safe work practices
training using the curriculum developed
by EPA and HUD, ‘‘Lead Safety for
Remodeling, Repair, and Painting’’ (Ref.
18). The activities conducted
represented a range of activities that
would be permitted under the 2006
Proposal, including work practices that
are restricted or prohibited for
abatements under 40 CFR 745.227(e)(6).
Of particular interest was the impact of
using specific work practices that
renovation firms would be required to
use under the proposed rule, such as the
use of plastic to contain the work area
and a multi-step cleaning protocol, as
opposed to more typical work practices.
The design of the Dust Study was
peer-reviewed by experts in fields
related to the study. They reviewed the
design and quality assurance plan
independently and provided written
comments to EPA. The results of this
peer-review are summarized in Unit 2 of
the Dust Study report (Ref. 17). In
addition, the record of this peer-review,
which includes the comments from the
reviewers and EPA’s responses, has
been placed into the public docket for
this action.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

In the Dust Study, 12 different interior
and 12 different exterior renovation
activities were performed at 7 vacant
target housing units in Columbus, Ohio,
and 8 vacant target housing units
(including four apartments) in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Three
different interior and three different
exterior renovation activities were
conducted at a building representing a
child-occupied facility, a vacant school
in Columbus. The presence of leadbased paint was confirmed by laboratory
analysis before a building was assigned
a particular renovation activity or set of
activities. Before interior renovation
activities were performed, the floors and
windowsills in the work area and
adjacent rooms were cleaned. In most
cases, pre-work cleaning resulted in
dust lead levels on floors of less than 10
µg/ft2; nearly all floors were less than 40
µg/ft2 before work started. Most
windowsills that would be used for later
sampling were cleaned to dust lead
levels less than 250 µg/ft2. In the few
cases where that level was not achieved
on a windowsill needed for sampling,
dust collection trays were used. Interior
renovation activities included the
following jobs:
• Making cut-outs in the walls.
• Replacing a window from the
inside.
• Removing paint with a high
temperature (greater than 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit) heat gun.
• Removing paint with a low
temperature (less than 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit) heat gun.
• Removing paint by dry scraping.
• Removing kitchen cabinets.
• Removing paint with a power
planer.
To illustrate the impact of the
containment plastic and the specialized
cleaning and cleaning verification
protocol that would be required by the
2006 Proposal, each activity was
performed a minimum of four times:
• With the plastic containment
described in the 2006 Proposal followed
by the cleaning protocol described in
the proposal.
• With the plastic containment
described in the 2006 Proposal followed
by dry sweeping and vacuuming with a
shop vacuum.
• With no plastic containment
followed by the cleaning protocol
described in the 2006 Proposal.
• With no plastic containment
followed by dry sweeping and
vacuuming with a shop vacuum.
Dust samples were collected after the
renovation work was completed, after
cleaning, and after cleaning verification.
If a building was being used again for
the same job under different work

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
practices, or for a completely different
job, the unit was recleaned and retested
prior to starting the next job. All
buildings were cleaned and tested after
the last job.
Geometric mean post-work, precleaning floor dust lead levels in the
work room were as follows (in µg/ft2):
• Cut-outs--422.
• Kitchen cabinet removal--958.
• Low temperature heat gun--2,080.
• Dry scraping--2,686.
• Window replacement--3,993.
• High temperature heat gun--7,737.
• Power planing--32,644.
Power planing is an activity very
similar to power sanding in which a
machine that operates at high speed
generating large quantities of dust is
used.
Where baseline practices, i.e., no
containment, dry sweeping, and
vacuuming with a shop vacuum, were
used, the geometric mean post-job floor
dust lead levels in the work room were
as follows (in µg/ft2):
• Cut-outs--22.
• Kitchen cabinet removal--58.
• Low temperature heat gun--41.
• Dry scraping--66.
• Window replacement--135.
• High temperature heat gun--445.
• Power planing--450.
The package of proposed rule
requirements, i.e., containment,
specialized cleaning, and cleaning
verification, resulted in the lowest
geometric mean dust lead levels in the
work room at the end of a job. These
results were as follows (in µg/ft2):
• Cut-outs--5.
• Kitchen cabinet removal--12.
• Low temperature heat gun--24.
• Dry scraping--30.
• Window replacement--33.
• High temperature heat gun--36.
• Power planing--148.
Windowsill sample results were
similar; the geometric mean dust lead
levels after renovation activities
performed in accordance with the
proposed rule exceeded 250 µg/ft2 only
where power planing or a high
temperature heat gun were used. When
baseline practices were used, the
geometric mean dust lead levels on the
windowsills exceeded 250 µg/ft2 for
kitchen cabinet removal, window
replacement, high temperature heat gun
use, and power planing.
Exterior renovation activities
performed as part of the study included
the following:
• Replacing a door and doorway.
• Replacing fascia boards, soffits,
and other trim.
• Removing paint with a high
temperature (greater than 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit) heat gun.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

• Removing paint with a low
temperature (less than 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit) heat gun.
• Removing paint by dry scraping.
• Removing paint with a needle gun.
• Removing paint with power
sanding or grinding.
• Removing paint with a torch or
open flame.
For the exterior jobs, plastic sheeting
was placed on the ground to catch the
debris and dust from the job, in
accordance with the requirements of the
proposed rule. Additional plastic
sheeting was laid out beneath and
beyond the ‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic.
Trays to collect dust and debris were
placed on top of and underneath the
‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic. Trays were also
placed just outside of the ‘‘proposed
rule’’ plastic to assess how far the dust
was spreading. A vertical containment,
as high as the work zone, was erected
at the end of the additional plastic.
The use of the ‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic
as a ground covering captured large
amounts of leaded dust. For all job types
except removing paint with a torch,
there was a substantial difference
between the amount of lead captured by
the ‘‘proposed rule’’ plastic and the
amount under the ‘‘proposed rule’’
plastic. Including both bulk debris and
dust, geometric mean lead levels in
exterior samples from the collection
trays on top of the ‘‘proposed rule’’
plastic ranged from a low of 60,662 µg/
ft2 for the door replacement activity to
a high of 7,216,358 µg/ft2 for removing
paint with a high temperature heat gun.
Geometric mean lead levels from the
collection trays under the ‘‘proposed
rule’’ plastic ranged from a low of 32 µg/
ft2 for door replacement to 8,565 µg/ft2
for removing paint with a torch.
This regulatory action was supported
by the Dust Study discussed above.
Therefore, EPA conducted a peer review
in accordance with OMB’s Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review. EPA requested this review from
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) Lead Review
Panel. The CASAC, which is comprised
of seven members appointed by the EPA
Administrator, was established under
the Clean Air Act as an independent
scientific advisory committee. The
CASAC’s comments on the Dust Study,
along with EPA’s responses, have been
placed into the public docket for this
action. More information on the CASAC
consultation process, along with
background documents, is available on
EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/
lead/pubs/casac.htm.
According to the peer review report,
the CASAC Panel found

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21697

. . .that the [Dust Study] was reasonably
well-designed, considering the complexity of
the problem, and that the report provided
information not available from any other
source. The study indicated that the rule
cleaning procedures reduced the residual
lead (Pb) remaining after a renovation more
than did the baseline cleaning procedures.
Another positive aspect of the Dust Study
was that it described deviations from the
protocol when they occurred.

The CASAC Panel also contended that
the limited data from residential
housing units and child-occupied
facilities included in the Dust Study,
most likely do not represent a
statistically valid sample of housing at
the national level. They noted that there
are aspects of the study that would
underestimate the levels of leadloadings while other aspects of the
study would overestimate the loadings.
EPA agrees that the Dust Study is not
nationally representative of all housing.
EPA notes that there are several reasons
why this is the case, including the fact
that all of the housing studied was built
during 1925 or earlier, and a large
number of the floors were in poor
condition. A major purpose of the Dust
Study was to assess the proposed work
practices. A statistically valid sample of
housing at the national level is not
needed to assess the work practices. If
anything, the Dust Study is conservative
with respect to the age of housing
because it studied older houses and
therefore is appropriate for assessing the
effectiveness of the work practices.
In addition to the Dust Study which
directly supported this regulatory
action, several other studies are
discussed throughout the preamble
which may or may not have been peer
reviewed.
b. Lead-Safe Work Practices Survey
Project. The National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) conducted a
survey that assessed renovation and
remodeling activities to measure levels
of lead dust generated by home
improvement contractors (Ref. 19). The
stated objective of this survey,
completed in November 2006, was to
measure the amount of lead dust
generated during typical renovation and
remodeling activities and assess
whether routine renovation and
remodeling activities increased lead
dust levels in the work area and on the
property.
The activities evaluated during the
survey were selected in consultation
with remodeling contractors. NAHB
believes that these activities represent
the most common jobs performed by
renovation and remodeling firms. The
renovations were performed by
professional renovation and remodeling

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21698

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

contractors from each of the
communities where the properties were
located. All of the workers who
participated in this project had
previously attended and successfully
completed the EPA/HUD curriculum for
Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, &
Painting.
According to the NAHB survey,
anEPA-certified lead-based paint
inspector confirmed the presence of
lead-based paint in all of the properties
considered for this survey. Previous
inspection reports were consulted if the
inspections conformed to the HUD
Guidelines for lead-based paint
inspections. Properties used in this
survey included a single family home in
Illinois, two single-family homes and a
duplex in Connecticut, and an
apartment above a storefront in
Wisconsin.
The NAHB survey evaluated the
following activities:
• Wall and ceiling removal
(demolition).
• Wall and ceiling modification.
• Window and door removal and/or
replacement (no sanding).
• Window and door alteration (no
sanding).
• Sanding on windows and doors.
• Kitchen or bath cabinet removal.
• Baseboard and stair removal.
• Surface preparation (sanding).
• Sawing into wood and plaster.
Activities were performed in one of
three ways: Using the work practices
presented in the EPA/HUD curriculum,
using modified work practices (one or
more of the dust control or cleanup
methods discussed in the EPA/HUD
curriculum), or routine renovation
practices.
Area air samples were collected
before, during and after the work
activity. Personal breathing zone air
samples were collected during the work
activity. Dust wipe samples were
collected before work started and after
final clean-up. Dust wipe samples were
routinely collected from floors near the
work activity and in some cases
collected from a windowsill and/or
window well.
In comparing the mean dust lead
levels before the activities with the
mean dust lead levels after the
activities, the NAHB concluded that the
renovation activities surveyed did not
create new lead dust hazards overall.
However, even after clean-up was
conducted, over half of the 60
individual renovation activities studied
resulted in an increase in dust lead
levels on at least one surface. In most
cases, the increase was considerably
greater than the regulatory dust-lead
hazard standard for that surface.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

6. Statutory finding and regulatory
approach—TSCA section 402(c)(3)
determination. TSCA section 402(c)(3)
directs EPA to revise the regulations
issued under TSCA section 402(a), the
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations,
to apply to renovation or remodeling
activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. EPA finds that renovation,
repair, and painting activities that
disturb lead-based paint create leadbased paint hazards. This finding is
based upon EPA’s Environmental Field
Sampling Study and corroborated by the
Dust Study and the NAHB survey (Refs.
11, 17, and 19).
In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed
to conclude that any renovation activity
that disturbs lead-based paint can create
significant amounts of leaded dust, that
most activities created lead-based paint
hazards, and that some activities can be
reasonably anticipated to create leadbased paint hazards. EPA’s proposed
conclusions were based upon the results
of the Environmental Field Sampling
Study, which examined, on a variety of
components using a variety of tools and
methods, activities that EPA had
determined were representative of the
paint-disturbing activities that typically
occur during renovations. The activities
were:
• Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
• Window replacement.
• HVAC duct work.
• Demolition of interior plaster
walls.
• Drilling into wood.
• Drilling into plaster.
• Sawing into wood.
• Sawing into plaster.
Specifically, EPA proposed to
conclude that all of the activities
studied in the Environmental Field
Sampling Study, with the exception of
drilling into plaster, can create leadbased paint hazards. With respect to
drilling into plaster, where lead-based
paint is present, EPA proposed to
conclude that this activity can
reasonably be anticipated to create leadbased paint hazards. The Environmental
Field Sampling Study found that, with
the exception of drilling into plaster, all
renovation and remodeling activities,
when conducted where lead-based paint
is present, generated lead loadings on
floors at a distance of 5 to 6 feet from
the activity that exceeded EPA’s dustlead hazard standard of 40 µg/ft2.
However, upon further review, it is
apparent that the study also found that
drilling into plaster created dust lead
levels in the immediate vicinity of the
activity that exceeded the dust-lead
hazard standard. Thus, all the activities
studied did in fact create lead-based
paint hazards.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

The 2006 Proposal cited the other
phases of the TSCA section 402(c)(2)
renovation and remodeling study to
support EPA’s proposed determination
that any renovation, remodeling, or
painting activity that disturbs leadbased paint can be reasonably
anticipated to create lead-based paint
hazards. Phase III, the Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study, found
that children who live in homes where
renovation and remodeling activities
were performed within the past year are
30% more likely to have a blood leadlevel that equals or exceeds 10 µg/dL,
the level of concern established by CDC,
than children living in homes where no
such activity has taken place recently.
Phases II and IV of the study, which
evaluated worker exposures from
renovation and remodeling activities,
provide additional documentation of the
significant and direct relationship
between blood-lead levels and the
conduct of certain renovation and
remodeling activities. Phase II found a
statistically significant association
between increased blood lead levels and
the number of days spent performing
general renovation and remodeling
activities, paint removal, and cleanup in
pre-1950 buildings in the past month.
Phase IV of the study found that persons
performing renovation and remodeling
activities in old historic buildings are
more likely to have elevated blood lead
levels than persons in the general
population of renovation and
remodeling workers.
In light of EPA’s proposed
determination, the 2006 Proposal
included revisions to the existing Leadbased Paint Activities Regulations to
extend them to renovation, remodeling,
and painting activities in target housing,
with certain exceptions. In proposing to
extend these regulations to renovation,
remodeling, and painting activities in
child-occupied facilities, the 2007
Supplemental Proposal incorporated the
proposed TSCA section 402(c)(3)
determination.
Since the 2006 Proposal, EPA
conducted the Dust Study and NAHB
submitted the results of their survey.
The results of the Dust Study confirm
that renovation and remodeling
activities that disturb lead-based paint
create lead-based paint hazards. The
Dust Study evaluated a number of
common renovation activities, including
replacing windows, removing kitchen
cabinets, cutting into walls, and
removing paint by high and low
temperature heat guns, power tools, and
dry scraping. The geometric mean postwork dust lead levels on work room
floors ranged from a low of 422 µg/ft2,
or 10 times the dust-lead hazard

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
standard for floors, for cut-outs, to a
high of 32,644 µg/ft2 for power planing.
Thus, all of the activities evaluated in
the Dust Study created floor dust lead
levels that exceeded 40 µg/ft2, one of the
measures that, in 40 CFR 745.65, defines
a lead-based paint hazard. It is more
difficult to evaluate the effect of
disturbing lead-based paint in the
NAHB Survey, since the survey did not
involve collecting samples after work
had been performed but before the postrenovation cleaning had begun.
Nevertheless, even after post-renovation
cleaning using a variety of methods, in
more than half of the 60 experiments
performed in this survey, the postcleaning dust wipe sample results for at
least one surface showed an increase
greater than the TSCA section 403
hazard standard over pre-work levels.
These experiments showing increased
dust lead levels cover the range of
activities evaluated in the NAHB
Survey.
Therefore, in this action, EPA is
issuing its determination that
renovation, repair, and painting
activities that disturb lead-based paint
create lead-based paint hazards. Because
the evidence shows that all such
activities in the presence of lead-based
paint create lead-based paint hazards,
EPA is modifying its proposed finding,
which distinguished between activities
that create lead-based paint hazards and
those that can reasonably be anticipated
to create lead-based paint hazards, and
instead concludes that renovation
activities that disturb lead-based paint
create lead-based paint hazards. Indeed,
no commenter submitted data indicating
that any renovation, repair, or painting
activity should be exempt from
regulation because it does not create
lead-based paint hazards.
EPA received a large number of
comments on this proposed finding.
Many expressed support for EPA’s
determination that any renovation,
repair, or painting activity that disturbs
lead-based paint creates lead-based
paint hazards. Some commenters, while
expressing their support for this
determination, also opined that the
regulatory dust-lead hazard standards
for floors and windowsills are too high.
These commenters argued that recent
scientific evidence shows that children
experience adverse health effects at
lower blood lead levels than previously
thought, and since EPA’s regulatory
dust-lead hazard standards were set
with reference to a blood lead level of
10 µg/dL, the CDC level of concern, the
dust-lead hazard standards must be
lowered. EPA agrees that recent studies
demonstrate that neurocognitive effects
occur at blood lead levels below the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

current CDC level of concern. In fact,
EPA’s most recent Air Quality Criteria
for Lead document, issued in October,
2006, describes several epidemiologic
studies published in the last 5 years that
observed significant lead-induced IQ
decrements in children with some
effects observed at blood lead levels of
5 µg/dL and lower (Ref. 1). The
document also notes that other recent
studies observed significant associations
at low blood-lead levels for other
neurotoxicity endpoints in addition to
IQ, such as arithmetic and reading
scores, attentional behavior, and
neuromotive function. However, EPA is
not addressing the appropriateness of
the existing dust-lead hazard standards
in this rulemaking. The original hazard
standards were set through a separate
rulemaking process under TSCA section
403 that allowed for input from all of
the parties that would be affected by the
standards. Furthermore, EPA is
concerned that a full review of the
available evidence and other
considerations affecting the hazard
standards as part of this rulemaking
would result in a significant delay in
promulgating training, certification, and
work practice standards for renovation
activities. EPA did not propose to
modify the TSCA section 403 hazard
standard levels in this rulemaking and
has not undertaken the significant
analyses that would need to be
performed in order to establish different
standards. Accordingly, EPA is not able,
in this final rule, to modify the
regulatory hazard standard. In any
event, since EPA finds that renovation
activities that disturb lead-based paint
create lead-paint hazards, lowering the
hazard standard would not affect EPA’s
finding.
Some commenters objected to EPA’s
proposed determination that renovation,
repair, or painting activities that disturb
lead-based paint create lead-based paint
hazards. Some commenters interpreted
EPA’s statutory authority to regulate
renovation and remodeling under TSCA
section 402(c)(3) as being limited to
those renovation and remodeling
activities for which EPA can prove a
link between the activity and the blood
lead action level established by CDC for
public health intervention. These
commenters contend that the failure to
prove such a link means that renovation
and remodeling activities do not create
lead-based paint hazards. This
interpretation is not supported by the
plain language of the statute. TSCA
section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to
regulate renovation and remodeling
activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. The term ‘‘lead-based paint

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21699

hazard’’ is defined in TSCA section 401
as ‘‘any condition that causes exposure
to lead from lead-contaminated dust . .
. that would result in adverse human
health effects as established by the
Administrator under this subchapter.’’
TSCA section 403 directs EPA to
promulgate regulations which ‘‘identify,
for purposes of this subchapter and the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, lead-based paint
hazards, lead-contaminated dust, and
lead-contaminated soil.’’ The TSCA
section 403 regulations define dust-lead
hazards as levels that equal or exceed 40
µg/ft2 of lead on floors or 250 µg/ft2 of
lead on interior windowsills. Therefore,
EPA interprets TSCA as directing it to
regulate renovation and remodeling
activities if such activities create dust
lead levels that exceed the standards for
dust-lead hazards established under
TSCA section 403. Again, the
Environmental Field Sampling Study,
the Dust Study, and the NAHB survey
all demonstrate that renovation and
remodeling activities that disturb leadbased paint create dust lead levels that
exceed the hazard standards in 40 CFR
745.65.
EPA also interprets the scientific
evidence for a link between renovations
and the CDC blood lead action level
differently than do these commenters.
EPA’s Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead
Study, described more fully in Unit
III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006
Proposal, provides ample evidence of a
link between renovation activities and
elevated blood lead levels in resident
children (Ref. 13). This peer-reviewed
study concluded that general residential
renovation and remodeling is associated
with an increased risk of elevated blood
lead levels in children and that specific
renovation and remodeling activities are
also associated with an increase in the
risk of elevated blood lead levels in
children. In particular, removing paint
(using open flame torches, using heat
guns, using chemical paint removers,
and wet scraping/sanding) and
preparing surfaces by sanding or
scraping significantly increased the risk
of elevated blood lead levels. Some of
the commenters on this rule focused on
Table 3-13 in the study report and cited
that as evidence that work performed by
paid professional renovators does not
create a statistically significant risk of
an elevated blood-lead level in a
resident child.EPA agrees that this table,
which presents the results of analyses
using one of the sets of models used to
interpret study data, indicates that, with
respect to the persons performing the
work, the only statistically significant
result associated with increased risk of

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21700

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

elevated blood lead levels was work
performed by a relative or friend not in
the household. Work performed by
professional renovators was associated
with an increased risk of an elevated
blood lead level, but the association was
not statistically significant. As
explained more fully in a memorandum
summarizing additional analyses of the
data from this study (Ref. 20), this table
does not indicate that professional
contractors were not responsible for
creating lead exposure hazards. Rather,
it indicates that renovation activities
performed by professional contractors
are no more or less hazardous than
renovation activities performed by most
of the other categories of persons
identified in the survey responses
collected as part of the study. It is also
important to note that, while these
commenters focus on a blood-lead level
of 10 µg/dL as a threshold, this level is
not and has not been considered by CDC
or EPA as a threshold for adverse
effects.
One commenter also dismissed the
two studies from New York that EPA
cited as supporting the findings of the
Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead
Study. In 1995, the New York State
Department of Health assessed lead
exposure among children resulting from
home renovation and remodeling in
1993–1994. A review of the health
department records of children with
blood lead levels equal to or greater than
20 µg/dL identified 320, or 6.9%, with
elevated blood lead levels that were
attributable to renovation and
remodeling (Ref. 21). The commenter
noted that this study suffered from a
number of limitations, including the fact
that it was not a case-control study; i.e.,
the group of children with elevated
blood lead levels attributed to
renovation and remodeling was not
compared with a similar group of
households that had not undergone
renovation during the period. EPA
agrees that this is an important
limitation of this study. However, with
respect to the other limitations noted by
this commenter, the authors of the
report felt that most of these limitations
would likely result in an
underestimation of the burden of lead
exposure associated with renovation
and remodeling.
The other study cited by EPA as
supporting the Wisconsin Childhood
Blood-Lead Study conclusions was a
case-control study that assessed the
association between elevated blood lead
levels in children younger than 5 years
and renovation or repair activities in
homes in New York City (Ref. 22).EPA
notes that the authors show that when
dust and debris was reported (by

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

respondents via telephone interviews)
to be ‘‘everywhere’’ following a
renovation, the blood lead levels were
significantly higher than children at
homes that did not report remodeling
work. On the other hand, when the
respondent reported either ‘‘no visible
dust and debris’’ or that ‘‘dust and
debris was limited to the work area,’’
there was no statistically significant
effect on blood lead levels relative to
homes that did not report remodeling
work. Although the study found only a
weak and nonsignificant link between a
report of any renovation activity and the
likelihood that a resident child had an
elevated blood-lead level, the link to the
likelihood of an elevated blood-lead
level was statistically significant for
surface preparation by sanding and for
renovation work that spreads dust and
debris beyond the work area. The
researchers noted the consistency of
their results with EPA’s Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 13, at
509). EPA notes that this confirms that
keeping visible dust and debris
contained to the work area is important
for limiting children exposures to lead
dust, rather than providing substantial
arguments for the effectiveness of visual
inspection.
In sum, EPA’s finding that renovation
and remodeling activities create leadbased paint hazards is not dependent
upon establishing a correlation between
such activities and elevated blood lead
levels. Rather, it rests on the fact that,
as demonstrated by EPA’s
Environmental Field Sampling Study,
EPA’s Dust Study, and by the NAHB
Survey, such activities create lead-based
paint hazards as defined by EPA
regulations. Moreover, EPA disagrees
that there is no scientific support for
establishing a relationship between
elevated blood lead levels in children
and renovation activities. While EPA
interprets these studies as supporting
such a relationship and believes these
studies further support its finding, it is
not a determinative factor.
b. EPA’s approach to this final rule.
Given EPA’s determination that
renovation, repair, and painting
activities that disturb lead-based paint
create lead-based paint hazards, TSCA
section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise
the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations to apply to these activities.
EPA does not interpret its statutory
mandate to require EPA to apply the
existing TSCA section 402(a) regulations
to renovations without change. By using
the word ‘‘revise,’’ and creating a
separate subsection of the statute for
renovation, EPA believes that Congress
intended that EPA make revisions to
those existing regulations to adapt them

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to a very different regulated community.
As discussed below, there are
significant differences between
renovations and abatements.
Accordingly, this final rule does not
merely expand the scope of the current
abatement requirements to cover
renovation and remodeling activities.
Rather, EPA has carefully considered
the elements of the existing abatement
regulations and revised them as
necessary to craft a rule that is practical
for renovation, remodeling and painting
businesses and their customers, taking
into account reliability, effectiveness,
and safety as directed by TSCA section
402(a). Specifically, the Agency
concludes that the training,
containment, cleaning, and cleaning
verification requirements in this final
rule rule achieve the goal of minimizing
exposure to lead-based paint hazards
created during renovation, remodeling
and painting activities, taking into
account reliability, effectiveness, and
safety.
In taking safety into account, EPA
looked to the statutory directive to
regulate renovation activities that create
lead-based paint hazards. Although
there is no known level of lead exposure
that is safe, EPA does not believe the
intent of Congress was to require
elimination of all possible risk arising
from a renovation. Nor does TSCA
explicitly require EPA to eliminate all
possible risk from lead, nor would it be
feasible to do so since lead is a
component of the earth. Rather, it
directs EPA to regulate renovation and
remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards. Given that the
trigger for regulating renovation and
remodeling activities is the creation of
lead-based paint hazards--which EPA
has identified in a separate rulemaking
pursuant to TSCA section 403--EPA
believes taking safety into account in
this context is best interpreted with
reference to those promulgated hazard
standards. If taking safety into account
required a more stringent standard, as
suggested by some commenters, the
potential would be created for a scheme
under which any renovation activities
found not to create hazards are not
regulated at all, whereas renovation
activities found to create hazards trigger
requirements designed to leave the
renovation site cleaner than the
unregulated renovations. EPA’s
interpretation is supported by the broad
Congressional intent that the section
403 hazard standards apply for purposes
of subchapter IV of TSCA. It is also
consistent with EPA’s approach in its
abatement regulations, which require
post-abatement cleaning to dust-lead

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
clearance levels that are numerically
equal to the TSCA section 403 hazard
standards levels. It would be anomalous
to impose a more stringent safety
standard in the renovation context than
in the abatement context, where the
express purpose of the regulated
activities is to abate lead-based paint
hazards. Therefore, in taking into
account safety, this final rule regulates
renovation and remodeling activities
relative to the TSCA section 403 hazard
standard, with the purpose of
minimizing exposure to such hazards
created during renovation and
remodeling activities.
Additionally, EPA has interpreted
practicality in implementation to be an
element of the statutory directive to take
into account effectiveness and
reliability. In particular, EPA believes
that given the highly variable nature of
the regulated community, the work
practices required by this rule should be
simple to understand and easy to use.
EPA is very aware that this regulation
will apply to a whole range of
individuals from day laborers to
property maintenance staff to master
craftsmen performing a whole range of
activities from simple drywall repair to
window replacement to complete
kitchen and bath renovations to
building additions and everything in
between. Work practices that are easy
and practical to use are more likely to
be followed by all of the persons who
perform renovations, and, therefore,
more likely to be reliable and effective
in minimizing exposure to lead-based
paint hazards created by renovation
activities.
One of the biggest challenges facing
EPA in revising the TSCA section 402(a)
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations
is how to effectively bridge the
differences between abatement and
renovation and remodeling while
acknowledging that many of the dust
generating activities are the same.
Abatements are generally performed in
three circumstances. First, an abatement
may be performed in the residence of a
child who has been found to have an
elevated blood lead level. Second,
abatements are performed in housing
receiving HUD financial assistance
when required by HUD’s Lead-Safe
Housing Rule. Third, state and local
laws and regulations may require
abatements in certain situations
associated with rental housing.
Typically, when an abatement is
performed, the housing is either
unoccupied or the occupants are
temporarily relocated to lead-safe
housing until the abatement has been
demonstrated to have been properly
completed through dust clearance

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

testing. Carpet in the housing is usually
removed as part of the abatement
because it is difficult to demonstrate
that it is free of lead-based paint
hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not
been replaced during the abatement may
need to be refinished or sealed in order
to achieve clearance. Abatements have
only one purpose--to permanently
eliminate lead-based paint and leadbased paint hazards.
On the other hand, renovations are
performed for a myriad of reasons, most
having nothing to do with lead-based
paint. Renovations involve activities
designed to update, maintain, or modify
all or part of a building. Renovations
may be performed while the property is
occupied or unoccupied. If the
renovation is performed while the
property is occupied, the occupants do
not typically relocate pending the
completion of the project.
Further, performing abatement is a
highly specialized skill that workers and
supervisors must learn in training
courses accredited by EPA or authorized
States, Territories, and Tribes. In
contrast, EPA is not interested in
teaching persons how to be painters,
plumbers, or carpenters. Rather, EPA’s
objective is to ensure that persons who
already know how to perform
renovations perform their typical work
in a lead-safe manner.
Nevertheless, as pointed out by some
commenters, abatement and renovation
have some things in common. For
example, as noted by one commenter,
window replacement may be performed
as part of an abatement to remove the
lead-based paint and lead-based paint
hazards on the existing window, or it
may be performed as part of a
renovation designed to improve the
energy efficiency of the building. In
many cases, the window replacement as
abatement and the window replacement
as renovation will generate the same
amount of leaded dust.
Another consideration is that while
renovation activities undoubtedly create
lead-based paint hazards, without
results from dust wipe samples
collected immediately before the
renovation commences, there is no way
to tell what portion of the lead dust
remaining on the surface was
contributed by the renovation. In
addition, as a practical matter, once
dust-lead hazards commingle with preexisting hazards, there is no functional
way to distinguish between those
created by the renovation activity and
any pre-existing dust-lead hazards.
However, the Dust Study shows that the
combination of training, containment,
cleaning and cleaning verification
required by this rule is effective at

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21701

reducing dust lead levels below the
dust-lead hazard standard. While the
requirements of this rule will, in some
cases, have the ancillary benefit of
removing some pre-existing dust-lead
hazards, these requirements are
designed to effectively clean-up the
lead-based paint hazards created during
renovation activities without changing
the scope of the renovation activity
itself. The intent of this final rule is not
to require cleanup of pre-existing
contamination.
For example, the rule does not require
cleaning of dust or any other possible
lead sources in portions of target
housing or child-occupied facilities
beyond the location in and around the
work area. Nor does this rule require the
replacement of carpets in the area of the
renovation or the refinishing or sealing
of uncarpeted floors. The approach in
this final rule is designed to address the
lead-based paint hazards created during
the renovation while not requiring
renovators to remediate or eliminate
hazards that are beyond the scope of the
work they were hired to do.
In addition, EPA has made a
concerted effort to keep the costs and
burdens associated with this rule as low
as possible, while still providing
adequate protection against lead-based
paint hazards created by renovation
activities. Indeed, as part of this
rulemaking EPA has, as directed by
TSCA section 2(c), considered the
environmental, economic, and social
impact of this rule. Nonetheless, many
commenters expressed concerns over
the potential unintended consequences
of this rulemaking. These commenters
argued that atoo-burdensome rule will
result in more renovations by
noncompliant renovators, and more doit-yourself renovations, both of which
are likely to be more hazardous than
renovations by certified professional
renovation firms using certified
renovators who follow the work practice
requirements of the rule. These
commenters were also concerned about
deferred property maintenance which
can be hazardous for many reasons,
including lead-based paint issues. For
example, one commenter pointed out
that a renovation project that replaces
old lead-based paint covered windows
with new ones that have no lead-based
paint may, as a by-product, reduce lead
hazards, and the rule should not work
to discourage this activity.
On the other hand, one commenter
argued that increased do-it-yourself
activity is an unlikely byproduct of this
rule because consumers are not only
opting to hire or not hire contractors
based on factors such as cost,
convenience, and perceived quality, but,

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21702

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

even more importantly, their own
proclivity towards performing
renovation work. According to the
commenter, the fact that the work
practices required by this rule may
result in slight cost increases is unlikely
to motivate homeowners to perform
their own renovations. This commenter
also felt that the sooner that protective
approaches become the accepted
standard of care for renovation work by
contractors receiving compensation, the
sooner do-it-yourselfers and the do–it–
yourself literature and training supports
will adopt the same protective
approaches.
It is difficult to determine with any
amount of certainty whether this final
rule will have unintended
consequences. However, EPA agrees
that it is important to minimize
disincentives for using certified
renovation firms who follow the work
practices required by this rule. EPA also
agrees that practicality is an important
consideration. Given the relatively low
estimated overall average per-job cost of
this final rule, which is $35, and the
relatively easy-to-use work practices
required by this final rule, EPA does not
expect the incremental costs associated
with this rule to be a determinative
factor for consumers. However, that
relatively low cost has resulted in part
from EPA’s efforts to contain the costs
of this rule in order to avoid creating
disincentives to using certified
renovation firms, and EPA has viewed
the comments received with those
considerations in mind.
With respect to the comment
regarding the standard of care for do-ityourselfers, EPA also plans to conduct
an outreach and education campaign
aimed at encouraging homeowners and
other building owners to follow work
practices while performing renovations
or hire a certified renovation firm to do
so.
7. Summary of the final rule. This
section summarizes the final rule in
general terms. For more information,
consult Unit III. below, which describes
each provision in detail, discusses any
changes from the proposal, and reviews
the comments received.
a. Definitions and scope. This final
rule applies to renovations for
compensation in target housing and
child-occupied facilities. TSCA section
401 defines ‘‘target housing’’ as any
housing constructed prior to 1978,
except housing for the elderly or
persons with disabilities (unless any
child who is less than 6 years of age
resides or is expected to reside in such
housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities) or any 0–bedroom dwelling.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

This rule contains the following
definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’:
Child-occupied facility’’ means a building,
or portion of a building, constructed prior to
1978, visited regularly by the same child,
under 6 years of age, on at least two different
days within any week (Sunday through
Saturday period), provided that each day’s
visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined
weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the
combined annual visits last at least 60 hours.
Child-occupied facilities may include, but
are not limited to, day care centers,
preschools and kindergarten classrooms.
Child-occupied facilities may be located in
target housing or in public or commercial
buildings. With respect to common areas in
public or commercial buildings that contain
child-occupied facilities, the child-occupied
facility encompasses only those common
areas that are routinely used by children
under age 6, such as restrooms and cafeterias.
Common areas that children under age 6 only
pass through, such as hallways, stairways,
and garages are not included. In addition,
with respect to exteriors of public or
commercial buildings that contain childoccupied facilities, the child-occupied
facility encompasses only the exterior sides
of the building that are immediately adjacent
to the child-occupied facility or the common
areas routinely used by children under age 6.

TSCA does not define the terms
‘‘renovation’’ or ‘‘remodeling,’’ but this
final rule builds upon the definition of
‘‘renovation’’ already established by the
regulations promulgated under TSCA
section 406(b). This rule defines
‘‘renovation’’ as follows:
‘‘Renovation’’ means the modification
of any existing structure, or portion
thereof, that results in the disturbance of
painted surfaces, unless that activity is
performed as part of an abatement as
defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223).
The term renovation includes (but is not
limited to): The removal, modification
or repair of painted surfaces or painted
components (e.g., modification of
painted doors, surface restoration,
window repair, surface preparation
activity (such as sanding, scraping, or
other such activities that may generate
paint dust)); the removal of building
components (e.g., walls, ceilings,
plumbing, windows); weatherization
projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted
surfaces to install blown-in insulation or
to gain access to attics, planing
thresholds to install weather-stripping),
and interim controls that disturb
painted surfaces. A renovation
performed for the purpose of converting
a building, or part of a building, into
target housing or a child-occupied
facility is a renovation under this
subpart. The term renovation does not
include minor repair and maintenance
activities.
This final rule excludes some of the
same projects that are excluded by the

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

TSCA section 406(b) regulations, such
as lead-based paint abatement projects
and renovations affecting components
that have been found to be free of leadbased paint. To be eligible for the latter
exception, the components must be
determined to be free of lead-based
paint by a certified inspector or risk
assessor, or by a certified renovator
using an EPA-approved test kit.
Emergency projects would continue to
be exempt from the lead hazard
information distribution requirements,
but the clean-up after the project must
meet the requirements of this regulation,
and compliance with the training,
certification, warning sign, and
containment requirements of this
regulation is required to the extent
practicable. Minor maintenance projects
that disturb no more than 6 square feet
of painted surface per room for interiors
or no more than 20 square feet of
painted surface for exteriors are also
exempt, so long as no work practices
prohibited or restricted by this final rule
are used, the renovation does not
involve window replacement and there
is no demolition of painted areas.
Finally, this regulation contains an
exception for renovations in owneroccupied target housing where no child
under age 6 or pregnant woman resides,
so long as the housing does not meet the
definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility.’’
To claim this exception, the renovation
firm must obtain, before beginning the
renovation, a signed statement from the
owner of the housing that states that the
person signing is the owner of the
housing to be renovated, that he or she
resides there, that no child under age 6
or pregnant woman resides there, that
the housing is not a child-occupied
facility, and that the owner understands
that the renovation firm will not be
required to use the work practices
contained in this rule.
b. Pre-Renovation Education Rule. As
described in greater detail in a separate
notice published elsewhere in today’s
Federal Register, EPA has developed a
new renovation-specific lead hazard
information pamphlet intended for use
in fulfilling the requirements of the PreRenovation Education Rule, 40 CFR part
745, subpart E. This final rule requires
firms performing renovations for
compensation in target housing and
child-occupied facilities to distribute
this new pamphlet before beginning
renovations to the owners and
occupants of target housing, owners of
public or commercial buildings that
contain a child-occupied facility, and
the proprietor of the child-occupied
facility, if different, and to provide
general information on the renovation

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
and the pamphlet to, or make it
available to, parents or guardians of
children under age 6 using the childoccupied facility. This can be
accomplished by mailing or handdelivering the general information on
the renovation and the pamphlet to the
parents and guardians or by posting
informational signs containing general
information on the renovation in areas
where the signs can be seen by the
parents or guardians of the children
frequenting the child-occupied facility.
The signs must be accompanied by a
posted copy of the pamphlet or
information on how interested parents
or guardians can review a copy of the
pamphlet or obtain a copy from the
renovation firm at no cost to the parents
or guardians. For renovations in the
common areas of multi-unit target
housing, similar notification options are
available to firms. They must provide
tenants with general information
regarding the nature of the renovation
by mail, by hand-delivery, or by posting
signs, and must also make this new
pamphlet available upon request. Firms
must maintain documentation of
compliance with these requirements.
c. Training, accreditation, and
certification. This final rule contains
training requirements leading to
certification for ‘‘renovators’’-individuals who perform and direct
renovation activities—and ‘‘dust
sampling technicians’’--individuals who
perform dust sampling not in
connection with an abatement.
Requirements for each of these courses
of study are described in detail, and a
hands-on component is required.
Training providers who wish to provide
training to renovators and dust sampling
technicians for Federal certification
purposes must apply for and receive
accreditation from EPA following the
same procedures that training providers
who offer lead-based paint activities
training now use to become accredited
by EPA. Providers of renovation training
must follow the same requirements for
program operation as training providers
who offer lead-based paint activities
training. For example, renovation
training programs must have adequate
facilities and equipment for delivering
the training, a training manager with
experience or education in a
construction or environmental field, and
a principal instructor with experience or
education in a related field and
education or experience in teaching
adults. To become accredited to provide
training for renovators and dust
sampling technicians, a provider must
submit an application for accreditation

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

to EPA. The application must include
the following items:
• The course materials and syllabus,
or a statement that EPA model materials
or materials approved by an authorized
State or Tribe will be used.
• A description of the facilities and
equipment that will be used.
• A copy of the test blueprint for
each course.
• A description of the activities and
procedures that will be used during the
hands-on skills portion of each course.
• A copy of the quality control plan.
• The correct amount of fees.
Training programs that submit a
complete application and meet the
requirements for faculty, facilities,
equipment, and course and test content
will be accredited for 4 years. To
maintain accreditation, the training
program must submit an application
and the correct amount of fees every 4
years. EPA is not establishing the
required fees in this rulemaking. EPA
intends to publish a proposed fee
schedule for public comment shortly.
Accredited renovation training
programs must also comply with the
existing notification and recordkeeping
requirements for lead-based paint
activities training programs at 40 CFR
745.225(c)(13) and 40 CFR 745.225(i),
respectively, by notifying EPA before
and after providing renovation training
and by maintaining records of course
materials, course test blueprints,
information on how hands-on training is
delivered, and the results of the
students’ skills assessments and course
tests.
Each renovation project covered by
this final rule must be performed and/
or directed by an individual who has
become a certified renovator by
successfully completing renovator
training from an accredited training
provider. The certified renovator is
responsible for ensuring compliance
with the work practice standards of this
final regulation. The certified renovator
must perform or direct certain critical
tasks during the renovation, such as
posting warning signs, establishing
containment of the work area, and
cleaning the work area after the
renovation. These and other renovation
activities may be performed by workers
who have been provided on-the-job
training in these activities by a certified
renovator. However, the certified
renovator must be physically present at
the work site while signs are being
posted, containment is being
established, and the work area is being
cleaned after the renovation to ensure
that these tasks are performed correctly.
Although the certified renovator is not
required to be on-site at all times, while

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21703

the renovation project is ongoing, a
certified renovator must nonetheless
regularly direct the work being
performed by other workers to ensure
that the work practices are being
followed. When a certified renovator is
not physically present at the work site,
the workers must be able to contact the
renovator immediately by telephone or
other mechanism. In addition, the
certified renovator must perform the
post-renovation cleaning verification.
This task may not be delegated to
workers with on-the-job training. To
maintain certification, a renovator must
successfully complete an accredited
renovator refresher training course every
5 years.
Renovations must be performed by
certified firms. The certification
requirements for renovation firms are
identical to the certification
requirements for firms that perform
lead-based paint activities, except that
renovation firm certification lasts for 5
years instead of 3 years.A firm that
wishes to become certified to perform
renovations must submit an application,
along with the correct amount of fees,
attesting that it will assign a certified
renovator to each renovation that it
performs, that it will use only certified
or properly trained individuals to
perform renovations, and that it will
follow the work practice standards and
recordkeeping requirements in this
regulation. EPA will certify any firm
that meets these requirements unless
EPA determines that the environmental
compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees
demonstrates an unwillingness or
inability to maintain compliance with
environmental statutes or regulations.
To maintain certification, the firm must
submit an application and the correct
amount of fees every 5 years. As noted
above, EPA will establish the required
fees in a subsequent rulemaking.
d. Work practice standards. This final
rule contains a number of work practice
requirements that must be followed for
every covered renovation in target
housing and child-occupied facilities.
These requirements pertain to warning
signs and work area containment, the
restriction or prohibition of certain
practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch,
power sanding, power planing), waste
handling, cleaning, and post-renovation
cleaning verification. The firm must
ensure compliance with these work
practices. Although the certified
renovator is not required to be on-site at
all times, while the renovation project is
ongoing, a certified renovator must
nonetheless regularly direct the work
being performed by other workers to
ensure that the work practices are being

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21704

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

followed. When a certified renovator is
not physically present at the work site,
the workers must be able to contact the
renovator immediately by telephone or
other mechanism.
i. Warning signs and work area
containment. Before beginning a
covered renovation, the certified
renovator or a worker under the
direction of the certified renovator must
post signs outside the area to be
renovated warning occupants and others
not involved in the renovation to remain
clear of the area. In addition, the
certified renovator or a worker under
the direction of the certified renovator
must also contain the work area so that
dust or debris does not leave the area
while the work is being performed. At
a minimum, containment for interior
projects must include:
• Removing or covering all objects in
the work area with plastic or other
impermeable material.
• Closing and covering all forced air
HVAC ducts in the work area with
plastic or other impermeable material.
• Closing all windows in the work
area.
• Closing and sealing all doors in the
work area with plastic or other
impermeable material.
• Covering the floor surface,
including installed carpet, with tapeddown plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material in the work area
6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient
distance to contain the dust, whichever
is greater.
Doors within the work area that will be
used while the job is being performed
must be covered with plastic sheeting or
other impermeable material in a manner
that allows workers to pass through
while confining dust and debris to the
work area. In addition, all personnel,
tools, and other items, including the
exterior of containers of waste, must be
free of dust and debris when leaving the
work area. There are several ways of
accomplishing this. For example, tacky
mats may be put down immediately
adjacent to the plastic sheeting covering
the work area floor to remove dust and
debris from the bottom of the workers’
shoes as they leave the work area,
workers may remove their shoe covers
(booties) as they leave the work area,
and clothing and materials may be wetwiped and/or HEPA-vacuumed before
they are removed from the work area.
At a minimum, containment for
exterior projects must include:
• Covering the ground with plastic
sheeting or other disposable
impermeable material extending 10 feet
beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

distance to collect falling paint debris,
whichever is greater, unless the
property line prevents 10 feet of such
ground covering.
• Closing all doors and windows
within 20 feet of the outside of the work
area on the same floor as the renovation
and closing all doors and windows on
the floors below that area.
In certain situations, such as where
other buildings are in close proximity to
the work area, when conditions are
windy, or where the work area abuts a
property line, the certified renovator or
a worker under the direction of the
certified renovator performing the
renovation may have to take extra
precautions to prevent dust and debris
from leaving the work area as required
by the regulation. This may include
erecting a system of vertical
containment designed to prevent dust
and debris from migrating to adjacent
property or contaminating the ground,
other buildings, or any object beyond
the work area. In addition, doors within
the work area that will be used while
the job is being performed must be
covered with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material in a manner that
allows workers to pass through while
confining dust and debris to the work
area.
ii. Waste management. The certified
renovator or a worker trained and
directed by a certified renovator must, at
the conclusion of each work day, store
any collected lead-based paint waste
from renovation activities under
containment, in an enclosure, or behind
a barrier that prevents release of dust
and debris and prevents access to the
waste. In addition, the certified
renovator or a worker under the
direction of the certified renovator
transporting lead-based paint waste
from a work site must contain the waste
to prevent identifiable releases. With
regard to the lead-based paint waste
generated by renovations in housing
units, Unit IV.D.2. of the preamble to
the 2006 Proposal describes how a
clarification of the hazardous waste
exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) means
that residential lead-based paint waste
may be disposed of in municipal solid
waste landfill units, as long as the waste
is generated during abatement or
renovation and remodeling activities in
households. Also discussed in the
preamble to the 2006 Proposal is a
subsequent amendment to the waste
regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) that allows construction
and demolition (C&D) landfills to accept
residential lead-based paint waste.
iii. Cleaning. This final rule contains
a number of specific cleaning steps that

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified
renovator must follow after performing
a covered renovation. Upon completion
of renovation activities, all paint chips
and debris must be picked up.
Protective sheeting must be misted and
folded dirty side inward. Sheeting used
to isolate the work area from other areas
must remain in place until after the
cleaning and removal of other sheeting;
this sheeting must be misted and
removed last. Removed sheeting must
either be folded and taped shut to seal
or sealed in heavy-duty bags and
disposed of as waste.
After the sheeting has been removed
from the work area, the entire area must
be cleaned, including the adjacent
surfaces that are within 2 feet of the
work area. The walls, starting from the
ceiling and working down to the floor,
must be vacuumed with a HEPA
vacuum or wiped with a damp cloth.
This final rule requires that all
remaining surfaces and objects in the
work area, including floors, furniture
and fixtures, be thoroughly vacuumed
with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. When
cleaning carpets, the HEPA vacuum
must be equipped with a beater bar to
aid in dislodging and collecting deep
dust and lead from carpets. Where
feasible, floor surfaces underneath area
rugs must also be thoroughly vacuumed
with a HEPA vacuum.
After vacuuming, all surfaces and
objects in the work area, except for
walls and carpeted or upholstered
surfaces, must be wiped with a damp
cloth. Uncarpeted floors must be
thoroughly mopped using a 2-bucket
mopping method that keeps the wash
water separate from the rinse water, or
using a wet mopping system with
disposable absorbent cleaning pads and
a built-in mechanism for distributing or
spraying cleaning solution from a
reservoir onto a floor.
For cleaning following an exterior
renovation, this final rule requires all
paint chips and debris to be picked up.
Protective sheeting must be misted and
folded dirty side inward. Removed
sheeting must be either folded and
taped shut to seal or sealed in heavyduty bags and disposed of as waste.
iv. Post-renovation cleaning
verification. This final rule requires a
certified renovator to perform a visual
inspection of the work area after the
cleaning steps outlined in the previous
subsection. This visual inspection is for
the purpose of determining whether
dust, debris, or other residue is present
in the work area. If dust, debris, or other
residue remains in the work area, the
dust, debris, or other residue must be

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
removed by re-cleaning and another
visual inspection must be performed.
When an exterior work area passes the
visual inspection, the renovation has
been properly completed and the
warning signs may be removed. When
an interior work area passes the visual
inspection, an additional cleaning
verification step is required. A certified
renovator assigned to the renovation
project must use disposable cleaning
cloths to wipe the windowsills,
countertops, and uncarpeted floors in
the work area. These cloths must then
be compared to a cleaning verification
card. For each cloth that matches or is
lighter than the cleaning verification
card, the corresponding windowsill,
countertop, or floor area is considered to
have passed the post-renovation
cleaning verification. In contrast to the
2006 Proposal, this final rule limits this
requirement to two wet cloths and one
dry cloth. After the first dry cloth, that
surface will be considered to have
passed post-renovation cleaning
verification. When all windowsills,
countertops, and floor areas in the work
area have passed post-renovation
cleaning verification, the warning signs
may be removed. More information on
the post-renovation cleaning verification
procedure and the underlying studies
can be found in Unit IV.E. of the
preamble to the 2006 Proposal and in
Unit III.E.7. of this preamble.
In contrast to the 2006 Proposal, this
final rule does not allow dust clearance
sampling in lieu of post-renovation
cleaning verification, except in cases
where the contract between the
renovation firm and the property owner
or another Federal, State, Territorial,
Tribal, or local regulation requires dust
clearance sampling by a certified
sampling professional and requires the
renovation firm to clean the work area
until it passes clearance.
e. State, Territorial, and Tribal
programs. This final rule also contains
provisions for interested States,
Territories, and Tribes to apply for and
receive authorization to administer their
own renovation, repair and painting
programs in lieu of the proposed
regulation. States, Territories and Tribes
may choose to administer and enforce
just the existing requirements of subpart
E, the pre-renovation education
elements, the training, certification,
accreditation, work practice, and
recordkeeping requirements of this final
rule, or both. EPA will use the same
process used for lead-based paint
activities programs, along with
proposed specific renovation program
elements, to authorize State, Territorial,
and Tribal programs.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

