EPA CERTIFIED LEAD TESTER<\/p>\n
LEAD TESTING<\/p>\n
FREE ESTIMATES<\/p>\n
Jacksonville\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Duval County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 904-346-1266
\nSt Augustine\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 St Johns County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 904-824-7144
\nOrange Park\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Clay County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 904-264-6444
\nJacksonville Beaches\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Duval County\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0904-246-3969
\nFernandina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nassau County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 904-277-3040
\nMacclenny\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Baker County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 904-259-5091
\nPalm Coast\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Flagler County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 386-439-5290
\nDaytona\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Volusia County\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 386-253-4911<\/p>\n
GAINESVILLE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ALACHUA COUNTY\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 352-335-8555
\nServing all of Florida \u00a0and Georgia\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 at \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0904-346-1266<\/p>\n
EMAIL <\/strong>LARRY@1STPROP.COM<\/a> (feel free to email your bidding packages here)<\/p>\n We are certified by the EPA and the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA for testing for LEAD PAINT in your home or business.<\/p>\n FREE ESTIMATES<\/p>\n other websites we recommend you look at<\/strong><\/p>\n www.asap-plumbing.com<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n www.asapgasinstallers.com<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n www.dirtandsandforsale.com<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n www.asaproofinspections.com<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/allprogas.com\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/asapbackflowtesting.com\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\r\n40 CFR Part 745\r\n[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8355-7]\r\nRIN 2070-AC83\r\n\r\nLead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program\r\n\r\nAGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\r\nACTION: Final rule.\r\n\r\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\nSUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final rule under the authority of section\r\n402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address lead-\r\nbased paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting\r\nactivities that disturb lead-based paint in target housing and child-\r\noccupied facilities. ``Target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401\r\nas any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly\r\nor persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or\r\nis expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under\r\nthis rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a portion of a\r\nbuilding, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same\r\nchild, under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within any\r\nweek (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit\r\nlasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6\r\nhours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-\r\noccupied facilities may be located in public or commercial buildings or\r\nin target housing. This rule establishes requirements for training\r\nrenovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians;\r\nfor certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation\r\nfirms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling\r\ntechnician training; for renovation work practices; and for\r\nrecordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may\r\napply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of\r\nthe elements of these new renovation requirements.\r\n\r\nDATES: This final rule is effective June 23, 2008.\r\n\r\nADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket\r\nidentification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. All documents in the\r\ndocket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To\r\naccess the electronic docket, go to http:\/\/www.regulations.gov<\/a>, select\r\n``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID\r\nnumber where indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the\r\ninstructions on the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or\r\naccess available documents. Although listed in the index, some\r\ninformation is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business\r\nInformation (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted\r\nby statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will\r\nbe publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket\r\nmaterials are available electronically at http:\/\/www.regulations.gov<\/a>,\r\nor, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket\r\nis located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA\/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West\r\nBldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA\/DC Public\r\nReading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday\r\nthrough Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the\r\nEPA\/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number\r\nfor the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to\r\nshow photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and\r\nsign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-\r\nray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA\/DC\r\nbadge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned\r\nupon departure.\r\n\r\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby\r\nLintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division\r\n(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental\r\nProtection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-\r\n0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: \r\nTSCA-Hotline@epa.gov<\/a>.\r\n For technical information contact: Mike Wilson, National Program\r\nChemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,\r\nEnvironmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,\r\nWashington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0521; e-mail\r\naddress: wilson.mike@epa.gov<\/a>.\r\n\r\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\r\n\r\nI. Does this Action Apply to Me?\r\n\r\n You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform\r\nrenovations of target housing or child-occupied facilities for\r\ncompensation or dust sampling. ``Target housing'' is defined in section\r\n401 of TSCA as any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing\r\nfor the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child under\r\nage 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-\r\nbedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a child-occupied facility is a\r\nbuilding, or a portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978,\r\nvisited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on at least\r\n2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period),\r\nprovided that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined\r\nweekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits\r\nlast at least 60 hours. Child-occupied facilities may be located in\r\npublic or commercial buildings or in target housing. Potentially\r\naffected entities may include, but are not limited to:\r\n \u2022 Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single family housing\r\nconstruction, multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers.\r\n \u2022 Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g.,\r\nplumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall\r\ncovering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry\r\ncontractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors,\r\ntile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.\r\n \u2022 Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential\r\nbuildings and dwellings, residential property managers.\r\n \u2022 Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).\r\n \u2022 Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),\r\ne.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.\r\n \u2022 Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),\r\ne.g., training providers.\r\n \u2022 Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building\r\ninspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians.\r\n This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides\r\na guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this\r\naction. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be\r\naffected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)\r\ncodes have been provided to assist you and others in determining\r\nwhether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine\r\nwhether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should\r\ncarefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit III. If you have\r\nany questions regarding the applicability of this action to a\r\nparticular entity, consult the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER\r\nINFORMATION CONTACT.\r\n\r\nII. Background\r\n\r\nA. What Action is the Agency Taking?\r\n\r\n EPA is issuing a final rule under the authority of section\r\n402(c)(3) of the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21693]]\r\n\r\nToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address lead-based paint hazards\r\ncreated by renovation, repair, and painting activities (hereinafter\r\nalso referred to as renovation activities or renovation projects) that\r\ndisturb lead-based paint in target housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities. ``Target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401 as any\r\nhousing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or\r\npersons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is\r\nexpected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under\r\nthis rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a portion of a\r\nbuilding, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same\r\nchild, under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within any\r\nweek (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit\r\nlasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6\r\nhours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-\r\noccupied facilities may be located in public or commercial buildings or\r\nin target housing. This rule establishes requirements for training\r\nrenovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians;\r\nfor certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation\r\nfirms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling\r\ntechnician training; for renovation work practices; and for\r\nrecordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may\r\napply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of\r\nthe elements of these new renovation requirements.\r\n 1. Information on lead and its health effects. Lead is a soft,\r\nbluish metallic chemical element mined from rock and found in its\r\nnatural state all over the world. Lead is virtually indestructible, is\r\npersistent, and has been known since antiquity for its adaptability in\r\nmaking various useful items. In modern times, it has been used to\r\nmanufacture many different products, including paint, batteries, pipes,\r\nsolder, pottery, and gasoline. Through the 1940's, paint manufacturers\r\nfrequently used lead as a primary ingredient in many oil-based interior\r\nand exterior house paints. Usage gradually decreased through the 1950's\r\nand 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced lead and as latex paints became\r\nmore widely available.\r\n Lead has been demonstrated to exert ``a broad array of deleterious\r\neffects on multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of\r\naction.'' This array of health effects, the evidence for which is\r\ncomprehensively described in EPA's Air Quality Criteria for Lead\r\ndocument (Ref. 1), includes heme biosynthesis and related functions;\r\nneurological development and function; reproduction and physical\r\ndevelopment; kidney function; cardiovascular function; and immune\r\nfunction. There is also some evidence of lead carcinogenicity,\r\nprimarily from animal studies, together with limited human evidence of\r\nsuggestive associations.\r\n Of particular interest for present purposes is the delineation of\r\nlowest observed effect levels for those lead-induced effects that are\r\nmost clearly associated with blood lead less 10 μg\/dL in children\r\nand\/or adults and are, therefore, of greatest public health concern\r\n(Ref. 1, at 8-60). As evident from the Criteria Document, neurotoxic\r\neffects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults are among\r\nthose best substantiated as occurring at blood-lead concentrations as\r\nlow as 5 to 10 μg\/dL (or possibly lower); and these categories of\r\neffects are currently clearly of greatest public health concern. Other\r\nnewly demonstrated immune and renal system effects among general\r\npopulation groups are also emerging as low-level lead-exposure effects\r\nof potential public health concern. (Ref. 1, at 8-60)\r\n The overall weight of the available evidence provides clear\r\nsubstantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated in young\r\nchildren with blood lead concentrations in the range of 5-10 micrograms\r\nper deciliter (μg\/dL), and possibly somewhat lower. Some newly\r\navailable analyses appear to show lead effects on the intellectual\r\nattainment of preschool and school age children at population mean\r\nconcurrent blood-lead levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 μg\/dL.\r\nA decline of 6.2 points in full scale IQ for an increase in concurrent\r\nblood lead levels from 1 to 10 μg\/dL has been estimated, based on a\r\npooled analysis of results derived from seven well-conducted\r\nprospective epidemiologic studies (Ref. 1, at E-9).\r\n Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations\r\nbetween lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular\r\noutcomes, including increased blood pressure and incidence of\r\nhypertension. A meta-analysis of numerous studies estimates that a\r\ndoubling of blood lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μg\/dL) is\r\nassociated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6\r\nmm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. (Ref. 1, at E-10).\r\n Both epidemiologic and toxicologic studies have shown that\r\nenvironmentally relevant levels of lead affect many different organ\r\nsystems (Ref. 1, at E-8). Please see Ref. 1 for further information.\r\n The nervous system has long been recognized as a target of lead\r\ntoxicity, with the developing nervous system affected at lower\r\nexposures than the mature system. While blood lead levels in U.S.\r\nchildren ages 1 to 5 years have decreased notably since the late\r\n1970's, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of\r\neffects on the neurodevelopment of children at population mean\r\nconcurrent blood lead levels ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 μg\/dL\r\n(Ref. 1, at E-9). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity\r\nduring childhood include sensory, motor, cognitive and behavioral\r\nimpacts. Investigating associations between lead exposure and behavior,\r\nmood, and social conduct of children has been an emerging area of\r\nresearch (see Ref. 1, at 6.2.6). Early studies indicated linkages\r\nbetween lower-level lead toxicity and behavioral problems (e.g.,\r\naggression, attentional problems, and hyperactivity) in children.\r\n Effects of lead on neurobehavior have been reported with remarkable\r\nconsistency across numerous studies of various designs, populations\r\nstudied, and developmental assessment protocols. The negative impact of\r\nlead on IQ and other neurobehavioral outcomes persist in most recent\r\nstudies following adjustment for numerous confounding factors including\r\nsocial class, quality of caregiving, and parental intelligence.\r\nMoreover, these effects appear to persist into adolescence and young\r\nadulthood. Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have\r\nbeen observed in some studies include decrements in intelligence test\r\nresults, such as the widely used IQ score, and in academic achievement\r\nas assessed by various standardized tests as well as by class ranking\r\nand graduation rates. Associations between lead exposure and academic\r\nachievement observed in the above-noted studies were significant even\r\nafter adjusting for IQ, suggesting that lead-sensitive\r\nneuropsychological processing and learning factors not reflected by\r\nglobal intelligence indices might contribute to reduced performance on\r\nacademic tasks (Ref. 1, at 8-29).\r\n Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have\r\nincluded effects on attention, executive functions, language, memory,\r\nlearning and visuospatial processing with attention and executive\r\nfunction effects observed. The evidence for the role of lead in this\r\nsuite of effects includes experimental animal findings.These animal\r\ntoxicology findings provide strong biological plausibility in support of\r\nthe concept that lead may impact one or more of these specific cognitive\r\n\r\n[[Page 21694]]\r\n\r\nfunctions in humans (Ref. 1, at 8-30). Further, lead-induced deficits\r\nobserved in animal and epidemiological studies, for the most part, have\r\nbeen found to be persistent in the absence of markedly reduced\r\nenvironmental exposures. It is additionally important to note that\r\nthere may be long-term consequences of such deficits over a lifetime.\r\nStudies examining aspects of academic achievement related to lead\r\nexposure indicate the association of deficits in academic skills and\r\nperformance, which in turn lead to enduring and important effects on\r\nobjective parameters of success in real life (Ref. 1, at 6-76).\r\n Lead bioaccumulates, and is only slowly removed, with bone lead\r\nserving as a blood lead source for years after exposure and may serve\r\nas a significant source of exposure. Bone accounts for more than 90% of\r\nthe total body burden of lead in adults and 70% in children (Ref. 1, at\r\n4-42). In comparison to adults, bone mineral turns over much more\r\nquickly in children as a result of growth. Changes in blood lead\r\nconcentration in children are thought to parallel more closely to\r\nchanges in total body burden. Therefore, blood lead concentration is\r\noften used in epidemiologic and toxicological studies as an index of\r\nexposure and body burden for children.\r\n Paint that contains lead can pose a health threat through various\r\nroutes of exposure. House dust is the most common exposure pathway\r\nthrough which children are exposed to lead-based paint hazards. Dust\r\ncreated during normal lead-based paint wear (especially around windows\r\nand doors) can create an invisible film over surfaces in a house.\r\nChildren, particularly younger children, are at risk for high exposures\r\nof lead-based paint dust via hand-to-mouth exposure, and may also\r\ningest lead-based paint chips from flaking paint on walls, windows, and\r\ndoors. Lead from exterior house paint can flake off or leach into the\r\nsoil around the outside of a home, contaminating children's play areas.\r\nCleaning and renovation activities may actually increase the threat of\r\nlead-based paint exposure by dispersing lead dust particles in the air\r\nand over accessible household surfaces. In turn, both adults and\r\nchildren can receive hazardous exposures by inhaling the dust or by\r\ningesting lead-based paint dust during hand-to-mouth activities.\r\n 2. Statutory and regulatory background. In 1992, Congress found\r\nthat low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American children,\r\naffecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6;\r\nthat the ingestion of household dust containing lead from deteriorating\r\nor abraded lead-based paint was the most common cause of lead poisoning\r\nin children; and that the health and development of children living in\r\nas many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or\r\npeeling lead paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in\r\ntheir homes. Congress further determined that the prior Federal\r\nresponse to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of the\r\nHousing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also\r\nknown as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992)\r\n(``the Act'' or ``Title X''). Title X established a national goal of\r\neliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as\r\npossible and provided a leadership role for the Federal government in\r\nbuilding the infrastructure necessary to achieve this goal.\r\n Subsequently, President Clinton created the President's Task Force\r\non Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Co-chaired\r\nby the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)\r\nand the Administrator of EPA, the Task Force consisted of\r\nrepresentatives from 16 Federal departments and agencies. The Task\r\nForce set a Federal goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the\r\nyear 2010 (Ref. 2). In October 2001, President Bush extended the work\r\nof the Task Force for an additional 18 months beyond its original\r\ncharter. Reducing lead poisoning in children was the Task Force's top\r\npriority. Although more work remains to be done, significant progress\r\nhas been made towards reducing lead poisoning in children. The\r\nestimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above the CDC\r\nlevel of concern declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 1994 to 1.6%\r\nbetween 2003 and 2004. More information on Federal efforts to address\r\nlead poisoning, including the responsibilities of EPA and other Federal\r\nAgencies under Title X, can be found in Units III.A. and III.B. of the\r\npreamble to the 2006 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program\r\nProposed Rule (``2006 Proposal'') (Ref. 3).\r\n The Act added a new title to TSCA entitled ``Title IV-Lead Exposure\r\nReduction.'' Most of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based\r\npaint hazards can be found in this title, with section402 of TSCA being\r\none source of the rulemaking authority to carry out these\r\nresponsibilities. TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate\r\nregulations covering lead-based paint activities to ensure persons\r\nperforming these activities are properly trained, that training\r\nprograms are accredited, and that contractors performing these\r\nactivities are certified. These regulations must contain standards for\r\nperforming lead-based paint activities, taking into account\r\nreliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, EPA\r\npromulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern\r\nlead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments,\r\nand abatements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (also\r\nreferred to as the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations). These\r\nregulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain an\r\naccreditation program for training providers and training and\r\ncertification requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk\r\nassessors, project designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement\r\nworkers. Work practice standards for lead-based paint activities are\r\nincluded. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for\r\ninterested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to apply for and\r\nreceive authorization to administer their own lead-based paint\r\nactivities programs.\r\n On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations were\r\namended to include a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA\r\naccreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA certification\r\n(Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section\r\n402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and\r\nenforcing the lead-based paint activities requirements in unauthorized\r\nStates. The most recent amendment to the Lead-based Paint Activities\r\nRegulations occurred on April 8, 2004, when notification requirements were\r\nadded to help EPA monitor compliance with the training and certification\r\nprovisions and the abatement work practice standards (Ref. 5).\r\n Another of EPA's responsibilities under Title X is to require that\r\npurchasers and tenants of target housing and occupants of target\r\nhousing undergoing renovation are provided information on lead-based\r\npaint and lead-based paint hazards. As directed by TSCA section 406(a),\r\nthe Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of\r\nHousing and Urban Development (HUD), and EPA, in consultation with the\r\nCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly developed a\r\nlead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead\r\nin Your Home (``PYF'') (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was designed to be\r\ndistributed as part of the disclosure requirements of section 1018 of\r\nTitle X and TSCA section 406(b), to provide home purchasers, renters,\r\n\r\n[[Page 21695]]\r\n\r\nowners, and occupants with the information necessary to allow them to\r\nmake informed choices when selecting housing to buy or rent, or\r\ndeciding on home renovation projects. The pamphlet contains information\r\non the health effects of lead, how exposure can occur, and steps that\r\ncan be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure during various\r\nactivities in the home.\r\n TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to promulgate regulations requiring\r\npersons who perform renovations for compensation in target housing to\r\nprovide a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants of\r\nthe home being renovated. These regulations, promulgated on June 1,\r\n1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (Ref. 8). The term\r\n``renovation'' is not defined in the statute, but the regulation, at 40\r\nCFR 745.83, defines a ``renovation'' as the modification of any\r\nexisting structure, or portion of a structure, that results in the\r\ndisturbance of painted surfaces. The regulations specifically exclude\r\nlead-based paint abatement projects as well as small projects that\r\ndisturb 2 square feet or less of painted surface per component,\r\nemergency projects, and renovations affecting components that have been\r\nfound to be free of lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the\r\nregulations, by a certified inspector or risk assessor. These\r\nregulations require the renovation firm to document compliance with the\r\nrequirement to provide the owner and the occupant with the PYF\r\npamphlet. TSCA section 404 also allows States to apply for, and receive\r\nauthorization to administer, the TSCA section 406(b) requirements.\r\n TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations that\r\nidentify, for the purposes of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous\r\nlevels of lead in paint, dust, and soil. These regulations were\r\npromulgated on January 5, 2001, and codified at 40 CFR part 745,\r\nsubpart D (Ref. 9). These hazard standards define lead-based paint\r\nhazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities as paint-lead,\r\ndust-lead, and soil-lead hazards. A paint-lead hazard is defined as any\r\ndamaged or deteriorated lead-based paint, any chewable lead-based\r\npainted surface with evidence of teeth marks, or any lead-based paint\r\non a friction surface if lead dust levels underneath the friction\r\nsurface exceed the dust-lead hazard standards. A dust-lead hazard is\r\nsurface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal\r\nto or exceeding 40 micrograms per square foot (μg\/ft\\2\\) on floors\r\nor 250 μg\/ft\\2\\ on interior windowsills based on wipe samples. A\r\nsoil-lead hazard is bare soil that contains total lead equal to or\r\nexceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in a play area or average of\r\n1,200 ppm of bare soil in the rest of the yard based on soil samples.\r\n TSCA section 402(c) addresses renovation and remodeling. For the\r\nstated purpose of reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection\r\nwith renovation and remodeling activities, section 402(c)(1) of TSCA\r\nrequires EPA to promulgate and disseminate guidelines for the conduct\r\nof such activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous\r\nlevels of lead. In response to this statutory directive, EPA developed\r\nthe guidance document entitledReducing Lead Hazards when Remodeling\r\nYour Home in consultation with industry and trade groups (Ref. 10).\r\nThis document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling\r\nstakeholders through the National Lead Information Center, EPA Regions,\r\nand EPA's State and Tribal partners and is available at \r\nhttp:\/\/www.epa.gov\/lead\/pubs\/rrpamph.pdf<\/a>.\r\n TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study the extent to which\r\npersons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities are exposed to lead during such activities or create a lead-\r\nbased paint hazard regularly or occasionally. EPA conducted this study\r\nin four phases. Phase I, the Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 11),\r\nevaluated the amount of leaded dust released by the following activities:\r\n \u2022 Paint removal by abrasive sanding.\r\n \u2022 Removal of large structures, including demolition of\r\ninterior plaster walls.\r\n \u2022 Window replacement.\r\n \u2022 Carpet removal.\r\n \u2022 HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work.\r\n \u2022 Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions,\r\nincluding drilling and sawing into wood and plaster.\r\n Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref.\r\n12), involved collecting data on blood lead and renovation and\r\nremodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood\r\nBlood-Lead Study (Ref. 13.), was a retrospective study focused on\r\nassessing the relationship between renovation and remodeling activities\r\nand children's blood-lead levels. Phase IV, the Worker Characterization\r\nand Blood-Lead Study of R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of\r\nOld or Historic Homes (Ref. 14), was similar to Phase II, but focused\r\non individuals who worked primarily in old historic buildings. More\r\ninformation on the results of these peer-reviewed studies can be found\r\nin Unit III.C.1. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal.\r\n 3. Summary of 2006 Proposal. TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to\r\nrevise the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations to apply to\r\nrenovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint\r\nhazards. In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that any\r\nrenovation activity that disturbs lead-based paint can create\r\nsignificant amounts of leaded dust, that most activities created lead-\r\nbased paint hazards, and that some activities can be reasonably\r\nanticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. Accordingly, on January\r\n10, 2006, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering\r\nrenovation performed for compensation in target housing (Ref. 3). The\r\n2006 Proposal contained requirements designed to address lead-based\r\npaint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities\r\nthat disturb lead-based paint. The 2006 Proposal included requirements\r\nfor training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling\r\ntechnicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and\r\nrenovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust\r\nsampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for\r\nrecordkeeping. The 2006 Proposal would have made the rule effective in\r\ntwo stages. Initially, the rule would have applied to all renovations\r\nfor compensation performed in target housing where a child with an\r\nincreased blood lead level resided and rental target housing built\r\nbefore 1960. The rule would also have applied to owner-occupied target\r\nhousing built before 1960, unless the person performing the renovation\r\nobtained a statement signed by the owner-occupant that the renovation\r\nwould occur in the owner's residence and that no child under age 6\r\nresided there. As proposed, the rule would take effect 1 year later in\r\nall rental target housing built between 1960 and 1978 and owner-\r\noccupied target housing built between 1960 and 1978. EPA also proposed\r\nto allow interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes the\r\nopportunity to apply for and receive authorization to administer and\r\nenforce all of the elements of the new renovation provisions.\r\n 4. Summary of 2007 Supplemental Proposal. EPA received\r\napproximately 250 comments on its 2006 Proposal. These comments came\r\nfrom a wide variety of commenters, including State and local\r\ngovernments, industry groups, advocacy groups, renovation contractors,\r\ntraining providers, and individuals. A significant number of these\r\ncommenters observed that the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21696]]\r\n\r\nproposal did not cover buildings where children under age 6 spend a\r\ngreat deal of time, such as day care centers and schools. Commenters\r\nnoted that the risk posed to children from lead-based paint hazards in\r\nschools and day care centers is likely to be equal to, if not greater\r\nthan, the risk posed from these hazards at home. These commenters\r\nsuggested that EPA expand its proposal to include such places, and\r\nseveral suggested that EPA use the existing definition of ``child-\r\noccupied facility'' in 40 CFR 745.223 to define the expanded scope of\r\ncoverage. EPA felt that these comments had merit, and, because adding\r\nchild-occupied facilities was beyond the scope of the 2006 Proposal, an\r\nexpansion of the 2006 Proposal was necessary to give this issue full\r\nand fair consideration. Accordingly, on June 5, 2007, EPA issued a\r\nSupplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2007 Supplemental Proposal)\r\nto add child-occupied facilities to the universe of buildings covered\r\nby the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 15).\r\n EPA proposed to use the definition of ``child-occupied facility''\r\nfrom 40 CFR 745.223 with some modifications to make it consistent with\r\nthe statutory focus on children under age 6 and to better describe the\r\napplicability of the term in target housing and in public or commercial\r\nbuildings. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal would apply all of the\r\naccreditation, training, certification, work practice, and\r\nrecordkeeping requirements to renovations in child-occupied facilities\r\nin the same way that the requirements would apply to renovations in\r\ntarget housing. In addition, EPA proposed to extend the lead hazard\r\ninformation distribution requirements of the Pre-Renovation Education\r\nRule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, to renovations in child-occupied\r\nfacilities. Specifically, EPA proposed that persons performing\r\nrenovations in child-occupied facilities in public or commercial\r\nbuildings would have to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to\r\nthe owner of the building and to the proprietor of the child-occupied\r\nfacility. In addition, general information about the renovation would\r\nhave to be provided to parents and guardians of children under age 6\r\nusing the child-occupied facility. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal\r\nfurther provided that a lead hazard information pamphlet would have to\r\nbe provided to parents and guardians or made available upon request.\r\nEPA received 12 comments on its 2007 Supplemental Proposal.\r\n 5. 2007 Notice of Data Availability. After the 2006 proposal, two\r\nnew studies assessing hazards associated with renovation activities\r\nwere completed. On March 16, 2007, EPA announced the availability of\r\nthese new studies in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 16). EPA\r\nrequested comment on how these studies might inform provisions of the\r\nfinal rule. EPA received nearly 100 comments in response to its notice.\r\nComments specifically on the studies are discussed below. Comments on\r\nhow the studies might affect the final rule are discussed along with\r\nthe provisions of the final rule in Unit III.E. of this preamble.\r\n a. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair,\r\nand Painting Activities. EPA conducted a field study (Characterization\r\nof Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities)\r\n(the ``Dust Study'') to characterize dust lead levels resulting from\r\nvarious renovation, repair, and painting activities (Ref. 17). This\r\nstudy, completed in January 2007, was designed to compare environmental\r\nlead levels at appropriate stages after various types of renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting preparation activities were performed on the\r\ninteriors and exteriors of target housing units and child-occupied\r\nfacilities. All of the jobs disturbed more than 2 square feet of lead-\r\nbased paint, so they would not have been eligible for the minor\r\nmaintenance exception from the 2006 Proposal. The renovation activities\r\nwere conducted by local professional renovation firms, using personnel\r\nwho received lead safe work practices training using the curriculum\r\ndeveloped by EPA and HUD, ``Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, and\r\nPainting'' (Ref. 18). The activities conducted represented a range of\r\nactivities that would be permitted under the 2006 Proposal, including\r\nwork practices that are restricted or prohibited for abatements under\r\n40 CFR 745.227(e)(6). Of particular interest was the impact of using\r\nspecific work practices that renovation firms would be required to use\r\nunder the proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the work\r\narea and a multi-step cleaning protocol, as opposed to more typical\r\nwork practices.\r\n The design of the Dust Study was peer-reviewed by experts in fields\r\nrelated to the study. They reviewed the design and quality assurance\r\nplan independently and provided written comments to EPA. The results of\r\nthis peer-review are summarized in Unit 2 of the Dust Study report\r\n(Ref. 17). In addition, the record of this peer-review, which includes\r\nthe comments from the reviewers and EPA's responses, has been placed\r\ninto the public docket for this action.\r\n In the Dust Study, 12 different interior and 12 different exterior\r\nrenovation activities were performed at 7 vacant target housing units\r\nin Columbus, Ohio, and 8 vacant target housing units (including four\r\napartments) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Three different interior and\r\nthree different exterior renovation activities were conducted at a\r\nbuilding representing a child-occupied facility, a vacant school in\r\nColumbus. The presence of lead-based paint was confirmed by laboratory\r\nanalysis before a building was assigned a particular renovation\r\nactivity or set of activities. Before interior renovation activities\r\nwere performed, the floors and windowsills in the work area and\r\nadjacent rooms were cleaned. In most cases, pre-work cleaning resulted\r\nin dust lead levels on floors of less than 10 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\; nearly\r\nall floors were less than 40 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ before work started. Most\r\nwindowsills that would be used for later sampling were cleaned to dust\r\nlead levels less than 250 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\. In the few cases where that\r\nlevel was not achieved on a windowsill needed for sampling, dust\r\ncollection trays were used. Interior renovation activities included the\r\nfollowing jobs:\r\n \u2022 Making cut-outs in the walls.\r\n \u2022 Replacing a window from the inside.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a high temperature (greater than 1100\r\ndegrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a low temperature (less than 1100\r\ndegrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint by dry scraping.\r\n \u2022 Removing kitchen cabinets.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a power planer.\r\n To illustrate the impact of the containment plastic and the\r\nspecialized cleaning and cleaning verification protocol that would be\r\nrequired by the 2006 Proposal, each activity was performed a minimum of\r\nfour times:\r\n \u2022 With the plastic containment described in the 2006\r\nProposal followed by the cleaning protocol described in the proposal.\r\n \u2022 With the plastic containment described in the 2006\r\nProposal followed by dry sweeping and vacuuming with a shop vacuum.\r\n \u2022 With no plastic containment followed by the cleaning\r\nprotocol described in the 2006 Proposal.\r\n \u2022 With no plastic containment followed by dry sweeping and\r\nvacuuming with a shop vacuum.\r\n Dust samples were collected after the renovation work was\r\ncompleted, after cleaning, and after cleaning verification. If a\r\nbuilding was being used again for the same job under different work\r\n\r\n[[Page 21697]]\r\n\r\npractices, or for a completely different job, the unit was recleaned\r\nand retested prior to starting the next job. All buildings were cleaned\r\nand tested after the last job.\r\n Geometric mean post-work, pre-cleaning floor dust lead levels in\r\nthe work room were as follows (in [micro]g\/ft\\2\\):\r\n \u2022 Cut-outs--422.\r\n \u2022 Kitchen cabinet removal--958.\r\n \u2022 Low temperature heat gun--2,080.\r\n \u2022 Dry scraping--2,686.\r\n \u2022 Window replacement--3,993.\r\n \u2022 High temperature heat gun--7,737.\r\n \u2022 Power planing--32,644.\r\n Power planing is an activity very similar to power sanding in which\r\na machine that operates at high speed generating large quantities of\r\ndust is used.\r\n Where baseline practices, i.e., no containment, dry sweeping, and\r\nvacuuming with a shop vacuum, were used, the geometric mean post-job floor\r\ndust lead levels in the work room were as follows (in [micro]g\/ft\\2\\):\r\n \u2022 Cut-outs--22.\r\n \u2022 Kitchen cabinet removal--58.\r\n \u2022 Low temperature heat gun--41.\r\n \u2022 Dry scraping--66.\r\n \u2022 Window replacement--135.\r\n \u2022 High temperature heat gun--445.\r\n \u2022 Power planing--450.\r\n The package of proposed rule requirements, i.e., containment,\r\nspecialized cleaning, and cleaning verification, resulted in the lowest\r\ngeometric mean dust lead levels in the work room at the end of a job.\r\nThese results were as follows (in [micro]g\/ft\\2\\):\r\n \u2022 Cut-outs--5.\r\n \u2022 Kitchen cabinet removal--12.\r\n \u2022 Low temperature heat gun--24.\r\n \u2022 Dry scraping--30.\r\n \u2022 Window replacement--33.\r\n \u2022 High temperature heat gun--36.\r\n \u2022 Power planing--148.\r\n Windowsill sample results were similar; the geometric mean dust\r\nlead levels after renovation activities performed in accordance with\r\nthe proposed rule exceeded 250 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ only where power planing\r\nor a high temperature heat gun were used. When baseline practices were\r\nused, the geometric mean dust lead levels on the windowsills exceeded\r\n250 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for kitchen cabinet removal, window replacement,\r\nhigh temperature heat gun use, and power planing.\r\n Exterior renovation activities performed as part of the study\r\nincluded the following:\r\n \u2022 Replacing a door and doorway.\r\n \u2022 Replacing fascia boards, soffits, and other trim.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a high temperature (greater than 1100\r\ndegrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a low temperature (less than 1100\r\ndegrees Fahrenheit) heat gun.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint by dry scraping.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a needle gun.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with power sanding or grinding.\r\n \u2022 Removing paint with a torch or open flame.\r\n For the exterior jobs, plastic sheeting was placed on the ground to\r\ncatch the debris and dust from the job, in accordance with the\r\nrequirements of the proposed rule. Additional plastic sheeting was laid\r\nout beneath and beyond the ``proposed rule'' plastic. Trays to collect\r\ndust and debris were placed on top of and underneath the ``proposed\r\nrule'' plastic. Trays were also placed just outside of the ``proposed\r\nrule'' plastic to assess how far the dust was spreading. A vertical\r\ncontainment, as high as the work zone, was erected at the end of the\r\nadditional plastic.\r\n The use of the ``proposed rule'' plastic as a ground covering\r\ncaptured large amounts of leaded dust. For all job types except\r\nremoving paint with a torch, there was a substantial difference between\r\nthe amount of lead captured by the ``proposed rule'' plastic and the\r\namount under the ``proposed rule'' plastic. Including both bulk debris\r\nand dust, geometric mean lead levels in exterior samples from the\r\ncollection trays on top of the ``proposed rule'' plastic ranged from a\r\nlow of 60,662 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for the door replacement activity to a\r\nhigh of 7,216,358 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for removing paint with a high\r\ntemperature heat gun. Geometric mean lead levels from the collection\r\ntrays under the ``proposed rule'' plastic ranged from a low of 32\r\n[micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for door replacement to 8,565 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for\r\nremoving paint with a torch.\r\n This regulatory action was supported by the Dust Study discussed\r\nabove. Therefore, EPA conducted a peer review in accordance with OMB's\r\nFinal Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. EPA requested this\r\nreview from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Lead\r\nReview Panel. The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed\r\nby the EPA Administrator, was established under the Clean Air Act as an\r\nindependent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC's comments on the\r\nDust Study, along with EPA's responses, have been placed into the\r\npublic docket for this action. More information on the CASAC\r\nconsultation process, along with background documents, is available on\r\nEPA's website at http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/lead\/pubs\/casac.htm<\/a>.\r\n According to the peer review report, the CASAC Panel found\r\n . . .that the [Dust Study] was reasonably well-designed,\r\nconsidering the complexity of the problem, and that the report\r\nprovided information not available from any other source. The study\r\nindicated that the rule cleaning procedures reduced the residual\r\nlead (Pb) remaining after a renovation more than did the baseline\r\ncleaning procedures. Another positive aspect of the Dust Study was\r\nthat it described deviations from the protocol when they occurred.\r\n\r\nThe CASAC Panel also contended that the limited data from residential\r\nhousing units and child-occupied facilities included in the Dust Study,\r\nmost likely do not represent a statistically valid sample of housing at\r\nthe national level. They noted that there are aspects of the study that\r\nwould underestimate the levels of lead-loadings while other aspects of\r\nthe study would overestimate the loadings. EPA agrees that the Dust\r\nStudy is not nationally representative of all housing. EPA notes that\r\nthere are several reasons why this is the case, including the fact that\r\nall of the housing studied was built during 1925 or earlier, and a\r\nlarge number of the floors were in poor condition. A major purpose of\r\nthe Dust Study was to assess the proposed work practices. A\r\nstatistically valid sample of housing at the national level is not\r\nneeded to assess the work practices. If anything, the Dust Study is\r\nconservative with respect to the age of housing because it studied\r\nolder houses and therefore is appropriate for assessing the\r\neffectiveness of the work practices.\r\n In addition to the Dust Study which directly supported this\r\nregulatory action, several other studies are discussed throughout the\r\npreamble which may or may not have been peer reviewed.\r\n b. Lead-Safe Work Practices Survey Project. The National\r\nAssociation of Home Builders (NAHB) conducted a survey that assessed\r\nrenovation and remodeling activities to measure levels of lead dust\r\ngenerated by home improvement contractors (Ref. 19). The stated\r\nobjective of this survey, completed in November 2006, was to measure\r\nthe amount of lead dust generated during typical renovation and\r\nremodeling activities and assess whether routine renovation and\r\nremodeling activities increased lead dust levels in the work area and\r\non the property.\r\n The activities evaluated during the survey were selected in\r\nconsultation with remodeling contractors. NAHB believes that these\r\nactivities represent the most common jobs performed by renovation and\r\nremodeling firms. The renovations were performed by professional\r\nrenovation and remodeling\r\n\r\n[[Page 21698]]\r\n\r\ncontractors from each of the communities where the properties were\r\nlocated. All of the workers who participated in this project had\r\npreviously attended and successfully completed the EPA\/HUD curriculum\r\nfor Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting.\r\n According to the NAHB survey, anEPA-certified lead-based paint\r\ninspector confirmed the presence of lead-based paint in all of the\r\nproperties considered for this survey. Previous inspection reports were\r\nconsulted if the inspections conformed to the HUD Guidelines for lead-\r\nbased paint inspections. Properties used in this survey included a\r\nsingle family home in Illinois, two single-family homes and a duplex in\r\nConnecticut, and an apartment above a storefront in Wisconsin.\r\n The NAHB survey evaluated the following activities:\r\n \u2022 Wall and ceiling removal (demolition).\r\n \u2022 Wall and ceiling modification.\r\n \u2022 Window and door removal and\/or replacement (no sanding).\r\n \u2022 Window and door alteration (no sanding).\r\n \u2022 Sanding on windows and doors.\r\n \u2022 Kitchen or bath cabinet removal.\r\n \u2022 Baseboard and stair removal.\r\n \u2022 Surface preparation (sanding).\r\n \u2022 Sawing into wood and plaster.\r\n Activities were performed in one of three ways: Using the work\r\npractices presented in the EPA\/HUD curriculum, using modified work\r\npractices (one or more of the dust control or cleanup methods discussed\r\nin the EPA\/HUD curriculum), or routine renovation practices.\r\n Area air samples were collected before, during and after the work\r\nactivity. Personal breathing zone air samples were collected during the\r\nwork activity. Dust wipe samples were collected before work started and\r\nafter final clean-up. Dust wipe samples were routinely collected from\r\nfloors near the work activity and in some cases collected from a\r\nwindowsill and\/or window well.