States, Territories, and Tribes seeking
authority to administer and enforce
renovation programs must obtain public
input and then submit an application to
EPA. Applications must contain a
number of items, including a
description of the State, Territorial, or
Tribal program, copies of all applicable
statutes, regulations, and standards, and
a certification by the State Attorney
General, Tribal Counsel, or an
equivalent official, that the applicable
legislation and regulations provide
adequate legal authority to administer
and enforce the program. The program
description must demonstrate that the
State, Territorial, or Tribal program is at
least as protective as the Federal
program and that it provides for
adequate enforcement.
To be eligible for authorization to
administer and enforce renovation
programs, State, Territorial, and Tribal
renovation programs must contain
certain minimum elements that are very
similar to the minimum elements
required for lead-based paint activities
programs. In order to be authorized,
State, Territorial, or Tribal programs
must have procedures and requirements
for the accreditation of training
programs, the training of renovators,
and the certification of renovators or
renovation firms. At a minimum, the
program requirements must include
accredited training for renovators and
procedures and requirements for recertification. State, Territorial, and
Tribal programs applying for
authorization are also required to
include work practice standards for
renovations that ensure that renovations
are conducted only by certified
renovators or renovation firms and that
renovations are conducted using work
practices at least as protective as those
of the Federal program.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
These training, certification and
accreditation requirements; State,
Territorial, and Tribal authorization
provisions; and work practice standards
are being promulgated under the
authority of TSCA sections 402(c)(3),
404, 406, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3),
2684, 2686, and 2687, and in a manner
that is consistent with TSCA section
2(c), 15 U.S.C. 2601(c).
III. Provisions of this Final Rule
This unit describes the specific
provisions of the final regulation and
discusses the major comments received.
A. Scope of the Final Rule
EPA is amending the existing
regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21705

E (the ‘‘Pre-Renovation Education
Rule’’), that implement TSCA section
406(b) to add training and certification
requirements, as well as work practice
standards, for certain renovation, repair,
and painting projects performed for
compensation in target housing and in
child-occupied facilities.
1. Buildings covered—a. Target
housing. The requirements of this final
rule apply to renovations performed for
compensation within and on the
exteriors of target housing units,
including renovations performed for
compensation in common areas, such as
hallways, stairways, and laundry and
recreational rooms, in multi-unit target
housing. The term ‘‘target housing’’ is
defined in TSCA section 401 as any
housing constructed before 1978, except
housing for the elderly or persons with
disabilities (unless any child under age
6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing) or any 0–bedroom dwelling.
Several commenters were concerned
about the exclusion of 0–bedroom
dwellings from the definition of ‘‘target
housing.’’ These commenters noted that
this effectively excludes a significant
subset of housing where children live,
particularly studio or efficiency
apartments and certain low-income
housing such as single-room occupancy
hotels. One commenter stated that, in
his city, at least 400 families with more
than 700 children live in single-room
occupancy hotels, and these hotels
constitute some of oldest housing in
their city. Other commenters were
concerned about the exclusion of
housing for the elderly (or persons with
disabilities) unless any child under age
6 resides or is expected to reside in such
housing. These commenters suggested
that EPA not exempt such housing
because children may be present for a
substantial amount of time. One
commenter noted that, because some
children spend 40 or more hours per
week at their grandparents’ home,
eliminating housing for the elderly from
the rule would place an inordinate
number of young children at risk.
Another commenter observed that
unless the building is reserved for
elderly residents only, the likelihood of
children living in a multi-unit building
and being exposed to lead hazards in
common areas is high.
EPA understands and shares the
concerns of these commenters.
However, these exclusions were
established by Congress in Title X. The
exclusions and limitations in the
exclusions appear consistent with a
focus on housing where children under
age 6 reside. Nonetheless, EPA does
wish to point out that this regulation
and other existing TSCA regulations

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21706

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

cover activities in common areas that
are accessible to residents of target
housing units. Thus, renovations in
common areas in a building built before
1978 that contains both housing units
reserved for the elderly and regular
housing units would be covered by this
rule. In addition, as described more
fully in Unit III.G. of this preamble,
States, Territories and Tribes may
choose to develop and implement their
own lead renovation, repair, and
painting programs. Such programs may
be more stringent than this Federal
regulation and could, therefore, cover 0–
bedroom dwellings or housing for the
elderly.
Finally, one commenter questioned
the existing definition of‘‘multi-family
housing’’ in 40 CFR 745.83, which
defines the term as a ‘‘housing property
consisting of more than four dwelling
units.’’ The commenter referred to the
definition of ‘‘multi-family dwelling’’ in
40 CFR 745.223 which does not limit
the term to a specific number of units,
and questioned why smaller multifamily housing such as duplexes should
not be included in the definition in 40
CFR 745.83. This commenter and others
contended that it is important to cover
common areas, including building
exteriors, in all multi-unit target
housing. In response to these
commenters, EPA is deleting the
definition of ‘‘multi-family housing’’
from 40 CFR 745.83 because the term is
not used in this final rule. This final
rule covers renovations in common
areas, including building exteriors, of
multi-unit buildings regardless of the
number of units contained in the
building. In addition, the deletion of
this definition will also make it clear
that the existing Pre-Renovation
Education Rule provisions also apply to
the same renovations covered by this
final rule.
b. Child-occupied facilities. The
certification, training, recordkeeping,
and work practice standards of this final
rule also apply to renovations for
compensation in child-occupied
facilities. As discussed in the preamble
to the 2007 Supplemental Proposal,
numerous commenters on the 2006
Proposal requested that EPA cover
child-occupied facilities under this
regulation and suggested that EPA use
the existing definition of ‘‘childoccupied facility’’ in 40 CFR 745.223. In
response, the 2007 Supplemental
Proposal included a definition of
‘‘child-occupied facility’’ that was based
upon the existing definition, with
modifications to make it consistent with
the provisions of the 2006 Proposal.
EPA also proposed to modify the
definition to clarify, for child-occupied

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

facilities located in public or
commercial buildings, which portions
of the building would be considered
part of the child-occupied facility for
purposes of this rulemaking. EPA
received several comments suggesting
modifications to the proposed
definition, but (with the exception of
one small clarification) EPA is retaining
the proposed definition for the reasons
discussed below. The final rule’s
definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’ is
as follows:
‘‘Child-occupied facility’’ means a
building, or portion of a building,
constructed prior to 1978, visited
regularly by the same child, under 6
years of age, on at least 2 different days
within any week (Sunday through
Saturday period), provided that each
day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the
combined weekly visits last at least 6
hours, and the combined annual visits
last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied
facilities may include, but are not
limited to, day care centers, preschools
and kindergarten classrooms. Childoccupied facilities may be located in
target housing or in public or
commercial buildings. With respect to
common areas in public or commercial
buildings that contain child-occupied
facilities, the child-occupied facility
encompasses only those common areas
that are routinely used by children
under age 6, such as restrooms and
cafeterias. Common areas that children
under age 6 only pass through, such as
hallways, stairways, and garages are not
included. In addition, with respect to
exteriors of public or commercial
buildings that contain child–occupied
facilities, the child–occupied facility
encompasses only the exterior sides of
the building that are immediately
adjacent to the child–occupied facility
or the common areas routinely used by
children under age 6.
EPA added the introductory clauses
‘‘with respect to common areas’’ and
‘‘with respect to exteriors of’’ to the
sentences describing the applicability of
the rule to common areas and exteriors
of public or commercial buildings
because EPA was concerned that people
would be confused about the area
defined by the term ‘‘child-occupied
facility’’ in those situations.
Most of the commenters on the 2007
Supplemental Proposal expressed
support for including child-occupied
facilities within the universe of
buildings covered by this rulemaking.
Several commenters requested that EPA
provide a more clear definition of public
buildings that contain child-occupied
facilities or additional examples of such
facilities. However, EPA is not aware of
additional examples that could be

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

included in the definition to make the
applicability of this rule clearer. One
commenter believed that a definition
based upon the amount of time a child
spends at a facility would be
unworkable.
EPA disagrees with the comment that
a time-based definition of childoccupied facility is unworkable. A timebased definition has been a part of the
Lead-based Paint Activities Program
under TSCA section 402(a) for more
than 10 years and EPA is not aware of
any significant implementation
difficulties. As initially proposed in
1994, the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations under TSCA section 402(a)
would have contained one set of
requirements for the training and
certification of contractors and the
accreditation of training programs, as
well as specific work practice standards
that would have applied to lead-based
paint activities conducted in target
housing and public buildings (Ref. 23).
A different set of requirements would
have applied to lead-based paint
activities conducted in commercial
buildings and on bridges and other
structures. The 1994 proposal would
have defined public buildings to
include all buildings generally open to
the public or occupied or visited by
children, such as stores, museums,
airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals,
and government buildings, as well as
schools and day care centers. During the
comment period, a significant majority
of commenters expressed the concern
that applying these regulations to
activities in all of the buildings that EPA
would consider public would result in
significant costs without a comparable
reduction in lead-based paint exposures
for children under age 6, the population
most vulnerable to lead exposures.
Many of these commenters
recommended that EPA focus its
attention on buildings that are
frequented by children, rather than on
buildings that may be briefly visited by
children.
In response to these comments, EPA
established, in the final rule, a subset of
the buildings EPA had intended to
define as public. This subset, called
‘‘child-occupied facilities,’’ was
delineated in terms of the frequency and
duration of visits by children (Ref. 4).
These primarily consist of public
buildings where young children receive
care or instruction on a regular basis,
such as child care centers and
kindergarten classrooms. The Agency’s
decision to define child-occupied
facilities as a sub-category of public
buildings was based on one of the key
objectives of the Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations, which was to

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
prevent lead exposures among young
children. The Agency reasoned that
children face an equal, if not greater,
risk from lead-based paint hazards in
schools and day care centers as they do
at home. Indeed, EPA was concerned
that children could spend more time in
a particular classroom or day care room
in a given day or week than they might
spend in a single room in their homes.
With respect to the type of building
covered, this regulation will operate in
much the same way as the Lead-based
Paint Activities Regulations. In most
cases, office buildings without child
care facilities, museums, stores, airports,
and restaurants will not be covered by
this rule. Although there may be large
numbers of children present at any
given time in these kinds of buildings,
individual children are not likely to be
there often enough and long enough to
qualify the building as a child-occupied
facility.
Some commenters appeared to be
confused about whether the definition
of ‘‘child-occupied facility’’ covers
housing where informal or unpaid care
is provided, such as the homes of
relatives and neighbors. Whether or not
a building is a child-occupied facility
does not depend upon whether the
owner or operator of the child-occupied
facility is somehow compensated for the
child’s presence. Indeed, the first
sentence of the definition makes this
clear in stating that a child-occupied
facility is a ‘‘building, or portion of a
building, constructed prior to 1978,
visited regularly by the same child . . .’’
The word ‘‘visited’’ is very broad, it
includes visits to a relative’s house or a
neighbor’s house as well as visits to a
child-care facility or school.
Except in owner-occupied target
housing, as discussed below, the firm
performing the renovation is responsible
for determining whether a building is a
child-occupied facility. This can be
accomplished in any number of ways. A
stand-alone child care center is likely to
have a name that suggests that it
provides child care, and the center’s
status as a child-occupied facility
should be obvious upon entering the
center. Child care centers in office
buildings are likely to have
informational signs posted and the
centers are likely to be identified in the
building directory. Elementary schools
are likely to have kindergarten
classrooms. The renovation firm should
inquire about the presence of a childoccupied facility when contracting to
perform renovation services in a public
or commercial building. However, a
statement by the building owner or
manager that there is no child-occupied
facility in the building may not be relied

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

upon in the face of evidence to the
contrary.
Several commenters felt that EPA had
inappropriately limited the space
encompassed by achild-occupied
facility in a public or commercial
building. These commenters thought
that EPA should follow the approach
used for common areas in multi-family
housing. Under this approach, the rule
would cover renovations for
compensation in all areas normally
accessible to the children using the
child-occupied facility. However,
children under age 6 are likely to spend
less time in the hallways and stairways
of public or commercial buildings than
they do in common areas in the
buildings where they live. It is also
likely that children under age 6 walking
to and from a child care center in an
office building, or to and from a
classroom in a school building, will be
closely supervised and will not be
permitted to walk through active
renovation work sites. Although some
exposure is possible in these areas, they
are more akin to general public and
commercial buildings that children may
enter but where they are not expected to
spend significant amounts of time than
to the exposures associated with childoccupied facilities, and EPA’s hazard
standards are applicable to residents
and residential-type settings. In
addition, EPA is concerned that
application of this final rule to all
common areas of public or commercial
buildings that may house a childoccupied facility in a small portion of
the building would likely result in
minimal benefit to the children at a
potentially large cost.
c. Other public or commercial
buildings. A number of commenters
noted that TSCA section 402(c)(3)
directs EPA to address renovation or
remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards not only in target
housing, but also in public buildings
constructed before 1978, and
commercial buildings. Most of these
commenters, commenting on the 2006
Proposal, expressed the greatest concern
over EPA’s failure to address buildings
where young children spend significant
amounts of time, or child-occupied
facilities. However, a handful of
commenters argued that EPA also
needed to address other public and
commercial buildings under the
renovation, repair, and painting
program.
TSCA section 402(c)(3) provides
authority for EPA to regulate renovation
or remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards. EPA has, by
regulation under TSCA section 403,
identified lead-based paint hazards for

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21707

purposes of Title IV. These hazard
standards were developed by evaluating
exposure patterns and hazard
information for young children and
taking into account costs and benefits.
They are only applicable in target
housing and child-occupied facilities,
places where young children are likely
to be present for significant periods of
time. Although EPA realizes that lead
exposure for older children and adults
can result in adverse health effects,
effects which are discussed in chapter 5
of the Final Economic Analysis for the
Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program (‘‘Final Economic Analysis’’)
(Ref. 24), EPA has not evaluated the
exposure and hazard information for
these groups in the same way that it has
for young children. EPA has not
evaluated the potential adverse health
effects and associated them with a
specific level of surface dust that will
result in a blood lead level in an older
child or an adult that is likely to cause
a particular adverse effect. Nor has EPA
evaluated the potential health effects to
young children from the less frequent
exposures that might arise in public and
commercial buildings that are not childoccupied facilities. At this time, EPA
does not have sufficient information
with which to conclude that renovation
and remodeling activities in buildings
not frequented by young children, e.g.,
public or commercial buildings that are
not child-occupied facilities, create
lead-based paint hazards because EPA’s
TSCA section 403 hazard standards only
apply to target housing and childoccupied facilities. EPA has no hazard
standards to apply in other situations.
Thus, this rule, like the Lead-based
Paint Activities Regulations, only
applies in target housing and childoccupied facilities.
2. Activities covered—a. Renovations
for compensation. This rule, like the
Pre-Renovation Education Rule, only
applies to persons who perform
renovations for compensation. As
discussed in the preamble to the 2007
Supplemental Proposal, for the
purposes of this regulation,
compensation includes pay for work
performed, such as that paid to
contractors and subcontractors; wages,
such as those paid to employees of
contractors, building owners, property
management companies, child-occupied
facility operators, State and local
government agencies, and non-profits;
and rent for target housing or public or
commercial building space.
Although the owner of rental property
may not be compensated for
maintenance and repair work at the time
that the work is performed, tenants
generally pay rent for the right to

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21708

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

occupy rental space as well as for
maintenance services in that space.
Thus, renovations performed by
renovation contractors and their
employees in target housing or childoccupied facilities are covered, as are
renovations by owners of rental target
housing or child-occupied facilities, if
the child-occupied facility leases space.
Renovations in target housing or in
child-occupied facilities are covered if
they are performed by employees of the
renovation contractor, the building
owner, the building manager, a State or
local government agency, a non-profit
organization, or the child-occupied
facility operator, and the employees
receive wages or other compensation for
the work performed. Child care
payments, in and of themselves, are not
considered compensation for
renovations. An agreement to provide
child care in exchange for a payment is
not a contract for building maintenance
services in the same way that a lease or
other agreement between a landlord and
a tenant generally is.
One commenter requested that EPA
consider payments for child care to be
compensation for renovations. A
number of other commenters expressed
a general concern over the fact that EPA
was not proposing to cover do-ityourself renovations in owner-occupied
target housing. Some of these
commenters cited research or
observations suggesting that improperly
performed renovations by homeowners,
relatives, or friends are equally likely, if
not more likely, to cause elevated blood
lead levels as renovations performed by
professional contractors. The most
commonly cited study for this
proposition was the Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study,
commissioned by EPA as Phase III of the
Renovation and Remodeling Study
performed pursuant to TSCA section
402(c)(2). As described more fully in the
preamble to the 2006 Proposal, in
homes where renovation and
remodeling activities had been
performed, the analysis of the results of
the Wisconsin Study indicated the
following ordering of the five possible
responses to the question of who
performed the renovation and
remodeling, in order of highest to lowest
risk of increased odds of an elevated
blood lead level:
• Relative or friend not in
household.
• Paid professional.
• Owner or building superintendent.
• Head of household or spouse.
• Other person in household.
As discussed in the preamble to the
2007 Supplemental Proposal, EPA does
not believe that child-care payments

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

represent compensation for renovations
in the same way that rent is.
Furthermore, as discussed in the Final
Economic Analysis, the overwhelming
majority of child-occupied facilities
covered by this final rule are located in
target housing. Some of that housing is
rental target housing, and renovations in
rental target housing are covered by this
final rule regardless of whether a childoccupied facility is present. With
respect to child-occupied facilities
located in owner-occupied target
housing and do-it-yourself renovations
in owner-occupied target housing in
general, EPA believes that it would be
inconsistent with Congressional intent
to cover these renovations.
EPA has previously determined that
Congress was most concerned with the
certification and training of contractors,
not homeowners. In the preamble to the
proposed Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations, EPA reviewed section 1021
of the Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, the
section that added Title IV to TSCA, and
determined that the emphasis under
section 402 of TSCA ought to be the
certification and training of contractors,
not homeowners (Ref. 23). In its review,
EPA declared that TSCA section
402(c)(3), the section under which this
final rule is being issued, shows that
Congressional ‘‘focus was on the need to
regulate contractors doing renovation
and remodeling activities, and not
homeowners doing renovation and
remodeling of their own homes’’ (Ref.
23). Specifically, TSCA section 402(c)(3)
directs EPA to revise the TSCA section
402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations to apply to renovation and
remodeling activities. In so doing, EPA
is to determine ‘‘which contractors are
engaged in such activities.’’ TSCA
section 402(c)(3) (emphasis added). EPA
thus interprets the statutory directive to
regulate remodeling and renovation
activities found in TSCA section
402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and
not a broader category of persons, such
as homeowners.
With respect to do-it-yourself
renovations in child-occupied facilities
in target housing, as stated above,
although payment is received in
exchange for childcare, EPA does not
consider this to be a contract for
building maintenance. As discussed in
the previous paragraph, Congress
intended to cover renovation
contractors, not homeowners who
perform renovations on their own
homes.
However, as previously discussed,
EPA intends to conduct an outreach and
education campaign designed to
encourage homeowners and other

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

building owners to follow lead-safe
work practices while performing
renovations or hire a certified
renovation firm to do so.
b. Definition of ‘‘renovation.’’ The
universe of renovation activities covered
by this rule is virtually identical to the
renovation activities already regulated
under the Pre-Renovation Education
Rule--essentially, activities that modify
an existing structure and that result in
the disturbance of painted surfaces. All
types of repair, remodeling,
modernization, and weatherization
projects are covered, including projects
performed as part of another Federal,
State, or local program, if the projects
meet the definition of ‘‘renovation’’
already codified in 40 CFR 745.83.
As discussed in Unit IV.B.3. of the
preamble to the 2006 Proposal, EPA
considered a number of options for
defining the term ‘‘renovation’’ for the
Pre-Renovation Education Rule, and
chose a definition that focuses on the
activities of greatest concern to EPA,
activities that disturb lead-based paint.
This definition also covers virtually all
of the types of activities in the
Environmental Field Sampling Study
that created lead-based paint hazards. In
this rulemaking, EPA received several
comments requesting clarification on
the definition; some of these
commenters were particularly interested
in the types of jobs that would be
covered by this definition. One
commenter requested that, if EPA
intended to cover maintenance and
repair projects and interim control
projects, the definition of ‘‘renovation’’
be modified to specifically include
those projects. Another commenter
requested that EPA specifically mention
weatherization projects as an example of
the types of projects covered by the rule.
Several commenters suggested that the
definition should clearly delineate the
boundaries between renovation and
abatement.
EPA also received several responses
to its requests for comment on whether
to exclude any category of specialty
contractor and whether certain
renovation activities, such as HVAC
duct work, which may result in the
disturbance of limited amounts of leadbased paint, should be specifically
included or excluded. A state agency
contended that exterior siding projects,
HVAC duct work, and wallpaper
removal should not be excluded, noting
that wallpaper removal was implicated
in a lead poisoning case the agency
investigated. Another commenter
argued that many interior and exterior
painting projects involve washing, scuffsanding, and scraping to remove loose
materials, and that such ‘‘common’’ and

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘relatively benign’’ industry practices
should not be regulated. Other
commenters argued that there should be
no categorical exemption for any type of
specialty contractor. Most commenters
on this issue contended that the amount
of lead-based paint disturbed, rather
than the type of project or contractor
involved, should control the
applicability of the rule.
EPA specifically disagrees that scuffsanding and scraping are ‘‘benign,’’
especially in light of the dust lead levels
generated by dry scraping in the Dust
Study. The geometric mean post-work,
pre-cleaning dust lead levels resulting
from dry scraping were 2,686 µg/ft2.
After baseline cleaning procedures, the
geometric mean was still 66 µg/ft2.
When the work practices required by
the final rule were used, the geometric
mean was 30 µg/ft2. As stated above, all
of the renovation activities in the Dust
Study and the other studies in the
record for this final rule created leadbased paint hazards. Therefore, this
regulation will not exempt any category
of specialty contractor or any specific
type of renovation. EPA notes, however,
that it has not prohibited the use of dry
scraping or dry hand sanding. More
information on prohibited renovation
practices can be found in Unit III.E.4. of
this preamble. EPA also notes that some
small jobs will be exempt from the
requirements of this final rule under the
minor repair and maintenance
exception.
EPA has also determined that, based
on the comments, some changes to the
proposed definition of the term
‘‘renovation’’ are necessary to ensure
that everyone understands that all types
of building renovation, repair, and
painting projects are covered, so long as
painted surfaces are disturbed. The
following definition of ‘‘renovation’’
will be incorporated into 40 CFR 745.83.
Renovation means the modification of
any existing structure, or portion
thereof, that results in the disturbance of
painted surfaces, unless that activity is
performed as part of an abatement as
defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223).
The term renovation includes (but is not
limited to): The removal, modification
or repair of painted surfaces or painted
components (e.g., modification of
painted doors, surface restoration,
window repair, surface preparation
activity (such as sanding, scraping, or
other such activities that may generate
paint dust)); the removal of building
components (e.g., walls, ceilings,
plumbing, windows); weatherization
projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted
surfaces to install blown-in insulation or
to gain access to attics, planing
thresholds to install weather-stripping),

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

and interim controls. A renovation
performed for the purpose of converting
a building, or part of a building, into
target housing or a child-occupied
facility is a renovation under this
subpart. The term renovation does not
include minor repair and maintenance
activities.
EPA added ‘‘repair,’’ ‘‘surface
restoration,’’ ‘‘window repair,’’
‘‘weatherization,’’ and ‘‘interim
controls’’ to the definition to make it
clear that all of these activities are
covered by this definition if they disturb
painted surfaces. EPA also separated the
removal and the modification of
building components to provide clarity.
In addition, EPA provided examples of
weatherization activities and building
component removal. Finally, EPA added
a sentence to ensure that it is clear that
renovations performed to turn a
building into target housing or a childoccupied facility are covered.
Thus, interim control projects and
weatherization projects that disturb
painted surfaces are renovations. In
addition, under this definition, the line
between renovation and abatement is
clear. Any renovation, repair,
maintenance, or painting project is a
renovation potentially covered by this
rule unless the purpose of the project is
to permanently eliminate lead-based
paint or lead-based paint hazards. In
that case, the project is an abatement.
Covered renovations must be performed
in accordance with 40 CFR part 745,
subpart E, while covered abatements
must be performed in accordance with
40 CFR part 745, subpart L.
3. Exceptions—a. Owner-occupied
target housing that is neither the
residence of a child under age 6 or a
pregnant woman, nor a child-occupied
facility. The 2006 Proposal proposed to
establish an exception that would allow
owner-occupants of target housing to
opt-out of having renovation firms use
the work practices that would be
required by the rule. The proposed
exception provided that if the owneroccupant signed a statement that no
child under 6 resided there, the
renovation would be exempt from the
training, certification, and work practice
requirements of the regulation. The
2007 Supplemental Proposal narrowed
this exception. Under the 2007
Supplemental Proposal, owneroccupied target housing where no child
under age 6 resides would not be
eligible for this exception if the housing
meets the definition of ‘‘child-occupied
facility.’’ This final rule retains this
exception, but further narrows it to
exclude housing where pregnant women
reside. In addition, to make it clear to
the property owner what the effect of

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21709

the signed statement is, EPA has
modified the requirements to include an
acknowledgment by the owner that the
renovation firm will not be required to
use the lead-safe work practices
contained in EPA’s renovation, repair,
and painting rule. Thus, unless the
target housing meets the definition of a
child-occupied facility, if an owneroccupant signed a statement that no
child under 6 and no pregnant woman
reside there and an acknowledgment
that the renovation firm will not be
required to use the lead-safe work
practices contained in EPA’s renovation,
repair, and painting rule, the renovation
activity is exempt from the training,
certification, and work practice
requirements of the rule. Conversely, if
the owner-occupant does not sign the
certification and acknowledgement
(even if no children under 6 or no
pregnant women reside there), or if the
owner-occupant chooses not to take
advantage of the exception for other
reasons, the exception does not apply
and the renovation is subject to the
requirements of this final rule.
EPA asked for and received numerous
comments on this aspect of the 2006
Proposal. Several commenters
supported EPA’s focus on housing
where children under age 6 reside,
citing the need to target society’s
resources towards the housing that
presents the greatest risk. One
commenter also noted that this
provision would help keep renovation
costs down for low-income homeowners
without children. Most commenters,
however, did not agree with EPA’s
proposal to allow homeowners with no
children under age 6 who occupy their
own homes to opt out of the rule’s
requirements. These commenters cited a
number of reasons for their position,
including the fact that children visit
homes where they do not reside, and
newly renovated housing may be sold to
a family with young children regardless
of whether children were in residence
when the renovation occurred.
Commenters also expressed concern
about pregnant women, given that the
transplacental transfer of lead in
humans is well documented, and
infants are generally born with a lead
body burden reflecting that of the
mother. This led some commenters to
suggest that women of child-bearing age
and girls between the ages of 6 and 14
also deserve special protection, because
any lead body burden that they acquire
through uncontrolled renovations will
be passed on to any children they may
eventually have.
EPA has carefully considered the
issues and concerns raised with respect
to exceptions to the rule. On the one

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21710

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

hand, EPA agrees with the commenters
that believed it was important to focus
this regulation on the housing that
presents the greatest risk to young
children. EPA is mindful of the impacts
this regulation may have on the
affordability of renovations, particularly
for low-income homeowners. EPA
believes that primarily focusing
society’s resources on the housing that
presents the greatest risk to children is
consistent with Congressional intent. In
the Senate report on Title X, Congress
noted the need ‘‘for a flexible, targeted
approach for protecting children from
exposure to lead hazards while
maintaining housing affordability’’ (Ref.
25). The report also noted that
‘‘exposure to lead is primarily caused by
ingesting paint dust or chips,’’ which is
the route of exposure of concern
primarily for young children, ages 18–
27 months. Indeed, in the Congressional
findings for Title X, Congress focused
on the lead poisoning of children and
the need to address this as a national
priority. [Sec. 1002, Public Law 102–
550]. The focus on children can also be
inferred from the very definition of
‘‘target housing’’ which on the one hand
excludes housing for the elderly and
disabled ‘‘unless a child under six
resides or is expected to reside’’ there.
Similarly, this final rule focuses on the
population most at risk and does not
provide any exceptions if a child under
age 6 resides in the target housing to be
renovated.
On the other hand, EPA understands
and shares some of the concerns
expressed by those commenters who did
not support an exception for owneroccupied target housing where no child
under 6 resides. In balancing these
countervailing considerations, EPA has
further limited this exception to owneroccupied target housing that does not
meet the definition of a child-occupied
facility because no child under 6 is
present on a regular basis and in which
no pregnant women reside. This has the
effect of focusing this regulation
primarily on renovations performed in
buildings where children under age 6
reside or spend a great deal of time or
in which a pregnant woman resides.
With regard to older children and
adults, it is important to remember that
the hazards presented by a particular
floor or windowsill dust lead level are
markedly different for a toddler than for
an older child or an adult. As discussed
in EPA’s most recent Air Quality
Criteria for Lead document, hand-tomouth behavior is an important means
of exposure for children. The period of
peak exposure, reflected in peak blood
lead levels, is around 18–27 months
when hand-to-mouth activity is at its

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

maximum. This leads to a high rate of
ingestion of dust at a time when
children are believed to be particularly
vulnerable to the neurological effects of
lead exposure. While lead exposure
continues to affect older children and
adults, these individuals do not ingest
dust at the same high rate that a toddler
does. Therefore, the same floor dust
level will present a much greater hazard
for the young child than it will for the
older child or adult. The lead-based
paint hazard standards in 40 CFR part
745, subpart D, were established with
reference to impacts on childhood blood
lead levels based principally on handto-mouth activity, and EPA has not
assessed the effect of dust lead levels or
other potential sources of lead-based
paint hazards on older children or
adults.
However, EPA is particularly
concerned about exposure to pregnant
women because while the exposure
patterns for small children and older
children and adults are different, once
exposed a pregnant woman can transfer
lead to the developing fetus.
Epidemiologic evidence indicates that
lead freely crosses the placenta resulting
in continued fetal exposure throughout
pregnancy. Of particular concern is
transfer to the developing brain of the
fetus across the poorly developed blood
brain barrier. Further, a significant
proportion of lead transferred from the
mother is incorporated into the
developing skeletal system of the
offspring, where it can serve as a
continuing source of toxic exposure
(Ref. 1). Thus, EPA agrees with the
commenters who believed it is
important to ensure that the work
practices required in this final rule are
followed in homes where a pregnant
woman resides.
EPA also acknowledges the concern
expressed by a number of commenters
that newly renovated housing will be
sold to a family with young children. If
the renovation was not performed in
accordance with the work practices
prescribed by this rule, a dust-lead
hazard may be present in the home.
However, EPA does not believe it is an
effective use of society’s resources to
impose this final rule requirements on
all renovations in order to account for
the portion of homes without young
children that will be sold to families
with young children following
renovations. Moreover, the Disclosure
Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F,
requires sellers of target housing to
disclose known lead-based paint or
lead-based paint hazard information to
purchasers and provide them with a
copy of the lead hazard information
pamphlet entitledProtect Your Family

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 7). In the
situation described by the commenters,
the receipt of this information should
prompt the family to inquire about
potential lead-based paint hazards in
the home, particularly if one of the
selling points is that areas of the home
have been recently renovated. In
addition, EPA continues to recommend
that purchasers take advantage of their
statutory opportunity to have a leadbased paint inspection or risk
assessment done while in the process of
purchasing target housing.
In response to comments expressing
concern about this exception from this
final rule, EPA has further considered
the proposed owner-occupant
acknowledgement statement and
concluded that it is important that
homeowners understand the effect of
the acknowledgement. Accordingly,
EPA has clarified and expanded the
acknowledgement language to ensure
that it is clear and consistent. In
addition, EPA would like to make it
clear that even if the housing to be
renovated qualifies for this exception,
the homeowner may always choose to
have the renovation firm follow the
work practices required by this rule. For
example, the homeowner may be
concerned about potential exposures for
visiting children who do not visit often
enough to make the housing a childoccupied facility. The homeowner may
also be concerned that she may be
pregnant, even though she is not yet
certain. EPA has added a statement to
the sample acknowledgment form that
would allow the homeowner to state
that the housing does qualify for the
exception, but the homeowner wishes
the renovation firm to follow the
requirements of this rule anyway.
EPA would like to reiterate that this
exception applies only to target housing
that is occupied by its owner. For a
number of reasons, this exception is not
available in rental target housing,
whether young children are present or
not. First, tenants are likely to have
much less control over renovations in
their housing than owners. Next, as
pointed out by some commenters, there
is more turnover in rental housing than
in owner-occupied housing. In many
cases, renovations are done between
tenants and it may not be known who
will be occupying the unit next. Finally,
as noted by at least two commenters,
exempting renovations in rental housing
that is not occupied by a child under
age 6 could cause discrimination in the
rental housing market against families
with young children. Nearly all of the
commenters on this issue agreed with
this approach.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Several commenters expressed
reservations about the ability of
renovation firms to determine whether
housing to be renovated is eligible for
this exception. As discussed in both
proposals, EPA believes that it could be
difficult for a renovation firm to
determine whether a child under age 6
resides in a particular unit of target
housing or whether the housing is a
child-occupied facility or whether a
woman is pregnant. EPA will therefore
allow renovation firms to rely on a
signed statement from the owner of the
housing that he or she is the owner of
the housing to be renovated, that he or
she resides in the housing to be
renovated, that no child under 6 or
pregnant woman resides there, that the
housing does not meet the definition of
a child-occupied facility, and that the
owner acknowledges that the renovation
firm will not be required to use the leadsafe work practices contained in this
final rule. In the absence of such a
signed statement, the renovation firm
must comply with all of the regulation’s
requirements. If the renovation firm
obtains such a statement, the renovation
firm is not subject to the work practice
and other requirements of this final rule.
EPA will not hold the renovation firm
responsible for misrepresentations on
the part of the owner of the housing.
Renovations in common areas of owneroccupied multi-unit target housing,
such as condominiums, must be
performed in accordance with the
requirements of this rule unless the
renovation firm obtains a signed
statement from each occupant with
access to the common area that the
occupant is the owner of the housing
unit, that he or she resides there, that no
child under age 6 or pregnant woman
resides there, that the housing does not
meet the definition of child-occupied
facility, and that the owner understands
that the renovation firm will not be
required to use the work practices
contained in this final rule.
Finally, some commenters argued that
TSCA section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to
cover all renovations in target housing
regardless of whether the housing is the
residence of a child under age 6 or a
child-occupied facility. This regulation
covers all target housing. In order to
perfect a claim for the exception for
owner-occupied target housing that is
not the residence of a child under age
6 or a pregnant woman or a childoccupied facility, the renovation firm
must obtain the owner’s signature on a
form indicating that the housing
qualifies for the exception and the
owner is opting out of the training,
certification, and work practice

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

requirements of this rule. In addition,
the form and regulation provide the
option for a homeowner to request that
the work conform to the requirements of
this final rule even in homes without
young children or pregnant women.
EPA believes homeowners without
young children or who reside in homes
without pregnant women should be able
to choose whether or not work done in
their own homes conforms to the
requirements of this final rule. EPA has
determined that allowing these owneroccupants to opt out of the training,
certification, and work practice
requirements of the rule does not
significantly compromise the safety and
effectiveness of this rule because the
limitations on the applicability of the
exception with respect to children
under 6 and pregnant women serve to
minimize the possibility that a young
child or a pregnant woman will be
exposed to a lead-based paint hazard
resulting from a renovation in target
housing.
b. Renovations affecting only
components free of regulated lead-based
paint—i. Determination by certified
inspector or risk assessor. In keeping
with the 2006 Proposal and the 2007
Supplemental Proposal, this final rule
exempts renovations that affect only
components that a certified inspector or
risk assessor has determined are free of
paint or other surface coatings that
contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0
mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. These
standards are from the definition of
lead-based paint in Title X and in EPA’s
implementing regulations. Nearly all of
the commenters that expressed an
opinion on this topic favored this
exception. The determination that any
particular component is free of leadbased paint may be made as part of a
lead-based paint inspection of an entire
housing unit or building, or on a
component-by-component basis.
Some commenters expressed
confusion over the mechanics of this
exception. The certified inspector or
risk assessor determines whether
components contain lead-based paint,
while the renovation firm is responsible
for determining which components will
be affected by the renovation. A
renovation firm may rely on the report
of a past inspection or risk assessment
that addresses the components that will
be disturbed by the renovation.
ii. Determination by certified
renovator using EPA-recognized test
kits. Also in accordance with both of the
proposals, this final rule exempts
renovations that affect only components
that a certified renovator, using a test kit
recognized by EPA, determines are free
of lead-based paint. EPA has deleted the

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21711

regulatory thresholds for lead-based
paint from this definition because they
unnecessarily complicate the exception.
As discussed in Unit III.C.1. of this
preamble, a certified renovator is a
person who has taken an accredited
course in work practices. This training
will include how to properly use the
EPA-approved test kits. This final rule
also establishes the process EPA will
use to recognize test kits.
As discussed in the preamble to the
2006 Proposal, research on the use of
currently available kits for testing lead
in paint has been published by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) (Ref. 26). The
research indicates that there are test kits
on the market that, when used by a
trained professional, can reliably
determine that regulated lead-based
paint is not present by virtue of a
negative result. Based on this research,
EPA proposed to initially recognize test
kits that have, for paint containing lead
at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/
cm2 or 0.5% by weight, a demonstrated
probability (with 95% confidence) of a
negative response less than or equal to
5% of the time.
Some commenters, representing a
variety of interests, supported an
exception for renovations affecting
components that have been found to be
free of regulated lead-based paint by use
of a test kit. One commenter cited the
need for faster and cheaper methods of
accurately checking for lead and
expressed the opinion that this
approach will expand access to lead
screening in homes. Several comments
were generally supportive, with some
reservations about kit reliability.
However, most commenters did not
favor the use of test kits. The most
commonly cited reason for not
supporting this approach was the
potential conflict-of-interest present in
having the certified renovator be the one
to determine whether or not he or she
must use the work practices required by
the rule. EPA addressed potential
conflicts-of-interest in its lead-based
paint program in the preamble to the
final Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations. That discussion outlined
two reasons for not requiring that
inspections or risk assessments,
abatements, and post-abatement
clearance testing all be performed by
different entities. The first was the cost
savings and convenience of being able
to hire just one firm to perform all
necessary lead-based paint activities.
The second was the potential regional
scarcity of firms to perform the work.
These considerations may also be
applicable to the renovation sector,
given the premium on maintaining a

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21712

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

rule that is simple and streamlined and
does not unduly prolong the timeframes
for completing renovations. Moreover, it
is not unusual in regulatory programs to
allow regulated entities to make
determinations affecting regulatory
applicability and compliance. See, e.g.,
40 CFR 262.11 (hazardous waste
determinations by waste generators
under RCRA). EPA has decided to take
an approach that is consistent with the
approach taken in the 402(a) lead-based
Paint Activities regulation and not
require third party testing.
Another commonly cited reason for
not supporting the use of test kits by
certified renovators was the lack of any
sampling protocol in the regulation. A
related concern was that the training in
sampling techniques and protocols in
the lead-based paint inspector course
could not be shortened to fit within the
8–hour renovator course and still retain
all of the necessary information. EPA
wishes to make it clear that the 8–hour
renovator course will not train
renovators in how to select components
for sampling because the certified
renovator must use a test kit on each
component affected by the renovation.
The only exception to this is when the
components make up an integrated
whole, such as the individual stair
treads and risers in a staircase. In this
situation, the renovator need test only
one such individual component, e.g., a
single stair tread, unless it is obvious to
therenovator that the individual
components have been repainted or
refinished separately. As such, a
complicated sampling protocol is not
necessary. EPA plans to modify the
EPA/HUD Lead Safe Work Practices
course to include training on how to use
a test kit. To ensure that the
applicability of the exception is clear,
EPA has also modified 40 CFR
745.82(a)(2) to specifically state that the
certified renovator must test each of the
components that will be affected by the
renovation.
iii. Phased implementation and
improved test kits. Under the proposals,
the regulatory requirements would have
taken effect in two major stages, based
on the age of the building being
renovated. The first stage would have
applied to renovations in target housing
and child-occupied facilities built
before 1960. Requirements for
renovations in target housing and childoccupied facilities built between 1960
and 1978 would have taken effect 1 year
later. The primary reason for this
phased implementation was to allow
time for the development of improved
test kits.
According to the National Survey of
Lead and Allergens in Housing, 24% of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

the housing constructed between 1960
and 1978 contains lead-based paint (Ref.
27). In contrast, 69% of the housing
constructed between 1940 and 1959,
and 87% of the housing constructed
before 1940 contains lead-based paint.
The results of this survey indicate that
there is a much greater likelihood of
disturbing lead-based paint during a
renovation that occurs in a home built
before 1960 than in a home built after
that date. The NIST research on existing
test kits shows that existing test kits
cannot reliably determine that lead is
present in paint only above the statutory
levels because the kits are sensitive to
lead at levels below the Federal
standards that define lead-based paint,
and therefore are prone to a large
number of false positive results (i.e., a
positive result when regulated leadbased paint is, in fact, not present). The
NIST research found that such false
positive rates range from 42% to 78%.
This means that the currently available
kits are not an effective means of
identifying the 76% of homes built
between 1960 and 1978 that do not
contain regulated lead-based paint.
Research conducted by EPA
subsequent to the publication of the
2006 Proposal confirms that the
sensitivity of test kits could be adjusted
for paint testing so that the results from
the kits reliably correspond to one of the
two Federal standards for lead-based
paint, 1.0 mg/cm2 and 0.5% by weight.
EPA’s research and initial contacts with
potential kit manufacturers also indicate
that this can be accomplished in the
near future. As stated in the preamble to
the 2006 Proposal, EPA’s goal is to
foster the development of a kit that can
reliably be used by a person with
minimal training, is inexpensive,
provides results within an hour, and is
demonstrated to have a false positive
rate of no more than 10% and a false
negative rate at 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by
weight of less than 5%. EPA is
confident that improved test kits
meeting EPA’s benchmarks will be
commercially available by September
2010.
With this in mind, EPA felt that a
staged approach would initially address
the renovations that present the greatest
risks to children under age 6, i.e., the
renovations that are most likely to
disturb lead-based paint, while allowing
additional time to ensure that the
improved test kits are commercially
available before phasing in the
applicability of the rule to newer target
housing and child-occupied facilities.
However, EPA was concerned about
delaying implementation for post-1960
target housing and child-occupied
facilities that are occupied or used by

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

children under age 6 with increased
blood lead levels. In order to reduce the
possibility that an unregulated
renovation activity would contribute to
continuing exposures for these children,
the 2006 Proposal would have required
renovation firms, during the first year
that the training, certification, work
practice and recordkeeping
requirements are in effect, to provide
owners and occupants of target housing
built between 1960 and 1978 and childoccupied facilities built between 1960
and 1978 the opportunity to inform the
firm that the building to be renovated is
the residence of, or is a child-occupied
facility frequented by, a child under age
6 with a blood lead level that equals or
exceeds the CDC level of concern, or a
lower State or local government level of
concern. If the owner or occupant
informs the renovation firm that a child
under age 6 with an increased blood
lead level lives in or frequents the
building to be renovated, the renovation
firm must comply with all of the
training, certification, work practice,
and recordkeeping requirements of this
regulation.
Some commenters agreed that a
staged approach was probably
necessary, given the number of
renovations that would be covered by
the rule, and that a focus on buildings
built before 1960 was appropriate.
However, most commenters objected to
the phased implementation. Some were
concerned about the potential exposures
to children in buildings built between
1960 and 1978 during the first stage of
the rule. Another major concern
expressed by commenters was that the
phased implementation would
unnecessarily complicate the rule,
especially with the provision relating to
children under age 6 with increased
blood lead levels. These commenters
felt that, because there already are
accurate methods for determining
whether a building contains lead-based
paint, and because renovation firms
ought to get into the habit of working in
a lead-safe manner whenever they are
working on a building built before 1978,
the utility of the delay does not
outweigh the likely confusion in the
regulated community. Commenters also
expressed reservations about providing
sensitive medical information to
contractors, in the case of children
under age 6 with increased blood lead
levels.
After reviewing the comments and
weighing all of the factors, including
EPA’s expectation that the improved
test kits will be commercially available
by September 2010, EPA has decided
not to include a phased implementation
in this rulemaking. Therefore, this

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
regulation will take effect at the same
time for target housing and childoccupied facilities regardless of whether
they were built before or after 1960.
Nonetheless, if the improved test kits
are not commercially available by
September 2010, EPA will initiate a
rulemaking to extend the effective date
of this final rule for 1 year with respect
to owner-occupied target housing built
after 1960.
iv. Test kit recognition process. In the
2006 Proposal, EPA described proposed
criteria for test kit recognition.
Specifically, for paint containing lead at
or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2
or 0.5% by weight, EPA stated its
intention to only recognize kits that
have a demonstrated probability (with
95% confidence) of a negative response
less than or equal to 5% of the time. In
addition, as soon as the improved test
kits are generally available, EPA
proposed to recognize only those test
kits that have a demonstrated
probability (with 95% confidence) of a
false positive response of no more than
10% to lead in paint at levels below the
regulated level. EPA stated its belief that
limiting recognition to kits that
demonstrate relatively low rates of false
positives would benefit the consumer by
reducing the number of times that the
training and work practice requirements
of this regulation are followed in the
absence of regulated lead-based paint.
EPA also proposed to require that these
performance parameters be validated by
a laboratory independent of the kit
manufacturer, using ASTM
International’s E1828, Standard Practice
for Evaluating the Performance
Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical
Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint (Ref. 28)
or an equivalent validation method. In
addition, the instructions for use of any
particular kit would have to conform to
the results of the validation, and the
certified renovator would have to follow
the manufacturer’s instructions when
using the kit. EPA requested comment
on whether these standards are
reasonably achievable and sufficiently
protective. EPA also solicited input on
how to conduct the kit recognition
process.
Some commenters expressed
reservations about the proposed
performance criteria, contending that a
false negative rate of 5% is too high to
be protective. However, a 5% false
negative rate (with 95% confidence) is
similar to the performance requirements
for other lead-based paint testing
methods, such as laboratory analysis
used for lead-based paint inspections,
and is considered to be the statistical
equivalent of zero. Therefore, this final
rule retains the proposed false-negative

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

criteria for test kit recognition, i.e., for
paint containing lead at or above the
regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by
weight, kits will be only recognized if
they have a demonstrated probability
(with 95% confidence) of a negative
response less than or equal to 5% of the
time. Because no comments were
received on the proposed false-positive
criteria of 10% for the improved test
kits, this final rule also retains the
proposed false-positive criteria for the
improved kits, i.e., after the improved
kits are available, the only test kits that
will be recognized are those that have a
demonstrated probability (with 95%
confidence) of a false positive response
of no more than 10% to lead in paint at
levels below the regulated level.
EPA did not receive any comments or
suggestions on the test kit recognition
process itself. With respect to existing
test kits, EPA has determined that the
NIST research (Ref. 26) is the equivalent
of an independent laboratory validation
of test kit performance. The NIST
research found that three kits met the
false-negative criteria established in this
final rule. For the purposes of this
regulation, EPA will therefore recognize
these test kits, provided that they still
use the same formulation that was
evaluated by NIST. These test kits will
be recognized by EPA until EPA
publicizes its recognition of the first
improved test kit.
With respect to the improved test kits,
EPA has determined that Environmental
Technology Verification Program (ETV)
is a suitable vehicle for obtaining
independent laboratory validation of
test kit performance. EPA intends to use
ETV or an equivalent testing program
approved by EPA for the test kit
recognition process. The goal of the ETV
Program is to provide independent,
objective, and credible performance data
for commercial-ready environmental
technologies. The ETV process promotes
these technologies implementation for
the benefit of purchasers, permitters,
vendors and the public. If ETV is used,
EPA would utilize the Environmental
and Sustainable Technology Evaluations
(ESTE) element of the ETV program
because the development of the test kits
is in support of this final rule, and the
ESTE element was created in 2005 to
address Agency priorities such as rule
making. More information on this
program is available on EPA’s website at
http://www.epa.gov/etv/index.html.
In the 2006 Proposal, EPA noted that
it would look to ASTM International’s
E1828, Standard Practice for Evaluating
the Performance Characteristics of
Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for
Lead in Paint (Ref. 28) or equivalent for
a validation method for test kits. With

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21713

the input of stakeholders, EPA is
adapting this ASTM Standard for use in
the laboratory validation program. The
testing protocol will consist of an
evaluation of the performance of the test
kits, using the manufacturer’s
instructions, on various substrates, such
as wood, steel, drywall, and plaster,
with various lead compounds, such as
lead carbonate and lead chromate, at
various lead concentrations above and
below regulatory threshold for leadbased paint. To be consistent with the
performance criteria of the National
Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program,
the testing protocol will not involve
testing the performance of the kits on
paint that contains between 0.8
milligrams of lead per square centimeter
and 1.2 milligrams of lead per square
centimeter. After a test kit has gone
through the ETV or other EPA approved
testing process, EPA will review the test
report to determine whether the kit has
been demonstrated to achieve the
criteria set forth in the rule. EPA
anticipates that evaluation of the
improved test kits under the recognition
program will begin by August 2009.
In addition, EPA intends to allow
other existing test kit manufacturers the
opportunity to demonstrate that their
kits meet the false negative criteria
described in 40 CFR 745.88(c)(1) by
going through the ETV process. Any
recognition granted to test kits based
only on the false negative criteria will
expire when EPA publicizes its
recognition of the first improved test kit
that meets both the false negative and
false positive criteria of 40 CFR
745.88(c).
Beginning on September 1, 2008,
EPA’s ETV program will accept
applications for testing from test kit
manufacturers. Applications must be
submitted, along with a sufficient
number of kits and the instructions for
using the kits, to EPA. The test kit
manufacturer should first visit the
following website for information on
where to apply: http://www.epa.gov/etv/
howtoapply.html.
c. Minor repair and maintenance.
EPA proposed to incorporate into this
regulation the minor maintenance
exception for the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule. The proposed minor
maintenance exception would have
applied to projects that disturb 2 ft2 or
less of painted surface per component.
The preamble to the 2006 Proposal
discusses the history of this exception
and requested comment on potential
changes. In particular, EPA noted that
HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, at 20
CFR 35.1350(d), includes a de minimis
exception for projects that disturb 2 ft2
or less of painted surface per room for

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21714

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

interior projects, 20 ft2 or less of painted
exterior surfaces, and 10% or less of the
total surface area on an interior or
exterior type of component with a small
surface area. If less than this amount of
painted surface is disturbed, HUD’s
lead-safe work practice requirements do
not apply. EPA’s lead-based Paint
Activities Regulation incorporates this
as an exception for small projects at 40
CFR 745.65(d). EPA requested comment
on whether the minor maintenance
exception in this regulation should be
consistent with other EPA regulations
and the HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule.
This provision describes the
applicability of the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule as well as this final rule.
Most commenters expressed support
for consistency in the various leadbased paint regulations administered by
EPA and HUD. They noted that a
consistent exception for small projects
or minor maintenance would be easier
for the regulated community to apply.
Many of these commenters
recommended 2 ft2 for interior projects
and 20 ft2 on exterior surfaces. While
some commenters supported a ‘‘per
component’’ exception, several
commenters specifically noted that the
‘‘per component’’ aspect of the existing
Pre-Renovation Education Rule
exception was problematic in that it
could result in the disturbance of large
areas of painted surfaces in a single
room. Other commenters recommended
that the threshold area for the exception
be made smaller or the exception
abolished. These commenters noted that
even very small projects have the
potential to create lead-based paint
hazards and that, rather than worrying
about the applicability of the exception,
renovation firms should just get into the
habit of performing every project in a
lead-safe manner. Other commenters
suggested that EPA consider a larger
threshold area for the exception, or an
exception based on other factors, such
as time spent performing an activity.
EPA recognizes that, depending upon
the methods used to disturb lead-based
paint, very small disturbances can
release a great deal of lead. EPA also
understands the practicality of a minor
maintenance exception.
In weighing these competing
considerations, EPA has decided to
incorporate in this final rule a minor
maintenance exception for projects that
disturb 6 ft2 or less of painted surface
per room for interiors and 20 ft2 or less
of painted surface on exteriors. This
addresses the concerns of those
commenters who supported a ‘‘per
component’’ exception while still
limiting the overall amount of paint that
can be disturbed in a single room during

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

a single project. As in the 2006
Proposal, this exception is not available
for window replacement projects. In
contrast to the Proposal, this exception
is only available for projects that do not
use any of the work practices prohibited
or restricted by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) and
that do not involve demolition of
painted surface areas.
EPA remains convinced that the
distinction between renovation and
minor maintenance activities is an
important part of implementing this
program. Congress directed EPA to
address renovation and remodeling. In
ordinary usage, minor maintenance
activities that might disturb lead-based
paint (e.g., removing a face plate for an
electric switch to repair a loose
connection, adding a new cable TV
outlet, or removing a return air grill to
service the HVAC system) are not
normally considered home renovations.
EPA believes that minor repair and
maintenance activities that cover 6 ft2 or
less per room and 20 ft2 or less for
exteriors and that do not involve
prohibited practices, demolition or
window replacement would not
ordinarily be considered renovation or
remodeling but would better be
described as minor work on the home or
COF. EPA also believes that a typical
minor repair and maintenance activity
would not normally involve the use of
high dust generating machinery such as
those prohibited or restricted by this
rule. To make the distinction between
renovations and minor repair and
maintenance activities clear, EPA has
added a definition of ‘‘minor repair and
maintenance activities’’ to 40 CFR
745.83. This term is defined as follows:
Minor repair and maintenance activities’’
are activities, including minor heating,
ventilation or air conditioning work,
electrical work, and plumbing, that disrupt 6
square feet or less of painted surface per
room for interior activities or 20 square feet
or less of painted surface for exterior
activities where none of the work practices
prohibited or restricted by § 745.85(a)(3) are
used and where the work does not involve
window replacement or demolition of
painted surface areas. When removing
painted components, or portions of painted
components, the entire surface area removed
is the amount of painted surface disturbed.
Jobs, other than emergency renovations,
performed in the same room within the same
30 days must be considered the same job for
the purpose of determining whether the job
is a minor repair and maintenance activity.

To accommodate this new definition
of ‘‘minor repair and maintenance
activities,’’ the definition of
‘‘renovation’’ in § 745.83 has also been
changed to include the following
sentence: ‘‘The term renovation does not
include minor repair and maintenance

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

activities.’’ As a result of these two
definitional changes, the reference to
minor maintenance in 40 CFR
745.82(a)(1) is no longer necessary.
Therefore, when engaged in minor
repair and maintenance activities as
defined in 40 CFR 745.83, renovation
firms and renovators are not covered by
this rule. EPA believes this approach-eliminating the per-component
limitation in favor of an overall size cap,
and prohibiting practices that EPA
believes are inconsistent with minor
maintenance work and that generate
very high lead dust loadings--is a
reasonable balance of the considerations
identified by commenters and
considered by EPA.
Several commenters expressed
concerns about how the exception
would be applied, and whether various
activities would be covered by the rule
or exempt under the minor maintenance
exception. Window replacement was of
interest to several commenters, who
referred to EPA’s previous guidance on
window replacement under the PreRenovation Education Rule (Ref. 29).
That guidance states that window
replacement, for various reasons, cannot
qualify for the minor maintenance
exception. EPA knows of no reason why
this interpretation should be changed.
In fact, contrary to the assertions of
some commenters, the Dust Study found
that window replacement was one of the
more hazardous jobs. The geometric
mean of the lead content of floor dust
samples taken in the work area after the
window replacement projects was 3,003
µg/ft2 (Ref. 17, at 6–11). In addition,
EPA does not believe that window
replacement is within the common
understanding of the meaning of either
minor repair or maintenance. EPA has
specifically included language in the
definition of ‘‘minor repair and
maintenance activities’’ to make it clear
that window replacements cannot
qualify.
Two commenters contended that,
when determining whether wall or
ceiling cut-outs exceed the minor
maintenance exception, the painted
surface disturbed should be measured
by multiplying the length of the cut by
its width, as opposed to the total size of
the cut-out. EPA disagrees with these
commenters. For cut-outs, the
calculation is made for the entire area of
surface being disturbed, e.g., the area of
the cut-out, for the following reasons:
• The removed portion can flex or be
broken during the removal process and
the paint can flake off;
• The removed portion can fall on
the floor and be trampled upon; or
• The removed portion may not be
removed as a single piece.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Calculating the amount of painted
surface disturbed in the manner that the
commenters suggested would also
complicate the rule and be more
difficult to convey during the renovator
training course. In response to these
comments, EPA has inserted clarifying
language on this into the text of the
definition of ‘‘minor repair and
maintenance activities’’ at 40 CFR
745.83.
One commenter recommended that
EPA prohibit splitting work, i.e.,
conducting a single project as several
minor maintenance activities in the
same room in a short time (like a month)
in order to avoid the regulatory
requirements. EPA agrees with this
commenter. It has always been EPA’s
interpretation of the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule that renovators could
not artificially split up projects in order
to avoid having to provide the
pamphlet. In response to this comment,
EPA has inserted clarifying language on
this into the definition of ‘‘minor repair
and maintenance activities’’ at 40 CFR
745.83. This definition states that jobs,
other than emergency renovations,
performed in the same room within the
same 30 days must be considered the
same job for the purpose of determining
whether the job is a minor repair and
maintenance activity.
d. Emergency projects. Both the 2006
Proposal and the 2007 Supplemental
Proposal proposed to retain the
emergency project exception in the PreRenovation Education Rule with one
modification. EPA proposed to clarify
that interim control projects performed
on an expedited basis in response to an
elevated blood lead level finding in a
resident child qualify for the emergency
project exception from the PreRenovation Education Rule
requirements. As discussed in the 2006
Proposal, EPA was concerned that local
public health organizations may be
delayed in responding to a leadpoisoned child if the owner of the
building where the child resides is not
available to acknowledge receipt of the
lead hazard information pamphlet
before an interim control project begins.
In addition, EPA recognized that some
emergencies could make it difficult to
comply with all of the training,
certification, work practice, and
recordkeeping requirements. For
example, a broken water pipe may make
it impossible to contain the work area
before beginning to disturb painted
surfaces to get to the pipe. The proposed
emergency project exception would
have required firms to comply with the
work practice, training, certification,
and recordkeeping requirements to the
extent practicable.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

EPA received a number of comments
on this aspect of the 2006 Proposal.
Several recognized the need for such an
exception, but most of the commenters
were concerned that the language of the
proposal would make it possible for
renovation firms to circumvent the
training, certification, and work practice
controls when performing interim
controls in response to a child with an
elevated blood lead level. A number of
these commenters, as well as several
others, urged EPA to be more specific
about which requirements could be
bypassed in particular situations. EPA
agrees with these commenters. It never
was EPA’s intention to allow firms
performing interim controls in response
to a poisoned child to use untrained
workers or work in a manner not
consistent with the work practices
required by this rule.
EPA has therefore revised the
exception to specifically state that
interim controls performed in response
to a child with an elevated blood lead
level are only exempt from the
information distribution requirements,
which is consistent with the current
Pre-Renovation Education Rule. EPA
has also modified the exception to state
that emergency renovations are only
exempt to the extent necessary to
respond to the emergency from the
training, certification, sign posting, and
containment requirements of this
regulation. For example, most property
management companies who do their
own maintenance are likely to have at
least one trained and certified renovator
on staff to perform renovations, so these
companies should be able to comply
with the training and certification
requirements on all renovations.
Likewise, firms performing emergency
renovations should be able to follow the
required cleaning procedures after
emergency repairs have been made. As
such, under the final rule, in all cases
the cleaning specified by the regulation
must be performed and it must be
performed or directed by certified
renovators. In addition, in all cases, the
cleaning verification requirements of
this regulation must be performed and
they must be performed by a certified
renovator. In response to one
commenter who requested that EPA
require firms to document their inability
to comply with all of the regulatory
provisions in emergencies, EPA has
included such a requirement in 40 CFR
745.86(b)(7). Finally, EPA has removed
the word ‘‘operations’’ from the
exception, in response to one
commenter who suggested that the word
is unnecessary and confusing. EPA
agrees that the word ‘‘operations’’ is

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21715

unnecessary in its description of
emergency renovations. EPA intends to
continue interpreting the term
‘‘emergency renovations’’ in the same
way that it always has done, except that
EPA has clarified that interim controls
performed in response to a child with
an elevated blood-lead level can be an
emergency renovation.
B. Pre-Renovation Education
The Pre-Renovation Education Rule,
promulgated pursuant to TSCA section
406(b) and codified at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart E, requires renovators to
provide owners and occupants of target
housing with a lead hazard information
pamphlet before beginning a renovation
in the housing (Ref. 8). The pamphlet
currently used for this purpose, ‘‘Protect
Your Family From Lead in Your Home,’’
was developed in accordance with
TSCA section 406(a) and includes
useful information on lead-based paint
and lead-based paint hazards in general.
This pamphlet is also used to provide
lead hazard information to purchasers
and renters of target housing under the
Requirements for Disclosure of
Information Concerning lead-Based
Paint in Housing ‘‘Lead Disclosure
Rule’’ (Ref. 30).
1. New renovation-specific pamphlet.
EPA has developed a new lead hazard
information pamphlet that addresses
renovation-specific lead exposure
concerns. The development of this
pamphlet, including the public
comments received on the format and
content, is discussed in greater detail in
a separate notice published elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register. This new
renovation-specific pamphlet, entitled
Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools will better inform
families about the risks of exposure to
lead-based paint hazards created during
renovations and promote the use of
work practices and other health and
safety measures during renovation
activities (Ref. 31). This new pamphlet
gives information on lead-based paint
hazards, lead testing, how to select a
contractor, what precautions to take
during the renovation, and proper
cleanup activities, while still
incorporating the information already
included in the original ‘‘Protect Your
Family From Lead In Your Home’’ and
mandated by section 406(a) of TSCA.
In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed
to require renovation firms to distribute
the new renovation-specific pamphlet
(then titled Protect Your Family From
Lead During Renovation, Repair &
Painting) instead of the pamphlet
currently used for this purpose (Protect
Your Family From Lead in Your Home).

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21716

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

In general, most commenters were
supportive of a requirement to distribute
a new renovation-specific pamphlet for
the purposes of TSCA section 406(b).
One commenter stated a belief that the
existing Protect Your Family From Lead
in Your Home pamphlet had served its
purpose well and the development of a
new pamphlet should not be a priority.
EPA agrees with the commenters who
recognized the merit of providing
renovation-specific information to
owners and tenants before renovations
commence. Therefore, this final rule
will require renovation firms to
distribute the new Renovate Right:
Important Lead Hazard Information for
Families, Child Care Providers and
Schools; pamphlet before beginning
renovations. This requirement to use the
new pamphlet will become effective as
discussed in Unit III.H. of this preamble.
2. Information distribution
requirements. Other than the use of the
new renovation-specific pamphlet, EPA
did not specifically propose any
changes to the existing information
distribution requirements for target
housing that does not meet the proposed
definition of ‘‘child-occupied facility.’’
One commenter contended that the
existing information distribution
requirements for multi-family target
housing were extremely burdensome
and resulted in tenants being given
multiple notifications and copies of the
lead hazard information pamphlet over
the course of a year’s time. This
commenter requested that EPA modify
the regulations to allow an annual
distribution of renovation-related lead
hazard information to tenants. However,
as noted in interpretive guidance
previously issued on the Pre-renovation
Education Rule, EPA, in developing the
final Pre-renovation Education Rule,
carefully weighed whether a one-time
pamphlet distribution would be
adequate to meet the objectives of
section 406(b) of the lead statute, and
concluded that many, if not most,
tenants would benefit from receiving the
information in the lead pamphlet closer
to the time that a renovation is to begin.
Although some tenants may read lead
information delivered on a ‘‘for-yourinformation’’ basis, many others are not
likely to focus on potential lead hazards
until a renovation affecting their unit is
imminent, and would welcome
receiving information on protecting
their families from lead in a more timely
fashion. Therefore, EPA has determined
that an annual distribution of
renovation-specific lead hazard
information would not be an effective
means of providing timely information
to tenants.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

However, with respect to renovations
in common areas, EPA has determined
that there are other effective ways of
delivering lead hazard information to
tenants in a timely manner. Specifically,
the posting of informational signs
during the renovation in places where
the tenants of the affected units are
likely to see them will provide these
tenants with the information they need
at the time that they need it. Depending
upon the circumstances, renovation
firms may find the posting of such signs
to be less burdensome than mailing or
hand-delivering this information to
affected tenants. Indeed sign posting
may be more effective than mail since
it provides an immediate reminder.
Therefore, EPA will allow renovation
firms performing renovations in
common areas of multi-unit target
housing the option of mailing or handdelivering general information about the
renovation and making a copy of the
pamphlet available to the tenants of
affected units upon request prior to the
start of the renovation, or posting
informational signs while the
renovation is ongoing. These signs must
be posted where they are likely to be
seen by all of the tenants of the affected
units and they must contain a
description of the general nature and
locations of the renovation and the
anticipated completion date. The signs
must be accompanied by a posted copy
of the pamphlet or information on how
interested tenants can review or obtain
a copy of the pamphlet at no cost to the
tenants.
One commenter expressed concern
about tenants either not seeing the
‘‘postings’’ because they use different
entrances or distinguishing the
renovation-specific lead hazard
information ‘‘postings’’ from other
‘‘postings’’ in the general area. To take
advantage of this option, this final rule
requires renovation firms to use actual
signs, not notices on tenant bulletin
boards. In addition, these signs must be
posted where the tenants of all of the
affected units can see them. If the
tenants of the affected units use several
different entrances, a sign posted by one
of the entrances would not be sufficient.
With respect to renovations in
individual housing units, whether
single family or multi-family, firms
performing renovations for
compensation in target housing must
continue to distribute a lead hazard
information pamphlet to the owners and
tenants of the housing no more than 60
days before beginning renovations. This
requirement, along with the associated
requirements to obtain
acknowledgments or document
delivery, has not changed. For

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

renovations in the common areas of
multi-unit target housing, firms must
provide tenants with general
information regarding the nature of the
renovation and make the pamphlet
available upon request, by mailing,
hand-delivery, or posting informational
signs. Firms must also maintain
documentation of compliance with
these requirements. The 2007
Supplemental Proposal contained
additional proposed information
distribution requirements for childoccupied facilities in target housing and
in public and commercial buildings.
This final rule incorporates those
additional requirements.
Also, as proposed in the 2006
Proposal, this final rule deletes the
existing 40 CFR 745.84 because it is
duplicative. The section provided some
details on submitting CBI and how EPA
will handle that information. However,
comprehensive regulations governing
sensitive business information,
including CBI under TSCA, are codified
in 40 CFR part 2. The regulations in 40
CFR part 2 set forth the procedures for
making a claim of confidentiality and
describe the rules governing EPA’s
release of information. EPA received no
comments on the proposed deletion of
40 CFR 745.84. Therefore, EPA is
deleting this section and redesignating
existing 40 CFR 745.85 as 40 CFR
745.84.
EPA is also taking this opportunity to
reiterate who is responsible for
complying with the information
distribution responsibilities of 40 CFR
745.84. This provision of this final rule
includes the existing Pre-Renovation
Education Rule information distribution
requirements as amended to include
requirements applicable to childoccupied facilities. In interpretive
guidance issued for the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule, EPA shed additional
light on the issue of who is responsible
for complying with the information
distribution requirements, particularly
for renovation projects where multiple
contractors are involved (Ref. 32). EPA
stated that if the renovation is overseen
by a general contractor, the general
contractor is considered to be the
‘‘renovator’’ under the rule and is
therefore responsible for ensuring that
the information distribution
requirements are met. EPA further
stated that it would not consider a
subcontractor to be a ‘‘renovator’’ for
purposes of the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule so long as the
subcontractor has no direct contractual
relationship with the property owner or
manager relating to the particular
renovation. EPA’s reasoning is that the
information distribution requirements

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
should be fulfilled by the person or
entity with which the customer enters
into the contract and compensates for
the work--even if that work is
subsequently contracted out.
This final rule changes the existing
definition of ‘‘renovator’’ to refer
specifically to the individual trained in
work practices as distinct from the
renovation firm. The final rule also
specifies in 40 CFR 745.84 that the
renovation firm is responsible for
carrying out the information
distribution requirements. Renovation
firms may find it more efficient to have
someone other than the certified
renovator distribute the pamphlet and
obtain the acknowledgement forms. In
changing the definition of ‘‘renovator,’’
EPA is not changing its policies as to
which entity, between a contractor and
subcontractor, is responsible for
carrying out the information
distribution requirements. On the
contrary, as to this issue, EPA intends
to continue interpreting the regulatory
responsibility for the information
distribution requirements as it has in
the past.
a. Owners and occupants of public or
commercial buildings containing a
child-occupied facility. The PreRenovation Education Rule covers only
renovations in target housing. Thus, the
information distribution requirements
summarized in the preceding paragraph
have not historically applied to firms
performing renovations for
compensation in public or commercial
buildings. In the 2007 Supplemental
Proposal, EPA proposed to require firms
performing renovations for
compensation in child-occupied
facilities in public or commercial
buildings to provide a lead hazard
information pamphlet to the owner of
the building as well as to an adult
representative of the child-occupied
facility, if the owner of the building and
the child-occupied facility are different
entities. This requirement was modeled
on the Pre-Renovation Education Rule’s
requirements for pamphlet distribution
in rental target housing. As described in
the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, EPA
has determined, in accordance with
TSCA section 407, that the distribution
of lead hazard information, before
renovation projects begin, to an adult
representative of the child-occupied
facility as well as to the owners of
public or commercial buildings that
contain child-occupied facilities is
necessary to ensure effective
implementation of this regulation. EPA
believes that information on lead-based
paint hazards, and lead-safe work
practices that minimize the creation of
hazards, will stimulate interest on the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

part of child-occupied facilities and
public or commercial building owners
in these work practices and increase the
demand for their use.
EPA received no comments on this
aspect of the 2007 Supplemental
Proposal. Therefore, the final rule
includes this requirement as proposed.
Renovation firms performing
renovations for compensation in a childoccupied facility in a public or
commercial building must provide the
lead hazard information pamphlet
entitled Renovate Right: Important Lead
Hazard Information for Families, Child
Care Providers and Schoolsto the owner
of the building. The renovation firm
must either obtain written
acknowledgment from the owner that
the pamphlet was delivered or obtain a
certificate of mailing for the pamphlet at
least 7 days prior to the start of the
renovation. In addition, the renovation
firm must provide the pamphlet to an
adult representative of the childoccupied facility if the facility and the
building are owned by different entities.
To document compliance with this
requirement, the renovation firm must
do one of the following:
• Obtain a written acknowledgment
of pamphlet delivery from the adult
representative of the child-occupied
facility.
• Obtain a certificate of mailing for
the pamphlet at least 7 days prior to the
start of the renovation.
• Certify in writing that the
pamphlet has been delivered to the
child-occupied facility and the firm has
been unsuccessful in attempting to
obtain the signature of an adult
representative of the child-occupied
facility. This certification must contain
the reason for the failure to obtain the
signature.
b. Parents and guardians of children
under age 6 using a child-occupied
facility. The 2007 Supplemental
Proposal would also have required a
renovation firm performing a renovation
for compensation in a child-occupied
facility to provide information about the
renovation to the parents and guardians
of children under age 6 using the
facility. This proposed requirement was
designed to be comparable to the PreRenovation Education Rule provisions
for informing adult occupants (who are
not owners). EPA is finalizing this
requirement as proposed. The
renovation firm must either mail each
parent or guardian the lead hazard
information pamphlet and a general
description of the renovation or post
informational signs where parents and
guardians would be likely to see them.
The signs must be accompanied by a
posted copy of the pamphlet or

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21717

information on how to obtain the
pamphlet at no charge to interested
parents or guardians. This requirement
applies to renovations in child-occupied
facilities in target housing as well as to
renovations in child-occupied facilities
in public or commercial buildings.
EPA received three comments on this
aspect of the 2007 Supplemental
Proposal. One commenter expressed
support for this proposed requirement.
The other two provided a number of
reasons why the final rule should not
include such a requirement. These
commenters noted that renovation firms
have no contractual connection with or
contractual responsibility to the parents
or guardians of children using a childoccupied facility. They believe that the
child-occupied facility owner bears
primary responsibility for maintaining a
safe environment for children. They
were also concerned that renovation
firms might be called upon to spend a
significant amount of additional time at
a child-occupied facility to answer
parents’ questions about lead poisoning.
EPA is not persuaded by these
comments. Although the firms may have
no contractual connection with the
parents or guardians of the children,
that is often the case with occupants
who are not owners. Although childoccupied facility owners bear
responsibility for maintaining a safe
environment for children, renovation
firms are responsible for providing the
pamphlet to owners and occupants.
Once the renovation firm has
distributed the pamphlet, it has no
further obligation to educate the owners
or occupants about lead poisoning. The
pamphlet contains this information and
refers to additional resources. EPA
acknowledges that it may be difficult to
provide copies of the pamphlet to each
parent, which is why this final rule
allows renovation firms to comply by
posting informational signs where
parents or guardians would be likely to
see them.
c. Other commenter suggestions
regarding information distribution to
owners and occupants. EPA received a
number of comments that recommended
that additional information be provided
to the owner and the occupant before
and after a renovation occurs. These
commenters believe that one of the
purposes of this rule ought to be to
provide enough information to owners
and occupants so that they can
understand the work practices and can
adequately monitor the work being
performed by renovation firms. EPA
agrees that consumers will play a
critical role in ensuring that the
requirements of this regulation are being
followed. EPA believes that some of the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21718

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

suggested items of additional
information, such as an explanation of
the cleaning verification process, use of
test kits, lead-based paint and dust
testing recommendations, and how to
find a qualified person to do testing, are
best addressed through revisions to the
new lead hazard informational
pamphlet for renovations, Renovate
Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools. Those changes
are described and discussed in a notice
published elsewhere in today’s Federal
Register.
Other information distribution
elements recommended by these
commenters are likely to be provided by
renovation firms already. For example,
several commenters suggested that EPA
require the renovation firm to provide
emergency contact information to
owners and occupants. EPA believes
that, during the normal course of
business, persons that hire renovation
firms to perform renovations typically
already have contact information. A
person who contracts for a renovation is
likely to be the owner of the property
being renovated, and this person is also
likely to be able to stop the work at any
time so that he or she can confer with
the certified renovator or supervisor.
Occupants who are not the owners of
the property being renovated often will
not be the party contracting for the
renovation and may not always have
emergency contact information for the
specific firm performing a renovation in
their housing unit or building. However,
these occupants will most likely have
contact information for their landlord,
and the landlord as the person most
likely contracting with the renovation
firm and therefore to have authority to
direct the renovation work. In addition,
renovations that occur in occupied
rental housing are likely to be
maintenance or repair projects that are
performed by the landlord, the
landlord’s employees, or a maintenance
company under contract to perform all
maintenance for a particular landlord or
rental complex.
Some commenters suggested that EPA
require renovation firms provide a
description of the work area and
identify the designated entrance and
exit from the work area. EPA is not
requiring the renovation firm to
designate a specific entrance and exit
from the work area. This final rule
requires the work area itself to be
delineated by warning signs and plastic
containment. EPA does not believe there
is any utility in requiring the contractor
to also provide the owner and occupant
with a written description of the work
area before the work begins.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

Other commenters noted the existence
of the Lead Disclosure Rule (Ref. 30),
promulgated under section 1018 of the
Residential lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, and codified at
40 CFR part 745, subpart F and 24 CFR
part 35. These commenters stated that
information about the use of spot test
kits and the results of those tests, and
well as any sort of dust testing
information, are information pertaining
to lead-based paint or lead-based paint
hazards and would therefore have to be
disclosed to subsequent purchasers or
tenants of the renovated property under
the Lead Disclosure Rule. These
commenters further opined that a
requirement for the renovation firm to
provide this information to the owner of
the property is necessary to ensure the
information is available to be disclosed.
With respect to the use of test kits to
determine whether components to be
affected by a renovation contain leadbased paint, EPA agrees with these
commenters in their Lead Disclosure
Rule analysis. Therefore, this final rule
includes a requirement for the
renovation firm to provide, within 30
days, information identifying the
manufacturer and model of test kits
used, a description of the components
tested, including locations, and the
results of the test kits to the person who
contracted for the renovation. EPA also
agrees that dust clearance sampling
information is information pertaining to
lead-based paint hazards and must be
disclosed under the Disclosure Rule. If
dust clearance sampling is performed
instead of cleaning verification as
permitted in 40 CFR 745.85(c), this final
rule requires the renovation firm to
provide, within 30 days, a copy of the
dust clearance report to the person
contracting for the renovation.
However, EPA does not believe that
information related to cleaning
verification is a record or report
‘‘pertaining to lead-based paint or leadbased paint hazards’’ for purposes of
section 1018. As discussed in more
detail in Unit III.E.7. of this preamble,
cleaning verification is not the
equivalent of clearance. The purpose of
cleaning verification is to determine
whether the dust that was created by the
renovation, whether or not it contains
lead, has been adequately removed.
Although the disposable cleaning-cloth
study, discussed in Unit III.E.7., and the
Dust Study show that information is
correlated with the hazard standard, the
purpose of cleaning verification is not to
detect lead-based paint hazards per se.
In addition, under this final rule,
cleaning verification must be completed
for every renovation (i.e., it must

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

achieve ‘‘white glove’’ or the prescribed
combination of wet and dry wipes must
have been used), so the results of
verification will always show that
‘‘white glove’’ or the equivalent has
been achieved. As explained below, the
cleaning verification is part of a package
of work practices that, together,
minimize exposure to hazards created
by renovation. Also, as explained below,
completing the cleaning verification
process does not necessarily indicate
that the surface does not have leadbased paint hazards unrelated to the
renovation. Therefore, EPA will not
require the results of cleaning
verification activities to be disclosed
under the Lead Disclosure Rule.
C. Training and Certification
Under the current Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations at 40 CFR part
745, subpart L, both individuals and
firms that perform lead-based paint
inspections, lead hazard screens, risk
assessments, and abatements must be
certified by EPA. EPA proposed a
similar, but not identical, regulatory
scheme for individuals and firms that
perform renovations.
This final rule requires all renovations
subject to this rule to be performed by
a firm certified to perform renovations.
In addition, the rule requires that all
persons performing renovation work
either be certified renovators or receive
on-the-job training from and perform
key tasks under the direction of a
certified renovator. In order to become
a certified renovator, a person must
successfully complete an accredited
renovator course. EPA renovator
certification allows the certified
individual to perform renovations in
any State, Territory, or Indian Tribal
area that does not have a renovation
program authorized under 40 CFR part
745, subpart Q. These requirements are
discussed in greater detail in the
following sections.
EPA is also creating, with this final
rule, a dust sampling technician
discipline. Although, as discussed in
Unit III.E.7. of this preamble, this final
rule does not allow dust clearance
testing in lieu of post-renovation
cleaning verification, except in limited
circumstances, EPA still believes that
there will be a market for the services
of persons with dust sampling
technician credentials. EPA
recommends that any property owners
who choose to have dust clearance
testing performed after a renovation use
a certified inspector, risk assessor, or
dust sampling technician.
Finally, in response to one commenter
who suggested that EPA’s use of the
term ‘‘person’’ and the term

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘individual’’ was confusing, EPA has
modified the regulatory text in the
sections added or significantly revised
by this final rule to use the term
‘‘person’’ when referring to both natural
persons and judicial persons, such as
renovation firms, property management
companies, or units of government, and
the term ‘‘individual’’ when referring
only to natural persons.
1. Individuals. Under this final rule,
EPA is establishing new individual
certification disciplines for renovators
and dust sampling technicians. All
renovation activities covered by this
final rule must be performed by certified
renovators, or by renovation workers
who receive on-the-job training in the
work practices from a certified
renovator.
a. Certified renovators and renovation
workers—i. Responsibilities of certified
renovators. The certified renovator
assigned to a renovation is responsible
for ensuring that the renovation is
performed in compliance with the work
practice requirements set out in 40 CFR
745.85. These requirements pertain to
warning signs and work area
containment, the restriction or
prohibition of certain practices (e.g.,
high heat gun, torch, power sanding),
waste handling, cleaning, and postrenovation cleaning verification. The
certified renovator can perform these
work practices herself or himself.
Alternatively, the certified renovator
can direct other workers to perform
most of these work practices. However,
the post-renovation cleaning verification
requirements must be performed by a
certified renovator. These requirements
cannot be delegated to a worker. If the
certified renovator directs the other
workers to perform the work practices,
the certified renovator must be at the
work site during the critical phases of
the renovation activity. The critical
phases are posting warning signs,
containing the work area, and cleaning
the work site.
Although the certified renovator is not
required to be on-site at all times, while
the renovation project is ongoing, a
certified renovator must nonetheless
regularly direct the work being
performed by other workers to ensure
that the work practices are being
followed. When a certified renovator is
not physically present at the work site,
the workers must be able to contact the
renovator immediately by telephone or
other mechanism. A certified renovator
must:
• Perform the post-renovation
cleaning verification described in 40
CFR 745.85(b).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

• Perform or direct workers who
perform all of the work practices
described in 40 CFR 745.85(a).
• Provide training to workers on the
work practices they will be using in
performing their assigned tasks.
• Be physically present at the work
site when the signs required by 40 CFR
745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work
area containment required by 40 CFR
745.85(a)(2) is being established, and
while the work area cleaning required
by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5) is performed.
• Regularly direct the work being
performed by other workers to ensure
that the work practices are being
followed, including maintaining the
integrity of the containment barriers and
ensuring that dust or debris does not
spread beyond the work area.
• Be available, either on-site or by
telephone, at all times that renovations
are being conducted.
• When requested by the party
contracting for renovation services, use
an acceptable test kit to determine
whether components to be affected by
the renovation contain lead-based paint.
• Have with them at the work site
copies of their initial course completion
certificate and their most recent
refresher course completion certificate.
• Prepare the records required to
demonstrate that renovations have been
performed in accordance with the
requirements of this rule.
There are some slight revisions
between the 2006 Proposal and this
final rule, although none of these
changes add to or detract from the
renovator’s responsibilities. First, the
Proposal used both the term ‘‘lead-safe
work practices’’ and ‘‘work practices’’ in
the preamble and in the proposed rule
text. Although the work practices
required in this final rule are lead-safe,
for purposes of clarity, the final rule text
has been changed to ‘‘work practices.’’
The reason for this change was to make
text of the rule relating the renovator’s
responsibilities text consistent with
other provisions in the rule, particularly
40 CFR 745.85 (Work Practice
Standards). Today’s work practices are
lead-safe work practices. The work
practice standards listed in § 745.85(a)
are the same tasks that the other workers
will be directed in and trained to do by
the certified renovator (except for
cleaning verification). In addition, the
term ‘‘lead-safe work practices’’ has
different meanings in different contexts,
and this change is to make clear that the
work practices required by this final
rule are the work practices required in
§ 745.85(a).
Second, one of the renovator’s
responsibilities listed in the preamble of
the 2006 Proposal was to ‘‘[r]egularly

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21719

direct the work being performed by
uncertified persons to ensure that leadsafe work practices are being followed,
the integrity of the containment barriers
is maintained, and dust or debris is not
spread beyond the work area.’’ The
word ‘‘regularly’’ was inadvertently
omitted from the proposed regulatory
text. To make the regulatory text
consistent with the preamble, the word
‘‘regularly’’ has been added to the final
regulatory text. In addition, EPA has
slightly modified the regulatory text,
consistent with the preceding
paragraph, to clarify that maintaining
the integrity of the containment barriers
and ensuring that dust or debris does
not spread beyond the work area are
among the work practices required by
the rule.
Some commenters agreed that it was
unnecessary for a certified renovator to
be on site at all times and believed that
oversight by a certified renovator on a
regular basis was sufficient. One
commenter believed that the certified
renovator should be on site at critical
points including site preparations and
isolation, end of day and end of project
cleaning, and cleaning verification.
Many other commenters thought a
certified renovator should be on site at
all times. Another stated that a certified
renovator would not have to be on site
at all times if workers received lead safe
work practices training. After carefully
considering the issue, EPA has
concluded that requiring a certified
renovator to be on site during critical
phases of the work is sufficient to
ensure that the work practices required
by this final rule are followed. These
work practices provide a mechanism to
contain dust and debris generated by a
job and a clean-up regimen following
work that is designed to minimize
exposure to lead-based paint hazards
created during the renovation activity.
Once the containment has been
established and until cleanup begins,
this final rule requires few, and simple,
changes from the way renovation work
is currently carried out. Specifically,
renovation workers need to avoid using
the specific practices prohibited by this
final rule; they need to maintain the
containment (e.g., avoid ripping or
displacing the plastic); and they need to
make sure that any waste generated is
contained at the end of the day. These
are important but relatively simple
measures that EPA does not believe
require formal classroom training, or the
constant supervision of a certified
renovator who has had formal training.
Once the cleanup begins, the certified
renovator will again be required to be
present, either performing the cleanup

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21720

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

or directing others. In addition, the
certified renovator must perform the
cleaning verification. Thus, EPA has
concluded that having a renovator on
site at all times is unwarranted.
ii. Renovator training. To become a
certified renovator, a person must
successfully complete a renovator
course accredited by EPA or by a State,
Territorial, or Tribal program authorized
by EPA.
Some commenters questioned the
need to create a separate discipline for
renovators. In their opinion, the existing
abatement course is sufficient (with
some basic changes) and to create a new
program will take resources away from
existing efforts in lead hazard control.
EPA believes that there are sufficient
differences between abatement and
renovation activities to warrant different
training and work practice
requirements. Specific activities of an
abatement contractor may be similar to
those of a renovator (e.g., sanding,
caulking, painting, sawing), but because
the project goal is the permanent
elimination of hazards, the application
and methodology differ. Therefore, a
significant portion of an abatement
contractor’s training is focused on
abatement techniques and selection of
the appropriate course of action for a
variety of hazards. Renovators, on the
other hand, do not seek to permanently
eliminate lead hazards. Renovators
perform maintenance and improvement
tasks as directed by the consumer. The
goal of EPA’s renovator training and
certification program is not to update
the methodology a renovator uses to
accomplish these tasks, with the
exception of the practices prohibited or
restricted by this final rule, but rather to
introduce containment and cleaning
methods to minimize exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by the
renovation activity.
Several commenters saw the need for
universal, standard renovator training.
A commenter suggested that training for
certified renovators be similar to the
current EPA/HUD renovator and
remodeler course. One commenter
thought that standard training would
make it easier when hiring someone to
verify that they had completed the
appropriate training. Another
mentioned that it would encourage
state-to-state reciprocity for training
programs so that renovators would not
need to take multiple courses with the
same content. EPA plans to work with
HUD to update the model EPA/HUD
renovator training course to cover the
requirements of this final rule. EPA
agrees that reciprocity among
authorized State, Territorial, and Tribal
programs, and with the Federal

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

program, is preferable. However, as with
the abatement program, authorized
programs will have the ability to
customize requirements and course
content based on their particular needs.
The Agency encourages jurisdictions
seeking authorization to consider
reciprocity of training as they develop
their individual programs.
Commenters were also concerned
about the cost of formal training.
Commenters thought that EPA could
provide free training to encourage
renovator compliance, or that EPA
funds for enforcement of the final rule
would be better spent on training. EPA
agrees that renovator training should be
as inexpensive as possible. However,
the training course costs will be
established by independent training
programs based on market forces. The
total cost of conducting a training
course depends upon the labor cost for
the instructor(s), the cost of providing a
classroom and other facilities, and other
fixed costs. But the cost per trainee also
depends on the number of trainees per
class. Due to the large number of
individuals who will need training, the
Agency anticipates that demand will be
high, keeping the cost per trainee lower
than might otherwise be the case. But
also due to that large volume, the
Agency does not anticipate that it will
be able to provide any significant source
of funding to support training.
iii. Other renovation worker training.
This final rule does not require
everyone involved in performing a
regulated renovation project to receive
training from an accredited training
provider. To allow flexibility for firms
undertaking these projects, the rule
allows firms to use other workers to
perform renovation activities as long as
they receive on-the-job training (OJT) in
work practices from a certified
renovator. This training must include
instruction in the specific work
practices that these workers will be
responsible for performing. OJT training
occurs while the worker is engaged in
productive work and which provides
knowledge and skills essential to the
full and adequate performance of the
job. OJT may also be structured through
a planned process of developing
competence on units of work by having
the certified renovator train the worker
at the work setting or a location that
closely resembles the work setting.
Although there is no specific
requirement for ‘‘refresher training,’’
OJT must be provided for each worker
for each job to the extent necessary to
ensure that that worker is adequately
trained for the tasks he or she will be
performing.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

If, under the direction of the certified
renovator, the workers will be posting
warning signs, establishing
containment, or cleaning the work area
after the renovation, the certified
renovator must provide instruction,
either verbally or through
demonstration, to the workers in how to
perform these tasks. With respect to
other activities, including work
performed while the certified renovator
is not present, the certified renovator
must provide instruction, either verbally
or through demonstration, in how to
perform the work without using work
practices prohibited by this rule, how to
maintain the integrity of the
containment barriers (e.g., taking care
not to tear the plastic), and how to avoid
spreading dust or debris beyond the
work area (e.g., vacuuming clothing and
tools with a HEPA vacuum before
leaving the work area). In any event, the
certified renovator remains responsible
for ensuring that this work is done in
compliance with the rule’s
requirements, e.g., that containment
sufficient to prevent release of dust or
debris from the work site has been
established and that clothing and tools
were adequately cleaned before leaving
the work area.
Workers need not be trained in work
practices that do not pertain to the
renovations they will be performing. If
the certified renovator will be the one
posting warning signs, establishing
containment, and cleaning the work
area after the renovation, it is not
necessary for the certified renovator to
provide instruction on these tasks to any
workers who will be used elsewhere on
the project. Similarly, workers hired to
perform only exterior projects need not
receive training in how to clean an
interior work area after a renovation.
EPA chose to allow OJT to alleviate
industry concerns raised during the
SBREFA panel process regarding high
employee turnover rates within the
industry and the potential for high
training costs if all workers were
required to be certified. The Agency
concluded that allowing OJT could be
done effectively and would provide
flexibility for firms undertaking
renovation projects. EPA determined
that OJT can be effectively delivered by
a certified renovator because the
requirements themselves are simple and
easy to understand. This final rule also
requires a certified renovator be
assigned and responsible for each
project to ensure compliance with
required standards.
Some commenters agreed that OJT by
a certified renovator is sufficient for
training workers. One commenter stated
that as long as a specific person is

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
designated to oversee the job, there is no
need for all workers on site to have
formal training. The commenter noted
the similarity between this approach
and OSHA’s ‘‘competent person’’
standard. EPA agrees that there are some
similarities between the approach in
this final rule and OSHA’s ‘‘competent
person’’ standard.
However, the majority of commenters
had concerns about the use of OJT to
train workers. Many argued that OJT is
insufficient for providing workers with
the necessary skills and thought
renovation workers should receive
formal LSWP training such as a 1 day
course equivalent to that required for
certified renovators. Some of these
commenters also thought that workers
should be certified or licensed.
Some commenters were concerned
that the content of OJT is not clearly
defined in the rule. One believed EPA
should impose a structured OJT
program in order to produce consistent,
accurate, and comprehensive training
outcomes. Others thought more time
was needed for OJT, with suggestions
ranging from 5 to 6 hours of training to
3 to 4 days. EPA has neither established
a structured OJT program nor required
a specific length of time for OJT because
the OJT required will vary widely from
project to project, depending upon how
the other workers are used. As
discussed above, if the worker will not
be establishing containment, there is no
need to train the worker in how to
establish containment. If the worker in
question is an electrician, and he will
merely be installing an electrical outlet
as part of a larger job, then there may
be no need to provide any training to
this worker other than instructing him
not to disturb the plastic on the floor
and making sure that he and his tools
are free of dust and debris before leaving
the work area.
In addition, as discussed in Unit
III.C.1.c.iii. of this preamble, EPA will
‘‘grandfather’’ persons with previous
EPA/HUD lead-safe work practices
training or accredited abatement
supervisor or worker training. To
become certified renovators, these
persons must take a renovator refresher
course in order to ensure that they are
acquainted with how to use test kits to
determine whether lead-based paint is
present on a component and how to
perform cleaning verification. However,
even if they do not take the refresher
course and become certified renovators,
these individuals have still received
significant training in the required work
practices such as establishing
containment and cleaning the area after
the job is finished. They are not likely
to need much, if any OJT, depending

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

upon how recent their training was.
Similarly, although not recognized for
the purpose of ‘‘grandfathering’’ by EPA,
HUD’s Lead Maintenance course would
also provide a great deal of information
on lead-safe work practices. Someone
who had taken the Maintenance course
recently would also not be likely to
need much, if any, OJT.
Several commenters thought that
workers would not receive adequate OJT
because the certified renovator was not
qualified to train others. They noted that
the certified renovators are renovators,
not professional trainers, and do not
necessarily have the skills necessary for
teaching others.
After consideration of these
commenters’ concerns, EPA has
concluded that OJT is sufficient for
training some renovation employees.
The work practice standards of this final
rule are not complex or difficult to
institute, and those activities critical to
ensuring the lead safe outcome of the
project are either conducted by certified
renovators or directed by certified
renovators. The remainder of the project
is often just the renovation itself, and
EPA was careful when developing these
final work practices to minimize the
effect on the way typical renovations are
conducted. With the exception of the
prohibition of certain unsafe practices,
renovation methods are unaffected by
this rule. For example, the work
practices of this final rule do not affect
the method a firm would employ to
replace a window. A certified renovator
should be able to demonstrate to other
firm employees work practices, such as
how to work within containment and
how to move into and out of
containment without spreading lead
dust and debris. EPA does not believe
a professional trainer is needed to train
renovation workers, who will be
directed by a certified renovator if they
will be performing any of the key tasks
associated with the work practices. Most
of the people performing renovations
today are not trained by professional
trainers. They are trained on-the-job by
experienced firm employees. For
example, persons learn the various
techniques for removing and replacing
windows from others in the firm who
are experienced in these techniques.
Renovation workers can learn work
practices in the same way from a
certified renovator.
Although the work practices in the
final regulation are sufficiently
straightforward and can be easily
demonstrated by the certified renovator,
EPA agrees that renovators do not
necessarily consider themselves to be
trainers. Therefore, accredited renovator
training will include a train-the-trainer

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21721

component to provide instruction on
providing OJT. In addition, instructors
will be expected to provide training tips
to renovators during hands-on
instruction. As the instructor is showing
the renovator how to do these work
practices, he or she can also provide
instruction on how to show others how
to do these work practices. Accordingly,
EPA has concluded that certified
renovators will be adequately prepared
to provide OJT that is sufficient and
appropriate for the purposes of this rule.
Commenters expressed concerns that
the rule would not provide appropriate
training for the large number of nonEnglish speaking workers in the
renovation field. One of these
commenters suggested that EPA
consider such means as graphic
manuals, video presentations, and
translators to aid in training non-English
speaking workers. Another thought that
a hands-on only training process
overlooked possible language barriers
between the certified renovator and
trainee. EPA agrees that OJT can be
conducted effectively by demonstration
by the certified renovator or through the
use of graphic training materials. The
Agency plans to develop materials to
assist certified renovators in conducting
on-the-job training. To the extent
possible, these materials will use a
graphic format that does not require the
use of any particular language.
Moreover, renovation firms currently
communicate job needs to their
employees, and EPA doubts that firms
routinely hire people with whom they
are unable to communicate. Finally,
EPA emphasizes again that the certified
renovator and the renovation firm are
responsible for ensuring compliance
with this final rule. If the certified
renovator has doubts about an
employee’s understanding of or ability
to comply with the requirements that
are relevant to the work he or she is to
undertake, the certified renovator may
need to be on site and direct the work
more regularly than he otherwise
would, or may need to perform certain
tasks himself. However, given the
relative simplicity of the work practices
that are required between establishment
of containment and cleanup, EPA does
not expect that this will often be
necessary.
Some commenters were concerned
that OJT does not include a means to
assess worker competence such as an
examination. Commenters were also
concerned about ongoing training needs
and suggested requiring worker
refresher training on a periodic or
annual basis. This final rule requires a
certified renovator to direct workers
with OJT as necessary to ensure that

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21722

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

work practices are being followed. This
will necessarily involve a period of
observation after OJT is provided to
ensure that the worker has understood
and is following the work practices
pertinent to his assigned duties. In
addition, to some extent, OJT is
continuous and certified renovators will
likely need to continue to provide
training to workers based on the
activities that they will be expected to
perform on a particular job. A certified
renovator would not need to provide
OJT to the same worker on consecutive
jobs if the worker is performing the
same work, but if the nature of the work
varies, or if the firm hires a new
employee, relevant OJT would have to
be provided for the work to be
performed. EPA believes that the
continuous nature of OJT obviates the
need for a refresher training requirement
in the rule and will serve as an
incentive for firms to have their
permanent employees trained as
certified renovators. EPA also believes
that refresher training per se is not
practical, given that OJT will be specific
to the job in question.
Some commenters wanted some form
of verification that a worker had
received training, such as a certificate of
training or a sticker which could be
placed on an ID card. Because each
worker is not likely to receive training
in all aspects of lead safe work
practices, a certificate or other form of
training completion that would indicate
an employee’s OJT is complete is not
appropriate for this program. It is
important to note that OJT is not as
portable as certified renovator training
nor is it intended to be. Certified
renovators carry a training certificate
that they can present to each new
employer to prove that they have
received training in the required work
practices. There is no corresponding
document that can be used to verify OJT
by a previous employer. Renovation
firms will generally need to provide OJT
each time a new worker is used. It is
also the renovation firm’s responsibility
to adequately document the elements of
OJT provided to each worker on each
project.
Because a certified renovator must be
assigned to each and every renovation
covered by this regulation, EPA
anticipates that some renovation
contractors and property management
companies will find that they achieve
maximum efficiency and flexibility by
qualifying all of their permanent
employees who perform renovations as
certified renovators. However, due to
the industry’s high employee turnover
rates and short-term labor needs, the
Agency believes that training flexibility

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

in the form of on-the-job training is
needed. EPA believes that such
flexibility will provide firms the ability
to respond to variable labor demands
and will not compromise the safety of
this final rule. EPA is concerned that a
regulation requiring formal, classroom
training for every worker performing
any renovation activity would be
unrealistic for this industry and
therefore less effective at ensuring that
the renovation work force is trained in
work practices than the more balanced
training requirements in this final rule.
b. Dust sampling technicians. Except
as provided in 40 CFR 745.85(c), this
final rule does not allow dust clearance
sampling to be performed in lieu of
post-renovation cleaning verification.
However, some property owners may
still choose to have dust clearance
sampling performed after the
renovation. Dust sampling technicians
certified in accordance with this final
rule will be available to perform dust
clearance sampling after renovations
and for purposes of HUD’s Lead Safe
Housing Rule.
Some commenters questioned the
need for dust sampling technicians. One
stated that there is no benefit to creating
a third inspection-type discipline that
has such limited training requirements.
Two commenters thought that only
EPA- or State-certified risk assessors
should be allowed to collect dust wipe
clearance samples and two commenters
thought that dust sampling technicians
should be required to work under a
certified risk assessor or inspector.
In 1999, in order to make accurate
dust testing for lead more available and
affordable, Congress provided EPA with
funding for the development of a 1 day
dust sampling technician course.
Congress also encouraged the Agency to
promote the recognition of this
discipline. EPA completed the
development of the course, entitled
Lead Sampling Technician Training
Course,’’ in July of 2000. This course
provides instruction on how to conduct
a visual assessment for deteriorated
paint, collect samples for lead dust, and
interpret sample results. The training
curriculum provides clearance sampling
instruction that is equivalent to that
presented in inspector and risk assessor
courses, in terms of time and quality
with respect to dust sampling.
Therefore, EPA can recommend that
property owners and others who wish to
have optional dust sampling performed
use the services of a certified inspector,
risk assessor, or dust sampling
technician.
c. Certification of individuals—i.
Initial certification. Section 745.90 of
this final rule addresses renovator and

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

dust sampling technician certification.
To become a certified renovator, a
person must successfully complete a
renovator course accredited by EPA or
by a State, Territorial, or Tribal program
authorized by EPA under 40 CFR part
745, subpart Q. The renovator course
accreditation requirements are based on
the joint EPA-HUD model curriculum
entitled Lead Safety for Remodeling,
Repair, & Painting. EPA is not requiring
additional education or work experience
of persons wishing to become certified
renovators. EPA renovator certification
will allow the certified individual to
perform renovations covered by this
section in any State or Indian Tribal
area that does not have a renovation
program authorized under 40 CFR part
745, subpart Q. To become a certified
dust sampling technician, a person must
successfully complete a dust sampling
technician training course that has been
accredited either by EPA or by a State,
Territorial, or Tribal program authorized
by EPA under 40 CFR part 745, subpart
Q. EPA is not requiring additional
education or work experience of persons
wishing to become certified dust
sampling technicians.
The final rule also establishes, in 40
CFR 745.91, procedures for suspending,
revoking, or modifying an individual’s
or firm’s certification. These procedures
are very similar to the current
procedures in place at 40 CFR 745.226(i)
for suspending, revoking, or modifying
the certification of an individual who is
certified to perform lead-based paint
activities. In addition, under the final
rule, renovator certification can be
suspended, revoked, or modified if the
certified renovator does not conduct
projects to which he or she is assigned
in accordance with the work practice
requirements of this final rule. Finally,
in order to ensure that the effect of a
suspension, revocation, or modification
determination is clear to the certified
individual or firm, EPA has added
language to this section ensuring that
the commencement date and duration of
a suspension, revocation, or
modification is identified in the
Presiding Officer’s decision and order.
EPA has also added language to this
section to clarify what steps an
individual or firm must take after such
an action in order to exercise the
privileges of certification again. An
individual whose certification has been
suspended must take a refresher training
course in the appropriate discipline in
order to make his or her certification
current, while an individual whose
certification has been revoked must take
another initial training course in order
to be re-certified. A firm whose

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
certification has been suspended need
not do anything after the suspension
ends to become current again, as long as
the suspension ends before the firm’s
certification expires. If the firm’s
certificate expires during the
suspension, the firm must apply for recertification after the suspension ends.
If a firm’s certification is revoked, the
firm must apply for certification after
the revocation period ends in order to
be certified.
Some commenters questioned the
need for a certification requirement,
emphasizing that it is the training that
is important rather than the
certification. One commenter thought
that, since firms will have to be
certified, there was no added value in
certifying renovators. Others supported
certification and some thought
renovators should have to apply to EPA
to receive their certification in the same
way that abatement workers do, stating
that no regulatory program can work
unless the regulating agency can reliably
identify and contact the regulated
individuals. One commenter thought
that there should also be a work
experience requirement for certified
renovators.
EPA believes that renovators must be
certified so that the Agency has a
mechanism to verify an individual has
received the appropriate training. In
addition, if a contractor does not
comply with the regulatory standards
then withdrawal of the renovator’s
certification is a regulatory remedy
available to the Agency. The final rule
includes a certification process that is
more streamlined than the individual
certification process of the Agency’s
abatement regulations. In the abatement
program, an individual must complete
training, then submit an application and
fee to the Agency and, depending on the
discipline, take a third party exam in
order to be certified. In contrast, an
individual will be considered a certified
renovator upon successful completion
of an accredited training program, and
the accredited training program is
required to submit identifying and
contact information to EPA regarding
the individuals that they have trained.
EPA does not believe that work
experience requirements are necessary
because previous experience in the
construction or renovation industry
would do little to help an individual
understand or perform the work
practices, which are not a standard
practice in the industry. Consequently,
there is no relevant work experience for
EPA to require. In addition, the work
practices required by this final rule are
sufficiently straightforward that EPA
does not believe it is necessary to