\r\n In comparing the mean dust lead levels before the activities with\r\nthe mean dust lead levels after the activities, the NAHB concluded that\r\nthe renovation activities surveyed did not create new lead dust hazards\r\noverall. However, even after clean-up was conducted, over half of the\r\n60 individual renovation activities studied resulted in an increase in\r\ndust lead levels on at least one surface. In most cases, the increase\r\nwas considerably greater than the regulatory dust-lead hazard standard\r\nfor that surface.\r\n 6. Statutory finding and regulatory approach--TSCA section\r\n402(c)(3) determination. TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to revise\r\nthe regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a), the Lead-based Paint\r\nActivities Regulations, to apply to renovation or remodeling activities\r\nthat create lead-based paint hazards. EPA finds that renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create\r\nlead-based paint hazards. This finding is based upon EPA's\r\nEnvironmental Field Sampling Study and corroborated by the Dust Study\r\nand the NAHB survey (Refs. 11, 17, and 19).\r\n In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that any renovation\r\nactivity that disturbs lead-based paint can create significant amounts\r\nof leaded dust, that most activities created lead-based paint hazards,\r\nand that some activities can be reasonably anticipated to create lead-\r\nbased paint hazards. EPA's proposed conclusions were based upon the\r\nresults of the Environmental Field Sampling Study, which examined, on a\r\nvariety of components using a variety of tools and methods, activities\r\nthat EPA had determined were representative of the paint-disturbing\r\nactivities that typically occur during renovations. The activities were:\r\n \u2022 Paint removal by abrasive sanding.\r\n \u2022 Window replacement.\r\n \u2022 HVAC duct work.\r\n \u2022 Demolition of interior plaster walls.\r\n \u2022 Drilling into wood.\r\n \u2022 Drilling into plaster.\r\n \u2022 Sawing into wood.\r\n \u2022 Sawing into plaster.\r\n Specifically, EPA proposed to conclude that all of the activities\r\nstudied in the Environmental Field Sampling Study, with the exception\r\nof drilling into plaster, can create lead-based paint hazards. With\r\nrespect to drilling into plaster, where lead-based paint is present,\r\nEPA proposed to conclude that this activity can reasonably be\r\nanticipated to create lead-based paint hazards. The Environmental Field\r\nSampling Study found that, with the exception of drilling into plaster,\r\nall renovation and remodeling activities, when conducted where lead-\r\nbased paint is present, generated lead loadings on floors at a distance\r\nof 5 to 6 feet from the activity that exceeded EPA's dust-lead hazard\r\nstandard of 40 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\. However, upon further review, it is\r\napparent that the study also found that drilling into plaster created\r\ndust lead levels in the immediate vicinity of the activity that\r\nexceeded the dust-lead hazard standard. Thus, all the activities\r\nstudied did in fact create lead-based paint hazards.\r\n The 2006 Proposal cited the other phases of the TSCA section\r\n402(c)(2) renovation and remodeling study to support EPA's proposed\r\ndetermination that any renovation, remodeling, or painting activity\r\nthat disturbs lead-based paint can be reasonably anticipated to create\r\nlead-based paint hazards. Phase III, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead\r\nStudy, found that children who live in homes where renovation and\r\nremodeling activities were performed within the past year are 30% more\r\nlikely to have a blood lead-level that equals or exceeds 10 μg\/dL,\r\nthe level of concern established by CDC, than children living in homes\r\nwhere no such activity has taken place recently. Phases II and IV of\r\nthe study, which evaluated worker exposures from renovation and\r\nremodeling activities, provide additional documentation of the\r\nsignificant and direct relationship between blood-lead levels and the\r\nconduct of certain renovation and remodeling activities. Phase II found\r\na statistically significant association between increased blood lead\r\nlevels and the number of days spent performing general renovation and\r\nremodeling activities, paint removal, and cleanup in pre-1950 buildings\r\nin the past month. Phase IV of the study found that persons performing\r\nrenovation and remodeling activities in old historic buildings are more\r\nlikely to have elevated blood lead levels than persons in the general\r\npopulation of renovation and remodeling workers.\r\n In light of EPA's proposed determination, the 2006 Proposal\r\nincluded revisions to the existing Lead-based Paint Activities\r\nRegulations to extend them to renovation, remodeling, and painting\r\nactivities in target housing, with certain exceptions. In proposing to\r\nextend these regulations to renovation, remodeling, and painting\r\nactivities in child-occupied facilities, the 2007 Supplemental Proposal\r\nincorporated the proposed TSCA section 402(c)(3) determination.\r\n Since the 2006 Proposal, EPA conducted the Dust Study and NAHB\r\nsubmitted the results of their survey. The results of the Dust Study\r\nconfirm that renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-\r\nbased paint create lead-based paint hazards. The Dust Study evaluated a\r\nnumber of common renovation activities, including replacing windows,\r\nremoving kitchen cabinets, cutting into walls, and removing paint by\r\nhigh and low temperature heat guns, power tools, and dry scraping. The\r\ngeometric mean post-work dust lead levels on work room floors ranged\r\nfrom a low of 422 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\, or 10 times the dust-lead hazard\r\n\r\n[[Page 21699]]\r\n\r\nstandard for floors, for cut-outs, to a high of 32,644 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\\r\nfor power planing. Thus, all of the activities evaluated in the Dust\r\nStudy created floor dust lead levels that exceeded 40 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\,\r\none of the measures that, in 40 CFR 745.65, defines a lead-based paint\r\nhazard. It is more difficult to evaluate the effect of disturbing lead-\r\nbased paint in the NAHB Survey, since the survey did not involve\r\ncollecting samples after work had been performed but before the post-\r\nrenovation cleaning had begun. Nevertheless, even after post-renovation\r\ncleaning using a variety of methods, in more than half of the 60\r\nexperiments performed in this survey, the post-cleaning dust wipe\r\nsample results for at least one surface showed an increase greater than\r\nthe TSCA section 403 hazard standard over pre-work levels. These\r\nexperiments showing increased dust lead levels cover the range of\r\nactivities evaluated in the NAHB Survey.\r\n Therefore, in this action, EPA is issuing its determination that\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based\r\npaint create lead-based paint hazards. Because the evidence shows that\r\nall such activities in the presence of lead-based paint create lead-\r\nbased paint hazards, EPA is modifying its proposed finding, which\r\ndistinguished between activities that create lead-based paint hazards\r\nand those that can reasonably be anticipated to create lead-based paint\r\nhazards, and instead concludes that renovation activities that disturb\r\nlead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. Indeed, no commenter\r\nsubmitted data indicating that any renovation, repair, or painting\r\nactivity should be exempt from regulation because it does not create\r\nlead-based paint hazards.\r\n EPA received a large number of comments on this proposed finding.\r\nMany expressed support for EPA's determination that any renovation,\r\nrepair, or painting activity that disturbs lead-based paint creates\r\nlead-based paint hazards. Some commenters, while expressing their\r\nsupport for this determination, also opined that the regulatory dust-\r\nlead hazard standards for floors and windowsills are too high. These\r\ncommenters argued that recent scientific evidence shows that children\r\nexperience adverse health effects at lower blood lead levels than\r\npreviously thought, and since EPA's regulatory dust-lead hazard\r\nstandards were set with reference to a blood lead level of 10 μg\/dL,\r\nthe CDC level of concern, the dust-lead hazard standards must be\r\nlowered. EPA agrees that recent studies demonstrate that neurocognitive\r\neffects occur at blood lead levels below the current CDC level of\r\nconcern. In fact, EPA's most recent Air Quality Criteria for Lead\r\ndocument, issued in October, 2006, describes several epidemiologic\r\nstudies published in the last 5 years that observed significant lead-\r\ninduced IQ decrements in children with some effects observed at blood\r\nlead levels of 5 μg\/dL and lower (Ref. 1). The document also notes\r\nthat other recent studies observed significant associations at low\r\nblood-lead levels for other neurotoxicity endpoints in addition to IQ,\r\nsuch as arithmetic and reading scores, attentional behavior, and\r\nneuromotive function. However, EPA is not addressing the\r\nappropriateness of the existing dust-lead hazard standards in this\r\nrulemaking. The original hazard standards were set through a separate\r\nrulemaking process under TSCA section 403 that allowed for input from\r\nall of the parties that would be affected by the standards.\r\nFurthermore, EPA is concerned that a full review of the available\r\nevidence and other considerations affecting the hazard standards as\r\npart of this rulemaking would result in a significant delay in\r\npromulgating training, certification, and work practice standards for\r\nrenovation activities. EPA did not propose to modify the TSCA section\r\n403 hazard standard levels in this rulemaking and has not undertaken\r\nthe significant analyses that would need to be performed in order to\r\nestablish different standards. Accordingly, EPA is not able, in this\r\nfinal rule, to modify the regulatory hazard standard. In any event,\r\nsince EPA finds that renovation activities that disturb lead-based\r\npaint create lead-paint hazards, lowering the hazard standard would not\r\naffect EPA's finding.\r\n Some commenters objected to EPA's proposed determination that\r\nrenovation, repair, or painting activities that disturb lead-based\r\npaint create lead-based paint hazards. Some commenters interpreted\r\nEPA's statutory authority to regulate renovation and remodeling under\r\nTSCA section 402(c)(3) as being limited to those renovation and\r\nremodeling activities for which EPA can prove a link between the\r\nactivity and the blood lead action level established by CDC for public\r\nhealth intervention. These commenters contend that the failure to prove\r\nsuch a link means that renovation and remodeling activities do not\r\ncreate lead-based paint hazards. This interpretation is not supported\r\nby the plain language of the statute. TSCA section 402(c)(3) requires\r\nEPA to regulate renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-\r\nbased paint hazards. The term ``lead-based paint hazard'' is defined in\r\nTSCA section 401 as ``any condition that causes exposure to lead from\r\nlead-contaminated dust . . . that would result in adverse human health\r\neffects as established by the Administrator under this subchapter.''\r\nTSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations which\r\n``identify, for purposes of this subchapter and the Residential Lead-\r\nBased Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, lead-based paint hazards,\r\nlead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil.'' The TSCA section\r\n403 regulations define dust-lead hazards as levels that equal or exceed\r\n40 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ of lead on floors or 250 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ of lead on\r\ninterior windowsills. Therefore, EPA interprets TSCA as directing it to\r\nregulate renovation and remodeling activities if such activities create\r\ndust lead levels that exceed the standards for dust-lead hazards\r\nestablished under TSCA section 403. Again, the Environmental Field\r\nSampling Study, the Dust Study, and the NAHB survey all demonstrate\r\nthat renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based paint\r\ncreate dust lead levels that exceed the hazard standards in 40 CFR 745.65.\r\n EPA also interprets the scientific evidence for a link between\r\nrenovations and the CDC blood lead action level differently than do\r\nthese commenters. EPA's Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described\r\nmore fully in Unit III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal,\r\nprovides ample evidence of a link between renovation activities and\r\nelevated blood lead levels in resident children (Ref. 13). This peer-\r\nreviewed study concluded that general residential renovation and\r\nremodeling is associated with an increased risk of elevated blood lead\r\nlevels in children and that specific renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities are also associated with an increase in the risk of elevated\r\nblood lead levels in children. In particular, removing paint (using\r\nopen flame torches, using heat guns, using chemical paint removers, and\r\nwet scraping\/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping\r\nsignificantly increased the risk of elevated blood lead levels. Some of\r\nthe commenters on this rule focused on Table 3-13 in the study report\r\nand cited that as evidence that work performed by paid professional\r\nrenovators does not create a statistically significant risk of an\r\nelevated blood-lead level in a resident child.EPA agrees that this\r\ntable, which presents the results of analyses using one of the sets of\r\nmodels used to interpret study data, indicates that, with respect to\r\nthe persons performing the work, the only statistically significant\r\nresult associated with increased risk of\r\n\r\n[[Page 21700]]\r\n\r\nelevated blood lead levels was work performed by a relative or friend\r\nnot in the household. Work performed by professional renovators was\r\nassociated with an increased risk of an elevated blood lead level, but\r\nthe association was not statistically significant. As explained more\r\nfully in a memorandum summarizing additional analyses of the data from\r\nthis study (Ref. 20), this table does not indicate that professional\r\ncontractors were not responsible for creating lead exposure hazards.\r\nRather, it indicates that renovation activities performed by\r\nprofessional contractors are no more or less hazardous than renovation\r\nactivities performed by most of the other categories of persons\r\nidentified in the survey responses collected as part of the study. It\r\nis also important to note that, while these commenters focus on a\r\nblood-lead level of 10 μg\/dL as a threshold, this level is not and\r\nhas not been considered by CDC or EPA as a threshold for adverse effects.\r\n One commenter also dismissed the two studies from New York that EPA\r\ncited as supporting the findings of the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead\r\nStudy. In 1995, the New York State Department of Health assessed lead\r\nexposure among children resulting from home renovation and remodeling\r\nin 1993-1994. A review of the health department records of children\r\nwith blood lead levels equal to or greater than 20 μg\/dL identified\r\n320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood lead levels that were attributable to\r\nrenovation and remodeling (Ref. 21). The commenter noted that this\r\nstudy suffered from a number of limitations, including the fact that it\r\nwas not a case-control study; i.e., the group of children with elevated\r\nblood lead levels attributed to renovation and remodeling was not\r\ncompared with a similar group of households that had not undergone\r\nrenovation during the period. EPA agrees that this is an important\r\nlimitation of this study. However, with respect to the other\r\nlimitations noted by this commenter, the authors of the report felt\r\nthat most of these limitations would likely result in an\r\nunderestimation of the burden of lead exposure associated with\r\nrenovation and remodeling.\r\n The other study cited by EPA as supporting the Wisconsin Childhood\r\nBlood-Lead Study conclusions was a case-control study that assessed the\r\nassociation between elevated blood lead levels in children younger than\r\n5 years and renovation or repair activities in homes in New York City\r\n(Ref. 22).EPA notes that the authors show that when dust and debris was\r\nreported (by respondents via telephone interviews) to be ``everywhere''\r\nfollowing a renovation, the blood lead levels were significantly higher\r\nthan children at homes that did not report remodeling work. On the\r\nother hand, when the respondent reported either ``no visible dust and\r\ndebris'' or that ``dust and debris was limited to the work area,''\r\nthere was no statistically significant effect on blood lead levels\r\nrelative to homes that did not report remodeling work. Although the\r\nstudy found only a weak and nonsignificant link between a report of any\r\nrenovation activity and the likelihood that a resident child had an\r\nelevated blood-lead level, the link to the likelihood of an elevated\r\nblood-lead level was statistically significant for surface preparation\r\nby sanding and for renovation work that spreads dust and debris beyond\r\nthe work area. The researchers noted the consistency of their results\r\nwith EPA's Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 13, at 509). EPA\r\nnotes that this confirms that keeping visible dust and debris contained\r\nto the work area is important for limiting children exposures to lead\r\ndust, rather than providing substantial arguments for the effectiveness\r\nof visual inspection.\r\n In sum, EPA's finding that renovation and remodeling activities\r\ncreate lead-based paint hazards is not dependent upon establishing a\r\ncorrelation between such activities and elevated blood lead levels.\r\nRather, it rests on the fact that, as demonstrated by EPA's\r\nEnvironmental Field Sampling Study, EPA's Dust Study, and by the NAHB\r\nSurvey, such activities create lead-based paint hazards as defined by\r\nEPA regulations. Moreover, EPA disagrees that there is no scientific\r\nsupport for establishing a relationship between elevated blood lead\r\nlevels in children and renovation activities. While EPA interprets\r\nthese studies as supporting such a relationship and believes these\r\nstudies further support its finding, it is not a determinative factor.\r\n b. EPA's approach to this final rule. Given EPA's determination\r\nthat renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-\r\nbased paint create lead-based paint hazards, TSCA section 402(c)(3)\r\ndirects EPA to revise the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations to\r\napply to these activities. EPA does not interpret its statutory mandate\r\nto require EPA to apply the existing TSCA section 402(a) regulations to\r\nrenovations without change. By using the word ``revise,'' and creating\r\na separate subsection of the statute for renovation, EPA believes that\r\nCongress intended that EPA make revisions to those existing regulations\r\nto adapt them to a very different regulated community. As discussed\r\nbelow, there are significant differences between renovations and\r\nabatements. Accordingly, this final rule does not merely expand the\r\nscope of the current abatement requirements to cover renovation and\r\nremodeling activities. Rather, EPA has carefully considered the\r\nelements of the existing abatement regulations and revised them as\r\nnecessary to craft a rule that is practical for renovation, remodeling\r\nand painting businesses and their customers, taking into account\r\nreliability, effectiveness, and safety as directed by TSCA section\r\n402(a). Specifically, the Agency concludes that the training,\r\ncontainment, cleaning, and cleaning verification requirements in this\r\nfinal rule rule achieve the goal of minimizing exposure to lead-based\r\npaint hazards created during renovation, remodeling and painting\r\nactivities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety.\r\n In taking safety into account, EPA looked to the statutory\r\ndirective to regulate renovation activities that create lead-based\r\npaint hazards. Although there is no known level of lead exposure that\r\nis safe, EPA does not believe the intent of Congress was to require\r\nelimination of all possible risk arising from a renovation. Nor does\r\nTSCA explicitly require EPA to eliminate all possible risk from lead,\r\nnor would it be feasible to do so since lead is a component of the\r\nearth. Rather, it directs EPA to regulate renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities that create lead-based paint hazards. Given that the trigger\r\nfor regulating renovation and remodeling activities is the creation of\r\nlead-based paint hazards--which EPA has identified in a separate\r\nrulemaking pursuant to TSCA section 403--EPA believes taking safety\r\ninto account in this context is best interpreted with reference to\r\nthose promulgated hazard standards. If taking safety into account\r\nrequired a more stringent standard, as suggested by some commenters,\r\nthe potential would be created for a scheme under which any renovation\r\nactivities found not to create hazards are not regulated at all,\r\nwhereas renovation activities found to create hazards trigger\r\nrequirements designed to leave the renovation site cleaner than the\r\nunregulated renovations. EPA's interpretation is supported by the broad\r\nCongressional intent that the section 403 hazard standards apply for\r\npurposes of subchapter IV of TSCA. It is also consistent with EPA's\r\napproach in its abatement regulations, which require post-abatement\r\ncleaning to dust-lead\r\n\r\n[[Page 21701]]\r\n\r\nclearance levels that are numerically equal to the TSCA section 403\r\nhazard standards levels. It would be anomalous to impose a more\r\nstringent safety standard in the renovation context than in the\r\nabatement context, where the express purpose of the regulated\r\nactivities is to abate lead-based paint hazards. Therefore, in taking\r\ninto account safety, this final rule regulates renovation and\r\nremodeling activities relative to the TSCA section 403 hazard standard,\r\nwith the purpose of minimizing exposure to such hazards created during\r\nrenovation and remodeling activities.\r\n Additionally, EPA has interpreted practicality in implementation to\r\nbe an element of the statutory directive to take into account\r\neffectiveness and reliability. In particular, EPA believes that given\r\nthe highly variable nature of the regulated community, the work\r\npractices required by this rule should be simple to understand and easy\r\nto use. EPA is very aware that this regulation will apply to a whole\r\nrange of individuals from day laborers to property maintenance staff to\r\nmaster craftsmen performing a whole range of activities from simple\r\ndrywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath\r\nrenovations to building additions and everything in between. Work\r\npractices that are easy and practical to use are more likely to be\r\nfollowed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore,\r\nmore likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to\r\nlead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities.\r\n One of the biggest challenges facing EPA in revising the TSCA\r\nsection 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations is how to\r\neffectively bridge the differences between abatement and renovation and\r\nremodeling while acknowledging that many of the dust generating\r\nactivities are the same. Abatements are generally performed in three\r\ncircumstances. First, an abatement may be performed in the residence of\r\na child who has been found to have an elevated blood lead level.\r\nSecond, abatements are performed in housing receiving HUD financial\r\nassistance when required by HUD's Lead-Safe Housing Rule. Third, state\r\nand local laws and regulations may require abatements in certain\r\nsituations associated with rental housing. Typically, when an abatement\r\nis performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are\r\ntemporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement has been\r\ndemonstrated to have been properly completed through dust clearance\r\ntesting. Carpet in the housing is usually removed as part of the\r\nabatement because it is difficult to demonstrate that it is free of\r\nlead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been replaced\r\nduring the abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in order to\r\nachieve clearance. Abatements have only one purpose--to permanently\r\neliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards.\r\n On the other hand, renovations are performed for a myriad of\r\nreasons, most having nothing to do with lead-based paint. Renovations\r\ninvolve activities designed to update, maintain, or modify all or part\r\nof a building. Renovations may be performed while the property is\r\noccupied or unoccupied. If the renovation is performed while the\r\nproperty is occupied, the occupants do not typically relocate pending\r\nthe completion of the project.\r\n Further, performing abatement is a highly specialized skill that\r\nworkers and supervisors must learn in training courses accredited by\r\nEPA or authorized States, Territories, and Tribes. In contrast, EPA is\r\nnot interested in teaching persons how to be painters, plumbers, or\r\ncarpenters. Rather, EPA's objective is to ensure that persons who\r\nalready know how to perform renovations perform their typical work in a\r\nlead-safe manner.\r\n Nevertheless, as pointed out by some commenters, abatement and\r\nrenovation have some things in common. For example, as noted by one\r\ncommenter, window replacement may be performed as part of an abatement\r\nto remove the lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards on the\r\nexisting window, or it may be performed as part of a renovation\r\ndesigned to improve the energy efficiency of the building. In many\r\ncases, the window replacement as abatement and the window replacement\r\nas renovation will generate the same amount of leaded dust.\r\n Another consideration is that while renovation activities\r\nundoubtedly create lead-based paint hazards, without results from dust\r\nwipe samples collected immediately before the renovation commences,\r\nthere is no way to tell what portion of the lead dust remaining on the\r\nsurface was contributed by the renovation. In addition, as a practical\r\nmatter, once dust-lead hazards commingle with pre-existing hazards,\r\nthere is no functional way to distinguish between those created by the\r\nrenovation activity and any pre-existing dust-lead hazards. However,\r\nthe Dust Study shows that the combination of training, containment,\r\ncleaning and cleaning verification required by this rule is effective\r\nat reducing dust lead levels below the dust-lead hazard standard. While\r\nthe requirements of this rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary\r\nbenefit of removing some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, these\r\nrequirements are designed to effectively clean-up the lead-based paint\r\nhazards created during renovation activities without changing the scope\r\nof the renovation activity itself. The intent of this final rule is not\r\nto require cleanup of pre-existing contamination.\r\n For example, the rule does not require cleaning of dust or any\r\nother possible lead sources in portions of target housing or child-\r\noccupied facilities beyond the location in and around the work area.\r\nNor does this rule require the replacement of carpets in the area of\r\nthe renovation or the refinishing or sealing of uncarpeted floors. The\r\napproach in this final rule is designed to address the lead-based paint\r\nhazards created during the renovation while not requiring renovators to\r\nremediate or eliminate hazards that are beyond the scope of the work\r\nthey were hired to do.\r\n In addition, EPA has made a concerted effort to keep the costs and\r\nburdens associated with this rule as low as possible, while still\r\nproviding adequate protection against lead-based paint hazards created\r\nby renovation activities. Indeed, as part of this rulemaking EPA has,\r\nas directed by TSCA section 2(c), considered the environmental,\r\neconomic, and social impact of this rule. Nonetheless, many commenters\r\nexpressed concerns over the potential unintended consequences of this\r\nrulemaking. These commenters argued that atoo-burdensome rule will\r\nresult in more renovations by noncompliant renovators, and more do-it-\r\nyourself renovations, both of which are likely to be more hazardous\r\nthan renovations by certified professional renovation firms using\r\ncertified renovators who follow the work practice requirements of the\r\nrule. These commenters were also concerned about deferred property\r\nmaintenance which can be hazardous for many reasons, including lead-\r\nbased paint issues. For example, one commenter pointed out that a\r\nrenovation project that replaces old lead-based paint covered windows\r\nwith new ones that have no lead-based paint may, as a by-product, reduce\r\nlead hazards, and the rule should not work to discourage this activity.\r\n On the other hand, one commenter argued that increased do-it-\r\nyourself activity is an unlikely byproduct of this rule because\r\nconsumers are not only opting to hire or not hire contractors based on\r\nfactors such as cost, convenience, and perceived quality, but,\r\n\r\n[[Page 21702]]\r\n\r\neven more importantly, their own proclivity towards performing\r\nrenovation work. According to the commenter, the fact that the work\r\npractices required by this rule may result in slight cost increases is\r\nunlikely to motivate homeowners to perform their own renovations. This\r\ncommenter also felt that the sooner that protective approaches become\r\nthe accepted standard of care for renovation work by contractors\r\nreceiving compensation, the sooner do-it-yourselfers and the do-it-yourself\r\nliterature and training supports will adopt the same protective approaches.\r\n It is difficult to determine with any amount of certainty whether\r\nthis final rule will have unintended consequences. However, EPA agrees\r\nthat it is important to minimize disincentives for using certified\r\nrenovation firms who follow the work practices required by this rule.\r\nEPA also agrees that practicality is an important consideration. Given\r\nthe relatively low estimated overall average per-job cost of this final\r\nrule, which is $35, and the relatively easy-to-use work practices\r\nrequired by this final rule, EPA does not expect the incremental costs\r\nassociated with this rule to be a determinative factor for consumers.\r\nHowever, that relatively low cost has resulted in part from EPA's\r\nefforts to contain the costs of this rule in order to avoid creating\r\ndisincentives to using certified renovation firms, and EPA has viewed\r\nthe comments received with those considerations in mind.\r\n With respect to the comment regarding the standard of care for do-\r\nit-yourselfers, EPA also plans to conduct an outreach and education\r\ncampaign aimed at encouraging homeowners and other building owners to\r\nfollow work practices while performing renovations or hire a certified\r\nrenovation firm to do so.\r\n 7. Summary of the final rule. This section summarizes the final\r\nrule in general terms. For more information, consult Unit III. below,\r\nwhich describes each provision in detail, discusses any changes from\r\nthe proposal, and reviews the comments received.\r\n a. Definitions and scope. This final rule applies to renovations\r\nfor compensation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. TSCA\r\nsection 401 defines ``target housing'' as any housing constructed prior\r\nto 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities\r\n(unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is\r\nexpected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with\r\ndisabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. This rule contains the\r\nfollowing definition of ``child-occupied facility'':\r\n Child-occupied facility'' means a building, or portion of a\r\nbuilding, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same\r\nchild, under 6 years of age, on at least two different days within\r\nany week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's\r\nvisit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at\r\nleast 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60\r\nhours. Child-occupied facilities may include, but are not limited\r\nto, day care centers, preschools and kindergarten classrooms. Child-\r\noccupied facilities may be located in target housing or in public or\r\ncommercial buildings. With respect to common areas in public or\r\ncommercial buildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the\r\nchild-occupied facility encompasses only those common areas that are\r\nroutinely used by children under age 6, such as restrooms and\r\ncafeterias. Common areas that children under age 6 only pass\r\nthrough, such as hallways, stairways, and garages are not included.\r\nIn addition, with respect to exteriors of public or commercial\r\nbuildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the child-occupied\r\nfacility encompasses only the exterior sides of the building that\r\nare immediately adjacent to the child-occupied facility or the\r\ncommon areas routinely used by children under age 6.\r\n\r\n TSCA does not define the terms ``renovation'' or ``remodeling,''\r\nbut this final rule builds upon the definition of ``renovation''\r\nalready established by the regulations promulgated under TSCA section\r\n406(b). This rule defines ``renovation'' as follows:\r\n ``Renovation'' means the modification of any existing structure, or\r\nportion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces,\r\nunless that activity is performed as part of an abatement as defined by\r\nthis part (40 CFR 745.223). The term renovation includes (but is not\r\nlimited to): The removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or\r\npainted components (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface\r\nrestoration, window repair, surface preparation activity (such as\r\nsanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint\r\ndust)); the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings,\r\nplumbing, windows); weatherization projects (e.g., cutting holes in\r\npainted surfaces to install blown-in insulation or to gain access to\r\nattics, planing thresholds to install weather-stripping), and interim\r\ncontrols that disturb painted surfaces. A renovation performed for the\r\npurpose of converting a building, or part of a building, into target\r\nhousing or a child-occupied facility is a renovation under this\r\nsubpart. The term renovation does not include minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activities.\r\n This final rule excludes some of the same projects that are\r\nexcluded by the TSCA section 406(b) regulations, such as lead-based\r\npaint abatement projects and renovations affecting components that have\r\nbeen found to be free of lead-based paint. To be eligible for the\r\nlatter exception, the components must be determined to be free of lead-\r\nbased paint by a certified inspector or risk assessor, or by a\r\ncertified renovator using an EPA-approved test kit. Emergency projects\r\nwould continue to be exempt from the lead hazard information\r\ndistribution requirements, but the clean-up after the project must meet\r\nthe requirements of this regulation, and compliance with the training,\r\ncertification, warning sign, and containment requirements of this\r\nregulation is required to the extent practicable. Minor maintenance\r\nprojects that disturb no more than 6 square feet of painted surface per\r\nroom for interiors or no more than 20 square feet of painted surface\r\nfor exteriors are also exempt, so long as no work practices prohibited\r\nor restricted by this final rule are used, the renovation does not\r\ninvolve window replacement and there is no demolition of painted areas.\r\nFinally, this regulation contains an exception for renovations in\r\nowner-occupied target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant\r\nwoman resides, so long as the housing does not meet the definition of\r\n``child-occupied facility.'' To claim this exception, the renovation\r\nfirm must obtain, before beginning the renovation, a signed statement\r\nfrom the owner of the housing that states that the person signing is\r\nthe owner of the housing to be renovated, that he or she resides there,\r\nthat no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that the\r\nhousing is not a child-occupied facility, and that the owner\r\nunderstands that the renovation firm will not be required to use the\r\nwork practices contained in this rule.\r\n b. Pre-Renovation Education Rule. As described in greater detail in\r\na separate notice published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA\r\nhas developed a new renovation-specific lead hazard information\r\npamphlet intended for use in fulfilling the requirements of the Pre-\r\nRenovation Education Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart E. This final rule\r\nrequires firms performing renovations for compensation in target\r\nhousing and child-occupied facilities to distribute this new pamphlet\r\nbefore beginning renovations to the owners and occupants of target\r\nhousing, owners of public or commercial buildings that contain a child-\r\noccupied facility, and the proprietor of the child-occupied facility,\r\nif different, and to provide general information on the renovation\r\n\r\n[[Page 21703]]\r\n\r\nand the pamphlet to, or make it available to, parents or guardians of\r\nchildren under age 6 using the child-occupied facility. This can be\r\naccomplished by mailing or hand-delivering the general information on\r\nthe renovation and the pamphlet to the parents and guardians or by\r\nposting informational signs containing general information on the\r\nrenovation in areas where the signs can be seen by the parents or\r\nguardians of the children frequenting the child-occupied facility. The\r\nsigns must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or\r\ninformation on how interested parents or guardians can review a copy of\r\nthe pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to\r\nthe parents or guardians. For renovations in the common areas of multi-\r\nunit target housing, similar notification options are available to\r\nfirms. They must provide tenants with general information regarding the\r\nnature of the renovation by mail, by hand-delivery, or by posting\r\nsigns, and must also make this new pamphlet available upon request.\r\nFirms must maintain documentation of compliance with these requirements.\r\n c. Training, accreditation, and certification. This final rule\r\ncontains training requirements leading to certification for\r\n``renovators''--individuals who perform and direct renovation\r\nactivities--and ``dust sampling technicians''--individuals who perform\r\ndust sampling not in connection with an abatement. Requirements for\r\neach of these courses of study are described in detail, and a hands-on\r\ncomponent is required. Training providers who wish to provide training\r\nto renovators and dust sampling technicians for Federal certification\r\npurposes must apply for and receive accreditation from EPA following\r\nthe same procedures that training providers who offer lead-based paint\r\nactivities training now use to become accredited by EPA. Providers of\r\nrenovation training must follow the same requirements for program\r\noperation as training providers who offer lead-based paint activities\r\ntraining. For example, renovation training programs must have adequate\r\nfacilities and equipment for delivering the training, a training\r\nmanager with experience or education in a construction or environmental\r\nfield, and a principal instructor with experience or education in a\r\nrelated field and education or experience in teaching adults. To become\r\naccredited to provide training for renovators and dust sampling\r\ntechnicians, a provider must submit an application for accreditation to\r\nEPA. The application must include the following items:\r\n \u2022 The course materials and syllabus, or a statement that EPA\r\nmodel materials or materials approved by an authorized State or Tribe\r\nwill be used.\r\n \u2022 A description of the facilities and equipment that will be used.\r\n \u2022 A copy of the test blueprint for each course.\r\n \u2022 A description of the activities and procedures that will\r\nbe used during the hands-on skills portion of each course.\r\n \u2022 A copy of the quality control plan.\r\n \u2022 The correct amount of fees.\r\n Training programs that submit a complete application and meet the\r\nrequirements for faculty, facilities, equipment, and course and test\r\ncontent will be accredited for 4 years. To maintain accreditation, the\r\ntraining program must submit an application and the correct amount of\r\nfees every 4 years. EPA is not establishing the required fees in this\r\nrulemaking. EPA intends to publish a proposed fee schedule for public\r\ncomment shortly. Accredited renovation training programs must also\r\ncomply with the existing notification and recordkeeping requirements\r\nfor lead-based paint activities training programs at 40 CFR\r\n745.225(c)(13) and 40 CFR 745.225(i), respectively, by notifying EPA\r\nbefore and after providing renovation training and by maintaining\r\nrecords of course materials, course test blueprints, information on how\r\nhands-on training is delivered, and the results of the students' skills\r\nassessments and course tests.\r\n Each renovation project covered by this final rule must be\r\nperformed and\/or directed by an individual who has become a certified\r\nrenovator by successfully completing renovator training from an\r\naccredited training provider. The certified renovator is responsible\r\nfor ensuring compliance with the work practice standards of this final\r\nregulation. The certified renovator must perform or direct certain\r\ncritical tasks during the renovation, such as posting warning signs,\r\nestablishing containment of the work area, and cleaning the work area\r\nafter the renovation. These and other renovation activities may be\r\nperformed by workers who have been provided on-the-job training in\r\nthese activities by a certified renovator. However, the certified\r\nrenovator must be physically present at the work site while signs are\r\nbeing posted, containment is being established, and the work area is\r\nbeing cleaned after the renovation to ensure that these tasks are\r\nperformed correctly. Although the certified renovator is not required\r\nto be on-site at all times, while the renovation project is ongoing, a\r\ncertified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work being\r\nperformed by other workers to ensure that the work practices are being\r\nfollowed. When a certified renovator is not physically present at the\r\nwork site, the workers must be able to contact the renovator\r\nimmediately by telephone or other mechanism. In addition, the certified\r\nrenovator must perform the post-renovation cleaning verification. This\r\ntask may not be delegated to workers with on-the-job training. To\r\nmaintain certification, a renovator must successfully complete an\r\naccredited renovator refresher training course every 5 years.\r\n Renovations must be performed by certified firms. The certification\r\nrequirements for renovation firms are identical to the certification\r\nrequirements for firms that perform lead-based paint activities, except\r\nthat renovation firm certification lasts for 5 years instead of 3\r\nyears.A firm that wishes to become certified to perform renovations\r\nmust submit an application, along with the correct amount of fees,\r\nattesting that it will assign a certified renovator to each renovation\r\nthat it performs, that it will use only certified or properly trained\r\nindividuals to perform renovations, and that it will follow the work\r\npractice standards and recordkeeping requirements in this regulation.\r\nEPA will certify any firm that meets these requirements unless EPA\r\ndetermines that the environmental compliance history of the firm, its\r\nprincipals, or its key employees demonstrates an unwillingness or\r\ninability to maintain compliance with environmental statutes or\r\nregulations. To maintain certification, the firm must submit an\r\napplication and the correct amount of fees every 5 years. As noted\r\nabove, EPA will establish the required fees in a subsequent rulemaking.\r\n d. Work practice standards. This final rule contains a number of\r\nwork practice requirements that must be followed for every covered\r\nrenovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. These\r\nrequirements pertain to warning signs and work area containment, the\r\nrestriction or prohibition of certain practices (e.g., high heat gun,\r\ntorch, power sanding, power planing), waste handling, cleaning, and\r\npost-renovation cleaning verification. The firm must ensure compliance\r\nwith these work practices. Although the certified renovator is not\r\nrequired to be on-site at all times, while the renovation project is\r\nongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the\r\nwork being performed by other workers to ensure that the work practices\r\nare being\r\n\r\n[[Page 21704]]\r\n\r\nfollowed. When a certified renovator is not physically present at the\r\nwork site, the workers must be able to contact the renovator\r\nimmediately by telephone or other mechanism.\r\n i. Warning signs and work area containment. Before beginning a\r\ncovered renovation, the certified renovator or a worker under the\r\ndirection of the certified renovator must post signs outside the area\r\nto be renovated warning occupants and others not involved in the\r\nrenovation to remain clear of the area. In addition, the certified\r\nrenovator or a worker under the direction of the certified renovator\r\nmust also contain the work area so that dust or debris does not leave\r\nthe area while the work is being performed. At a minimum, containment\r\nfor interior projects must include:\r\n \u2022 Removing or covering all objects in the work area with\r\nplastic or other impermeable material.\r\n \u2022 Closing and covering all forced air HVAC ducts in the work\r\narea with plastic or other impermeable material.\r\n \u2022 Closing all windows in the work area.\r\n \u2022 Closing and sealing all doors in the work area with\r\nplastic or other impermeable material.\r\n \u2022 Covering the floor surface, including installed carpet,\r\nwith taped-down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in the\r\nwork area 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation\r\nor a sufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater.\r\nDoors within the work area that will be used while the job is being\r\nperformed must be covered with plastic sheeting or other impermeable\r\nmaterial in a manner that allows workers to pass through while\r\nconfining dust and debris to the work area. In addition, all personnel,\r\ntools, and other items, including the exterior of containers of waste,\r\nmust be free of dust and debris when leaving the work area. There are\r\nseveral ways of accomplishing this. For example, tacky mats may be put\r\ndown immediately adjacent to the plastic sheeting covering the work\r\narea floor to remove dust and debris from the bottom of the workers'\r\nshoes as they leave the work area, workers may remove their shoe covers\r\n(booties) as they leave the work area, and clothing and materials may be\r\nwet-wiped and\/or HEPA-vacuumed before they are removed from the work area.\r\n At a minimum, containment for exterior projects must include:\r\n \u2022 Covering the ground with plastic sheeting or other\r\ndisposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter\r\nof surfaces undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to collect\r\nfalling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless the property line\r\nprevents 10 feet of such ground covering.\r\n \u2022 Closing all doors and windows within 20 feet of the\r\noutside of the work area on the same floor as the renovation and\r\nclosing all doors and windows on the floors below that area.\r\n In certain situations, such as where other buildings are in close\r\nproximity to the work area, when conditions are windy, or where the\r\nwork area abuts a property line, the certified renovator or a worker\r\nunder the direction of the certified renovator performing the\r\nrenovation may have to take extra precautions to prevent dust and\r\ndebris from leaving the work area as required by the regulation. This\r\nmay include erecting a system of vertical containment designed to\r\nprevent dust and debris from migrating to adjacent property or\r\ncontaminating the ground, other buildings, or any object beyond the\r\nwork area. In addition, doors within the work area that will be used\r\nwhile the job is being performed must be covered with plastic sheeting\r\nor other impermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass\r\nthrough while confining dust and debris to the work area.\r\n ii. Waste management. The certified renovator or a worker trained\r\nand directed by a certified renovator must, at the conclusion of each\r\nwork day, store any collected lead-based paint waste from renovation\r\nactivities under containment, in an enclosure, or behind a barrier that\r\nprevents release of dust and debris and prevents access to the waste.\r\nIn addition, the certified renovator or a worker under the direction of\r\nthe certified renovator transporting lead-based paint waste from a work\r\nsite must contain the waste to prevent identifiable releases. With\r\nregard to the lead-based paint waste generated by renovations in\r\nhousing units, Unit IV.D.2. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal\r\ndescribes how a clarification of the hazardous waste exclusion in 40\r\nCFR 261.4(b)(1) means that residential lead-based paint waste may be\r\ndisposed of in municipal solid waste landfill units, as long as the\r\nwaste is generated during abatement or renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities in households. Also discussed in the preamble to the 2006\r\nProposal is a subsequent amendment to the waste regulations promulgated\r\nunder the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that allows\r\nconstruction and demolition (C&D) landfills to accept residential lead-\r\nbased paint waste.\r\n iii. Cleaning. This final rule contains a number of specific\r\ncleaning steps that the certified renovator or a worker under the\r\ndirection of the certified renovator must follow after performing a\r\ncovered renovation. Upon completion of renovation activities, all paint\r\nchips and debris must be picked up. Protective sheeting must be misted\r\nand folded dirty side inward. Sheeting used to isolate the work area\r\nfrom other areas must remain in place until after the cleaning and\r\nremoval of other sheeting; this sheeting must be misted and removed\r\nlast. Removed sheeting must either be folded and taped shut to seal or\r\nsealed in heavy-duty bags and disposed of as waste.