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

require work experience in addition to
certified renovator training.
Because EPA is not requiring any
additional education or work experience
requirements, or a third-party
examination similar to that taken by
inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor
candidates, EPA believes that there is
little value in requiring candidates to
apply to EPA to receive their renovator
or dust sampling technician
certification. Currently, the only
certified discipline without
prerequisites in education or
experience, or a third-party
examination, is the abatement worker.
When candidates for worker
certification apply to EPA, EPA verifies
that the copy of the training course
certificate submitted with the
application is from an accredited
training provider. Without requiring
renovators or dust sampling technicians
to apply to EPA for certification EPA
will still receive course completion
information from course providers. With
this information, EPA will have a
complete list of certified renovators and
will be able to check to see if a
particular course completion certificate
holder appeared on a course completion
list submitted by the training course
provider identified on the certificate.
When EPA inspects a renovation job for
compliance with these regulations, EPA
will have the ability to verify, to the
same extent, the validity of a course
completion certificate held by a
renovator at that job. Therefore, under
this final rule, EPA is requiring that a
course completion certificate from an
accredited training provider serve as a
renovator’s or dust sampling
technician’s certification. To facilitate
compliance monitoring, the rule
requires a certified renovator or dust
sampling technician to have a copy of
the course completion certificate at the
job site.
Several commenters saw the need for
a way to determine that a certified
renovator was current with applicable
training requirements. Suggestions for
proof of training included issuing photo
IDs, issuing a hard card or certificate,
and establishing a national database of
workers with current training. One
commenter thought that it should be the
responsibility of the training provider to
certify that renovators have successfully
completed the training requirements
and to then supply EPA with all of the
information. EPA agrees that there must
be a way to determine if a renovator is
certified and is current with training
requirements. The Agency agrees that a
database of renovator information
would be important, and will include
identifying and training information in

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21723

the Agency’s Federal Lead Paint
Program (FLPP) database. However, this
database will only contain information
about certified renovators working in
federally administered jurisdictions. In
addition, the Agency will require
training programs to include a
photograph of the individual who
completes renovator or dust sampling
technician training on the training
certificate and to submit that photo to
the Agency to be included in the
database record. This will enable
inspectors to determine whether a
particular individual has received
training from an accredited training
provider.
Some of the commenters had
concerns specific to small businesses.
Two commenters stressed the need for
outreach programs to inform small
businesses of new compliance
requirements. One commenter stated
that smaller firms should not be exempt
from training and certification
requirements; another thought that
small businesses would continue to
operate without appropriate training
and certification unless there was some
type of enforcement. EPA understands
that the task of communicating this final
rule requirements to the renovation
community will be challenging.
Therefore, EPA is developing a
comprehensive outreach and
communications program to support
this final rule. This will include
outreach to contractors as well as
consumers. In addition the Agency
plans to roll out a compliance assistance
effort to complement this undertaking.
One commenter suggested that
authorized State, Territorial, or Tribal
programs include the requirement for
training as part of a contractor licensing
function, thereby eliminating the need
to create a special (new) lead renovator’s
certification or license. EPA agrees that
where a State, Territory, or Tribe has a
pre-existing relationship with
renovation contactors, such as a
renovators’ licensing program, the
simplest and most cost-effective
approach may be to incorporate a
requirement for lead safe work practice
training into that pre-existing program.
ii. Recertification. Under this final
rule EPA is requiring that renovators
and dust sampling technicians who
wish to remain certified take refresher
training every 5 years. In addition, EPA
is requiring that the refresher training
course be half the length of the initial
course. This is consistent with current
practice for certified individuals
performing lead-based paint activities. If
an individual does not take a refresher
course within 5 years of the date he or
she completed the initial course or the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21724

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

previous refresher course, that
individual’s certification will expire on
that date and that individual may no
longer serve as a certified renovator or
dust sampling technician. There is no
grace period. To become certified again,
the individual must take another initial
training course. In addition, under this
final rule a certified renovator may
choose to take the initial renovator
course instead of a refresher course to
allow maximum flexibility, particularly
if for some reason the person was
unable to attend a refresher course.
Some commenters asserted that the
refresher requirement was of no benefit
or imposed an unnecessary cost. These
commenters reasoned that lead-safe
work practices were not likely to change
significantly over time. One noted that
HUD’s experience with lead-safe work
practices training since 1999 has not
revealed a need for refresher training in
their program. Commenters who
supported refresher training differed on
the frequency of the training and the
length of the refresher course. Some
agreed that refresher training should be
required every 3 years, others thought it
should be required biennially, annually,
or every 3 to 6 months. One commenter
agreed with the proposed 4–hour
course, two commenters thought a 4–
hour course was too short, and one
thought that instead of completing a
refresher, certified renovators should be
required to retake the initial training
course every 2 to 3 years. One
commenter stated that a certified
renovator should have the opportunity
to take a third party test and allow the
renovator to ‘‘test out’’ of having to
complete the refresher course.
After considering the range of
concerns raised by the commenters,
EPA has concluded that refresher
training is important for renovators and
dust sampling technicians and for the
Agency. During the refresher course,
renovators and dust sampling
technicians are given the opportunity to
discuss any point of emphasis and to be
updated on changes in the regulations
or technical issues. For example,
refresher training could be used to
update renovators on availability of new
techniques and products, such as test
kits. Refresher training provides the
Agency with a mechanism to pass along
critical information to certified
individuals and to keep track of the
workforce. However, EPA has
determined that these purposes can be
adequately served by 4–hour refresher
training every 5 years, instead of every
3 years. This provides a reasonable
period between trainings that limits
training costs while providing an
opportunity to update renovators and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

dust sampling technicians regarding
regulations and technical issues. EPA
believes that most renovators will not
also be certified abatement
professionals, so the difference in the
length of time between required
refresher courses should not confuse
individuals about their responsibilities
under the two programs.
iii. Grandfathering. Under this final
rule, individuals who successfully
completed an accredited abatement
worker or supervisor course, and
individuals who successfully completed
either HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD
model renovation training courses may
take an accredited refresher renovation
training course in lieu of the initial
renovation training to become a certified
renovator. In addition, individuals who
have successfully completed an
accredited lead-based paint inspector or
risk assessor course, but are not
currently certified in the discipline, may
take an accredited refresher dust
sampling technician course in lieu of
the initial training to become a certified
dust sampling technician. Inspectors
and risk assessors who are certified by
EPA or an authorized program are
qualified to perform dust sampling as
part of lead hazard screens, risk
assessments, or abatements. Therefore,
it would be unnecessary for a certified
inspector or risk assessor to seek
certification as a dust sampling
technician.
A number of commenters thought that
certification should be given to those
who have already attended appropriate
training. Some of these commenters
thought that individuals who had
received EPA, HUD, or State-approved
Lead Safe Work Practices (LSWP)
training should be grandfathered. One
commenter thought individuals that had
completed OSHA’s 40–hour Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency
Response course should also be
grandfathered and another wanted
individuals that had taken the National
Apartment Association’s lead worker
training course to be grandfathered.
Four commenters were in favor of
grandfathering dust sampling
technicians that have previously
completed a dust sampling course.
Most of the commenters who
expressed an opinion agreed with
grandfathering previously trained
individuals but suggested that there be
restrictions. Some of these commenters
thought that in order to receive credit
the training needed to have been
completed in the last 2 to 3 years while
others thought that certification should
be given only if a refresher or ‘‘gap’’
course were completed. One commenter
thought that the quality of the previous

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

course should be taken into account and
another commenter thought that a onesize fits all rule would not be
appropriate and that factors including
previous course requirements, the
facility that had provided the training,
and time elapsed since initial training
should all be considered in establishing
requirements for streamlined
certification. One commenter opposed
grandfathering, noting that existing
courses do not cover lead test kits,
cleaning verification, or recordkeeping
in accordance with the proposed rule.
The final rule allows individuals who
have successfully completed model
renovation courses developed by HUD
or EPA and individuals who have taken
an abatement worker or supervisor
course accredited by EPA or an
authorized State or Tribal program to
become certified renovators by taking
EPA-accredited renovator refresher
training. Individuals who have
successfully completed a risk assessor
or inspector course accredited by EPA
or an authorized State or Tribal program
can become certified dust sampling
technicians by taking EPA-accredited
dust sampling technician refresher
training. EPA is recognizing only EPA
and HUD model renovation training and
lead-based paint activities training
courses accredited by EPA or an
authorized State, Territorial, or Tribal
program because EPA has not
sufficiently evaluated the content of
other courses. In addition, it would be
unwieldy to develop the content of
multiple refresher courses based on the
content of different initial training
courses. While the recognized training
provides meaningful information
relevant to these disciplines, it does not
include some specific requirements of
this final regulation. Therefore, EPA is
requiring these individuals to receive
refresher training to ensure they are
familiar with the requirements of this
final rule. Training providers are
required to notify EPA of the
individuals who become certified by
successfully completing the refresher
training. This information will support
EPA’s compliance assistance programs.
2. Renovation firms—a.
Responsibilities of renovation firms.
Under this final rule, firms must ensure
that all persons performing renovation
activities on behalf of the firm are either
certified renovators or have been trained
and are directed by a certified renovator
in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. The
firm is responsible for assigning a
certified renovator to each renovation
performed by the firm and ensuring that
the certified renovator discharges all of
the responsibilities identified in this
final rule. The firm must ensure that the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
information distribution requirements
in 40 CFR 745.84 are met. As mentioned
above, the certified renovator is
responsible for ensuring compliance
with 40 CFR 745.85 at all renovations to
which he or she is assigned. The firm is
also responsible for ensuring that all
renovations performed by the firm are
performed using certified renovators
and in accordance with the work
practice standards in proposed 40 CFR
745.85.
Where multiple contractors are
involved in a renovation, any contractor
who disturbs, or whose employees
disturb, paint in excess of the minor
maintenance exception is responsible
for compliance with all of the
requirements of this final rule. In this
situation, renovation firms may find it
advantageous to decide among
themselves which firm will provide prerenovation education to the owners and
occupants, which firm will establish
containment, and which firm will
perform the post-renovation cleaning
and cleaning verification. For example,
a general contractor may be hired to
conduct a multi-faceted project
involving the large-scale disturbance of
paint, which the general contractor then
divides up among several
subcontractors. In this situation, having
the general contractor discharge the
obligations of the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule is likely to be the most
efficient approach, since this only needs
to be done once. With regard to
containment, the general contractor may
decide that it is most cost-effective to
establish one large work area for the
entire project. In this case, from the time
that containment is established until
post-renovation cleaning verification
occurs, all general contractor and
subcontractor personnel performing
renovation tasks within the work area
must be certified renovators or trained
and directed by certified renovators in
accordance with this rule. In addition,
these personnel are responsible for
ensuring the integrity of the
containment barriers. The cleaning and
post-renovation cleaning verification
could be performed by any properly
qualified individuals, without regard to
whether they are employees of the
general contractor or a subcontractor.
However, all contractors involved in the
disturbance of lead-based paint, or who
perform work within the work area
established for the containment of lead
dust and debris, are responsible for
compliance with this final rule,
regardless of any agreements the
contractors may have made among
themselves.
b. Certification of firms—i. Initial
certification. This final rule requires

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

firms that perform renovations, as
defined by this rule, to be certified by
EPA. EPA is adding a definition of
‘‘firm’’ to § 745.83 to make it clear that
this term includes persons in business
for themselves, i.e., sole proprietorships,
as well as Federal, State, Tribal, and
local governmental agencies, and
nonprofit organizations. Firms covered
by this final rule include firms that
typically perform renovations, such as
building contractors or home
improvement contractors, as well as
property management companies or
owners of multi-family housing
performing property maintenance
activities that include renovations
within the scope of this final rule.
This final rule provides information
about the certification and recertification process, establishes
procedures for amending and
transferring certifications, and identifies
clear deadlines. A firm wishing to
become certified to perform renovations
must submit a complete ‘‘Application
for Firms,’’ signed by an authorized
agent of the firm, along with the correct
certification fee. EPA intends to
establish firm certification fees in a
separate rulemaking. EPA will approve
a firm’s initial application within 90
days of receipt if it is complete,
including the proper amount of fees,
and if EPA determines that the
environmental compliance history of
the firm, its principals, or its key
employees does not show an
unwillingness or inability to comply
with applicable environmental statutes
or regulations. EPA will generally
consider the following to be an
indication that the applicant is
unwilling or unable to comply with
environmental statutes or regulations if,
during the past 3 years, the applicant
has:
• A criminal conviction under a
Federal environmental statute;
• An administrative or civil
judgment against the applicant for a
willful violation of a Federal
environmental statutory or regulatory
requirement; or
• More than one administrative or
civil judgment for a violation of a
Federal environmental statute.
Violations that involve only
recordkeeping requirements will not be
considered.
If the application is approved, EPA
will establish the firm’s certification
expiration date at 5 years from the date
of EPA’s approval. EPA certification
will allow the firm to perform
renovations covered by this section in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program
authorized under 40 CFR part 745,

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21725

subpart Q. If the application is
incomplete, EPA will notify the firm
within 90 days of receipt that its
application was incomplete, and ask the
firm to supplement its application
within 30 days. If the firm does not
supplement its application within that
period of time, or if EPA’s check into
the compliance history of the firm
revealed an unwillingness or inability to
comply with environmental statutes or
regulations, EPA will not approve the
application and will provide the
applicant with the reasons for not
approving the application. EPA will not
refund the application fees. A firm
could reapply for certification at any
time by filing a new, complete
application that included the correct
amount of fees.
This final rule provides firms with
more time to amend their certification
whenever a change occurs. A firm must
amend its certification within 90 days
whenever a change occurs to
information included in the firm’s most
recent application. If the firm failed to
amend its certification within 90 days of
the date the change occurred, the firm
would not be authorized to perform
renovations until its certification was
amended. Examples of amendments
include a change in the firm’s name
without transfer of ownership, or a
change of address or other contact
information. To amend its certification,
a firm must submit an application,
noting on the form that it was submitted
as an amendment. The firm must
complete the sections of the application
pertaining to the new information, and
sign and date the form. The amendment
must include the correct amount of fees.
Amending a certification will not affect
the validity of the existing certification
or extend the certification expiration
date. EPA will issue the firm a new
certificate if necessary to reflect
information included in the
amendment. Firm certifications are not
transferable--if the firm is sold, the new
owner must submit a new initial
application for certification in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.89(a). The
final rule also includes procedures for
suspending, revoking, or modifying a
firm’s certification. These procedures
are very similar to the current
procedures in place for suspending,
revoking, or modifying the certification
of a firm that is certified to perform
lead-based paint activities.
Some commenters questioned the
need for firm certification, while others,
including industry representatives,
supported it. The Agency believes that
firm certification is necessary for several
reasons. First, certification is an
important tool for the Agency’s

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21726

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

enforcement program. To become
certified, a firm acknowledges their
responsibility to use appropriately
trained and certified employees and
follow the work practice standards set
forth in the final rule. This is especially
important under this final rule, since
the certified renovator is not required to
perform or be present during all of the
renovation activities. Under these
circumstances, it is important for the
firm to acknowledge its legal
responsibility for compliance with all of
the final rule requirements, since the
firm both hires and exercises
supervisory control over all of its
employees. Should the firm be found to
violate any requirements, its
certification can be revoked, giving the
firm a strong incentive to ensure
compliance by all employees.
ii. Recertification. Under 40 CFR
745.89(b), a certified firm maintains its
certification by submitting a complete
and timely ‘‘Application for Firms,’’
noting that it is an application for recertification, and paying the required recertification fee. With regard to the
timeliness of the application for recertification, if a complete application,
including the proper fee, is postmarked
90 days or more before the date the
firm’s current certification expires, the
application will be considered timely
and sufficient, and the firm’s existing
certification will remain in effect until
its expiration date or until EPA has
made a final decision to approve therecertification application, or not,
whichever occurs later. If the firm
submits a complete re-certification
application fewer than 90 days before
the date the firm’s current certification
expired, EPA might be able to process
the application and re-certify the
applicant before the expiration date, but
this would not be guaranteed. If EPA
does not approve the re-certification
application before the existing
application expired, the firm’s
certification expires and the firm is not
able to conduct renovations until EPA
approves its re-certification application.
In any case, the firm’s new certification
expiration date will be 5 years from the
date the existing certification expired.
If the firm submits an incomplete
application for re-certification and EPA
does not receive all of the required
information and fees before the date the
firm’s current certification expires, or if
the firm does not submit its application
until after its certification expired, EPA
will not approve the firm’s recertification application. The firm
cannot cure any deficiencies in its
application package by postmarking
missing information or fees by its
certification expiration date. All

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

required information and fees must be
in EPA’s possession as of the expiration
date for EPA to approve the application.
If EPA does not approve the application,
the Agency will provide the applicant
with the reasons for not approving the
re-certification application. Any fees
submitted by the applicant will not be
refunded, but the firm can submit a new
application for certification, along with
the correct amount of fees, at any time.
As with initial applications, this final
rule includes a description of the
actions EPA may take in response to an
application for re-certification and the
reasons why EPA will take a particular
action. This section is identical to the
process for initial applications, except
that EPA will not require an incomplete
application to be supplemented within
30 days of the date EPA requests
additional information or fees. In the recertification context, the firm must
make its application complete by the
date that its current certification
expires.
Several commenters thought that
firms should not be required to be recertified because the firm’s certification
is not based on knowledge or
technology, but rather on a promise to
abide by the rules. The Agency believes
that firm re-certification is an important
element of the final regulation. Firm recertification provides a mechanism for
EPA to keep its records current with
respect to firms actively engaged in
renovations. Re-certification also
provides a means for EPA to ensure that
it has updated firm contact information.
Re-certification also prompts the firm to
positively reaffirm their commitment to
adhere to the requirements set forth in
this regulation. Finally, re-certification
allows EPA an opportunity to review a
firm’s compliance history before it
obtains re-certification. However, EPA
has determined that these purposes can
be adequately served by re-certifying
renovation firms every 5 years instead of
every 3 years as proposed.
D. Training Provider Accreditation and
Recordkeeping
EPA is amending the general
accreditation requirements of 40 CFR
745.225 to apply to training programs
that offer renovator or dust sampling
technician courses for certification
purposes. The regulations describe
training program qualifications, quality
control measures, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, as well as
suspension, revocation, and
modification procedures. Amendments
to § 745.225 add specific requirements
for the renovator and dust sampling
technician disciplines. Also included
are minimum training curriculum,

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

training hour, and hands-on
requirements for courses leading to
certification as a renovator or a dust
sampling technician. As discussed in
the previous Unit of this preamble, to
assist EPA compliance inspectors in
determining whether a renovator at a
renovation work site successfully
completed an accredited renovator
training course, this final rule also
requires providers of renovator training
to take a digital photograph of each
individual who successfully completes
a renovator training course, include that
photograph on the individual’s course
completion certificate, and provide that
photograph to EPA along with the
training course provider’s post-training
notification required by 40 CFR
745.225(c)(14).
Training course providers that
obtained accreditation to offer renovator
or dust sampling technician training
would have to comply with the existing
recordkeeping requirements for leadbased paint activities training course
providers. These existing recordkeeping
provisions require providers to maintain
records of course materials, course test
blueprints, information on how handson training is delivered, and the results
of the students’ skills assessments and
course tests. EPA received no comments
on this aspect of the proposed
recordkeeping requirements. These
requirements are currently working well
for lead-based paint activities training
providers and EPA believes they will
work equally well for renovation
training providers. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing this requirement as proposed.
Training course providers who receive
accreditation to provide renovator or
dust sampling technician courses must
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of 40 CFR 745.225(i).
1. Renovator training. The minimum
curriculum requirements for an initial
renovator course are described in 40
CFR 745.225(d)(6). The topics include
the roles and responsibilities of a
renovator; background information on
lead and its health effects; background
on applicable Federal, State, and local
regulations and guidance; use of
acceptable test kits to test paint to
determine whether it is lead-based
paint; methods to minimize the creation
of lead-based paint hazards during
renovations; containment and clean-up
methods; ways to verify that a
renovation project has been properly
completed, including cleaning
verification; and waste handling and
disposal. Hands-on activities relating to
renovation methods, containment and
clean-up, cleaning verification, and
waste handling would be required in all
courses. Section 745.225(c)(6)(vi)

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
establishes the minimum length for an
initial renovator course at 8 training
hours, with 2 hours being devoted to
hands-on activities.
Commenters raised concerns and had
suggestions regarding how certified
renovator training should be conducted
in three broad areas: Course length;
course content and format; and training
of non-English speaking renovators.
a. Course length. Several commenters
raised concerns about the length of the
certified renovator training course.
Some agreed with the training length as
defined in the rule, others stated it was
too short or too long, and one said that
the length of the training should not be
defined in the rule. In establishing the
minimum requirements for the
renovator course, the Agency
considered the many types of activities
that would likely be performed during
renovation, remodeling, and painting
activities and tried to balance that with
the need for a training course that
would address the necessary skills
without being overly burdensome on the
part of the trainee. The suggested course
schedule for the EPA/HUD lead-safe
work practices curriculum ‘‘Lead Safety
for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting’’
calls for an 8–hour training day,
including lunch, two breaks, and an
hour-long course test. The course is
designed in a modular format, so that it
can be delivered in 1 day or over two
or more days, at the discretion of the
training provider. Based on a review of
the material and the suggested schedule,
EPA believes that ‘‘Lead Safety for
Remodeling, Repair, and Painting’’ can
be modified to include material on the
use of test kits and performing cleaning
verification and still fit within eight
training hours. However, any attempt to
cover all of the required elements in a
shorter period of time would likely
result in a significant reduction in the
level of detail with which the elements
are presented. A minimum requirement
for eight training hours represents a
reasonable minimum requirement for
the renovator course and gives training
course providers an indication of the
amount of time that EPA has
determined through experience with the
EPA/HUD curriculum that it takes to
adequately cover each required training
element.
b. Course content and format. Most
commenters agree that the certified
renovator course should include a
hands-on training portion and several of
these agree that the hands-on portion
should not be any shorter than two
hours as proposed. Other commenters
suggested that the hands-on portion of
the training should be allowed to be
conducted as a demonstration via a

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

remote delivery system (DVD or
Internet). EPA agrees that development
of a procedure to address the hands-on
component of the renovator course via
remote delivery systems would be
beneficial. This final rule does not
preclude training providers from
developing alternative methods for the
delivery and evaluation of training for
submission for approval to EPA.
Several commenters had suggestions
as to the certified renovator training
content. Two recommended that the
renovator course include training on
recordkeeping requirements. EPA agrees
with these commenters, and has added
the element of recordkeeping to the
required training course elements for
renovators. Because EPA has modified
the recordkeeping requirements, as
discussed below, to require the certified
renovator to prepare the records
associated with renovations to which he
or she is assigned, the renovation
training course will include a
recordkeeping component. Three
commenters suggested that, if the
certified renovator is responsible for
providing OJT to other renovation
workers, the renovator training course
should include a train-the-trainer
component. EPA agrees with these
commenters and has added a train-thetrainer element to the required elements
for the renovator training course. In
addition, EPA will develop a train-thetrainer component for its model
renovator training course. Other
commenters suggested that the required
training elements include OSHA health
and personal safety requirements. The
Agency agrees that these are relevant
topics and considers an overview of the
OSHA requirements to be part of the
required element of background on
applicable Federal, State, and local
regulations and requirements. To ensure
that this is clear, EPA has modified this
provision to state that the background
information must include EPA, HUD,
OSHA, and other Federal, State, and
local regulations and guidance.
Consistent with its approach in other
courses related to lead-based paint
activities, the Agency believes that
identifying potential OSHA
requirements, rather than requiring indepth curriculum components, is the
best way to make trainees aware of those
requirements and yet avoid
redundancies between EPA- and OSHArequired courses.
c. Training of non-English speaking
renovators. Renovator and dust
sampling technician courses, both
initial and refresher, can be taught in
any language, but accreditation would
be required for each specific language
the provider wished to present the

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21727

course in. All course materials and
instruction for the course would have to
be in the language of the course. The
modification to § 745.225(b)(1)(ii)
clarifies that all lead-based paint
courses taught in different languages are
considered different courses, and
accreditation must be obtained for each.
To facilitate accreditation of courses in
languages other than English, EPA is
requiring that the training provider
include in its application both the
English version as well as the nonEnglish version of all training materials,
in addition to a signed statement from
a qualified, independent translator that
the translator has compared the nonEnglish language version of the course
materials to the English-language
version and that the translation is
accurate. This requirement applies to
any course for which accreditation is
sought, including lead-based paint
activities courses. Finally, to assist EPA
in monitoring compliance with these
requirements, EPA is requiring that
course completion certificates include
the language in which the course was
taught.
Several commenters agreed that the
needs of non-English speaking workers
should be considered. Commenters
suggested that EPA translate its model
course into other languages and/or
facilitate free access to such
translations. EPA agrees that it is
important to have renovator training
available in languages other than
English. EPA anticipates translating its
revised model renovator course into
Spanish. EPA will also consider
translating the course into other
languages. However, EPA is not able to
make available proprietary material
developed by training course providers
that is then translated by those
providers into other languages.
2. Dust sampling technician training.
The minimum curriculum requirements
for an initial dust sampling technician
course are described in 40 CFR
745.225(d)(7). The topics include the
roles and responsibilities of a dust
sampling technician; background
information on lead and its adverse
health effects; background information
on Federal, State, and local regulations
and guidance that pertains to lead-based
paint and renovation activities; dust
sampling methodologies; clearance
standards and testing; and report
preparation and recordkeeping
requirements. Section 745.225(c)(6)(vii)
establishes the minimum length for an
initial dust sampling technician course
at 8 training hours, with 2 hours being
devoted to hands-on activities. EPA
received relatively few comments
specifically on the content of dust

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

21728

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

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

sampling technician training; most had
to do with the length of the training
course. EPA has developed a model dust
sampling technician course (Ref. 33).
This course has been designed to be
delivered in one 8–hour training day,
including lunch, breaks, and a course
test. As with the EPA/HUD ‘‘Lead Safety
for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting’’
curriculum, EPA believes that this is a
reasonable minimum requirement for
the dust sampling technician course and
it gives training course providers an
indication of the amount of time that
EPA has determined it takes to
adequately cover each required training
element.
E. Work Practices
This final rule requires that all
renovations subject to this rule be
conducted in accordance with a defined
set of work practice standards. Again,
this final rule is a revision of the
existing TSCA section 402(a) Leadbased Paint Activities Regulations to
extend training, certification, and work
practice requirements to certain
renovation and remodeling projects in
target housing and child-occupied
facilities. In so doing, EPA did not
merely modify the scope of the current
abatement requirements to cover
renovation and remodeling activities.
Rather, EPA has carefully considered
the elements of the existing abatement
regulations and is revising those
regulations in a manner that reflects the
differences between abatement and
renovation activities.
Work practices for abatement are part
of larger range of activities that are
intended to identify and eliminate leadbased paint hazards. When abatements
are conducted, residents typically are
removed from the home until after the
abatement activities are completed,
which is demonstrated through the use
of clearance testing. This may require
the removal of carpeting, refinishing,
sealing, or replacement of floors to
achieve clearance. Accordingly,
clearance testing is part of a broader set
of activities that comprise abatement,
with the purpose of permanently
eliminating existing lead-based paint
hazards.
Renovation, repair, and painting
activities typically are conducted while
the residents are present in the dwelling
and are not activities intended to
eliminate lead-based paint hazards.
Work practices for renovation, repair,
and painting are designed to minimize
exposure to lead-based paint hazards
created by the renovation both during
the renovation, while residents are
likely to be present in the dwelling, and
after the renovation. The work practices

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

are not intended to address pre-existing
hazards.
1. In general. This final rule
incorporates work practice standards
generally derived from the HUD
Guidelines, EPA’s draft technical
specifications for renovations, and the
model training curriculum entitled Lead
Safety for Remodeling, Repair, &
Painting (Refs. 18, 34, and 35). For more
information on the development of
these documents, please consult Unit
III.C. of the preamble to the 2006
Proposal. To reduce exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by
renovation activities, the work practices
standards in this regulation provide
basic requirements for occupant
protection, site preparation, and cleanup.
Commenters generally felt that work
practices are important and should be
clear and correctly followed. One
commenter stated that the rule has
‘‘tremendous potential for making a
difference,’’ especially in establishing
and ‘‘reinforcing the industry norm.’’
One commenter noted that EPA should
‘‘set simple and flexible work
practices.’’ Another commenter asked
for less specificity. EPA believes that
this final rule provides certified
renovators an appropriate blend of
flexibility and specificity. EPA believes
that, due to the highly variable nature of
renovation activities, flexibility is
needed for certain tasks, such as
establishing containment, and that other
tasks, such as specialized cleaning,
require a greater degree of specificity.
2. Occupant protection. This final
rule requires the firm to post signs
clearly defining the work area and
warning occupants and other persons
not involved in renovation activities to
remain outside of the work area. In
addition, it requires that the certified
renovator be physically present at the
work site when the required signs are
posted. These signs must be posted
before beginning the renovation and
must remain in place until the
renovation has been completed and
cleaning verification has been
completed. The signs must be, to the
extent practicable, provided in the
occupants’ primary language. If warning
signs have been posted in accordance
with HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule (24
CFR 35.1345(b)(2)) or OSHA’s Lead in
Construction Standard (29 CFR
1926.62(m)), additional signs are not
required.
Three commenters stated that the
required signs for posting at a work site
should be in the language of the
occupant. One commenter stated that
such a requirement would be consistent
with HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirements. EPA agrees that having
signs in the language of the occupant is
preferable. However, the Agency is
concerned that renovators will not have
the ability to provide signs in every
language, and that it may be the case
that occupants, especially in multifamily dwellings, will speak a variety of
languages. In the HUD Lead Safe
Housing Rule, HUD addressed this issue
by requiring that signs, to the extent
practicable, be provided in the
occupants’ primary language. Therefore,
consistent with HUD’s Lead Safe
Housing Rule, this final rule requires
warning signs, to the extent practicable,
to be provided in the occupants’
primary language.
3. Containment. This final rule
requires that the firm isolate the work
area so that dust or debris does not leave
the work area while the renovation is
being performed. In addition, EPA has
clarified that the firm must maintain the
integrity of the containment by ensuring
that any plastic or other impermeable
materials are not torn or displaced, and
taking any other steps necessary to
ensure that dust or debris does not leave
the work area while the renovation is
being performed.
In addition, EPA has made
conforming changes to the performance
standard that renovators and renovation
firms are being held to in this final rule.
EPA was concerned that the rule text
and preamble were confusing because
there were references to ‘‘visible’’ dust
and debris or ‘‘identifiable’’ dust and
debris and ‘‘all’’ dust and debris. For
example, in the 2006 Proposal ‘‘work
area’’ was defined as the area
established by the certified renovator to
‘‘contain all the dust and debris
generated by a renovation.’’ In the
renovator responsibilities (as proposed
at 40 CFR 745.90(b)(4)), the renovator
was responsible for ensuring ‘‘that dust
and debris is not spread beyond the
work area.’’ In describing the
containment to be established, the rule
text referred to ‘‘visible’’ dust and debris
and in the section on waste from
renovations (as proposed at 40 CFR
745.85(a)(3)) the rule text referred to
‘‘identifiable’’ dust. It was not EPA’s
intention to create subjectivity as to
whether dust and debris were being
dispersed. By conforming its
terminology EPA is clarifying that
certified renovators and renovation
firms must ensure that the dust and
debris (as opposed to ‘‘visible’’ or
‘‘indentifiable’’ dust and debris)
generated by the renovation is
contained. Should an EPA inspector
observe dust or debris escaping from the
containment, the certified renovator and

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the renovation firm would be in
violation of this final rule.
This final rule also requires that the
certified renovator be physically present
at the work site when the required
containment is established. This means
the certified renovator must determine
for each regulated project the size and
type of containment necessary to
prevent dust and debris from leaving the
established work area. This
determination will be based on the
certified renovator’s evaluation of the
extent and nature of the activity and the
specific work practices that will be
used.
Containment refers to methods of
preventing leaded dust from
contaminating objects in the work area
and from migrating beyond the work
area. It includes, among other possible
measures, the use of disposable plastic
drop cloths to cover floors and objects
in the work area, and sealing of
openings with plastic sheeting where
necessary to prevent dust and debris
from leaving the work area. When
planning a renovation project, it is the
certified renovator’s responsibility to
determine the type of work site
preparation necessary to prevent dust
and debris from leaving the work area.
Renovation projects generate varying
amounts of leaded dust, paint chips,
and other lead-contaminated materials
depending on the type of work, area
affected, and work methods used.
Because of this variability, the size of
the area that must be isolated and the
containment methods used will vary
from project to project. Large renovation
projects could involve one or more
rooms and potentially encompass an
entire home or building, while small
projects may require only a relatively
small amount of containment. The
necessary work area preparations will
depend on the size of the surface(s)
being disturbed, the method used in
disturbing the surface, and the building
layout. For example, repairing a small
area of damaged drywall would most
likely require the containment of a
smaller work area and less preparation
than demolition work, which would
most likely require a containment of a
larger work area and more extensive
preparation in order to prevent the
migration of dust and debris from the
work area. The Environmental Field
Sampling Study, which found that the
following activities created dust-lead
hazards at a distance of 6 feet from
where the work was being performed:
• Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
• Window replacement.
• HVAC duct work.
• Demolition of interior plaster
walls.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

• Drilling into wood.
• Sawing into wood.
• Sawing into plaster.
Based on these data, EPA believes that
at least 6 feet of containment is
necessary to contain dust generated by
most renovation projects.
Under this final rule, at a minimum,
interior work area preparations must
include removing all objects in the work
area or covering them with plastic
sheeting or other impermeable material.
This includes fixed objects, such as
cabinets and countertops, and objects
that may be difficult to move, such as
appliances. Interior preparations must
also include closing all forced air HVAC
ducts in the work area and covering
them with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material; closing all
windows in the work area; closing and
sealing all doors in the work area; and
covering the floor surface in the work
area, including installed carpet, with
taped-down plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material in the work area
6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient
distance to contain the dust, whichever
is greater.
To ensure that dust and debris do not
leave the work area, it may be necessary
to close forced air HVAC ducts or
windows near the work area. Doors
within the work area that will be used
while the job is being performed must
be covered with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material in a manner that
allows workers to pass through, while
confining dust and debris to the work
area. In addition, all personnel, tools,
and other items, including the exterior
of containers of waste, must be free of
dust and debris when leaving the work
area.
For exterior projects, the same
performance standard applies; namely,
the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified
renovator must contain the work area so
that dust or debris does not leave the
work area while the renovation is being
performed. Additionally, in response to
comments suggesting that EPA follow
the HUD Guidelines with respect to
exterior containment requirements, EPA
has incorporated a similar 10 foot
minimum. Consequently, this final rule
requires that exterior containment
include covering the ground 10 feet
beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient
distance to collect falling paint debris,
whichever is greater, unless the
property line prevents 10 feet of such
ground covering. EPA has concluded
that this is an appropriate and
reasonable precaution for exterior work,
given the fact that some amount of

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21729

dispersal of dust or debris is likely as a
result of air movement, even on
relatively calm days. In addition, EPA
sees value in maintaining appropriate
consistency between this regulation and
related HUD rules and guidelines.
In addition to such ground covering,
exterior work area preparations must
include, at a minimum, closing all doors
and windows within 20 feet of the
outside of the work area on the same
floor as the renovation, and closing all
doors and windows on the floors below
that area. For example, if the renovation
involves sanding a 5-foot by 5-foot area
of paint in the middle of the third floor
of a building, and that side of the
building is only 40 feet long, all doors
and windows on that side of the third
floor must be closed, as well as all of the
doors and windows on that side of the
second and first floors. In situations
where other buildings are in close
proximity to the work area, where the
work area abuts a property line, or
weather conditions dictate the need for
additional containment (i.e., windy
conditions) the certified renovator or a
worker under the direction of the
certified renovator performing the
renovation may have to take extra
precautions in containing the work area
to ensure that dust and debris from the
renovation does not contaminate other
buildings or migrate to adjacent
property. This may include erecting
vertical containment designed to
prevent dust and debris from
contaminating the ground or any object
beyond the work area. In addition, doors
within the work area that will be used
while the job is being performed must
be covered with plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material in a manner that
allows workers to pass through while
confining dust and debris to the work
area.
Some commenters agreed with the
proposed procedures. One commenter
agreed that with containment, dust can
be contained and cleaned up
sufficiently to pass the wipe test
screening results. Another commenter
supported the use of standard
containment and cleaning practices
known to reduce dust lead levels on
both interior and exterior surfaces and
to protect soils and gardens surrounding
the house.
Some commenters asserted that the
containment procedures were not
stringent enough. Some suggested that
EPA follow the HUD Guidelines with
respect to exterior containment
requirements. Others asked EPA to
strengthen exterior containment
requirements by specifying that
containment extend at least twenty feet
to collect all debris and residue and that

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21730

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

the rule address circumstances such as
wind and rain. One commenter asserted
that allowing the certified renovator
complete discretion to determine what
is appropriate renders the worksite
containment requirements completely
unenforceable and asked EPA to
consider providing a minimum
performance standard that all renovators
must meet. EPA agrees that a minimum
performance standard is necessary and
that is why under this final rule EPA is
requiring certified renovators to
establish containment that prevents dust
and debris from leaving the work area.
In addition, in this rule EPA has
established minimum containment
requirements for both interior and
exterior renovation requirements. While
the certified renovator has discretion
regarding the specific components and
extent of containment, the renovator
and firm will be in violation of this final
rule if dust or debris leaves the work
area for both interior and exterior
renovations. If dust or debris migrates
beyond the work area, that migration
constitutes a violation of the rule.
Accordingly, EPA does not agree with
the commenter that the rule is
unenforceable.
This final rule provides the certified
renovator with some discretion to define
the specific size and configuration of the
containment to accommodate the
variability in size and scope of
renovations. EPA considered requiring
that in all cases the entire room in
which a renovation is occurring be
contained, but concluded that doing so
would be unwarranted. For example, a
small manual sanding job in a large
room would not necessarily require full
room containment to isolate the work
area. EPA has concluded that the most
appropriate approach is to impose a
minimum size for containment coupled
with a performance standard-preventing dust or debris from leaving
the workarea--and to prescribe with
reasonable specificity the containment
measures that are required--e.g., use of
plastic of other impermeable material,
removal or covering of objects in the
work area - but to provide some measure
of discretion with regards to the casespecific approaches to containment.
In response to EPA’s request for
comments on whether there are any
situations where some or all of the
proposed work practices are not
necessary, commenters suggested that
work practices were not needed during
a gut rehabilitation, although two of the
commenters suggested a waiver rather
than an exemption in these situations.
Several commenters thought that work
in unoccupied structures should not
require the use of lead safe work

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

practices, or should have an adapted set
of work practices. A commenter opined
that certain interior containments may
not be necessary in vacant and empty
housing, but that exterior work always
should use lead safe work practices to
protect the environment and
neighborhood. A commenter stated that
there are certain activities common to
multifamily and rental housing that
warrant special consideration from the
Agency. For example, simple painting
activities that occur when rental
properties turn over should not require
a full suite of work practices,
particularly given that most state laws
require apartment owners to paint each
unit at turnover. The commenter
suggested that EPA consider a less
restrictive set of guidelines for those
properties simply undergoing routine
painting during the turnover process.
EPA believes that whole house gut
rehabilitation projects may demolish
and rebuild a structure to a point where
it is effectively new construction. In this
case, it would not be a modification of
an existing structure, and therefore not
a renovation. However, a partial-house
gut rehabilitation such as a kitchen or
bathroom gut rehabilitation project
clearly falls within the scope of this
final rule.
EPA disagrees that temporarily
unoccupied or vacant housing should be
per se exempt from the requirements of
this final rule. EPA’s primary concern
with exempting renovations in such
housing from the work practices
required by this final rule is the
exposure to returning residents to leadbased paint hazards created by the
renovation. However, EPA recognizes
that if no child under 6 or no pregnant
woman resides there, the owneroccupant may so state in writing and the
requirements of this rule would not
apply. In addition, for routine painting,
such as at unit turnover, if such painting
activity does not involve disturbing
more than 6 ft2 of painted surfaces per
room for interiors or 20 ft2 for exteriors,
and otherwise meet the definition of
‘‘minor repair and maintenance,’’ the
requirements of this final rule would
not apply. EPA cannot see a basis for
imposing a less restrictive set of
requirements for projects that disturb
more than 6 ft2 of painted surfaces per
room for interiors or 20 ft2 for exteriors.
Some commenters believed that the
Proposal did not adequately address the
decontamination of workers and
equipment involved in a renovation.
They supported the proposed
requirement that all personnel, tools
and other items, including the exteriors
of containers of waste, be free of dust
and debris before leaving the work area.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

However, they believed that the
proposed alternative, covering the paths
used to reach the exterior of the
building with plastic, was not
sufficiently protective. One contended
that significant lead dust contamination
can be tracked or carried out of a work
area if workers and equipment are not
properly decontaminated. This
commenter further noted that workers
with contaminated clothing can take
that contamination home to their own
children and taking contaminated
equipment to another jobsite could
potentially create a lead hazard at a new
site. EPA agrees with these commenters
and has deleted the alternative
language. The final rule requires
renovation firms to use precautions to
ensure that all personnel, tools and
other items, including the exteriors of
containers of waste, to be free of dust
and debris before leaving the work area.
There are several ways of accomplishing
this. For example, tacky mats may be
put down immediately adjacent to the
plastic sheeting covering the work area
floor to remove dust and debris from the
bottom of the workers’ shoes as they
leave the work area, workers may
remove their shoe covers (booties) as
they leave the work area, and clothing
and materials may be wet-wiped and/or
HEPA-vacuumed before they are
removed from the work area.
Finally, in response to a commenter
who was concerned about containment
not impeding occupant egress in an
emergency, EPA has modified the
regulatory text to specify that
containment must be installed in such
a manner that it does not interfere with
occupant and worker egress in an
emergency. This can be accomplished,
as noted in chapter 17 of the HUD
Guidelines, by installing plastic over
doors with a weak tape.
4. Prohibited and restricted practices.
The final rule prohibits or restricts the
use of certain work practices during
regulated renovations. These practices
are open flame burning or torching of
lead-based paint; the use of machines
that remove lead-based paint through
high speed operation such as sanding,
grinding, power planing, needle gun,
abrasive blasting, or sandblasting,
unless such machines are used with
HEPA exhaust control; and operating a
heat gun above 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.
These are essentially the same practices
as are currently prohibited or restricted
under the Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations, 40 CFR 745.227(e)(6), with
the exception of dry hand scraping of
lead-based paint. While this final rule
and EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities
Regulations do not prohibit or restrict
the use of volatile paint strippers or

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
other hazardous substances to remove
paint, the use of these substances are
prohibited for use in poorly ventilated
areas by HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule
and they are regulated by OSHA.
EPA did not propose to prohibit or
restrict any work practices, but instead
asked for public comment regarding
their prohibition or restriction. The
Agency was concerned that, because
these practices are commonly used
during renovation work, prohibiting
such practices could make certain jobs,
such as preparing detailed or historic
millwork for new painting, extremely
difficult, if not impossible. In addition,
EPA believed that use of the proposed
package of training, containment,
cleanup, and cleaning verification
requirements would be effective in
preventing the introduction of new leadbased paint hazards, even when such
practices were used. EPA is modifying
the proposal based on new data
evaluating specific work practices and
in response to comments received.
a. The Dust Study. EPA understood
when developing the proposed rule that
considerable data existed showing the
potential for significant lead
contamination when lead paint is
disturbed by practices restricted under
EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations for abatements. EPA
conducted the Dust Study, in part, to
determine the effectiveness of the
proposed work practices. The Dust
Study evaluated a variety of renovation
activities, including activities that
involved several practices restricted or
prohibited under the abatement
regulations. For example, power planing
was included in the Dust Study as a
representative of machines that remove
lead-based paint through high speed
operation. Similarly, the Dust Study
also included experiments with power
sanding and a needle gun. Each of these
activities generated very high levels of
dust. The Dust Study thus evaluated the
proposed work practice standards, using
a range of typical practices currently
used by contractors.
In particular, the Dust Study found
that renovation activities involving
power planing and high temperature
heat gun resulted in higher post-job
renovation dust lead levels than
activities using other practices. The
geometric mean post-work, pre-cleaning
floor dust lead levels in the work room
were 32,644 µg/ft2 for power planing
and 7,737 µg/ft2 for high temperature
heat guns. More importantly, in
experiments performed in compliance
with this rule’s requirements for
containment, cleaning, and cleaning
verification, the geometric mean postjob floor dust lead levels were still 148

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

µg/ft2 for power planing, well over the
TSCA section 403 hazard standard for
floors. While the geometric mean postjob floor dust levels for the 3 similar
experiments involving high temperature
heat guns, i.e., experiments performed
in compliance with this rule’s
requirements, were 36 µg/ft2, the
average post-cleaning-verification floor
dust lead levels for the individual
experiments were 147.5, 65.5, and less
than 10 µg/ft2. Thus, in 2 of these 3
experiments, the requirements of this
final rule were insufficient to reduce the
floor dust lead levels below the TSCA
section 403 hazard standards for floors.
In addition, power planing and use of a
high temperature heat gun generated
fine particle-size dust that was difficult
to clean. In fact, almost all of the high
post-renovation lead levels were
associated with activities involving
power planing and high temperature
heat guns. Moreover, activities
involving power planing and high
temperature heat gun jobs also resulted
in higher post-job tool room and
observation room lead levels than other
practices.
Thus, while the Dust Study confirmed
that most practices prohibited or
restricted under EPA’s Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations do indeed
produce large quantities of lead dust, it
also demonstrated that, with respect to
lead-based paint hazards created by
machines that remove lead-based paint
through high speed operation and high
temperature heat guns, the use of the
proposed work practices were not
effective at containing or removing dustlead hazards from the work area.
b. Alternatives to certain practices. As
discussed above, in the proposed rule,
EPA stated a concern that, because
practices prohibited or restricted under
EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations are commonly used during
renovation work, prohibiting or
restricting such practices could make
certain jobs, such as preparing detailed
or historic millwork for new painting,
extremely difficult or, in some cases,
impossible. In response to its request for
comment, the Agency received
information on techniques including
benign strippers, steam stripping, closed
planing with vacuums, and infrared
removal that the commenter believed
are far superior, far safer and far cheaper
than some of the traditionally
prohibited or restricted practices.
Another commenter noted that window
removal and off-site chemical stripping
in a well-ventilated setting is an
alternative to using heat or mechanical
methods to remove lead paint on-site.
Alternatively, chemical strippers can be
used on-site, given adequate ventilation

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21731

and protection for workers and building
occupants. EPA is therefore persuaded
that there are sufficient alternatives to
these practices.
c. Conclusion. Based on the results of
the Dust Study and in response to the
voluminous persuasive public
comments, this final rule prohibits or
restricts the use of the following
practices during renovation, repair, and
painting activities that are subject to the
work practice requirements of this rule:
• Open-flame burning or torching.
• Machines that remove lead-based
paint through high speed operation such
as sanding, grinding, power planing,
needle gun, abrasive blasting, or
sandblasting, unless such machines are
used with HEPA exhaust control.
• Operating a heat gun above 1100
degrees Fahrenheit.
EPA has concluded that these
practices must be prohibited or
restricted during renovation, repair, and
painting activities that disturb leadbased paint because the work practices
in this final rule are not effective at
containing the spread of leaded dust
when these practices are used, or at
cleaning up lead-based paint hazards
created by these practices. Thus, the
work practices are not effective at
minimizing exposure to lead-based
paint hazards created during renovation
activities when these activities are used.
This final rule does not prohibit or
restrict the use of dry hand scraping.
EPA has concluded based primarily on
the Dust Study as corroborated by other
data described below that it is not
necessary to prohibit or restrict dry
scraping because the containment,
cleaning, and cleaning verification
requirements of this rule are effective at
minimizing exposure to lead-based
paint hazards created by renovations
and the migration of dust-lead hazards
beyond the work area when dry hand
scraping is employed.
The Dust Study evaluated dry hand
scraping, which is restricted under
EPA’s lead abatement program. In
contrast to the results of the activities
using power planing and high
temperature heat gun, average post-job
dust lead levels in the two experiments
in which paint was disturbed by dry
hand scraping and the work practices
required by this rule were used were
below the regulatory dust-lead hazard
standard for floors. In addition, the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a
Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the
request of the Rhode Island Department
of Health, and published a final report
in June of 2000 (Ref. 36). The purpose
of the evaluation was to measure worker
exposure during various tasks and to

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21732

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

determine whether workers were
exposed to hazardous amounts of leadbased paint. Notably worker exposures
were compared when scraping painted
surfaces using wet and dry scraping
methods (wet scraping is the customary
substitute for dry scraping in abatement
applications). A comparison of worker
exposure found statistically equivalent
worker exposures. Based on the NIOSH
study, EPA has determined that dry
scraping is the equivalent of its only
practical alternative, wet scraping.
In sum, EPA has determined based on
the studies described above and the
persuasive comments, including those
summarized below, provided by the
overwhelming majority of commenters
that its approach of prohibiting or
restricting certain practices in
combination with the containment,
cleaning, and cleaning verification, will
be effective in minimizing exposure to
lead-based paint hazards created during
renovation activities, provide an
appropriate measure of consistency with
other regulatory programs, and cause
minimal disruption for renovation
firms.
i. Substantial exposures. Numerous
commenters argued that the rule should
prohibit certain practices based on
potential health hazards, many backed
up by well-documented scientific
studies and proven health-protective
standards. One commenter stated, after
citing several scientific studies, that
removing or disturbing lead paint
without proper controls causes
substantial contamination, posing
serious risks to occupants, workers and
others. Another cited numerous
scientific studies demonstrating the
adverse public health implications of
permitting these work practices and the
availability of alternative work methods.
Still another cited the EPA renovation
and remodeling study and a State of
Maryland study as evidence that
prohibited work practices may be
associated with elevated blood lead
levels. One commenter cited health
hazard evaluations of residential lead
renovation work showing that these
activities produce hazardous worker
exposures. Another commenter noted
that the hazards of activities that are
likely to produce large amounts of lead
dust or fumes are well documented,
stating that, for example, the Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study found that
the odds of a resident child having a
blood lead level in excess of 10 µg/dL
increased by 5 times after renovation
using open flame torching, and by 4.6
times after heat gun use. Another
commenter was concerned that
previously collected data may not
account for different particle-size

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

distribution, a factor in both the
potential cleaning efficacy of work areas
and the toxicology of lead poisoning.
ii. Consistency with other standards.
Some commenters urged EPA to
prohibit certain high dust generating
practices for the sake of consistency
with other work practice standards.
Numerous commenters asserted EPA’s
rule should be consistent with HUD
requirements to avoid confusion on the
part of contractors and to conform to the
standard that has been in place for
nearly 6 years. One commenter noted
that the regulations of several other
federal agencies that administer housing
programs, such as the Department of
Defense, Department of Agriculture, and
Veterans Affairs include prohibited
practices. Other commenters noted that
the proposed rule conflicted with OSHA
rules and would cause confusion among
contractors.
Some commenters noted that EPA’s
proposed rule would conflict with
individual state or local regulations
prohibiting some or all of these
practices. One commenter listed the
following states and some cities that
have prohibited work practices:
California, Indiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Wisconsin, Chicago, Cleveland, New
Orleans, New York City, Rochester, and
San Francisco. Two commenters cited
state law in Indiana, under which
certain work practices are prohibited
and contractors using such work
practices are committing a Class D
felony (422, 449).
Other commenters noted that
practices that are prohibited under
EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations should also be prohibited
for renovation work in pre-1978
properties, and noted that in developing
the abatement rule EPA demonstrated
through its own studies that these
practices may increase the risk of
elevated blood lead levels in children.
5. Waste from renovations. Under this
final rule the certified renovator or a
worker trained by and under the
direction of the certified renovator is
required to ensure that all personnel,
tools, and other items including waste
are free of dust and debris when leaving
the work area. The certified renovator or
a worker trained by and under the
direction of the certified renovator must
also contain waste to prevent releases of
dust and debris before the waste is
removed from the work area for storage
or disposal. If a chute is used to remove
waste from the work area, it must be
covered. At the conclusion of each work
day and at the conclusion of the
renovation, the certified renovator or a

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

worker trained by and under the
direction of the certified renovator must
ensure that waste that has been
collected from renovation activities is
stored under containment, in an
enclosure, or behind a barrier that
prevents release of dust and debris from
the work area and prevents access to
dust and debris. This final rule also
requires the certified renovator or a
worker trained by and under the
direction of the certified renovator
transporting lead-based paint waste
from a work site to contain the waste to
prevent releases, e.g., inside a plastic
garbage bag. As described in more detail
in Unit IV.D.2.c. of the preamble to the
2006 Proposal, EPA revised its solid
waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 257
and 258 to make clear that lead-based
paint waste generated through
renovation and remodeling activities in
residential settings may be disposed of
in municipal solid waste landfill units
or in construction and demolition (C&D)
landfills. Requirements for waste
disposal may vary by jurisdiction and
state and local requirements may be
more stringent than Federal
requirements. When disposing of waste,
including waste water, from renovation
activities, the renovation firm must
ensure that it complies with all
applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should consider requiring that leadcontaminated waste be stored in a
locked area or in a lockable storage
container. This commenter also
suggested that to prevent any confusion
on what constitutes a covered chute, a
definition or clarification should be
provided in the rule. Another
commenter recommended the use of
‘‘sealed’’ rather than ‘‘covered’’ chutes
for waste removal, as a covered chute
may not be protective enough to prevent
the release of significant amounts of
lead-contaminated dust. This final rule
requires that waste must be contained to
prevent releases of dust and debris
before the waste is removed from the
work area for storage or disposal. With
respect to the use of chutes for waste
removal, the requirement for a covered
chute was proposed merely to facilitate
the removal of bagged or sealed waste so
that it is deposited in an appropriate
waste disposal container and does not
fall to the ground. EPA does not,
therefore, believe that this term either
needs to be further defined or to require
the use of a ‘‘sealed’’ chute.
EPA understands that renovation
projects can generate a considerable
amount and variety of waste material.
However, EPA believes that the
requirements of the final rule protect

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
occupants and others from potential
lead-based paint hazards presented by
this waste. While storing the waste in a
locked container is one way to meet the
performance standard of this final rule,
EPA does not believe that is necessary
to specify that as a requirement. The
waste may be stored in the work area,
which will already be delineated with
signs cautioning occupants and others
to keep out. EPA believes the owner/
occupants have some responsibility for
observing these signs. Renovation sites
pose potential hazards other than leadbased paint hazards—including the
potential fall hazards, sharp protrusions,
etc. In sum, the certified renovator is
responsible for ensuring that leadcontaminated building components and
work area debris that are stored under
containment, in an enclosure, or behind
a barrier that prevents release of dust
and debris and prevents access to the
debris. Under this final rule the certified
renovator must ensure that waste
leaving the work area is contained (e.g.,
in a heavy duty plastic bag or sealed in
plastic sheeting) and free of dust or
debris. This imposes a reasonable
performance standard without requiring
a specific approach. The certified
renovator is responsible for evaluating
the waste generated and the
characteristics of the work site to
determine the most effective way of
meeting this standard.
6. Cleaning the work area—a. Final
rule requirements. Under this final rule
the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified
renovator must clean the work area to
remove dust, debris or residue. All
renovation activities that disturb
painted surfaces can produce dangerous
quantities of leaded dust. Because very
small particles of leaded dust are easily
absorbed by the body when ingested or
inhaled, it can create a health hazard for
children. Unless this dust is properly
removed, renovation and remodeling
activities are likely to introduce new
lead-based paint hazards. Therefore, the
rule requires prescriptive cleaning
practices. Ultimately, improper cleaning
can increase the cost of a project
because additional cleaning may be
necessary during post-renovation
cleaning verification.
This final rule requires that, upon
completion of interior renovation
activities, all paint chips and debris
must be picked up. Protective sheeting
must be misted and folded dirty side
inward. Sheeting used to isolate
contaminated rooms from noncontaminated rooms must remain in
place until after the cleaning and
removal of other sheeting; this sheeting
must then be misted and removed last.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

Removed sheeting must be either folded
and taped shut to seal or sealed in
heavy-duty bags and disposed of as
waste. After the sheeting has been
removed from the work area, the entire
area must be cleaned including the
adjacent surfaces that are within 2 feet
of the work area. The walls, starting
from the ceiling and working down to
the floor, must be vacuumed with a
HEPA vacuum or wiped with a damp
cloth. The final rule requires that all
remaining surfaces and objects in the
work area, including floors, furniture,
and fixtures be thoroughly vacuumed
with a HEPA vacuum. When cleaning
carpets, the HEPA vacuum must be
equipped with a beater bar to aid in
dislodging and collecting deep dust and
lead from carpets. The beater bar must
be used on all passes on the carpet face
during dry vacuuming. This cleaning
step is intended to remove as much dust
and remaining debris as possible. After
vacuuming, all surfaces and objects in
the work area, except for walls and
carpeted or upholstered surfaces, must
be wiped with a damp cloth. Wet
disposable cleaning cloths of any color
may be used for this purpose. In
contrast, as discussed in the next
section, only wet disposable cleaning
cloths that are white may be used for
cleaning verification. Uncarpeted floors
must be thoroughly mopped using a 2bucket mopping method that keeps the
wash water separate from the rinse
water, or using a wet mopping system
with disposable absorbent cleaning pads
and a built-in mechanism for
distributing or spraying cleaning
solution from a reservoir onto a floor.
When cleaning following an exterior
renovation, all paint chips and debris
must be picked up. Protective sheeting
used for containment must be misted
with water. All sheeting must be folded
from the corners or ends to the middle
to trap any remaining dust and either
taped shut to seal or sealed in heavy
duty bags. The sheeting must be
disposed of as waste.
b. Comments on the cleaning
protocol. Several commenters proposed
minor changes to the cleaning
procedures. Three commenters
recommended that daily clean-up be
required for projects lasting more than
1 day. One commenter stated that all
tools and equipment should be cleaned
prior to leaving the job site. One
commenter indicated concern that there
is no mention of wet wiping areas such
as window sills. This final rule requires
cleaning both in and around the work
area to ensure no dust or debris remains
following the renovation. The final rule
also requires that all personnel, tools,
and other items including waste are free

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21733

of dust and debris when leaving the
work area. EPA recommends that
contractors keep work areas as clean
and free of dust and debris as practical.
Daily cleaning is a good practice, and it
may be necessary in some cases to
ensure no dust or debris leaves the work
area as required by this final rule.
However, EPA has no basis to believe
that daily cleaning is necessary in every
case or even most cases. EPA also notes
that the work area must be delineated by
signs so that occupants and others do
not enter the area. This final rule
requires the work area to be contained,
and to ensure that all tools, personnel,
and other items, including waste, to be
free of dust and debris when leaving the
work area. Under this final rule, interior
windowsills and most other interior
surfaces in the work area must be wet
wiped. The exceptions are upholstery
and carpeting, which must be vacuumed
with a HEPA vacuum, and walls, which
may be wet wiped or vacuumed with a
HEPA vacuum.
Some commenters requested
clarification of the requirement to clean
‘‘in and around the work area.’’ In
response to the two commenters that
noted that the HUD Guidelines
recommend cleaning 2 feet beyond the
work area, EPA has modified the
regulatory text to require cleaning of
surfaces and objects in and within 2 feet
of the work area.
One commenter argued that
vacuuming was not necessary because
40 CFR 745.85 requires the certified
renovator to cover all furnishings not
removed from the work area, so
additional cleaning is unnecessary. EPA
disagrees with this commenter. Carpets
and upholstered objects that remained,
covered with plastic, in the work area
during the renovation must be
vacuumed after the plastic is removed to
ensure that the surfaces did not become
contaminated during the renovation due
to a breach in the containment or during
the removal of the containment during
clean-up.
One commenter asserted that some
requirements for cleaning were not
prescriptive enough. The commenter
suggested that the rule text, which states
that the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified
renovator must ‘‘pick up all paint chips
and debris,’’ could be re-worded to state
that the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified
renovator must ‘‘collect all paint chips,
debris, and dust, and, without
dispersing any of it, seal this material in
a heavy-duty plastic bag.’’ EPA agrees
that additional detail would be helpful
in this instance and has modified the
final rule to include this

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21734

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

recommendation, with the exception of
dust, which is collected when the
protective sheeting is misted and folded
inward.
One commenter stated that the
cleaning procedures were excessive and
problematic. This commenter asserted
that the two-bucket mopping system is
inappropriate for some floor types such
as wood floors for which excessive
water could damage the floor. The
commenter suggested that EPA allow a
cleaning method employing a dry or
damp cloth, or any other specified
methodology, to be used in order to
achieve a no dust or debris level of
cleaning. Three commenters asserted
that EPA’s definition of wet mopping
system was too specific. One commenter
stated that to include ‘‘a long handle, a
mop head...’’ in the description of the
wet mopping system is too prescriptive
and favors a particular model of
commercial product. EPA understands
that the two bucket mopping system
may not be appropriate for all floor
types due to the quantity of water
involved. However, the HUD Guidelines
recommend and the Dust Study
demonstrates that wet cleaning is best
able to achieve desired results. This
final rule allows for the use of a wet
mopping system instead of the two
bucket system for the cleaning of
flooring. EPA has included a definition
of a wet mopping system in order to
allow the regulated community to use
such a system in place of the traditional
two-bucket mop method. EPA’s
Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field
Study in Residential Housing study
(‘‘Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study’’),
discussed in more detail in Unit IV.E.2.
of the 2006 Proposal, indicates that a
wet mopping system is an effective
method for cleaning up leaded dust
(Ref. 37). EPA believes that allowing the
use of a wet mopping system like those
widely available in a variety of stores
should alleviate concerns regarding the
quantity of water used in the cleanup.
In addition, EPA disagrees that the
description of a wet mopping system
favors a particular model of commercial
product. Rather, it generally describes
any number of wet mopping systems
widely available in most stores.
However, to alleviate concerns that a
particular model of commercial product
is preferred, EPA has added the phrase
‘‘or a method of equivalent efficacy’’ to
the end of the definition of ‘‘wet
mopping system.’’
One commenter recommended that
instead of referencing a two bucket
method, EPA should consider simply
stating that a method be used that keeps
the wash water separate from the rinse
water. EPA agrees and has revised the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

regulatory text to specify a method that
keeps wash water separate from rinse
water, giving as an example the two
bucket method.
One commenter questioned the
requirement to vacuum underneath a
rug or carpet where feasible. The
commenter suggested that EPA clarify
that this does not include permanently
affixed wall-to-wall carpeting. The
commenter notes that it is highly
unlikely that the renovation or
remodeling activity conducted in a
carpeted room would have created the
dust embedded underneath both the
layer of plastic sheeting and the
installed carpeting. EPA agrees with this
commenter. EPA did not intend to
require vacuuming beneath permanently
affixed carpets, i.e., wall to wall
carpeting, but rather that removable rugs
should be removed and the area beneath
vacuumed. However, small, movable,
area rugs should be removed from the
work area prior to the renovation and
the floor beneath would be cleaned as
required under this final rule. Therefore,
in response to this commenter, EPA has
deleted the requirement to vacuum
beneath rugs where feasible.
One commenter recommended four
options for cleaning carpets: Removing
the carpet and pad, cleaning the
underlying flooring, then replacing the
carpet and pad; shampooing the carpet
using a vacuum attachment that
removes the suds; steam cleaning the
carpet using a vacuum attachment that
removes the moisture; or HEPA filtered
vacuuming. This final rule seeks to
minimize the introduction of lead-based
paint hazards to carpeted floors by
requiring the certified renovator to cover
the floor of the work area with plastic
sheeting, carefully clean up and remove
the plastic sheeting following work, and
thoroughly vacuum the carpet using a
HEPA vacuum with a beater bar. EPA
believes this containment and cleanup
protocol will minimize exposure to
lead-based paint hazards created during
renovation activities. EPA does not
believe a renovation contractor should
be responsible for removing and
replacing carpet in a home when such
a requirement was not within the scope
of the renovation project. Also, in
contrast to the effectiveness of using a
HEPA on carpets, EPA does not have
sufficient data on steam cleaning or
shampooing to evaluate its
effectiveness. Without data to
demonstrate the effectiveness of
shampooing or steam cleaning carpets
EPA is not prepared to require these
methods be used in lieu of vacuuming
with a HEPA vacuum. EPA further notes
that the HUD lead-safe Housing Rule

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

only requires HEPA vacuuming, not
steam cleaning or shampooing.
c. Vacuums equipped with HEPA
filters. Given that the HUD Guidelines
recommend the use of HEPA vacuums
and the OSHA Lead in Construction
standard requires that vacuums be
equipped with HEPA filters where
vacuums are used, EPA proposed
requiring the use of HEPA vacuums in
its proposed work practices.
Nonetheless, EPA requested comment
on whether the rule should allow the
use of vacuums other than vacuums
equipped with HEPA filters given.
Specifically, EPA requested comment
on whether there are other vacuums that
have the same efficiency at capturing
the smaller lead particles as HEPAequipped vacuums, along with any data
that would support this performance
equivalency and whether this
performance specification is appropriate
for leaded dust cleanup.
i. Background. HEPA filters were first
developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission during World War II to
capture microscopic radioactive
particles that existing filters could not
remove. HEPA filters have the ability to
capture particles of 0.3 microns with
99.97% efficiency. Particles both larger
and smaller than 0.3 microns are easier
to catch. Thus, HEPA filters capture
those particles at 100%. Available
information indicates that lead particles
generated by renovation activities range
in size from over 20 microns to 0.3
microns or less (Ref. 38).
OSHA recently completed a public
review of their Lead in Construction
standard (Ref. 39). OSHA concluded
that the principal concerns regarding
HEPA vacuums (i.e., cost and
availability) have been significantly
reduced since the standard was
established in 1994. HEPA vacuum
cleaners have an increased presence in
the marketplace and their cost has
decreased significantly. Therefore,
OSHA continues to require the use of
HEPA vacuums in work subject to the
Lead in Construction Standard.
ii. Final rule requirements. Vacuums
used as part of the work practices being
finalized in this final rule must be
HEPA vacuums, which are to be used
and emptied in a manner that
minimizes the reentry of lead into the
workplace. The term ‘‘HEPA vacuum’’ is
defined as a vacuum which has been
designed with a HEPA filter as the last
filtration stage. A HEPA filter is a filter
that is capable of capturing particles of
0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency. The
vacuum cleaner must be designed so
that all the air drawn into the machine
is expelled through the filter with none
of the air leaking past it.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
iii. Comments. Many commenters
supported the use of HEPA vacuums.
Some of these commenters supported
the requirement that they be used
because they are also required by the
OSHA Lead in Construction standard.
One commenter noted that the price of
HEPA vacuums had decreased and were
no longer significantly more expensive
than non-HEPA vacuums.
Another commenter cited the Dust
Study, the NAHB Lead Safe Work
Practices Survey, and several other
studies as supporting the conclusion
that lead-safe work practices and
modified lead-safe work practices, along
with a two-step or three-step cleaning
process using a HEPA-equipped vacuum
and wet washing, greatly reduce dust
lead levels and should be regarded as
best management practices for
renovation jobs. The commenter notes
that the NAHB study found significant
reductions in loading levels after
cleanup using HEPA-equipped vacuum
and then either wet washing or using a
wet disposable cleaning cloth mop.
One commenter contended that HEPA
vacuums with beater bars were not
currently available on the market at the
time comments were submitted.
However, EPA has been able to identify
commercial vacuum manufacturers as
well as department store brands that
currently offer HEPA vacuums with
beater bar attachments.
Several commenters noted that
vacuum cleaners other than HEPA
vacuums were effective at removing
lead dust. They cited several papers
which they asserted support their
conclusion, including Comparison of
Home Lead Dust Reduction Techniques
on Hard Surfaces: The New Jersey
Assessment of Cleaning Techniques
Trial (2002) by Rich, et al (Ref. 40), a
study by the California Department of
Health Services (Ref. 41) which the
commenter contends concluded that
some non-HEPA vacuums performed
better than the HEPA units tested,
Comparison of Techniques to Reduce
Residential Lead Dust on Carpet and
Upholstery: The New Jersey Assessment
of Cleaning Techniques Trial (2002) by
Yiin, et al (Ref. 42), and Effectiveness of
Clean up Techniques for Leaded Paint
Dust (1992) by the Canadian Mortgage
and Housing Corporation (Ref. 43).
The commenter that cited the Rich, et
al paper contended that the authors
found no clear difference between the
efficacy of HEPA and non-HEPA
vacuums on hard surfaces (non-carpeted
floors, windowsills, and window
troughs), and found that non-HEPA
vacuums appeared more efficient in
removing particles on uncarpeted floors,
which are the hard surfaces that may

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

best reflect exposure to children. One
commenter stated that given the
research literature demonstrates that
there is no performance difference in
lead dust removal, EPA should allow
cleanup with either a HEPA or nonHEPA vacuum. Another commenter
contended that a vacuum cleaner
retrofitted with a HEPA filter rather than
a HEPA vacuum should be required to
be used as part of the work practices.
EPA disagrees with the commenters
who state that the literature does not
demonstrate a difference between HEPA
vacuums and non-HEPA vacuums. In
the Yiin, et al study, the authors stated
that for carpets, data from the
‘‘[Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences Institute] vacuum
sampling method showed a significant
reduction (50.6%, p = 0.014) in mean
lead loading for cleaning using the
HEPA vacuum cleaner but did not result
in a significant difference (14.0%
reduction) for cleaning using the nonHEPA vacuum cleaner.’’ They also note
that when they used wipe sampling ‘‘the
results indicated that neither of the
cleaning methods yielded a significant
reduction in lead loading.’’ EPA
believes the results from the wipe
sampling method is less useful because
as discussed in Unit III.E.8.iv. of this
preamble, the Agency believes that wipe
sampling on carpets is not a reliable
indicator of the lead-based paint dust in
the carpet. The authors report that in
their study non-HEPA vacuums were
more effective than HEPA vacuums on
upholstery but note ‘‘[t]he reduced
efficiency of the HEPA vacuum cleaner
in cleaning upholstery [as compared to
carpets] may be, at least partially, due
to the lower pre-cleaning dust lead level
and the smaller sample data set for the
HEPA vacuum cleaner than for the nonHEPA vacuum cleaner.’’
In the Rich, et al study, the authors
noted that ‘‘On windowsills, the HEPA
vacuum cleaner produced 22% (95% CI,
11-32%) larger reductions than the nonHEPA vacuum cleaner, and on the
window troughs it produced 16% (95%
CI, -4 to 33%) larger reductions than the
non-HEPA vacuum cleaner.’’ Not only
were the percent reductions greater, the
post-cleaning geometric mean lead
loadings for the experiments in which
the HEPA vacuums were used was
lower than the post-geometric mean
lead loadings for the experiments in
which the non-HEPA vacuums were
used. On hard floors, the authors
reported that the non-HEPA vacuum
removed the largest quantities of leadbased paint dust. They note that this
may be due in part to the fact that the
initial loadings were higher where the
non-HEPA vacuums were used (Pre-

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21735

cleaning geometric mean lead loadings
were 200 and 155 µg/ft2 for the two
types of experiments where non-HEPA
vacuum were used) as compared to the
lead loadings for the experiments in
which the HEPA vacuum was used (Precleaning geometric mean lead loading of
100 µg/ft2). However, the post-cleaning
geometric mean lead loading for the
experiments in which the HEPA
vacuum was used was lower than for
either of the two types of experiments
where non-HEPA vacuums were used.
The post-cleaning geometric mean lead
loading was lower for each set of
experiments in which the HEPA
vacuum was used. In considering these
data, EPA believes that the data on the
post-cleaning lead loadings are
particularly important. In assessing the
performance of cleaning methods, it is
not only the percent reduction that is
important but also the ability to clean
down to very low levels. Several studies
have demonstrated that reducing lead
loadings from relatively high levels to
about 100 ug/ft2 is more readily
accomplished than reductions below
100 ug/ft2 and becomes progressively
harder at lower levels (Ref. 44).
One commenter stated that EPA did
not have sufficient evidence showing
that HEPA vacuums are significantly
better at removing lead dust than nonHEPA vacuums and cited a Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation
study from 1992 (Ref. 43). That study
was a laboratory study done in a
dynamic chamber under controlled
conditions and used simulated lead
dust. Lead stearate, a compound not
typically used in lead-based paint, was
used to spike the construction dust used
in the experiments. This study has
various limitations. It focused on how
much of the quantity of leaded dust
applied to a surface was present in the
vacuum bag after vacuuming. There was
no assessment of the size of the dust
particles collected. Most importantly,
the study did not measure the quantity
of leaded dust that remained on the
floor. Without this data, the efficacy of
the non-HEPA vacuums cannot be
assessed. In addition, the study is not
very informative as to what will occur
under real world conditions.
Two years later, the same group (Ref.
45) studied 20 test rooms where they
produced lead-containing dust by power
sanding walls of known lead levels.
Four cleaning methods were used, of
which only two produced acceptable
results. The two cleaning methods that
did not produce acceptable clean-ups
were: (1) Dry sweeping the floor with a
corn broom followed by vacuuming
with a utility vacuum; and (2)
vacuuming the floor with a household

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21736

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

vacuum cleaner followed by wet
mopping with a commercial household
cleaner. The other two methods that
achieved clean-ups resulting in floors
that passed dust clearance testing were:
(3) vacuuming the floor with a utility
vacuum followed by wet mopping with
a 2% solution of a commercial leadcleaning product, followed by a rinse
with clean water; and (4) vacuuming
with a HEPA vacuum, followed by wet
mopping with trisodium phosphate,
followed by a clean water rinse,
followed by more vacuuming with a
HEPA vacuum. The report concludes
that ‘‘. . .Cleaning Methods 1 and 2 were
inadequate to meet the cleanliness
criteria. . .’’ Later it states ‘‘Cleaning
Methods 3 and 4 did meet both the
current and proposed HUD criteria.’’
The same commenter also referred to
a report submitted to HUD by the
California Department of Health
Services (Ref. 41). This study evaluated
a range of vacuums. The efficacy of the
non-HEPA vacuums varied, particularly
in comparison with the HEPA vacuums.
The authors of the report did not
identify the attributes of the non-HEPA
vacuums that were instrumental in
determining their effectiveness. At best,
vacuums that were effective at picking
up and retaining lead-based paint dust
could be classified as high performing
although there were no criteria that
could be discerned on what made a high
performing vacuum. The report also
states that HEPA models without floor
tool brushes performed poorly. This
may be the case. The HEPA vacuums
used in EPA’s Dust Study performed
adequately and all of these vacuums
were equipped with flip down brushes
on the floor tool.
The California report contained
another finding of interest. ‘‘Of special
concern is the direct observation under
the scanning electron microscope of
lead dust particles dissolving on
exposure to water to release large
numbers of sub-micron lead particles.
Although requiring further study, this
effect suggests that vacuuming to
remove most of the water soluble lead
dust, followed by wet-washing would be
the best cleaning strategy.’’ The cleaning
protocol in this final rule follows this
strategy by requiring, for all surfaces in
and around the work area except for
walls, HEPA vacuuming, followed by
wet wiping or wet mopping, followed
by the cleaning verification protocol.
EPA has determined that the weight
of the evidence provided by these
studies demonstrate that the HEPA
vacuums consistently removed
significant quantities of lead-based paint
dust and reduced lead loadings to lower
levels then did other vacuums.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

While there may be some vacuums
cleaners that are as effective as HEPA
vacuums, EPA has not been able to
define quantitatively the specific
attributes of those vacuums. That is,
EPA is not able to identify what criteria
should be used to identify vacuums that
are equivalent to HEPA vacuums in
performance. The authors of the studies
discussed above do not state that the
vacuums used are representative of all
vacuums nor do they try to identify
particular aspects of the non-HEPA
vacuums. Thus, EPA does not believe
that it can identify in this final rule
what types of vacuums can be used as
substitutes for HEPA-vacuums. EPA
believes it would be ineffective to
identify specific makes or models of
vacuums (e.g., the ones used in the
studies) in this final rule given how
quickly manufactures change models,
nor would that take into account new
manufacturers.
EPA also disagrees with the
commenter that suggested that vacuums
that are retrofitted with a HEPA filter
should be considered sufficient for
purposes of this rule. These vacuums
are not necessarily properly sealed or
designed so that the air flow goes
exclusively through the HEPA filter.
EPA agrees with the commenter who
stated that HEPA vacuums are vacuums
which have been designed for the
integral use of HEPA filters, in which
the contaminated air flows through the
HEPA filter in accordance with the
instructions of its manufacturer and for
which the performance standard for the
operation of the filter is defined. EPA
also agrees with those commenters that
contended that the rule should contain
a more-specific definition of HEPA
vacuum. Accordingly, this final rule
defines ‘‘HEPA vacuum’’ as a vacuum
which has been designed with a HEPA
filter as the last filtration stage and
includes a description of what the term
HEPA means. The definition of ‘‘HEPA
vacuum’’ also specifies that the vacuum
cleaner must be designed so that all the
air drawn into the machine is expelled
through the filter with none of the air
leaking past it.
Furthermore, EPA agrees that OSHA’s
requirement that HEPA vacuums should
be an important consideration in
determining whether HEPA vacuums
should be required to be used as part of
the work practices being finalized today.
Because OSHA’s standard covers
practically all work subject the to EPA’s
final Renovation, Repair, and Painting
program regulations, and applies to all
firms having an employee/employer
relationship with few exceptions, there
is no reason to create a separate
standard for those firms not subject to

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the OSHA standard, particularly in light
of the data on the efficacy of HEPA
vacuums versus non-HEPA vacuums
discussed above. Even if EPA were able
to define vacuums that were acceptable
substitutes to HEPA vacuums, it is not
clear that the benefits would outweigh
the complications associated with
creating an EPA standard that is
different than that required by OSHA.
7. Cleaning verification. This final
rule requires the certified renovator to
use disposable cleaning cloths after
cleaning both as a fine cleaning step and
as verification that the containment and
cleaning have sufficiently cleaned up
the lead-paint dust created by the
renovation activity. Cleaning
verification’s usefulness is based on the
combination of its fine cleaning
properties and the fact that it provides
feed-back to the certified renovator on
the effectiveness of the cleaning.
Cleaning verification is an important
component of the work practices set
forth in this rule and contributes to the
effectiveness of the combination of
training, containment, cleaning and
verification at minimizing exposure to
lead-based paint hazards created during
renovation, remodeling and painting
activities.
a. Background. As described in
greater detail in Unit IV.E.2. of the
preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3),
EPA began looking for an alternative to
dust clearance sampling that would be
quick, inexpensive, reliable, and easy to
perform. EPA believed that a
verification method was needed because
studies have consistently shown that
interior visual clearance resulted in a
high percentage of false negatives, that
is falsely indicating that lead loadings
were below the standards used. This
occurred even when using a clearance
standard of 100 µg/ft2.
i. Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study.
The Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study
used commercially available disposable
cleaning cloths to determine whether
variations of a ‘‘white glove’’ test could
serve as an effective alternative (Ref.
37). White disposable wet and dry
cleaning cloths were used to wipe
windowsills and wipe floors, then they
were examined to determine whether
dust was visible on the cloth. This
determination was made by visually
comparing the cloth to a photographic
standard that EPA developed to
correlate to a level of contamination that
is at or below the dust-lead hazard
standard in 40 CFR 745.65(b). Cloths
that matched or were lighter than the
photographic standard were considered
to have achieved ‘‘white glove.’’ This
series of studies found that on
uncarpeted floors, 91.5% of the surfaces

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
that achieved ‘‘white glove’’ using only
dry cloths were confirmed by dust wipe
sampling to be below the dust lead
hazard standard for floors, while 97.3%
of the floors that achieved ‘‘white glove’’
using only wet cloths were also below
the hazard standard. In addition, 10 of
the 11 floors where ‘‘white glove’’ was
not achieved using dry cloths, and 20 of
the 21 floors where ‘‘white glove’’ was
not achieved using wet cloths, were
nonetheless below the dust lead hazard
standard. There were very few instances
where ‘‘white glove’’ was achieved but
the dust lead level was above the dust
lead hazard standard. Thus, the study
showed that for floors, the white glove
test results were biased towards false
positives. Windowsills were also tested.
For the dry cloth protocol, 96.4% of the
sills that achieved ‘‘white glove’’ were
also confirmed by dust wipe sampling
to be below the dust lead hazard
standard for windowsills, and the one
sill that did not achieve ‘‘white glove’’
was also below the standard. For the
wet cloth protocol, all of the sills that
achieved ‘‘white glove’’ were also below
the dust lead hazard standard, as were
the four sills that did not reach ‘‘white
glove.’’
Based on the results of the Disposable
Cleaning Cloth Study, the 2006 Proposal
included for interior renovations, as part
of the work practices, a post-renovation
cleaning verification process that would
follow the visual inspection and
cleaning. Cleaning verification would
consist of wiping the interior
windowsills and uncarpeted floors with
wet disposable cleaning cloths and, if
necessary dry disposable cleaning
cloths, and comparing each to a
cleaning verification card developed
and distributed by EPA.
ii. The Dust Study. The Dust Study
(Ref. 17), which is described elsewhere
in this preamble, assessed the proposed
work practices. As one component of
the proposed work practices, the
cleaning verification was evaluated in
the Dust Study. It should be noted that
the Dust Study was not designed
specifically to evaluate the cleaning
verification in isolation of the rest of the
work practices. Unlike the earlier
Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study that
was intended to test the effectiveness of
the use of the ‘‘white glove’’ test in
isolation, the Dust Study was meant to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
proposed work practices, including
cleaning verification. Unlike the earlier
Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, the
Dust Study involved actual renovations
performed by local renovation
contractors who received instruction in
how to perform cleaning verification
and then were left alone to determine

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

whether cleaning cloths matched or
were lighter than the cleaning
verification card. In order to maximize
the information collected about cleaning
verification in the Dust Study, cleaning
verification was conducted after each
experiment, not just those experiments
that were being conducted in
accordance with the proposed rule
requirements for containment and
cleaning.
One of the Dust Study conclusions
was that cleaning verification resulted
in decreases in lead levels, but was not
always accurate in identifying the
presence of levels above EPA dust lead
hazard standards for floors and sills.
This refers to the experiments involving
power planing and high temperature
heat guns. An examination of the
cleaning verification data in the study
shows that, if power planing and high
temperature heat gun experiments are
excluded, the values for post-renovation
cleaning verification when the proposed
rule work practices were used were at
or below the regulatory hazard standard
for floors, often significantly below the
regulatory hazard standard. These
results were similar for windowsills.
Excluding power planing and high
temperature heat gun experiments, all of
the post-renovation cleaning verification
windowsill sample averages for
experiments conducted in accordance
with the proposed rule requirements
were below the regulatory dust lead
hazard standard for windowsills. In
addition, 26 of the 30 other experiments
(using only some elements of the
proposed containment and cleaning
requirements) not involving power
planing or high temperature heat guns
had post-renovation cleaning
verification sill sample averages well
below the hazard standards.
b. Cleaning verification as an
alternative to clearance testing. In
determining whether cleaning
verification could be seen as a
qualitative alternative to clearance
testing, EPA considered both the
Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study and
the Dust Study. Even though the
Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study
showed that the cleaning verification
cloths that reached ‘‘white glove’’ were
approximately 91% to 97% likely to be
below the regulatory hazard standard,
EPA believes the greater variability seen
in the Dust Study, particularly in the
experiments where the complete suite of
proposed work practices were not used
does not support the characterization of
cleaning verification as a direct
substitute for clearance testing. Cleaning
verification, when used apart from the
other work practices, is not as reliable
a test for determining whether the

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21737

hazard standard has been achieved as
clearance testing. However, the Dust
Study supports the validity of cleaning
verification as an effective component of
the work practices. The cleaning and
feedback aspects of cleaning verification
are important to its contribution to the
effectiveness of the work practices.
c. Final rule requirements. Based on a
review of the Dust Study and the
Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, EPA
concluded that if the practices
prohibited in this final rule are avoided
and the required work practices are
followed, then cleaning verification is
an effective component of the work
practices. EPA believes that the suite of
work practices as a whole are effective
at addressing the lead-paint dust that is
generated during renovation, repair, and
painting preparation activities.
Therefore, the final rule does not require
dust clearance sampling after any
renovations, nor does it allow the signs
delineating the work area to be removed
based solely on the results of a visual
inspection. The final rule does require
a certified renovator to perform a visual
inspection to determine whether dust,
debris, or residue is still present in the
work area, and, if these conditions exist,
they must be eliminated by re-cleaning
and another visual inspection must be
performed. In addition, the rule requires
that after an interior work area passes
the visual inspection, the cleaning of
each windowsill and uncarpeted floor
within the work area must be verified,
as explained below. After an exterior
work area passes the visual inspection,
the renovation has been properly
completed. In response to one
commenter who was concerned about
the dust that could collect on exterior
windowsills during exterior projects,
the final rule clarifies that the visual
inspection must confirm that no dust,
debris or residue remains on surfaces in
and below the work area, including
windowsills and the ground.
For interior renovations, after the
work area has been cleaned and has
passed a visual inspection, a certified
renovator must wipe each interior
windowsill in the work area with a wet
disposable cleaning cloth and compare
the cloth to a cleaning verification card
developed by EPA. If the cloth matches
or is lighter than the image on the card,
that windowsill has passed the postrenovation cleaning verification. If the
cloth is darker than the image on the
card, that windowsill must be recleaned in accordance with
§ 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B) and (C) and the
certified renovator must wipe that
windowsill with a new wet cloth, or the
same one folded so that an unused
surface is exposed, and compare it to

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21738

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

the cleaning verification card. If the
cloth matches or is lighter than the card,
that windowsill has passed. If not, the
certified renovator must then wait for
one hour after the surface was wiped
with the second wet cleaning
verification cloth or until the surface
has dried, whichever is longer. Then,
the certified renovator must wipe the
windowsill with a dry disposable
cleaning cloth. Based on the Dust Study,
EPA concluded that this process need
not be repeated after the first dry cloth.
At that point, that windowsill has
passed the post-renovation cleaning
verification process. Each windowsill in
the work area must pass the postrenovation cleaning verification process.
The cleaning verification protocol in
the final rule is similar to what was in
2006 Proposal. By not requiring the
surface to be re-cleaned after the second
wet wipe and by ending the cleaning
verification process after one dry cloth,
this final rule is different from the
Proposal. The 2006 Proposal required
that the dry cloths be used until one
passed verification (i.e., reached ‘‘white
glove’’). EPA’s final rule does not
require more than one dry cloth because
only 3 experiments out of the 60
performed in the Dust Study failed the
second wet cloth. None of these 3
experiments were performed in
accordance with the requirements of
this final rule; all experiments
performed in accordance with the
requirements of this final rule passed
after either the first or second wet cloth.
Based on the Dust Study, it is unlikely
that dust containing lead will remain in
excess of the hazard standard following
two wet and one dry wipes; however
EPA is concerned about the possibility
of requiring potentially indefinite
cleaning by renovation contractors, with
the potential of making them
responsible for cleaning up pre-existing
dirt or grime, whether leadcontaminated or not.
After the windowsills in the work
area have passed the post-renovation
cleaning verification, a certified
renovator must proceed with the
cleaning verification process for the
floors and countertops in the work area.
A certified renovator must wipe no
more than 40 ft2 of floor or countertop
area at a time with a wet disposable
cleaning cloth. For floors, the renovator
must use an application device
consisting of a long handle and a head
to which a wet disposable cleaning
cloth is attached. If the floor and
countertop surfaces in the work area
exceed 40 ft2, the certified renovator
must divide the surfaces into sections,
each section being no more than 40 ft2,
and perform the post-renovation

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

cleaning verification on each section
separately. If the wet cloth used to wipe
a particular section of surface matches
or is lighter than the image on the
cleaning verification card, that section
has passed the post-renovation cleaning
verification. If, however, on the first
wiping of a section of the surface, the
wet cloth does not match and is darker
than the image on the cleaning
verification card, the surface of that
section must be re-cleaned in
accordance with § 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B) and
(C). After re-cleaning, the certified
renovator must wipe that section of the
surface again using a new wet
disposable cleaning cloth. If the second
wet cloth matches or is lighter than the
image on the cleaning verification card,
that section of the floor has passed. If
the second wet cloth does not match
and is darker than the image on the
verification card, the certified renovator
must wait for 1 hour or until the surface
has dried, whichever is longer. Then,
the certified renovator must wipe each
of those 40 ft2 sections of the floor or
countertop surfaces that did not achieve
post-renovation cleaning verification
using the wet cloths with a dry
disposable cleaning cloth. On floors,
this wiping must also be performed
using an application device with a long
handle and a head to which the dry
cloth is attached. At that point, the
floors and countertops have passed the
post-renovation cleaning verification
process and the warning signs may be
removed.
In finalizing the work practices in this
final rule, EPA has taken into
consideration safety, reliability and
effectiveness. EPA has concluded that
these work practices, including cleaning
verification, are an effective and reliable
method for minimizing exposure to
lead-based paint hazards created by the
renovation, both during and after the
renovation.
d. Comments. EPA received many
comments on cleaning verification. The
majority of the comments supported the
use of dust wipe clearance testing and
did not consider cleaning verification as
a suitable substitute. Some of these
commenters supported the use of dust
wipe clearance testing for purposes of
clearance. Some commenters did not
support either dust wipe clearance
testing or cleaning verification; they
contended that visual inspection alone
was sufficient and that dust clearance
testing is too costly. Others questioned
whether cleaning verification had been
demonstrated to be valid, reliable, and
effective in establishing that the work
area had been adequately cleaned or
that the clearance standards were met.
Some contended that the cleaning

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

verification method showed promise,
but should be subjected to additional
testing, including field trials, to
demonstrate its effectiveness when used
by certified renovators. A minority of
commenters supported the use of
cleaning verification. Some supported
its use rather than dust wipe-clearance
testing and clearance, particularly given
that renovations are not intended to
remove lead-based paint. Some
supported cleaning verification because
it is faster, easier to implement, and less
expensive than clearance testing.
i. Cleaning verification is not a
substitute for clearance testing. Many
commenters contended that cleaning
verification is not a substitute
technology for dust-wipe clearance
testing and should not be used in this
manner. EPA agrees with the
commenters. As discussed in Unit
III.E.8.b., based on a careful
consideration of the Disposable
Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust
Study, EPA has concluded that, in itself,
cleaning verification should not be used
as a substitute for dust wipe clearance
testing.
ii. Dust clearance testing and
clearance. Many commenters asserted
that the rule should require dust
clearance testing instead of the cleaning
verification. Some further contended
that dust clearance testing is the only
proven method for verifying lead dust
levels. Others supported the use of dust
wipe clearance testing for purposes of
clearance for the renovation. One
commenter noted that even when dust
clearance testing is performed it is not
uncommon for clearance to be
conducted up to three times on a home
to make sure that lead levels are
sufficiently low. Some commenters
suggested that cleaning verification be
used as a screen before dust clearance
testing. Other commenters contended
that dust clearance testing should not be
required because it is expensive and
time consuming and is an obstacle to
completing the renovation job. Other
commenters contended that dust
clearance testing has been done in some
jurisdictions quickly and relatively
inexpensively. A few commenters
contended that EPA should not require
dust clearance testing because there is a
difference between abatement, which is
intended to eliminate lead-based paint
hazards, and renovations in which the
focus should be to not create any new
lead-based paint hazards. Some
commenters asserted that dust clearance
testing should not be required because
this would result in the renovator being
responsible for existing lead-based paint
hazards. One commenter used the
example of a window replacement

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
project to illustrate this point. The
commenter argued that, where the floor
in the work area is in poor condition but
outside the scope of the renovation
contract, the window replacement
contractor should not be responsible for
making sure the floor passes a clearance
standard, which may not be possible
without modifying the floor.
EPA disagrees that dust clearance
testing and clearance should be
components of the renovation activities
subject to this final rule. Dust clearance
testing is used in abatement to
determine whether lead-based paint
hazards have been eliminated. This test
is part of a specific process that involves
a specialized work force (e.g., inspector,
risk-assessor), typically removal of
residents, and modifications to the
housing in some instances to eliminate
lead-based hazards (e.g., removing
carpet or refinishing or sealing
uncarpeted floors). Dust clearance
testing is needed to determine if leadbased paint hazards have been
eliminated and residents can re-occupy
a house and not be exposed to leadbased paint hazards. As noted by a
commenter, a home may require
clearance testing be conducted up to
three times before the home is
determined to be free of lead-based
paint hazards and it may require that
floors be refinished or that carpets be
replaced.
The Disposal Cleaning Cloth Study
showed that wet wipes can pick up
accumulated grime from floors.
Applying this to the renovation context,
if EPA were to require clearance,
renovators might be held responsible for
cleaning up pre-existing lead dust
hazards that had accumulated in the
grime on the floor.Based on the Dust
Study, EPA has determined that all of
the leaded dust generated by the
renovation will have been cleaned up by
two wet wipes followed by one dry
wipe, where necessary. EPA is
concerned about the possibility of
requiring potentially indefinite cleaning
by renovation contractors, with the
potential of making them responsible for
cleaning up pre-existing dirt or grime,
whether lead-contaminated or not. Even
assuming EPA has authority to require
replacement of carpets and floors under
some circumstances as part of a
renovation project, EPA does not think
as a policy matter that such an approach
in which pre-existing hazards must be
eliminated is appropriate. It could
fundamentally change the scope of a
renovation job. The time and cost of
conducting clearance testing and
achieving clearance is an acceptable
part of the time and cost of conducting
the abatement given the goal of an

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

abatement, the range of activities that
are inherent in an abatement, and the
activities that are required to be
conducted to achieve clearance. Given
the effectiveness of the work practices
being finalized in this rulemaking,
including the role of cleaning
verification in minimizing exposure to
lead-based paint dust generated during
renovations, dust clearance testing does
not provide the added value to balance
the time and effort and the cost to home
and building owners associated with
requiring this additional step to the
work practices.
As discussed in Unit II.A.6.b., there
are many differences between
renovations and abatements.
Renovations are different from
abatements in intent, implementation,
type of workforce, workforce makeup,
funding, and goal. Renovations are
focused not on eliminating lead-based
paint hazards, but rather on making
repairs or improvements to a building.
The vast majority of abatements are
either done with funding from HUD
and/or a State or local government. In
addition, residents are not typically
present in a residence during an
abatement while they are typically
present in a residence during a
renovation. Thus, the purpose of dust
wipe clearance testing and clearance
would necessarily be different if it were
used in a renovation than in an
abatement. For abatements, clearance
testing and clearance are used to
minimize potential exposure by
eliminating lead-based paint hazards
after completion of the job. Clearance
acts as the means to ensure that
minimization and signal the end of the
job. For renovations, given the presence
of residents, the concern is for potential
exposure both during and after the job.
Dust clearance testing and clearance
would only address the second part of
the exposure equation. Thus, dust
clearance testing conducted after
renovation activities have been
completed would not provide the
equivalent determination of potential
exposure that it does for abatement. EPA
has considered this difference as one
factor in its determination that given the
effectiveness of the work practices being
finalized in this rulemaking, including
the role of cleaning verification in
minimizing exposure to lead-based
paint dust generated during renovations,
dust clearance testing does not provide
the added value to balance the time and
effort and the cost to home and building
owners associated with requiring this
additional step to the work practices.
Although renovators should be
required to address lead-based paint
dust generated by renovation activities,

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21739

the Agency is not requiring renovators
to take the actions required under the
abatement rules to achieve clearance for
lead-based paint dust not associated
with the renovation and to address
housing conditions not associated with
the renovation.
EPA agrees that having dust wipe
samples collected by a qualified person
and analyzed by a qualified laboratory
is an effective way to determine the
quantity of lead in dust remaining after
a renovation activity, but it would not
necessarily show that the dust was due
to the specific renovation activity. EPA
also notes that in addition to providing
a numerical value, dust clearance
testing costs more than cleaning
verification and takes longer to produce
results. Results can take from 24 to 48
hours or longer and cleaning, sampling
and analysis may have to be repeated
depending upon the initial results.
During this period, the warning signs
delineating the work area would need to
be maintained to protect occupants and
others from the risk of exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by the
renovation. Thus, EPA believes that
dust clearance sampling is a poor fit for
renovation work for a variety of reasons,
including the greater expense associated
with clearance testing, the time
necessary to obtain the results of the
testing and the consequent delay in the
completion of the job, and the potential
to expand the scope of the renovation.
EPA believes that dust clearance
testing and clearance are not necessary
given that the Dust Study demonstrates
that cleaning verification, as an effective
component of the work practices,
minimizes exposure to lead-based paint
hazards created by the renovation, both
during and after the renovation. The
cleaning and feedback aspects of
cleaning verification are important to its
contribution to the effectiveness of the
work practices. EPA notes that unlike
dust wipe clearance testing in which a
small part of the work area would be
tested, cleaning verification is
conducted over the whole work area.
Each repetition of the cleaning
verification protocol further cleans the
surface.
The work practices, including
cleaning verification, required by this
final rule are expected to minimize
exposure to any newly created leadbased paint hazards created by a
renovation by removing newly
deposited dust, while requiring cleanup
of pre-existing hazards only
incidentally, to the extent such cleanup
is unavoidable to address the newly
created hazards. The Dust Study
demonstrates that the cleaning
verification protocol, used in

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21740

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

conjunction with the other work
practices in this final rule, is effective
and reliable in achieving this result.
While the requirements of this rule
will, in some cases, have the ancillary
benefit of removing some pre-existing
dust-lead hazards, it strikes the proper
balance of addressing the lead-based
paint hazards create during the
renovation but at the same time not
requiring renovators to remediate or
eliminate hazards that are beyond the
scope of the work they were hired to do.
iii. Visual inspection in lieu of
cleaning verification. Some commenters
urged EPA to require only visual
inspection of the work area after the
cleaning following a renovation. They
contend that cleaning verification is not
needed. Some commenters argued that
thorough cleaning in combination with
a requirement that no visible dust or
debris remain is adequate to address the
lead dust created by the renovation
activity. Most of these commenters also
noted that because renovation and
abatement are different that it would be
inappropriate for EPA to impose
additional requirements on renovation
firms beyond visual inspection. Some
commenters contended that the lead
dust from a renovation is usually in the
form of debris such as chips and
splinters that can be seen with the
naked eye, and the presence of this
debris is an indicator to workers that the
job site requires additional cleaning
until no visible debris remains.
One commenter contended that
cleaning after the renovation activity
until the worksite passed a visual
inspection was the most important
determinant of whether a job would
pass a dust clearance test. In support of
this contention, the commenter cited the
Reissman study (Ref. 22). The
commenter contended that the study
demonstrates that when there was no
visible dust and debris present after
completion of renovation or remodeling
activity, there was no added risk of a
child having an elevated blood lead
level as compared to the risk for
children living in homes where there
was no reported renovation or
remodeling work.
Two commenters offered an analysis
of two sets of data collected by an
environmental testing firm. One dataset
consists of post-renovation dust samples
collected in Maryland apartment units;
the other consists of dust samples
collected for risk assessment purposes
in 41 states. No information on
renovation activity is provided for the
second dataset. The commenters argue
that because 96.7% of the Maryland
post-renovation samples and 96.1% of
the other samples were below the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

applicable hazard standard for the
surface (floor or windowsill) tested, this
suggests that visual inspection in those
cases was sufficient to ensure that no
dust-lead hazard existed.
One commenter cited the Dust Study
(Ref. 17), the NAHB Lead Safe Work
Practices Survey (Ref. 19), and several
other studies as supporting the
conclusion that lead-safe work practices
and modified lead-safe work practices,
along with a two-step or three-step
cleaning process using a HEPAequipped vacuum and wet washing,
greatly reduce dust lead levels and
should be regarded as best management
practices for renovation jobs. The
commenter notes that the NAHB study
found significant reductions in loading
levels after cleanup using HEPAequipped vacuum and then either wet
washing or using a wet mopping system.
The commenter argues that if the work
area is cleaned using these practices, it
is appropriate to adopt a visual
clearance standard allowing no visible
dust or debris in the work area at the
conclusion of the job.
Other commenters contended that
visual inspection following cleaning
after a renovation is not a reliable
method for determining whether a leadbased paint hazard remains after
cleaning. Some commenters cited a
study conducted by the National Center
for Healthy Housing (NCHH) showing
that 67% of the visual inspections that
initially passed failed when checked
more carefully and 54% that eventually
passed a visual inspection were found
to be above the hazard standard.
However, one commenter contended
this was a poorly conducted study.
Another commenter referred to the
study ‘‘An Evaluation of the Efficacy of
the Lead Hazard Reduction Treatments
Prescribed in Maryland Environmental
Article 6-8’’ conducted by NCHH for the
Baltimore City Health Department in
which 53% of housing identified by
visual inspection as being below the
hazard standard was actually above the
hazard standard. Another commenter
argued that NIOSH research indicates
that significant lead contamination may
remain on surfaces that appear clean.
During inter-Agency review, one
commenter pointed to 2007 studies from
Maryland and Rochester, New York that
they contend show trained workers and
visual inspection for dust and debris
can achieve 85–90% compliance with
the hazard standards following
renovations in previously occupied
housing. Given the lateness of the
submission, EPA did not review this
information. However, EPA notes that in
a cover letter, the commenter states that
the 2007 Maryland Study was

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

conducted by workers that had taken a
2–day training course, which is more
training than required by this rule. Even
if the studies do demonstrate this
effectiveness by highly trained workers,
EPA does not believe that a 85–90%
effectiveness is sufficiently protective
for residents.
EPA disagrees with those commenters
that contended that a visual inspection
following cleaning after a renovation is
sufficient to ensure the lead-based paint
dust generated by a renovation has been
sufficiently cleaned-up. The weight-ofthe-evidence clearly demonstrates that
visual inspection following cleaning
after a renovation is insufficient at
detecting dust-lead hazards, even at
levels significantly above the regulatory
hazard standards. Further, EPA
disagrees with the implication that
easily visible paint chips and splinters
are necessarily the primary materials
generated during a renovation. EPA
studies, including the Dust Study, show
that renovation activities generate dust
as well as chips and splinters. Finally,
EPA disagrees with those commenters
who requested the work practices in this
final rule not include any verification
beyond visual inspection. In the Dust
Study, there were 10 renovations
performed in accordance with the 2006
proposed work practices that did not
involve practices prohibited by this
final rule. Of those 10 renovations, 5
needed the additional cleaning
verification step in order to achieve
EPA’s regulatory dust-lead hazard
standards for floors. (EPA notes that the
Dust Study Protocol did not explicitly
specify that all dust and debris be
eliminated prior to the cleaning
verification step, only that visible debris
be removed. However, the contractor
running the study for EPA reported that,
in practice, the renovators participating
in the study eliminated all visible dust
and debris as part of their typical
cleaning regimen. Thus, the study
protocol was slightly different from the
rule requirements, which state that the
renovation firm must remove all dust
and debris and conduct a visual
inspection before beginning the cleaning
verification procedure.)
EPA does not believe that the
Reissman, et al. study is supportive of
the contention that visual inspection of
the work area is sufficient because it did
not evaluate the effectiveness of a visual
inspection requirement. The study did
not measure dust lead levels, which are
the basis for this rule. Instead, it
characterized the relationships between
elevated blood lead levels and
renovation dust and debris that spread
throughout the housing. EPA notes that
Reissman, et al. concluded that there

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
was a correlation between renovation
activities and elevated blood lead levels.
EPA concluded that the dataset
referenced by one commenter that
consists of dust samples collected for
risk assessment purposes in 41 States is
not informative because there was no
information on renovation activity
collected with these dust samples. With
respect to the Maryland renovation
study,96.7% is an overstatement. The
author who conducted the analysis
stated that:

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

[W]hen the maximum test values are
examined rather than the mean, 9.8% of the
MD sample and 12.5% of the national sample
of properties with LBP surpassed at least one
of the hazard thresholds of 40 µg/sf for floors
and 250 µg/sf for sills. As illustrated in
Exhibit 1, a fairly sizable percentage of the
lead tests exceed the clearance thresholds.
The failure rates are about 20 percent lower
for Maryland than for the national LBP
sample. However, even for Maryland, nearly
one in ten apartments would fail the hazard
test.