\r\n After the sheeting has been removed from the work area, the entire\r\narea must be cleaned, including the adjacent surfaces that are within 2\r\nfeet of the work area. The walls, starting from the ceiling and working\r\ndown to the floor, must be vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum or wiped with a\r\ndamp cloth. This final rule requires that all remaining surfaces and\r\nobjects in the work area, including floors, furniture and fixtures, be\r\nthoroughly vacuumed with a HEPA-equipped vacuum. When cleaning carpets,\r\nthe HEPA vacuum must be equipped with a beater bar to aid in dislodging\r\nand collecting deep dust and lead from carpets. Where feasible, floor\r\nsurfaces underneath area rugs must also be thoroughly vacuumed with a\r\nHEPA vacuum.\r\n After vacuuming, all surfaces and objects in the work area, except\r\nfor walls and carpeted or upholstered surfaces, must be wiped with a\r\ndamp cloth. Uncarpeted floors must be thoroughly mopped using a 2-\r\nbucket mopping method that keeps the wash water separate from the rinse\r\nwater, or using a wet mopping system with disposable absorbent cleaning\r\npads and a built-in mechanism for distributing or spraying cleaning\r\nsolution from a reservoir onto a floor.\r\n For cleaning following an exterior renovation, this final rule\r\nrequires all paint chips and debris to be picked up. Protective\r\nsheeting must be misted and folded dirty side inward. Removed sheeting\r\nmust be either folded and taped shut to seal or sealed in heavy-duty\r\nbags and disposed of as waste.\r\n iv. Post-renovation cleaning verification. This final rule requires\r\na certified renovator to perform a visual inspection of the work area\r\nafter the cleaning steps outlined in the previous subsection. This\r\nvisual inspection is for the purpose of determining whether dust,\r\ndebris, or other residue is present in the work area. If dust, debris,\r\nor other residue remains in the work area, the dust, debris, or other\r\nresidue must be\r\n\r\n[[Page 21705]]\r\n\r\nremoved by re-cleaning and another visual inspection must be performed.\r\n When an exterior work area passes the visual inspection, the\r\nrenovation has been properly completed and the warning signs may be\r\nremoved. When an interior work area passes the visual inspection, an\r\nadditional cleaning verification step is required. A certified\r\nrenovator assigned to the renovation project must use disposable\r\ncleaning cloths to wipe the windowsills, countertops, and uncarpeted\r\nfloors in the work area. These cloths must then be compared to a\r\ncleaning verification card. For each cloth that matches or is lighter\r\nthan the cleaning verification card, the corresponding windowsill,\r\ncountertop, or floor area is considered to have passed the post-\r\nrenovation cleaning verification. In contrast to the 2006 Proposal,\r\nthis final rule limits this requirement to two wet cloths and one dry\r\ncloth. After the first dry cloth, that surface will be considered to\r\nhave passed post-renovation cleaning verification. When all\r\nwindowsills, countertops, and floor areas in the work area have passed\r\npost-renovation cleaning verification, the warning signs may be\r\nremoved. More information on the post-renovation cleaning verification\r\nprocedure and the underlying studies can be found in Unit IV.E. of the\r\npreamble to the 2006 Proposal and in Unit III.E.7. of this preamble.\r\n In contrast to the 2006 Proposal, this final rule does not allow\r\ndust clearance sampling in lieu of post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification, except in cases where the contract between the renovation\r\nfirm and the property owner or another Federal, State, Territorial,\r\nTribal, or local regulation requires dust clearance sampling by a\r\ncertified sampling professional and requires the renovation firm to\r\nclean the work area until it passes clearance.\r\n e. State, Territorial, and Tribal programs. This final rule also\r\ncontains provisions for interested States, Territories, and Tribes to\r\napply for and receive authorization to administer their own renovation,\r\nrepair and painting programs in lieu of the proposed regulation.\r\nStates, Territories and Tribes may choose to administer and enforce\r\njust the existing requirements of subpart E, the pre-renovation\r\neducation elements, the training, certification, accreditation, work\r\npractice, and recordkeeping requirements of this final rule, or both.\r\nEPA will use the same process used for lead-based paint activities\r\nprograms, along with proposed specific renovation program elements, to\r\nauthorize State, Territorial, and Tribal programs.\r\n States, Territories, and Tribes seeking authority to administer and\r\nenforce renovation programs must obtain public input and then submit an\r\napplication to EPA. Applications must contain a number of items,\r\nincluding a description of the State, Territorial, or Tribal program,\r\ncopies of all applicable statutes, regulations, and standards, and a\r\ncertification by the State Attorney General, Tribal Counsel, or an\r\nequivalent official, that the applicable legislation and regulations\r\nprovide adequate legal authority to administer and enforce the program.\r\nThe program description must demonstrate that the State, Territorial,\r\nor Tribal program is at least as protective as the Federal program and\r\nthat it provides for adequate enforcement.\r\n To be eligible for authorization to administer and enforce\r\nrenovation programs, State, Territorial, and Tribal renovation programs\r\nmust contain certain minimum elements that are very similar to the\r\nminimum elements required for lead-based paint activities programs. In\r\norder to be authorized, State, Territorial, or Tribal programs must\r\nhave procedures and requirements for the accreditation of training\r\nprograms, the training of renovators, and the certification of\r\nrenovators or renovation firms. At a minimum, the program requirements\r\nmust include accredited training for renovators and procedures and\r\nrequirements for re-certification. State, Territorial, and Tribal\r\nprograms applying for authorization are also required to include work\r\npractice standards for renovations that ensure that renovations are\r\nconducted only by certified renovators or renovation firms and that\r\nrenovations are conducted using work practices at least as protective\r\nas those of the Federal program.\r\n\r\nB. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?\r\n\r\n These training, certification and accreditation requirements;\r\nState, Territorial, and Tribal authorization provisions; and work\r\npractice standards are being promulgated under the authority of TSCA\r\nsections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684,\r\n2686, and 2687, and in a manner that is consistent with TSCA section\r\n2(c), 15 U.S.C. 2601(c).\r\n\r\nIII. Provisions of this Final Rule\r\n\r\n This unit describes the specific provisions of the final regulation\r\nand discusses the major comments received.\r\n\r\nA. Scope of the Final Rule\r\n\r\n EPA is amending the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 745,\r\nsubpart E (the ``Pre-Renovation Education Rule''), that implement TSCA\r\nsection 406(b) to add training and certification requirements, as well\r\nas work practice standards, for certain renovation, repair, and\r\npainting projects performed for compensation in target housing and in\r\nchild-occupied facilities.\r\n 1. Buildings covered--a. Target housing. The requirements of this\r\nfinal rule apply to renovations performed for compensation within and\r\non the exteriors of target housing units, including renovations\r\nperformed for compensation in common areas, such as hallways,\r\nstairways, and laundry and recreational rooms, in multi-unit target\r\nhousing. The term ``target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401 as\r\nany housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or\r\npersons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is\r\nexpected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.\r\n Several commenters were concerned about the exclusion of 0-bedroom\r\ndwellings from the definition of ``target housing.'' These commenters\r\nnoted that this effectively excludes a significant subset of housing\r\nwhere children live, particularly studio or efficiency apartments and\r\ncertain low-income housing such as single-room occupancy hotels. One\r\ncommenter stated that, in his city, at least 400 families with more\r\nthan 700 children live in single-room occupancy hotels, and these\r\nhotels constitute some of oldest housing in their city. Other\r\ncommenters were concerned about the exclusion of housing for the\r\nelderly (or persons with disabilities) unless any child under age 6\r\nresides or is expected to reside in such housing. These commenters\r\nsuggested that EPA not exempt such housing because children may be\r\npresent for a substantial amount of time. One commenter noted that,\r\nbecause some children spend 40 or more hours per week at their\r\ngrandparents' home, eliminating housing for the elderly from the rule\r\nwould place an inordinate number of young children at risk. Another\r\ncommenter observed that unless the building is reserved for elderly\r\nresidents only, the likelihood of children living in a multi-unit\r\nbuilding and being exposed to lead hazards in common areas is high.\r\n EPA understands and shares the concerns of these commenters.\r\nHowever, these exclusions were established by Congress in Title X. The\r\nexclusions and limitations in the exclusions appear consistent with a focus\r\non housing where children under age 6 reside. Nonetheless, EPA does wish\r\nto point out that this regulation and other existing TSCA regulations\r\n\r\n[[Page 21706]]\r\n\r\ncover activities in common areas that are accessible to residents of\r\ntarget housing units. Thus, renovations in common areas in a building\r\nbuilt before 1978 that contains both housing units reserved for the\r\nelderly and regular housing units would be covered by this rule. In\r\naddition, as described more fully in Unit III.G. of this preamble,\r\nStates, Territories and Tribes may choose to develop and implement\r\ntheir own lead renovation, repair, and painting programs. Such programs\r\nmay be more stringent than this Federal regulation and could,\r\ntherefore, cover 0-bedroom dwellings or housing for the elderly.\r\n Finally, one commenter questioned the existing definition\r\nof``multi-family housing'' in 40 CFR 745.83, which defines the term as\r\na ``housing property consisting of more than four dwelling units.'' The\r\ncommenter referred to the definition of ``multi-family dwelling'' in 40\r\nCFR 745.223 which does not limit the term to a specific number of\r\nunits, and questioned why smaller multi-family housing such as duplexes\r\nshould not be included in the definition in 40 CFR 745.83. This\r\ncommenter and others contended that it is important to cover common\r\nareas, including building exteriors, in all multi-unit target housing.\r\nIn response to these commenters, EPA is deleting the definition of\r\n``multi-family housing'' from 40 CFR 745.83 because the term is not\r\nused in this final rule. This final rule covers renovations in common\r\nareas, including building exteriors, of multi-unit buildings regardless\r\nof the number of units contained in the building. In addition, the\r\ndeletion of this definition will also make it clear that the existing\r\nPre-Renovation Education Rule provisions also apply to the same\r\nrenovations covered by this final rule.\r\n b. Child-occupied facilities. The certification, training,\r\nrecordkeeping, and work practice standards of this final rule also\r\napply to renovations for compensation in child-occupied facilities. As\r\ndiscussed in the preamble to the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, numerous\r\ncommenters on the 2006 Proposal requested that EPA cover child-occupied\r\nfacilities under this regulation and suggested that EPA use the\r\nexisting definition of ``child-occupied facility'' in 40 CFR 745.223.\r\nIn response, the 2007 Supplemental Proposal included a definition of\r\n``child-occupied facility'' that was based upon the existing\r\ndefinition, with modifications to make it consistent with the\r\nprovisions of the 2006 Proposal. EPA also proposed to modify the\r\ndefinition to clarify, for child-occupied facilities located in public\r\nor commercial buildings, which portions of the building would be\r\nconsidered part of the child-occupied facility for purposes of this\r\nrulemaking. EPA received several comments suggesting modifications to\r\nthe proposed definition, but (with the exception of one small\r\nclarification) EPA is retaining the proposed definition for the reasons\r\ndiscussed below. The final rule's definition of ``child-occupied\r\nfacility'' is as follows:\r\n ``Child-occupied facility'' means a building, or portion of a\r\nbuilding, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same\r\nchild, under 6 years of age, on at least 2 different days within any\r\nweek (Sunday through Saturday period), provided that each day's visit\r\nlasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6\r\nhours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-\r\noccupied facilities may include, but are not limited to, day care\r\ncenters, preschools and kindergarten classrooms. Child-occupied\r\nfacilities may be located in target housing or in public or commercial\r\nbuildings. With respect to common areas in public or commercial\r\nbuildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the child-occupied\r\nfacility encompasses only those common areas that are routinely used by\r\nchildren under age 6, such as restrooms and cafeterias. Common areas\r\nthat children under age 6 only pass through, such as hallways,\r\nstairways, and garages are not included. In addition, with respect to\r\nexteriors of public or commercial buildings that contain child-occupied\r\nfacilities, the child-occupied facility encompasses only the exterior\r\nsides of the building that are immediately adjacent to the child-occupied\r\nfacility or the common areas routinely used by children under age 6.\r\n EPA added the introductory clauses ``with respect to common areas''\r\nand ``with respect to exteriors of'' to the sentences describing the\r\napplicability of the rule to common areas and exteriors of public or\r\ncommercial buildings because EPA was concerned that people would be\r\nconfused about the area defined by the term ``child-occupied facility''\r\nin those situations.\r\n Most of the commenters on the 2007 Supplemental Proposal expressed\r\nsupport for including child-occupied facilities within the universe of\r\nbuildings covered by this rulemaking. Several commenters requested that\r\nEPA provide a more clear definition of public buildings that contain\r\nchild-occupied facilities or additional examples of such facilities.\r\nHowever, EPA is not aware of additional examples that could be included\r\nin the definition to make the applicability of this rule clearer. One\r\ncommenter believed that a definition based upon the amount of time a\r\nchild spends at a facility would be unworkable.\r\n EPA disagrees with the comment that a time-based definition of\r\nchild-occupied facility is unworkable. A time-based definition has been\r\na part of the Lead-based Paint Activities Program under TSCA section\r\n402(a) for more than 10 years and EPA is not aware of any significant\r\nimplementation difficulties. As initially proposed in 1994, the Lead-\r\nbased Paint Activities Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) would have\r\ncontained one set of requirements for the training and certification of\r\ncontractors and the accreditation of training programs, as well as\r\nspecific work practice standards that would have applied to lead-based\r\npaint activities conducted in target housing and public buildings (Ref.\r\n23). A different set of requirements would have applied to lead-based\r\npaint activities conducted in commercial buildings and on bridges and\r\nother structures. The 1994 proposal would have defined public buildings\r\nto include all buildings generally open to the public or occupied or\r\nvisited by children, such as stores, museums, airports, offices,\r\nrestaurants, hospitals, and government buildings, as well as schools\r\nand day care centers. During the comment period, a significant majority\r\nof commenters expressed the concern that applying these regulations to\r\nactivities in all of the buildings that EPA would consider public would\r\nresult in significant costs without a comparable reduction in lead-\r\nbased paint exposures for children under age 6, the population most\r\nvulnerable to lead exposures. Many of these commenters recommended that\r\nEPA focus its attention on buildings that are frequented by children,\r\nrather than on buildings that may be briefly visited by children.\r\n In response to these comments, EPA established, in the final rule,\r\na subset of the buildings EPA had intended to define as public. This\r\nsubset, called ``child-occupied facilities,'' was delineated in terms\r\nof the frequency and duration of visits by children (Ref. 4). These\r\nprimarily consist of public buildings where young children receive care\r\nor instruction on a regular basis, such as child care centers and\r\nkindergarten classrooms. The Agency's decision to define child-occupied\r\nfacilities as a sub-category of public buildings was based on one of the\r\nkey objectives of the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, which was to\r\n\r\n[[Page 21707]]\r\n\r\nprevent lead exposures among young children. The Agency reasoned that\r\nchildren face an equal, if not greater, risk from lead-based paint\r\nhazards in schools and day care centers as they do at home. Indeed, EPA\r\nwas concerned that children could spend more time in a particular\r\nclassroom or day care room in a given day or week than they might spend\r\nin a single room in their homes. With respect to the type of building\r\ncovered, this regulation will operate in much the same way as the Lead-\r\nbased Paint Activities Regulations. In most cases, office buildings\r\nwithout child care facilities, museums, stores, airports, and\r\nrestaurants will not be covered by this rule. Although there may be\r\nlarge numbers of children present at any given time in these kinds of\r\nbuildings, individual children are not likely to be there often enough\r\nand long enough to qualify the building as a child-occupied facility.\r\n Some commenters appeared to be confused about whether the\r\ndefinition of ``child-occupied facility'' covers housing where informal\r\nor unpaid care is provided, such as the homes of relatives and\r\nneighbors. Whether or not a building is a child-occupied facility does\r\nnot depend upon whether the owner or operator of the child-occupied\r\nfacility is somehow compensated for the child's presence. Indeed, the\r\nfirst sentence of the definition makes this clear in stating that a\r\nchild-occupied facility is a ``building, or portion of a building,\r\nconstructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child . . .''\r\nThe word ``visited'' is very broad, it includes visits to a relative's\r\nhouse or a neighbor's house as well as visits to a child-care facility\r\nor school.\r\n Except in owner-occupied target housing, as discussed below, the\r\nfirm performing the renovation is responsible for determining whether a\r\nbuilding is a child-occupied facility. This can be accomplished in any\r\nnumber of ways. A stand-alone child care center is likely to have a\r\nname that suggests that it provides child care, and the center's status\r\nas a child-occupied facility should be obvious upon entering the\r\ncenter. Child care centers in office buildings are likely to have\r\ninformational signs posted and the centers are likely to be identified\r\nin the building directory. Elementary schools are likely to have\r\nkindergarten classrooms. The renovation firm should inquire about the\r\npresence of a child-occupied facility when contracting to perform\r\nrenovation services in a public or commercial building. However, a\r\nstatement by the building owner or manager that there is no child-\r\noccupied facility in the building may not be relied upon in the face of\r\nevidence to the contrary.\r\n Several commenters felt that EPA had inappropriately limited the\r\nspace encompassed by achild-occupied facility in a public or commercial\r\nbuilding. These commenters thought that EPA should follow the approach\r\nused for common areas in multi-family housing. Under this approach, the\r\nrule would cover renovations for compensation in all areas normally\r\naccessible to the children using the child-occupied facility. However,\r\nchildren under age 6 are likely to spend less time in the hallways and\r\nstairways of public or commercial buildings than they do in common\r\nareas in the buildings where they live. It is also likely that children\r\nunder age 6 walking to and from a child care center in an office\r\nbuilding, or to and from a classroom in a school building, will be\r\nclosely supervised and will not be permitted to walk through active\r\nrenovation work sites. Although some exposure is possible in these\r\nareas, they are more akin to general public and commercial buildings\r\nthat children may enter but where they are not expected to spend\r\nsignificant amounts of time than to the exposures associated with\r\nchild-occupied facilities, and EPA's hazard standards are applicable to\r\nresidents and residential-type settings. In addition, EPA is concerned\r\nthat application of this final rule to all common areas of public or\r\ncommercial buildings that may house a child-occupied facility in a\r\nsmall portion of the building would likely result in minimal benefit to\r\nthe children at a potentially large cost.\r\n c. Other public or commercial buildings. A number of commenters\r\nnoted that TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA to address renovation or\r\nremodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards not only in\r\ntarget housing, but also in public buildings constructed before 1978,\r\nand commercial buildings. Most of these commenters, commenting on the\r\n2006 Proposal, expressed the greatest concern over EPA's failure to\r\naddress buildings where young children spend significant amounts of\r\ntime, or child-occupied facilities. However, a handful of commenters\r\nargued that EPA also needed to address other public and commercial\r\nbuildings under the renovation, repair, and painting program.\r\n TSCA section 402(c)(3) provides authority for EPA to regulate\r\nrenovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint\r\nhazards. EPA has, by regulation under TSCA section 403, identified\r\nlead-based paint hazards for purposes of Title IV. These hazard\r\nstandards were developed by evaluating exposure patterns and hazard\r\ninformation for young children and taking into account costs and\r\nbenefits. They are only applicable in target housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities, places where young children are likely to be present for\r\nsignificant periods of time. Although EPA realizes that lead exposure\r\nfor older children and adults can result in adverse health effects,\r\neffects which are discussed in chapter 5 of the Final Economic Analysis\r\nfor the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (``Final Economic\r\nAnalysis'') (Ref. 24), EPA has not evaluated the exposure and hazard\r\ninformation for these groups in the same way that it has for young\r\nchildren. EPA has not evaluated the potential adverse health effects\r\nand associated them with a specific level of surface dust that will\r\nresult in a blood lead level in an older child or an adult that is\r\nlikely to cause a particular adverse effect. Nor has EPA evaluated the\r\npotential health effects to young children from the less frequent\r\nexposures that might arise in public and commercial buildings that are\r\nnot child-occupied facilities. At this time, EPA does not have\r\nsufficient information with which to conclude that renovation and\r\nremodeling activities in buildings not frequented by young children,\r\ne.g., public or commercial buildings that are not child-occupied\r\nfacilities, create lead-based paint hazards because EPA's TSCA section\r\n403 hazard standards only apply to target housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities. EPA has no hazard standards to apply in other situations.\r\nThus, this rule, like the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, only\r\napplies in target housing and child-occupied facilities.\r\n 2. Activities covered--a. Renovations for compensation. This rule,\r\nlike the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, only applies to persons who\r\nperform renovations for compensation. As discussed in the preamble to\r\nthe 2007 Supplemental Proposal, for the purposes of this regulation,\r\ncompensation includes pay for work performed, such as that paid to\r\ncontractors and subcontractors; wages, such as those paid to employees\r\nof contractors, building owners, property management companies, child-\r\noccupied facility operators, State and local government agencies, and\r\nnon-profits; and rent for target housing or public or commercial\r\nbuilding space.\r\n Although the owner of rental property may not be compensated for\r\nmaintenance and repair work at the time that the work is performed,\r\ntenants generally pay rent for the right to\r\n\r\n[[Page 21708]]\r\n\r\noccupy rental space as well as for maintenance services in that space.\r\nThus, renovations performed by renovation contractors and their\r\nemployees in target housing or child-occupied facilities are covered,\r\nas are renovations by owners of rental target housing or child-occupied\r\nfacilities, if the child-occupied facility leases space.\r\n Renovations in target housing or in child-occupied facilities are\r\ncovered if they are performed by employees of the renovation\r\ncontractor, the building owner, the building manager, a State or local\r\ngovernment agency, a non-profit organization, or the child-occupied\r\nfacility operator, and the employees receive wages or other\r\ncompensation for the work performed. Child care payments, in and of\r\nthemselves, are not considered compensation for renovations. An\r\nagreement to provide child care in exchange for a payment is not a\r\ncontract for building maintenance services in the same way that a lease\r\nor other agreement between a landlord and a tenant generally is.\r\n One commenter requested that EPA consider payments for child care\r\nto be compensation for renovations. A number of other commenters\r\nexpressed a general concern over the fact that EPA was not proposing to\r\ncover do-it-yourself renovations in owner-occupied target housing. Some\r\nof these commenters cited research or observations suggesting that\r\nimproperly performed renovations by homeowners, relatives, or friends\r\nare equally likely, if not more likely, to cause elevated blood lead\r\nlevels as renovations performed by professional contractors. The most\r\ncommonly cited study for this proposition was the Wisconsin Childhood\r\nBlood-Lead Study, commissioned by EPA as Phase III of the Renovation\r\nand Remodeling Study performed pursuant to TSCA section 402(c)(2). As\r\ndescribed more fully in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, in homes\r\nwhere renovation and remodeling activities had been performed, the\r\nanalysis of the results of the Wisconsin Study indicated the following\r\nordering of the five possible responses to the question of who\r\nperformed the renovation and remodeling, in order of highest to lowest\r\nrisk of increased odds of an elevated blood lead level:\r\n \u2022 Relative or friend not in household.\r\n \u2022 Paid professional.\r\n \u2022 Owner or building superintendent.\r\n \u2022 Head of household or spouse.\r\n \u2022 Other person in household.\r\n As discussed in the preamble to the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, EPA\r\ndoes not believe that child-care payments represent compensation for\r\nrenovations in the same way that rent is. Furthermore, as discussed in\r\nthe Final Economic Analysis, the overwhelming majority of child-\r\noccupied facilities covered by this final rule are located in target\r\nhousing. Some of that housing is rental target housing, and renovations\r\nin rental target housing are covered by this final rule regardless of\r\nwhether a child-occupied facility is present. With respect to child-\r\noccupied facilities located in owner-occupied target housing and do-it-\r\nyourself renovations in owner-occupied target housing in general, EPA\r\nbelieves that it would be inconsistent with Congressional intent to\r\ncover these renovations.\r\n EPA has previously determined that Congress was most concerned with\r\nthe certification and training of contractors, not homeowners. In the\r\npreamble to the proposed Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, EPA\r\nreviewed section 1021 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard\r\nReduction Act of 1992, the section that added Title IV to TSCA, and\r\ndetermined that the emphasis under section 402 of TSCA ought to be the\r\ncertification and training of contractors, not homeowners (Ref. 23). In\r\nits review, EPA declared that TSCA section 402(c)(3), the section under\r\nwhich this final rule is being issued, shows that Congressional ``focus\r\nwas on the need to regulate contractors doing renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities, and not homeowners doing renovation and remodeling of their\r\nown homes'' (Ref. 23). Specifically, TSCA section 402(c)(3) directs EPA\r\nto revise the TSCA section 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities\r\nRegulations to apply to renovation and remodeling activities. In so\r\ndoing, EPA is to determine ``which contractors are engaged in such\r\nactivities.'' TSCA section 402(c)(3) (emphasis added). EPA thus\r\ninterprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and\r\nrenovation activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to\r\ncontractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners.\r\n With respect to do-it-yourself renovations in child-occupied\r\nfacilities in target housing, as stated above, although payment is\r\nreceived in exchange for childcare, EPA does not consider this to be a\r\ncontract for building maintenance. As discussed in the previous\r\nparagraph, Congress intended to cover renovation contractors, not\r\nhomeowners who perform renovations on their own homes.\r\n However, as previously discussed, EPA intends to conduct an\r\noutreach and education campaign designed to encourage homeowners and\r\nother building owners to follow lead-safe work practices while\r\nperforming renovations or hire a certified renovation firm to do so.\r\n b. Definition of ``renovation.'' The universe of renovation\r\nactivities covered by this rule is virtually identical to the\r\nrenovation activities already regulated under the Pre-Renovation\r\nEducation Rule--essentially, activities that modify an existing\r\nstructure and that result in the disturbance of painted surfaces. All\r\ntypes of repair, remodeling, modernization, and weatherization projects\r\nare covered, including projects performed as part of another Federal,\r\nState, or local program, if the projects meet the definition of\r\n``renovation'' already codified in 40 CFR 745.83.\r\n As discussed in Unit IV.B.3. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal,\r\nEPA considered a number of options for defining the term ``renovation''\r\nfor the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, and chose a definition that\r\nfocuses on the activities of greatest concern to EPA, activities that\r\ndisturb lead-based paint. This definition also covers virtually all of\r\nthe types of activities in the Environmental Field Sampling Study that\r\ncreated lead-based paint hazards. In this rulemaking, EPA received\r\nseveral comments requesting clarification on the definition; some of\r\nthese commenters were particularly interested in the types of jobs that\r\nwould be covered by this definition. One commenter requested that, if\r\nEPA intended to cover maintenance and repair projects and interim\r\ncontrol projects, the definition of ``renovation'' be modified to\r\nspecifically include those projects. Another commenter requested that\r\nEPA specifically mention weatherization projects as an example of the\r\ntypes of projects covered by the rule. Several commenters suggested\r\nthat the definition should clearly delineate the boundaries between\r\nrenovation and abatement.\r\n EPA also received several responses to its requests for comment on\r\nwhether to exclude any category of specialty contractor and whether\r\ncertain renovation activities, such as HVAC duct work, which may result\r\nin the disturbance of limited amounts of lead-based paint, should be\r\nspecifically included or excluded. A state agency contended that\r\nexterior siding projects, HVAC duct work, and wallpaper removal should\r\nnot be excluded, noting that wallpaper removal was implicated in a lead\r\npoisoning case the agency investigated. Another commenter argued that\r\nmany interior and exterior painting projects involve washing, scuff-\r\nsanding, and scraping to remove loose materials, and that such\r\n``common'' and\r\n\r\n[[Page 21709]]\r\n\r\n``relatively benign'' industry practices should not be regulated. Other\r\ncommenters argued that there should be no categorical exemption for any\r\ntype of specialty contractor. Most commenters on this issue contended\r\nthat the amount of lead-based paint disturbed, rather than the type of\r\nproject or contractor involved, should control the applicability of the\r\nrule.\r\n EPA specifically disagrees that scuff-sanding and scraping are\r\n``benign,'' especially in light of the dust lead levels generated by\r\ndry scraping in the Dust Study. The geometric mean post-work, pre-\r\ncleaning dust lead levels resulting from dry scraping were 2,686 μg\/\r\nft\\2\\. After baseline cleaning procedures, the geometric mean was still\r\n66 μg\/ft\\2\\. When the work practices required by the final rule were\r\nused, the geometric mean was 30 μg\/ft\\2\\. As stated above, all of\r\nthe renovation activities in the Dust Study and the other studies in\r\nthe record for this final rule created lead-based paint hazards.\r\nTherefore, this regulation will not exempt any category of specialty\r\ncontractor or any specific type of renovation. EPA notes, however, that\r\nit has not prohibited the use of dry scraping or dry hand sanding. More\r\ninformation on prohibited renovation practices can be found in Unit\r\nIII.E.4. of this preamble. EPA also notes that some small jobs will be\r\nexempt from the requirements of this final rule under the minor repair\r\nand maintenance exception.\r\n EPA has also determined that, based on the comments, some changes\r\nto the proposed definition of the term ``renovation'' are necessary to\r\nensure that everyone understands that all types of building renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting projects are covered, so long as painted surfaces\r\nare disturbed. The following definition of ``renovation'' will be\r\nincorporated into 40 CFR 745.83.\r\n Renovation means the modification of any existing structure, or\r\nportion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces,\r\nunless that activity is performed as part of an abatement as defined by\r\nthis part (40 CFR 745.223). The term renovation includes (but is not\r\nlimited to): The removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or\r\npainted components (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface\r\nrestoration, window repair, surface preparation activity (such as\r\nsanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint\r\ndust)); the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings,\r\nplumbing, windows); weatherization projects (e.g., cutting holes in\r\npainted surfaces to install blown-in insulation or to gain access to\r\nattics, planing thresholds to install weather-stripping), and interim\r\ncontrols. A renovation performed for the purpose of converting a\r\nbuilding, or part of a building, into target housing or a child-\r\noccupied facility is a renovation under this subpart. The term\r\nrenovation does not include minor repair and maintenance activities.\r\n EPA added ``repair,'' ``surface restoration,'' ``window repair,''\r\n``weatherization,'' and ``interim controls'' to the definition to make\r\nit clear that all of these activities are covered by this definition if\r\nthey disturb painted surfaces. EPA also separated the removal and the\r\nmodification of building components to provide clarity. In addition,\r\nEPA provided examples of weatherization activities and building\r\ncomponent removal. Finally, EPA added a sentence to ensure that it is\r\nclear that renovations performed to turn a building into target housing\r\nor a child-occupied facility are covered.\r\n Thus, interim control projects and weatherization projects that\r\ndisturb painted surfaces are renovations. In addition, under this\r\ndefinition, the line between renovation and abatement is clear. Any\r\nrenovation, repair, maintenance, or painting project is a renovation\r\npotentially covered by this rule unless the purpose of the project is\r\nto permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards.\r\nIn that case, the project is an abatement. Covered renovations must be\r\nperformed in accordance with 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, while covered\r\nabatements must be performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 745, subpart L.\r\n 3. Exceptions--a. Owner-occupied target housing that is neither the\r\nresidence of a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman, nor a child-\r\noccupied facility. The 2006 Proposal proposed to establish an exception\r\nthat would allow owner-occupants of target housing to opt-out of having\r\nrenovation firms use the work practices that would be required by the\r\nrule. The proposed exception provided that if the owner-occupant signed\r\na statement that no child under 6 resided there, the renovation would\r\nbe exempt from the training, certification, and work practice\r\nrequirements of the regulation. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal narrowed\r\nthis exception. Under the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, owner-occupied\r\ntarget housing where no child under age 6 resides would not be eligible\r\nfor this exception if the housing meets the definition of ``child-\r\noccupied facility.'' This final rule retains this exception, but\r\nfurther narrows it to exclude housing where pregnant women reside. In\r\naddition, to make it clear to the property owner what the effect of the\r\nsigned statement is, EPA has modified the requirements to include an\r\nacknowledgment by the owner that the renovation firm will not be\r\nrequired to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting rule. Thus, unless the target housing\r\nmeets the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant\r\nsigned a statement that no child under 6 and no pregnant woman reside\r\nthere and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will not be\r\nrequired to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting rule, the renovation activity is\r\nexempt from the training, certification, and work practice requirements\r\nof the rule. Conversely, if the owner-occupant does not sign the\r\ncertification and acknowledgement (even if no children under 6 or no\r\npregnant women reside there), or if the owner-occupant chooses not to\r\ntake advantage of the exception for other reasons, the exception does\r\nnot apply and the renovation is subject to the requirements of this\r\nfinal rule.\r\n EPA asked for and received numerous comments on this aspect of the\r\n2006 Proposal. Several commenters supported EPA's focus on housing\r\nwhere children under age 6 reside, citing the need to target society's\r\nresources towards the housing that presents the greatest risk. One\r\ncommenter also noted that this provision would help keep renovation\r\ncosts down for low-income homeowners without children. Most commenters,\r\nhowever, did not agree with EPA's proposal to allow homeowners with no\r\nchildren under age 6 who occupy their own homes to opt out of the\r\nrule's requirements. These commenters cited a number of reasons for\r\ntheir position, including the fact that children visit homes where they\r\ndo not reside, and newly renovated housing may be sold to a family with\r\nyoung children regardless of whether children were in residence when\r\nthe renovation occurred. Commenters also expressed concern about\r\npregnant women, given that the transplacental transfer of lead in\r\nhumans is well documented, and infants are generally born with a lead\r\nbody burden reflecting that of the mother. This led some commenters to\r\nsuggest that women of child-bearing age and girls between the ages of 6\r\nand 14 also deserve special protection, because any lead body burden\r\nthat they acquire through uncontrolled renovations will be passed on to\r\nany children they may eventually have.\r\n EPA has carefully considered the issues and concerns raised with\r\nrespect to exceptions to the rule. On the one\r\n\r\n[[Page 21710]]\r\n\r\nhand, EPA agrees with the commenters that believed it was important to\r\nfocus this regulation on the housing that presents the greatest risk to\r\nyoung children. EPA is mindful of the impacts this regulation may have\r\non the affordability of renovations, particularly for low-income\r\nhomeowners. EPA believes that primarily focusing society's resources on\r\nthe housing that presents the greatest risk to children is consistent\r\nwith Congressional intent. In the Senate report on Title X, Congress\r\nnoted the need ``for a flexible, targeted approach for protecting\r\nchildren from exposure to lead hazards while maintaining housing\r\naffordability'' (Ref. 25). The report also noted that ``exposure to\r\nlead is primarily caused by ingesting paint dust or chips,'' which is\r\nthe route of exposure of concern primarily for young children, ages 18-\r\n27 months. Indeed, in the Congressional findings for Title X, Congress\r\nfocused on the lead poisoning of children and the need to address this\r\nas a national priority. [Sec. 1002, Public Law 102-550]. The focus on\r\nchildren can also be inferred from the very definition of ``target\r\nhousing'' which on the one hand excludes housing for the elderly and\r\ndisabled ``unless a child under six resides or is expected to reside''\r\nthere. Similarly, this final rule focuses on the population most at\r\nrisk and does not provide any exceptions if a child under age 6 resides\r\nin the target housing to be renovated.\r\n On the other hand, EPA understands and shares some of the concerns\r\nexpressed by those commenters who did not support an exception for\r\nowner-occupied target housing where no child under 6 resides. In\r\nbalancing these countervailing considerations, EPA has further limited\r\nthis exception to owner-occupied target housing that does not meet the\r\ndefinition of a child-occupied facility because no child under 6 is\r\npresent on a regular basis and in which no pregnant women reside. This\r\nhas the effect of focusing this regulation primarily on renovations\r\nperformed in buildings where children under age 6 reside or spend a\r\ngreat deal of time or in which a pregnant woman resides.\r\n With regard to older children and adults, it is important to\r\nremember that the hazards presented by a particular floor or windowsill\r\ndust lead level are markedly different for a toddler than for an older\r\nchild or an adult. As discussed in EPA's most recent Air Quality\r\nCriteria for Lead document, hand-to-mouth behavior is an important\r\nmeans of exposure for children. The period of peak exposure, reflected\r\nin peak blood lead levels, is around 18-27 months when hand-to-mouth\r\nactivity is at its maximum. This leads to a high rate of ingestion of\r\ndust at a time when children are believed to be particularly vulnerable\r\nto the neurological effects of lead exposure. While lead exposure\r\ncontinues to affect older children and adults, these individuals do not\r\ningest dust at the same high rate that a toddler does. Therefore, the\r\nsame floor dust level will present a much greater hazard for the young\r\nchild than it will for the older child or adult. The lead-based paint\r\nhazard standards in 40 CFR part 745, subpart D, were established with\r\nreference to impacts on childhood blood lead levels based principally\r\non hand-to-mouth activity, and EPA has not assessed the effect of dust\r\nlead levels or other potential sources of lead-based paint hazards on\r\nolder children or adults.\r\n However, EPA is particularly concerned about exposure to pregnant\r\nwomen because while the exposure patterns for small children and older\r\nchildren and adults are different, once exposed a pregnant woman can\r\ntransfer lead to the developing fetus. Epidemiologic evidence indicates\r\nthat lead freely crosses the placenta resulting in continued fetal\r\nexposure throughout pregnancy. Of particular concern is transfer to the\r\ndeveloping brain of the fetus across the poorly developed blood brain\r\nbarrier. Further, a significant proportion of lead transferred from the\r\nmother is incorporated into the developing skeletal system of the\r\noffspring, where it can serve as a continuing source of toxic exposure\r\n(Ref. 1). Thus, EPA agrees with the commenters who believed it is\r\nimportant to ensure that the work practices required in this final rule\r\nare followed in homes where a pregnant woman resides.\r\n EPA also acknowledges the concern expressed by a number of\r\ncommenters that newly renovated housing will be sold to a family with\r\nyoung children. If the renovation was not performed in accordance with\r\nthe work practices prescribed by this rule, a dust-lead hazard may be\r\npresent in the home. However, EPA does not believe it is an effective\r\nuse of society's resources to impose this final rule requirements on\r\nall renovations in order to account for the portion of homes without\r\nyoung children that will be sold to families with young children\r\nfollowing renovations. Moreover, the Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745,\r\nsubpart F, requires sellers of target housing to disclose known lead-\r\nbased paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers and\r\nprovide them with a copy of the lead hazard information pamphlet\r\nentitledProtect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 7). In the\r\nsituation described by the commenters, the receipt of this information\r\nshould prompt the family to inquire about potential lead-based paint\r\nhazards in the home, particularly if one of the selling points is that\r\nareas of the home have been recently renovated. In addition, EPA\r\ncontinues to recommend that purchasers take advantage of their\r\nstatutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk\r\nassessment done while in the process of purchasing target housing.\r\n In response to comments expressing concern about this exception\r\nfrom this final rule, EPA has further considered the proposed owner-\r\noccupant acknowledgement statement and concluded that it is important\r\nthat homeowners understand the effect of the acknowledgement.\r\nAccordingly, EPA has clarified and expanded the acknowledgement\r\nlanguage to ensure that it is clear and consistent. In addition, EPA\r\nwould like to make it clear that even if the housing to be renovated\r\nqualifies for this exception, the homeowner may always choose to have\r\nthe renovation firm follow the work practices required by this rule.\r\nFor example, the homeowner may be concerned about potential exposures\r\nfor visiting children who do not visit often enough to make the housing\r\na child-occupied facility. The homeowner may also be concerned that she\r\nmay be pregnant, even though she is not yet certain. EPA has added a\r\nstatement to the sample acknowledgment form that would allow the\r\nhomeowner to state that the housing does qualify for the exception, but\r\nthe homeowner wishes the renovation firm to follow the requirements of\r\nthis rule anyway.\r\n EPA would like to reiterate that this exception applies only to\r\ntarget housing that is occupied by its owner. For a number of reasons,\r\nthis exception is not available in rental target housing, whether young\r\nchildren are present or not. First, tenants are likely to have much\r\nless control over renovations in their housing than owners. Next, as\r\npointed out by some commenters, there is more turnover in rental\r\nhousing than in owner-occupied housing. In many cases, renovations are\r\ndone between tenants and it may not be known who will be occupying the\r\nunit next. Finally, as noted by at least two commenters, exempting\r\nrenovations in rental housing that is not occupied by a child under age\r\n6 could cause discrimination in the rental housing market against\r\nfamilies with young children. Nearly all of the commenters on this\r\nissue agreed with this approach.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21711]]\r\n\r\n Several commenters expressed reservations about the ability of\r\nrenovation firms to determine whether housing to be renovated is\r\neligible for this exception. As discussed in both proposals, EPA\r\nbelieves that it could be difficult for a renovation firm to determine\r\nwhether a child under age 6 resides in a particular unit of target\r\nhousing or whether the housing is a child-occupied facility or whether\r\na woman is pregnant. EPA will therefore allow renovation firms to rely\r\non a signed statement from the owner of the housing that he or she is\r\nthe owner of the housing to be renovated, that he or she resides in the\r\nhousing to be renovated, that no child under 6 or pregnant woman\r\nresides there, that the housing does not meet the definition of a\r\nchild-occupied facility, and that the owner acknowledges that the\r\nrenovation firm will not be required to use the lead-safe work\r\npractices contained in this final rule. In the absence of such a signed\r\nstatement, the renovation firm must comply with all of the regulation's\r\nrequirements. If the renovation firm obtains such a statement, the\r\nrenovation firm is not subject to the work practice and other\r\nrequirements of this final rule. EPA will not hold the renovation firm\r\nresponsible for misrepresentations on the part of the owner of the\r\nhousing. Renovations in common areas of owner-occupied multi-unit\r\ntarget housing, such as condominiums, must be performed in accordance\r\nwith the requirements of this rule unless the renovation firm obtains a\r\nsigned statement from each occupant with access to the common area that\r\nthe occupant is the owner of the housing unit, that he or she resides\r\nthere, that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that\r\nthe housing does not meet the definition of child-occupied facility,\r\nand that the owner understands that the renovation firm will not be\r\nrequired to use the work practices contained in this final rule.\r\n Finally, some commenters argued that TSCA section 402(c)(3)\r\nrequires EPA to cover all renovations in target housing regardless of\r\nwhether the housing is the residence of a child under age 6 or a child-\r\noccupied facility. This regulation covers all target housing. In order\r\nto perfect a claim for the exception for owner-occupied target housing\r\nthat is not the residence of a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman or\r\na child-occupied facility, the renovation firm must obtain the owner's\r\nsignature on a form indicating that the housing qualifies for the\r\nexception and the owner is opting out of the training, certification,\r\nand work practice requirements of this rule. In addition, the form and\r\nregulation provide the option for a homeowner to request that the work\r\nconform to the requirements of this final rule even in homes without\r\nyoung children or pregnant women. EPA believes homeowners without young\r\nchildren or who reside in homes without pregnant women should be able\r\nto choose whether or not work done in their own homes conforms to the\r\nrequirements of this final rule. EPA has determined that allowing these\r\nowner-occupants to opt out of the training, certification, and work\r\npractice requirements of the rule does not significantly compromise the\r\nsafety and effectiveness of this rule because the limitations on the\r\napplicability of the exception with respect to children under 6 and\r\npregnant women serve to minimize the possibility that a young child or\r\na pregnant woman will be exposed to a lead-based paint hazard resulting\r\nfrom a renovation in target housing.\r\n b. Renovations affecting only components free of regulated lead-\r\nbased paint--i. Determination by certified inspector or risk assessor.\r\nIn keeping with the 2006 Proposal and the 2007 Supplemental Proposal,\r\nthis final rule exempts renovations that affect only components that a\r\ncertified inspector or risk assessor has determined are free of paint\r\nor other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of\r\n1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or 0.5% by weight. These standards are from the definition\r\nof lead-based paint in Title X and in EPA's implementing regulations.\r\nNearly all of the commenters that expressed an opinion on this topic\r\nfavored this exception. The determination that any particular component\r\nis free of lead-based paint may be made as part of a lead-based paint\r\ninspection of an entire housing unit or building, or on a component-by-\r\ncomponent basis.\r\n Some commenters expressed confusion over the mechanics of this\r\nexception. The certified inspector or risk assessor determines whether\r\ncomponents contain lead-based paint, while the renovation firm is\r\nresponsible for determining which components will be affected by the\r\nrenovation. A renovation firm may rely on the report of a past\r\ninspection or risk assessment that addresses the components that will\r\nbe disturbed by the renovation.\r\n ii. Determination by certified renovator using EPA-recognized test\r\nkits. Also in accordance with both of the proposals, this final rule\r\nexempts renovations that affect only components that a certified\r\nrenovator, using a test kit recognized by EPA, determines are free of\r\nlead-based paint. EPA has deleted the regulatory thresholds for lead-\r\nbased paint from this definition because they unnecessarily complicate\r\nthe exception. As discussed in Unit III.C.1. of this preamble, a\r\ncertified renovator is a person who has taken an accredited course in\r\nwork practices. This training will include how to properly use the EPA-\r\napproved test kits. This final rule also establishes the process EPA\r\nwill use to recognize test kits.\r\n As discussed in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, research on the\r\nuse of currently available kits for testing lead in paint has been\r\npublished by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)\r\n(Ref. 26). The research indicates that there are test kits on the\r\nmarket that, when used by a trained professional, can reliably\r\ndetermine that regulated lead-based paint is not present by virtue of a\r\nnegative result. Based on this research, EPA proposed to initially\r\nrecognize test kits that have, for paint containing lead at or above\r\nthe regulated level, 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or 0.5% by weight, a demonstrated\r\nprobability (with 95% confidence) of a negative response less than or\r\nequal to 5% of the time.\r\n Some commenters, representing a variety of interests, supported an\r\nexception for renovations affecting components that have been found to\r\nbe free of regulated lead-based paint by use of a test kit. One\r\ncommenter cited the need for faster and cheaper methods of accurately\r\nchecking for lead and expressed the opinion that this approach will\r\nexpand access to lead screening in homes. Several comments were\r\ngenerally supportive, with some reservations about kit reliability.\r\n However, most commenters did not favor the use of test kits. The\r\nmost commonly cited reason for not supporting this approach was the\r\npotential conflict-of-interest present in having the certified\r\nrenovator be the one to determine whether or not he or she must use the\r\nwork practices required by the rule. EPA addressed potential conflicts-\r\nof-interest in its lead-based paint program in the preamble to the\r\nfinal Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations. That discussion outlined\r\ntwo reasons for not requiring that inspections or risk assessments,\r\nabatements, and post-abatement clearance testing all be performed by\r\ndifferent entities. The first was the cost savings and convenience of\r\nbeing able to hire just one firm to perform all necessary lead-based\r\npaint activities. The second was the potential regional scarcity of\r\nfirms to perform the work. These considerations may also be applicable\r\nto the renovation sector, given the premium on maintaining a\r\n\r\n[[Page 21712]]\r\n\r\nrule that is simple and streamlined and does not unduly prolong the\r\ntimeframes for completing renovations. Moreover, it is not unusual in\r\nregulatory programs to allow regulated entities to make determinations\r\naffecting regulatory applicability and compliance. See, e.g., 40 CFR\r\n262.11 (hazardous waste determinations by waste generators under RCRA).\r\nEPA has decided to take an approach that is consistent with the\r\napproach taken in the 402(a) lead-based Paint Activities regulation and\r\nnot require third party testing.\r\n Another commonly cited reason for not supporting the use of test\r\nkits by certified renovators was the lack of any sampling protocol in\r\nthe regulation. A related concern was that the training in sampling\r\ntechniques and protocols in the lead-based paint inspector course could\r\nnot be shortened to fit within the 8-hour renovator course and still\r\nretain all of the necessary information. EPA wishes to make it clear\r\nthat the 8-hour renovator course will not train renovators in how to\r\nselect components for sampling because the certified renovator must use\r\na test kit on each component affected by the renovation. The only\r\nexception to this is when the components make up an integrated whole,\r\nsuch as the individual stair treads and risers in a staircase. In this\r\nsituation, the renovator need test only one such individual component,\r\ne.g., a single stair tread, unless it is obvious to therenovator that\r\nthe individual components have been repainted or refinished separately.\r\nAs such, a complicated sampling protocol is not necessary. EPA plans to\r\nmodify the EPA\/HUD Lead Safe Work Practices course to include training\r\non how to use a test kit. To ensure that the applicability of the\r\nexception is clear, EPA has also modified 40 CFR 745.82(a)(2) to\r\nspecifically state that the certified renovator must test each of the\r\ncomponents that will be affected by the renovation.\r\n iii. Phased implementation and improved test kits. Under the\r\nproposals, the regulatory requirements would have taken effect in two\r\nmajor stages, based on the age of the building being renovated. The\r\nfirst stage would have applied to renovations in target housing and\r\nchild-occupied facilities built before 1960. Requirements for\r\nrenovations in target housing and child-occupied facilities built\r\nbetween 1960 and 1978 would have taken effect 1 year later. The primary\r\nreason for this phased implementation was to allow time for the\r\ndevelopment of improved test kits.\r\n According to the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing,\r\n24% of the housing constructed between 1960 and 1978 contains lead-\r\nbased paint (Ref. 27). In contrast, 69% of the housing constructed\r\nbetween 1940 and 1959, and 87% of the housing constructed before 1940\r\ncontains lead-based paint. The results of this survey indicate that\r\nthere is a much greater likelihood of disturbing lead-based paint\r\nduring a renovation that occurs in a home built before 1960 than in a\r\nhome built after that date. The NIST research on existing test kits\r\nshows that existing test kits cannot reliably determine that lead is\r\npresent in paint only above the statutory levels because the kits are\r\nsensitive to lead at levels below the Federal standards that define\r\nlead-based paint, and therefore are prone to a large number of false\r\npositive results (i.e., a positive result when regulated lead-based\r\npaint is, in fact, not present). The NIST research found that such\r\nfalse positive rates range from 42% to 78%. This means that the\r\ncurrently available kits are not an effective means of identifying the\r\n76% of homes built between 1960 and 1978 that do not contain regulated\r\nlead-based paint.\r\n Research conducted by EPA subsequent to the publication of the 2006\r\nProposal confirms that the sensitivity of test kits could be adjusted\r\nfor paint testing so that the results from the kits reliably correspond\r\nto one of the two Federal standards for lead-based paint, 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\\r\nand 0.5% by weight. EPA's research and initial contacts with potential\r\nkit manufacturers also indicate that this can be accomplished in the\r\nnear future. As stated in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, EPA's goal\r\nis to foster the development of a kit that can reliably be used by a\r\nperson with minimal training, is inexpensive, provides results within\r\nan hour, and is demonstrated to have a false positive rate of no more\r\nthan 10% and a false negative rate at 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or 0.5% by weight of\r\nless than 5%. EPA is confident that improved test kits meeting EPA's\r\nbenchmarks will be commercially available by September 2010.\r\n With this in mind, EPA felt that a staged approach would initially\r\naddress the renovations that present the greatest risks to children\r\nunder age 6, i.e., the renovations that are most likely to disturb\r\nlead-based paint, while allowing additional time to ensure that the\r\nimproved test kits are commercially available before phasing in the\r\napplicability of the rule to newer target housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities. However, EPA was concerned about delaying implementation\r\nfor post-1960 target housing and child-occupied facilities that are\r\noccupied or used by children under age 6 with increased blood lead\r\nlevels. In order to reduce the possibility that an unregulated\r\nrenovation activity would contribute to continuing exposures for these\r\nchildren, the 2006 Proposal would have required renovation firms,\r\nduring the first year that the training, certification, work practice\r\nand recordkeeping requirements are in effect, to provide owners and\r\noccupants of target housing built between 1960 and 1978 and child-\r\noccupied facilities built between 1960 and 1978 the opportunity to\r\ninform the firm that the building to be renovated is the residence of,\r\nor is a child-occupied facility frequented by, a child under age 6 with\r\na blood lead level that equals or exceeds the CDC level of concern, or\r\na lower State or local government level of concern. If the owner or\r\noccupant informs the renovation firm that a child under age 6 with an\r\nincreased blood lead level lives in or frequents the building to be\r\nrenovated, the renovation firm must comply with all of the training,\r\ncertification, work practice, and recordkeeping requirements of this\r\nregulation.\r\n Some commenters agreed that a staged approach was probably\r\nnecessary, given the number of renovations that would be covered by the\r\nrule, and that a focus on buildings built before 1960 was appropriate.\r\nHowever, most commenters objected to the phased implementation. Some\r\nwere concerned about the potential exposures to children in buildings\r\nbuilt between 1960 and 1978 during the first stage of the rule. Another\r\nmajor concern expressed by commenters was that the phased\r\nimplementation would unnecessarily complicate the rule, especially with\r\nthe provision relating to children under age 6 with increased blood\r\nlead levels. These commenters felt that, because there already are\r\naccurate methods for determining whether a building contains lead-based\r\npaint, and because renovation firms ought to get into the habit of\r\nworking in a lead-safe manner whenever they are working on a building\r\nbuilt before 1978, the utility of the delay does not outweigh the\r\nlikely confusion in the regulated community. Commenters also expressed\r\nreservations about providing sensitive medical information to\r\ncontractors, in the case of children under age 6 with increased blood\r\nlead levels.\r\n After reviewing the comments and weighing all of the factors,\r\nincluding EPA's expectation that the improved test kits will be\r\ncommercially available by September 2010, EPA has decided not to\r\ninclude a phased implementation in this rulemaking. Therefore, this\r\n\r\n[[Page 21713]]\r\n\r\nregulation will take effect at the same time for target housing and\r\nchild-occupied facilities regardless of whether they were built before\r\nor after 1960. Nonetheless, if the improved test kits are not\r\ncommercially available by September 2010, EPA will initiate a\r\nrulemaking to extend the effective date of this final rule for 1 year\r\nwith respect to owner-occupied target housing built after 1960.\r\n iv. Test kit recognition process. In the 2006 Proposal, EPA\r\ndescribed proposed criteria for test kit recognition. Specifically, for\r\npaint containing lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or\r\n0.5% by weight, EPA stated its intention to only recognize kits that\r\nhave a demonstrated probability (with 95% confidence) of a negative\r\nresponse less than or equal to 5% of the time. In addition, as soon as\r\nthe improved test kits are generally available, EPA proposed to\r\nrecognize only those test kits that have a demonstrated probability\r\n(with 95% confidence) of a false positive response of no more than 10%\r\nto lead in paint at levels below the regulated level. EPA stated its\r\nbelief that limiting recognition to kits that demonstrate relatively\r\nlow rates of false positives would benefit the consumer by reducing the\r\nnumber of times that the training and work practice requirements of\r\nthis regulation are followed in the absence of regulated lead-based\r\npaint. EPA also proposed to require that these performance parameters\r\nbe validated by a laboratory independent of the kit manufacturer, using\r\nASTM International's E1828, Standard Practice for Evaluating the\r\nPerformance Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for\r\nLead in Paint (Ref. 28) or an equivalent validation method. In\r\naddition, the instructions for use of any particular kit would have to\r\nconform to the results of the validation, and the certified renovator\r\nwould have to follow the manufacturer's instructions when using the\r\nkit. EPA requested comment on whether these standards are reasonably\r\nachievable and sufficiently protective. EPA also solicited input on how\r\nto conduct the kit recognition process.\r\n Some commenters expressed reservations about the proposed\r\nperformance criteria, contending that a false negative rate of 5% is\r\ntoo high to be protective. However, a 5% false negative rate (with 95%\r\nconfidence) is similar to the performance requirements for other lead-\r\nbased paint testing methods, such as laboratory analysis used for lead-\r\nbased paint inspections, and is considered to be the statistical\r\nequivalent of zero. Therefore, this final rule retains the proposed\r\nfalse-negative criteria for test kit recognition, i.e., for paint\r\ncontaining lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or 0.5%\r\nby weight, kits will be only recognized if they have a demonstrated\r\nprobability (with 95% confidence) of a negative response less than or\r\nequal to 5% of the time. Because no comments were received on the\r\nproposed false-positive criteria of 10% for the improved test kits,\r\nthis final rule also retains the proposed false-positive criteria for\r\nthe improved kits, i.e., after the improved kits are available, the\r\nonly test kits that will be recognized are those that have a demonstrated\r\nprobability (with 95% confidence) of a false positive response of no more\r\nthan 10% to lead in paint at levels below the regulated level.\r\n EPA did not receive any comments or suggestions on the test kit\r\nrecognition process itself. With respect to existing test kits, EPA has\r\ndetermined that the NIST research (Ref. 26) is the equivalent of an\r\nindependent laboratory validation of test kit performance. The NIST\r\nresearch found that three kits met the false-negative criteria\r\nestablished in this final rule. For the purposes of this regulation,\r\nEPA will therefore recognize these test kits, provided that they still\r\nuse the same formulation that was evaluated by NIST. These test kits\r\nwill be recognized by EPA until EPA publicizes its recognition of the\r\nfirst improved test kit.\r\n With respect to the improved test kits, EPA has determined that\r\nEnvironmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) is a suitable\r\nvehicle for obtaining independent laboratory validation of test kit\r\nperformance. EPA intends to use ETV or an equivalent testing program\r\napproved by EPA for the test kit recognition process. The goal of the\r\nETV Program is to provide independent, objective, and credible\r\nperformance data for commercial-ready environmental technologies. The\r\nETV process promotes these technologies implementation for the benefit\r\nof purchasers, permitters, vendors and the public. If ETV is used, EPA\r\nwould utilize the Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluations\r\n(ESTE) element of the ETV program because the development of the test\r\nkits is in support of this final rule, and the ESTE element was created\r\nin 2005 to address Agency priorities such as rule making. More\r\ninformation on this program is available on EPA's website at \r\nhttp:\/\/www.epa.gov\/etv\/index.html<\/a>.\r\n In the 2006 Proposal, EPA noted that it would look to ASTM\r\nInternational's E1828, Standard Practice for Evaluating the Performance\r\nCharacteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for Lead in\r\nPaint (Ref. 28) or equivalent for a validation method for test kits.\r\nWith the input of stakeholders, EPA is adapting this ASTM Standard for\r\nuse in the laboratory validation program. The testing protocol will\r\nconsist of an evaluation of the performance of the test kits, using the\r\nmanufacturer's instructions, on various substrates, such as wood,\r\nsteel, drywall, and plaster, with various lead compounds, such as lead\r\ncarbonate and lead chromate, at various lead concentrations above and\r\nbelow regulatory threshold for lead-based paint. To be consistent with\r\nthe performance criteria of the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation\r\nProgram, the testing protocol will not involve testing the performance\r\nof the kits on paint that contains between 0.8 milligrams of lead per\r\nsquare centimeter and 1.2 milligrams of lead per square centimeter.\r\nAfter a test kit has gone through the ETV or other EPA approved testing\r\nprocess, EPA will review the test report to determine whether the kit\r\nhas been demonstrated to achieve the criteria set forth in the rule.\r\nEPA anticipates that evaluation of the improved test kits under the\r\nrecognition program will begin by August 2009.\r\n In addition, EPA intends to allow other existing test kit\r\nmanufacturers the opportunity to demonstrate that their kits meet the\r\nfalse negative criteria described in 40 CFR 745.88(c)(1) by going\r\nthrough the ETV process. Any recognition granted to test kits based\r\nonly on the false negative criteria will expire when EPA publicizes its\r\nrecognition of the first improved test kit that meets both the false\r\nnegative and false positive criteria of 40 CFR 745.88(c).\r\n Beginning on September 1, 2008, EPA's ETV program will accept\r\napplications for testing from test kit manufacturers. Applications must\r\nbe submitted, along with a sufficient number of kits and the\r\ninstructions for using the kits, to EPA. The test kit manufacturer\r\nshould first visit the following website for information on where to\r\napply: http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/etv\/howtoapply.html<\/a>.\r\n c. Minor repair and maintenance. EPA proposed to incorporate into\r\nthis regulation the minor maintenance exception for the Pre-Renovation\r\nEducation Rule. The proposed minor maintenance exception would have\r\napplied to projects that disturb 2 ft\\2\\ or less of painted surface per\r\ncomponent. The preamble to the 2006 Proposal discusses the history of\r\nthis exception and requested comment on potential changes. In\r\nparticular, EPA noted that HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, at 20 CFR\r\n35.1350(d), includes a de minimis exception for projects that disturb 2\r\nft\\2\\ or less of painted surface per room for\r\n\r\n[[Page 21714]]\r\n\r\ninterior projects, 20 ft\\2\\ or less of painted exterior surfaces, and\r\n10% or less of the total surface area on an interior or exterior type\r\nof component with a small surface area. If less than this amount of\r\npainted surface is disturbed, HUD's lead-safe work practice\r\nrequirements do not apply. EPA's lead-based Paint Activities Regulation\r\nincorporates this as an exception for small projects at 40 CFR\r\n745.65(d). EPA requested comment on whether the minor maintenance\r\nexception in this regulation should be consistent with other EPA\r\nregulations and the HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule. This provision\r\ndescribes the applicability of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule as\r\nwell as this final rule.\r\n Most commenters expressed support for consistency in the various\r\nlead-based paint regulations administered by EPA and HUD. They noted\r\nthat a consistent exception for small projects or minor maintenance\r\nwould be easier for the regulated community to apply. Many of these\r\ncommenters recommended 2 ft\\2\\ for interior projects and 20 ft\\2\\ on\r\nexterior surfaces. While some commenters supported a ``per component''\r\nexception, several commenters specifically noted that the ``per\r\ncomponent'' aspect of the existing Pre-Renovation Education Rule\r\nexception was problematic in that it could result in the disturbance of\r\nlarge areas of painted surfaces in a single room. Other commenters\r\nrecommended that the threshold area for the exception be made smaller\r\nor the exception abolished. These commenters noted that even very small\r\nprojects have the potential to create lead-based paint hazards and\r\nthat, rather than worrying about the applicability of the exception,\r\nrenovation firms should just get into the habit of performing every\r\nproject in a lead-safe manner. Other commenters suggested that EPA\r\nconsider a larger threshold area for the exception, or an exception\r\nbased on other factors, such as time spent performing an activity. EPA\r\nrecognizes that, depending upon the methods used to disturb lead-based\r\npaint, very small disturbances can release a great deal of lead. EPA\r\nalso understands the practicality of a minor maintenance exception.\r\n In weighing these competing considerations, EPA has decided to\r\nincorporate in this final rule a minor maintenance exception for\r\nprojects that disturb 6 ft\\2\\ or less of painted surface per room for\r\ninteriors and 20 ft\\2\\ or less of painted surface on exteriors. This\r\naddresses the concerns of those commenters who supported a ``per\r\ncomponent'' exception while still limiting the overall amount of paint\r\nthat can be disturbed in a single room during a single project. As in\r\nthe 2006 Proposal, this exception is not available for window\r\nreplacement projects. In contrast to the Proposal, this exception is\r\nonly available for projects that do not use any of the work practices\r\nprohibited or restricted by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) and that do not involve\r\ndemolition of painted surface areas.\r\n EPA remains convinced that the distinction between renovation and\r\nminor maintenance activities is an important part of implementing this\r\nprogram. Congress directed EPA to address renovation and remodeling. In\r\nordinary usage, minor maintenance activities that might disturb lead-\r\nbased paint (e.g., removing a face plate for an electric switch to\r\nrepair a loose connection, adding a new cable TV outlet, or removing a\r\nreturn air grill to service the HVAC system) are not normally\r\nconsidered home renovations. EPA believes that minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activities that cover 6 ft\\2\\ or less per room and 20 ft\\2\\\r\nor less for exteriors and that do not involve prohibited practices,\r\ndemolition or window replacement would not ordinarily be considered\r\nrenovation or remodeling but would better be described as minor work on\r\nthe home or COF. EPA also believes that a typical minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activity would not normally involve the use of high dust\r\ngenerating machinery such as those prohibited or restricted by this\r\nrule. To make the distinction between renovations and minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activities clear, EPA has added a definition of ``minor\r\nrepair and maintenance activities'' to 40 CFR 745.83. This term is\r\ndefined as follows:\r\n Minor repair and maintenance activities'' are activities,\r\nincluding minor heating, ventilation or air conditioning work,\r\nelectrical work, and plumbing, that disrupt 6 square feet or less of\r\npainted surface per room for interior activities or 20 square feet\r\nor less of painted surface for exterior activities where none of the\r\nwork practices prohibited or restricted by Sec. 745.85(a)(3) are\r\nused and where the work does not involve window replacement or\r\ndemolition of painted surface areas. When removing painted\r\ncomponents, or portions of painted components, the entire surface\r\narea removed is the amount of painted surface disturbed. Jobs, other\r\nthan emergency renovations, performed in the same room within the\r\nsame 30 days must be considered the same job for the purpose of\r\ndetermining whether the job is a minor repair and maintenance activity.\r\n\r\n To accommodate this new definition of ``minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activities,'' the definition of ``renovation'' in Sec.\r\n745.83 has also been changed to include the following sentence: ``The\r\nterm renovation does not include minor repair and maintenance\r\nactivities.'' As a result of these two definitional changes, the\r\nreference to minor maintenance in 40 CFR 745.82(a)(1) is no longer\r\nnecessary. Therefore, when engaged in minor repair and maintenance\r\nactivities as defined in 40 CFR 745.83, renovation firms and renovators\r\nare not covered by this rule. EPA believes this approach--eliminating\r\nthe per-component limitation in favor of an overall size cap, and\r\nprohibiting practices that EPA believes are inconsistent with minor\r\nmaintenance work and that generate very high lead dust loadings--is a\r\nreasonable balance of the considerations identified by commenters and\r\nconsidered by EPA.\r\n Several commenters expressed concerns about how the exception would\r\nbe applied, and whether various activities would be covered by the rule\r\nor exempt under the minor maintenance exception. Window replacement was\r\nof interest to several commenters, who referred to EPA's previous\r\nguidance on window replacement under the Pre-Renovation Education Rule\r\n(Ref. 29). That guidance states that window replacement, for various\r\nreasons, cannot qualify for the minor maintenance exception. EPA knows\r\nof no reason why this interpretation should be changed. In fact,\r\ncontrary to the assertions of some commenters, the Dust Study found\r\nthat window replacement was one of the more hazardous jobs. The\r\ngeometric mean of the lead content of floor dust samples taken in the\r\nwork area after the window replacement projects was 3,003 μg\/ft\\2\\\r\n(Ref. 17, at 6-11). In addition, EPA does not believe that window\r\nreplacement is within the common understanding of the meaning of either\r\nminor repair or maintenance. EPA has specifically included language in\r\nthe definition of ``minor repair and maintenance activities'' to make\r\nit clear that window replacements cannot qualify.\r\n Two commenters contended that, when determining whether wall or\r\nceiling cut-outs exceed the minor maintenance exception, the painted\r\nsurface disturbed should be measured by multiplying the length of the\r\ncut by its width, as opposed to the total size of the cut-out. EPA\r\ndisagrees with these commenters. For cut-outs, the calculation is made\r\nfor the entire area of surface being disturbed, e.g., the area of the\r\ncut-out, for the following reasons:\r\n \u2022 The removed portion can flex or be broken during the\r\nremoval process and the paint can flake off;\r\n \u2022 The removed portion can fall on the floor and be trampled upon; or\r\n \u2022 The removed portion may not be removed as a single piece.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21715]]\r\n\r\n Calculating the amount of painted surface disturbed in the manner\r\nthat the commenters suggested would also complicate the rule and be\r\nmore difficult to convey during the renovator training course. In\r\nresponse to these comments, EPA has inserted clarifying language on\r\nthis into the text of the definition of ``minor repair and maintenance\r\nactivities'' at 40 CFR 745.83.\r\n One commenter recommended that EPA prohibit splitting work, i.e.,\r\nconducting a single project as several minor maintenance activities in\r\nthe same room in a short time (like a month) in order to avoid the\r\nregulatory requirements. EPA agrees with this commenter. It has always\r\nbeen EPA's interpretation of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule that\r\nrenovators could not artificially split up projects in order to avoid\r\nhaving to provide the pamphlet. In response to this comment, EPA has\r\ninserted clarifying language on this into the definition of ``minor\r\nrepair and maintenance activities'' at 40 CFR 745.83. This definition\r\nstates that jobs, other than emergency renovations, performed in the\r\nsame room within the same 30 days must be considered the same job for\r\nthe purpose of determining whether the job is a minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activity.\r\n d. Emergency projects. Both the 2006 Proposal and the 2007\r\nSupplemental Proposal proposed to retain the emergency project\r\nexception in the Pre-Renovation Education Rule with one modification.\r\nEPA proposed to clarify that interim control projects performed on an\r\nexpedited basis in response to an elevated blood lead level finding in\r\na resident child qualify for the emergency project exception from the\r\nPre-Renovation Education Rule requirements. As discussed in the 2006\r\nProposal, EPA was concerned that local public health organizations may\r\nbe delayed in responding to a lead-poisoned child if the owner of the\r\nbuilding where the child resides is not available to acknowledge\r\nreceipt of the lead hazard information pamphlet before an interim\r\ncontrol project begins. In addition, EPA recognized that some\r\nemergencies could make it difficult to comply with all of the training,\r\ncertification, work practice, and recordkeeping requirements. For\r\nexample, a broken water pipe may make it impossible to contain the work\r\narea before beginning to disturb painted surfaces to get to the pipe.\r\nThe proposed emergency project exception would have required firms to\r\ncomply with the work practice, training, certification, and\r\nrecordkeeping requirements to the extent practicable.\r\n EPA received a number of comments on this aspect of the 2006\r\nProposal. Several recognized the need for such an exception, but most\r\nof the commenters were concerned that the language of the proposal\r\nwould make it possible for renovation firms to circumvent the training,\r\ncertification, and work practice controls when performing interim\r\ncontrols in response to a child with an elevated blood lead level. A\r\nnumber of these commenters, as well as several others, urged EPA to be\r\nmore specific about which requirements could be bypassed in particular\r\nsituations. EPA agrees with these commenters. It never was EPA's\r\nintention to allow firms performing interim controls in response to a\r\npoisoned child to use untrained workers or work in a manner not\r\nconsistent with the work practices required by this rule.\r\n EPA has therefore revised the exception to specifically state that\r\ninterim controls performed in response to a child with an elevated\r\nblood lead level are only exempt from the information distribution\r\nrequirements, which is consistent with the current Pre-Renovation\r\nEducation Rule. EPA has also modified the exception to state that\r\nemergency renovations are only exempt to the extent necessary to\r\nrespond to the emergency from the training, certification, sign\r\nposting, and containment requirements of this regulation. For example,\r\nmost property management companies who do their own maintenance are\r\nlikely to have at least one trained and certified renovator on staff to\r\nperform renovations, so these companies should be able to comply with\r\nthe training and certification requirements on all renovations.\r\nLikewise, firms performing emergency renovations should be able to\r\nfollow the required cleaning procedures after emergency repairs have\r\nbeen made. As such, under the final rule, in all cases the cleaning\r\nspecified by the regulation must be performed and it must be performed\r\nor directed by certified renovators. In addition, in all cases, the\r\ncleaning verification requirements of this regulation must be performed\r\nand they must be performed by a certified renovator. In response to one\r\ncommenter who requested that EPA require firms to document their\r\ninability to comply with all of the regulatory provisions in\r\nemergencies, EPA has included such a requirement in 40 CFR\r\n745.86(b)(7). Finally, EPA has removed the word ``operations'' from the\r\nexception, in response to one commenter who suggested that the word is\r\nunnecessary and confusing. EPA agrees that the word ``operations'' is\r\nunnecessary in its description of emergency renovations. EPA intends to\r\ncontinue interpreting the term ``emergency renovations'' in the same\r\nway that it always has done, except that EPA has clarified that interim\r\ncontrols performed in response to a child with an elevated blood-lead\r\nlevel can be an emergency renovation.\r\n\r\nB. Pre-Renovation Education\r\n\r\n The Pre-Renovation Education Rule, promulgated pursuant to TSCA\r\nsection 406(b) and codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, requires\r\nrenovators to provide owners and occupants of target housing with a\r\nlead hazard information pamphlet before beginning a renovation in the\r\nhousing (Ref. 8). The pamphlet currently used for this purpose,\r\n``Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home,'' was developed in\r\naccordance with TSCA section 406(a) and includes useful information on\r\nlead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in general. This pamphlet\r\nis also used to provide lead hazard information to purchasers and\r\nrenters of target housing under the Requirements for Disclosure of\r\nInformation Concerning lead-Based Paint in Housing ``Lead Disclosure\r\nRule'' (Ref. 30).\r\n 1. New renovation-specific pamphlet. EPA has developed a new lead\r\nhazard information pamphlet that addresses renovation-specific lead\r\nexposure concerns. The development of this pamphlet, including the\r\npublic comments received on the format and content, is discussed in\r\ngreater detail in a separate notice published elsewhere in today's\r\nFederal Register. This new renovation-specific pamphlet, entitled\r\nRenovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child\r\nCare Providers and Schools will better inform families about the risks\r\nof exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovations and\r\npromote the use of work practices and other health and safety measures\r\nduring renovation activities (Ref. 31). This new pamphlet gives\r\ninformation on lead-based paint hazards, lead testing, how to select a\r\ncontractor, what precautions to take during the renovation, and proper\r\ncleanup activities, while still incorporating the information already\r\nincluded in the original ``Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home''\r\nand mandated by section 406(a) of TSCA.\r\n In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to require renovation firms to\r\ndistribute the new renovation-specific pamphlet (then titled Protect\r\nYour Family From Lead During Renovation, Repair & Painting) instead of\r\nthe pamphlet currently used for this purpose (Protect Your Family From\r\nLead in Your Home).\r\n\r\n[[Page 21716]]\r\n\r\nIn general, most commenters were supportive of a requirement to\r\ndistribute a new renovation-specific pamphlet for the purposes of TSCA\r\nsection 406(b). One commenter stated a belief that the existing Protect\r\nYour Family From Lead in Your Home pamphlet had served its purpose well\r\nand the development of a new pamphlet should not be a priority. EPA\r\nagrees with the commenters who recognized the merit of providing\r\nrenovation-specific information to owners and tenants before\r\nrenovations commence. Therefore, this final rule will require\r\nrenovation firms to distribute the new Renovate Right: Important Lead\r\nHazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools;\r\npamphlet before beginning renovations. This requirement to use the new\r\npamphlet will become effective as discussed in Unit III.H. of this preamble.\r\n 2. Information distribution requirements. Other than the use of the\r\nnew renovation-specific pamphlet, EPA did not specifically propose any\r\nchanges to the existing information distribution requirements for\r\ntarget housing that does not meet the proposed definition of ``child-\r\noccupied facility.'' One commenter contended that the existing\r\ninformation distribution requirements for multi-family target housing\r\nwere extremely burdensome and resulted in tenants being given multiple\r\nnotifications and copies of the lead hazard information pamphlet over\r\nthe course of a year's time. This commenter requested that EPA modify\r\nthe regulations to allow an annual distribution of renovation-related\r\nlead hazard information to tenants. However, as noted in interpretive\r\nguidance previously issued on the Pre-renovation Education Rule, EPA,\r\nin developing the final Pre-renovation Education Rule, carefully\r\nweighed whether a one-time pamphlet distribution would be adequate to\r\nmeet the objectives of section 406(b) of the lead statute, and\r\nconcluded that many, if not most, tenants would benefit from receiving\r\nthe information in the lead pamphlet closer to the time that a\r\nrenovation is to begin. Although some tenants may read lead information\r\ndelivered on a ``for-your-information'' basis, many others are not\r\nlikely to focus on potential lead hazards until a renovation affecting\r\ntheir unit is imminent, and would welcome receiving information on\r\nprotecting their families from lead in a more timely fashion.\r\nTherefore, EPA has determined that an annual distribution of\r\nrenovation-specific lead hazard information would not be an effective\r\nmeans of providing timely information to tenants.\r\n However, with respect to renovations in common areas, EPA has\r\ndetermined that there are other effective ways of delivering lead\r\nhazard information to tenants in a timely manner. Specifically, the\r\nposting of informational signs during the renovation in places where\r\nthe tenants of the affected units are likely to see them will provide\r\nthese tenants with the information they need at the time that they need\r\nit. Depending upon the circumstances, renovation firms may find the\r\nposting of such signs to be less burdensome than mailing or hand-\r\ndelivering this information to affected tenants. Indeed sign posting\r\nmay be more effective than mail since it provides an immediate\r\nreminder. Therefore, EPA will allow renovation firms performing\r\nrenovations in common areas of multi-unit target housing the option of\r\nmailing or hand-delivering general information about the renovation and\r\nmaking a copy of the pamphlet available to the tenants of affected\r\nunits upon request prior to the start of the renovation, or posting\r\ninformational signs while the renovation is ongoing. These signs must\r\nbe posted where they are likely to be seen by all of the tenants of the\r\naffected units and they must contain a description of the general\r\nnature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion\r\ndate. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or\r\ninformation on how interested tenants can review or obtain a copy of\r\nthe pamphlet at no cost to the tenants.\r\n One commenter expressed concern about tenants either not seeing the\r\n``postings'' because they use different entrances or distinguishing the\r\nrenovation-specific lead hazard information ``postings'' from other\r\n``postings'' in the general area. To take advantage of this option,\r\nthis final rule requires renovation firms to use actual signs, not\r\nnotices on tenant bulletin boards. In addition, these signs must be\r\nposted where the tenants of all of the affected units can see them. If\r\nthe tenants of the affected units use several different entrances, a\r\nsign posted by one of the entrances would not be sufficient.\r\n With respect to renovations in individual housing units, whether\r\nsingle family or multi-family, firms performing renovations for\r\ncompensation in target housing must continue to distribute a lead\r\nhazard information pamphlet to the owners and tenants of the housing no\r\nmore than 60 days before beginning renovations. This requirement, along\r\nwith the associated requirements to obtain acknowledgments or document\r\ndelivery, has not changed. For renovations in the common areas of\r\nmulti-unit target housing, firms must provide tenants with general\r\ninformation regarding the nature of the renovation and make the\r\npamphlet available upon request, by mailing, hand-delivery, or posting\r\ninformational signs. Firms must also maintain documentation of\r\ncompliance with these requirements. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal\r\ncontained additional proposed information distribution requirements for\r\nchild-occupied facilities in target housing and in public and commercial\r\nbuildings. This final rule incorporates those additional requirements.\r\n Also, as proposed in the 2006 Proposal, this final rule deletes the\r\nexisting 40 CFR 745.84 because it is duplicative. The section provided\r\nsome details on submitting CBI and how EPA will handle that\r\ninformation. However, comprehensive regulations governing sensitive\r\nbusiness information, including CBI under TSCA, are codified in 40 CFR\r\npart 2. The regulations in 40 CFR part 2 set forth the procedures for\r\nmaking a claim of confidentiality and describe the rules governing\r\nEPA's release of information. EPA received no comments on the proposed\r\ndeletion of 40 CFR 745.84. Therefore, EPA is deleting this section and\r\nredesignating existing 40 CFR 745.85 as 40 CFR 745.84.\r\n EPA is also taking this opportunity to reiterate who is responsible\r\nfor complying with the information distribution responsibilities of 40\r\nCFR 745.84. This provision of this final rule includes the existing\r\nPre-Renovation Education Rule information distribution requirements as\r\namended to include requirements applicable to child-occupied\r\nfacilities. In interpretive guidance issued for the Pre-Renovation\r\nEducation Rule, EPA shed additional light on the issue of who is\r\nresponsible for complying with the information distribution\r\nrequirements, particularly for renovation projects where multiple\r\ncontractors are involved (Ref. 32). EPA stated that if the renovation\r\nis overseen by a general contractor, the general contractor is\r\nconsidered to be the ``renovator'' under the rule and is therefore\r\nresponsible for ensuring that the information distribution requirements\r\nare met. EPA further stated that it would not consider a subcontractor\r\nto be a ``renovator'' for purposes of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule\r\nso long as the subcontractor has no direct contractual relationship\r\nwith the property owner or manager relating to the particular renovation.\r\nEPA's reasoning is that the information distribution requirements\r\n\r\n[[Page 21717]]\r\n\r\nshould be fulfilled by the person or entity with which the customer\r\nenters into the contract and compensates for the work--even if that\r\nwork is subsequently contracted out.\r\n This final rule changes the existing definition of ``renovator'' to\r\nrefer specifically to the individual trained in work practices as\r\ndistinct from the renovation firm. The final rule also specifies in 40\r\nCFR 745.84 that the renovation firm is responsible for carrying out the\r\ninformation distribution requirements. Renovation firms may find it\r\nmore efficient to have someone other than the certified renovator\r\ndistribute the pamphlet and obtain the acknowledgement forms. In\r\nchanging the definition of ``renovator,'' EPA is not changing its\r\npolicies as to which entity, between a contractor and subcontractor, is\r\nresponsible for carrying out the information distribution requirements.\r\nOn the contrary, as to this issue, EPA intends to continue interpreting\r\nthe regulatory responsibility for the information distribution\r\nrequirements as it has in the past.\r\n a. Owners and occupants of public or commercial buildings\r\ncontaining a child-occupied facility. The Pre-Renovation Education Rule\r\ncovers only renovations in target housing. Thus, the information\r\ndistribution requirements summarized in the preceding paragraph have\r\nnot historically applied to firms performing renovations for\r\ncompensation in public or commercial buildings. In the 2007\r\nSupplemental Proposal, EPA proposed to require firms performing\r\nrenovations for compensation in child-occupied facilities in public or\r\ncommercial buildings to provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to\r\nthe owner of the building as well as to an adult representative of the\r\nchild-occupied facility, if the owner of the building and the child-\r\noccupied facility are different entities. This requirement was modeled\r\non the Pre-Renovation Education Rule's requirements for pamphlet\r\ndistribution in rental target housing. As described in the 2007\r\nSupplemental Proposal, EPA has determined, in accordance with TSCA\r\nsection 407, that the distribution of lead hazard information, before\r\nrenovation projects begin, to an adult representative of the child-\r\noccupied facility as well as to the owners of public or commercial\r\nbuildings that contain child-occupied facilities is necessary to ensure\r\neffective implementation of this regulation. EPA believes that\r\ninformation on lead-based paint hazards, and lead-safe work practices\r\nthat minimize the creation of hazards, will stimulate interest on the\r\npart of child-occupied facilities and public or commercial building\r\nowners in these work practices and increase the demand for their use.\r\n EPA received no comments on this aspect of the 2007 Supplemental\r\nProposal. Therefore, the final rule includes this requirement as\r\nproposed. Renovation firms performing renovations for compensation in a\r\nchild-occupied facility in a public or commercial building must provide\r\nthe lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Renovate Right: Important\r\nLead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and\r\nSchoolsto the owner of the building. The renovation firm must either\r\nobtain written acknowledgment from the owner that the pamphlet was\r\ndelivered or obtain a certificate of mailing for the pamphlet at least\r\n7 days prior to the start of the renovation. In addition, the\r\nrenovation firm must provide the pamphlet to an adult representative of\r\nthe child-occupied facility if the facility and the building are owned\r\nby different entities. To document compliance with this requirement,\r\nthe renovation firm must do one of the following:\r\n \u2022 Obtain a written acknowledgment of pamphlet delivery from\r\nthe adult representative of the child-occupied facility.\r\n \u2022 Obtain a certificate of mailing for the pamphlet at least\r\n7 days prior to the start of the renovation.\r\n \u2022 Certify in writing that the pamphlet has been delivered to\r\nthe child-occupied facility and the firm has been unsuccessful in\r\nattempting to obtain the signature of an adult representative of the\r\nchild-occupied facility. This certification must contain the reason for\r\nthe failure to obtain the signature.\r\n b. Parents and guardians of children under age 6 using a child-\r\noccupied facility. The 2007 Supplemental Proposal would also have\r\nrequired a renovation firm performing a renovation for compensation in\r\na child-occupied facility to provide information about the renovation\r\nto the parents and guardians of children under age 6 using the\r\nfacility. This proposed requirement was designed to be comparable to\r\nthe Pre-Renovation Education Rule provisions for informing adult\r\noccupants (who are not owners). EPA is finalizing this requirement as\r\nproposed. The renovation firm must either mail each parent or guardian\r\nthe lead hazard information pamphlet and a general description of the\r\nrenovation or post informational signs where parents and guardians\r\nwould be likely to see them. The signs must be accompanied by a posted\r\ncopy of the pamphlet or information on how to obtain the pamphlet at no\r\ncharge to interested parents or guardians. This requirement applies to\r\nrenovations in child-occupied facilities in target housing as well as to\r\nrenovations in child-occupied facilities in public or commercial buildings.\r\n EPA received three comments on this aspect of the 2007 Supplemental\r\nProposal. One commenter expressed support for this proposed\r\nrequirement. The other two provided a number of reasons why the final\r\nrule should not include such a requirement. These commenters noted that\r\nrenovation firms have no contractual connection with or contractual\r\nresponsibility to the parents or guardians of children using a child-\r\noccupied facility. They believe that the child-occupied facility owner\r\nbears primary responsibility for maintaining a safe environment for\r\nchildren. They were also concerned that renovation firms might be\r\ncalled upon to spend a significant amount of additional time at a\r\nchild-occupied facility to answer parents' questions about lead\r\npoisoning. EPA is not persuaded by these comments. Although the firms\r\nmay have no contractual connection with the parents or guardians of the\r\nchildren, that is often the case with occupants who are not owners.