Thus, even if these were the only data
available, it would not support the
conclusion that visual clearance is
effective.
After reviewing the NAHB Lead Safe
Work Practices Survey, EPA concluded
that it does not support the contention
that visual inspection is sufficient to
detect whether lead-based paint dust
remains. While EPA agrees that use of
a HEPA-vacuum and wet-washing are
effective at cleaning lead-based paint
dust, this does not support the case for
relying on visual inspection without
subsequent cleaning verification. In the
NAHB study, the levels of lead-based
paint dust that remained after the
renovation activities were sometimes
higher and sometimes lower than at the
start of the renovation, but they were
always at relatively high levels after the
renovation--as high as 11,400 ug/ft2.
In addition, the two studies
conducted by the National Center for
Healthy Housing as noted by
commenters demonstrate that visual
inspection was not effective at
determining the presence of dust-lead
hazards. The study ‘‘Evaluation of the
HUD lead-Based Paint Hazard Control
Grant Program’’ study conducted by
NCHH corroborates these findings.
iv. Carpets and other horizontal
surfaces within the work area. Some
commenters were concerned that
cleaning verification is not intended for
use on carpeted floors. They were not
confident that thorough cleaning was
adequate to address potential lead
hazards that might remain in carpet
after the renovation. One commenter
pointed to studies showing a significant
correlation between dust lead in carpets
and children’s blood lead. As cleaning

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

verification is not required for carpet,
commenters criticized the lack of a
required method for determining that
lead hazards in carpet had been
eliminated. Commenters suggested EPA
require clearance testing for carpeted
rooms in the work area, which some
argued has been demonstrated to be
effective, or rely on the HUD protocol,
which they asserted is widely accepted
and used.
As discussed in detail in Unit IV.E. of
the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, EPA
did not design cleaning verification for
use on carpeted floors. This was based
on EPA’s concerns about the validity of
dust wipe sampling on carpeted floors.
EPA noted that the decision to apply the
clearance standard promulgated in the
TSCA section 403 rulemaking to
carpeted floors ultimately had little
consequence, given the context in
which clearance standards are used--to
ensure that lead-based paint hazards
have been eliminated. Typically, during
an abatement, carpets that are in poor
condition or are known to be highly
contaminated are removed and
disposed. EPA further notes that the
HUD Lead-safe Housing Rule only
requires HEPA vacuuming, not steam
cleaning or shampooing.
While an abatement might require the
removal of a lead-contaminated carpet,
EPA has concluded that it is not
appropriate to require carpet removal
following a renovation. Even assuming
EPA has authority to require removal of
carpet following a renovation, this could
significantly expand the cost of a
renovation, and fundamentally expand
the scope of the renovation activity
contracted for by the homeowner or
building owner by requiring removal of
carpets as a result of pre-existing lead
contamination.
Dust Study data on containment and
information on the effectiveness of
HEPA vacuums show that the use of
containment and post-renovation
cleaning with HEPA vacuums to remove
the lead-based paint dust potentially
deposited on the carpets during the
renovation would reliably and
effectively address lead-based paint dust
generated during a renovation. Thus,
rather than rely upon a dust clearance
sample that may not be accurate and
may require the replacement of the
carpet for renovation projects in which
a carpet is present, EPA is finalizing the
work practices which require
containment and the use of a HEPA
vacuum equipped with a beater bar for
cleaning.
In the absence of a practical, effective
way of determining how much lead dust
has been added to a carpet and whether
it has been fully removed, EPA is

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21741

adopting a technology-based approach
for carpets that differs from the
approach used for hard-surfaced floors,
by requiring use of a HEPA vacuum
with a beater bar. EPA is not aware of,
and commenters have not identified, a
practicable approach similar to the one
EPA has adopted for floors as a basis to
evaluate the results of the application of
work practice standards to carpets. In
the absence of such an approach, EPA
believes the approach adopted today is
the most effective, reliable approach
available for minimizing potential leadbased paint hazards in carpets created
by renovations.
One commenter suggested that
cleaning verification be required on
other horizontal surfaces within the
work area, in addition to windowsills
and uncarpeted floors. EPA agrees with
this commenter because the Dust Study
demonstrated that, in nearly all cases,
the cleaning verification step resulted in
lower dust lead levels and, in most
cases, the verification step was needed
in order to achieve cleanup of all of the
leaded dust deposited on the floors by
the renovation. EPA is also concerned
about the possible contamination of
surfaces that are used to prepare, serve,
and consume meals. EPA expects that
movable surfaces, such as tables and
desks, will be moved from the work area
before work begins. Therefore, EPA has
modified the rule to require cleaning
verification on all countertops in the
work area.
v. Reliability of cleaning verification.
EPA received comments prior to the
2007 request for comments on the
proposed work practices in light of the
Dust Study. Those pre-Dust Study
comments are summarized here.
Commenters questioned whether
cleaning verification had been
demonstrated to be valid, reliable,
effective, or efficient in establishing that
the work area had been adequately
cleaned or that the clearance standards
were met. Some commenters contended
that the cleaning verification method
showed promise, but should be
subjected to additional testing,
including field trials, to demonstrate its
effectiveness when used by certified
renovators. Commenters on the 2006
Proposal observed that the cleaning
verification protocol was supported by a
single study that was conducted under
conditions unlike those presented by
the typical renovation. Specifically, a
commenter noted that most of the
housing units studied had undergone
some form of abatement that would
likely have reduced dust levels and the
study used professional inspectors or
other highly trained individuals to
collect the samples according to

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21742

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

specified protocols. The commenter was
concerned that a renovator with no
experience with sample collection and
little training could replicate the work
of the professionals used in the study.
The commenter pointed out that the
study avoided testing the procedure on
rough surfaces, a condition that will
frequently occur in real world
applications, and used a different set of
wipe protocols than actually utilized by
the EPA in the 2006 Proposal. Another
commenter on the 2006 Proposal noted
that cleaning verification had never
been employed in a real-world practical
setting. In addition, some of these
commenters contended that the cleaning
verification protocol was too
complicated or too confusing to follow.
A number of commenters who
provided comments in response to
EPA’s request for comments on the
proposed work practices in light of the
Dust Study quoted the sentence in the
conclusion section of EPA’s Dust Study
that states that the cleaning verification
protocol was not always accurate in
identifying the presence of levels above
EPA standards for floors and sills. Some
of these commenters also noted the Dust
Study report’s discussion of factors that
affected the effectiveness of cleaning
verification, such as floor condition,
contractor performance, job type, and
dust particle characteristics. One
commenter observed that while all
interior experiments resulted in final
passed cleaning cloths for all floor zones
and for all windowsills, nearly half of
the experiments in the study ended with
average work room floor lead levels
above EPA’s dust lead hazard standard
for floors of 40 µg/ft2. The Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, while
not asked to comment on the efficacy of
the cleaning verification, contended that
in the Dust Study cleaning verification
did not provide sufficiently reliable
results, leading to an inaccurate
assessment of cleaning efficiency.
EPA disagrees with these
commenters. The Dust Study did
provide a real-world practical setting in
which to assess the use of cleaning
verification. Local renovation
contractors performed actual
renovations for each experiment in the
study. The contractors performed
cleaning verification on floors of wood,
vinyl, or tile, in good, fair, or poor
condition. The Dust Study used the
protocols that were consistent with
those in the 2006 Proposal. While the
Dust Study was not designed
specifically to assess cleaning
verification, it did assess the
effectiveness of cleaning verification
both when it was used as part of the
proposed rule work practices and as a

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

separate step after the other experiments
which did not follow all the proposed
work practices. Each experiment
included a cleaning verification step.
The contractors were instructed in how
to perform cleaning verification. They
independently determined whether
particular cloths matched or were
lighter than the cleaning verification
card. In most renovations not involving
the practices that EPA is prohibiting in
this rule, i.e., power planing (power
sanding) and high temperature heat
guns, cleaning verification in
combination with the other work
practices were effective at reducing dust
lead levels on surfaces to or below the
dust lead hazard standards, regardless of
the condition of the floor. Cleaning
verification, as well as the other
components of the work practices being
finalized today were not effective when
high dust generation practices such as
power planing (including power
sanding) and high temperature heat
guns were used. These practices, as well
as torching, are being prohibited in this
rulemaking. Thus, EPA, in its
determination on the effectiveness of
cleaning verification, is focusing on the
results of the experiments in the Dust
Study that did not involve these
prohibited practices.
Of the 10 experiments in which the
proposed rule practices were used and
in which the practices being prohibited
in this final rule were not used, all final
lead-based paint dust levels were at or
below the regulatory hazard standard
(taking into account the accepted level
of uncertainty, i.e., within plus or minus
20%, which is the performance criteria
for the National Lead Laboratory
Accreditation Program). In fact, four
experiments resulted in levels that were
less than 10 µg/ft2, three resulted in
levels less than 30 µg/ft2, and three
resulted in levels that were
approximately 40 µg/ft2 (all were well
within the level of uncertainty for this
value). In four of the experiments, at
least one floor area failed verification on
the first wet disposable cleaning cloth,
all passed on the second wet cloth. In
one of the experiments, a windowsill
failed the first wet cloth, but passed the
second. These results were seen on
floors in a variety of conditions,
including good, fair and poor
conditions. As a general case, in the
other experiments that did not follow all
the proposed work practices, the use of
cleaning verification after cleaning (both
baseline cleaning and cleaning
following the proposed work practices)
reduced, often significantly, the amount
of lead dust remaining.
EPA agrees with commenters that
cleaning verification should not be used

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for clearance. However, while cleaning
verification is not clearance testing, as
described above the use of cleaning
verification consistently resulted in
levels of lead-based paint dust at or
below the hazard standard Also, the use
of cleaning verification consistently
resulted in lower levels of lead-based
paint dust than remained after all types
of cleaning studied when only followed
by visual inspection. There is sufficient
consistency in the data to support the
use of cleaning verification as an
effective component of the work
practices being finalized today.
In response to the comment that the
Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study used
professional inspectors or other highly
trained individuals following specified
protocols, EPA intends to include
cleaning verification in its training
course for renovators and will use the
results of the Dust Study and the
Agency’s observations on the experience
of the contractors in the study in its
development of this course.
vi. Subjectivity of cleaning
verification. Many commenters objected
to the ‘‘white glove’’ standard as
inherently subjective, and doubted
whether it would be protective. The
commenters were concerned that the
effectiveness of cleaning verification
relies upon a renovation worker’s
understanding and application of the
protocol, ability to define the floor
sampling area or areas, and use of the
cleaning verification card to determine
whether a surface has been adequately
cleaned. One commenter contended
that, based on its experience as a subcontractor to EPA on the Disposable
Cleaning Cloth Study, making the visual
pass/fail determination can be quite
subjective and open to interpretation.
The commenter believes that it may be
unrealistic to expect that renovation
workers will consistently make the
proper decision using the proposed
verification card. Some commenters
speculated that the renovator’s accuracy
in comparing the cleaning cloth to the
verification card could depend on
factors such as the renovator’s visual
acuity, the lighting in the room, or
simply differences in judgment among
renovators. Another commenter thought
that the lack of corrections for surface
conditions, the experience of the person
conducting the visual assessment, or
pre-existing conditions might bias the
results of testing.
EPA agrees that visual comparison of
a cleaning cloth to a cleaning
verification card has an element of
subjectivity because the visual
comparison of cloth to card requires
some exercise of judgment on the part
of the person doing the comparing.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
However, this does not necessarily
mean that the comparison is suspect. As
previously stated, the Dust Study
represents a real-world test of the ability
of renovators to learn how to do
cleaning verification and to apply it in
the field. Although one participant in
the Dust Study expressed concern about
the subjectivity of the test, the fact
remains that cleaning verification was
successfully performed by the
renovation contractors in all of the
experiments involving the work
practices being finalized in this final
rule (excluding those involving power
planing (power sanding) and high
temperature heat guns) and was
predictive of whether renovators had
cleaned-up the lead-based paint hazards
created during the renovation activity to
the dust-lead standard, particularly
when the proposed work practices were
used. These cleaning verifications were
conducted by various persons in various
light conditions and on various surface
conditions. Further, EPA notes that
cleaning verification is not simply
qualitative clearance. Unlike the
sampling for dust clearance testing, the
cleaning verification involves a cleaning
component. The act of doing the
cleaning verification has been shown to
lower, often significantly, the dust lead
levels. Finally, in the development of its
training course for contractors, EPA
plans to use its data on the contractors’
use of cleaning verification in the Dust
Study, including their use of the
cleaning verification cards.
vii. Cost of cleaning verification.
Some commenters were concerned that
the cleaning verification protocols are
too impractical, burdensome, or timeconsuming for many contractors to
perform. However, the Dust Study
found that cleaning verification only
took, on average, slightly less than 13
minutes for experiments where the
proposed rule requirements were
followed. EPA’s Final Economic
Analysis estimates that the average cost
of cleaning verification ranges from less
than $10 to $30 in residences, and in
public and commercial building COFs it
ranges from less than $10 to less than
$50.
viii. Availability of cleaning
verification card. One commenter asked
about the availability of the cleaning
verification card, specifically, who
would produce them, where would they
be available, and how often do they
need to be replaced. EPA intends to
produce the cleaning verification cards
and to make them available at
accredited renovator training courses
and upon request from the National
Lead Information Center.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

ix. Third-parties. Several commenters
argued that a third party should perform
cleaning verification (or visual
inspection, in the case of exterior jobs)
rather than the certified renovator.
Commenters saw a conflict of interest,
since by performing the cleaning
verification the certified renovator is
evaluating the effectiveness of his or her
own work. Some thought the subjective
nature of the method left it open to
misinterpretation or fraud. Commenters
were concerned that given the
competitive pressures of the renovation
industry and lack of independent
oversight, it was not realistic to expect
all renovators to follow the cleaning
verification protocol in good faith.
Others worried that a renovator might
feel pressured to produce a passing
result, perhaps to the point of recording
false results. One commenter stated that
those who would not comply with the
cleaning procedure are unlikely to
comply with cleaning verification.
Again, as described above, EPA
addressed potential conflicts-of-interest
in its lead-based paint program in the
preamble to the final Lead-based Paint
Activities Regulations. That discussion
outlined two reasons for not requiring
that inspections or risk assessments,
abatements, and post-abatement
clearance testing all be performed by
different entities. The first was the cost
savings and convenience of being able
to hire just one firm to perform all
necessary lead-based paint activities.
The second was the potential regional
scarcity of firms to perform the work.
EPA believes that these considerations
may be equally applicable to
renovations, and perhaps more
compelling, given the objective of
keeping this rule simple and relatively
inexpensive. EPA is concerned that a
requirement that contractors engage a
third party for every renovation job will
add undue complication and expense to
home renovations, and that it could
delay completion of renovation jobs.
There are estimated to be 8.4 million
renovation events annually. Moreover,
as stated above, it is not uncommon for
regulated entities to make
determinations relating to their
regulated status. Thus, after weighing
these competing considerations, EPA
has decided to take an approach that is
consistent with the approach taken in
the 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulation and not require third party
visual inspections, testing, or cleaning
verification.
x. Relationship between cleaning
verification and the regulatory leadbased paint hazard standards. Some
commenters contend that cleaning
verification is not protective because it

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21743

was designed to pass based on the
regulatory hazard standard for floors.
These commenters contend that this
level is too high to be protective and
that continuing to use this level is
unwarranted given more recent data that
demonstrates that lead causes
neurocognitive effects at levels much
lower than 10 µg/dL, the current CDC
blood lead level of concern which was
used in establishing the regulatory
hazard standards.
EPA interprets the statutory directive
to take into account safety when
promulgating work practice standards as
meaning that such work practice
standards should be established in
relation to lead-based paint hazards—as
identified pursuant to TSCA section
403. There is no level of lead exposure
that can yet be clearly identified, with
confidence, as clearly not being
associated with potentially increased
risk of deleterious health effects. EPA
does not believe the intent of Congress
was to require elimination of all
possible risk arising from a renovation,
nor is EPA aware of a method that could
reliably and effectively accomplish this.
Given that the hazard standards are the
trigger for regulation under section
402(c)(3) and that they are set through
rulemaking, EPA has concluded that it
makes most sense to use the same
standards as the target level for safe
work practices. Otherwise, the potential
is created for a scheme under which any
renovation activities found not to create
hazards are not regulated at all, whereas
renovation activities found to create
hazards trigger requirements designed to
leave the renovation site cleaner than
the unregulated renovations. Given the
Congressional intent that the section
403 hazard standards apply for purposes
of subchapter IV of TSCA, EPA is
applying them as the target level for safe
work practices, which include the
cleaning verification process, in this
rule.
8. Consistency with HUD. Several
commenters recommended that EPA
adopt HUD’s clearance requirement for
activities other than abatement, which
some commenters noted has been
successfully implemented in projects in
federally assisted housing. One pointed
out that renovators have accepted
HUD’s clearance testing protocol, and
implementing the ‘‘white glove’’ method
will cause confusion in the industry and
give contractors a reason for not
following lead-safe work practices. A
commenter recommended that EPA
adopt HUD’s standard for exterior
clearance of visual inspection of the
work area and a soil test. Commenters
expressed concern that the final rule
could undermine more stringent State

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21744

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

and local standards, and asked EPA to
make clear that more stringent state and
local requirements for clearance would
apply despite the lack of mandatory
clearance in the final rule.
This final regulation does not
supersede more stringent or different
requirements for interim control
projects or renovations regulated by
HUD, the States, or local jurisdictions.
Renovation firms are still responsible
for complying with all applicable
Federal, State, or local laws when
conducting renovations. In some cases,
this may mean that dust clearance
testing must be performed at the
conclusion of a renovation rather than
cleaning verification. EPA believes that
renovation firms will be able to integrate
these new requirements into their
existing business practices with very
little difficulty.
EPA also notes that the scope of the
housing covered by HUD is different
than the scope covered by this final
rule. As noted by the commenter, HUD
covers activities in projects in federally
assisted housing. The occupancy
patterns, including turn-over, will be
different than in the general population
covered by this final rule. While there
is some overlap, there are substantial
differences. Thus, EPA believes that
total consistency with HUD is not
needed.
9. Optional use of clearance. In the
2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to allow
optional dust clearance sampling at the
completion of renovation activities
instead of the post-renovation cleaning
verification described in § 745.85(b).
Some commenters agreed that the
decision whether to perform clearance
at the conclusion of the job should be
left to the homeowner. One commenter
asked EPA to require that, if a resident
arranged for clearance testing and found
lead hazards, the contractor would have
to re-clean to the resident’s satisfaction.
As discussed, dust clearance sampling
and cleaning verification are not
surrogates and EPA is not requiring
renovation firms to perform an
abatement, i.e., eliminate all lead-based
paint hazards, as part of a renovation.
The Dust Study demonstrated that
cleaning verification is quite often
needed to minimize exposure to dustlead hazards created during renovations.
EPA is concerned that if dust clearance
sampling were allowed instead of
cleaning verification, without an
accompanying requirement that the
renovation firm re-clean until clearance
is achieved, the rule would actually be
less protective because the surfaces in
the work area could be left less clean
than if cleaning verification were
performed.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

In response to these comments, EPA
has further considered the issue and
decided to allow dust clearance
sampling instead of cleaning
verification only in certain limited
situations. EPA agrees with the
commenters that, if the rule were to
allow clearance sampling instead of
verification, EPA would have to require
the renovator to achieve clearance,
otherwise, there would be no check on
whether the renovation had been safely
performed. HUD’s Lead Safe Housing
Rule requires clearance to be achieved
in many situations, as do several States.
For example, the State of New Jersey
requires dust clearance sampling and
clearance in certain situations in multiunit rental housing.As noted in Unit
III.G. of this preamble, States,
Territories, and Tribes may choose to
have as protective as or more protective
requirements than this final rule. One
example of a more protective
requirement would be a requirement to
perform dust clearance testing and
achieve clearance after renovations.
Another example may be requiring that
trained renovation workers demonstrate
achievement of clearance levels by other
cleaning verification methods, such as
using newer technologies. If a firm can
demonstrate, for example, using data
obtained in the field, that it regularly
meets the clearance standards without
using the EPA specified approach but
rather by using newer technology or
alternative methods, a State may request
that EPA evaluate such a provision as
being as protective as or more protective
than the methods described in this final
rule.
Therefore, in situations where the
contract between the renovation firm
and the property owner or another
regulation, such as HUD’s Lead-Safe
Housing Rule or a state regulation,
requires dust clearance sampling by a
properly qualified person and requires
the certified renovator or a worker
under the direction of the certified
renovator to re-clean until clearance is
achieved, EPA will allow the renovation
firm to use both dust clearance testing
and clearance instead of the cleaning
verification step.
Property owners in other situations
may still choose to perform dust testing
at any time, such as after a renovation,
including cleaning verification, has
been completed. EPA recommends that
property owners who choose to have
dust testing performed use certified dust
sampling professionals such as
inspectors, risk assessors, or dust
sampling technicians. EPA also
recommends that property owners who
wish to have dust testing performed
after a renovation reach an agreement

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with the renovation firm up front as to
what will happen based on the results
of the dust testing, such as whether
additional cleaning will be performed if
the surfaces do not achieve the
clearance standards in 40 CFR
745.227(e)(8)(viii).
F. Recordkeeping for Renovation Firms
1. Recordkeeping—a. Pre-renovation
education. 40 CFR 745.86 already
requires that persons performing
renovations in target housing document
compliance with the lead hazard
information distribution provisions of
the Pre-Renovation Education Rule.
Consistent with the 2006 Proposal, this
final rule deletes existing 40 CFR 745.88
because it contains only sample
acknowledgment statements for the
purpose of documenting compliance
with the information distribution
requirements and is thus unnecessary.
EPA received no comments on this
proposed deletion. In addition, EPA
received no substantive comments on
the sample acknowledgment form
provided with the proposed rule. New
sample acknowledgment forms
incorporating language consistent with
this final rule and reflecting commenter
editorial suggestions are available on
EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/
lead and from the National Lead
Information Center at 1-(800)-424-LEAD
(5323).
In addition, as proposed in the 2006
Proposal, EPA has modified paragraph
(a) of 40 CFR 745.86 to make
compliance with the recordkeeping
requirements the responsibility of the
renovation firm, not the certified
renovator. Although, as discussed
below, this final rule requires the
certified renovator assigned to a
renovation to certify compliance with
the work practice requirements for that
renovation, the renovation firm may
choose to delegate other tasks associated
with recordkeeping requirements to
someone other than a certified
renovator. For example, this rule does
not require a certified renovator to
distribute lead hazard information to
owners and occupants before a
renovation, nor does it require a
certified renovator to obtain the
necessary acknowledgment statements
or certified mail receipts. The
renovation firm may decide that it is
more efficient to have someone other
than the certified renovator perform
these tasks.
As described in Unit III.B.2. of this
preamble, this final rule expands the
information distribution requirements to
renovations in child-occupied facilities.
In proposing this expansion, the 2007
Supplemental Proposal included

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
associated recordkeeping requirements
for firms performing renovations in
child-occupied facilities. Although EPA
did receive comments on extending the
information distribution requirements to
child-occupied facilities, none of these
comments specifically addressed the
recordkeeping provisions themselves.
EPA has determined that the
recordkeeping requirements are an
important part of monitoring
compliance with and ensuring the
effectiveness of the information
distribution provisions of this rule.
Therefore, this final rule retains the
existing recordkeeping requirements for
pre-renovation lead hazard information
distribution in target housing and
extends those recordkeeping
requirements to renovations in childoccupied facilities. Firms performing
renovations in target housing or childoccupied facilities must obtain and
retain signed and dated
acknowledgements of receipt of the lead
hazard information from building
owners or a certificate of mailing for
such information. In addition,
renovation firms must obtain and retain
signed and dated acknowledgments of
receipt from the occupant (the resident
of the housing unit being renovated or
the proprietor of the child-occupied
facility) or certificates of mailing for
such information, or the firm must
prepare a certification that documents
the attempts made to provide this
information to the occupants. For
renovations in common areas in target
housing, the firm must also document
the steps taken to provide information
to the tenants with access to the
common area being renovated. Finally,
firms performing renovations in childoccupied facilities must take steps to
provide information to the parents and
guardians of children under age 6 using
the facility. Firms may do this by either
mailing each parent or guardian the lead
hazard information pamphlet and a
general description of the renovation or
by posting informational signs where
parents and guardians are likely to see
them. Informational signs must be
accompanied by a posted copy of the
pamphlet or information on how to
obtain the pamphlet at no charge to
interested parents or guardians. The
firm’s activities with respect to parents
and guardians must also be
documented.
b. Documentation of compliance with
other regulatory provisions. This final
rule provides for a number of
exceptions. Unit III.A.3. of this
preamble describes an exception for
renovations in owner-occupied target
housing that is neither the residence of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

a child under age 6 or apregnant
woman, nor a child-occupied facility. In
order for a renovation to be eligible for
this exception, the renovation firm must
obtain a signed statement from the
owner of the housing to the effect that
he or she is the owner of the housing to
be renovated, that he or she resides in
the housing to be renovated, that no
child under 6 or no pregnant woman
resides there, that the housing is not a
child-occupied facility, and that the
owner acknowledges that the work
practices to be used during the
renovation will not necessarily include
all of the work practices contained in
EPA’s renovation, repair, and painting
rule. Consistent with the 2006 Proposal
and the 2007 Supplemental Proposal,
this final rule requires renovation firms
to maintain this signed statement,
which must include the address of the
housing being renovated, for 3 years
after the completion of the renovation.
Again, although EPA received
comments on the merits of this
exception, no comments were directed
specifically to the recordkeeping
requirement. EPA has determined that
the recordkeeping requirement is
necessary to allow EPA to monitor
compliance with the terms of this
exception.
This final rule also requires firms
performing renovations to retain
documentation of compliance with the
work practices and other requirements
of the rule. Specifically, the firm must
document that a certified renovator was
assigned to the project, that the certified
renovator provided on-the-job training
for workers used on the project, that the
certified renovator performed or
directed workers who performed the
tasks required by this final rule, and that
the certified renovator performed the
post-renovation cleaning verification.
This documentation must include a
copy of the certified renovator’s training
certificate. Finally, the documentation
must include a certification by the
certified renovator that the work
practices were followed with narration
as applicable. The certification must
include the specific information listed
in § 745.86(b)(7). The firm must keep
this information for 3 years after the
completion of the renovation.
The 2006 Proposal also included a
requirement that renovation firms
maintain documentation of compliance
with the renovator and worker training
requirements and the work practice
requirements. This documentation
would have had to include signed and
dated descriptions of how activities
performed by the certified renovator
were conducted in compliance with the
proposed requirements. To demonstrate

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21745

how these recordkeeping requirements
might be met, EPA prepared and placed
into the docket a draft recordkeeping
checklist.
EPA received many comments on the
substance of these recordkeeping
requirements and on the draft
recordkeeping checklist. Some
commenters thought that the purpose of
the recordkeeping requirement should
be to provide important information to
consumers or to serve as part of the
record of whether a particular structure
was lead-safe. Some, but not all of these
commenters suggested that there was no
need for the renovation firm to retain
the records it prepares. Rather, the
records should be given to the owners
and occupants of the building either
before or after the renovation. However,
as proposed, the recordkeeping
requirement served two purposes. The
first is to allow EPA or an authorized
State to review a renovation firm’s
compliance with the substantive
requirements of the regulation through
reviewing the records maintained for all
of the renovation jobs the firm has done.
The second is to remind a renovation
firm what it must do to comply. EPA
envisioned that renovation firms would
use the recordkeeping requirements and
checklist as an aid to make sure that
they have done everything that they are
required to do for a particular
renovation. For these two purposes,
there is no substitute for recordkeeping
by renovation firms.
However, EPA agrees with those
commenters that felt that the
recordkeeping requirements were vague,
particularly in light of the draft
recordkeeping checklist itself and the
amount of time that EPA estimated it
would take a renovation firm to
complete the checklist. Many
commenters said that it was unclear
how much detail EPA would be looking
for in descriptions of how the firm
complied with the various work
practices, and some noted that an
extensive narrative would contribute no
more to compliance or enforcement than
a box checked to indicate that the
requirements had been complied with.
In response to these commenters, EPA
has revised that draft recordkeeping
checklist to be more in the nature of a
checklist, with a certification that the
representations on the form are true and
correct. Narrative information is still
required where necessary, such as an
identification of the brand of test kits
used, the locations where they were
used, and the results. EPA has also
revised the regulatory text to describe
the specific information that must be
provided and the specific items for
which a certification of compliance is

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21746

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

required. The regulatory text at 40 CFR
745.86(b)(7) now contains a list of work
practice elements that must be certified
as having been performed. In response
to two commenters that suggested that
the only person truly capable of
certifying that the lead-safe work
practices were followed on a particular
job would be the certified renovator
assigned to that job, EPA is requiring the
certification to be completed by the
certified renovator assigned to the
renovation. EPA has determined that a
review of the records maintained by
renovation firms will be an effective
method of determining whether a
particular firm is generally complying
with the regulations or not.
2. Notification to EPA. In the 2006
Proposal, EPA requested comment on,
but did not propose, a requirement that
renovation firms notify EPA before
beginning a covered renovation project.
Most commenters supported a
notification requirement, arguing
notifications would provide information
to EPA about where renovation
activities will be occuring, so EPA could
inspect ongoing renovation projects for
compliance with the requirements of
this rule. These commenters stated that
EPA would be unable to enforce the
requirements of the rule without a
notification provision. Some
commenters also suggested that the act
of informing EPA of their activities
provides a powerful incentive for
renovation firms to comply. Other
commenters observed that prior
notification for every covered
renovation would be too burdensome
for the regulated community and for the
Agency. Some of these commenters
suggested that notifications only be
required for renovations involving highrisk methods, housing where a child
under age 6 or a pregnant woman
resides, or renovations involving
multiple rooms in a housing unit.
This final rule does not include a
prior notification requirement. EPA
disagrees with the notion that there is
no way to enforce this regulation
without a prior notification
requirement. As stated above in the
discussion on recordkeeping, EPA
believes that a review of a renovation
firm’s records will demonstrate whether
or not a renovation firm generally
complies with the regulations. In
addition, as at least one commenter
noted, many renovations require a
building permit from the local
permitting authority. EPA can work
with the local authorities to identify
inspection targets. EPA can also follow
up on tips and complaints.
EPA agrees with those commenters
that believe that prior notification for

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

every project is simply too burdensome
for the regulated community and for the
Agency. If the streamlined, telephonebased system recommended by some of
the commenters were implemented, it
would reduce the initial burden on the
renovation firms. However, EPA would
still have to process millions of such
notifications annually, and the
collective burden on renovation firms
and the government would be
considerable. Rather than require
millions of notifications annually, the
great majority of which would never be
reviewed, EPA prefers to use other
methods for targeting renovation
projects for inspections.
An initially attractive option
considered by EPA was a prior
notification requirement for a subset of
covered renovation projects. This option
could potentially reduce the
notifications received to a manageable
level, while preserving the benefits of a
prior notification requirement, but EPA
was unable to develop appropriate
criteria for defining which renovations
would require prior notification. EPA
considered requiring prior notification
for renovations using certain high-risk
practices, the practices prohibited by
the HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule and
EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations. However, EPA ultimately
decided, as described in Unit III.E.6. of
this preamble, to prohibit most of those
practices for covered renovations.
Requiring prior notifications only for
renovations in housing where a child
under age 6 resides and in childoccupied facilities would not
significantly reduce the notifications
that would be required. EPA determined
that a prior notification requirement tied
to project size would not be feasible or
effective, because the hazard potential
from a renovation job is a combination
of the size of the project and the activity
being performed.
With regard to the compliance
mindset mentioned by some
commenters, EPA believes that the
recordkeeping requirements are a less
burdensome way to achieve the same
goal. In fact, a prior notification
requirement could lead to EPA targeting
for inspection those persons who are
most likely to be making an effort to
comply with the substantive
requirements of the regulation. The
person who would not bother to comply
with the substantive provisions of this
rule would most likely avoid filing a
prior notification to EPA before
beginning a covered renovation, repair,
or painting project. These persons are
more likely to be performing
renovations in a non-compliant manner
than are persons who have complied

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with a prior notification requirement
and told EPA where to find them.
EPA has therefore determined that a
prior notification requirement is not an
effective or efficient means of
facilitating the monitoring of
compliance with this regulation. States,
Territories, and Tribes developing their
own renovation, repair, and painting
programs may come to a different
conclusion. These jurisdictions are free
to establish prior notification schemes
that make sense for their community.
G. State, Territorial, and Tribal
Programs
1. In general. Because of the
enormous number of renovation
activities that occur in this country on
an annual basis, EPA welcomes the help
of its State, Territorial, and Tribal
partners to ensure that these renovations
are performed by trained persons in
accordance with this final rule. This
final rule establishes, in accordance
with TSCA section 404 and EPA’s
Policy for the Administration of
Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations (Ref. 46), requirements for
the authorization of State, Territorial,
and Tribal renovation, repair, and
painting programs. The process for
obtaining authorization to operate these
programs in lieu of the Federal program
is the same process used to authorize
State, Territorial, and Tribal lead-Based
Paint Activity or Pre-Renovation
Education programs found in 40 CFR
part 745, subpart Q.
Interested States, Territories, and
Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive
authorization to, administer and enforce
all of the elements of the new subpart
E, as amended. States, Territories and
Tribes may choose to administer and
enforce just the existing requirements of
subpart E, the pre-renovation education
elements, or all of the requirements of
the proposed subpart E, as amended.
The 2006 Proposal and the 2007
Supplemental Proposal would not have
provided for the authorization of State,
Territorial, or Tribal programs that
include only the training, certification,
accreditation, and work practice
requirements for renovation, repair, and
painting programs and not the prerenovation education provisions of
subpart E. EPA proposed this approach
because the Agency believes that the
pre-renovation education provisions are
an integral part of ensuring that
consumers have the information they
need to make informed decisions about
renovation practices in their homes and
other buildings. In addition, consistent
with the proposals, this final rule
encourage renovation firms to use the
existing pamphlet acknowledgment

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
process to provide owner-occupants of
target housing with the opportunity to
opt out of the training, certification, and
work practice requirements of the rule
if they reside in the housing to be
renovated, there is no child under age
6 orpregnant woman in residence, the
housing does not otherwise meet the
definition of child-occupied facility,
and the owner acknowledges that the
work practices to be used during the
renovation will not necessarily include
all of the lead-safe work practices
contained in EPA’s renovation, repair,
and painting rule.
One State commenter disagreed with
EPA’s proposed approach and requested
that EPA authorize State, Territorial or
Tribal programs that incorporate only
the training, certification, accreditation,
and work practices of this final rule
because TSCA section 404 allows states
to administer and enforce the standards,
regulations, or other requirements
established under TSCA section 402 or
TSCA section 406 or both. EPA agrees
with this commenter’s reading of TSCA.
Therefore, this final rule provides for
the authorization of State, Territorial, or
Tribal programs that include either the
pre-renovation education requirements
of 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, or the
training, certification, accreditation and
work practice requirements of this rule,
or both.
States, Territories, and Tribes that
wish to administer and enforce the prerenovation education provisions of
subpart E, as amended, must include
both target housing and child-occupied
facilities within the scope of their
program. Similarly, States, Territories,
and Tribes that are also interested in
obtaining authorization to administer
and enforce the training, certification,
accreditation, work practice, and
recordkeeping elements of subpart E, as
amended, must include both target
housing and child-occupied facilities
within the scope of their program. States
with existing authorized pre-renovation
education programs are required to
demonstrate that they have modified
their programs to include childoccupied facilities. These States must
provide this demonstration no later than
the first report submitted pursuant to 40
CFR 745.324(h) on or after April 22,
2009.
2. Process. The authorization process
currently codified at 40 CFR part 745,
subpart Q, will be used for the purpose
of authorizing State, Territorial, and
Tribal renovation, repair, and painting
programs. States, Territories, and Tribes
seeking authority for their programs
must obtain public input, then submit
an application to EPA. Applications
must contain a number of items,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

including a description of the State,
Territorial, or Tribal program, copies of
all applicable statutes, regulations, and
standards, and a certification by the
State Attorney General, Tribal Counsel,
or an equivalent official, that the
applicable legislation and regulations
provide adequate legal authority to
administer and enforce the program.
The program description must
demonstrate that the State, Territorial,
or Tribal program is at least as
protective as the Federal program. In
this case, the Federal program consists
of the requirements for training,
certification, and accreditation and the
work practice standards of this final
rule.
One commenter suggested that EPA
require States with a currently
authorized TSCA 402(a) lead-based
paint activities program to submit only
an amended application for
incorporating the TSCA section
402(c)(3) renovation, repair, and
painting program requirements since
many of the required documents would
be the same as those submitted for the
original TSCA 402(a) application.
Furthermore, the commenter
recommended that a letter from the
State agency identified in the original
402(a) authorization application with a
synopsis detailing how the State
proposes to administer and enforce the
renovation, repair, and painting
program serve as an amended
application. EPA has determined that a
new application for authorization for
the renovation, repair, and painting
program is necessary because there may
be a different State agency or consortia
of agencies implementing and enforcing
this program, a long time may have
elapsed since most States submitted
their TSCA section 402(a) program
application, and many of the
requirements within the elements of the
renovation, repair, and painting
program differ from their counterparts
in the lead-based paint activities
program.
To be eligible for authorization to
administer and enforce the training,
certification, accreditation, and work
practice requirements of this final rule,
State, Territorial, and Tribal renovation
programs must contain certain
minimum elements, e.g., work practice
standards and procedures and
requirements for the certification of
individuals and/or firms, that are very
similar to the existing minimum
elements specified in 40 CFR 745.326(a)
for lead-based paint activities programs.
In order to be authorized, State,
Territorial, or Tribal programs must
have procedures and requirements for
the accreditation of training programs,

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21747

which can be as simple as procedures
for accepting training provided by an
EPA-accredited provider, or a provider
accredited by another authorized State,
Territorial, or Tribal program.
Procedures and requirements for the
certification of renovators are also
necessary. At a minimum, these must
include a requirement that certified
renovators have taken accredited
training, and procedures and
requirements for re-certification. State,
Territorial, and Tribal programs
applying for authorization must also
include work practice standards for
renovations that ensure that renovations
are conducted only by certified
renovation firms and the renovations are
conducted using work practices at least
as protective as those of the Federal
program. As is the current practice with
lead-based paint activities, EPA will not
require State, Territorial, or Tribal
programs to certify both firms and
individuals that perform renovations.
States, Territories and Tribes may
choose to certify either firms or
individuals, so long as the individuals
that perform the duties of renovators are
required to take accredited training.
3. Implementation. In order to provide
interested States, Territories and Tribes
time to develop, or begin developing
renovation, repair, and painting
programs in accordance with this rule,
EPA will not begin to actively
implement the Federal program until
April 22, 2009, at which time EPA will
begin accepting applications for training
program accreditation. Several
commenters thought 1 year would be
adequate for the purpose of allowing
States, Territories, and Tribes to develop
their own programs, while others
expressed concern that 1 year would not
be enough time to get these programs
developed and authorized. Most
commenters who expressed an opinion
on this topic generally agreed that an
implementation delay is necessary.
Reasons given in support of a delay
were conservation of State financial and
administrative resources and the fact
that some States have had difficulties in
retraining contractors to new Statespecific requirements after the
contractors had become accustomed to
working under the Federal program. In
contrast, some commenters argued that,
in light of the 2010 goal, no delay
whatsoever was warranted. This final
rule retains the 1 year implementation
delay set forth in the 2006 Proposal.
EPA has determined that this period of
time represents an appropriate balance
between the need to implement this rule
quickly and concerns over potential
duplication of effort and additional

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21748

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

costs incurred by the regulated
community if EPA begins accrediting
training providers and certifying firms
in jurisdictions that are also working
towards implementing their own
programs. States, Territories, and Tribes
may begin the authorization process at
any time after the effective date of this
final rule, even after the Federal
program has been implemented in their
jurisdiction.
Some commenters were concerned
about the effect of this rule on existing
State programs. Several commenters
asked EPA to expressly state that this
rule does not pre-empt existing State
programs and that State programs that
are more stringent than the Federal
program will be eligible for
authorization. One commenter noted
that the number of houses with lead
contaminated paint is
disproportionately distributed
throughout the U.S. This commenter
pointed out that this apparent disparity
supports the need for State control of
lead programs and for EPA to practice
‘‘regulatory restraint.’’ According to this
commenter, this ‘‘regulatory restraint’’
will allow States with more severe lead
paint problems to impose stricter
standards and requirements regarding
certification and work practices without
imposing unnecessary burdens on States
with less severe problems.
This final rule does not preempt
existing programs that address
renovations. However, to the extent that
these programs are less protective than
the requirements of this final rule, the
requirements of this final rule will
apply. To be eligible for authorization,
State, Territorial, and Tribal programs
need not exactly duplicate the Federal
program contained in this final rule, but
they must still meet the requirement of
TSCA section 404 that they be ‘‘at least
as protective as’’ the Federal program. It
would be difficult for the Agency to
describe specific requirements that
would make a program more or less
‘‘protective.’’ EPA will review each
program application separately against
the protections provided by this final
rule.
Several commenters expressed
concern regarding the uniformity and
consistency of State programs. Some
recommended that EPA take States’
concerns into account, but guarantee
uniformity of State programs by
prohibiting States from arbitrarily
deviating from program elements.
Others noted that if there are uniform
regulations for approved training
courses for State certification, there
should be reciprocity between States
since many people work in multiple
States. One commenter suggested that,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

in an effort to promote consistency,
States institute a lead-safety test that
renovators must pass prior to receiving
permits to conduct work. Several
commenters noted that a lack of
reciprocity between States and/or
duplicative or divergent certification
requirements will add an unnecessary
burden and level of complexity for
renovation and remodeling firms,
especially those working in multi-State
areas. One commenter argued that this
could lead to a problem in maintaining
certifications similar to the problem the
commenter believes exists in
maintaining lead-based paint inspector,
risk assessor, and other certifications
associated with TSCA section 402
abatements. One suggested that EPA
should exert control over the right to
refuse approval of State programs unless
they provide for reciprocity with the
Federal program and programs of other
jurisdictions approved by EPA.
The standard of EPA review for State,
Territorial, and Tribal programs under
TSCA section 404 is that they be ‘‘at
least as protective’’ as the Federal
program. In addition, TSCA section 404
(e) reserves the right of States and their
political subdivisions to impose
requirements that are more stringent
than the Federal program. EPA
interprets this to mean that EPA cannot
compel States, Territories, and Tribes to
adopt programs identical to the Federal
program or to establish reciprocity
provisions. However, EPA continues to
encourage States, Territories, and Tribes
that may be considering establishing
their own renovation programs to keep
reciprocity in mind as they move
forward. The benefits to be derived from
reciprocity arrangements with the
Federal program and other authorized
jurisdictions include potential costsavings from reducing duplicative
activity and the development of a
professional renovation workforce more
quickly, thus providing maximum
flexibility to State, Territorial, or Tribal
residents. In addition, the Agency
encourages States, Territories and Tribes
to consider the use of existing
certification and accreditation
procedures as they develop their
programs. These existing programs need
not be limited to lead-based paint. For
example, a State may choose to add
lead-safe renovation requirements to
their existing contractor licensing
programs.
H. Effective Date and Implementation
Dates
This final rule is effective on June 23,
2008. This final rule will be
implemented according to the following
schedule:

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1. As of June 23, 2008.
a. States, Territories, and Tribes may
begin applying for authorization to
administer and enforce their own
renovation, repair, and painting
programs. EPA will begin authorizing
States, Territories, and Tribes as soon as
it receives their complete applications.
b. No training program may provide,
offer, or claim to provide training or
refresher training for EPA certification
as a renovator or a dust sampling
technician without accreditation from
EPA under 40 CFR 745.225.
2. As of April 22, 2009. Training
programs for renovators or dust
sampling technicians may begin
applying for accreditation under 40 CFR
745.225. EPA will begin accrediting
training programs as soon as it receives
complete applications from training
providers. Individuals who wish to
become certified renovators or dust
sampling technicians may begin taking
accredited training as soon as it is
available.
3. As of October 22, 2009. Renovation
firms may begin applying for
certification under 40 CFR 745.89. EPA
will begin certifying renovation firms as
soon as it receives their complete
applications.
4. As of April 22, 2010. The rule will
be fully implemented.
a. No firm may perform, offer, or
claim to perform renovations without
certification from EPA under 40 CFR
745.89 in target housing or childoccupied facilities, unless, in the case of
owner-occupied target housing, the firm
has obtained a statement signed by the
owner that the renovation will occur in
the owner’s residence, no child under
age 6 resides there, the housing is not
a child-occupied facility, and the owner
acknowledges that the work practices to
be used during the renovation will not
necessarily include all of the lead-safe
work practices contained in EPA’s
renovation, repair, and painting rule.
b. All renovations must be directed by
renovators certified in accordance with
40 CFR 745.90(a) and performed by
certified renovators or individuals
trained in accordance with 40 CFR
745.90(b)(2) in target housing or childoccupied facilities, unless, in the case of
owner-occupied target housing, the firm
performing the renovation has obtained
a statement signed by the owner that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence, no child under age 6 resides
there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner
acknowledges that the work practices to
be used during the renovation will not
necessarily include all of the lead-safe
work practices contained in EPA’s
renovation, repair, and painting rule.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

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

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

c. All renovations must be performed
in accordance with the work practice
standards in 40 CFR 745.85 and the
associated recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) in
target housing or child-occupied
facilities, unless, in the case of owneroccupied target housing, the firm
performing the renovation has obtained
a statement signed by the owner that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence, no child under age 6 resides
there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner
acknowledges that the work practices to
be used during the renovation will not
necessarily include all of the lead-safe
work practices contained in EPA’s
renovation, repair, and painting rule.
With respect to the new renovationspecific pamphlet and the requirements
of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule,
as of the effective date of the rule June
23, 2008, renovators or renovation firms
performing renovations in States and
Indian Tribal areas without an
authorized Pre-Renovation Education
Rule program may provide owners and
occupants with either of the following
EPA pamphlets: Protect Your Family
From Lead in Your Home; or Renovate
Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools. As of December
22, 2008, Renovate Right: Important
Lead Hazard Information for Families,
Child Care Providers and Schools must
be used exclusively.
IV. References
The following is a list of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this final rule and placed
in the public docket that was
established under Docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. For
information on accessing the docket,
refer to the ADDRESSES unit at the
beginning of this document.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). Air Quality Criteria
for Lead (September 29, 2006).
2. President’s Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children. Eliminating
Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards
(February 2000).
3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program; Proposed Rule.
Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January
10, 2006).
4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for
Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule.
Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August
29, 1996).
5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for
Accreditation of Training Programs and
Certification of Lead-based Paint

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

Activities Contractors; Final Rule.
Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9,
1999).
6. USEPA. Lead; Notification
Requirements for Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Activities and Training;
Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR
18489, April 8, 2004).
7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead
in Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June
2003).
8. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for
Hazard Education Before Renovation of
Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal
Register (63 FR 29907, June 1, 1998).
9. USEPA. Lead; Identification of
Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule.
Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5,
2001).
10. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards
When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747K-97-001, September 1997).
11. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field
Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007,
May 1997).
12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase II, Worker
Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
(EPA 747-R-96-006, May 1997).
13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin
Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747R-99-002, March 1999).
14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated
With Renovation and Remodeling
Activities: Phase IV, Worker
Characterization and Blood-Lead Study
of R&R Workers Who Specialize in
Renovation of Old or Historic Homes
(EPA 747-R-99-001, March 1999).
15. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program; Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal
Register (72 FR 31022, June 5, 2007).
16. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program; Notice of
Availability. Federal Register (72 FR
12582, March 16, 2007).
17. USEPA. Characterization of Dust
Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair,
And Painting Activities. (November 13,
2007).
18. USEPA. Lead Safety for
Remodeling, Repair, And Painting. Joint
EPA/HUD Renovation Training
Curriculum (EPA 747-B-03-001/2, July
2003).
19. National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB). Lead Safe Work
Practices Survey Project Report.
Prepared by Atrium Environmental

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21749

Health and Safety Services (November
9, 2006).
20. McMillan Associates. Response to
SBREFA Panel Recommendations for
Further Analysis of Existing Phase III
Data (August 6, 2001).
21. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), U.S. Public
Health Service (PHS), CDC. Children
with Elevated Blood Lead Levels
Attributed to Home Renovation and
Remolding Activities--New York, 19931994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January 3,
1997).
22. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D.
Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B.
Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ‘‘Is
Home Renovation or Repair a Risk
Factor for Exposure to Lead Among
Children Residing in New York City?’’
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the
New York Academy of Medicine. Vol.
79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005).
23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for
Lead-based Paint Activities; Proposed
Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 45872,
September 2, 1994).
24. USEPA. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
‘‘Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead
Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program Final Rule for Target Housing
and Child-Occupied Facilities’’ (March
2008).
25. S. Rep. 102-332, P.L. 102-550,
Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992 (July 23, 1992).
26. National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST). Spot Test Kits
for Detecting Lead in Household Paint,
a Laboratory Evaluation (NISTIR 6398,
May 2000).
27. HUD. National Survey of Lead and
Allergens in Housing, Volume I:
Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report,
Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002).
28. ASTM International. Standard
Practice for Evaluating the Performance
Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical
Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint (E 182801).
29. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint PreRenovation Education Rule; Interpretive
Guidance, Part I (May 28, 1999).
30. USEPA and HUD. Lead;
Requirements for Disclosure of
Information Concerning Lead-Based
Paint in Housing; Final Rule. Federal
Register (61 FR 9064, March 6, 1996).
31. USEPA, HUD. Renovate Right:
Important Lead Hazard Information for
Families, Child Care Providers and
Schools. (March 2008).
32. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint PreRenovation Education Rule; Interpretive
Guidance, Part II (October 15, 1999).