\r\nAlthough child-occupied facility owners bear responsibility for\r\nmaintaining a safe environment for children, renovation firms are\r\nresponsible for providing the pamphlet to owners and occupants. Once\r\nthe renovation firm has distributed the pamphlet, it has no further\r\nobligation to educate the owners or occupants about lead poisoning. The\r\npamphlet contains this information and refers to additional resources.\r\nEPA acknowledges that it may be difficult to provide copies of the\r\npamphlet to each parent, which is why this final rule allows renovation\r\nfirms to comply by posting informational signs where parents or\r\nguardians would be likely to see them.\r\n c. Other commenter suggestions regarding information distribution\r\nto owners and occupants. EPA received a number of comments that\r\nrecommended that additional information be provided to the owner and\r\nthe occupant before and after a renovation occurs. These commenters\r\nbelieve that one of the purposes of this rule ought to be to provide\r\nenough information to owners and occupants so that they can understand\r\nthe work practices and can adequately monitor the work being performed\r\nby renovation firms. EPA agrees that consumers will play a critical\r\nrole in ensuring that the requirements of this regulation are being\r\nfollowed. EPA believes that some of the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21718]]\r\n\r\nsuggested items of additional information, such as an explanation of\r\nthe cleaning verification process, use of test kits, lead-based paint\r\nand dust testing recommendations, and how to find a qualified person to\r\ndo testing, are best addressed through revisions to the new lead hazard\r\ninformational pamphlet for renovations, Renovate Right: Important Lead\r\nHazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools.\r\nThose changes are described and discussed in a notice published\r\nelsewhere in today's Federal Register.\r\n Other information distribution elements recommended by these\r\ncommenters are likely to be provided by renovation firms already. For\r\nexample, several commenters suggested that EPA require the renovation\r\nfirm to provide emergency contact information to owners and occupants.\r\nEPA believes that, during the normal course of business, persons that\r\nhire renovation firms to perform renovations typically already have\r\ncontact information. A person who contracts for a renovation is likely\r\nto be the owner of the property being renovated, and this person is\r\nalso likely to be able to stop the work at any time so that he or she\r\ncan confer with the certified renovator or supervisor. Occupants who\r\nare not the owners of the property being renovated often will not be\r\nthe party contracting for the renovation and may not always have\r\nemergency contact information for the specific firm performing a\r\nrenovation in their housing unit or building. However, these occupants\r\nwill most likely have contact information for their landlord, and the\r\nlandlord as the person most likely contracting with the renovation firm\r\nand therefore to have authority to direct the renovation work. In\r\naddition, renovations that occur in occupied rental housing are likely\r\nto be maintenance or repair projects that are performed by the landlord,\r\nthe landlord's employees, or a maintenance company under contract to\r\nperform all maintenance for a particular landlord or rental complex.\r\n Some commenters suggested that EPA require renovation firms provide\r\na description of the work area and identify the designated entrance and\r\nexit from the work area. EPA is not requiring the renovation firm to\r\ndesignate a specific entrance and exit from the work area. This final\r\nrule requires the work area itself to be delineated by warning signs\r\nand plastic containment. EPA does not believe there is any utility in\r\nrequiring the contractor to also provide the owner and occupant with a\r\nwritten description of the work area before the work begins.\r\n Other commenters noted the existence of the Lead Disclosure Rule\r\n(Ref. 30), promulgated under section 1018 of the Residential lead-Based\r\nPaint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and codified at 40 CFR part 745,\r\nsubpart F and 24 CFR part 35. These commenters stated that information\r\nabout the use of spot test kits and the results of those tests, and\r\nwell as any sort of dust testing information, are information\r\npertaining to lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards and would\r\ntherefore have to be disclosed to subsequent purchasers or tenants of\r\nthe renovated property under the Lead Disclosure Rule. These commenters\r\nfurther opined that a requirement for the renovation firm to provide\r\nthis information to the owner of the property is necessary to ensure\r\nthe information is available to be disclosed. With respect to the use\r\nof test kits to determine whether components to be affected by a\r\nrenovation contain lead-based paint, EPA agrees with these commenters\r\nin their Lead Disclosure Rule analysis. Therefore, this final rule\r\nincludes a requirement for the renovation firm to provide, within 30\r\ndays, information identifying the manufacturer and model of test kits\r\nused, a description of the components tested, including locations, and\r\nthe results of the test kits to the person who contracted for the\r\nrenovation. EPA also agrees that dust clearance sampling information is\r\ninformation pertaining to lead-based paint hazards and must be\r\ndisclosed under the Disclosure Rule. If dust clearance sampling is\r\nperformed instead of cleaning verification as permitted in 40 CFR\r\n745.85(c), this final rule requires the renovation firm to provide,\r\nwithin 30 days, a copy of the dust clearance report to the person\r\ncontracting for the renovation.\r\n However, EPA does not believe that information related to cleaning\r\nverification is a record or report ``pertaining to lead-based paint or\r\nlead-based paint hazards'' for purposes of section 1018. As discussed\r\nin more detail in Unit III.E.7. of this preamble, cleaning verification\r\nis not the equivalent of clearance. The purpose of cleaning\r\nverification is to determine whether the dust that was created by the\r\nrenovation, whether or not it contains lead, has been adequately\r\nremoved. Although the disposable cleaning-cloth study, discussed in\r\nUnit III.E.7., and the Dust Study show that information is correlated\r\nwith the hazard standard, the purpose of cleaning verification is not\r\nto detect lead-based paint hazards per se. In addition, under this\r\nfinal rule, cleaning verification must be completed for every\r\nrenovation (i.e., it must achieve ``white glove'' or the prescribed\r\ncombination of wet and dry wipes must have been used), so the results\r\nof verification will always show that ``white glove'' or the equivalent\r\nhas been achieved. As explained below, the cleaning verification is\r\npart of a package of work practices that, together, minimize exposure\r\nto hazards created by renovation. Also, as explained below, completing\r\nthe cleaning verification process does not necessarily indicate that\r\nthe surface does not have lead-based paint hazards unrelated to the\r\nrenovation. Therefore, EPA will not require the results of cleaning\r\nverification activities to be disclosed under the Lead Disclosure Rule.\r\n\r\nC. Training and Certification\r\n\r\n Under the current Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations at 40 CFR\r\npart 745, subpart L, both individuals and firms that perform lead-based\r\npaint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and\r\nabatements must be certified by EPA. EPA proposed a similar, but not\r\nidentical, regulatory scheme for individuals and firms that perform\r\nrenovations.\r\n This final rule requires all renovations subject to this rule to be\r\nperformed by a firm certified to perform renovations. In addition, the\r\nrule requires that all persons performing renovation work either be\r\ncertified renovators or receive on-the-job training from and perform\r\nkey tasks under the direction of a certified renovator. In order to\r\nbecome a certified renovator, a person must successfully complete an\r\naccredited renovator course. EPA renovator certification allows the\r\ncertified individual to perform renovations in any State, Territory, or\r\nIndian Tribal area that does not have a renovation program authorized\r\nunder 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. These requirements are discussed in\r\ngreater detail in the following sections.\r\n EPA is also creating, with this final rule, a dust sampling\r\ntechnician discipline. Although, as discussed in Unit III.E.7. of this\r\npreamble, this final rule does not allow dust clearance testing in lieu\r\nof post-renovation cleaning verification, except in limited\r\ncircumstances, EPA still believes that there will be a market for the\r\nservices of persons with dust sampling technician credentials. EPA\r\nrecommends that any property owners who choose to have dust clearance\r\ntesting performed after a renovation use a certified inspector, risk\r\nassessor, or dust sampling technician.\r\n Finally, in response to one commenter who suggested that EPA's use\r\nof the term ``person'' and the term\r\n\r\n[[Page 21719]]\r\n\r\n``individual'' was confusing, EPA has modified the regulatory text in\r\nthe sections added or significantly revised by this final rule to use\r\nthe term ``person'' when referring to both natural persons and judicial\r\npersons, such as renovation firms, property management companies, or\r\nunits of government, and the term ``individual'' when referring only to\r\nnatural persons.\r\n 1. Individuals. Under this final rule, EPA is establishing new\r\nindividual certification disciplines for renovators and dust sampling\r\ntechnicians. All renovation activities covered by this final rule must\r\nbe performed by certified renovators, or by renovation workers who receive\r\non-the-job training in the work practices from a certified renovator.\r\n a. Certified renovators and renovation workers--i. Responsibilities\r\nof certified renovators. The certified renovator assigned to a\r\nrenovation is responsible for ensuring that the renovation is performed\r\nin compliance with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR\r\n745.85. These requirements pertain to warning signs and work area\r\ncontainment, the restriction or prohibition of certain practices (e.g.,\r\nhigh heat gun, torch, power sanding), waste handling, cleaning, and\r\npost-renovation cleaning verification. The certified renovator can\r\nperform these work practices herself or himself. Alternatively, the\r\ncertified renovator can direct other workers to perform most of these\r\nwork practices. However, the post-renovation cleaning verification\r\nrequirements must be performed by a certified renovator. These\r\nrequirements cannot be delegated to a worker. If the certified\r\nrenovator directs the other workers to perform the work practices, the\r\ncertified renovator must be at the work site during the critical phases\r\nof the renovation activity. The critical phases are posting warning\r\nsigns, containing the work area, and cleaning the work site.\r\n Although the certified renovator is not required to be on-site at\r\nall times, while the renovation project is ongoing, a certified\r\nrenovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work being performed by\r\nother workers to ensure that the work practices are being followed.\r\nWhen a certified renovator is not physically present at the work site,\r\nthe workers must be able to contact the renovator immediately by\r\ntelephone or other mechanism. A certified renovator must:\r\n \u2022 Perform the post-renovation cleaning verification\r\ndescribed in 40 CFR 745.85(b).\r\n \u2022 Perform or direct workers who perform all of the work\r\npractices described in 40 CFR 745.85(a).\r\n \u2022 Provide training to workers on the work practices they\r\nwill be using in performing their assigned tasks.\r\n \u2022 Be physically present at the work site when the signs\r\nrequired by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work area\r\ncontainment required by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2) is being established, and\r\nwhile the work area cleaning required by 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5) is performed.\r\n \u2022 Regularly direct the work being performed by other workers\r\nto ensure that the work practices are being followed, including\r\nmaintaining the integrity of the containment barriers and ensuring that\r\ndust or debris does not spread beyond the work area.\r\n \u2022 Be available, either on-site or by telephone, at all times\r\nthat renovations are being conducted.\r\n \u2022 When requested by the party contracting for renovation\r\nservices, use an acceptable test kit to determine whether components to\r\nbe affected by the renovation contain lead-based paint.\r\n \u2022 Have with them at the work site copies of their initial\r\ncourse completion certificate and their most recent refresher course\r\ncompletion certificate.\r\n \u2022 Prepare the records required to demonstrate that renovations have\r\nbeen performed in accordance with the requirements of this rule.\r\n There are some slight revisions between the 2006 Proposal and this\r\nfinal rule, although none of these changes add to or detract from the\r\nrenovator's responsibilities. First, the Proposal used both the term\r\n``lead-safe work practices'' and ``work practices'' in the preamble and\r\nin the proposed rule text. Although the work practices required in this\r\nfinal rule are lead-safe, for purposes of clarity, the final rule text\r\nhas been changed to ``work practices.'' The reason for this change was\r\nto make text of the rule relating the renovator's responsibilities text\r\nconsistent with other provisions in the rule, particularly 40 CFR\r\n745.85 (Work Practice Standards). Today's work practices are lead-safe\r\nwork practices. The work practice standards listed in Sec. 745.85(a)\r\nare the same tasks that the other workers will be directed in and\r\ntrained to do by the certified renovator (except for cleaning\r\nverification). In addition, the term ``lead-safe work practices'' has\r\ndifferent meanings in different contexts, and this change is to make\r\nclear that the work practices required by this final rule are the work\r\npractices required in Sec. 745.85(a).\r\n Second, one of the renovator's responsibilities listed in the\r\npreamble of the 2006 Proposal was to ``[r]egularly direct the work\r\nbeing performed by uncertified persons to ensure that lead-safe work\r\npractices are being followed, the integrity of the containment barriers\r\nis maintained, and dust or debris is not spread beyond the work area.''\r\nThe word ``regularly'' was inadvertently omitted from the proposed\r\nregulatory text. To make the regulatory text consistent with the\r\npreamble, the word ``regularly'' has been added to the final regulatory\r\ntext. In addition, EPA has slightly modified the regulatory text,\r\nconsistent with the preceding paragraph, to clarify that maintaining\r\nthe integrity of the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or\r\ndebris does not spread beyond the work area are among the work\r\npractices required by the rule.\r\n Some commenters agreed that it was unnecessary for a certified\r\nrenovator to be on site at all times and believed that oversight by a\r\ncertified renovator on a regular basis was sufficient. One commenter\r\nbelieved that the certified renovator should be on site at critical\r\npoints including site preparations and isolation, end of day and end of\r\nproject cleaning, and cleaning verification. Many other commenters\r\nthought a certified renovator should be on site at all times. Another\r\nstated that a certified renovator would not have to be on site at all\r\ntimes if workers received lead safe work practices training. After\r\ncarefully considering the issue, EPA has concluded that requiring a\r\ncertified renovator to be on site during critical phases of the work is\r\nsufficient to ensure that the work practices required by this final\r\nrule are followed. These work practices provide a mechanism to contain\r\ndust and debris generated by a job and a clean-up regimen following\r\nwork that is designed to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards\r\ncreated during the renovation activity. Once the containment has been\r\nestablished and until cleanup begins, this final rule requires few, and\r\nsimple, changes from the way renovation work is currently carried out.\r\nSpecifically, renovation workers need to avoid using the specific\r\npractices prohibited by this final rule; they need to maintain the\r\ncontainment (e.g., avoid ripping or displacing the plastic); and they\r\nneed to make sure that any waste generated is contained at the end of\r\nthe day. These are important but relatively simple measures that EPA\r\ndoes not believe require formal classroom training, or the constant\r\nsupervision of a certified renovator who has had formal training. Once\r\nthe cleanup begins, the certified renovator will again be required to\r\nbe present, either performing the cleanup\r\n\r\n[[Page 21720]]\r\n\r\nor directing others. In addition, the certified renovator must perform\r\nthe cleaning verification. Thus, EPA has concluded that having a\r\nrenovator on site at all times is unwarranted.\r\n ii. Renovator training. To become a certified renovator, a person\r\nmust successfully complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or by a\r\nState, Territorial, or Tribal program authorized by EPA.\r\n Some commenters questioned the need to create a separate discipline\r\nfor renovators. In their opinion, the existing abatement course is\r\nsufficient (with some basic changes) and to create a new program will\r\ntake resources away from existing efforts in lead hazard control. EPA\r\nbelieves that there are sufficient differences between abatement and\r\nrenovation activities to warrant different training and work practice\r\nrequirements. Specific activities of an abatement contractor may be\r\nsimilar to those of a renovator (e.g., sanding, caulking, painting,\r\nsawing), but because the project goal is the permanent elimination of\r\nhazards, the application and methodology differ. Therefore, a\r\nsignificant portion of an abatement contractor's training is focused on\r\nabatement techniques and selection of the appropriate course of action\r\nfor a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to\r\npermanently eliminate lead hazards. Renovators perform maintenance and\r\nimprovement tasks as directed by the consumer. The goal of EPA's\r\nrenovator training and certification program is not to update the\r\nmethodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks, with the\r\nexception of the practices prohibited or restricted by this final rule,\r\nbut rather to introduce containment and cleaning methods to minimize\r\nexposure to lead-based paint hazards created by the renovation activity.\r\n Several commenters saw the need for universal, standard renovator\r\ntraining. A commenter suggested that training for certified renovators\r\nbe similar to the current EPA\/HUD renovator and remodeler course. One\r\ncommenter thought that standard training would make it easier when\r\nhiring someone to verify that they had completed the appropriate\r\ntraining. Another mentioned that it would encourage state-to-state\r\nreciprocity for training programs so that renovators would not need to\r\ntake multiple courses with the same content. EPA plans to work with HUD\r\nto update the model EPA\/HUD renovator training course to cover the\r\nrequirements of this final rule. EPA agrees that reciprocity among\r\nauthorized State, Territorial, and Tribal programs, and with the\r\nFederal program, is preferable. However, as with the abatement program,\r\nauthorized programs will have the ability to customize requirements and\r\ncourse content based on their particular needs. The Agency encourages\r\njurisdictions seeking authorization to consider reciprocity of training\r\nas they develop their individual programs.\r\n Commenters were also concerned about the cost of formal training.\r\nCommenters thought that EPA could provide free training to encourage\r\nrenovator compliance, or that EPA funds for enforcement of the final\r\nrule would be better spent on training. EPA agrees that renovator\r\ntraining should be as inexpensive as possible. However, the training\r\ncourse costs will be established by independent training programs based\r\non market forces. The total cost of conducting a training course\r\ndepends upon the labor cost for the instructor(s), the cost of\r\nproviding a classroom and other facilities, and other fixed costs. But\r\nthe cost per trainee also depends on the number of trainees per class.\r\nDue to the large number of individuals who will need training, the\r\nAgency anticipates that demand will be high, keeping the cost per\r\ntrainee lower than might otherwise be the case. But also due to that\r\nlarge volume, the Agency does not anticipate that it will be able to\r\nprovide any significant source of funding to support training.\r\n iii. Other renovation worker training. This final rule does not\r\nrequire everyone involved in performing a regulated renovation project\r\nto receive training from an accredited training provider. To allow\r\nflexibility for firms undertaking these projects, the rule allows firms\r\nto use other workers to perform renovation activities as long as they\r\nreceive on-the-job training (OJT) in work practices from a certified\r\nrenovator. This training must include instruction in the specific work\r\npractices that these workers will be responsible for performing. OJT\r\ntraining occurs while the worker is engaged in productive work and\r\nwhich provides knowledge and skills essential to the full and adequate\r\nperformance of the job. OJT may also be structured through a planned\r\nprocess of developing competence on units of work by having the\r\ncertified renovator train the worker at the work setting or a location\r\nthat closely resembles the work setting. Although there is no specific\r\nrequirement for ``refresher training,'' OJT must be provided for each\r\nworker for each job to the extent necessary to ensure that that worker\r\nis adequately trained for the tasks he or she will be performing.\r\n If, under the direction of the certified renovator, the workers\r\nwill be posting warning signs, establishing containment, or cleaning\r\nthe work area after the renovation, the certified renovator must\r\nprovide instruction, either verbally or through demonstration, to the\r\nworkers in how to perform these tasks. With respect to other\r\nactivities, including work performed while the certified renovator is\r\nnot present, the certified renovator must provide instruction, either\r\nverbally or through demonstration, in how to perform the work without\r\nusing work practices prohibited by this rule, how to maintain the\r\nintegrity of the containment barriers (e.g., taking care not to tear\r\nthe plastic), and how to avoid spreading dust or debris beyond the work\r\narea (e.g., vacuuming clothing and tools with a HEPA vacuum before\r\nleaving the work area). In any event, the certified renovator remains\r\nresponsible for ensuring that this work is done in compliance with the\r\nrule's requirements, e.g., that containment sufficient to prevent release\r\nof dust or debris from the work site has been established and that\r\nclothing and tools were adequately cleaned before leaving the work area.\r\n Workers need not be trained in work practices that do not pertain\r\nto the renovations they will be performing. If the certified renovator\r\nwill be the one posting warning signs, establishing containment, and\r\ncleaning the work area after the renovation, it is not necessary for\r\nthe certified renovator to provide instruction on these tasks to any\r\nworkers who will be used elsewhere on the project. Similarly, workers\r\nhired to perform only exterior projects need not receive training in\r\nhow to clean an interior work area after a renovation.\r\n EPA chose to allow OJT to alleviate industry concerns raised during\r\nthe SBREFA panel process regarding high employee turnover rates within\r\nthe industry and the potential for high training costs if all workers\r\nwere required to be certified. The Agency concluded that allowing OJT\r\ncould be done effectively and would provide flexibility for firms\r\nundertaking renovation projects. EPA determined that OJT can be\r\neffectively delivered by a certified renovator because the requirements\r\nthemselves are simple and easy to understand. This final rule also\r\nrequires a certified renovator be assigned and responsible for each\r\nproject to ensure compliance with required standards.\r\n Some commenters agreed that OJT by a certified renovator is\r\nsufficient for training workers. One commenter stated that as long as a\r\nspecific person is\r\n\r\n[[Page 21721]]\r\n\r\ndesignated to oversee the job, there is no need for all workers on site\r\nto have formal training. The commenter noted the similarity between\r\nthis approach and OSHA's ``competent person'' standard. EPA agrees that\r\nthere are some similarities between the approach in this final rule and\r\nOSHA's ``competent person'' standard.\r\n However, the majority of commenters had concerns about the use of\r\nOJT to train workers. Many argued that OJT is insufficient for\r\nproviding workers with the necessary skills and thought renovation\r\nworkers should receive formal LSWP training such as a 1 day course\r\nequivalent to that required for certified renovators. Some of these\r\ncommenters also thought that workers should be certified or licensed.\r\n Some commenters were concerned that the content of OJT is not\r\nclearly defined in the rule. One believed EPA should impose a\r\nstructured OJT program in order to produce consistent, accurate, and\r\ncomprehensive training outcomes. Others thought more time was needed\r\nfor OJT, with suggestions ranging from 5 to 6 hours of training to 3 to\r\n4 days. EPA has neither established a structured OJT program nor\r\nrequired a specific length of time for OJT because the OJT required\r\nwill vary widely from project to project, depending upon how the other\r\nworkers are used. As discussed above, if the worker will not be\r\nestablishing containment, there is no need to train the worker in how\r\nto establish containment. If the worker in question is an electrician,\r\nand he will merely be installing an electrical outlet as part of a\r\nlarger job, then there may be no need to provide any training to this\r\nworker other than instructing him not to disturb the plastic on the\r\nfloor and making sure that he and his tools are free of dust and debris\r\nbefore leaving the work area.\r\n In addition, as discussed in Unit III.C.1.c.iii. of this preamble,\r\nEPA will ``grandfather'' persons with previous EPA\/HUD lead-safe work\r\npractices training or accredited abatement supervisor or worker\r\ntraining. To become certified renovators, these persons must take a\r\nrenovator refresher course in order to ensure that they are acquainted\r\nwith how to use test kits to determine whether lead-based paint is\r\npresent on a component and how to perform cleaning verification.\r\nHowever, even if they do not take the refresher course and become\r\ncertified renovators, these individuals have still received significant\r\ntraining in the required work practices such as establishing\r\ncontainment and cleaning the area after the job is finished. They are\r\nnot likely to need much, if any OJT, depending upon how recent their\r\ntraining was. Similarly, although not recognized for the purpose of\r\n``grandfathering'' by EPA, HUD's Lead Maintenance course would also\r\nprovide a great deal of information on lead-safe work practices.\r\nSomeone who had taken the Maintenance course recently would also not be\r\nlikely to need much, if any, OJT.\r\n Several commenters thought that workers would not receive adequate\r\nOJT because the certified renovator was not qualified to train others.\r\nThey noted that the certified renovators are renovators, not\r\nprofessional trainers, and do not necessarily have the skills necessary\r\nfor teaching others.\r\n After consideration of these commenters' concerns, EPA has\r\nconcluded that OJT is sufficient for training some renovation\r\nemployees. The work practice standards of this final rule are not\r\ncomplex or difficult to institute, and those activities critical to\r\nensuring the lead safe outcome of the project are either conducted by\r\ncertified renovators or directed by certified renovators. The remainder\r\nof the project is often just the renovation itself, and EPA was careful\r\nwhen developing these final work practices to minimize the effect on\r\nthe way typical renovations are conducted. With the exception of the\r\nprohibition of certain unsafe practices, renovation methods are\r\nunaffected by this rule. For example, the work practices of this final\r\nrule do not affect the method a firm would employ to replace a window.\r\nA certified renovator should be able to demonstrate to other firm\r\nemployees work practices, such as how to work within containment and\r\nhow to move into and out of containment without spreading lead dust and\r\ndebris. EPA does not believe a professional trainer is needed to train\r\nrenovation workers, who will be directed by a certified renovator if\r\nthey will be performing any of the key tasks associated with the work\r\npractices. Most of the people performing renovations today are not\r\ntrained by professional trainers. They are trained on-the-job by\r\nexperienced firm employees. For example, persons learn the various\r\ntechniques for removing and replacing windows from others in the firm\r\nwho are experienced in these techniques. Renovation workers can learn\r\nwork practices in the same way from a certified renovator.\r\n Although the work practices in the final regulation are\r\nsufficiently straightforward and can be easily demonstrated by the\r\ncertified renovator, EPA agrees that renovators do not necessarily\r\nconsider themselves to be trainers. Therefore, accredited renovator\r\ntraining will include a train-the-trainer component to provide\r\ninstruction on providing OJT. In addition, instructors will be expected\r\nto provide training tips to renovators during hands-on instruction. As\r\nthe instructor is showing the renovator how to do these work practices,\r\nhe or she can also provide instruction on how to show others how to do\r\nthese work practices. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that certified\r\nrenovators will be adequately prepared to provide OJT that is\r\nsufficient and appropriate for the purposes of this rule.\r\n Commenters expressed concerns that the rule would not provide\r\nappropriate training for the large number of non-English speaking\r\nworkers in the renovation field. One of these commenters suggested that\r\nEPA consider such means as graphic manuals, video presentations, and\r\ntranslators to aid in training non-English speaking workers. Another\r\nthought that a hands-on only training process overlooked possible\r\nlanguage barriers between the certified renovator and trainee. EPA\r\nagrees that OJT can be conducted effectively by demonstration by the\r\ncertified renovator or through the use of graphic training materials.\r\nThe Agency plans to develop materials to assist certified renovators in\r\nconducting on-the-job training. To the extent possible, these materials\r\nwill use a graphic format that does not require the use of any\r\nparticular language. Moreover, renovation firms currently communicate\r\njob needs to their employees, and EPA doubts that firms routinely hire\r\npeople with whom they are unable to communicate. Finally, EPA\r\nemphasizes again that the certified renovator and the renovation firm\r\nare responsible for ensuring compliance with this final rule. If the\r\ncertified renovator has doubts about an employee's understanding of or\r\nability to comply with the requirements that are relevant to the work\r\nhe or she is to undertake, the certified renovator may need to be on\r\nsite and direct the work more regularly than he otherwise would, or may\r\nneed to perform certain tasks himself. However, given the relative\r\nsimplicity of the work practices that are required between\r\nestablishment of containment and cleanup, EPA does not expect that this\r\nwill often be necessary.\r\n Some commenters were concerned that OJT does not include a means to\r\nassess worker competence such as an examination. Commenters were also\r\nconcerned about ongoing training needs and suggested requiring worker\r\nrefresher training on a periodic or annual basis. This final rule\r\nrequires a certified renovator to direct workers with OJT as necessary\r\nto ensure that\r\n\r\n[[Page 21722]]\r\n\r\nwork practices are being followed. This will necessarily involve a\r\nperiod of observation after OJT is provided to ensure that the worker\r\nhas understood and is following the work practices pertinent to his\r\nassigned duties. In addition, to some extent, OJT is continuous and\r\ncertified renovators will likely need to continue to provide training\r\nto workers based on the activities that they will be expected to\r\nperform on a particular job. A certified renovator would not need to\r\nprovide OJT to the same worker on consecutive jobs if the worker is\r\nperforming the same work, but if the nature of the work varies, or if\r\nthe firm hires a new employee, relevant OJT would have to be provided\r\nfor the work to be performed. EPA believes that the continuous nature\r\nof OJT obviates the need for a refresher training requirement in the\r\nrule and will serve as an incentive for firms to have their permanent\r\nemployees trained as certified renovators. EPA also believes that\r\nrefresher training per se is not practical, given that OJT will be\r\nspecific to the job in question.\r\n Some commenters wanted some form of verification that a worker had\r\nreceived training, such as a certificate of training or a sticker which\r\ncould be placed on an ID card. Because each worker is not likely to\r\nreceive training in all aspects of lead safe work practices, a\r\ncertificate or other form of training completion that would indicate an\r\nemployee's OJT is complete is not appropriate for this program. It is\r\nimportant to note that OJT is not as portable as certified renovator\r\ntraining nor is it intended to be. Certified renovators carry a\r\ntraining certificate that they can present to each new employer to\r\nprove that they have received training in the required work practices.\r\nThere is no corresponding document that can be used to verify OJT by a\r\nprevious employer. Renovation firms will generally need to provide OJT\r\neach time a new worker is used. It is also the renovation firm's\r\nresponsibility to adequately document the elements of OJT provided to\r\neach worker on each project.\r\n Because a certified renovator must be assigned to each and every\r\nrenovation covered by this regulation, EPA anticipates that some\r\nrenovation contractors and property management companies will find that\r\nthey achieve maximum efficiency and flexibility by qualifying all of\r\ntheir permanent employees who perform renovations as certified\r\nrenovators. However, due to the industry's high employee turnover rates\r\nand short-term labor needs, the Agency believes that training\r\nflexibility in the form of on-the-job training is needed. EPA believes\r\nthat such flexibility will provide firms the ability to respond to\r\nvariable labor demands and will not compromise the safety of this final\r\nrule. EPA is concerned that a regulation requiring formal, classroom\r\ntraining for every worker performing any renovation activity would be\r\nunrealistic for this industry and therefore less effective at ensuring\r\nthat the renovation work force is trained in work practices than the\r\nmore balanced training requirements in this final rule.\r\n b. Dust sampling technicians. Except as provided in 40 CFR\r\n745.85(c), this final rule does not allow dust clearance sampling to be\r\nperformed in lieu of post-renovation cleaning verification. However,\r\nsome property owners may still choose to have dust clearance sampling\r\nperformed after the renovation. Dust sampling technicians certified in\r\naccordance with this final rule will be available to perform dust\r\nclearance sampling after renovations and for purposes of HUD's Lead\r\nSafe Housing Rule.\r\n Some commenters questioned the need for dust sampling technicians.\r\nOne stated that there is no benefit to creating a third inspection-type\r\ndiscipline that has such limited training requirements. Two commenters\r\nthought that only EPA- or State-certified risk assessors should be\r\nallowed to collect dust wipe clearance samples and two commenters\r\nthought that dust sampling technicians should be required to work under\r\na certified risk assessor or inspector.\r\n In 1999, in order to make accurate dust testing for lead more\r\navailable and affordable, Congress provided EPA with funding for the\r\ndevelopment of a 1 day dust sampling technician course. Congress also\r\nencouraged the Agency to promote the recognition of this discipline.\r\nEPA completed the development of the course, entitled Lead Sampling\r\nTechnician Training Course,'' in July of 2000. This course provides\r\ninstruction on how to conduct a visual assessment for deteriorated\r\npaint, collect samples for lead dust, and interpret sample results. The\r\ntraining curriculum provides clearance sampling instruction that is\r\nequivalent to that presented in inspector and risk assessor courses, in\r\nterms of time and quality with respect to dust sampling. Therefore, EPA\r\ncan recommend that property owners and others who wish to have optional\r\ndust sampling performed use the services of a certified inspector, risk\r\nassessor, or dust sampling technician.\r\n c. Certification of individuals--i. Initial certification. Section\r\n745.90 of this final rule addresses renovator and dust sampling\r\ntechnician certification. To become a certified renovator, a person\r\nmust successfully complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or by a\r\nState, Territorial, or Tribal program authorized by EPA under 40 CFR\r\npart 745, subpart Q. The renovator course accreditation requirements\r\nare based on the joint EPA-HUD model curriculum entitled Lead Safety\r\nfor Remodeling, Repair, & Painting. EPA is not requiring additional\r\neducation or work experience of persons wishing to become certified\r\nrenovators. EPA renovator certification will allow the certified\r\nindividual to perform renovations covered by this section in any State\r\nor Indian Tribal area that does not have a renovation program\r\nauthorized under 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. To become a certified dust\r\nsampling technician, a person must successfully complete a dust\r\nsampling technician training course that has been accredited either by\r\nEPA or by a State, Territorial, or Tribal program authorized by EPA\r\nunder 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. EPA is not requiring additional\r\neducation or work experience of persons wishing to become certified\r\ndust sampling technicians.\r\n The final rule also establishes, in 40 CFR 745.91, procedures for\r\nsuspending, revoking, or modifying an individual's or firm's\r\ncertification. These procedures are very similar to the current\r\nprocedures in place at 40 CFR 745.226(i) for suspending, revoking, or\r\nmodifying the certification of an individual who is certified to\r\nperform lead-based paint activities. In addition, under the final rule,\r\nrenovator certification can be suspended, revoked, or modified if the\r\ncertified renovator does not conduct projects to which he or she is\r\nassigned in accordance with the work practice requirements of this\r\nfinal rule. Finally, in order to ensure that the effect of a\r\nsuspension, revocation, or modification determination is clear to the\r\ncertified individual or firm, EPA has added language to this section\r\nensuring that the commencement date and duration of a suspension,\r\nrevocation, or modification is identified in the Presiding Officer's\r\ndecision and order. EPA has also added language to this section to\r\nclarify what steps an individual or firm must take after such an action\r\nin order to exercise the privileges of certification again. An\r\nindividual whose certification has been suspended must take a refresher\r\ntraining course in the appropriate discipline in order to make his or\r\nher certification current, while an individual whose certification has\r\nbeen revoked must take another initial training course in order to be\r\nre-certified. A firm whose\r\n\r\n[[Page 21723]]\r\n\r\ncertification has been suspended need not do anything after the\r\nsuspension ends to become current again, as long as the suspension ends\r\nbefore the firm's certification expires. If the firm's certificate\r\nexpires during the suspension, the firm must apply for re-certification\r\nafter the suspension ends. If a firm's certification is revoked, the\r\nfirm must apply for certification after the revocation period ends in\r\norder to be certified.\r\n Some commenters questioned the need for a certification\r\nrequirement, emphasizing that it is the training that is important\r\nrather than the certification. One commenter thought that, since firms\r\nwill have to be certified, there was no added value in certifying\r\nrenovators. Others supported certification and some thought renovators\r\nshould have to apply to EPA to receive their certification in the same\r\nway that abatement workers do, stating that no regulatory program can\r\nwork unless the regulating agency can reliably identify and contact the\r\nregulated individuals. One commenter thought that there should also be\r\na work experience requirement for certified renovators.\r\n EPA believes that renovators must be certified so that the Agency\r\nhas a mechanism to verify an individual has received the appropriate\r\ntraining. In addition, if a contractor does not comply with the\r\nregulatory standards then withdrawal of the renovator's certification\r\nis a regulatory remedy available to the Agency. The final rule includes\r\na certification process that is more streamlined than the individual\r\ncertification process of the Agency's abatement regulations. In the\r\nabatement program, an individual must complete training, then submit an\r\napplication and fee to the Agency and, depending on the discipline,\r\ntake a third party exam in order to be certified. In contrast, an\r\nindividual will be considered a certified renovator upon successful\r\ncompletion of an accredited training program, and the accredited\r\ntraining program is required to submit identifying and contact\r\ninformation to EPA regarding the individuals that they have trained.\r\nEPA does not believe that work experience requirements are necessary\r\nbecause previous experience in the construction or renovation industry\r\nwould do little to help an individual understand or perform the work\r\npractices, which are not a standard practice in the industry.\r\nConsequently, there is no relevant work experience for EPA to require.\r\nIn addition, the work practices required by this final rule are\r\nsufficiently straightforward that EPA does not believe it is necessary\r\nto require work experience in addition to certified renovator training.\r\n Because EPA is not requiring any additional education or work\r\nexperience requirements, or a third-party examination similar to that\r\ntaken by inspector, risk assessor, or supervisor candidates, EPA\r\nbelieves that there is little value in requiring candidates to apply to\r\nEPA to receive their renovator or dust sampling technician\r\ncertification. Currently, the only certified discipline without\r\nprerequisites in education or experience, or a third-party examination,\r\nis the abatement worker. When candidates for worker certification apply\r\nto EPA, EPA verifies that the copy of the training course certificate\r\nsubmitted with the application is from an accredited training provider.\r\nWithout requiring renovators or dust sampling technicians to apply to\r\nEPA for certification EPA will still receive course completion\r\ninformation from course providers. With this information, EPA will have\r\na complete list of certified renovators and will be able to check to\r\nsee if a particular course completion certificate holder appeared on a\r\ncourse completion list submitted by the training course provider\r\nidentified on the certificate. When EPA inspects a renovation job for\r\ncompliance with these regulations, EPA will have the ability to verify,\r\nto the same extent, the validity of a course completion certificate\r\nheld by a renovator at that job. Therefore, under this final rule, EPA\r\nis requiring that a course completion certificate from an accredited\r\ntraining provider serve as a renovator's or dust sampling technician's\r\ncertification. To facilitate compliance monitoring, the rule requires a\r\ncertified renovator or dust sampling technician to have a copy of the\r\ncourse completion certificate at the job site.\r\n Several commenters saw the need for a way to determine that a\r\ncertified renovator was current with applicable training requirements.\r\nSuggestions for proof of training included issuing photo IDs, issuing a\r\nhard card or certificate, and establishing a national database of\r\nworkers with current training. One commenter thought that it should be\r\nthe responsibility of the training provider to certify that renovators\r\nhave successfully completed the training requirements and to then\r\nsupply EPA with all of the information. EPA agrees that there must be a\r\nway to determine if a renovator is certified and is current with\r\ntraining requirements. The Agency agrees that a database of renovator\r\ninformation would be important, and will include identifying and\r\ntraining information in the Agency's Federal Lead Paint Program (FLPP)\r\ndatabase. However, this database will only contain information about\r\ncertified renovators working in federally administered jurisdictions.\r\nIn addition, the Agency will require training programs to include a\r\nphotograph of the individual who completes renovator or dust sampling\r\ntechnician training on the training certificate and to submit that\r\nphoto to the Agency to be included in the database record. This will\r\nenable inspectors to determine whether a particular individual has\r\nreceived training from an accredited training provider.\r\n Some of the commenters had concerns specific to small businesses.\r\nTwo commenters stressed the need for outreach programs to inform small\r\nbusinesses of new compliance requirements. One commenter stated that\r\nsmaller firms should not be exempt from training and certification\r\nrequirements; another thought that small businesses would continue to\r\noperate without appropriate training and certification unless there was\r\nsome type of enforcement. EPA understands that the task of\r\ncommunicating this final rule requirements to the renovation community\r\nwill be challenging. Therefore, EPA is developing a comprehensive\r\noutreach and communications program to support this final rule. This\r\nwill include outreach to contractors as well as consumers. In addition\r\nthe Agency plans to roll out a compliance assistance effort to\r\ncomplement this undertaking.\r\n One commenter suggested that authorized State, Territorial, or\r\nTribal programs include the requirement for training as part of a\r\ncontractor licensing function, thereby eliminating the need to create a\r\nspecial (new) lead renovator's certification or license. EPA agrees\r\nthat where a State, Territory, or Tribe has a pre-existing relationship\r\nwith renovation contactors, such as a renovators' licensing program,\r\nthe simplest and most cost-effective approach may be to incorporate a\r\nrequirement for lead safe work practice training into that pre-existing\r\nprogram.\r\n ii. Recertification. Under this final rule EPA is requiring that\r\nrenovators and dust sampling technicians who wish to remain certified\r\ntake refresher training every 5 years. In addition, EPA is requiring\r\nthat the refresher training course be half the length of the initial\r\ncourse. This is consistent with current practice for certified\r\nindividuals performing lead-based paint activities. If an individual\r\ndoes not take a refresher course within 5 years of the date he or she\r\ncompleted the initial course or the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21724]]\r\n\r\nprevious refresher course, that individual's certification will expire\r\non that date and that individual may no longer serve as a certified\r\nrenovator or dust sampling technician. There is no grace period. To\r\nbecome certified again, the individual must take another initial\r\ntraining course. In addition, under this final rule a certified\r\nrenovator may choose to take the initial renovator course instead of a\r\nrefresher course to allow maximum flexibility, particularly if for some\r\nreason the person was unable to attend a refresher course.\r\n Some commenters asserted that the refresher requirement was of no\r\nbenefit or imposed an unnecessary cost. These commenters reasoned that\r\nlead-safe work practices were not likely to change significantly over\r\ntime. One noted that HUD's experience with lead-safe work practices\r\ntraining since 1999 has not revealed a need for refresher training in\r\ntheir program. Commenters who supported refresher training differed on\r\nthe frequency of the training and the length of the refresher course.\r\nSome agreed that refresher training should be required every 3 years,\r\nothers thought it should be required biennially, annually, or every 3\r\nto 6 months. One commenter agreed with the proposed 4-hour course, two\r\ncommenters thought a 4-hour course was too short, and one thought that\r\ninstead of completing a refresher, certified renovators should be\r\nrequired to retake the initial training course every 2 to 3 years. One\r\ncommenter stated that a certified renovator should have the opportunity\r\nto take a third party test and allow the renovator to ``test out'' of\r\nhaving to complete the refresher course.\r\n After considering the range of concerns raised by the commenters,\r\nEPA has concluded that refresher training is important for renovators\r\nand dust sampling technicians and for the Agency. During the refresher\r\ncourse, renovators and dust sampling technicians are given the\r\nopportunity to discuss any point of emphasis and to be updated on\r\nchanges in the regulations or technical issues. For example, refresher\r\ntraining could be used to update renovators on availability of new\r\ntechniques and products, such as test kits. Refresher training provides\r\nthe Agency with a mechanism to pass along critical information to\r\ncertified individuals and to keep track of the workforce. However, EPA\r\nhas determined that these purposes can be adequately served by 4-hour\r\nrefresher training every 5 years, instead of every 3 years. This\r\nprovides a reasonable period between trainings that limits training\r\ncosts while providing an opportunity to update renovators and dust\r\nsampling technicians regarding regulations and technical issues. EPA\r\nbelieves that most renovators will not also be certified abatement\r\nprofessionals, so the difference in the length of time between required\r\nrefresher courses should not confuse individuals about their\r\nresponsibilities under the two programs.