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21750

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

33. USEPA. Lead Sampling
Technician Course (EPA 747-B-00-002,
July 2000).
34. HUD. Guidelines for the
Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based
Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995).
35. USEPA. Lead Dust Minimization
Work Practices for Renovation,
Remodeling and Repainting; Draft
Technical Manual (September 29, 1998).
36. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH). Health Hazard Evaluation;
Rhode Island Department of Health;
HETA 96-0200-2799 (June 2000).
37. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and
Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential
Housing (September 2005).
38. United States Department of
Energy. Office of Health, Safety and
Security. http://www.hss.energy.gov/
csa/csp/hepa.
39. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Department of
Labor (DOL). Regulatory Flexibility Act
Review of the Occupational Safety
Standard for Lead in Construction Labor
(72 FR 54826, September 27, 2007).
40. Rich, David Q. George G. Rhoads,
Lih-Ming Yiin, Junfeng Zhang, Zhipeng
Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, and
Paul J. Lioy. ‘‘Comparison of Home Lead
Dust Reduction Techniques on Hard
Surfaces: the New Jersey Assessment of
Cleaning Techniques Trial.’’
Environmental Health Perspectives
110(9): 889-893 (September 2002).
41. HUD. Evaluation of Household
Vacuum Cleaners in the Removal of
Settled Lead Dust from Hard Surface
Floors. (December 27, 2002, revised
February 2006).
42. Lih-Ming Yiin, George G. Rhoads,
David Q. Rich, Junfeng Zhang, Zhipeng
Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, and
Paul J. Lioy. ‘‘Comparison of
Techniques to Reduce Residential Lead
Dust on Carpet and Upholstery: the New
Jersey Assessment of Cleaning
Techniques Trial.’’ Environmental
Health Perspectives 110(12): 1233-1237.
(December 2002).
43. Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC). ‘‘Effectiveness of
Clean up Techniques for Leaded Paint
Dust.’’ (1992).
44. USEPA. A Comparison of PostRenovation and Remodeling Surface
Cleaning Techniques. Prepared by
Clemson Environmental Technologies
Laboratory (December 14, 2001)
45. CMHC. ‘‘Evaluation of the
Cleanup of Lead Paint Dust In Houses.’’
Prepared by Pinchin Environmental
Consultants (1995).
46. USEPA. EPA Policy for the
Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations
(November 8, 1984).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

47. USEPA. ICR Final Rule
Addendum for rulemaking entitled
‘‘Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program; Final Rule’’ (March 2008).
48 USEPA. Report of the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel on the
Lead-based Paint Certification and
Training; Renovation and Remodeling
Requirements (March 3, 2000).
49. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for the Lead; Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program; Final
Rule (March 2008).
50. ASTM International. Standard
Practice for Clearance Examinations
Following Lead Hazard Reduction
Activities in Single-Family Dwellings
and Child-Occupied Facilities (E 227105).
51. ASTM International. Standard
Guide for Evaluation, Management, and
Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E
2052-99).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
it has been determined that this rule is
a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order
because EPA estimates that it will have
an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Accordingly, this
action was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866
and any changes made based on OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the public docket for
this rulemaking as required by section
6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.
In addition, EPA has prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this
rulemaking. This analysis is contained
in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 24),
which is available in the docket for this
action and is briefly summarized here.
1. Types of facilities. This rule applies
to an estimated 37.8 million pre-1978
facilities. Of these, approximately 37.7
million facilities are located in target
housing, either in rental housing,
owner-occupied housing where a child
under age 6 resides, or owner-occupied
housing where no child under age 6
resides but that otherwise meets the
definition of a child-occupied facility.
Approximately 100,000 facilities are
child-occupied facilities in pre-1978
public or commercial buildings.
2. Options evaluated. EPA considered
a variety of options for addressing the
risks presented by renovation, repair,
and painting actions where lead-based

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

paint is present. The Economic Analysis
analyzed several different options for
the scope of the rule, which would limit
the coverage of the rule’s substantive
provisions depending on when the
facility was built (such as pre-1960 or
pre-1978), and whether or not there are
children under the age of 6 or a
pregnant woman residing in owneroccupied housing. In some options,
coverage of the rule was phased in over
time. EPA also considered different
options for work practices, such as
containment, cleaning, and cleaning
verification.
3. Number of events and individuals
affected. In the first year that all of the
rule requirements will be in effect, there
will be an estimated 8.4 million
renovation, repair, and painting events
where lead-safe work practices will be
used due to the rule. As a result, there
will be approximately 1.4 million
children under the age of 6 who will be
affected by having their exposure to lead
dust minimized due to the rule. There
will also be about 5.4 million adults
who will be affected. After improved
test kits for determining whether a
painted surface contains lead-based
paint become available (which is
assumed in the analysis to occur by the
second year of the rule), the number of
renovation, repair, and painting events
using lead-safe work practices is
expected to drop to 4.4 million events
per year. No change in the number of
exposures avoided due to the rule is
expected because the improved test kit
will more accurately identify paint
without lead, thus reducing the number
of events unnecessarily using the
required work practices.
4. Benefits. The Economic Analysis
describes the estimated benefits of the
rulemaking in qualitative and
quantitative terms. Benefits result from
the prevention of adverse health effects
attributable to lead exposure. These
health effects include impaired
cognitive function in children and
several illnesses in children and adults.
EPA estimated the benefits of avoided
incidence of IQ loss due to reduced lead
exposure to children under the age of 6.
There are not sufficient data at this time
to develop dose-response functions for
other health effects in children or for
pregnant women. The benefits of
avoided exposure to adults were not
quantified due to uncertainties about
the exposure of adults to lead in dust
from renovation, repair, and painting
activities in these facilities.
The rule is estimated to result in
quantified benefits of approximately
$700 million to $1,700 million in the
first year. The 50–year annualized
benefits provide a measure of the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
steady-state benefits. The quantified IQ
benefits to children are expected to be
approximately $700 million to $1,700
million per year when annualized using
a 3% discount rate, and $700 million to
$1,800 million per year when using a
7% discount rate. The estimated
benefits for the other scope options
range from approximately $300 million
to $1,700 million using a 3% discount
rate and from $300 million to $1,800
million using a 7% discount rate. The
benefits from prohibiting certain paint
preparation and removal practices in
renovations requiring lead-safe work
practices under the rule are estimated to
be $400 million to $900 million per year
using a 3% discount rate. There are
additional unquantified benefits,
including other avoided health effects in
children and adults.
5. Costs. The Economic Analysis
estimates the costs of complying with
the rule. Costs may be incurred by
contractors that perform renovation,
repair, and painting work for
compensation, landlords that use their
own staff to perform renovation, repair,
and painting work in leased buildings;
and child-occupied facilities that use
their own staff to perform renovation,
repair, and painting work.
The rule is estimated to result in a
total cost of approximately $800 million
in the first year that all of the rule
requirements will be in effect. The cost
is estimated to drop to approximately
$400 million per year in the second year
when the improved test kits are
assumed to become available. The 50–
year annualized costs provide a measure
of the steady-state cost. Annualized
costs of the rule are estimated to be
approximately $400 million per year
using either a 3% discount rate or a 7%
discount rate. Annualized costs for the
other scope options range from
approximately $300 million to
approximately $700 million per year
using a 3% discount rate and $400
million to $700 million per year using
a 7% discount rate. The cost of
prohibiting certain paint preparation
and removal practices is estimated to
cost less than $10 million per year using
either a 3% or a 7% discount rate
6. Net benefits. Net benefits are the
difference between benefits and costs.
The rule is estimated to result in net
benefits of--$50 million to $1,000
million in the first year, based on
children’s IQ benefits alone. The 50–
year annualized net benefits for the rule
based on children’s benefits are
estimated to be $300 million to $1,300
million per year using either a 3% or a
7% discount rate. The annualized net
benefits for the other scope options
range from approximately--$50 million

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

to $1,300 million per year using either
a 3% or a 7% discount rate. The net
benefits of prohibiting certain paint
preparation and removal practices for
renovations requiring lead-safe work
practices are estimated to be
approximately $400 million to $900
million per year using either a 3% or a
7% discount rate. There are additional
unquantified benefits, including other
avoided health effects in children and
adults that are not included in the net
benefits estimates.
It is important to note that the EPA
analysis generates certain results that
seem to indicate that more stringent
control options yield smaller
improvements reducing the risks of
elevated blood lead levels in children
than do less stringent control options.
For example, the analysis estimates that
using only containment of dust and
debris generated during a RRP activity
yields higher benefits than using all of
the rule’s work practices (containment,
specialized cleaning, and cleaning
verification). This is the opposite of
what one might expect and of what is
observed in the Dust Study for the 10
experiments that used the proposed rule
cleaning and containment, since the
benefits analysis implies that the
combination of rule-style containment
with rule-style cleaning and verification
would result in more exposure than
when such containment is combined
with conventional cleaning. This is
inconsistent with the Dust Study which
shows that the largest decreases were
observed in the 10 experiments where
this final rule’s practices of
containment, specialized cleaning, and
cleaning verification were used.
Therefore, the anomalous results are
likely to be artifacts of sparse
underlying data and modeling
assumptions. Although EPA
summarizes some of the potential
causes of these unexpected results in
the Economic Analysis, at this time EPA
is unclear as to precisely what is leading
to these unexpected results. Because
EPA has not determined why the
benefits analyses contain anomalous
results, EPA has limited confidence in
the estimated benefits. EPA does not
view the results as being sufficiently
robust to represent the difference in
magnitude of the benefits across
regulatory alternatives. Nevertheless,
EPA is confident that there are positive
benefits.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21751

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA, an
amendment to an existing ICR and
referred to as the ICR Final Rule
Addendum (EPA ICR No. 1715.10, OMB
Control Number 2070–0155) has been
placed in the public docket for this rule
(Ref. 47). The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
The new information collection
activities contained in this rule are
designed to assist the Agency in meeting
the core objectives of TSCA section 402,
including ensuring the integrity of
accreditation programs for training
providers, providing for the certification
of renovators, and determining whether
work practice standards are being
followed. EPA has carefully tailored the
recordkeeping requirements so they will
permit the Agency to achieve statutory
objectives without imposing an undue
burden on those firms that choose to be
involved in renovation, repair, and
painting activities.
Burden under the Paperwork
Reduction Act means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose or provide information to or for
a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
Under this rule, the new information
collection requirements may affect
training providers and firms that
perform renovation, repair, or painting
for compensation. Although these firms
have the option of choosing to engage in
the covered activities, once a firm
chooses to do so, the information
collection activities contained in this
rule become mandatory for that firm.
The ICR document provides a detailed
presentation of the estimated burden
and costs for 3 years of the program. The
aggregate burden varies by year due to
changes in the number of firms that will
seek certification each year. The burden
and cost to training providers and firms
engaged in renovation, repair, and
painting activities is summarized below.
It is estimated that approximately 170
training providers will incur burden to

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21752

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

notify EPA (or an authorizing State,
Tribe, or Territory) before and after
training courses. The average burden for
training provider notifications is
estimated at 20 to 100 hours per year,
depending on the number of training
courses provided. Total training
provider burden is estimated to average
9,000 hours per year. There are
approximately 211,000 firms estimated
to become certified to engage in
renovation, repair, or painting activities.
The average certification burden is
estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the
year a firm is initially certified, and 0.5
hours in years that it is re-certified
(which occurs every 5 years). Firms
must also distribute lead hazard
information to the owners and
occupants of public or commercial
buildings that contain child-occupied
facilities and in target housing
containing child-occupied facilities.
Finally, firms must keep records of the
work they perform; this recordkeeping
is estimated to average approximately 5
hours per year per firm. Total burden for
these certified firms is estimated to
average 1,373,000 hours per year. Total
respondent burden during the period
covered by the ICR is estimated to
average approximately 1,382,000 hours
per year.
There are also government costs to
administer the program. States, Tribes,
and Territories are allowed, but are
under no obligation, to apply for and
receive authorization to administer
these requirements. EPA will directly
administer programs for States, Tribes,
and Territories that do not become
authorized. Because the number of
States, Tribes, and Territories that will
become authorized is not known,
administrative costs are estimated
assuming that EPA will administer the
program everywhere. To the extent that
other government entities become
authorized, EPA’s administrative costs
will be lower.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations codified
in Chapter 40 of the CFR, after
appearing in the preamble of the final
rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are
displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this rule on small entities, small
entity is defined in accordance with
section 601 of the RFA as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA,
EPA prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the
proposed rule and convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel to
obtain advice and recommendations of
representatives of the regulated small
entities. A summary of the IRFA, a
description of the Panel process, and a
summary of the Panel’s
recommendations can be found in Unit
VIII.C. of the preamble to the 2006
Proposal (Ref. 3). A detailed discussion
of the Panel’s advice and
recommendations is found in the Panel
Report (Ref. 48).
As required by section 604 of the
RFA, we also prepared a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final
rule. The FRFA addresses the issues
raised by public comments on the IRFA,
which was part of the proposal of this
rule. The FRFA is available for review
in the docket and is summarized below
(Ref. 49).
1. Legal basis and objectives for the
rule. As discussed in Unit II.A. of this
preamble, TSCA section 402(c)(2)
directs EPA to study the extent to which
persons engaged in renovation, repair,
and painting activities are exposed to
lead or create lead-based paint hazards
regularly or occasionally. After
concluding this study, TSCA section
402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise
its Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations under TSCA section 402(a)

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to apply to renovation or remodeling
activities that create lead-based paint
hazards. Because EPA’s study found
that activities commonly performed
during renovation and remodeling
create lead-based paint hazards, EPA is
revising the TSCA section 402(a)
regulatory scheme to apply to
individuals and firms engaged in
renovation, repair, and painting
activities. In so doing, EPA has also
taken into consideration the
environmental, economic, and social
impact of this final rule as provided in
TSCA section 2(c). The primary
objective of the rule is to minimize
exposure to lead-based paint hazards
created during renovation, repair, and
painting activities in housing where
children under age 6 reside and in
housing where a pregnant woman
resides and in housing or other
buildings frequented by children under
age 6.
2. Potentially affected small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. The small
entities that are potentially directly
regulated by this rule include: small
businesses (including contractors and
property owners and managers); small
nonprofits (certain day care centers and
private schools); and small governments
(school districts).
In determining the number of small
businesses affected by the rule, the
Agency applied U.S. Economic Census
data to the SBA’s definition of small
business. However, applying the U.S.
Economic Census data requires either
under or overestimating the number of
small businesses affected by the rule.
For example, for many construction
establishments, the SBA defines small
businesses as having revenues of less
than $13 million. With respect to those
establishments, the U.S. Economic
Census data groups all establishments
with revenues of $10 million or more
into one revenue bracket. On the one
hand, using data for the entire industry
would overestimate the number of small
businesses affected by the rule and
would defeat the purpose of estimating
impacts on small business. It would also
underestimate the rule’s impact on
small businesses because the impacts
would be calculated using the revenues
of large businesses in addition to small
businesses. On the other hand, applying
the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket
would underestimate the number of
small businesses affected by the rule
while at the same time overestimating
the impacts. Similar issues arose in
estimating the fraction of property
owners and managers that are small
businesses. EPA has concluded that a

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
substantial number of small businesses
will be affected by the rule.
Consequently, EPA has chosen to be
more conservative in estimating the cost
impacts of the rule by using the closest,
albeit lower, revenue bracket for which
Census data is available. For other
sectors (nonprofits operating day care
centers or private schools), EPA
assumed that all affected firms are
small, which may overestimate the
number of small entities affected by the
rule.
The vast majority of entities in the
industries affected by this rule are
small. Using EPA’s estimates, the
renovation, repair, and painting
program will affect an average of
approximately 189,000 small entities.
3. Potential economic impacts on
small entities. EPA evaluated two
factors in its analysis of the rule’s
requirements on small entities, the
number of firms that would experience
the impact, and the size of the impact.
Average annual compliance costs as a
percentage of average annual revenues
were used to assess the potential
average impacts of the rule on small
businesses and small governments. This
ratio is a good measure of entities’
ability to afford the costs attributable to
a regulatory requirement, because
comparing compliance costs to revenues
provides a reasonable indication of the
magnitude of the regulatory burden
relative to a commonly available
measure of economic activity. Where
regulatory costs represent a small
fraction of a typical entity’s revenues,
the financial impacts of the regulation
on such entities may be considered as
not significant. For non-profit
organizations, impacts were measured
by comparing rule costs to annual
expenditures. When expenditure data
were not available, however, revenue
information was used as a proxy for
expenditures. It is appropriate to
calculate the impact ratios using
annualized costs, because these costs
are more representative of the
continuing costs entities face to comply
with the rule.
EPA estimates that there are an
average of 189,000 small entities that
would be affected by the renovation,
repair, and painting activities program.
Of these, there are an estimated 165,000
small businesses with an average impact
of 0.7%, 17,000 small non-profits with
an average impact of 0.1%, and 6,000
small governments with an average
impact of 0.004%. These estimates are
based on an average cost of
approximately $35 per renovation.
4. Relevant Federal rules. The
requirements in this rulemaking will fit
within an existing framework of other

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

Federal regulations that address leadbased paint. The Pre-Renovation
Education Rule, discussed in Unit
II.A.2. of this preamble, requires
renovators to distribute a lead hazard
information pamphlet to owners and
occupants before conducting a
renovation in target housing. This rule
has been carefully crafted to harmonize
with the existing pre-renovation
education requirements.
Disposal of waste from renovation
projects that would be regulated by this
rule is covered by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations for solid waste. This rule
does not contain specific requirements
for the disposal of waste from
renovations.
HUD has extensive regulations that
address the conduct of interim controls,
as well as other lead-based paint
activities, in federally assisted housing.
Some of HUD’s interim controls are
regulated under this rule as renovations,
depending upon whether the particular
interim control measure disturbs more
than the threshold amount of paint. In
most cases, the HUD regulations are
comparable to, or more stringent than
this rule. In general, persons performing
HUD-regulated interim controls must
have taken a course in lead-safe work
practices, which is also a requirement of
this rule. However, this rule does not
require dust clearance testing, a process
required by HUD after interim control
activities that disturb more than a
minimal amount of lead-based paint.
Finally, OSHA’s Lead Exposure in
Construction standard covers potential
worker exposures to lead during many
construction activities, including
renovation, repair, and painting
activities. Although this standard may
cover many of the same projects as this
final rule, the requirements themselves
do not overlap. The OSHA rule
addresses the protection of the worker,
this EPA rule principally addresses the
protection of the building occupants,
particularly children under age 6 and
pregnant women.
5. Skills needed for compliance. This
rule establishes requirements for
training renovators, other renovation
workers, and dust sampling technicians;
certifying renovators, dust sampling
technicians, and entities engaged in
renovation, repair, and painting
activities; accrediting providers of
renovation and dust sampling
technician training; and for renovation
work practices. Renovators and dust
sampling technicians would have to
take a course to learn the proper
techniques for accomplishing the tasks
they will perform during renovations.
These courses are intended to provide

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21753

them with the information they would
need to comply with the rule based on
the skills they already have. Renovators
would then provide on-the-job training
in work practices to any other
renovation workers used on a particular
renovation. They would also need to
document the work they have done
during renovations. This does not
require any special skills. Renovation
firms would be required to apply for
certification to perform renovations; this
process does not require any special
skills other than the ability to complete
the application. Training providers must
be knowledgeable about delivering
technical training. Training providers
would be required to apply for
accreditation to offer renovator and dust
sampling technician courses. They
would also be required to provide prior
notification of such courses and provide
information on the students trained after
each such course. Completing the
accreditation application and providing
the required notification information
does not require any special skills.
6. Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel. Since the earliest stages of
planning for this regulation under
section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, EPA has been
concerned with potential small entity
impacts. EPA conducted outreach to
small entities, and, in 1999, convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review
(SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations of representatives of
the small entities that would potentially
be subject to this regulation’s
requirements. At that time, EPA was
planning an initial regulation that
would apply to renovations in target
housing, with requirements for public
and commercial building renovations,
including child-occupied facility
renovations, to follow at a later date.
The small entity representatives (SERs)
chosen for consultation reflect that
initial emphasis. They included
maintenance and renovation
contractors, painting and decorating
contractors, multi-family housing
owners and operators, training
providers/consultants, and
representatives from several national
contractor associations, the National
Multi-Housing Council, and the
National Association of Home Builders.
After considering the existing Leadbased Paint Activities Regulations, and
taking into account preliminary
stakeholder feedback, EPA identified
eight key elements of a potential
renovation and remodeling regulation
for the SBAR Panel’s consideration.
These elements were:
• Applicability and scope.
• Firm certification.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21754

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

• Individual training and
certification.
• Accreditation of training courses.
• Work practice standards.
• Prohibited practices.
• Exterior clearance.
• Interior clearance.
EPA also developed several options
for each of these key elements. Although
the scope and applicability options
specifically presented to the SBAR
Panel covered only target housing,
background information presented to
the SERs and to the SBAR Panel
members shows that EPA was also
considering a regulation covering childoccupied facilities. The 2007
Supplemental Proposal (Ref. 15)
extended the potentially regulated
universe to include child-occupied
facilities. When the 2007 Supplemental
Proposal was issued, EPA conducted a
targeted mailing campaign to
specifically solicit input on the rule
from child-occupied facilities, such as
child care providers and kindergartens,
in public or commercial buildings. More
information on the SBAR Panel, its
recommendations, and how EPA
implemented them in the development
of the program, is provided in Unit
VIII.C.6. of the preamble to the 2006
Proposal (Ref. 3).
7. Alternatives considered. The
following is a discussion of significant
alternatives to the rule, originated by
EPA or by commenters, that could affect
the economic impacts of the rule on
small entities. These alternatives would
have applied to both small and large
entities, but, given the large number of
small entities in the industry, these
alternatives would primarily affect
small entities. For the reasons described
below, these alternatives are not
consistent with the objectives of the
rule.
a. Applicability and scope. EPA
considered a number of options for the
scope and applicability of the rule:
include all pre-1978 housing, all pre1978 rental housing, all pre-1960
housing, and all pre-1960 rental
housing. Although the scope and
applicability options specifically
presented to the SBAR Panel covered
only target housing, background
information presented to the SERs and
to the SBAR Panel members shows that
EPA was also considering a regulation
covering child-occupied facilities.
The SBAR Panel recommended that
EPA request public comment in the
proposal on the option of limiting the
housing stock affected by the rule to that
constructed prior to 1960, as well as the
option of covering all pre-1978 housing
and other options that may help to
reduce costs while achieving the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

protection of public health. EPA asked
for comment in the proposed rule on
alternative scope options, including an
option limited to buildings constructed
prior to 1960. After considering the
public comments, EPA has determined
that limiting the rule to exclude
buildings constructed on or after 1960 is
not consistent with the stated objectives
of the rule, in part because this would
not protect children under the age of 6
and pregnant women.
b. Staged approach. EPA proposed a
staged approach that would initially
address renovations in pre-1960 target
housing and child-occupied facilities, or
where a child had an increased bloodlead level. EPA requested comment
about whether to delay implementation
for post-1960 target housing and childoccupied facilities for 1 year. Most
commenters objected to the phased
implementation, expressing concerns
about adding complexity to
implementation and about potential
exposures to children in buildings built
between 1960 and 1978 during the first
year. After reviewing the comments,
EPA determined the reduced burdens of
a staged approach did not outweigh the
complexity that it added to
implementation.
c. Exclude categories of contractors or
renovation activities. EPA requested
comment on whether to exclude any
categories of specialty contractors and
whether certain renovation activities
should be specifically included or
excluded. In response, no commenter
offered any data to show that any
category of contractor or type of
renovation activity should be exempt
because they do not create lead-based
paint hazards. All of the renovation
activities in the Dust Study and the
other studies in the record for the rule
created lead-based paint hazards. EPA
determined that it had no basis on
which to exempt any category of
contractor or type of renovation.
However, some small jobs will be
exempt from the requirements of the
rule under the minor maintenance
exception.
d. Prohibited practices. The current
abatement regulations in 40 CFR part
745, subpart L prohibit the following
work practices during abatement
projects: Open-flame burning or
torching, machine sanding or grinding,
abrasive blasting or sandblasting, dry
scraping of large areas, and operating a
heat gun in excess of 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit. EPA presented four options
to the SBAR Panel on this topic:
prohibit these practices during
renovations; allow dry scraping and
exterior flame-burning or torching;
allow dry scraping and interior and

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

exterior flame-burning or torching; or
allow all of these practices. The SBAR
Panel recognized industry concerns over
the feasibility of prohibiting these
practices, especially when no costeffective alternatives exist. The SBAR
Panel was also concerned about the
potential risks associated with these
practices, but noted that reasonable
training, performance, containment, and
clean-up requirements may adequately
address these risks.
EPA followed the SBAR Panel’s
recommendation and requested public
comment on the cost, benefit, and
feasibility of prohibiting certain work
practices. In response to its request for
comment in the proposed rule, the
Agency received information on
techniques including benign strippers,
steam stripping, closed planing with
vacuums, infrared removal, and
chemical stripping. Therefore, EPA
believes that there are cost-effective
alternatives to these prohibited or
restricted practices. In addition, the
Dust Study (Characterization of Dust
Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Activities) found that most
practices prohibited or restricted under
EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities
Regulations produce large quantities of
lead dust, and that the use of the
proposed work practices were not
effective at containing or removing dustlead hazards from the work area.
EPA has concluded that these
practices should be prohibited or
restricted during renovation, repair, and
painting activities that disturb leadbased paint because the work practices
in the rule are not effective at containing
the spread of leaded dust when these
practices are used, or at cleaning up
lead-based paint hazards created by
these practices. Thus, the work practices
are not effective at minimizing exposure
to lead-based paint hazards created
during renovation activities when these
activities are used.
e. HEPA vacuums. The proposed rule
required the use of a HEPA vacuum as
part of the work practice standards for
renovation activities. One commenter
stated that EPA did not have sufficient
evidence showing that HEPA vacuums
are significantly better at removing lead
dust than non-HEPA vacuums. EPA has
determined that the weight of the
evidence provided by the studies it
reviewed demonstrates that the HEPA
vacuums consistently removed
significant quantities of lead-based paint
dust and reduced lead loadings to lower
levels then did other vacuums. While
there may be some vacuums cleaners
that are as effective as HEPA vacuums,
EPA has not been able to define
quantitatively the specific attributes of

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
those vacuums. That is, EPA is not able
to identify what criteria should be used
to identify vacuums that are equivalent
to HEPA vacuums in performance.
Thus, EPA does not believe that it can
identify in the final rule what types of
vacuums can be used as substitutes for
HEPA-vacuums. Therefore, EPA has not
adopted this alternative.
f. Visual inspection in lieu of cleaning
verification. EPA requested comment on
whether cleaning verification is
necessary given the cleaning required by
the rule. Some commenters contended
that a visual inspection following
cleaning after a renovation is sufficient
to ensure the lead-based paint dust
generated by a renovation has been
sufficiently cleaned-up. EPA disagrees
with those commenters who requested
that the work practices in the final rule
not include any verification beyond
visual inspection. The weight of the
evidence clearly demonstrates that
visual inspection following cleaning
after a renovation is insufficient at
detecting dust-lead hazards, even at
levels significantly above the regulatory
hazard standards. Further, EPA
disagrees with the implication that
easily visible paint chips and splinters
are necessarily the primary materials
generated during a renovation. EPA
studies, including the Dust Study, show
that renovation activities generate dust
as well as chips and splinters.
Therefore, EPA has not adopted this
alternative.
8. Significant issues raised by
comments on the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. A commenter
requested that the plumbing-heatingcooling industry be exempted from the
rule, claiming that the rule is
impractical for the industry. The
commenter did not provide any
supporting data as to why the rule is
impractical for the plumbing-heatingcooling industry, or any data indicating
that renovations conducted by
plumbing, heating, or cooling
contractors do not create lead hazards.
By contrast, the Dust Study indicated
that cutting open drywall (an activity
often performed by plumbing, heating,
and cooling contractors) can create a
lead hazard. Therefore, EPA believes
that plumbing, heating, and cooling
contractors who disturb more than an
exempt amount of lead-based paint can
create lead hazards. EPA does not
believe that there is a factual basis for
exempting this, or any other, industry
from the rule.
Another commenter stated that EPA’s
proposed rule gave little deference to
HUD’s rules, and thus is inconsistent
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s
requirements to fit new rules within the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

framework of existing Federal
regulations. The commenter stated that
EPA’s rule needed to give greater
deference to the framework established
in HUD’s rules (especially HUD’s
requirements for independent clearance
examinations and its prohibition of
dangerous work practices), and to
clearly explain how the Renovation,
Repair and Painting Rule will interface
with HUD’s rules to avoid confusion.
Regarding HUD’s requirements for
independent clearance examinations,
EPA’s final rule clarifies that dust
clearance sampling is allowed in lieu of
post-renovation cleaning verification in
cases where another Federal, State,
Territorial, Tribal, or local regulation
requires dust clearance testing and
requires the renovation firm to clean the
work area until it passes clearance. This
would apply to HUD-regulated
renovations. Regarding the prohibition
of dangerous work practices, EPA’s final
rule prohibits the use of the following
work practices during regulated
renovations: Open flame burning or
torching of lead-based paint; the use of
machines that remove lead-based paint
through high speed operation such as
sanding, grinding, power planing,
needle gun, abrasive blasting, or
sandblasting unless such machines are
used with HEPA exhaust control; and
operating a heat gun above 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit. EPA believes that the
provisions in the final rule provide an
appropriate measure of consistency with
other regulatory programs (including
HUD’s), and will cause minimal
disruption for renovation firms.
One commenter contended that EPA
said that ‘‘[n]one of the housing
authorities identified in section 8.2.1 as
operating public housing that does not
receive HUD funding qualifies as a
small government under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.’’ According to the
commenter, public housing authorities
are government entities, and hundreds
of them are located in and are part of
communities with a population of less
than 50,000.
EPA’s small entity analysis was not
claiming that no small governments
operate housing authorities, but that
they would not be significantly
impacted by the rule. EPA’s reasoning
was as follows:
• The only public housing
authorities that EPA could identify that
do not receive HUD funds are operated
by Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii,
Connecticut, and New York City.
• Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii,
Connecticut, and New York City have
populations over 50,000 and thus do not
qualify as small governments.

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21755

• To the best of EPA’s knowledge,
governments with populations under
50,000 that operate public housing
authorities all receive HUD funds.
• Public housing that receives
funding from HUD already must comply
with HUD regulations regarding lead
paint and so are not likely to incur
significant additional costs due to this
rule.
The commenter has offered no factual
information to dispute this reasoning.
Therefore, the Agency believes its
conclusions regarding public housing
authorities operated by small
governments were appropriate.
A commenter stated that the proposed
rule will have a significant impact on
small businesses, and that EPA’s own
economic analysis of this rule finds that
residential property managers and
lessors of residential real estate will bear
the largest share of costs in association
with the rule. EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s claim that residential
property managers and lessors of
residential real estate will bear the
largest share of costs in association with
the rule. EPA analyzed small business
impacts by estimating the average cost
impact ratio for each industry,
calculated as the average annual
compliance cost as a percentage of
average annual revenues. The average
cost impact ratio for lessors of real estate
is below the average cost impact ratio
for all small businesses under the rule.
And while the average cost impact ratio
for residential property managers is
above the average cost impact for all
small businesses under the rule, small
residential property managers make up
approximately 3% of the small entities
impacted by the rule. Therefore, it is not
accurate to claim that residential
property managers and lessors of
residential real estate will bear the
largest share of costs in association with
the rule.
Another commenter stated that given
the lack of evidence showing that HEPA
vacuums are significantly better at
removing lead dust from floors, and
because HEPA vacuums are
significantly more costly than nonHEPA units, EPA should modify its
proposed rule to allow cleanup with
either a HEPA or non-HEPA vacuum.
According to the commenter, doing so
would reduce the cost to small entities
in the renovation and lead mitigation
businesses without compromising the
level of lead dust clearance achieved by
the standard.
EPA disagrees that it should modify
its proposed rule to allow cleanup with
a non-HEPA vacuum. EPA has
determined that the weight of the
evidence provided by various studies

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

21756

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

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

demonstrate that the HEPA vacuums
consistently removed significant
quantities of lead-based paint dust and
reduced lead loadings to lower levels
then did other vacuums. While there
may be some vacuums that are as
effective as HEPA vacuums, EPA has
not been able to define quantitatively
the specific attributes of those vacuums.
That is, EPA is not able to identify what
criteria should be used to identify
vacuums that are equivalent to HEPA
vacuums in performance. Thus, EPA
does not believe that it can identify
what types of vacuums can be used as
substitutes for HEPA-vacuums. EPA also
notes that non-HEPA vacuums that
perform as well as HEPA vacuums may
not be less expensive than HEPA
vacuums. For these reasons, EPA has
determined that modifying its proposed
rule to allow cleanup with non-HEPA
vacuums would compromise the level of
lead dust clearance achieved by the
standard, and might not result in
meaningful cost reductions.
As required by section 212 of
SBREFA, EPA also is preparing a Small
Entity Compliance Guide to help small
entities comply with this rule. Before
the date that this rule’s requirements
take effect for training providers,
renovation firms, and renovators, the
guide will be available on EPA’s website
at http://www.epa.gov/lead or from the
National Lead Information Center by
calling 1–800–424–LEAD (5323).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any 1 year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under UMRA Title II, EPA has
determined that this rule contains a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures that exceed the inflationadjusted UMRA threshold of $100
million by the private sector in any 1
year, but it will not result in such
expenditures by State, local, and Tribal
governments in the aggregate.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared a
written statement under section 202 of
UMRA which has been placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking and is
summarized here.
1. Authorizing legislation. This rule is
issued under the authority of TSCA
sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407, 15
U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687.
2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has
prepared an analysis of the costs and
benefits associated with this
rulemaking, a copy of which is available
in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref.
24). The Economic Analysis presents
the costs of the rule as well as various
regulatory options and is summarized in
Unit III.A. of this preamble.EPA has
estimated that the total annualized costs
of this rulemaking are approximately
$400 million per year using either a 3%
or a 7% discount rate,and that benefits
are approximately $700 to $1,700
million per year using a 3% discount
rate and $700 to $1,800 million per year
using a 7% discount.
3. State, local, and Tribal government
input. EPA has sought input from State,
local and Tribal government
representatives throughout the
development of the renovation, repair,
and painting program. EPA’s experience
in administering the existing lead-based
paint activities program under TSCA
section 402(a) suggests that these
governments will play a critical role in
the successful implementation of a
national program to reduce exposures to
lead-based paint hazards associated
with renovation, repair, and painting
activities. Consequently, as discussed in

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the 2006
Proposal (Ref. 3), the Agency has met
with State, local, and Tribal government
officials on numerous occasions to
discuss renovation issues.
4. Least burdensome option. EPA
considered a wide variety of options for
addressing the risks presented by
renovation activities where lead-based
paint is present. As part of the
development of the renovation, repair,
and painting program, EPA has
considered different options for the
scope of the rule, various combinations
of training and certification
requirements for individuals who
perform renovations, various
combinations of work practice
requirements, and various methods for
ensuring that no lead-based paint
hazards are left behind by persons
performing renovations. The Economic
Analysis analyzed several different
options for the scope of the rule.
Additional information on the options
considered is available in Unit VIII.C.6.
of the preamble for the 2006 Proposal
(Ref. 3), and in the Economic Analysis
(Ref. 24). EPA has determined that the
preferred option is the least burdensome
option available that achieves the
primary objective of this rule, which is
to minimize exposure to lead-based
paint hazards created during renovation,
repair, and painting activities in
housing where children under age 6
reside and where a pregnant woman
resides and in housing or other
buildings frequented by children under
age 6.
This rule does not contain a
significant Federal intergovernmental
mandate as described by section 203 of
UMRA. Based on the definition of
‘‘small government jurisdiction’’ in RFA
section 601, no State governments can
be considered small. Small Territorial or
Tribal governments may apply for
authorization to administer and enforce
this program, which would entail costs,
but these small jurisdictions are under
no obligation to do so.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Small governments
operate schools that are child-occupied
facilities. EPA generally measures a
significant impact under UMRA as
being expenditures, in the aggregate, of
more than 1% of small government
revenues in any 1 year. As explained in
Unit III.C.3., the rule is expected to
result in small government impacts well
under 1% of revenues. So EPA has
determined that the rule does not
significantly affect small governments.
Nor does the rule uniquely affect small
governments, as the rule is not targeted

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
at small governments, does not
primarily affect small governments, and
does not impose a different burden on
small governments than on other
entities that operate child-occupied
facilities.
E. Federalism
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), EPA has determined
that this rule does not have ‘‘federalism
implications,’’ because it will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
States would be able to apply for, and
receive authorization to administer
these requirements, but would be under
no obligation to do so. In the absence of
a State authorization, EPA will
administer these requirements.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of the
objectives of this Executive Order, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between the Agency
and State and local governments, EPA
has consulted with representatives of
State and local governments in
developing the renovation, repair, and
painting program. These consultations
are as described in the preamble to the
2006 Proposal (Ref. 3).

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

F. Tribal Implications
As required by Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951, November
9, 2000), EPA has determined that this
rule does not have tribal implications
because it will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in the Order. Tribes would be
able to apply for, and receive
authorization to administer these
requirements on Tribal lands, but Tribes
would be under no obligation to do so.
In the absence of a Tribal authorization,
EPA will administer these requirements.
While Tribes may operate childoccupied facilities covered by the rule
such as kindergartens, prekindergartens, and day care facilities,
EPA has determined that this rule
would not have substantial direct effects
on the Tribal governments that operate
these facilities.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. Although Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule,
EPA consulted with Tribal officials and
others by discussing potential
renovation regulatory options for the
renovation, repair, and painting
program at several national lead
program meetings hosted by EPA and
other interested Federal agencies.
G. Children’s Health Protection
Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to this rule because it is an
‘‘economically significant regulatory
action’’ as defined by Executive Order
12866, and because the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this
action may have a disproportionate
effect on children. Accordingly, EPA
has evaluated the environmental health
or safety effects of renovation, repair,
and painting projects on children.
Various aspects of this evaluation are
discussed in the preamble to the 2006
Proposal (Ref. 3).
The primary purpose of this rule is to
minimize exposure to lead-based paint
hazards created during renovation,
repair, and painting activities in
housing where children under age 6
reside and in housing or other buildings
frequented by children under age 6. In
the absence of this regulation, adequate
work practices are not likely to be
employed during renovation, repair, and
painting activities. EPA’s analysis
indicates that there will be
approximately 1.4 million children
under age 6 affected by the rule. These
children are projected to receive
considerable benefits due to this
regulation.
H. Energy Effects
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not likely to have any adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
I. Technology Standards
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21757

materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. In the
2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to adopt
a number of work practice requirements
that could be considered technical
standards for performing renovation
projects in residences that contain leadbased paint. As discussed in Unit VIII.I.
of the 2006 Proposal, EPA identified
two potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards (Ref. 3 at 1626).
ASTM International (formerly the
American Society for Testing and
Materials) has developed two
potentially applicable documents:
Standard Practice for Clearance
Examinations Following Lead Hazard
Reduction Activities in Single-Family
Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities
(Ref. 50), and ‘‘Standard Guide for
Evaluation, Management, and Control of
Lead Hazards in Facilities’’ (Ref. 51).
With respect to the first document, EPA
did not propose to require traditional
clearance examinations, including dust
sampling, following renovation projects.
However, EPA did propose to require
that a visual inspection for dust, debris,
and residue be conducted after cleaning
and before post-renovation cleaning
verification is performed. The first
ASTM document does contain
information on conducting a visual
inspection before collecting dust
clearance samples. The second ASTM
document is a comprehensive guide to
identifying and controlling lead-based
paint hazards. Some of the information
in this document is relevant to the work
practices required by the rule. Each of
these ASTM documents represents
state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the
performance of these particular aspects
of lead-based paint hazard evaluation
and control practices and EPA
continues to recommend the use of
these documents where appropriate.
However, because each of these
documents is extremely detailed and
encompasses many circumstances
beyond the scope of this rulemaking,
EPA determined that it would be
impractical to incorporate these
voluntary consensus standards into the
rule.
In addition, this final rule contains
performance standards and a process for
recognizing test kits that may be used by
certified renovators to determine
whether components to be affected by a
renovation contain lead-based paint.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21758

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

EPA will recognize those kits that meet
certain performance standards for
limited false positives and negatives.
EPA will also recognize only those kits
that have been properly validated by a
laboratory independent of the kit
manufacturer. For most kits, this will
mean participating in EPA’s
Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) program. With stakeholder input,
EPA is adapting a volunary consensus
standard, ASTM’s ‘‘Standard Practice
for Evaluating the Performance
Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical
Spot Test Kits for Lead in Paint’’ (Ref.
28), for use as a testing protocol to
determine whether a particular kit has
met the performance standards
established in this final rule.

of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule is effective
June 23, 2008.

J. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its
main provision directs federal agencies,
to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has assessed the potential impact
of this rule on minority and low-income
populations. The results of this
assessment are presented in the
Economic Analysis, which is available
in the public docket for this rulemaking
(Ref. 24). As a result of this assessment,
the Agency has determined that this
final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.

Dated: March 31, 2008,
Steven L. Johnson,
Administrator.

VI. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General

§ 745.81 Effective dates.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745
Environmental protection, Childoccupied facility, Housing renovation,
Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:

■

PART 745—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 745
continues to read as follows:

■

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

2. Section 745.80 is revised to read as
follows:

■

§ 745.80 Purpose.

This subpart contains regulations
developed under sections 402 and 406
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2682 and 2686) and applies to all
renovations performed for
compensation in target housing and
child-occupied facilities. The purpose of
this subpart is to ensure the following:
(a) Owners and occupants of target
housing and child-occupied facilities
receive information on lead-based paint
hazards before these renovations begin;
and
(b) Individuals performing
renovations regulated in accordance
with§ 745.82 are properly trained;
renovators and firms performing these
renovations are certified; and the work
practices in § 745.85 are followed
during these renovations.
■ 3. Section 745.81 is revised to read as
follows:
(a) Training, certification and
accreditation requirements and work
practice standards. The training,
certification and accreditation
requirements and work practice
standards in this subpart are applicable
in any State or Indian Tribal area that
does not have a renovation program that
is authorized under subpart Q of this

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

part. The training, certification and
accreditation requirements and work
practice standards in this subpart will
become effective as follows:
(1) Training programs. Effective June
23, 2008, no training program may
provide, offer, or claim to provide
training or refresher training for EPA
certification as a renovator or a dust
sampling technician without
accreditation from EPA under § 745.225.
Training programs may apply for
accreditation under § 745.225 beginning
April 22, 2009.
(2) Firms. (i) Firms may apply for
certification under § 745.89 beginning
October 22, 2009.
(ii) On or after April 22, 2010, no firm
may perform, offer, or claim to perform
renovations without certification from
EPA under § 745.89 in target housing or
child-occupied facilities, unless the
renovation qualifies for one of the
exceptions identified in § 745.82(a) or
(c).
(3) Individuals. On or after April 22,
2010, all renovations must be directed
by renovators certified in accordance
with § 745.90(a) and performed by
certified renovators or individuals
trained in accordance with
§ 745.90(b)(2) in target housing or childoccupied facilities, unless the
renovation qualifies for one of the
exceptions identified in § 745.82(a) or
(c).
(4) Work practices. On or after April
22, 2010, all renovations must be
performed in accordance with the work
practice standards in § 745.85 and the
associated recordkeeping requirements
in § 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) in target
housing or child-occupied facilities,
unless the renovation qualifies for one
of the exceptions identified in
§ 745.82(a) or (c).
(5) The suspension and revocation
provisions in § 745.91 are effectiveApril
22, 2010.
(b) Renovation-specific pamphlet.
Before December 22, 2008, renovators or
firms performing renovations in States
and Indian Tribal areas without an
authorized program may provide
owners and occupants with either of the
following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your
Family From Lead in Your Home or
Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools. After that date,
Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools must be used
exclusively.
(c) Pre-Renovation Education Rule.
With the exception of the requirement
to use the pamphlet entitled Renovate
Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Providers and Schools, the provisions of
the Pre-Renovation Education Rule in
this subpart have been in effect since
June 1999.
■ 4. Section 745.82 is revised to read as
follows:

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

§ 745.82 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to all
renovations performed for
compensation in target housing and
child-occupied facilities, except for the
following:
(1) Renovations in target housing or
child-occupied facilities in which a
written determination has been made by
an inspector or risk assessor (certified
pursuant to either Federal regulations at
§ 745.226 or a State or Tribal
certification program authorized
pursuant to § 745.324) that the
components affected by the renovation
are free of paint or other surface
coatings that contain lead equal to or in
excess of 1.0 milligrams/per square
centimeter (mg/cm2) or 0.5% by weight,
where the firm performing the
renovation has obtained a copy of the
determination.
(2) Renovations in target housing or
child-occupied facilities in which a
certified renovator, using an EPA
recognized test kit as defined in § 745.83
and following the kit manufacturer’s
instructions, has tested each component
affected by the renovation and
determined that the components are free
of paint or other surface coatings that
contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0
mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. If the
components make up an integrated
whole, such as the individual stair
treads and risers of a single staircase,
the renovator is required to test only one
of the individual components, unless
the individual components appear to
have been repainted or refinished
separately.
(b) The information distribution
requirements in § 745.84 do not apply to
emergency renovations, which are
renovation activities that were not
planned but result from a sudden,
unexpected event (such as non-routine
failures of equipment) that, if not
immediately attended to, presents a
safety or public health hazard, or
threatens equipment and/or property
with significant damage. Interim
controls performed in response to an
elevated blood lead level in a resident
child are also emergency renovations.
Emergency renovations other than
interim controls are also exempt from
the warning sign, containment, waste
handling, training, and certification
requirements in §§ 745.85, 745.89, and
745.90 to the extent necessary to
respond to the emergency. Emergency

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

renovations are not exempt from the
cleaning requirements of § 745.85(a)(5),
which must be performed by certified
renovators or individuals trained in
accordance with § 745.90(b)(2), the
cleaning verification requirements of
§ 745.85(b), which must be performed
by certified renovators, and the
recordkeeping requirements of
§ 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7).
(c) The training requirements in
§ 745.90 and the work practice
standards for renovation activities in
§ 745.85 apply to all renovations
covered by this subpart, except for
renovations in target housing for which
the firm performing the renovation has
obtained a statement signed by the
owner that the renovation will occur in
the owner’s residence, no child under
age 6 resides there, no pregnant woman
resides there, the housing is not a childoccupied facility, and the owner
acknowledges that the renovation firm
will not be required to use the work
practices contained in EPA’s renovation,
repair, and painting rule. For the
purposes of this section, a child resides
in the primary residence of his or her
custodial parents, legal guardians, and
foster parents. A child also resides in
the primary residence of an informal
caretaker if the child lives and sleeps
most of the time at the caretaker’s
residence.
■ 5. Section 745.83 is amended as
follows:
■ a. Remove the definitions of
‘‘Emergency renovation operations’’ and
‘‘Multi-family housing.’’
■ b. Revise the definitions of
‘‘Pamphlet,’’ ‘‘Renovation,’’ and
‘‘Renovator.’’
■ c. Add 13 definitions in alphabetical
order.
§ 745.83 Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Child-occupied facility means a
building, or portion of a building,
constructed prior to 1978, visited
regularly by the same child, under 6
years of age, on at least two different
days within any week (Sunday through
Saturday period), provided that each
day’s visit lasts at least 3 hours and the
combined weekly visits last at least 6
hours, and the combined annual visits
last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied
facilities may include, but are not
limited to, day care centers, preschools
and kindergarten classrooms. Childoccupied facilities may be located in
target housing or in public or
commercial buildings. With respect to
common areas in public or commercial
buildings that contain child-occupied
facilities, the child-occupied facility
encompasses only those common areas

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21759

that are routinely used by children
under age 6, such as restrooms and
cafeterias. Common areas that children
under age 6 only pass through, such as
hallways, stairways, and garages are not
included. In addition, with respect to
exteriors of public or commercial
buildings that contain child-occupied
facilities, the child-occupied facility
encompasses only the exterior sides of
the building that are immediately
adjacent to the child-occupied facility or
the common areas routinely used by
children under age 6.
Cleaning verification card means a
card developed and distributed, or
otherwise approved, by EPA for the
purpose of determining, through
comparison of wet and dry disposable
cleaning cloths with the card, whether
post-renovation cleaning has been
properly completed.
Component or building component
means specific design or structural
elements or fixtures of a building or
residential dwelling that are
distinguished from each other by form,
function, and location. These include,
but are not limited to, interior
components such as: Ceilings, crown
molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door
trim, floors, fireplaces, radiators and
other heating units, shelves, shelf
supports, stair treads, stair risers, stair
stringers, newel posts, railing caps,
balustrades, windows and trim
(including sashes, window heads,
jambs, sills or stools and troughs), built
in cabinets, columns, beams, bathroom
vanities, counter tops, and air
conditioners; and exterior components
such as: Painted roofing, chimneys,
flashing, gutters and downspouts,
ceilings, soffits, fascias, rake boards,
cornerboards, bulkheads, doors and
door trim, fences, floors, joists, lattice
work, railings and railing caps, siding,
handrails, stair risers and treads, stair
stringers, columns, balustrades,
windowsills or stools and troughs,
casings, sashes and wells, and air
conditioners.
Dry disposable cleaning cloth means
a commercially available dry,
electrostatically charged, white
disposable cloth designed to be used for
cleaning hard surfaces such as
uncarpeted floors or counter tops.
Firm means a company, partnership,
corporation, sole proprietorship or
individual doing business, association,
or other business entity; a Federal, State,
Tribal, or local government agency; or a
nonprofit organization.
HEPA vacuum means a vacuum
cleaner which has been designed with a
high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filter as the last filtration stage. A HEPA
filter is a filter that is capable of

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21760

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

capturing particles of 0.3 microns with
99.97% efficiency. The vacuum cleaner
must be designed so that all the air
drawn into the machine is expelled
through the HEPA filter with none of
the air leaking past it.
Interim controls means a set of
measures designed to temporarily
reduce human exposure or likely
exposure to lead-based paint hazards,
including specialized cleaning, repairs,
maintenance, painting, temporary
containment, ongoing monitoring of
lead-based paint hazards or potential
hazards, and the establishment and
operation of management and resident
education programs.
Minor repair and maintenance
activities are activities, including minor
heating, ventilation or air conditioning
work, electrical work, and plumbing,
that disrupt 6 square feet or less of
painted surface per room for interior
activities or 20 square feet or less of
painted surface for exterior activities
where none of the work practices
prohibited or restricted by § 745.85(a)(3)
are used and where the work does not
involve window replacement or
demolition of painted surface areas.
When removing painted components, or
portions of painted components, the
entire surface area removed is the
amount of painted surface disturbed.
Jobs, other than emergency renovations,
performed in the same room within the
same 30 days must be considered the
same job for the purpose of determining
whether the job is a minor repair and
maintenance activity.
Pamphlet means the EPA pamphlet
titled Renovate Right: Important Lead
Hazard Information for Families, Child
Care Providers and Schools developed
under section 406(a) of TSCA for use in
complying with section 406(b) of TSCA,
or any State or Tribal pamphlet
approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
745.326 that is developed for the same
purpose. This includes reproductions of
the pamphlet when copied in full and
without revision or deletion of material
from the pamphlet (except for the
addition or revision of State or local
sources of information). Before
December 22, 2008, the term
‘‘pamphlet’’ also means any pamphlet
developed by EPA under section 406(a)
of TSCA or any State or Tribal pamphlet
approved by EPA pursuant to § 745.326.
*
*
*
*
*
Recognized test kit means a
commercially available kit recognized
by EPA under § 745.88 as being capable
of allowing a user to determine the
presence of lead at levels equal to or in
excess of 1.0 milligrams per square
centimeter, or more than 0.5% lead by

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

weight, in a paint chip, paint powder,
or painted surface.
Renovation means the modification of
any existing structure, or portion
thereof, that results in the disturbance of
painted surfaces, unless that activity is
performed as part of an abatement as
defined by this part (40 CFR 745.223).
The term renovation includes (but is not
limited to): The removal, modification
or repair of painted surfaces or painted
components (e.g., modification of
painted doors, surface restoration,
window repair, surface preparation
activity (such as sanding, scraping, or
other such activities that may generate
paint dust)); the removal of building
components (e.g., walls, ceilings,
plumbing, windows); weatherization
projects (e.g., cutting holes in painted
surfaces to install blown-in insulation or
to gain access to attics, planing
thresholds to install weather-stripping),
and interim controls that disturb
painted surfaces. A renovation
performed for the purpose of converting
a building, or part of a building, into
target housing or a child-occupied
facility is a renovation under this
subpart. The term renovation does not
include minor repair and maintenance
activities.
Renovator means an individual who
either performs or directs workers who
perform renovations. A certified
renovator is a renovator who has
successfully completed a renovator
course accredited by EPA or an EPAauthorized State or Tribal program.
Training hour means at least 50
minutes of actual learning, including,
but not limited to, time devoted to
lecture, learning activities, small group
activities, demonstrations, evaluations,
and hands-on experience.
Wet disposable cleaning cloth means
a commercially available, pre-moistened
white disposable cloth designed to be
used for cleaning hard surfaces such as
uncarpeted floors or counter tops.
Wet mopping system means a device
with the following characteristics: A
long handle, a mop head designed to be
used with disposable absorbent cleaning
pads, a reservoir for cleaning solution,
and a built-in mechanism for
distributing or spraying the cleaning
solution onto a floor, or a method of
equivalent efficacy.
Work area means the area that the
certified renovator establishes to contain
the dust and debris generated by a
renovation.
§ 745.84 [Removed]
■

6. Section 745.84 is removed.

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 745.85

[Redesignated as § 745.84]

7. Section 745.85 is redesignated as
§ 745.84.
■ 8. Newly designated § 745.84 is
amended as follows:
■ a. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (a) and revise paragraph
(a)(2)(i).
■ b. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and revise paragraphs
(b)(2) and (b)(4).
■ c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d).
■ d. Add a new paragraph (c).
■ e. Revise the introductory text of
newly designated paragraph (d).
■

§ 745.84 Information distribution
requirements.