\r\n iii. Grandfathering. Under this final rule, individuals who\r\nsuccessfully completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor\r\ncourse, and individuals who successfully completed either HUD, EPA, or\r\nthe joint EPA\/HUD model renovation training courses may take an\r\naccredited refresher renovation training course in lieu of the initial\r\nrenovation training to become a certified renovator. In addition,\r\nindividuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-based\r\npaint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently\r\ncertified in the discipline, may take an accredited refresher dust\r\nsampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to become a\r\ncertified dust sampling technician. Inspectors and risk assessors who\r\nare certified by EPA or an authorized program are qualified to perform\r\ndust sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or\r\nabatements. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for a certified inspector\r\nor risk assessor to seek certification as a dust sampling technician.\r\n A number of commenters thought that certification should be given\r\nto those who have already attended appropriate training. Some of these\r\ncommenters thought that individuals who had received EPA, HUD, or\r\nState-approved Lead Safe Work Practices (LSWP) training should be\r\ngrandfathered. One commenter thought individuals that had completed\r\nOSHA's 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response course\r\nshould also be grandfathered and another wanted individuals that had\r\ntaken the National Apartment Association's lead worker training course\r\nto be grandfathered. Four commenters were in favor of grandfathering\r\ndust sampling technicians that have previously completed a dust\r\nsampling course.\r\n Most of the commenters who expressed an opinion agreed with\r\ngrandfathering previously trained individuals but suggested that there\r\nbe restrictions. Some of these commenters thought that in order to\r\nreceive credit the training needed to have been completed in the last 2\r\nto 3 years while others thought that certification should be given only\r\nif a refresher or ``gap'' course were completed. One commenter thought\r\nthat the quality of the previous course should be taken into account\r\nand another commenter thought that a one-size fits all rule would not\r\nbe appropriate and that factors including previous course requirements,\r\nthe facility that had provided the training, and time elapsed since\r\ninitial training should all be considered in establishing requirements\r\nfor streamlined certification. One commenter opposed grandfathering,\r\nnoting that existing courses do not cover lead test kits, cleaning\r\nverification, or recordkeeping in accordance with the proposed rule.\r\n The final rule allows individuals who have successfully completed\r\nmodel renovation courses developed by HUD or EPA and individuals who\r\nhave taken an abatement worker or supervisor course accredited by EPA\r\nor an authorized State or Tribal program to become certified renovators\r\nby taking EPA-accredited renovator refresher training. Individuals who\r\nhave successfully completed a risk assessor or inspector course\r\naccredited by EPA or an authorized State or Tribal program can become\r\ncertified dust sampling technicians by taking EPA-accredited dust\r\nsampling technician refresher training. EPA is recognizing only EPA and\r\nHUD model renovation training and lead-based paint activities training\r\ncourses accredited by EPA or an authorized State, Territorial, or\r\nTribal program because EPA has not sufficiently evaluated the content\r\nof other courses. In addition, it would be unwieldy to develop the\r\ncontent of multiple refresher courses based on the content of different\r\ninitial training courses. While the recognized training provides\r\nmeaningful information relevant to these disciplines, it does not\r\ninclude some specific requirements of this final regulation. Therefore,\r\nEPA is requiring these individuals to receive refresher training to\r\nensure they are familiar with the requirements of this final rule.\r\nTraining providers are required to notify EPA of the individuals who\r\nbecome certified by successfully completing the refresher training.\r\nThis information will support EPA's compliance assistance programs.\r\n 2. Renovation firms--a. Responsibilities of renovation firms. Under\r\nthis final rule, firms must ensure that all persons performing\r\nrenovation activities on behalf of the firm are either certified\r\nrenovators or have been trained and are directed by a certified\r\nrenovator in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. The firm is responsible for\r\nassigning a certified renovator to each renovation performed by the\r\nfirm and ensuring that the certified renovator discharges all of the\r\nresponsibilities identified in this final rule. The firm must ensure\r\nthat the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21725]]\r\n\r\ninformation distribution requirements in 40 CFR 745.84 are met. As\r\nmentioned above, the certified renovator is responsible for ensuring\r\ncompliance with 40 CFR 745.85 at all renovations to which he or she is\r\nassigned. The firm is also responsible for ensuring that all\r\nrenovations performed by the firm are performed using certified\r\nrenovators and in accordance with the work practice standards in\r\nproposed 40 CFR 745.85.\r\n Where multiple contractors are involved in a renovation, any\r\ncontractor who disturbs, or whose employees disturb, paint in excess of\r\nthe minor maintenance exception is responsible for compliance with all\r\nof the requirements of this final rule. In this situation, renovation\r\nfirms may find it advantageous to decide among themselves which firm\r\nwill provide pre-renovation education to the owners and occupants,\r\nwhich firm will establish containment, and which firm will perform the\r\npost-renovation cleaning and cleaning verification. For example, a\r\ngeneral contractor may be hired to conduct a multi-faceted project\r\ninvolving the large-scale disturbance of paint, which the general\r\ncontractor then divides up among several subcontractors. In this\r\nsituation, having the general contractor discharge the obligations of\r\nthe Pre-Renovation Education Rule is likely to be the most efficient\r\napproach, since this only needs to be done once. With regard to\r\ncontainment, the general contractor may decide that it is most cost-\r\neffective to establish one large work area for the entire project. In\r\nthis case, from the time that containment is established until post-\r\nrenovation cleaning verification occurs, all general contractor and\r\nsubcontractor personnel performing renovation tasks within the work\r\narea must be certified renovators or trained and directed by certified\r\nrenovators in accordance with this rule. In addition, these personnel\r\nare responsible for ensuring the integrity of the containment barriers.\r\nThe cleaning and post-renovation cleaning verification could be\r\nperformed by any properly qualified individuals, without regard to\r\nwhether they are employees of the general contractor or a\r\nsubcontractor. However, all contractors involved in the disturbance of\r\nlead-based paint, or who perform work within the work area established\r\nfor the containment of lead dust and debris, are responsible for\r\ncompliance with this final rule, regardless of any agreements the\r\ncontractors may have made among themselves.\r\n b. Certification of firms--i. Initial certification. This final\r\nrule requires firms that perform renovations, as defined by this rule,\r\nto be certified by EPA. EPA is adding a definition of ``firm'' to Sec.\r\n745.83 to make it clear that this term includes persons in business for\r\nthemselves, i.e., sole proprietorships, as well as Federal, State,\r\nTribal, and local governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations.\r\nFirms covered by this final rule include firms that typically perform\r\nrenovations, such as building contractors or home improvement\r\ncontractors, as well as property management companies or owners of\r\nmulti-family housing performing property maintenance activities that\r\ninclude renovations within the scope of this final rule.\r\n This final rule provides information about the certification and\r\nre-certification process, establishes procedures for amending and\r\ntransferring certifications, and identifies clear deadlines. A firm\r\nwishing to become certified to perform renovations must submit a\r\ncomplete ``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of\r\nthe firm, along with the correct certification fee. EPA intends to\r\nestablish firm certification fees in a separate rulemaking. EPA will\r\napprove a firm's initial application within 90 days of receipt if it is\r\ncomplete, including the proper amount of fees, and if EPA determines\r\nthat the environmental compliance history of the firm, its principals,\r\nor its key employees does not show an unwillingness or inability to\r\ncomply with applicable environmental statutes or regulations. EPA will\r\ngenerally consider the following to be an indication that the applicant\r\nis unwilling or unable to comply with environmental statutes or\r\nregulations if, during the past 3 years, the applicant has:\r\n \u2022 A criminal conviction under a Federal environmental statute;\r\n \u2022 An administrative or civil judgment against the applicant\r\nfor a willful violation of a Federal environmental statutory or\r\nregulatory requirement; or\r\n \u2022 More than one administrative or civil judgment for a\r\nviolation of a Federal environmental statute. Violations that involve\r\nonly recordkeeping requirements will not be considered.\r\n If the application is approved, EPA will establish the firm's\r\ncertification expiration date at 5 years from the date of EPA's\r\napproval. EPA certification will allow the firm to perform renovations\r\ncovered by this section in any State or Indian Tribal area that does\r\nnot have a renovation program authorized under 40 CFR part 745, subpart\r\nQ. If the application is incomplete, EPA will notify the firm within 90\r\ndays of receipt that its application was incomplete, and ask the firm\r\nto supplement its application within 30 days. If the firm does not\r\nsupplement its application within that period of time, or if EPA's\r\ncheck into the compliance history of the firm revealed an unwillingness\r\nor inability to comply with environmental statutes or regulations, EPA\r\nwill not approve the application and will provide the applicant with\r\nthe reasons for not approving the application. EPA will not refund the\r\napplication fees. A firm could reapply for certification at any time by\r\nfiling a new, complete application that included the correct amount of fees.\r\n This final rule provides firms with more time to amend their\r\ncertification whenever a change occurs. A firm must amend its\r\ncertification within 90 days whenever a change occurs to information\r\nincluded in the firm's most recent application. If the firm failed to\r\namend its certification within 90 days of the date the change occurred,\r\nthe firm would not be authorized to perform renovations until its\r\ncertification was amended. Examples of amendments include a change in\r\nthe firm's name without transfer of ownership, or a change of address\r\nor other contact information. To amend its certification, a firm must\r\nsubmit an application, noting on the form that it was submitted as an\r\namendment. The firm must complete the sections of the application\r\npertaining to the new information, and sign and date the form. The\r\namendment must include the correct amount of fees. Amending a\r\ncertification will not affect the validity of the existing\r\ncertification or extend the certification expiration date. EPA will\r\nissue the firm a new certificate if necessary to reflect information\r\nincluded in the amendment. Firm certifications are not transferable--if\r\nthe firm is sold, the new owner must submit a new initial application\r\nfor certification in accordance with 40 CFR 745.89(a). The final rule\r\nalso includes procedures for suspending, revoking, or modifying a\r\nfirm's certification. These procedures are very similar to the current\r\nprocedures in place for suspending, revoking, or modifying the\r\ncertification of a firm that is certified to perform lead-based paint\r\nactivities.\r\n Some commenters questioned the need for firm certification, while\r\nothers, including industry representatives, supported it. The Agency\r\nbelieves that firm certification is necessary for several reasons.\r\nFirst, certification is an important tool for the Agency's\r\n\r\n[[Page 21726]]\r\n\r\nenforcement program. To become certified, a firm acknowledges their\r\nresponsibility to use appropriately trained and certified employees and\r\nfollow the work practice standards set forth in the final rule. This is\r\nespecially important under this final rule, since the certified\r\nrenovator is not required to perform or be present during all of the\r\nrenovation activities. Under these circumstances, it is important for\r\nthe firm to acknowledge its legal responsibility for compliance with\r\nall of the final rule requirements, since the firm both hires and\r\nexercises supervisory control over all of its employees. Should the\r\nfirm be found to violate any requirements, its certification can be\r\nrevoked, giving the firm a strong incentive to ensure compliance by all\r\nemployees.\r\n ii. Recertification. Under 40 CFR 745.89(b), a certified firm\r\nmaintains its certification by submitting a complete and timely\r\n``Application for Firms,'' noting that it is an application for re-\r\ncertification, and paying the required re-certification fee. With\r\nregard to the timeliness of the application for re-certification, if a\r\ncomplete application, including the proper fee, is postmarked 90 days\r\nor more before the date the firm's current certification expires, the\r\napplication will be considered timely and sufficient, and the firm's\r\nexisting certification will remain in effect until its expiration date\r\nor until EPA has made a final decision to approve there-certification\r\napplication, or not, whichever occurs later. If the firm submits a\r\ncomplete re-certification application fewer than 90 days before the\r\ndate the firm's current certification expired, EPA might be able to\r\nprocess the application and re-certify the applicant before the\r\nexpiration date, but this would not be guaranteed. If EPA does not\r\napprove the re-certification application before the existing\r\napplication expired, the firm's certification expires and the firm is\r\nnot able to conduct renovations until EPA approves its re-certification\r\napplication. In any case, the firm's new certification expiration date\r\nwill be 5 years from the date the existing certification expired.\r\n If the firm submits an incomplete application for re-certification\r\nand EPA does not receive all of the required information and fees\r\nbefore the date the firm's current certification expires, or if the\r\nfirm does not submit its application until after its certification\r\nexpired, EPA will not approve the firm's re-certification application.\r\nThe firm cannot cure any deficiencies in its application package by\r\npostmarking missing information or fees by its certification expiration\r\ndate. All required information and fees must be in EPA's possession as\r\nof the expiration date for EPA to approve the application. If EPA does\r\nnot approve the application, the Agency will provide the applicant with\r\nthe reasons for not approving the re-certification application. Any\r\nfees submitted by the applicant will not be refunded, but the firm can\r\nsubmit a new application for certification, along with the correct\r\namount of fees, at any time.\r\n As with initial applications, this final rule includes a\r\ndescription of the actions EPA may take in response to an application\r\nfor re-certification and the reasons why EPA will take a particular\r\naction. This section is identical to the process for initial\r\napplications, except that EPA will not require an incomplete\r\napplication to be supplemented within 30 days of the date EPA requests\r\nadditional information or fees. In the re-certification context, the\r\nfirm must make its application complete by the date that its current\r\ncertification expires.\r\n Several commenters thought that firms should not be required to be\r\nre-certified because the firm's certification is not based on knowledge\r\nor technology, but rather on a promise to abide by the rules. The\r\nAgency believes that firm re-certification is an important element of\r\nthe final regulation. Firm re-certification provides a mechanism for\r\nEPA to keep its records current with respect to firms actively engaged\r\nin renovations. Re-certification also provides a means for EPA to\r\nensure that it has updated firm contact information. Re-certification\r\nalso prompts the firm to positively reaffirm their commitment to adhere\r\nto the requirements set forth in this regulation. Finally, re-\r\ncertification allows EPA an opportunity to review a firm's compliance\r\nhistory before it obtains re-certification. However, EPA has determined\r\nthat these purposes can be adequately served by re-certifying\r\nrenovation firms every 5 years instead of every 3 years as proposed.\r\n\r\nD. Training Provider Accreditation and Recordkeeping\r\n\r\n EPA is amending the general accreditation requirements of 40 CFR\r\n745.225 to apply to training programs that offer renovator or dust\r\nsampling technician courses for certification purposes. The regulations\r\ndescribe training program qualifications, quality control measures,\r\nrecordkeeping and reporting requirements, as well as suspension,\r\nrevocation, and modification procedures. Amendments to Sec. 745.225\r\nadd specific requirements for the renovator and dust sampling\r\ntechnician disciplines. Also included are minimum training curriculum,\r\ntraining hour, and hands-on requirements for courses leading to\r\ncertification as a renovator or a dust sampling technician. As\r\ndiscussed in the previous Unit of this preamble, to assist EPA\r\ncompliance inspectors in determining whether a renovator at a\r\nrenovation work site successfully completed an accredited renovator\r\ntraining course, this final rule also requires providers of renovator\r\ntraining to take a digital photograph of each individual who\r\nsuccessfully completes a renovator training course, include that\r\nphotograph on the individual's course completion certificate, and\r\nprovide that photograph to EPA along with the training course\r\nprovider's post-training notification required by 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14).\r\n Training course providers that obtained accreditation to offer\r\nrenovator or dust sampling technician training would have to comply\r\nwith the existing recordkeeping requirements for lead-based paint\r\nactivities training course providers. These existing recordkeeping\r\nprovisions require providers to maintain records of course materials,\r\ncourse test blueprints, information on how hands-on training is\r\ndelivered, and the results of the students' skills assessments and\r\ncourse tests. EPA received no comments on this aspect of the proposed\r\nrecordkeeping requirements. These requirements are currently working\r\nwell for lead-based paint activities training providers and EPA\r\nbelieves they will work equally well for renovation training providers.\r\nTherefore, EPA is finalizing this requirement as proposed. Training\r\ncourse providers who receive accreditation to provide renovator or dust\r\nsampling technician courses must comply with the recordkeeping\r\nrequirements of 40 CFR 745.225(i).\r\n 1. Renovator training. The minimum curriculum requirements for an\r\ninitial renovator course are described in 40 CFR 745.225(d)(6). The\r\ntopics include the roles and responsibilities of a renovator;\r\nbackground information on lead and its health effects; background on\r\napplicable Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance; use of\r\nacceptable test kits to test paint to determine whether it is lead-\r\nbased paint; methods to minimize the creation of lead-based paint\r\nhazards during renovations; containment and clean-up methods; ways to\r\nverify that a renovation project has been properly completed, including\r\ncleaning verification; and waste handling and disposal. Hands-on\r\nactivities relating to renovation methods, containment and clean-up,\r\ncleaning verification, and waste handling would be required in all\r\ncourses. Section 745.225(c)(6)(vi)\r\n\r\n[[Page 21727]]\r\n\r\nestablishes the minimum length for an initial renovator course at 8\r\ntraining hours, with 2 hours being devoted to hands-on activities.\r\n Commenters raised concerns and had suggestions regarding how\r\ncertified renovator training should be conducted in three broad areas:\r\nCourse length; course content and format; and training of non-English\r\nspeaking renovators.\r\n a. Course length. Several commenters raised concerns about the\r\nlength of the certified renovator training course. Some agreed with the\r\ntraining length as defined in the rule, others stated it was too short\r\nor too long, and one said that the length of the training should not be\r\ndefined in the rule. In establishing the minimum requirements for the\r\nrenovator course, the Agency considered the many types of activities\r\nthat would likely be performed during renovation, remodeling, and\r\npainting activities and tried to balance that with the need for a\r\ntraining course that would address the necessary skills without being\r\noverly burdensome on the part of the trainee. The suggested course\r\nschedule for the EPA\/HUD lead-safe work practices curriculum ``Lead\r\nSafety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting'' calls for an 8-hour\r\ntraining day, including lunch, two breaks, and an hour-long course\r\ntest. The course is designed in a modular format, so that it can be\r\ndelivered in 1 day or over two or more days, at the discretion of the\r\ntraining provider. Based on a review of the material and the suggested\r\nschedule, EPA believes that ``Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, and\r\nPainting'' can be modified to include material on the use of test kits\r\nand performing cleaning verification and still fit within eight\r\ntraining hours. However, any attempt to cover all of the required\r\nelements in a shorter period of time would likely result in a\r\nsignificant reduction in the level of detail with which the elements\r\nare presented. A minimum requirement for eight training hours\r\nrepresents a reasonable minimum requirement for the renovator course\r\nand gives training course providers an indication of the amount of time\r\nthat EPA has determined through experience with the EPA\/HUD curriculum\r\nthat it takes to adequately cover each required training element.\r\n b. Course content and format. Most commenters agree that the\r\ncertified renovator course should include a hands-on training portion\r\nand several of these agree that the hands-on portion should not be any\r\nshorter than two hours as proposed. Other commenters suggested that the\r\nhands-on portion of the training should be allowed to be conducted as a\r\ndemonstration via a remote delivery system (DVD or Internet). EPA\r\nagrees that development of a procedure to address the hands-on\r\ncomponent of the renovator course via remote delivery systems would be\r\nbeneficial. This final rule does not preclude training providers from\r\ndeveloping alternative methods for the delivery and evaluation of\r\ntraining for submission for approval to EPA.\r\n Several commenters had suggestions as to the certified renovator\r\ntraining content. Two recommended that the renovator course include\r\ntraining on recordkeeping requirements. EPA agrees with these\r\ncommenters, and has added the element of recordkeeping to the required\r\ntraining course elements for renovators. Because EPA has modified the\r\nrecordkeeping requirements, as discussed below, to require the\r\ncertified renovator to prepare the records associated with renovations\r\nto which he or she is assigned, the renovation training course will\r\ninclude a recordkeeping component. Three commenters suggested that, if\r\nthe certified renovator is responsible for providing OJT to other\r\nrenovation workers, the renovator training course should include a\r\ntrain-the-trainer component. EPA agrees with these commenters and has\r\nadded a train-the-trainer element to the required elements for the\r\nrenovator training course. In addition, EPA will develop a train-the-\r\ntrainer component for its model renovator training course. Other\r\ncommenters suggested that the required training elements include OSHA\r\nhealth and personal safety requirements. The Agency agrees that these\r\nare relevant topics and considers an overview of the OSHA requirements\r\nto be part of the required element of background on applicable Federal,\r\nState, and local regulations and requirements. To ensure that this is\r\nclear, EPA has modified this provision to state that the background\r\ninformation must include EPA, HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, and\r\nlocal regulations and guidance. Consistent with its approach in other\r\ncourses related to lead-based paint activities, the Agency believes\r\nthat identifying potential OSHA requirements, rather than requiring in-\r\ndepth curriculum components, is the best way to make trainees aware of\r\nthose requirements and yet avoid redundancies between EPA- and OSHA-\r\nrequired courses.\r\n c. Training of non-English speaking renovators. Renovator and dust\r\nsampling technician courses, both initial and refresher, can be taught\r\nin any language, but accreditation would be required for each specific\r\nlanguage the provider wished to present the course in. All course\r\nmaterials and instruction for the course would have to be in the\r\nlanguage of the course. The modification to Sec. 745.225(b)(1)(ii)\r\nclarifies that all lead-based paint courses taught in different\r\nlanguages are considered different courses, and accreditation must be\r\nobtained for each. To facilitate accreditation of courses in languages\r\nother than English, EPA is requiring that the training provider include\r\nin its application both the English version as well as the non-English\r\nversion of all training materials, in addition to a signed statement\r\nfrom a qualified, independent translator that the translator has\r\ncompared the non-English language version of the course materials to\r\nthe English-language version and that the translation is accurate. This\r\nrequirement applies to any course for which accreditation is sought,\r\nincluding lead-based paint activities courses. Finally, to assist EPA\r\nin monitoring compliance with these requirements, EPA is requiring that\r\ncourse completion certificates include the language in which the course\r\nwas taught.\r\n Several commenters agreed that the needs of non-English speaking\r\nworkers should be considered. Commenters suggested that EPA translate\r\nits model course into other languages and\/or facilitate free access to\r\nsuch translations. EPA agrees that it is important to have renovator\r\ntraining available in languages other than English. EPA anticipates\r\ntranslating its revised model renovator course into Spanish. EPA will\r\nalso consider translating the course into other languages. However, EPA\r\nis not able to make available proprietary material developed by\r\ntraining course providers that is then translated by those providers\r\ninto other languages.\r\n 2. Dust sampling technician training. The minimum curriculum\r\nrequirements for an initial dust sampling technician course are\r\ndescribed in 40 CFR 745.225(d)(7). The topics include the roles and\r\nresponsibilities of a dust sampling technician; background information\r\non lead and its adverse health effects; background information on\r\nFederal, State, and local regulations and guidance that pertains to\r\nlead-based paint and renovation activities; dust sampling\r\nmethodologies; clearance standards and testing; and report preparation\r\nand recordkeeping requirements. Section 745.225(c)(6)(vii) establishes\r\nthe minimum length for an initial dust sampling technician course at 8\r\ntraining hours, with 2 hours being devoted to hands-on activities. EPA\r\nreceived relatively few comments specifically on the content of dust\r\n\r\n[[Page 21728]]\r\n\r\nsampling technician training; most had to do with the length of the\r\ntraining course. EPA has developed a model dust sampling technician\r\ncourse (Ref. 33). This course has been designed to be delivered in one\r\n8-hour training day, including lunch, breaks, and a course test. As\r\nwith the EPA\/HUD ``Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting''\r\ncurriculum, EPA believes that this is a reasonable minimum requirement\r\nfor the dust sampling technician course and it gives training course\r\nproviders an indication of the amount of time that EPA has determined\r\nit takes to adequately cover each required training element.\r\n\r\nE. Work Practices\r\n\r\n This final rule requires that all renovations subject to this rule\r\nbe conducted in accordance with a defined set of work practice\r\nstandards. Again, this final rule is a revision of the existing TSCA\r\nsection 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations to extend\r\ntraining, certification, and work practice requirements to certain\r\nrenovation and remodeling projects in target housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities. In so doing, EPA did not merely modify the scope of the\r\ncurrent abatement requirements to cover renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities. Rather, EPA has carefully considered the elements of the\r\nexisting abatement regulations and is revising those regulations in a\r\nmanner that reflects the differences between abatement and renovation\r\nactivities.\r\n Work practices for abatement are part of larger range of activities\r\nthat are intended to identify and eliminate lead-based paint hazards.\r\nWhen abatements are conducted, residents typically are removed from the\r\nhome until after the abatement activities are completed, which is\r\ndemonstrated through the use of clearance testing. This may require the\r\nremoval of carpeting, refinishing, sealing, or replacement of floors to\r\nachieve clearance. Accordingly, clearance testing is part of a broader\r\nset of activities that comprise abatement, with the purpose of\r\npermanently eliminating existing lead-based paint hazards.\r\n Renovation, repair, and painting activities typically are conducted\r\nwhile the residents are present in the dwelling and are not activities\r\nintended to eliminate lead-based paint hazards. Work practices for\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting are designed to minimize exposure to\r\nlead-based paint hazards created by the renovation both during the\r\nrenovation, while residents are likely to be present in the dwelling,\r\nand after the renovation. The work practices are not intended to\r\naddress pre-existing hazards.\r\n 1. In general. This final rule incorporates work practice standards\r\ngenerally derived from the HUD Guidelines, EPA's draft technical\r\nspecifications for renovations, and the model training curriculum\r\nentitled Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, & Painting (Refs. 18, 34,\r\nand 35). For more information on the development of these documents,\r\nplease consult Unit III.C. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal. To\r\nreduce exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation\r\nactivities, the work practices standards in this regulation provide\r\nbasic requirements for occupant protection, site preparation, and clean-up.\r\n Commenters generally felt that work practices are important and\r\nshould be clear and correctly followed. One commenter stated that the\r\nrule has ``tremendous potential for making a difference,'' especially\r\nin establishing and ``reinforcing the industry norm.'' One commenter\r\nnoted that EPA should ``set simple and flexible work practices.''\r\nAnother commenter asked for less specificity. EPA believes that this\r\nfinal rule provides certified renovators an appropriate blend of\r\nflexibility and specificity. EPA believes that, due to the highly\r\nvariable nature of renovation activities, flexibility is needed for\r\ncertain tasks, such as establishing containment, and that other tasks,\r\nsuch as specialized cleaning, require a greater degree of specificity.\r\n 2. Occupant protection. This final rule requires the firm to post\r\nsigns clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other\r\npersons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the\r\nwork area. In addition, it requires that the certified renovator be\r\nphysically present at the work site when the required signs are posted.\r\nThese signs must be posted before beginning the renovation and must\r\nremain in place until the renovation has been completed and cleaning\r\nverification has been completed. The signs must be, to the extent\r\npracticable, provided in the occupants' primary language. If warning\r\nsigns have been posted in accordance with HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule\r\n(24 CFR 35.1345(b)(2)) or OSHA's Lead in Construction Standard (29 CFR\r\n1926.62(m)), additional signs are not required.\r\n Three commenters stated that the required signs for posting at a\r\nwork site should be in the language of the occupant. One commenter\r\nstated that such a requirement would be consistent with HUD's Lead Safe\r\nHousing Rule requirements. EPA agrees that having signs in the language\r\nof the occupant is preferable. However, the Agency is concerned that\r\nrenovators will not have the ability to provide signs in every\r\nlanguage, and that it may be the case that occupants, especially in\r\nmulti-family dwellings, will speak a variety of languages. In the HUD\r\nLead Safe Housing Rule, HUD addressed this issue by requiring that\r\nsigns, to the extent practicable, be provided in the occupants' primary\r\nlanguage. Therefore, consistent with HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule, this\r\nfinal rule requires warning signs, to the extent practicable, to be\r\nprovided in the occupants' primary language.\r\n 3. Containment. This final rule requires that the firm isolate the\r\nwork area so that dust or debris does not leave the work area while the\r\nrenovation is being performed. In addition, EPA has clarified that the\r\nfirm must maintain the integrity of the containment by ensuring that\r\nany plastic or other impermeable materials are not torn or displaced,\r\nand taking any other steps necessary to ensure that dust or debris does\r\nnot leave the work area while the renovation is being performed.\r\n In addition, EPA has made conforming changes to the performance\r\nstandard that renovators and renovation firms are being held to in this\r\nfinal rule. EPA was concerned that the rule text and preamble were\r\nconfusing because there were references to ``visible'' dust and debris\r\nor ``identifiable'' dust and debris and ``all'' dust and debris. For\r\nexample, in the 2006 Proposal ``work area'' was defined as the area\r\nestablished by the certified renovator to ``contain all the dust and\r\ndebris generated by a renovation.'' In the renovator responsibilities\r\n(as proposed at 40 CFR 745.90(b)(4)), the renovator was responsible for\r\nensuring ``that dust and debris is not spread beyond the work area.''\r\nIn describing the containment to be established, the rule text referred\r\nto ``visible'' dust and debris and in the section on waste from\r\nrenovations (as proposed at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)) the rule text referred\r\nto ``identifiable'' dust. It was not EPA's intention to create\r\nsubjectivity as to whether dust and debris were being dispersed. By\r\nconforming its terminology EPA is clarifying that certified renovators\r\nand renovation firms must ensure that the dust and debris (as opposed\r\nto ``visible'' or ``indentifiable'' dust and debris) generated by the\r\nrenovation is contained. Should an EPA inspector observe dust or debris\r\nescaping from the containment, the certified renovator and\r\n\r\n[[Page 21729]]\r\n\r\nthe renovation firm would be in violation of this final rule.\r\n This final rule also requires that the certified renovator be\r\nphysically present at the work site when the required containment is\r\nestablished. This means the certified renovator must determine for each\r\nregulated project the size and type of containment necessary to prevent\r\ndust and debris from leaving the established work area. This\r\ndetermination will be based on the certified renovator's evaluation of\r\nthe extent and nature of the activity and the specific work practices\r\nthat will be used.\r\n Containment refers to methods of preventing leaded dust from\r\ncontaminating objects in the work area and from migrating beyond the\r\nwork area. It includes, among other possible measures, the use of\r\ndisposable plastic drop cloths to cover floors and objects in the work\r\narea, and sealing of openings with plastic sheeting where necessary to\r\nprevent dust and debris from leaving the work area. When planning a\r\nrenovation project, it is the certified renovator's responsibility to\r\ndetermine the type of work site preparation necessary to prevent dust\r\nand debris from leaving the work area.\r\n Renovation projects generate varying amounts of leaded dust, paint\r\nchips, and other lead-contaminated materials depending on the type of\r\nwork, area affected, and work methods used. Because of this\r\nvariability, the size of the area that must be isolated and the\r\ncontainment methods used will vary from project to project. Large\r\nrenovation projects could involve one or more rooms and potentially\r\nencompass an entire home or building, while small projects may require\r\nonly a relatively small amount of containment. The necessary work area\r\npreparations will depend on the size of the surface(s) being disturbed,\r\nthe method used in disturbing the surface, and the building layout. For\r\nexample, repairing a small area of damaged drywall would most likely\r\nrequire the containment of a smaller work area and less preparation\r\nthan demolition work, which would most likely require a containment of\r\na larger work area and more extensive preparation in order to prevent\r\nthe migration of dust and debris from the work area. The Environmental\r\nField Sampling Study, which found that the following activities created\r\ndust-lead hazards at a distance of 6 feet from where the work was being\r\nperformed:\r\n \u2022 Paint removal by abrasive sanding.\r\n \u2022 Window replacement.\r\n \u2022 HVAC duct work.\r\n \u2022 Demolition of interior plaster walls.\r\n \u2022 Drilling into wood.\r\n \u2022 Sawing into wood.\r\n \u2022 Sawing into plaster.\r\n Based on these data, EPA believes that at least 6 feet of containment\r\nis necessary to contain dust generated by most renovation projects.\r\n Under this final rule, at a minimum, interior work area\r\npreparations must include removing all objects in the work area or\r\ncovering them with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material. This\r\nincludes fixed objects, such as cabinets and countertops, and objects\r\nthat may be difficult to move, such as appliances. Interior\r\npreparations must also include closing all forced air HVAC ducts in the\r\nwork area and covering them with plastic sheeting or other impermeable\r\nmaterial; closing all windows in the work area; closing and sealing all\r\ndoors in the work area; and covering the floor surface in the work\r\narea, including installed carpet, with taped-down plastic sheeting or\r\nother impermeable material in the work area 6 feet beyond the perimeter\r\nof surfaces undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to contain\r\nthe dust, whichever is greater.\r\n To ensure that dust and debris do not leave the work area, it may\r\nbe necessary to close forced air HVAC ducts or windows near the work\r\narea. Doors within the work area that will be used while the job is\r\nbeing performed must be covered with plastic sheeting or other\r\nimpermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass through,\r\nwhile confining dust and debris to the work area. In addition, all\r\npersonnel, tools, and other items, including the exterior of containers\r\nof waste, must be free of dust and debris when leaving the work area.\r\n For exterior projects, the same performance standard applies;\r\nnamely, the certified renovator or a worker under the direction of the\r\ncertified renovator must contain the work area so that dust or debris\r\ndoes not leave the work area while the renovation is being performed.\r\nAdditionally, in response to comments suggesting that EPA follow the\r\nHUD Guidelines with respect to exterior containment requirements, EPA\r\nhas incorporated a similar 10 foot minimum. Consequently, this final\r\nrule requires that exterior containment include covering the ground 10\r\nfeet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a\r\nsufficient distance to collect falling paint debris, whichever is\r\ngreater, unless the property line prevents 10 feet of such ground\r\ncovering. EPA has concluded that this is an appropriate and reasonable\r\nprecaution for exterior work, given the fact that some amount of\r\ndispersal of dust or debris is likely as a result of air movement, even\r\non relatively calm days. In addition, EPA sees value in maintaining\r\nappropriate consistency between this regulation and related HUD rules\r\nand guidelines.\r\n In addition to such ground covering, exterior work area\r\npreparations must include, at a minimum, closing all doors and windows\r\nwithin 20 feet of the outside of the work area on the same floor as the\r\nrenovation, and closing all doors and windows on the floors below that\r\narea. For example, if the renovation involves sanding a 5-foot by 5-\r\nfoot area of paint in the middle of the third floor of a building, and\r\nthat side of the building is only 40 feet long, all doors and windows\r\non that side of the third floor must be closed, as well as all of the\r\ndoors and windows on that side of the second and first floors. In\r\nsituations where other buildings are in close proximity to the work\r\narea, where the work area abuts a property line, or weather conditions\r\ndictate the need for additional containment (i.e., windy conditions)\r\nthe certified renovator or a worker under the direction of the\r\ncertified renovator performing the renovation may have to take extra\r\nprecautions in containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris\r\nfrom the renovation does not contaminate other buildings or migrate to\r\nadjacent property. This may include erecting vertical containment\r\ndesigned to prevent dust and debris from contaminating the ground or\r\nany object beyond the work area. In addition, doors within the work\r\narea that will be used while the job is being performed must be covered\r\nwith plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in a manner that\r\nallows workers to pass through while confining dust and debris to the\r\nwork area.\r\n Some commenters agreed with the proposed procedures. One commenter\r\nagreed that with containment, dust can be contained and cleaned up\r\nsufficiently to pass the wipe test screening results. Another commenter\r\nsupported the use of standard containment and cleaning practices known\r\nto reduce dust lead levels on both interior and exterior surfaces and\r\nto protect soils and gardens surrounding the house.\r\n Some commenters asserted that the containment procedures were not\r\nstringent enough. Some suggested that EPA follow the HUD Guidelines\r\nwith respect to exterior containment requirements. Others asked EPA to\r\nstrengthen exterior containment requirements by specifying that containment\r\nextend at least twenty feet to collect all debris and residue and that\r\n\r\n[[Page 21730]]\r\n\r\nthe rule address circumstances such as wind and rain. One commenter\r\nasserted that allowing the certified renovator complete discretion to\r\ndetermine what is appropriate renders the worksite containment\r\nrequirements completely unenforceable and asked EPA to consider\r\nproviding a minimum performance standard that all renovators must meet.\r\nEPA agrees that a minimum performance standard is necessary and that is\r\nwhy under this final rule EPA is requiring certified renovators to\r\nestablish containment that prevents dust and debris from leaving the\r\nwork area. In addition, in this rule EPA has established minimum\r\ncontainment requirements for both interior and exterior renovation\r\nrequirements. While the certified renovator has discretion regarding\r\nthe specific components and extent of containment, the renovator and\r\nfirm will be in violation of this final rule if dust or debris leaves\r\nthe work area for both interior and exterior renovations. If dust or\r\ndebris migrates beyond the work area, that migration constitutes a\r\nviolation of the rule. Accordingly, EPA does not agree with the\r\ncommenter that the rule is unenforceable.\r\n This final rule provides the certified renovator with some\r\ndiscretion to define the specific size and configuration of the\r\ncontainment to accommodate the variability in size and scope of\r\nrenovations. EPA considered requiring that in all cases the entire room\r\nin which a renovation is occurring be contained, but concluded that\r\ndoing so would be unwarranted. For example, a small manual sanding job\r\nin a large room would not necessarily require full room containment to\r\nisolate the work area. EPA has concluded that the most appropriate\r\napproach is to impose a minimum size for containment coupled with a\r\nperformance standard--preventing dust or debris from leaving the\r\nworkarea--and to prescribe with reasonable specificity the containment\r\nmeasures that are required--e.g., use of plastic of other impermeable\r\nmaterial, removal or covering of objects in the work area - but to\r\nprovide some measure of discretion with regards to the case-specific\r\napproaches to containment.\r\n In response to EPA's request for comments on whether there are any\r\nsituations where some or all of the proposed work practices are not\r\nnecessary, commenters suggested that work practices were not needed\r\nduring a gut rehabilitation, although two of the commenters suggested a\r\nwaiver rather than an exemption in these situations. Several commenters\r\nthought that work in unoccupied structures should not require the use\r\nof lead safe work practices, or should have an adapted set of work\r\npractices. A commenter opined that certain interior containments may\r\nnot be necessary in vacant and empty housing, but that exterior work\r\nalways should use lead safe work practices to protect the environment\r\nand neighborhood. A commenter stated that there are certain activities\r\ncommon to multifamily and rental housing that warrant special\r\nconsideration from the Agency. For example, simple painting activities\r\nthat occur when rental properties turn over should not require a full\r\nsuite of work practices, particularly given that most state laws\r\nrequire apartment owners to paint each unit at turnover. The commenter\r\nsuggested that EPA consider a less restrictive set of guidelines for\r\nthose properties simply undergoing routine painting during the turnover\r\nprocess.\r\n EPA believes that whole house gut rehabilitation projects may\r\ndemolish and rebuild a structure to a point where it is effectively new\r\nconstruction. In this case, it would not be a modification of an\r\nexisting structure, and therefore not a renovation. However, a partial-\r\nhouse gut rehabilitation such as a kitchen or bathroom gut rehabilitation\r\nproject clearly falls within the scope of this final rule.\r\n EPA disagrees that temporarily unoccupied or vacant housing should\r\nbe per se exempt from the requirements of this final rule. EPA's\r\nprimary concern with exempting renovations in such housing from the\r\nwork practices required by this final rule is the exposure to returning\r\nresidents to lead-based paint hazards created by the renovation.\r\nHowever, EPA recognizes that if no child under 6 or no pregnant woman\r\nresides there, the owner-occupant may so state in writing and the\r\nrequirements of this rule would not apply. In addition, for routine\r\npainting, such as at unit turnover, if such painting activity does not\r\ninvolve disturbing more than 6 ft\\2\\ of painted surfaces per room for\r\ninteriors or 20 ft\\2\\ for exteriors, and otherwise meet the definition\r\nof ``minor repair and maintenance,'' the requirements of this final\r\nrule would not apply. EPA cannot see a basis for imposing a less\r\nrestrictive set of requirements for projects that disturb more than 6\r\nft\\2\\ of painted surfaces per room for interiors or 20 ft\\2\\ for exteriors.\r\n Some commenters believed that the Proposal did not adequately\r\naddress the decontamination of workers and equipment involved in a\r\nrenovation. They supported the proposed requirement that all personnel,\r\ntools and other items, including the exteriors of containers of waste,\r\nbe free of dust and debris before leaving the work area. However, they\r\nbelieved that the proposed alternative, covering the paths used to\r\nreach the exterior of the building with plastic, was not sufficiently\r\nprotective. One contended that significant lead dust contamination can\r\nbe tracked or carried out of a work area if workers and equipment are\r\nnot properly decontaminated. This commenter further noted that workers\r\nwith contaminated clothing can take that contamination home to their\r\nown children and taking contaminated equipment to another jobsite could\r\npotentially create a lead hazard at a new site. EPA agrees with these\r\ncommenters and has deleted the alternative language. The final rule\r\nrequires renovation firms to use precautions to ensure that all\r\npersonnel, tools and other items, including the exteriors of containers\r\nof waste, to be free of dust and debris before leaving the work area.\r\nThere are several ways of accomplishing this. For example, tacky mats\r\nmay be put down immediately adjacent to the plastic sheeting covering\r\nthe work area floor to remove dust and debris from the bottom of the\r\nworkers' shoes as they leave the work area, workers may remove their\r\nshoe covers (booties) as they leave the work area, and clothing and\r\nmaterials may be wet-wiped and\/or HEPA-vacuumed before they are removed\r\nfrom the work area.\r\n Finally, in response to a commenter who was concerned about\r\ncontainment not impeding occupant egress in an emergency, EPA has\r\nmodified the regulatory text to specify that containment must be\r\ninstalled in such a manner that it does not interfere with occupant and\r\nworker egress in an emergency. This can be accomplished, as noted in\r\nchapter 17 of the HUD Guidelines, by installing plastic over doors with\r\na weak tape.\r\n 4. Prohibited and restricted practices. The final rule prohibits or\r\nrestricts the use of certain work practices during regulated\r\nrenovations. These practices are open flame burning or torching of\r\nlead-based paint; the use of machines that remove lead-based paint\r\nthrough high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing,\r\nneedle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, unless such machines\r\nare used with HEPA exhaust control; and operating a heat gun above 1100\r\ndegrees Fahrenheit. These are essentially the same practices as are\r\ncurrently prohibited or restricted under the Lead-based Paint\r\nActivities Regulations, 40 CFR 745.227(e)(6), with the exception of dry\r\nhand scraping of lead-based paint. While this final rule and EPA's\r\nLead-Based Paint Activities Regulations do not prohibit or restrict the\r\nuse of volatile paint strippers or\r\n\r\n[[Page 21731]]\r\n\r\nother hazardous substances to remove paint, the use of these substances\r\nare prohibited for use in poorly ventilated areas by HUD's Lead Safe\r\nHousing Rule and they are regulated by OSHA.\r\n EPA did not propose to prohibit or restrict any work practices, but\r\ninstead asked for public comment regarding their prohibition or\r\nrestriction. The Agency was concerned that, because these practices are\r\ncommonly used during renovation work, prohibiting such practices could\r\nmake certain jobs, such as preparing detailed or historic millwork for\r\nnew painting, extremely difficult, if not impossible. In addition, EPA\r\nbelieved that use of the proposed package of training, containment,\r\ncleanup, and cleaning verification requirements would be effective in\r\npreventing the introduction of new lead-based paint hazards, even when\r\nsuch practices were used. EPA is modifying the proposal based on new data\r\nevaluating specific work practices and in response to comments received.\r\n a. The Dust Study. EPA understood when developing the proposed rule\r\nthat considerable data existed showing the potential for significant\r\nlead contamination when lead paint is disturbed by practices restricted\r\nunder EPA's Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations for abatements. EPA\r\nconducted the Dust Study, in part, to determine the effectiveness of\r\nthe proposed work practices. The Dust Study evaluated a variety of\r\nrenovation activities, including activities that involved several\r\npractices restricted or prohibited under the abatement regulations. For\r\nexample, power planing was included in the Dust Study as a\r\nrepresentative of machines that remove lead-based paint through high\r\nspeed operation. Similarly, the Dust Study also included experiments\r\nwith power sanding and a needle gun. Each of these activities generated\r\nvery high levels of dust. The Dust Study thus evaluated the proposed\r\nwork practice standards, using a range of typical practices currently\r\nused by contractors.\r\n In particular, the Dust Study found that renovation activities\r\ninvolving power planing and high temperature heat gun resulted in\r\nhigher post-job renovation dust lead levels than activities using other\r\npractices. The geometric mean post-work, pre-cleaning floor dust lead\r\nlevels in the work room were 32,644 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for power planing\r\nand 7,737 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\ for high temperature heat guns. More\r\nimportantly, in experiments performed in compliance with this rule's\r\nrequirements for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification, the\r\ngeometric mean post-job floor dust lead levels were still 148 [micro]g\/\r\nft\\2\\ for power planing, well over the TSCA section 403 hazard standard\r\nfor floors. While the geometric mean post-job floor dust levels for the\r\n3 similar experiments involving high temperature heat guns, i.e.,\r\nexperiments performed in compliance with this rule's requirements, were\r\n36 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\, the average post-cleaning-verification floor dust\r\nlead levels for the individual experiments were 147.5, 65.5, and less\r\nthan 10 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\. Thus, in 2 of these 3 experiments, the\r\nrequirements of this final rule were insufficient to reduce the floor\r\ndust lead levels below the TSCA section 403 hazard standards for\r\nfloors. In addition, power planing and use of a high temperature heat\r\ngun generated fine particle-size dust that was difficult to clean. In\r\nfact, almost all of the high post-renovation lead levels were\r\nassociated with activities involving power planing and high temperature\r\nheat guns. Moreover, activities involving power planing and high\r\ntemperature heat gun jobs also resulted in higher post-job tool room\r\nand observation room lead levels than other practices.\r\n Thus, while the Dust Study confirmed that most practices prohibited\r\nor restricted under EPA's Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations do\r\nindeed produce large quantities of lead dust, it also demonstrated\r\nthat, with respect to lead-based paint hazards created by machines that\r\nremove lead-based paint through high speed operation and high\r\ntemperature heat guns, the use of the proposed work practices were not\r\neffective at containing or removing dust-lead hazards from the work area.\r\n b. Alternatives to certain practices. As discussed above, in the\r\nproposed rule, EPA stated a concern that, because practices prohibited\r\nor restricted under EPA's Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations are\r\ncommonly used during renovation work, prohibiting or restricting such\r\npractices could make certain jobs, such as preparing detailed or\r\nhistoric millwork for new painting, extremely difficult or, in some\r\ncases, impossible. In response to its request for comment, the Agency\r\nreceived information on techniques including benign strippers, steam\r\nstripping, closed planing with vacuums, and infrared removal that the\r\ncommenter believed are far superior, far safer and far cheaper than\r\nsome of the traditionally prohibited or restricted practices. Another\r\ncommenter noted that window removal and off-site chemical stripping in\r\na well-ventilated setting is an alternative to using heat or mechanical\r\nmethods to remove lead paint on-site. Alternatively, chemical strippers\r\ncan be used on-site, given adequate ventilation and protection for\r\nworkers and building occupants. EPA is therefore persuaded that there\r\nare sufficient alternatives to these practices.\r\n c. Conclusion. Based on the results of the Dust Study and in\r\nresponse to the voluminous persuasive public comments, this final rule\r\nprohibits or restricts the use of the following practices during\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting activities that are subject to the\r\nwork practice requirements of this rule:\r\n \u2022 Open-flame burning or torching.\r\n \u2022 Machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed\r\noperation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun,\r\nabrasive blasting, or sandblasting, unless such machines are used with\r\nHEPA exhaust control.\r\n \u2022 Operating a heat gun above 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.\r\n EPA has concluded that these practices must be prohibited or\r\nrestricted during renovation, repair, and painting activities that\r\ndisturb lead-based paint because the work practices in this final rule\r\nare not effective at containing the spread of leaded dust when these\r\npractices are used, or at cleaning up lead-based paint hazards created\r\nby these practices. Thus, the work practices are not effective at\r\nminimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during\r\nrenovation activities when these activities are used.\r\n This final rule does not prohibit or restrict the use of dry hand\r\nscraping. EPA has concluded based primarily on the Dust Study as\r\ncorroborated by other data described below that it is not necessary to\r\nprohibit or restrict dry scraping because the containment, cleaning,\r\nand cleaning verification requirements of this rule are effective at\r\nminimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovations\r\nand the migration of dust-lead hazards beyond the work area when dry\r\nhand scraping is employed.\r\n The Dust Study evaluated dry hand scraping, which is restricted\r\nunder EPA's lead abatement program. In contrast to the results of the\r\nactivities using power planing and high temperature heat gun, average\r\npost-job dust lead levels in the two experiments in which paint was\r\ndisturbed by dry hand scraping and the work practices required by this\r\nrule were used were below the regulatory dust-lead hazard standard for\r\nfloors. In addition, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and\r\nHealth (NIOSH) conducted a Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) at the\r\nrequest of the Rhode Island Department of Health, and published a final\r\nreport in June of 2000 (Ref. 36). The purpose of the evaluation was to\r\nmeasure worker exposure during various tasks and to\r\n\r\n[[Page 21732]]\r\n\r\ndetermine whether workers were exposed to hazardous amounts of lead-\r\nbased paint. Notably worker exposures were compared when scraping\r\npainted surfaces using wet and dry scraping methods (wet scraping is\r\nthe customary substitute for dry scraping in abatement applications). A\r\ncomparison of worker exposure found statistically equivalent worker\r\nexposures. Based on the NIOSH study, EPA has determined that dry\r\nscraping is the equivalent of its only practical alternative, wet scraping.\r\n In sum, EPA has determined based on the studies described above and\r\nthe persuasive comments, including those summarized below, provided by\r\nthe overwhelming majority of commenters that its approach of\r\nprohibiting or restricting certain practices in combination with the\r\ncontainment, cleaning, and cleaning verification, will be effective in\r\nminimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation\r\nactivities, provide an appropriate measure of consistency with other\r\nregulatory programs, and cause minimal disruption for renovation firms.\r\n i. Substantial exposures. Numerous commenters argued that the rule\r\nshould prohibit certain practices based on potential health hazards,\r\nmany backed up by well-documented scientific studies and proven health-\r\nprotective standards. One commenter stated, after citing several\r\nscientific studies, that removing or disturbing lead paint without\r\nproper controls causes substantial contamination, posing serious risks\r\nto occupants, workers and others. Another cited numerous scientific\r\nstudies demonstrating the adverse public health implications of\r\npermitting these work practices and the availability of alternative\r\nwork methods. Still another cited the EPA renovation and remodeling\r\nstudy and a State of Maryland study as evidence that prohibited work\r\npractices may be associated with elevated blood lead levels. One\r\ncommenter cited health hazard evaluations of residential lead\r\nrenovation work showing that these activities produce hazardous worker\r\nexposures. Another commenter noted that the hazards of activities that\r\nare likely to produce large amounts of lead dust or fumes are well\r\ndocumented, stating that, for example, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-\r\nLead Study found that the odds of a resident child having a blood lead\r\nlevel in excess of 10 [micro]g\/dL increased by 5 times after renovation\r\nusing open flame torching, and by 4.6 times after heat gun use. Another\r\ncommenter was concerned that previously collected data may not account\r\nfor different particle-size distribution, a factor in both the potential\r\ncleaning efficacy of work areas and the toxicology of lead poisoning.\r\n ii. Consistency with other standards. Some commenters urged EPA to\r\nprohibit certain high dust generating practices for the sake of\r\nconsistency with other work practice standards. Numerous commenters\r\nasserted EPA's rule should be consistent with HUD requirements to avoid\r\nconfusion on the part of contractors and to conform to the standard\r\nthat has been in place for nearly 6 years. One commenter noted that the\r\nregulations of several other federal agencies that administer housing\r\nprograms, such as the Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture,\r\nand Veterans Affairs include prohibited practices. Other commenters\r\nnoted that the proposed rule conflicted with OSHA rules and would cause\r\nconfusion among contractors.\r\n Some commenters noted that EPA's proposed rule would conflict with\r\nindividual state or local regulations prohibiting some or all of these\r\npractices. One commenter listed the following states and some cities\r\nthat have prohibited work practices: California, Indiana, Maine,\r\nMassachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont,\r\nWisconsin, Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York City, Rochester,\r\nand San Francisco. Two commenters cited state law in Indiana, under\r\nwhich certain work practices are prohibited and contractors using such\r\nwork practices are committing a Class D felony (422, 449).\r\n Other commenters noted that practices that are prohibited under\r\nEPA's Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations should also be prohibited\r\nfor renovation work in pre-1978 properties, and noted that in\r\ndeveloping the abatement rule EPA demonstrated through its own studies\r\nthat these practices may increase the risk of elevated blood lead\r\nlevels in children.\r\n 5. Waste from renovations. Under this final rule the certified\r\nrenovator or a worker trained by and under the direction of the\r\ncertified renovator is required to ensure that all personnel, tools,\r\nand other items including waste are free of dust and debris when\r\nleaving the work area. The certified renovator or a worker trained by\r\nand under the direction of the certified renovator must also contain\r\nwaste to prevent releases of dust and debris before the waste is\r\nremoved from the work area for storage or disposal. If a chute is used\r\nto remove waste from the work area, it must be covered. At the\r\nconclusion of each work day and at the conclusion of the renovation,\r\nthe certified renovator or a worker trained by and under the direction\r\nof the certified renovator must ensure that waste that has been\r\ncollected from renovation activities is stored under containment, in an\r\nenclosure, or behind a barrier that prevents release of dust and debris\r\nfrom the work area and prevents access to dust and debris. This final\r\nrule also requires the certified renovator or a worker trained by and\r\nunder the direction of the certified renovator transporting lead-based\r\npaint waste from a work site to contain the waste to prevent releases,\r\ne.g., inside a plastic garbage bag. As described in more detail in Unit\r\nIV.D.2.c. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, EPA revised its solid\r\nwaste regulations in 40 CFR parts 257 and 258 to make clear that lead-\r\nbased paint waste generated through renovation and remodeling\r\nactivities in residential settings may be disposed of in municipal\r\nsolid waste landfill units or in construction and demolition (C&D)\r\nlandfills. Requirements for waste disposal may vary by jurisdiction and\r\nstate and local requirements may be more stringent than Federal\r\nrequirements. When disposing of waste, including waste water, from\r\nrenovation activities, the renovation firm must ensure that it complies\r\nwith all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements.\r\n One commenter suggested that EPA should consider requiring that\r\nlead-contaminated waste be stored in a locked area or in a lockable\r\nstorage container. This commenter also suggested that to prevent any\r\nconfusion on what constitutes a covered chute, a definition or\r\nclarification should be provided in the rule. Another commenter\r\nrecommended the use of ``sealed'' rather than ``covered'' chutes for\r\nwaste removal, as a covered chute may not be protective enough to\r\nprevent the release of significant amounts of lead-contaminated dust.\r\nThis final rule requires that waste must be contained to prevent\r\nreleases of dust and debris before the waste is removed from the work\r\narea for storage or disposal. With respect to the use of chutes for\r\nwaste removal, the requirement for a covered chute was proposed merely\r\nto facilitate the removal of bagged or sealed waste so that it is\r\ndeposited in an appropriate waste disposal container and does not fall\r\nto the ground. EPA does not, therefore, believe that this term either\r\nneeds to be further defined or to require the use of a ``sealed'' chute.\r\n EPA understands that renovation projects can generate a\r\nconsiderable amount and variety of waste material. However, EPA\r\nbelieves that the requirements of the final rule protect\r\n\r\n[[Page 21733]]\r\n\r\noccupants and others from potential lead-based paint hazards presented\r\nby this waste. While storing the waste in a locked container is one way\r\nto meet the performance standard of this final rule, EPA does not\r\nbelieve that is necessary to specify that as a requirement. The waste\r\nmay be stored in the work area, which will already be delineated with\r\nsigns cautioning occupants and others to keep out. EPA believes the\r\nowner\/occupants have some responsibility for observing these signs.\r\nRenovation sites pose potential hazards other than lead-based paint\r\nhazards--including the potential fall hazards, sharp protrusions, etc.\r\nIn sum, the certified renovator is responsible for ensuring that lead-\r\ncontaminated building components and work area debris that are stored\r\nunder containment, in an enclosure, or behind a barrier that prevents\r\nrelease of dust and debris and prevents access to the debris. Under\r\nthis final rule the certified renovator must ensure that waste leaving\r\nthe work area is contained (e.g., in a heavy duty plastic bag or sealed\r\nin plastic sheeting) and free of dust or debris. This imposes a\r\nreasonable performance standard without requiring a specific approach.\r\nThe certified renovator is responsible for evaluating the waste\r\ngenerated and the characteristics of the work site to determine the\r\nmost effective way of meeting this standard.\r\n 6. Cleaning the work area--a. Final rule requirements. Under this\r\nfinal rule the certified renovator or a worker under the direction of\r\nthe certified renovator must clean the work area to remove dust, debris\r\nor residue. All renovation activities that disturb painted surfaces can\r\nproduce dangerous quantities of leaded dust. Because very small\r\nparticles of leaded dust are easily absorbed by the body when ingested\r\nor inhaled, it can create a health hazard for children. Unless this\r\ndust is properly removed, renovation and remodeling activities are\r\nlikely to introduce new lead-based paint hazards. Therefore, the rule\r\nrequires prescriptive cleaning practices. Ultimately, improper cleaning\r\ncan increase the cost of a project because additional cleaning may be\r\nnecessary during post-renovation cleaning verification.\r\n This final rule requires that, upon completion of interior\r\nrenovation activities, all paint chips and debris must be picked up.\r\nProtective sheeting must be misted and folded dirty side inward.\r\nSheeting used to isolate contaminated rooms from non-contaminated rooms\r\nmust remain in place until after the cleaning and removal of other\r\nsheeting; this sheeting must then be misted and removed last. Removed\r\nsheeting must be either folded and taped shut to seal or sealed in\r\nheavy-duty bags and disposed of as waste. After the sheeting has been\r\nremoved from the work area, the entire area must be cleaned including\r\nthe adjacent surfaces that are within 2 feet of the work area. The\r\nwalls, starting from the ceiling and working down to the floor, must be\r\nvacuumed with a HEPA vacuum or wiped with a damp cloth. The final rule\r\nrequires that all remaining surfaces and objects in the work area,\r\nincluding floors, furniture, and fixtures be thoroughly vacuumed with a\r\nHEPA vacuum. When cleaning carpets, the HEPA vacuum must be equipped\r\nwith a beater bar to aid in dislodging and collecting deep dust and\r\nlead from carpets. The beater bar must be used on all passes on the\r\ncarpet face during dry vacuuming. This cleaning step is intended to\r\nremove as much dust and remaining debris as possible. After vacuuming,\r\nall surfaces and objects in the work area, except for walls and\r\ncarpeted or upholstered surfaces, must be wiped with a damp cloth. Wet\r\ndisposable cleaning cloths of any color may be used for this purpose.\r\nIn contrast, as discussed in the next section, only wet disposable\r\ncleaning cloths that are white may be used for cleaning verification.\r\nUncarpeted floors must be thoroughly mopped using a 2-bucket mopping\r\nmethod that keeps the wash water separate from the rinse water, or\r\nusing a wet mopping system with disposable absorbent cleaning pads and\r\na built-in mechanism for distributing or spraying cleaning solution\r\nfrom a reservoir onto a floor.\r\n When cleaning following an exterior renovation, all paint chips and\r\ndebris must be picked up. Protective sheeting used for containment must\r\nbe misted with water. All sheeting must be folded from the corners or\r\nends to the middle to trap any remaining dust and either taped shut to seal\r\nor sealed in heavy duty bags. The sheeting must be disposed of as waste.\r\n b. Comments on the cleaning protocol. Several commenters proposed\r\nminor changes to the cleaning procedures. Three commenters recommended\r\nthat daily clean-up be required for projects lasting more than 1 day.\r\nOne commenter stated that all tools and equipment should be cleaned\r\nprior to leaving the job site. One commenter indicated concern that\r\nthere is no mention of wet wiping areas such as window sills. This\r\nfinal rule requires cleaning both in and around the work area to ensure\r\nno dust or debris remains following the renovation. The final rule also\r\nrequires that all personnel, tools, and other items including waste are\r\nfree of dust and debris when leaving the work area. EPA recommends that\r\ncontractors keep work areas as clean and free of dust and debris as\r\npractical. Daily cleaning is a good practice, and it may be necessary\r\nin some cases to ensure no dust or debris leaves the work area as\r\nrequired by this final rule. However, EPA has no basis to believe that\r\ndaily cleaning is necessary in every case or even most cases. EPA also\r\nnotes that the work area must be delineated by signs so that occupants\r\nand others do not enter the area. This final rule requires the work\r\narea to be contained, and to ensure that all tools, personnel, and\r\nother items, including waste, to be free of dust and debris when\r\nleaving the work area. Under this final rule, interior windowsills and\r\nmost other interior surfaces in the work area must be wet wiped. The\r\nexceptions are upholstery and carpeting, which must be vacuumed with a\r\nHEPA vacuum, and walls, which may be wet wiped or vacuumed with a HEPA\r\nvacuum.\r\n Some commenters requested clarification of the requirement to clean\r\n``in and around the work area.'' In response to the two commenters that\r\nnoted that the HUD Guidelines recommend cleaning 2 feet beyond the work\r\narea, EPA has modified the regulatory text to require cleaning of\r\nsurfaces and objects in and within 2 feet of the work area.\r\n One commenter argued that vacuuming was not necessary because 40\r\nCFR 745.85 requires the certified renovator to cover all furnishings\r\nnot removed from the work area, so additional cleaning is unnecessary.\r\nEPA disagrees with this commenter. Carpets and upholstered objects that\r\nremained, covered with plastic, in the work area during the renovation\r\nmust be vacuumed after the plastic is removed to ensure that the\r\nsurfaces did not become contaminated during the renovation due to a\r\nbreach in the containment or during the removal of the containment\r\nduring clean-up.\r\n One commenter asserted that some requirements for cleaning were not\r\nprescriptive enough. The commenter suggested that the rule text, which\r\nstates that the certified renovator or a worker under the direction of\r\nthe certified renovator must ``pick up all paint chips and debris,''\r\ncould be re-worded to state that the certified renovator or a worker\r\nunder the direction of the certified renovator must ``collect all paint\r\nchips, debris, and dust, and, without dispersing any of it, seal this\r\nmaterial in a heavy-duty plastic bag.'' EPA agrees that additional\r\ndetail would be helpful in this instance and has modified the final\r\nrule to include this\r\n\r\n[[Page 21734]]\r\n\r\nrecommendation, with the exception of dust, which is collected when the\r\nprotective sheeting is misted and folded inward.\r\n One commenter stated that the cleaning procedures were excessive\r\nand problematic. This commenter asserted that the two-bucket mopping\r\nsystem is inappropriate for some floor types such as wood floors for\r\nwhich excessive water could damage the floor. The commenter suggested\r\nthat EPA allow a cleaning method employing a dry or damp cloth, or any\r\nother specified methodology, to be used in order to achieve a no dust\r\nor debris level of cleaning. Three commenters asserted that EPA's\r\ndefinition of wet mopping system was too specific. One commenter stated\r\nthat to include ``a long handle, a mop head...'' in the description of\r\nthe wet mopping system is too prescriptive and favors a particular\r\nmodel of commercial product. EPA understands that the two bucket\r\nmopping system may not be appropriate for all floor types due to the\r\nquantity of water involved. However, the HUD Guidelines recommend and\r\nthe Dust Study demonstrates that wet cleaning is best able to achieve\r\ndesired results. This final rule allows for the use of a wet mopping\r\nsystem instead of the two bucket system for the cleaning of flooring.\r\nEPA has included a definition of a wet mopping system in order to allow\r\nthe regulated community to use such a system in place of the\r\ntraditional two-bucket mop method. EPA's Electrostatic Cloth and Wet\r\nCloth Field Study in Residential Housing study (``Disposable Cleaning\r\nCloth Study''), discussed in more detail in Unit IV.E.2. of the 2006\r\nProposal, indicates that a wet mopping system is an effective method\r\nfor cleaning up leaded dust (Ref. 37). EPA believes that allowing the\r\nuse of a wet mopping system like those widely available in a variety of\r\nstores should alleviate concerns regarding the quantity of water used\r\nin the cleanup. In addition, EPA disagrees that the description of a\r\nwet mopping system favors a particular model of commercial product.\r\nRather, it generally describes any number of wet mopping systems widely\r\navailable in most stores. However, to alleviate concerns that a\r\nparticular model of commercial product is preferred, EPA has added the\r\nphrase ``or a method of equivalent efficacy'' to the end of the\r\ndefinition of ``wet mopping system.''\r\n One commenter recommended that instead of referencing a two bucket\r\nmethod, EPA should consider simply stating that a method be used that\r\nkeeps the wash water separate from the rinse water. EPA agrees and has\r\nrevised the regulatory text to specify a method that keeps wash water\r\nseparate from rinse water, giving as an example the two bucket method.\r\n One commenter questioned the requirement to vacuum underneath a rug\r\nor carpet where feasible. The commenter suggested that EPA clarify that\r\nthis does not include permanently affixed wall-to-wall carpeting. The\r\ncommenter notes that it is highly unlikely that the renovation or\r\nremodeling activity conducted in a carpeted room would have created the\r\ndust embedded underneath both the layer of plastic sheeting and the\r\ninstalled carpeting. EPA agrees with this commenter. EPA did not intend\r\nto require vacuuming beneath permanently affixed carpets, i.e., wall to\r\nwall carpeting, but rather that removable rugs should be removed and\r\nthe area beneath vacuumed. However, small, movable, area rugs should be\r\nremoved from the work area prior to the renovation and the floor\r\nbeneath would be cleaned as required under this final rule. Therefore,\r\nin response to this commenter, EPA has deleted the requirement to\r\nvacuum beneath rugs where feasible.\r\n One commenter recommended four options for cleaning carpets:\r\nRemoving the carpet and pad, cleaning the underlying flooring, then\r\nreplacing the carpet and pad; shampooing the carpet using a vacuum\r\nattachment that removes the suds; steam cleaning the carpet using a\r\nvacuum attachment that removes the moisture; or HEPA filtered\r\nvacuuming. This final rule seeks to minimize the introduction of lead-\r\nbased paint hazards to carpeted floors by requiring the certified\r\nrenovator to cover the floor of the work area with plastic sheeting,\r\ncarefully clean up and remove the plastic sheeting following work, and\r\nthoroughly vacuum the carpet using a HEPA vacuum with a beater bar. EPA\r\nbelieves this containment and cleanup protocol will minimize exposure\r\nto lead-based paint hazards created during renovation activities. EPA\r\ndoes not believe a renovation contractor should be responsible for\r\nremoving and replacing carpet in a home when such a requirement was not\r\nwithin the scope of the renovation project. Also, in contrast to the\r\neffectiveness of using a HEPA on carpets, EPA does not have sufficient\r\ndata on steam cleaning or shampooing to evaluate its effectiveness.\r\nWithout data to demonstrate the effectiveness of shampooing or steam\r\ncleaning carpets EPA is not prepared to require these methods be used\r\nin lieu of vacuuming with a HEPA vacuum. EPA further notes that the HUD\r\nlead-safe Housing Rule only requires HEPA vacuuming, not steam cleaning\r\nor shampooing.\r\n c. Vacuums equipped with HEPA filters. Given that the HUD\r\nGuidelines recommend the use of HEPA vacuums and the OSHA Lead in\r\nConstruction standard requires that vacuums be equipped with HEPA\r\nfilters where vacuums are used, EPA proposed requiring the use of HEPA\r\nvacuums in its proposed work practices. Nonetheless, EPA requested\r\ncomment on whether the rule should allow the use of vacuums other than\r\nvacuums equipped with HEPA filters given. Specifically, EPA requested\r\ncomment on whether there are other vacuums that have the same\r\nefficiency at capturing the smaller lead particles as HEPA-equipped\r\nvacuums, along with any data that would support this performance\r\nequivalency and whether this performance specification is appropriate\r\nfor leaded dust cleanup.\r\n i. Background. HEPA filters were first developed by the U.S. Atomic\r\nEnergy Commission during World War II to capture microscopic\r\nradioactive particles that existing filters could not remove. HEPA\r\nfilters have the ability to capture particles of 0.3 microns with\r\n99.97% efficiency. Particles both larger and smaller than 0.3 microns\r\nare easier to catch. Thus, HEPA filters capture those particles at\r\n100%. Available information indicates that lead particles generated by\r\nrenovation activities range in size from over 20 microns to 0.3 microns\r\nor less (Ref. 38).\r\n OSHA recently completed a public review of their Lead in\r\nConstruction standard (Ref. 39). OSHA concluded that the principal\r\nconcerns regarding HEPA vacuums (i.e., cost and availability) have been\r\nsignificantly reduced since the standard was established in 1994. HEPA\r\nvacuum cleaners have an increased presence in the marketplace and their\r\ncost has decreased significantly. Therefore, OSHA continues to require the\r\nuse of HEPA vacuums in work subject to the Lead in Construction Standard.\r\n ii. Final rule requirements. Vacuums used as part of the work\r\npractices being finalized in this final rule must be HEPA vacuums,\r\nwhich are to be used and emptied in a manner that minimizes the reentry\r\nof lead into the workplace. The term ``HEPA vacuum'' is defined as a\r\nvacuum which has been designed with a HEPA filter as the last\r\nfiltration stage. A HEPA filter is a filter that is capable of\r\ncapturing particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency. The vacuum\r\ncleaner must be designed so that all the air drawn into the machine is\r\nexpelled through the filter with none of the air leaking past it.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21735]]\r\n\r\n iii. Comments. Many commenters supported the use of HEPA vacuums.\r\nSome of these commenters supported the requirement that they be used\r\nbecause they are also required by the OSHA Lead in Construction\r\nstandard. One commenter noted that the price of HEPA vacuums had decreased\r\nand were no longer significantly more expensive than non-HEPA vacuums.\r\n Another commenter cited the Dust Study, the NAHB Lead Safe Work\r\nPractices Survey, and several other studies as supporting the\r\nconclusion that lead-safe work practices and modified lead-safe work\r\npractices, along with a two-step or three-step cleaning process using a\r\nHEPA-equipped vacuum and wet washing, greatly reduce dust lead levels\r\nand should be regarded as best management practices for renovation\r\njobs. The commenter notes that the NAHB study found significant\r\nreductions in loading levels after cleanup using HEPA-equipped vacuum\r\nand then either wet washing or using a wet disposable cleaning cloth mop.\r\n One commenter contended that HEPA vacuums with beater bars were not\r\ncurrently available on the market at the time comments were submitted.\r\nHowever, EPA has been able to identify commercial vacuum manufacturers\r\nas well as department store brands that currently offer HEPA vacuums\r\nwith beater bar attachments.\r\n Several commenters noted that vacuum cleaners other than HEPA\r\nvacuums were effective at removing lead dust. They cited several papers\r\nwhich they asserted support their conclusion, including Comparison of\r\nHome Lead Dust Reduction Techniques on Hard Surfaces: The New Jersey\r\nAssessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial (2002) by Rich, et al (Ref.\r\n40), a study by the California Department of Health Services (Ref. 41)\r\nwhich the commenter contends concluded that some non-HEPA vacuums\r\nperformed better than the HEPA units tested, Comparison of Techniques\r\nto Reduce Residential Lead Dust on Carpet and Upholstery: The New\r\nJersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial (2002) by Yiin, et al\r\n(Ref. 42), and Effectiveness of Clean up Techniques for Leaded Paint\r\nDust (1992) by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Ref. 43).\r\n The commenter that cited the Rich, et al paper contended that the\r\nauthors found no clear difference between the efficacy of HEPA and non-\r\nHEPA vacuums on hard surfaces (non-carpeted floors, windowsills, and\r\nwindow troughs), and found that non-HEPA vacuums appeared more\r\nefficient in removing particles on uncarpeted floors, which are the\r\nhard surfaces that may best reflect exposure to children. One commenter\r\nstated that given the research literature demonstrates that there is no\r\nperformance difference in lead dust removal, EPA should allow cleanup\r\nwith either a HEPA or non-HEPA vacuum. Another commenter contended that\r\na vacuum cleaner retrofitted with a HEPA filter rather than a HEPA\r\nvacuum should be required to be used as part of the work practices.\r\n EPA disagrees with the commenters who state that the literature\r\ndoes not demonstrate a difference between HEPA vacuums and non-HEPA\r\nvacuums. In the Yiin, et al study, the authors stated that for carpets,\r\ndata from the ``[Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences\r\nInstitute] vacuum sampling method showed a significant reduction\r\n(50.6%, p = 0.014) in mean lead loading for cleaning using the HEPA\r\nvacuum cleaner but did not result in a significant difference (14.0%\r\nreduction) for cleaning using the non-HEPA vacuum cleaner.'' They also\r\nnote that when they used wipe sampling ``the results indicated that\r\nneither of the cleaning methods yielded a significant reduction in lead\r\nloading.'' EPA believes the results from the wipe sampling method is\r\nless useful because as discussed in Unit III.E.8.iv. of this preamble,\r\nthe Agency believes that wipe sampling on carpets is not a reliable\r\nindicator of the lead-based paint dust in the carpet. The authors\r\nreport that in their study non-HEPA vacuums were more effective than\r\nHEPA vacuums on upholstery but note ``[t]he reduced efficiency of the\r\nHEPA vacuum cleaner in cleaning upholstery [as compared to carpets] may\r\nbe, at least partially, due to the lower pre-cleaning dust lead level\r\nand the smaller sample data set for the HEPA vacuum cleaner than for\r\nthe non-HEPA vacuum cleaner.''\r\n In the Rich, et al study, the authors noted that ``On windowsills,\r\nthe HEPA vacuum cleaner produced 22% (95% CI, 11-32%) larger reductions\r\nthan the non-HEPA vacuum cleaner, and on the window troughs it produced\r\n16% (95% CI, -4 to 33%) larger reductions than the non-HEPA vacuum\r\ncleaner.'' Not only were the percent reductions greater, the post-\r\ncleaning geometric mean lead loadings for the experiments in which the\r\nHEPA vacuums were used was lower than the post-geometric mean lead\r\nloadings for the experiments in which the non-HEPA vacuums were used.\r\nOn hard floors, the authors reported that the non-HEPA vacuum removed\r\nthe largest quantities of lead-based paint dust. They note that this\r\nmay be due in part to the fact that the initial loadings were higher\r\nwhere the non-HEPA vacuums were used (Pre-cleaning geometric mean lead\r\nloadings were 200 and 155 μg\/ft\\2\\ for the two types of experiments\r\nwhere non-HEPA vacuum were used) as compared to the lead loadings for\r\nthe experiments in which the HEPA vacuum was used (Pre-cleaning\r\ngeometric mean lead loading of 100 μg\/ft\\2\\). However, the post-\r\ncleaning geometric mean lead loading for the experiments in which the\r\nHEPA vacuum was used was lower than for either of the two types of\r\nexperiments where non-HEPA vacuums were used. The post-cleaning\r\ngeometric mean lead loading was lower for each set of experiments in\r\nwhich the HEPA vacuum was used. In considering these data, EPA believes\r\nthat the data on the post-cleaning lead loadings are particularly\r\nimportant. In assessing the performance of cleaning methods, it is not\r\nonly the percent reduction that is important but also the ability to\r\nclean down to very low levels. Several studies have demonstrated that\r\nreducing lead loadings from relatively high levels to about 100 ug\/\r\nft\\2\\ is more readily accomplished than reductions below 100 ug\/ft\\2\\\r\nand becomes progressively harder at lower levels (Ref. 44).\r\n One commenter stated that EPA did not have sufficient evidence\r\nshowing that HEPA vacuums are significantly better at removing lead\r\ndust than non-HEPA vacuums and cited a Canadian Mortgage and Housing\r\nCorporation study from 1992 (Ref. 43). That study was a laboratory\r\nstudy done in a dynamic chamber under controlled conditions and used\r\nsimulated lead dust. Lead stearate, a compound not typically used in\r\nlead-based paint, was used to spike the construction dust used in the\r\nexperiments. This study has various limitations. It focused on how much\r\nof the quantity of leaded dust applied to a surface was present in the\r\nvacuum bag after vacuuming. There was no assessment of the size of the\r\ndust particles collected. Most importantly, the study did not measure\r\nthe quantity of leaded dust that remained on the floor. Without this\r\ndata, the efficacy of the non-HEPA vacuums cannot be assessed. In\r\naddition, the study is not very informative as to what will occur under\r\nreal world conditions.\r\n Two years later, the same group (Ref. 45) studied 20 test rooms\r\nwhere they produced lead-containing dust by power sanding walls of\r\nknown lead levels. Four cleaning methods were used, of which only two\r\nproduced acceptable results. The two cleaning methods that did not\r\nproduce acceptable clean-ups were: (1) Dry sweeping the floor with a\r\ncorn broom followed by vacuuming with a utility vacuum; and (2)\r\nvacuuming the floor with a household\r\n\r\n[[Page 21736]]\r\n\r\nvacuum cleaner followed by wet mopping with a commercial household\r\ncleaner. The other two methods that achieved clean-ups resulting in\r\nfloors that passed dust clearance testing were: (3) vacuuming the floor\r\nwith a utility vacuum followed by wet mopping with a 2% solution of a\r\ncommercial lead-cleaning product, followed by a rinse with clean water;\r\nand (4) vacuuming with a HEPA vacuum, followed by wet mopping with\r\ntrisodium phosphate, followed by a clean water rinse, followed by more\r\nvacuuming with a HEPA vacuum. The report concludes that ``. . .Cleaning\r\nMethods 1 and 2 were inadequate to meet the cleanliness criteria. . .''\r\nLater it states ``Cleaning Methods 3 and 4 did meet both the current\r\nand proposed HUD criteria.''\r\n The same commenter also referred to a report submitted to HUD by\r\nthe California Department of Health Services (Ref. 41). This study\r\nevaluated a range of vacuums. The efficacy of the non-HEPA vacuums\r\nvaried, particularly in comparison with the HEPA vacuums. The authors\r\nof the report did not identify the attributes of the non-HEPA vacuums\r\nthat were instrumental in determining their effectiveness. At best,\r\nvacuums that were effective at picking up and retaining lead-based\r\npaint dust could be classified as high performing although there were\r\nno criteria that could be discerned on what made a high performing\r\nvacuum. The report also states that HEPA models without floor tool\r\nbrushes performed poorly. This may be the case. The HEPA vacuums used\r\nin EPA's Dust Study performed adequately and all of these vacuums were\r\nequipped with flip down brushes on the floor tool.\r\n The California report contained another finding of interest. ``Of\r\nspecial concern is the direct observation under the scanning electron\r\nmicroscope of lead dust particles dissolving on exposure to water to\r\nrelease large numbers of sub-micron lead particles. Although requiring\r\nfurther study, this effect suggests that vacuuming to remove most of\r\nthe water soluble lead dust, followed by wet-washing would be the best\r\ncleaning strategy.'' The cleaning protocol in this final rule follows\r\nthis strategy by requiring, for all surfaces in and around the work\r\narea except for walls, HEPA vacuuming, followed by wet wiping or wet\r\nmopping, followed by the cleaning verification protocol.\r\n EPA has determined that the weight of the evidence provided by\r\nthese studies demonstrate that the HEPA vacuums consistently removed\r\nsignificant quantities of lead-based paint dust and reduced lead\r\nloadings to lower levels then did other vacuums.\r\n While there may be some vacuums cleaners that are as effective as\r\nHEPA vacuums, EPA has not been able to define quantitatively the\r\nspecific attributes of those vacuums. That is, EPA is not able to\r\nidentify what criteria should be used to identify vacuums that are\r\nequivalent to HEPA vacuums in performance. The authors of the studies\r\ndiscussed above do not state that the vacuums used are representative\r\nof all vacuums nor do they try to identify particular aspects of the\r\nnon-HEPA vacuums. Thus, EPA does not believe that it can identify in\r\nthis final rule what types of vacuums can be used as substitutes for\r\nHEPA-vacuums. EPA believes it would be ineffective to identify specific\r\nmakes or models of vacuums (e.g., the ones used in the studies) in this\r\nfinal rule given how quickly manufactures change models, nor would that\r\ntake into account new manufacturers.\r\n EPA also disagrees with the commenter that suggested that vacuums\r\nthat are retrofitted with a HEPA filter should be considered sufficient\r\nfor purposes of this rule. These vacuums are not necessarily properly\r\nsealed or designed so that the air flow goes exclusively through the\r\nHEPA filter. EPA agrees with the commenter who stated that HEPA vacuums\r\nare vacuums which have been designed for the integral use of HEPA\r\nfilters, in which the contaminated air flows through the HEPA filter in\r\naccordance with the instructions of its manufacturer and for which the\r\nperformance standard for the operation of the filter is defined. EPA\r\nalso agrees with those commenters that contended that the rule should\r\ncontain a more-specific definition of HEPA vacuum. Accordingly, this\r\nfinal rule defines ``HEPA vacuum'' as a vacuum which has been designed\r\nwith a HEPA filter as the last filtration stage and includes a\r\ndescription of what the term HEPA means. The definition of ``HEPA\r\nvacuum'' also specifies that the vacuum cleaner must be designed so\r\nthat all the air drawn into the machine is expelled through the filter\r\nwith none of the air leaking past it.\r\n Furthermore, EPA agrees that OSHA's requirement that HEPA vacuums\r\nshould be an important consideration in determining whether HEPA\r\nvacuums should be required to be used as part of the work practices\r\nbeing finalized today. Because OSHA's standard covers practically all\r\nwork subject the to EPA's final Renovation, Repair, and Painting\r\nprogram regulations, and applies to all firms having an employee\/\r\nemployer relationship with few exceptions, there is no reason to create\r\na separate standard for those firms not subject to the OSHA standard,\r\nparticularly in light of the data on the efficacy of HEPA vacuums\r\nversus non-HEPA vacuums discussed above. Even if EPA were able to\r\ndefine vacuums that were acceptable substitutes to HEPA vacuums, it is\r\nnot clear that the benefits would outweigh the complications associated\r\nwith creating an EPA standard that is different than that required by OSHA.\r\n 7. Cleaning verification. This final rule requires the certified\r\nrenovator to use disposable cleaning cloths after cleaning both as a\r\nfine cleaning step and as verification that the containment and\r\ncleaning have sufficiently cleaned up the lead-paint dust created by\r\nthe renovation activity. Cleaning verification's usefulness is based on\r\nthe combination of its fine cleaning properties and the fact that it\r\nprovides feed-back to the certified renovator on the effectiveness of\r\nthe cleaning. Cleaning verification is an important component of the\r\nwork practices set forth in this rule and contributes to the\r\neffectiveness of the combination of training, containment, cleaning and\r\nverification at minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created\r\nduring renovation, remodeling and painting activities.\r\n a. Background. As described in greater detail in Unit IV.E.2. of\r\nthe preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3), EPA began looking for an\r\nalternative to dust clearance sampling that would be quick,\r\ninexpensive, reliable, and easy to perform. EPA believed that a\r\nverification method was needed because studies have consistently shown\r\nthat interior visual clearance resulted in a high percentage of false\r\nnegatives, that is falsely indicating that lead loadings were below the\r\nstandards used. This occurred even when using a clearance standard of\r\n100 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\.\r\n i. Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study. The Disposable Cleaning Cloth\r\nStudy used commercially available disposable cleaning cloths to\r\ndetermine whether variations of a ``white glove'' test could serve as\r\nan effective alternative (Ref. 37). White disposable wet and dry\r\ncleaning cloths were used to wipe windowsills and wipe floors, then\r\nthey were examined to determine whether dust was visible on the cloth.\r\nThis determination was made by visually comparing the cloth to a\r\nphotographic standard that EPA developed to correlate to a level of\r\ncontamination that is at or below the dust-lead hazard standard in 40\r\nCFR 745.65(b). Cloths that matched or were lighter than the\r\nphotographic standard were considered to have achieved ``white glove.''\r\nThis series of studies found that on uncarpeted floors, 91.5% of the\r\nsurfaces\r\n\r\n[[Page 21737]]\r\n\r\nthat achieved ``white glove'' using only dry cloths were confirmed by\r\ndust wipe sampling to be below the dust lead hazard standard for\r\nfloors, while 97.3% of the floors that achieved ``white glove'' using\r\nonly wet cloths were also below the hazard standard. In addition, 10 of\r\nthe 11 floors where ``white glove'' was not achieved using dry cloths,\r\nand 20 of the 21 floors where ``white glove'' was not achieved using\r\nwet cloths, were nonetheless below the dust lead hazard standard. There\r\nwere very few instances where ``white glove'' was achieved but the dust\r\nlead level was above the dust lead hazard standard. Thus, the study\r\nshowed that for floors, the white glove test results were biased\r\ntowards false positives. Windowsills were also tested. For the dry\r\ncloth protocol, 96.4% of the sills that achieved ``white glove'' were\r\nalso confirmed by dust wipe sampling to be below the dust lead hazard\r\nstandard for windowsills, and the one sill that did not achieve ``white\r\nglove'' was also below the standard. For the wet cloth protocol, all of\r\nthe sills that achieved ``white glove'' were also below the dust lead\r\nhazard standard, as were the four sills that did not reach ``white glove.''\r\n Based on the results of the Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, the\r\n2006 Proposal included for interior renovations, as part of the work\r\npractices, a post-renovation cleaning verification process that would\r\nfollow the visual inspection and cleaning. Cleaning verification would\r\nconsist of wiping the interior windowsills and uncarpeted floors with\r\nwet disposable cleaning cloths and, if necessary dry disposable\r\ncleaning cloths, and comparing each to a cleaning verification card\r\ndeveloped and distributed by EPA.\r\n ii. The Dust Study. The Dust Study (Ref. 17), which is described\r\nelsewhere in this preamble, assessed the proposed work practices. As\r\none component of the proposed work practices, the cleaning verification\r\nwas evaluated in the Dust Study. It should be noted that the Dust Study\r\nwas not designed specifically to evaluate the cleaning verification in\r\nisolation of the rest of the work practices. Unlike the earlier\r\nDisposable Cleaning Cloth Study that was intended to test the\r\neffectiveness of the use of the ``white glove'' test in isolation, the\r\nDust Study was meant to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed work\r\npractices, including cleaning verification. Unlike the earlier\r\nDisposable Cleaning Cloth Study, the Dust Study involved actual\r\nrenovations performed by local renovation contractors who received\r\ninstruction in how to perform cleaning verification and then were left\r\nalone to determine whether cleaning cloths matched or were lighter than\r\nthe cleaning verification card. In order to maximize the information\r\ncollected about cleaning verification in the Dust Study, cleaning\r\nverification was conducted after each experiment, not just those\r\nexperiments that were being conducted in accordance with the proposed\r\nrule requirements for containment and cleaning.\r\n One of the Dust Study conclusions was that cleaning verification\r\nresulted in decreases in lead levels, but was not always accurate in\r\nidentifying the presence of levels above EPA dust lead hazard standards\r\nfor floors and sills. This refers to the experiments involving power\r\nplaning and high temperature heat guns. An examination of the cleaning\r\nverification data in the study shows that, if power planing and high\r\ntemperature heat gun experiments are excluded, the values for post-\r\nrenovation cleaning verification when the proposed rule work practices\r\nwere used were at or below the regulatory hazard standard for floors,\r\noften significantly below the regulatory hazard standard. These results\r\nwere similar for windowsills. Excluding power planing and high\r\ntemperature heat gun experiments, all of the post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification windowsill sample averages for experiments conducted in\r\naccordance with the proposed rule requirements were below the\r\nregulatory dust lead hazard standard for windowsills. In addition, 26\r\nof the 30 other experiments (using only some elements of the proposed\r\ncontainment and cleaning requirements) not involving power planing or\r\nhigh temperature heat guns had post-renovation cleaning verification\r\nsill sample averages well below the hazard standards.