(a) Renovations in dwelling units. No
more than 60 days before beginning
renovation activities in any residential
dwelling unit of target housing, the firm
performing the renovation must:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) Obtain, from the adult occupant, a
written acknowledgment that the
occupant has received the pamphlet; or
certify in writing that a pamphlet has
been delivered to the dwelling and that
the firm performing the renovation has
been unsuccessful in obtaining a written
acknowledgment from an adult
occupant. Such certification must
include the address of the unit
undergoing renovation, the date and
method of delivery of the pamphlet,
names of the persons delivering the
pamphlet, reason for lack of
acknowledgment (e.g., occupant refuses
to sign, no adult occupant available), the
signature of a representative of the firm
performing the renovation, and the date
of signature.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Renovations in common areas. No
more than 60 days before beginning
renovation activities in common areas of
multi-unit target housing, the firm
performing the renovation must:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Comply with one of the following.
(i) Notify in writing, or ensure written
notification of, each affected unit and
make the pamphlet available upon
request prior to the start of renovation.
Such notification shall be accomplished
by distributing written notice to each
affected unit. The notice shall describe
the general nature and locations of the
planned renovation activities; the
expected starting and ending dates; and
a statement of how the occupant can
obtain the pamphlet, at no charge, from
the firm performing the renovation, or
(ii) While the renovation is ongoing,
post informational signs describing the

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
general nature and locations of the
renovation and the anticipated
completion date. These signs must be
posted in areas where they are likely to
be seen by the occupants of all of the
affected units. The signs must be
accompanied by a posted copy of the
pamphlet or information on how
interested occupants can review a copy
of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from
the renovation firm at no cost to
occupants.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) If the scope, locations, or expected
starting and ending dates of the planned
renovation activities change after the
initial notification, and the firm
provided written initial notification to
each affected unit, the firm performing
the renovation must provide further
written notification to the owners and
occupants providing revised
information on the ongoing or planned
activities. This subsequent notification
must be provided before the firm
performing the renovation initiates work
beyond that which was described in the
original notice.
(c) Renovations in child-occupied
facilities. No more than 60 days before
beginning renovation activities in any
child-occupied facility, the firm
performing the renovation must:
(1)(i) Provide the owner of the
building with the pamphlet, and comply
with one of the following:
(A) Obtain, from the owner, a written
acknowledgment that the owner has
received the pamphlet.
(B) Obtain a certificate of mailing at
least 7 days prior to the renovation.
(ii) If the child-occupied facility is not
the owner of the building, provide an
adult representative of the childoccupied facility with the pamphlet,
and comply with one of the following:
(A) Obtain, from the adult
representative, a written
acknowledgment that the adult
representative has received the
pamphlet; or certify in writing that a
pamphlet has been delivered to the
facility and that the firm performing the
renovation has been unsuccessful in
obtaining a written acknowledgment
from an adult representative. Such
certification must include the address of
the child-occupied facility undergoing
renovation, the date and method of
delivery of the pamphlet, names of the
persons delivering the pamphlet, reason
for lack of acknowledgment (e.g.,
representative refuses to sign), the
signature of a representative of the firm
performing the renovation, and the date
of signature.
(B) Obtain a certificate of mailing at
least 7 days prior to the renovation.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

(2) Provide the parents and guardians
of children using the child-occupied
facility with the pamphlet and
information describing the general
nature and locations of the renovation
and the anticipated completion date by
complying with one of the following:
(i) Mail or hand-deliver the pamphlet
and the renovation information to each
parent or guardian of a child using the
child-occupied facility.
(ii) While the renovation is ongoing,
post informational signs describing the
general nature and locations of the
renovation and the anticipated
completion date. These signs must be
posted in areas where they can be seen
by the parents or guardians of the
children frequenting the child-occupied
facility. The signs must be accompanied
by a posted copy of the pamphlet or
information on how interested parents
or guardians can review a copy of the
pamphlet or obtain a copy from the
renovation firm at no cost to the parents
or guardians.
(3) The renovation firm must prepare,
sign, and date a statement describing the
steps performed to notify all parents and
guardians of the intended renovation
activities and to provide the pamphlet.
(d) Written acknowledgment. The
written acknowledgments required by
paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section must:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 745.85 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
§ 745.85 Work practice standards.

(a) Standards for renovation activities.
Renovations must be performed by
certified firms using certified renovators
as directed in § 745.89. The
responsibilities of certified firms are set
forth in § 745.89(d) and the
responsibilities of certified renovators
are set forth in § 745.90(b).
(1) Occupant protection. Firms must
post signs clearly defining the work area
and warning occupants and other
persons not involved in renovation
activities to remain outside of the work
area. To the extent practicable, these
signs must be in the primary language
of the occupants. These signs must be
posted before beginning the renovation
and must remain in place and readable
until the renovation and the postrenovation cleaning verification have
been completed. If warning signs have
been posted in accordance with 24 CFR
35.1345(b)(2) or 29 CFR 1926.62(m),
additional signs are not required by this
section.
(2) Containing the work area. Before
beginning the renovation, the firm must
isolate the work area so that no dust or

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21761

debris leaves the work area while the
renovation is being performed. In
addition, the firm must maintain the
integrity of the containment by ensuring
that any plastic or other impermeable
materials are not torn or displaced, and
taking any other steps necessary to
ensure that no dust or debris leaves the
work area while the renovation is being
performed. The firm must also ensure
that containment is installed in such a
manner that it does not interfere with
occupant and worker egress in an
emergency.
(i) Interior renovations. The firm
must:
(A) Remove all objects from the work
area, including furniture, rugs, and
window coverings, or cover them with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material with all seams and edges taped
or otherwise sealed.
(B) Close and cover all ducts opening
in the work area with taped-down
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material.
(C) Close windows and doors in the
work area. Doors must be covered with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material. Doors used as an entrance to
the work area must be covered with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material in a manner that allows
workers to pass through while confining
dust and debris to the work area.
(D) Cover the floor surface, including
installed carpet, with taped-down
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material in the work area 6 feet beyond
the perimeter of surfaces undergoing
renovation or a sufficient distance to
contain the dust, whichever is greater.
(E) Use precautions to ensure that all
personnel, tools, and other items,
including the exteriors of containers of
waste, are free of dust and debris before
leaving the work area.
(ii) Exterior renovations. The firm
must:
(A) Close all doors and windows
within 20 feet of the renovation. On
multi-story buildings, close all doors
and windows within 20 feet of the
renovation on the same floor as the
renovation, and close all doors and
windows on all floors below that are the
same horizontal distance from the
renovation.
(B) Ensure that doors within the work
area that will be used while the job is
being performed are covered with
plastic sheeting or other impermeable
material in a manner that allows
workers to pass through while confining
dust and debris to the work area.
(C) Cover the ground with plastic
sheeting or other disposable
impermeable material extending 10 feet
beyond the perimeter of surfaces

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21762

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

undergoing renovation or a sufficient
distance to collect falling paint debris,
whichever is greater, unless the
property line prevents 10 feet of such
ground covering.
(D) In certain situations, the
renovation firm must take extra
precautions in containing the work area
to ensure that dust and debris from the
renovation does not contaminate other
buildings or other areas of the property
or migrate to adjacent properties.
(3) Prohibited and restricted practices.
The work practices listed below shall be
prohibited or restricted during a
renovation as follows:
(i) Open-flame burning or torching of
lead-based paint is prohibited.
(ii) The use of machines that remove
lead-based paint through high speed
operation such as sanding, grinding,
power planing, needle gun, abrasive
blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited
unless such machines are used with
HEPA exhaust control.
(iii) Operating a heat gun on leadbased paint is permitted only at
temperatures below 1100 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(4) Waste from renovations—(i) Waste
from renovation activities must be
contained to prevent releases of dust
and debris before the waste is removed
from the work area for storage or
disposal. If a chute is used to remove
waste from the work area, it must be
covered.
(ii) At the conclusion of each work
day and at the conclusion of the
renovation, waste that has been
collected from renovation activities
must be stored under containment, in an
enclosure, or behind a barrier that
prevents release of dust and debris out
of the work area and prevents access to
dust and debris.
(iii) When the firm transports waste
from renovation activities, the firm must
contain the waste to prevent release of
dust and debris.
(5) Cleaning the work area. After the
renovation has been completed, the firm
must clean the work area until no dust,
debris or residue remains.
(i) Interior and exterior renovations.
The firm must:
(A) Collect all paint chips and debris
and, without dispersing any of it, seal
this material in a heavy-duty bag.
(B) Remove the protective sheeting.
Mist the sheeting before folding it, fold
the dirty side inward, and either tape
shut to seal or seal in heavy-duty bags.
Sheeting used to isolate contaminated
rooms from non-contaminated rooms
must remain in place until after the
cleaning and removal of other sheeting.
Dispose of the sheeting as waste.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

(ii) Additional cleaning for interior
renovations. The firm must clean all
objects and surfaces in the work area
and within 2 feet of the work area in the
following manner, cleaning from higher
to lower:
(A) Walls. Clean walls starting at the
ceiling and working down to the floor
by either vacuuming with a HEPA
vacuum or wiping with a damp cloth.
(B) Remaining surfaces. Thoroughly
vacuum all remaining surfaces and
objects in the work area, including
furniture and fixtures, with a HEPA
vacuum. The HEPA vacuum must be
equipped with a beater bar when
vacuuming carpets and rugs.
(C) Wipe all remaining surfaces and
objects in the work area, except for
carpeted or upholstered surfaces, with a
damp cloth. Mop uncarpeted floors
thoroughly, using a mopping method
that keeps the wash water separate from
the rinse water, such as the 2-bucket
mopping method, or using a wet
mopping system.
(b) Standards for post-renovation
cleaning verification—(1) Interiors. (i) A
certified renovator must perform a
visual inspection to determine whether
dust, debris or residue is still present. If
dust, debris or residue is present, these
conditions must be removed by recleaning and another visual inspection
must be performed.
(ii) After a successful visual
inspection, a certified renovator must:
(A) Verify that each windowsill in the
work area has been adequately cleaned,
using the following procedure.
(1) Wipe the windowsill with a wet
disposable cleaning cloth that is damp
to the touch. If the cloth matches or is
lighter than the cleaning verification
card, the windowsill has been
adequately cleaned.
(2) If the cloth does not match and is
darker than the cleaning verification
card, re-clean the windowsill as
directed in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and
(a)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, then either
use a new cloth or fold the used cloth
in such a way that an unused surface is
exposed, and wipe the surface again. If
the cloth matches or is lighter than the
cleaning verification card, that
windowsill has been adequately
cleaned.
(3) If the cloth does not match and is
darker than the cleaning verification
card, wait for 1 hour or until the surface
has dried completely, whichever is
longer.
(4)After waiting for the windowsill to
dry, wipe the windowsill with a dry
disposable cleaning cloth. After this
wipe, the windowsill has been
adequately cleaned.

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(B) Wipe uncarpeted floors and
countertops within the work area with
a wet disposable cleaning cloth. Floors
must be wiped using anapplication
device with a long handle and a head
to which the cloth is attached. The cloth
must remain damp at all times while it
is being used to wipe the surface for
post-renovation cleaning verification. If
the surface within the work area is
greater than 40 square feet, the surface
within the work area must be divided
into roughly equal sections that are each
less than 40 square feet. Wipe each such
section separately with a new wet
disposable cleaning cloth. If the cloth
used to wipe each section of the surface
within the work area matches the
cleaning verification card, the surface
has been adequately cleaned.
(1) If the cloth used to wipe a
particular surface section does not
match the cleaning verification card, reclean that section of the surface as
directed in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and
(a)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, then use a
new wet disposable cleaning cloth to
wipe that section again. If the cloth
matches the cleaning verification card,
that section of the surface has been
adequately cleaned.
(2) If the cloth used to wipe a
particular surface section does not
match the cleaning verification card
after the surface has been re-cleaned,
wait for 1 hour or until the entire
surface within the work area has dried
completely, whichever is longer.
(3) After waiting for the entire surface
within the work area to dry, wipe each
section of the surface that has not yet
achieved post-renovation cleaning
verification with a dry disposable
cleaning cloth. After this wipe, that
section of the surface has been
adequately cleaned.
(iii) When the work area passes the
post-renovation cleaning verification,
remove the warning signs.
(2) Exteriors. A certified renovator
must perform a visual inspection to
determine whether dust, debris or
residue is still present on surfaces in
and below the work area, including
windowsills and the ground. If dust,
debris or residue is present, these
conditions must be eliminated and
another visual inspection must be
performed. When the area passes the
visual inspection, remove the warning
signs.
(c) Optional dust clearance testing.
Cleaning verification need not be
performed if the contract between the
renovation firm and the person
contracting for the renovation or another
Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal, or
local law or regulation requires:

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(1) The renovation firm to perform
dust clearance sampling at the
conclusion of a renovation covered by
this subpart.
(2) The dust clearance samples are
required to be collected by a certified
inspector, risk assessor or dust sampling
technician.
(3) The renovation firm is required to
re-clean the work area until the dust
clearance sample results are below the
clearance standards in § 745.227(e)(8) or
any applicable State, Territorial, Tribal,
or local standard.
(d) Activities conducted after postrenovation cleaning verification.
Activities that do not disturb paint, such
as applying paint to walls that have
already been prepared, are not regulated
by this subpart if they are conducted
after post-renovation cleaning
verification has been performed.
■ 10. Section 745.86 is revised to read
as follows:

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

§ 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.

(a) Firms performing renovations
must retain and, if requested, make
available to EPA all records necessary to
demonstrate compliance with this
subpart for a period of 3 years following
completion of the renovation. This 3–
year retention requirement does not
supersede longer obligations required by
other provisions for retaining the same
documentation, including any
applicable State or Tribal laws or
regulations.
(b) Records that must be retained
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section
shall include (where applicable):
(1) Reports certifying that a
determination had been made by an
inspector (certified pursuant to either
Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an
EPA-authorized State or Tribal
certification program) that lead-based
paint is not present on the components
affected by the renovation, as described
in § 745.82(b)(1).
(2) Signed and dated
acknowledgments of receipt as
described in§ 745.84(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i),
(b)(1)(i), (c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(1)(ii)(A).
(3) Certifications of attempted
delivery as described in § 745.84(a)(2)(i)
and (c)(1)(ii)(A).
(4) Certificates of mailing as described
in § 745.84(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(1)(ii),
(c)(1)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii)(B).
(5) Records of notification activities
performed regarding common area
renovations, as described in
§ 745.84(b)(3) and (b)(4), and
renovations in child-occupied facilities,
as described in § 745.84(c)(2).
(6) Any signed and dated statements
received from owner-occupants

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

documenting that the requirements of
§ 745.85 do not apply. These statements
must include a declaration that the
renovation will occur in the owner’s
residence, a declaration that no children
under age 6 reside there, a declaration
that no pregnant woman resides there,
a declaration that the housing is not a
child-occupied facility, the address of
the unit undergoing renovation, the
owner’s name, an acknowledgment by
the owner that the work practices to be
used during the renovation will not
necessarily include all of the lead-safe
work practices contained in EPA’s
renovation, repair, and painting rule,
the signature of the owner, and the date
of signature. These statements must be
written in the same language as the text
of the renovation contract, if any.
(7) Documentation of compliance
with the requirements of § 745.85,
including documentation that a certified
renovator was assigned to the project,
that the certified renovator provided onthe-job training for workers used on the
project, that the certified renovator
performed or directed workers who
performed all of the tasks described in
§ 745.85(a), and that the certified
renovator performed the post-renovation
cleaning verification described in
§ 745.85(b). If the renovation firm was
unable to comply with all of the
requirements of this rule due to an
emergency as defined in § 745.82, the
firm must document the nature of the
emergency and the provisions of the
rule that were not followed. This
documentation must include a copy of
the certified renovator’s training
certificate, and a certification by the
certified renovator assigned to the
project that:
(i) Training was provided to workers
(topics must be identified for each
worker).
(ii) Warning signs were posted at the
entrances to the work area.
(iii) If test kits were used, that the
specified brand of kits was used at the
specified locations and that the results
were as specified.
(iv) The work area was contained by:
(A) Removing or covering all objects
in the work area (interiors).
(B) Closing and covering all HVAC
ducts in the work area (interiors).
(C) Closing all windows in the work
area (interiors) or closing all windows in
and within 20 feet of the work area
(exteriors).
(D) Closing and sealing all doors in
the work area (interiors) or closing and
sealing all doors in and within 20 feet
of the work area (exteriors).
(E) Covering doors in the work area
that were being used to allow passage
but prevent spread of dust.

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21763

(F) Covering the floor surface,
including installed carpet, with tapeddown plastic sheeting or other
impermeable material in the work area
6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient
distance to contain the dust, whichever
is greater (interiors) or covering the
ground with plastic sheeting or other
disposable impermeable material
anchored to the building extending 10
feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient
distance to collect falling paint debris,
whichever is greater, unless the
property line prevents 10 feet of such
ground covering, weighted down by
heavy objects (exteriors).
(G) Installing (if necessary) vertical
containment to prevent migration of
dust and debris to adjacent property
(exteriors).
(v) Waste was contained on-site and
while being transported off-site.
(vi) The work area was properly
cleaned after the renovation by:
(A) Picking up all chips and debris,
misting protective sheeting, folding it
dirty side inward, and taping it for
removal.
(B) Cleaning the work area surfaces
and objects using a HEPA vacuum and/
or wet cloths or mops (interiors).
(vii) The certified renovator
performed the post-renovation cleaning
verification (the results of which must
be briefly described, including the
number of wet and dry cloths used).
(c) When test kits are used, the
renovation firm must, within 30 days of
the completion of the renovation,
provide identifying information as to
the manufacturer and model of the test
kits used, a description of the
components that were tested including
their locations, and the test kit results to
the person who contracted for the
renovation.
(d) If dust clearance sampling is
performed in lieu of cleaning
verification as permitted by § 745.85(c),
the renovation firm must provide,
within 30 days of the completion of the
renovation, a copy of the dust sampling
report to the person who contracted for
the renovation.
■ 11. Section 745.87 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 745.87

Enforcement and inspections.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Lead-based paint is assumed to be
present at renovations covered by this
subpart. EPA may conduct inspections
and issue subpoenas pursuant to the
provisions of TSCA section 11 (15
U.S.C. 2610) to ensure compliance with
this subpart.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

21764

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

12. Section 745.88 is revised to read
as follows:

■

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

§ 745.88 Recognized test kits.

(a) Effective June 23, 2008, EPA
recognizes the test kits that have been
determined by National Institute of
Standards and Technology research to
meet the negative response criteria
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section. This recognition will last until
EPA publicizes its recognition of the
first test kit that meets both the negative
response and positive response criteria
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) No other test kits will be
recognized until they are tested through
EPA’s Environmental Technology
Verification Program or other equivalent
EPA approved testing program.
(1) Effective September 1, 2008, to
initiate the testing process, a test kit
manufacturer must submit a sufficient
number of kits, along with the
instructions for using the kits, to EPA.
The test kit manufacturer should first
visit the following website for
information on where to apply:http://
www.epa.gov/etv/howtoapply.html.
(2) After the kit has been tested
through the Environmental Technology
Verification Program or other equivalent
approved EPA testing program, EPA
will review the report to determine
whether the required criteria have been
met.
(3) Before September 1, 2010, test kits
must meet only the negative response
criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section. The recognition of kits that
meet only this criteria will last until
EPA publicizes its recognition of the
first test kits that meets both of the
criteria in paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) After September 1, 2010, test kits
must meet both of the criteria in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(5) If the report demonstrates that the
kit meets the required criteria, EPA will
issue a notice of recognition to the kit
manufacturer, provide them with the
report, and post the information on
EPA’s website.
(6) If the report demonstrates that the
kit does not meet the required criteria,
EPA will notify the kit manufacturer
and provide them with the report.
(c) Response criteria—(1) Negative
response criteria. For paint containing
lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0
mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight, a
demonstrated probability (with 95%
confidence) of a negative response less
than or equal to 5% of the time.
(2) Positive response criteria. For
paint containing lead below the
regulated level, 1.0 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by
weight, a demonstrated probability
(with 95% confidence) of a positive

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

response less than or equal to 10% of
the time.
■ 13. Section 745.89 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
§ 745.89 Firm certification.

(a) Initial certification. (1) Firms that
perform renovations for compensation
must apply to EPA for certification to
perform renovations or dust sampling.
To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a
completed ‘‘Application for Firms,’’
signed by an authorized agent of the
firm, and pay at least the correct amount
of fees. If a firm pays more than the
correct amount of fees, EPA will
reimburse the firm for the excess
amount.
(2) After EPA receives a firm’s
application, EPA will take one of the
following actions within 90 days of the
date the application is received:
(i) EPA will approve a firm’s
application if EPA determines that it is
complete and that the environmental
compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees does
not show an unwillingness or inability
to maintain compliance with
environmental statutes or regulations.
An application is complete if it contains
all of the information requested on the
form and includes at least the correct
amount of fees. When EPA approves a
firm’s application, EPA will issue the
firm a certificate with an expiration date
not more than 5 years from the date the
application is approved. EPA
certification allows the firm to perform
renovations covered by this section in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
(ii) EPA will request a firm to
supplement its application if EPA
determines that the application is
incomplete. If EPA requests a firm to
supplement its application, the firm
must submit the requested information
or pay the additional fees within 30
days of the date of the request.
(iii) EPA will not approve a firm’s
application if the firm does not
supplement its application in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section or if EPA determines that
the environmental compliance history
of the firm, its principals, or its key
employees demonstrates an
unwillingness or inability to maintain
compliance with environmental statutes
or regulations. EPA will send the firm
a letter giving the reason for not
approving the application. EPA will not
refund the application fees. A firm may
reapply for certification at any time by
filing a new, complete application that
includes the correct amount of fees.

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(b) Re-certification. To maintain its
certification, a firm must be re-certified
by EPA every 5 years.
(1) Timely and complete application.
To be re-certified, a firm must submit a
complete application for re-certification.
A complete application for recertification includes a completed
‘‘Application for Firms’’ which contains
all of the information requested by the
form and is signed by an authorized
agent of the firm, noting on the form
that it is submitted as a re-certification.
A complete application must also
include at least the correct amount of
fees. If a firm pays more than the correct
amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the
firm for the excess amount.
(i) An application for re-certification
is timely if it is postmarked 90 days or
more before the date the firm’s current
certification expires. If the firm’s
application is complete and timely, the
firm’s current certification will remain
in effect until its expiration date or until
EPA has made a final decision to
approve or disapprove the recertification application, whichever is
later.
(ii) If the firm submits a complete recertification application less than 90
days before its current certification
expires, and EPA does not approve the
application before the expiration date,
the firm’s current certification will
expire and the firm will not be able to
conduct renovations until EPA approves
its re-certification application.
(iii) If the firm fails to obtain
recertification before the firm’s current
certification expires, the firm must not
perform renovations or dust sampling
until it is certified anew pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) EPA action on an application.
After EPA receives a firm’s application
for re-certification, EPA will review the
application and take one of the
following actions within 90 days of
receipt:
(i) EPA will approve a firm’s
application if EPA determines that it is
timely and complete and that the
environmental compliance history of
the firm, its principals, or its key
employees does not show an
unwillingness or inability to maintain
compliance with environmental statutes
or regulations. When EPA approves a
firm’s application for re-certification,
EPA will issue the firm a new certificate
with an expiration date 5 years from the
date that the firm’s current certification
expires. EPA certification allows the
firm to perform renovations or dust
sampling covered by this section in any
State or Indian Tribal area that does not
have a renovation program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) EPA will request a firm to
supplement its application if EPA
determines that the application is
incomplete.
(iii) EPA will not approve a firm’s
application if it is not received or is not
complete as of the date that the firm’s
current certification expires, or if EPA
determines that the environmental
compliance history of the firm, its
principals, or its key employees
demonstrates an unwillingness or
inability to maintain compliance with
environmental statutes or regulations.
EPA will send the firm a letter giving
the reason for not approving the
application. EPA will not refund the
application fees. A firm may reapply for
certification at any time by filing a new
application and paying the correct
amount of fees.
(c) Amendment of certification. A
firm must amend its certification within
90 days of the date a change occurs to
information included in the firm’s most
recent application. If the firm fails to
amend its certification within 90 days of
the date the change occurs, the firm may
not perform renovations or dust
sampling until its certification is
amended.
(1) To amend a certification, a firm
must submit a completed ‘‘Application
for Firms,’’ signed by an authorized
agent of the firm, noting on the form
that it is submitted as an amendment
and indicating the information that has
changed. The firm must also pay at least
the correct amount of fees.
(2) If additional information is needed
to process the amendment, or the firm
did not pay the correct amount of fees,
EPA will request the firm to submit the
necessary information or fees. The
firm’s certification is not amended until
the firm complies with the request.
(3) Amending a certification does not
affect the certification expiration date.
(d) Firm responsibilities. Firms
performing renovations must ensure
that:
(1) All individuals performing
renovation activities on behalf of the
firm are either certified renovators or
have been trained by a certified
renovator in accordance with § 745.90.
(2) A certified renovator is assigned to
each renovation performed by the firm
and discharges all of the certified
renovator responsibilities identified in
§ 745.90.
(3) All renovations performed by the
firm are performed in accordance with
the work practice standards in § 745.85.
(4) The pre-renovation education
requirements of § 745.84 have been
performed.
(5) The recordkeeping requirements of
§ 745.86 are met.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

14. Section 745.90 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:

■

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust
sampling technician certification.

(a) Renovator certification and dust
sampling technician certification. (1) To
become a certified renovator or certified
dust sampling technician, an individual
must successfully complete the
appropriate course accredited by EPA
under § 745.225 or by a State or Tribal
program that is authorized under
subpart Q of this part. The course
completion certificate serves as proof of
certification. EPA renovator certification
allows the certified individual to
perform renovations covered by this
section in any State or Indian Tribal
area that does not have a renovation
program that is authorized under
subpart Q of this part. EPA dust
sampling technician certification allows
the certified individual to perform dust
clearance sampling under § 745.85(c) in
any State or Indian Tribal area that does
not have a renovation program that is
authorized under subpart Q of this part.
(2) Individuals who have successfully
completed an accredited abatement
worker or supervisor course, or
individuals who have successfully
completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD
model renovation training course may
take an accredited refresher renovator
training course in lieu of the initial
renovator training course to become a
certified renovator.
(3) Individuals who have successfully
completed an accredited lead-based
paint inspector or risk assessor course
may take an accredited refresher dust
sampling technician course in lieu of
the initial training to become a certified
dust sampling technician.
(4) To maintain renovator certification
or dust sampling technician
certification, an individual must
complete a renovator or dust sampling
technician refresher course accredited
by EPA under § 745.225 or by a State or
Tribal program that is authorized under
subpart Q of this part within 5 years of
the date the individual completed the
initial course described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. If the individual
does not complete a refresher course
within this time, the individual must retake the initial course to become
certified again.
(b) Renovator responsibilities.
Certified renovators are responsible for
ensuring compliance with § 745.85 at all
renovations to which they are assigned.
A certified renovator:
(1) Must perform all of the tasks
described in § 745.85(b) and must either
perform or direct workers who perform
all of the tasks described in § 745.85(a).

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21765

(2) Must provide training to workers
on the work practices they will be using
in performing their assigned tasks.
(3) Must be physically present at the
work site when the signs required by
§ 745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work
area containment required by
§ 745.85(a)(2) is being established, and
while the work area cleaning required
by § 745.85(a)(5) is performed.
(4) Must regularly direct work being
performed by other individuals to
ensure that the work practices are being
followed, including maintaining the
integrity of the containment barriers and
ensuring that dust or debris does not
spread beyond the work area.
(5) Must be available, either on-site or
by telephone, at all times that
renovations are being conducted.
(6) When requested by the party
contracting for renovation services,
must use an acceptable test kit to
determine whether components to be
affected by the renovation contain leadbased paint.
(7) Must have with them at the work
site copies of their initial course
completion certificate and their most
recent refresher course completion
certificate.
(8) Must prepare the records required
by § 745.86(b)(7).
(c) Dust sampling technician
responsibilities. When performing
optional dust clearance sampling under
§ 745.85(c), a certified dust sampling
technician:
(1) Must collect dust samples in
accordance with § 745.227(e)(8), must
send the collected samples to a
laboratory recognized by EPA under
TSCA section 405(b), and must compare
the results to the clearance levels in
accordance with § 745.227(e)(8).
(2) Must have with them at the work
site copies of their initial course
completion certificate and their most
recent refresher course completion
certificate.
■ 15. Section 745.91 is added to subpart
E to read as follows:
§ 745.91 Suspending, revoking, or
modifying an individual’s or firm’s
certification.

(a)(1) Grounds for suspending,
revoking, or modifying an individual’s
certification. EPA may suspend, revoke,
or modify an individual’s certification if
the individual fails to comply with
Federal lead-based paint statutes or
regulations. EPA may also suspend,
revoke, or modify a certified renovator’s
certification if the renovator fails to
ensure that all assigned renovations
comply with § 745.85. In addition to an
administrative or judicial finding of
violation, execution of a consent

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

21766

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

agreement in settlement of an
enforcement action constitutes, for
purposes of this section, evidence of a
failure to comply with relevant statutes
or regulations.
(2) Grounds for suspending, revoking,
or modifying a firm’s certification. EPA
may suspend, revoke, or modify a firm’s
certification if the firm:
(i) Submits false or misleading
information to EPA in its application for
certification or re-certification.
(ii) Fails to maintain or falsifies
records required in § 745.86.
(iii) Fails to comply, or an individual
performing a renovation on behalf of the
firm fails to comply, with Federal leadbased paint statutes or regulations. In
addition to an administrative or judicial
finding of violation, execution of a
consent agreement in settlement of an
enforcement action constitutes, for
purposes of this section, evidence of a
failure to comply with relevant statutes
or regulations.
(b) Process for suspending, revoking,
or modifying certification. (1) Prior to
taking action to suspend, revoke, or
modify an individual’s or firm’s
certification, EPA will notify the
affected entity in writing of the
following:
(i) The legal and factual basis for the
proposed suspension, revocation, or
modification.
(ii) The anticipated commencement
date and duration of the suspension,
revocation, or modification.
(iii) Actions, if any, which the
affected entity may take to avoid
suspension, revocation, or modification,
or to receive certification in the future.
(iv) The opportunity and method for
requesting a hearing prior to final
suspension, revocation, or modification.
(2) If an individual or firm requests a
hearing, EPA will:
(i) Provide the affected entity an
opportunity to offer written statements
in response to EPA’s assertions of the
legal and factual basis for its proposed
action.
(ii) Appoint an impartial official of
EPA as Presiding Officer to conduct the
hearing.
(3) The Presiding Officer will:
(i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and
impartial hearing within 90 days of the
request for a hearing.
(ii) Consider all relevant evidence,
explanation, comment, and argument
submitted.
(iii) Notify the affected entity in
writing within 90 days of completion of
the hearing of his or her decision and
order. Such an order is a final agency
action which may be subject to judicial
review. The order must contain the
commencement date and duration of the
suspension, revocation, or modification.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

(4) If EPA determines that the public
health, interest, or welfare warrants
immediate action to suspend the
certification of any individual or firm
prior to the opportunity for a hearing, it
will:
(i) Notify the affected entity in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i)
through (b)(1)(iii) of this section,
explaining why it is necessary to
suspend the entity’s certification before
an opportunity for a hearing.
(ii) Notify the affected entity of its
right to request a hearing on the
immediate suspension within 15 days of
the suspension taking place and the
procedures for the conduct of such a
hearing.
(5) Any notice, decision, or order
issued by EPA under this section, any
transcript or other verbatim record of
oral testimony, and any documents filed
by a certified individual or firm in a
hearing under this section will be
available to the public, except as
otherwise provided by section 14 of
TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any such
hearing at which oral testimony is
presented will be open to the public,
except that the Presiding Officer may
exclude the public to the extent
necessary to allow presentation of
information which may be entitled to
confidential treatment under section 14
of TSCA or part 2 of this title.
(6) EPA will maintain a publicly
available list of entities whose
certification has been suspended,
revoked, modified, or reinstated.
(7) Unless the decision and order
issued under paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this
section specify otherwise:
(i) An individual whose certification
has been suspended must take a
refresher training course (renovator or
dust sampling technician) in order to
make his or her certification current.
(ii) An individual whose certification
has been revoked must take an initial
renovator or dust sampling technician
course in order to become certified
again.
(iii) A firm whose certification has
been revoked must reapply for
certification after the revocation ends in
order to become certified again. If the
firm’s certification has been suspended
and the suspension ends less than 5
years after the firm was initially
certified or re-certified, the firm does
not need to do anything to re-activate its
certification.
■ 16. Section 745.220 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 745.220

Scope and applicability.

(a) This subpart contains procedures
and requirements for the accreditation
of training programs for lead-based

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

paint activities and renovations,
procedures and requirements for the
certification of individuals and firms
engaged in lead-based paint activities,
and work practice standards for
performing such activities. This subpart
also requires that, except as discussed
below, all lead-based paint activities, as
defined in this subpart, be performed by
certified individuals and firms.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Section 745.225 is amended as
follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (a).
■ b. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (b), revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii),
and add paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C).
■ c. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (c), add paragraphs (c)(6)(vi),
(c)(6)(vii), (c)(8)(vi), and (c)(8)(vii), and
revise paragraphs (c)(8)(iv) and (c)(10).
■ d. Remove the phrase ‘‘lead-based
paint activities’’ and add in its place the
phrase ‘‘renovator, dust sampling
technician, or lead-based paint
activities’’ wherever it appears in
paragraph (c)(13).
■ e. Add paragraph (c)(14)(ii)(D)(6).
■ f. Add paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7).
■ g. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (e).
■ h. Remove the word ‘‘activities’’
wherever it appears in paragraph (e)(1).
■ i. Revise paragraph (e)(2).
§ 745.225 Accreditation of training
programs; target housing and childoccupied facilities.

(a) Scope. (1) A training program may
seek accreditation to offer courses in
any of the following disciplines:
Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor,
project designer, abatement worker,
renovator, and dust sampling
technician. A training program may also
seek accreditation to offer refresher
courses for each of the above listed
disciplines.
(2) Training programs may first apply
to EPA for accreditation of their leadbased paint activities courses or
refresher courses pursuant to this
section on or after August 31, 1998.
Training programs may first apply to
EPA for accreditation of their renovator
or dust sampling technician courses or
refresher courses pursuant to this
section on or after April 22, 2009.
(3) A training program must not
provide, offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited lead-based paint activities
courses without applying for and
receiving accreditation from EPA as
required under paragraph (b) of this
section on or after March 1, 1999. A
training program must not provide,
offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited renovator or dust sampling
technician courses without applying for

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
and receiving accreditation from EPA as
required under paragraph (b) of this
section on or after June 23, 2008.
(b) Application process. The
following are procedures a training
program must follow to receive EPA
accreditation to offer lead-based paint
activities courses, renovator courses, or
dust sampling technician courses:
(1) * * *
(ii) A list of courses for which it is
applying for accreditation. For the
purposes of this section, courses taught
in different languages are considered
different courses, and each must
independently meet the accreditation
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) * * *
(C) When applying for accreditation of
a course in a language other than
English, a signed statement from a
qualified, independent translator that
they had compared the course to the
English language version and found the
translation to be accurate.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Requirements for the accreditation
of training programs. For a training
program to obtain accreditation from
EPA to offer lead-based paint activities
courses, renovator courses, or dust
sampling technician courses, the
program must meet the following
requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
(6) * * *
(vi) The renovator course must last a
minimum of 8 training hours, with a
minimum of 2 hours devoted to handson training activities. The minimum
curriculum requirements for the
renovator course are contained in
paragraph (d)(6) of this section. Handson training activities must cover
renovation methods that minimize the
creation of dust and lead-based paint
hazards, interior and exterior
containment and cleanup methods, and
post-renovation cleaning verification.
(vii) The dust sampling technician
course must last a minimum of 8
training hours, with a minimum of 2
hours devoted to hands-on training
activities. The minimum curriculum
requirements for the dust sampling
technician course are contained in
paragraph (d)(7) of this section. Handson training activities must cover dust
sampling methodologies.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) * * *
(iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor,
project designer, supervisor, or
abatement worker course completion
certificates, the expiration date of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

interim certification, which is 6 months
from the date of course completion.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) The language in which the course
was taught.
(vii) For renovator and dust sampling
technician course completion
certificates, a photograph of the
individual.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Courses offered by the training
program must teach the work practice
standards contained in § 745.85 or
§ 745.227, as applicable, in such a
manner that trainees are provided with
the knowledge needed to perform the
renovations or lead-based paint
activities they will be responsible for
conducting.
*
*
*
*
*
(14) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(6) A digital photograph of the
student.
(d) * * *
(6) Renovator. (i) Role and
responsibility of a renovator.
(ii) Background information on lead
and its adverse health effects.
(iii) Background information on EPA,
HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State,
and local regulations and guidance that
pertains to lead-based paint and
renovation activities.
(iv) Procedures for using acceptable
test kits to determine whether paint is
lead-based paint.
(v) Renovation methods to minimize
the creation of dust and lead-based
paint hazards.
(vi) Interior and exterior containment
and cleanup methods.
(vii) Methods to ensure that the
renovation has been properly
completed, including cleaning
verification, and clearance testing.
(viii) Waste handling and disposal.
(ix) Providing on-the-job training to
other workers.
(x) Record preparation.
(7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role
and responsibility of a dust sampling
technician.
(ii) Background information on lead
and its adverse health effects.
(iii) Background information on
Federal, State, and local regulations and
guidance that pertains to lead-based
paint and renovation activities.
(iv) Dust sampling methodologies.
(v) Clearance standards and testing.
(vi) Report preparation.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Requirements for the accreditation
of refresher training programs. A
training program may seek accreditation
to offer refresher training courses in any

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

21767

of the following disciplines: Inspector,
risk assessor, supervisor, project
designer, abatement worker, renovator,
and dust sampling technician. To obtain
EPA accreditation to offer refresher
training, a training program must meet
the following minimum requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Refresher courses for inspector,
risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement
worker must last a minimum of 8
training hours. Refresher courses for
project designer, renovator, and dust
sampling technician must last a
minimum of 4 training hours.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 18. Section 745.320 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 745.320

Scope and purpose.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) A State or Indian Tribe may seek
authorization to administer and enforce
all of the provisions of subpart E of this
part, just the pre-renovation education
provisions of subpart E of this part, or
just the training, certification,
accreditation, and work practice
provisions of subpart E of this part. The
provisions of §§ 745.324 and 745.326
apply for the purposes of such program
authorizations.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 19. Section 745.324 is amended as
follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(1).
■ b. Remove the phrase ‘‘lead-based
paint training accreditation and
certification’’ from the second sentence
of paragraph (b)(1)(iii).
■ c. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
■ d. Revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and
(e)(4).
■ e. Revise paragraph (f)(2).
■ f. Revise paragraph (i)(8).
§ 745.324 Authorization of State or Tribal
programs.

(a) Application content and
procedures. (1) Any State or Indian
Tribe that seeks authorization from EPA
to administer and enforce the provisions
of subpart E or subpart L of this part
must submit an application to the
Administrator in accordance with this
paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) An analysis of the State or Tribal
program that compares the program to
the Federal program in subpart E or
subpart L of this part, or both. This
analysis must demonstrate how the
program is, in the State’s or Indian
Tribe’s assessment, at least as protective
as the elements in the Federal program
at subpart E or subpart L of this part, or

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

21768

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

both. EPA will use this analysis to
evaluate the protectiveness of the State
or Tribal program in making its
determination pursuant to paragraph
(e)(2)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The State or Tribal program is at
least as protective of human health and
the environment as the corresponding
Federal program under subpart E or
subpart L of this part, or both; and
*
*
*
*
*
(4) If the State or Indian Tribe applies
for authorization of State or Tribal
programs under both subpart E and
subpart L, EPA may, as appropriate,
authorize one program and disapprove
the other.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) If a State or Indian Tribe does not
have an authorized program to
administer and enforce the prerenovation education requirements of
subpart E of this part by August 31,
1998, the Administrator will, by such
date, enforce those provisions of subpart
E of this part as the Federal program for
that State or Indian Country. If a State
or Indian Tribe does not have an
authorized program to administer and
enforce the training, certification and
accreditation requirements and work
practice standards of subpart E of this
part by April 22, 2009, the
Administrator will, by such date,
enforce those provisions of subpart E of
this part as the Federal program for that
State or Indian Country.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(8) By the date of such order, the
Administrator will establish and enforce
the provisions of subpart E or subpart L
of this part, or both, as the Federal
program for that State or Indian
Country.
■ 20. Section 745.326 is revised to read
as follows:

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal
program requirements.

(a) Program elements. To receive
authorization from EPA, a State or
Tribal program must contain the
following program elements:
(1) For pre-renovation education
programs, procedures and requirements
for the distribution of lead hazard
information to owners and occupants of
target housing and child-occupied
facilities before renovations for
compensation.
(2) For renovation training,
certification, accreditation, and work
practice standards programs:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

(i) Procedures and requirements for
the accreditation of renovation and dust
sampling technician training programs.
(ii) Procedures and requirements for
the certification of renovators and dust
sampling technicians.
(iii) Procedures and requirements for
the certification of individuals and/or
firms.
(iv) Requirements that all renovations
be conducted by appropriately certified
individuals and/or firms.
(v) Work practice standards for the
conduct of renovations.
(3) For all renovation programs,
development of the appropriate
infrastructure or government capacity to
effectively carry out a State or Tribal
program.
(b) Pre-renovation education. To be
considered at least as protective as the
Federal program, the State or Tribal
program must:
(1) Establish clear standards for
identifying renovation activities that
trigger the information distribution
requirements.
(2) Establish procedures for
distributing the lead hazard information
to owners and occupants of housing and
child-occupied facilities prior to
renovation activities.
(3) Require that the information to be
distributed include either the pamphlet
titled Renovate Right: Important Lead
Hazard Information for Families, Child
Care Providers and Schools, developed
by EPA under section 406(a) of TSCA,
or an alternate pamphlet or package of
lead hazard information that has been
submitted by the State or Tribe,
reviewed by EPA, and approved by EPA
for that State or Tribe. Such information
must contain renovation-specific
information similar to that in Renovate
Right: Important Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools, must meet the
content requirements prescribed by
section 406(a) of TSCA, and must be in
a format that is readable to the diverse
audience of housing and child-occupied
facility owners and occupants in that
State or Tribe.
(i) A State or Tribe with a prerenovation education program approved
before June 23, 2008, must demonstrate
that it meets the requirements of this
section no later than the first report that
it submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) on or
after April 22, 2009.
(ii) A State or Tribe with an
application for approval of a prerenovation education program
submitted but not approved before June
23, 2008, must demonstrate that it meets
the requirements of this section either
by amending its application or in the
first report that it submits pursuant

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to§ 745.324(h) of this part on or after
April 22, 2009.
(iii) A State or Indian Tribe
submitting its application for approval
of a pre-renovation education program
on or after June 23, 2008, must
demonstrate in its application that it
meets the requirements of this section.
(c) Accreditation of training programs.
To be considered at least as protective
as the Federal program, the State or
Tribal program must meet the
requirements of either paragraph (c)(1)
or (c)(2) of this section:
(1) The State or Tribal program must
establish accreditation procedures and
requirements, including:
(i) Procedures and requirements for
the accreditation of training programs,
including, but not limited to:
(A) Training curriculum
requirements.
(B) Training hour requirements.
(C) Hands-on training requirements.
(D) Trainee competency and
proficiency requirements.
(E) Requirements for training program
quality control.
(ii) Procedures and requirements for
the re-accreditation of training
programs.
(iii) Procedures for the oversight of
training programs.
(iv) Procedures and standards for the
suspension, revocation, or modification
of training program accreditations; or
(2) The State or Tribal program must
establish procedures and requirements
for the acceptance of renovation training
offered by training providers accredited
by EPA or a State or Tribal program
authorized by EPA under this subpart.
(d) Certification of renovators. To be
considered at least as protective as the
Federal program, the State or Tribal
program must:
(1) Establish procedures and
requirements for individual certification
that ensure that certified renovators are
trained by an accredited training
program.
(2) Establish procedures and
requirements for re-certification.
(3) Establish procedures for the
suspension, revocation, or modification
of certifications.
(e) Work practice standards for
renovations. To be considered at least as
protective as the Federal program, the
State or Tribal program must establish
standards that ensure that renovations
are conducted reliably, effectively, and
safely. At a minimum, the State or
Tribal program must contain the
following requirements:
(1) Renovations must be conducted
only by certified contractors.
(2) Renovations are conducted using
lead-safe work practices that are at least

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
as protective to occupants as the
requirements in § 745.85.
(3) Certified contractors must retain
appropriate records.
■ 21. Section 745.327 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and
(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based
paint compliance and enforcement
programs.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Requirements that regulate the
conduct of renovation activities as
described at § 745.326.
(2) * * *
(ii) For the purposes of enforcing a
renovation program, State or Tribal
officials must be able to enter a firm’s
place of business or work site.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 22. Section 745.339 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 745.339 Effective date.

States and Indian Tribes may seek
authorization to administer and enforce
subpart L of this part pursuant to this
subpart at any time. States and Indian
Tribes may seek authorization to
administer and enforce the prerenovation education provisions of
subpart E of this part pursuant to this
subpart at any time. States and Indian
Tribes may seek authorization to
administer and enforce all of subpart E
of this part pursuant to this subpart
effective June 23, 2008.
[FR Doc. E8–8141 Filed 4–21–08; 8:45 am]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 745
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2004–0126; FRL–8358–6]

Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet;
Notice of Availability
Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of EPA’s new lead hazard
information pamphlet for renovation
activities, Renovate Right: Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools (Renovate Right).
There is an increased risk of exposure
to lead-based paint hazards during
renovation activities, particularly for
children under 6 years of age. To better
inform families, child care providers,
and schools about the risks and to

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:48 Apr 21, 2008

Jkt 214001

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
• Building construction (NAICS
code 236), e.g., single family housing
construction, multi-family housing
construction, residential remodelers.
• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS
code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and
air-conditioning contractors, painting
and wall covering contractors, electrical
contractors, finish carpentry contractors,
drywall and insulation contractors,
siding contractors, tile and terrazzo
contractors, glass and glazing
contractors.
• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g.,
lessors of residential buildings and
dwellings, residential property
managers.
• Child day care services (NAICS
code 624410).
• Elementary and secondary schools
(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary
schools with kindergarten classrooms.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
40 CFR 745.82. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

You may be potentially affected by
this action if you perform renovations of
target housing or child-occupied
facilities for compensation. ‘‘Target
housing’’ is defined in section 401 of
TSCA as any housing constructed prior
to 1978, except housing for the elderly
or persons with disabilities (unless any
child under age 6 resides or is expected
to reside in such housing) or any 0bedroom dwelling. EPA’s Renovation,
Repair, and Painting rule defines a
child-occupied facility as a building, or
a portion of a building, constructed
prior to 1978, visited regularly by the
same child, under 6 years of age, on at
least 2 different days within any week
(Sunday through Saturday period),
provided that each day’s visit lasts at
least 3 hours and the combined weekly
visits last at least 6 hours, and the
combined annual visits last at least 60
hours. Child-occupied facilities may be
located in public or commercial
buildings or in target housing.

B. How Can I Get Copies of the
Pamphlet and Other Related
Information?
1. The pamphlet. Single copies of the
pamphlet may be obtained by calling
the National Lead Information
Clearinghouse (NLIC) at 1–800–424–
LEAD or TDD: 1–800–526–5456, or the
EPA Public Information Center at (202)
260–2080. Multiple copies are available
through the Government Printing Office
(GPO). The public may order by calling
the GPO Order Desk at (202) 512–1800,
faxing (202) 512–2233, or writing to
Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954.
Request the publication by title,
Renovate Right: Lead Hazard
Information for Families, Child Care
Providers and Schools. The pamphlet is
also available on EPA’s website at
http://www.epa.gov/lead. The pamphlet
may be reproduced by an individual or
corporation without permission from
EPA.

encourage greater public health and
safety during renovation activities in
target housing and child-occupied
facilities, EPA has developed a
renovation-specific information
pamphlet. This new pamphlet gives
information on lead-based paint
hazards, lead testing, how to select a
contractor, what precautions to take
during the renovation, and proper
cleanup activities.
DATES: After June 23, 2008, the new
pamphlet or Protect Your Family From
Lead in Your Home may be used for
compliance with the Pre-Renovation
Education Rule under TSCA section
406(b). After December 22, 2008, the
new pamphlet must be used
exclusively.
For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:
[email protected].
For technical information contact:
Mike Wilson, National Program
Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number (201) 566–
0521; e-mail address:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

21769

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\22APR2.SGM

22APR2