\r\n b. Cleaning verification as an alternative to clearance testing. In\r\ndetermining whether cleaning verification could be seen as a\r\nqualitative alternative to clearance testing, EPA considered both the\r\nDisposable Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust Study. Even though the\r\nDisposable Cleaning Cloth Study showed that the cleaning verification\r\ncloths that reached ``white glove'' were approximately 91% to 97%\r\nlikely to be below the regulatory hazard standard, EPA believes the\r\ngreater variability seen in the Dust Study, particularly in the\r\nexperiments where the complete suite of proposed work practices were\r\nnot used does not support the characterization of cleaning verification\r\nas a direct substitute for clearance testing. Cleaning verification,\r\nwhen used apart from the other work practices, is not as reliable a\r\ntest for determining whether the hazard standard has been achieved as\r\nclearance testing. However, the Dust Study supports the validity of\r\ncleaning verification as an effective component of the work practices.\r\nThe cleaning and feedback aspects of cleaning verification are\r\nimportant to its contribution to the effectiveness of the work practices.\r\n c. Final rule requirements. Based on a review of the Dust Study and\r\nthe Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, EPA concluded that if the\r\npractices prohibited in this final rule are avoided and the required\r\nwork practices are followed, then cleaning verification is an effective\r\ncomponent of the work practices. EPA believes that the suite of work\r\npractices as a whole are effective at addressing the lead-paint dust\r\nthat is generated during renovation, repair, and painting preparation\r\nactivities. Therefore, the final rule does not require dust clearance\r\nsampling after any renovations, nor does it allow the signs delineating\r\nthe work area to be removed based solely on the results of a visual\r\ninspection. The final rule does require a certified renovator to\r\nperform a visual inspection to determine whether dust, debris, or\r\nresidue is still present in the work area, and, if these conditions\r\nexist, they must be eliminated by re-cleaning and another visual\r\ninspection must be performed. In addition, the rule requires that after\r\nan interior work area passes the visual inspection, the cleaning of\r\neach windowsill and uncarpeted floor within the work area must be\r\nverified, as explained below. After an exterior work area passes the\r\nvisual inspection, the renovation has been properly completed. In\r\nresponse to one commenter who was concerned about the dust that could\r\ncollect on exterior windowsills during exterior projects, the final\r\nrule clarifies that the visual inspection must confirm that no dust,\r\ndebris or residue remains on surfaces in and below the work area,\r\nincluding windowsills and the ground.\r\n For interior renovations, after the work area has been cleaned and\r\nhas passed a visual inspection, a certified renovator must wipe each\r\ninterior windowsill in the work area with a wet disposable cleaning\r\ncloth and compare the cloth to a cleaning verification card developed\r\nby EPA. If the cloth matches or is lighter than the image on the card,\r\nthat windowsill has passed the post-renovation cleaning verification.\r\nIf the cloth is darker than the image on the card, that windowsill must\r\nbe re-cleaned in accordance with Sec. 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B) and (C) and\r\nthe certified renovator must wipe that windowsill with a new wet cloth,\r\nor the same one folded so that an unused surface is exposed, and\r\ncompare it to\r\n\r\n[[Page 21738]]\r\n\r\nthe cleaning verification card. If the cloth matches or is lighter than\r\nthe card, that windowsill has passed. If not, the certified renovator\r\nmust then wait for one hour after the surface was wiped with the second\r\nwet cleaning verification cloth or until the surface has dried,\r\nwhichever is longer. Then, the certified renovator must wipe the\r\nwindowsill with a dry disposable cleaning cloth. Based on the Dust\r\nStudy, EPA concluded that this process need not be repeated after the\r\nfirst dry cloth. At that point, that windowsill has passed the post-\r\nrenovation cleaning verification process. Each windowsill in the work\r\narea must pass the post-renovation cleaning verification process.\r\n The cleaning verification protocol in the final rule is similar to\r\nwhat was in 2006 Proposal. By not requiring the surface to be re-\r\ncleaned after the second wet wipe and by ending the cleaning\r\nverification process after one dry cloth, this final rule is different\r\nfrom the Proposal. The 2006 Proposal required that the dry cloths be\r\nused until one passed verification (i.e., reached ``white glove'').\r\nEPA's final rule does not require more than one dry cloth because only\r\n3 experiments out of the 60 performed in the Dust Study failed the\r\nsecond wet cloth. None of these 3 experiments were performed in\r\naccordance with the requirements of this final rule; all experiments\r\nperformed in accordance with the requirements of this final rule passed\r\nafter either the first or second wet cloth. Based on the Dust Study, it\r\nis unlikely that dust containing lead will remain in excess of the\r\nhazard standard following two wet and one dry wipes; however EPA is\r\nconcerned about the possibility of requiring potentially indefinite\r\ncleaning by renovation contractors, with the potential of making them\r\nresponsible for cleaning up pre-existing dirt or grime, whether lead-\r\ncontaminated or not.\r\n After the windowsills in the work area have passed the post-\r\nrenovation cleaning verification, a certified renovator must proceed\r\nwith the cleaning verification process for the floors and countertops\r\nin the work area. A certified renovator must wipe no more than 40 ft\\2\\\r\nof floor or countertop area at a time with a wet disposable cleaning\r\ncloth. For floors, the renovator must use an application device\r\nconsisting of a long handle and a head to which a wet disposable\r\ncleaning cloth is attached. If the floor and countertop surfaces in the\r\nwork area exceed 40 ft\\2\\, the certified renovator must divide the\r\nsurfaces into sections, each section being no more than 40 ft\\2\\, and\r\nperform the post-renovation cleaning verification on each section\r\nseparately. If the wet cloth used to wipe a particular section of\r\nsurface matches or is lighter than the image on the cleaning\r\nverification card, that section has passed the post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification. If, however, on the first wiping of a section of the\r\nsurface, the wet cloth does not match and is darker than the image on\r\nthe cleaning verification card, the surface of that section must be re-\r\ncleaned in accordance with Sec. 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B) and (C). After re-\r\ncleaning, the certified renovator must wipe that section of the surface\r\nagain using a new wet disposable cleaning cloth. If the second wet\r\ncloth matches or is lighter than the image on the cleaning verification\r\ncard, that section of the floor has passed. If the second wet cloth\r\ndoes not match and is darker than the image on the verification card,\r\nthe certified renovator must wait for 1 hour or until the surface has\r\ndried, whichever is longer. Then, the certified renovator must wipe\r\neach of those 40 ft\\2\\ sections of the floor or countertop surfaces\r\nthat did not achieve post-renovation cleaning verification using the\r\nwet cloths with a dry disposable cleaning cloth. On floors, this wiping\r\nmust also be performed using an application device with a long handle\r\nand a head to which the dry cloth is attached. At that point, the\r\nfloors and countertops have passed the post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification process and the warning signs may be removed.\r\n In finalizing the work practices in this final rule, EPA has taken\r\ninto consideration safety, reliability and effectiveness. EPA has\r\nconcluded that these work practices, including cleaning verification,\r\nare an effective and reliable method for minimizing exposure to lead-\r\nbased paint hazards created by the renovation, both during and after\r\nthe renovation.\r\n d. Comments. EPA received many comments on cleaning verification.\r\nThe majority of the comments supported the use of dust wipe clearance\r\ntesting and did not consider cleaning verification as a suitable\r\nsubstitute. Some of these commenters supported the use of dust wipe\r\nclearance testing for purposes of clearance. Some commenters did not\r\nsupport either dust wipe clearance testing or cleaning verification;\r\nthey contended that visual inspection alone was sufficient and that\r\ndust clearance testing is too costly. Others questioned whether\r\ncleaning verification had been demonstrated to be valid, reliable, and\r\neffective in establishing that the work area had been adequately\r\ncleaned or that the clearance standards were met. Some contended that\r\nthe cleaning verification method showed promise, but should be\r\nsubjected to additional testing, including field trials, to demonstrate\r\nits effectiveness when used by certified renovators. A minority of\r\ncommenters supported the use of cleaning verification. Some supported\r\nits use rather than dust wipe-clearance testing and clearance,\r\nparticularly given that renovations are not intended to remove lead-\r\nbased paint. Some supported cleaning verification because it is faster,\r\neasier to implement, and less expensive than clearance testing.\r\n i. Cleaning verification is not a substitute for clearance testing.\r\nMany commenters contended that cleaning verification is not a\r\nsubstitute technology for dust-wipe clearance testing and should not be\r\nused in this manner. EPA agrees with the commenters. As discussed in\r\nUnit III.E.8.b., based on a careful consideration of the Disposable\r\nCleaning Cloth Study and the Dust Study, EPA has concluded that, in\r\nitself, cleaning verification should not be used as a substitute for\r\ndust wipe clearance testing.\r\n ii. Dust clearance testing and clearance. Many commenters asserted\r\nthat the rule should require dust clearance testing instead of the\r\ncleaning verification. Some further contended that dust clearance\r\ntesting is the only proven method for verifying lead dust levels.\r\nOthers supported the use of dust wipe clearance testing for purposes of\r\nclearance for the renovation. One commenter noted that even when dust\r\nclearance testing is performed it is not uncommon for clearance to be\r\nconducted up to three times on a home to make sure that lead levels are\r\nsufficiently low. Some commenters suggested that cleaning verification\r\nbe used as a screen before dust clearance testing. Other commenters\r\ncontended that dust clearance testing should not be required because it\r\nis expensive and time consuming and is an obstacle to completing the\r\nrenovation job. Other commenters contended that dust clearance testing\r\nhas been done in some jurisdictions quickly and relatively\r\ninexpensively. A few commenters contended that EPA should not require\r\ndust clearance testing because there is a difference between abatement,\r\nwhich is intended to eliminate lead-based paint hazards, and\r\nrenovations in which the focus should be to not create any new lead-\r\nbased paint hazards. Some commenters asserted that dust clearance\r\ntesting should not be required because this would result in the\r\nrenovator being responsible for existing lead-based paint hazards. One\r\ncommenter used the example of a window replacement\r\n\r\n[[Page 21739]]\r\n\r\nproject to illustrate this point. The commenter argued that, where the\r\nfloor in the work area is in poor condition but outside the scope of\r\nthe renovation contract, the window replacement contractor should not\r\nbe responsible for making sure the floor passes a clearance standard,\r\nwhich may not be possible without modifying the floor.\r\n EPA disagrees that dust clearance testing and clearance should be\r\ncomponents of the renovation activities subject to this final rule.\r\nDust clearance testing is used in abatement to determine whether lead-\r\nbased paint hazards have been eliminated. This test is part of a\r\nspecific process that involves a specialized work force (e.g.,\r\ninspector, risk-assessor), typically removal of residents, and\r\nmodifications to the housing in some instances to eliminate lead-based\r\nhazards (e.g., removing carpet or refinishing or sealing uncarpeted\r\nfloors). Dust clearance testing is needed to determine if lead-based\r\npaint hazards have been eliminated and residents can re-occupy a house\r\nand not be exposed to lead-based paint hazards. As noted by a\r\ncommenter, a home may require clearance testing be conducted up to\r\nthree times before the home is determined to be free of lead-based\r\npaint hazards and it may require that floors be refinished or that\r\ncarpets be replaced.\r\n The Disposal Cleaning Cloth Study showed that wet wipes can pick up\r\naccumulated grime from floors. Applying this to the renovation context,\r\nif EPA were to require clearance, renovators might be held responsible\r\nfor cleaning up pre-existing lead dust hazards that had accumulated in\r\nthe grime on the floor.Based on the Dust Study, EPA has determined that\r\nall of the leaded dust generated by the renovation will have been\r\ncleaned up by two wet wipes followed by one dry wipe, where necessary.\r\nEPA is concerned about the possibility of requiring potentially\r\nindefinite cleaning by renovation contractors, with the potential of\r\nmaking them responsible for cleaning up pre-existing dirt or grime,\r\nwhether lead-contaminated or not. Even assuming EPA has authority to\r\nrequire replacement of carpets and floors under some circumstances as\r\npart of a renovation project, EPA does not think as a policy matter\r\nthat such an approach in which pre-existing hazards must be eliminated\r\nis appropriate. It could fundamentally change the scope of a renovation\r\njob. The time and cost of conducting clearance testing and achieving\r\nclearance is an acceptable part of the time and cost of conducting the\r\nabatement given the goal of an abatement, the range of activities that\r\nare inherent in an abatement, and the activities that are required to\r\nbe conducted to achieve clearance. Given the effectiveness of the work\r\npractices being finalized in this rulemaking, including the role of\r\ncleaning verification in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint dust\r\ngenerated during renovations, dust clearance testing does not provide\r\nthe added value to balance the time and effort and the cost to home and\r\nbuilding owners associated with requiring this additional step to the\r\nwork practices.\r\n As discussed in Unit II.A.6.b., there are many differences between\r\nrenovations and abatements. Renovations are different from abatements\r\nin intent, implementation, type of workforce, workforce makeup,\r\nfunding, and goal. Renovations are focused not on eliminating lead-\r\nbased paint hazards, but rather on making repairs or improvements to a\r\nbuilding. The vast majority of abatements are either done with funding\r\nfrom HUD and\/or a State or local government. In addition, residents are\r\nnot typically present in a residence during an abatement while they are\r\ntypically present in a residence during a renovation. Thus, the purpose\r\nof dust wipe clearance testing and clearance would necessarily be\r\ndifferent if it were used in a renovation than in an abatement. For\r\nabatements, clearance testing and clearance are used to minimize\r\npotential exposure by eliminating lead-based paint hazards after\r\ncompletion of the job. Clearance acts as the means to ensure that\r\nminimization and signal the end of the job. For renovations, given the\r\npresence of residents, the concern is for potential exposure both\r\nduring and after the job. Dust clearance testing and clearance would\r\nonly address the second part of the exposure equation. Thus, dust\r\nclearance testing conducted after renovation activities have been\r\ncompleted would not provide the equivalent determination of potential\r\nexposure that it does for abatement. EPA has considered this difference\r\nas one factor in its determination that given the effectiveness of the\r\nwork practices being finalized in this rulemaking, including the role\r\nof cleaning verification in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint\r\ndust generated during renovations, dust clearance testing does not\r\nprovide the added value to balance the time and effort and the cost to\r\nhome and building owners associated with requiring this additional step\r\nto the work practices.\r\n Although renovators should be required to address lead-based paint\r\ndust generated by renovation activities, the Agency is not requiring\r\nrenovators to take the actions required under the abatement rules to\r\nachieve clearance for lead-based paint dust not associated with the\r\nrenovation and to address housing conditions not associated with the\r\nrenovation.\r\n EPA agrees that having dust wipe samples collected by a qualified\r\nperson and analyzed by a qualified laboratory is an effective way to\r\ndetermine the quantity of lead in dust remaining after a renovation\r\nactivity, but it would not necessarily show that the dust was due to\r\nthe specific renovation activity. EPA also notes that in addition to\r\nproviding a numerical value, dust clearance testing costs more than\r\ncleaning verification and takes longer to produce results. Results can\r\ntake from 24 to 48 hours or longer and cleaning, sampling and analysis\r\nmay have to be repeated depending upon the initial results. During this\r\nperiod, the warning signs delineating the work area would need to be\r\nmaintained to protect occupants and others from the risk of exposure to\r\nlead-based paint hazards created by the renovation. Thus, EPA believes\r\nthat dust clearance sampling is a poor fit for renovation work for a\r\nvariety of reasons, including the greater expense associated with\r\nclearance testing, the time necessary to obtain the results of the\r\ntesting and the consequent delay in the completion of the job, and the\r\npotential to expand the scope of the renovation.\r\n EPA believes that dust clearance testing and clearance are not\r\nnecessary given that the Dust Study demonstrates that cleaning\r\nverification, as an effective component of the work practices,\r\nminimizes exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by the\r\nrenovation, both during and after the renovation. The cleaning and\r\nfeedback aspects of cleaning verification are important to its\r\ncontribution to the effectiveness of the work practices. EPA notes that\r\nunlike dust wipe clearance testing in which a small part of the work\r\narea would be tested, cleaning verification is conducted over the whole\r\nwork area. Each repetition of the cleaning verification protocol\r\nfurther cleans the surface.\r\n The work practices, including cleaning verification, required by\r\nthis final rule are expected to minimize exposure to any newly created\r\nlead-based paint hazards created by a renovation by removing newly\r\ndeposited dust, while requiring cleanup of pre-existing hazards only\r\nincidentally, to the extent such cleanup is unavoidable to address the\r\nnewly created hazards. The Dust Study demonstrates that the cleaning\r\nverification protocol, used in\r\n\r\n[[Page 21740]]\r\n\r\nconjunction with the other work practices in this final rule, is\r\neffective and reliable in achieving this result.\r\n While the requirements of this rule will, in some cases, have the\r\nancillary benefit of removing some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, it\r\nstrikes the proper balance of addressing the lead-based paint hazards\r\ncreate during the renovation but at the same time not requiring\r\nrenovators to remediate or eliminate hazards that are beyond the scope\r\nof the work they were hired to do.\r\n iii. Visual inspection in lieu of cleaning verification. Some\r\ncommenters urged EPA to require only visual inspection of the work area\r\nafter the cleaning following a renovation. They contend that cleaning\r\nverification is not needed. Some commenters argued that thorough\r\ncleaning in combination with a requirement that no visible dust or\r\ndebris remain is adequate to address the lead dust created by the\r\nrenovation activity. Most of these commenters also noted that because\r\nrenovation and abatement are different that it would be inappropriate\r\nfor EPA to impose additional requirements on renovation firms beyond\r\nvisual inspection. Some commenters contended that the lead dust from a\r\nrenovation is usually in the form of debris such as chips and splinters\r\nthat can be seen with the naked eye, and the presence of this debris is\r\nan indicator to workers that the job site requires additional cleaning\r\nuntil no visible debris remains.\r\n One commenter contended that cleaning after the renovation activity\r\nuntil the worksite passed a visual inspection was the most important\r\ndeterminant of whether a job would pass a dust clearance test. In\r\nsupport of this contention, the commenter cited the Reissman study\r\n(Ref. 22). The commenter contended that the study demonstrates that\r\nwhen there was no visible dust and debris present after completion of\r\nrenovation or remodeling activity, there was no added risk of a child\r\nhaving an elevated blood lead level as compared to the risk for\r\nchildren living in homes where there was no reported renovation or\r\nremodeling work.\r\n Two commenters offered an analysis of two sets of data collected by\r\nan environmental testing firm. One dataset consists of post-renovation\r\ndust samples collected in Maryland apartment units; the other consists\r\nof dust samples collected for risk assessment purposes in 41 states. No\r\ninformation on renovation activity is provided for the second dataset.\r\nThe commenters argue that because 96.7% of the Maryland post-renovation\r\nsamples and 96.1% of the other samples were below the applicable hazard\r\nstandard for the surface (floor or windowsill) tested, this suggests\r\nthat visual inspection in those cases was sufficient to ensure that no\r\ndust-lead hazard existed.\r\n One commenter cited the Dust Study (Ref. 17), the NAHB Lead Safe\r\nWork Practices Survey (Ref. 19), and several other studies as\r\nsupporting the conclusion that lead-safe work practices and modified\r\nlead-safe work practices, along with a two-step or three-step cleaning\r\nprocess using a HEPA-equipped vacuum and wet washing, greatly reduce\r\ndust lead levels and should be regarded as best management practices\r\nfor renovation jobs. The commenter notes that the NAHB study found\r\nsignificant reductions in loading levels after cleanup using HEPA-\r\nequipped vacuum and then either wet washing or using a wet mopping\r\nsystem. The commenter argues that if the work area is cleaned using\r\nthese practices, it is appropriate to adopt a visual clearance standard\r\nallowing no visible dust or debris in the work area at the conclusion\r\nof the job.\r\n Other commenters contended that visual inspection following\r\ncleaning after a renovation is not a reliable method for determining\r\nwhether a lead-based paint hazard remains after cleaning. Some\r\ncommenters cited a study conducted by the National Center for Healthy\r\nHousing (NCHH) showing that 67% of the visual inspections that\r\ninitially passed failed when checked more carefully and 54% that\r\neventually passed a visual inspection were found to be above the hazard\r\nstandard. However, one commenter contended this was a poorly conducted\r\nstudy. Another commenter referred to the study ``An Evaluation of the\r\nEfficacy of the Lead Hazard Reduction Treatments Prescribed in Maryland\r\nEnvironmental Article 6-8'' conducted by NCHH for the Baltimore City\r\nHealth Department in which 53% of housing identified by visual\r\ninspection as being below the hazard standard was actually above the\r\nhazard standard. Another commenter argued that NIOSH research indicates\r\nthat significant lead contamination may remain on surfaces that appear\r\nclean.\r\n During inter-Agency review, one commenter pointed to 2007 studies\r\nfrom Maryland and Rochester, New York that they contend show trained\r\nworkers and visual inspection for dust and debris can achieve 85-90%\r\ncompliance with the hazard standards following renovations in\r\npreviously occupied housing. Given the lateness of the submission, EPA\r\ndid not review this information. However, EPA notes that in a cover\r\nletter, the commenter states that the 2007 Maryland Study was conducted\r\nby workers that had taken a 2-day training course, which is more\r\ntraining than required by this rule. Even if the studies do demonstrate\r\nthis effectiveness by highly trained workers, EPA does not believe that\r\na 85-90% effectiveness is sufficiently protective for residents.\r\n EPA disagrees with those commenters that contended that a visual\r\ninspection following cleaning after a renovation is sufficient to\r\nensure the lead-based paint dust generated by a renovation has been\r\nsufficiently cleaned-up. The weight-of-the-evidence clearly\r\ndemonstrates that visual inspection following cleaning after a\r\nrenovation is insufficient at detecting dust-lead hazards, even at\r\nlevels significantly above the regulatory hazard standards. Further,\r\nEPA disagrees with the implication that easily visible paint chips and\r\nsplinters are necessarily the primary materials generated during a\r\nrenovation. EPA studies, including the Dust Study, show that renovation\r\nactivities generate dust as well as chips and splinters. Finally, EPA\r\ndisagrees with those commenters who requested the work practices in\r\nthis final rule not include any verification beyond visual inspection.\r\nIn the Dust Study, there were 10 renovations performed in accordance\r\nwith the 2006 proposed work practices that did not involve practices\r\nprohibited by this final rule. Of those 10 renovations, 5 needed the\r\nadditional cleaning verification step in order to achieve EPA's\r\nregulatory dust-lead hazard standards for floors. (EPA notes that the\r\nDust Study Protocol did not explicitly specify that all dust and debris\r\nbe eliminated prior to the cleaning verification step, only that\r\nvisible debris be removed. However, the contractor running the study\r\nfor EPA reported that, in practice, the renovators participating in the\r\nstudy eliminated all visible dust and debris as part of their typical\r\ncleaning regimen. Thus, the study protocol was slightly different from\r\nthe rule requirements, which state that the renovation firm must remove\r\nall dust and debris and conduct a visual inspection before beginning\r\nthe cleaning verification procedure.)\r\n EPA does not believe that the Reissman, et al. study is supportive\r\nof the contention that visual inspection of the work area is sufficient\r\nbecause it did not evaluate the effectiveness of a visual inspection\r\nrequirement. The study did not measure dust lead levels, which are the\r\nbasis for this rule. Instead, it characterized the relationships\r\nbetween elevated blood lead levels and renovation dust and debris that\r\nspread throughout the housing. EPA notes that Reissman, et al.\r\nconcluded that there\r\n\r\n[[Page 21741]]\r\n\r\nwas a correlation between renovation activities and elevated blood lead\r\nlevels.\r\n EPA concluded that the dataset referenced by one commenter that\r\nconsists of dust samples collected for risk assessment purposes in 41\r\nStates is not informative because there was no information on\r\nrenovation activity collected with these dust samples. With respect to\r\nthe Maryland renovation study,96.7% is an overstatement. The author who\r\nconducted the analysis stated that:\r\n [W]hen the maximum test values are examined rather than the\r\nmean, 9.8% of the MD sample and 12.5% of the national sample of\r\nproperties with LBP surpassed at least one of the hazard thresholds\r\nof 40 μg\/sf for floors and 250 μg\/sf for sills. As illustrated\r\nin Exhibit 1, a fairly sizable percentage of the lead tests exceed\r\nthe clearance thresholds. The failure rates are about 20 percent\r\nlower for Maryland than for the national LBP sample. However, even\r\nfor Maryland, nearly one in ten apartments would fail the hazard test.\r\n Thus, even if these were the only data available, it would not\r\nsupport the conclusion that visual clearance is effective.\r\n After reviewing the NAHB Lead Safe Work Practices Survey, EPA\r\nconcluded that it does not support the contention that visual\r\ninspection is sufficient to detect whether lead-based paint dust\r\nremains. While EPA agrees that use of a HEPA-vacuum and wet-washing are\r\neffective at cleaning lead-based paint dust, this does not support the\r\ncase for relying on visual inspection without subsequent cleaning\r\nverification. In the NAHB study, the levels of lead-based paint dust\r\nthat remained after the renovation activities were sometimes higher and\r\nsometimes lower than at the start of the renovation, but they were always\r\nat relatively high levels after the renovation--as high as 11,400 ug\/ft\\2\\.\r\n In addition, the two studies conducted by the National Center for\r\nHealthy Housing as noted by commenters demonstrate that visual\r\ninspection was not effective at determining the presence of dust-lead\r\nhazards. The study ``Evaluation of the HUD lead-Based Paint Hazard Control\r\nGrant Program'' study conducted by NCHH corroborates these findings.\r\n iv. Carpets and other horizontal surfaces within the work area.\r\nSome commenters were concerned that cleaning verification is not\r\nintended for use on carpeted floors. They were not confident that\r\nthorough cleaning was adequate to address potential lead hazards that\r\nmight remain in carpet after the renovation. One commenter pointed to\r\nstudies showing a significant correlation between dust lead in carpets\r\nand children's blood lead. As cleaning verification is not required for\r\ncarpet, commenters criticized the lack of a required method for\r\ndetermining that lead hazards in carpet had been eliminated. Commenters\r\nsuggested EPA require clearance testing for carpeted rooms in the work\r\narea, which some argued has been demonstrated to be effective, or rely\r\non the HUD protocol, which they asserted is widely accepted and used.\r\n As discussed in detail in Unit IV.E. of the preamble to the 2006\r\nProposal, EPA did not design cleaning verification for use on carpeted\r\nfloors. This was based on EPA's concerns about the validity of dust\r\nwipe sampling on carpeted floors. EPA noted that the decision to apply\r\nthe clearance standard promulgated in the TSCA section 403 rulemaking\r\nto carpeted floors ultimately had little consequence, given the context\r\nin which clearance standards are used--to ensure that lead-based paint\r\nhazards have been eliminated. Typically, during an abatement, carpets\r\nthat are in poor condition or are known to be highly contaminated are\r\nremoved and disposed. EPA further notes that the HUD Lead-safe Housing\r\nRule only requires HEPA vacuuming, not steam cleaning or shampooing.\r\n While an abatement might require the removal of a lead-contaminated\r\ncarpet, EPA has concluded that it is not appropriate to require carpet\r\nremoval following a renovation. Even assuming EPA has authority to\r\nrequire removal of carpet following a renovation, this could\r\nsignificantly expand the cost of a renovation, and fundamentally expand\r\nthe scope of the renovation activity contracted for by the homeowner or\r\nbuilding owner by requiring removal of carpets as a result of pre-\r\nexisting lead contamination.\r\n Dust Study data on containment and information on the effectiveness\r\nof HEPA vacuums show that the use of containment and post-renovation\r\ncleaning with HEPA vacuums to remove the lead-based paint dust\r\npotentially deposited on the carpets during the renovation would\r\nreliably and effectively address lead-based paint dust generated during\r\na renovation. Thus, rather than rely upon a dust clearance sample that\r\nmay not be accurate and may require the replacement of the carpet for\r\nrenovation projects in which a carpet is present, EPA is finalizing the\r\nwork practices which require containment and the use of a HEPA vacuum\r\nequipped with a beater bar for cleaning.\r\n In the absence of a practical, effective way of determining how\r\nmuch lead dust has been added to a carpet and whether it has been fully\r\nremoved, EPA is adopting a technology-based approach for carpets that\r\ndiffers from the approach used for hard-surfaced floors, by requiring\r\nuse of a HEPA vacuum with a beater bar. EPA is not aware of, and\r\ncommenters have not identified, a practicable approach similar to the\r\none EPA has adopted for floors as a basis to evaluate the results of\r\nthe application of work practice standards to carpets. In the absence\r\nof such an approach, EPA believes the approach adopted today is the\r\nmost effective, reliable approach available for minimizing potential\r\nlead-based paint hazards in carpets created by renovations.\r\n One commenter suggested that cleaning verification be required on\r\nother horizontal surfaces within the work area, in addition to\r\nwindowsills and uncarpeted floors. EPA agrees with this commenter\r\nbecause the Dust Study demonstrated that, in nearly all cases, the\r\ncleaning verification step resulted in lower dust lead levels and, in\r\nmost cases, the verification step was needed in order to achieve\r\ncleanup of all of the leaded dust deposited on the floors by the\r\nrenovation. EPA is also concerned about the possible contamination of\r\nsurfaces that are used to prepare, serve, and consume meals. EPA\r\nexpects that movable surfaces, such as tables and desks, will be moved\r\nfrom the work area before work begins. Therefore, EPA has modified the\r\nrule to require cleaning verification on all countertops in the work area.\r\n v. Reliability of cleaning verification. EPA received comments\r\nprior to the 2007 request for comments on the proposed work practices\r\nin light of the Dust Study. Those pre-Dust Study comments are\r\nsummarized here. Commenters questioned whether cleaning verification\r\nhad been demonstrated to be valid, reliable, effective, or efficient in\r\nestablishing that the work area had been adequately cleaned or that the\r\nclearance standards were met. Some commenters contended that the\r\ncleaning verification method showed promise, but should be subjected to\r\nadditional testing, including field trials, to demonstrate its\r\neffectiveness when used by certified renovators. Commenters on the 2006\r\nProposal observed that the cleaning verification protocol was supported\r\nby a single study that was conducted under conditions unlike those\r\npresented by the typical renovation. Specifically, a commenter noted\r\nthat most of the housing units studied had undergone some form of\r\nabatement that would likely have reduced dust levels and the study used\r\nprofessional inspectors or other highly trained individuals to collect\r\nthe samples according to\r\n\r\n[[Page 21742]]\r\n\r\nspecified protocols. The commenter was concerned that a renovator with\r\nno experience with sample collection and little training could\r\nreplicate the work of the professionals used in the study. The\r\ncommenter pointed out that the study avoided testing the procedure on\r\nrough surfaces, a condition that will frequently occur in real world\r\napplications, and used a different set of wipe protocols than actually\r\nutilized by the EPA in the 2006 Proposal. Another commenter on the 2006\r\nProposal noted that cleaning verification had never been employed in a\r\nreal-world practical setting. In addition, some of these commenters\r\ncontended that the cleaning verification protocol was too complicated\r\nor too confusing to follow.\r\n A number of commenters who provided comments in response to EPA's\r\nrequest for comments on the proposed work practices in light of the\r\nDust Study quoted the sentence in the conclusion section of EPA's Dust\r\nStudy that states that the cleaning verification protocol was not\r\nalways accurate in identifying the presence of levels above EPA\r\nstandards for floors and sills. Some of these commenters also noted the\r\nDust Study report's discussion of factors that affected the\r\neffectiveness of cleaning verification, such as floor condition,\r\ncontractor performance, job type, and dust particle characteristics.\r\nOne commenter observed that while all interior experiments resulted in\r\nfinal passed cleaning cloths for all floor zones and for all\r\nwindowsills, nearly half of the experiments in the study ended with\r\naverage work room floor lead levels above EPA's dust lead hazard\r\nstandard for floors of 40 [micro]g\/ft\\2\\. The Clean Air Scientific\r\nAdvisory Committee, while not asked to comment on the efficacy of the\r\ncleaning verification, contended that in the Dust Study cleaning\r\nverification did not provide sufficiently reliable results, leading to\r\nan inaccurate assessment of cleaning efficiency.\r\n EPA disagrees with these commenters. The Dust Study did provide a\r\nreal-world practical setting in which to assess the use of cleaning\r\nverification. Local renovation contractors performed actual renovations\r\nfor each experiment in the study. The contractors performed cleaning\r\nverification on floors of wood, vinyl, or tile, in good, fair, or poor\r\ncondition. The Dust Study used the protocols that were consistent with\r\nthose in the 2006 Proposal. While the Dust Study was not designed\r\nspecifically to assess cleaning verification, it did assess the\r\neffectiveness of cleaning verification both when it was used as part of\r\nthe proposed rule work practices and as a separate step after the other\r\nexperiments which did not follow all the proposed work practices. Each\r\nexperiment included a cleaning verification step. The contractors were\r\ninstructed in how to perform cleaning verification. They independently\r\ndetermined whether particular cloths matched or were lighter than the\r\ncleaning verification card. In most renovations not involving the\r\npractices that EPA is prohibiting in this rule, i.e., power planing\r\n(power sanding) and high temperature heat guns, cleaning verification\r\nin combination with the other work practices were effective at reducing\r\ndust lead levels on surfaces to or below the dust lead hazard\r\nstandards, regardless of the condition of the floor. Cleaning\r\nverification, as well as the other components of the work practices\r\nbeing finalized today were not effective when high dust generation\r\npractices such as power planing (including power sanding) and high\r\ntemperature heat guns were used. These practices, as well as torching,\r\nare being prohibited in this rulemaking. Thus, EPA, in its\r\ndetermination on the effectiveness of cleaning verification, is\r\nfocusing on the results of the experiments in the Dust Study that did\r\nnot involve these prohibited practices.\r\n Of the 10 experiments in which the proposed rule practices were\r\nused and in which the practices being prohibited in this final rule\r\nwere not used, all final lead-based paint dust levels were at or below\r\nthe regulatory hazard standard (taking into account the accepted level\r\nof uncertainty, i.e., within plus or minus 20%, which is the\r\nperformance criteria for the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation\r\nProgram). In fact, four experiments resulted in levels that were less\r\nthan 10 μg\/ft\\2\\, three resulted in levels less than 30 μg\/ft\\2\\,\r\nand three resulted in levels that were approximately 40 μg\/ft\\2\\\r\n(all were well within the level of uncertainty for this value). In four\r\nof the experiments, at least one floor area failed verification on the\r\nfirst wet disposable cleaning cloth, all passed on the second wet\r\ncloth. In one of the experiments, a windowsill failed the first wet\r\ncloth, but passed the second. These results were seen on floors in a\r\nvariety of conditions, including good, fair and poor conditions. As a\r\ngeneral case, in the other experiments that did not follow all the\r\nproposed work practices, the use of cleaning verification after\r\ncleaning (both baseline cleaning and cleaning following the proposed\r\nwork practices) reduced, often significantly, the amount of lead dust\r\nremaining.\r\n EPA agrees with commenters that cleaning verification should not be\r\nused for clearance. However, while cleaning verification is not\r\nclearance testing, as described above the use of cleaning verification\r\nconsistently resulted in levels of lead-based paint dust at or below\r\nthe hazard standard Also, the use of cleaning verification consistently\r\nresulted in lower levels of lead-based paint dust than remained after\r\nall types of cleaning studied when only followed by visual inspection.\r\nThere is sufficient consistency in the data to support the use of\r\ncleaning verification as an effective component of the work practices\r\nbeing finalized today.\r\n In response to the comment that the Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study\r\nused professional inspectors or other highly trained individuals\r\nfollowing specified protocols, EPA intends to include cleaning\r\nverification in its training course for renovators and will use the\r\nresults of the Dust Study and the Agency's observations on the experience\r\nof the contractors in the study in its development of this course.\r\n vi. Subjectivity of cleaning verification. Many commenters objected\r\nto the ``white glove'' standard as inherently subjective, and doubted\r\nwhether it would be protective. The commenters were concerned that the\r\neffectiveness of cleaning verification relies upon a renovation\r\nworker's understanding and application of the protocol, ability to\r\ndefine the floor sampling area or areas, and use of the cleaning\r\nverification card to determine whether a surface has been adequately\r\ncleaned. One commenter contended that, based on its experience as a\r\nsub-contractor to EPA on the Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, making\r\nthe visual pass\/fail determination can be quite subjective and open to\r\ninterpretation. The commenter believes that it may be unrealistic to\r\nexpect that renovation workers will consistently make the proper\r\ndecision using the proposed verification card. Some commenters\r\nspeculated that the renovator's accuracy in comparing the cleaning\r\ncloth to the verification card could depend on factors such as the\r\nrenovator's visual acuity, the lighting in the room, or simply\r\ndifferences in judgment among renovators. Another commenter thought\r\nthat the lack of corrections for surface conditions, the experience of\r\nthe person conducting the visual assessment, or pre-existing conditions\r\nmight bias the results of testing.\r\n EPA agrees that visual comparison of a cleaning cloth to a cleaning\r\nverification card has an element of subjectivity because the visual\r\ncomparison of cloth to card requires some exercise of judgment on the\r\npart of the person doing the comparing.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21743]]\r\n\r\nHowever, this does not necessarily mean that the comparison is suspect.\r\nAs previously stated, the Dust Study represents a real-world test of\r\nthe ability of renovators to learn how to do cleaning verification and\r\nto apply it in the field. Although one participant in the Dust Study\r\nexpressed concern about the subjectivity of the test, the fact remains\r\nthat cleaning verification was successfully performed by the renovation\r\ncontractors in all of the experiments involving the work practices\r\nbeing finalized in this final rule (excluding those involving power\r\nplaning (power sanding) and high temperature heat guns) and was\r\npredictive of whether renovators had cleaned-up the lead-based paint\r\nhazards created during the renovation activity to the dust-lead\r\nstandard, particularly when the proposed work practices were used.\r\nThese cleaning verifications were conducted by various persons in\r\nvarious light conditions and on various surface conditions. Further,\r\nEPA notes that cleaning verification is not simply qualitative\r\nclearance. Unlike the sampling for dust clearance testing, the cleaning\r\nverification involves a cleaning component. The act of doing the\r\ncleaning verification has been shown to lower, often significantly, the\r\ndust lead levels. Finally, in the development of its training course\r\nfor contractors, EPA plans to use its data on the contractors' use of\r\ncleaning verification in the Dust Study, including their use of the\r\ncleaning verification cards.\r\n vii. Cost of cleaning verification. Some commenters were concerned\r\nthat the cleaning verification protocols are too impractical,\r\nburdensome, or time-consuming for many contractors to perform. However,\r\nthe Dust Study found that cleaning verification only took, on average,\r\nslightly less than 13 minutes for experiments where the proposed rule\r\nrequirements were followed. EPA's Final Economic Analysis estimates\r\nthat the average cost of cleaning verification ranges from less than\r\n$10 to $30 in residences, and in public and commercial building COFs it\r\nranges from less than $10 to less than $50.\r\n viii. Availability of cleaning verification card. One commenter\r\nasked about the availability of the cleaning verification card,\r\nspecifically, who would produce them, where would they be available,\r\nand how often do they need to be replaced. EPA intends to produce the\r\ncleaning verification cards and to make them available at accredited\r\nrenovator training courses and upon request from the National Lead\r\nInformation Center.\r\n ix. Third-parties. Several commenters argued that a third party\r\nshould perform cleaning verification (or visual inspection, in the case\r\nof exterior jobs) rather than the certified renovator. Commenters saw a\r\nconflict of interest, since by performing the cleaning verification the\r\ncertified renovator is evaluating the effectiveness of his or her own\r\nwork. Some thought the subjective nature of the method left it open to\r\nmisinterpretation or fraud. Commenters were concerned that given the\r\ncompetitive pressures of the renovation industry and lack of\r\nindependent oversight, it was not realistic to expect all renovators to\r\nfollow the cleaning verification protocol in good faith. Others worried\r\nthat a renovator might feel pressured to produce a passing result,\r\nperhaps to the point of recording false results. One commenter stated\r\nthat those who would not comply with the cleaning procedure are\r\nunlikely to comply with cleaning verification.\r\n Again, as described above, EPA addressed potential conflicts-of-\r\ninterest in its lead-based paint program in the preamble to the final\r\nLead-based Paint Activities Regulations. That discussion outlined two\r\nreasons for not requiring that inspections or risk assessments,\r\nabatements, and post-abatement clearance testing all be performed by\r\ndifferent entities. The first was the cost savings and convenience of\r\nbeing able to hire just one firm to perform all necessary lead-based\r\npaint activities. The second was the potential regional scarcity of\r\nfirms to perform the work. EPA believes that these considerations may\r\nbe equally applicable to renovations, and perhaps more compelling,\r\ngiven the objective of keeping this rule simple and relatively\r\ninexpensive. EPA is concerned that a requirement that contractors\r\nengage a third party for every renovation job will add undue\r\ncomplication and expense to home renovations, and that it could delay\r\ncompletion of renovation jobs. There are estimated to be 8.4 million\r\nrenovation events annually. Moreover, as stated above, it is not\r\nuncommon for regulated entities to make determinations relating to\r\ntheir regulated status. Thus, after weighing these competing\r\nconsiderations, EPA has decided to take an approach that is consistent\r\nwith the approach taken in the 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities\r\nRegulation and not require third party visual inspections, testing, or\r\ncleaning verification.\r\n x. Relationship between cleaning verification and the regulatory\r\nlead-based paint hazard standards. Some commenters contend that\r\ncleaning verification is not protective because it was designed to pass\r\nbased on the regulatory hazard standard for floors. These commenters\r\ncontend that this level is too high to be protective and that\r\ncontinuing to use this level is unwarranted given more recent data that\r\ndemonstrates that lead causes neurocognitive effects at levels much\r\nlower than 10 μg\/dL, the current CDC blood lead level of concern\r\nwhich was used in establishing the regulatory hazard standards.\r\n EPA interprets the statutory directive to take into account safety\r\nwhen promulgating work practice standards as meaning that such work\r\npractice standards should be established in relation to lead-based\r\npaint hazards--as identified pursuant to TSCA section 403. There is no\r\nlevel of lead exposure that can yet be clearly identified, with\r\nconfidence, as clearly not being associated with potentially increased\r\nrisk of deleterious health effects. EPA does not believe the intent of\r\nCongress was to require elimination of all possible risk arising from a\r\nrenovation, nor is EPA aware of a method that could reliably and\r\neffectively accomplish this. Given that the hazard standards are the\r\ntrigger for regulation under section 402(c)(3) and that they are set\r\nthrough rulemaking, EPA has concluded that it makes most sense to use\r\nthe same standards as the target level for safe work practices.\r\nOtherwise, the potential is created for a scheme under which any\r\nrenovation activities found not to create hazards are not regulated at\r\nall, whereas renovation activities found to create hazards trigger\r\nrequirements designed to leave the renovation site cleaner than the\r\nunregulated renovations. Given the Congressional intent that the\r\nsection 403 hazard standards apply for purposes of subchapter IV of\r\nTSCA, EPA is applying them as the target level for safe work practices,\r\nwhich include the cleaning verification process, in this rule.\r\n 8. Consistency with HUD. Several commenters recommended that EPA\r\nadopt HUD's clearance requirement for activities other than abatement,\r\nwhich some commenters noted has been successfully implemented in\r\nprojects in federally assisted housing. One pointed out that renovators\r\nhave accepted HUD's clearance testing protocol, and implementing the\r\n``white glove'' method will cause confusion in the industry and give\r\ncontractors a reason for not following lead-safe work practices. A\r\ncommenter recommended that EPA adopt HUD's standard for exterior\r\nclearance of visual inspection of the work area and a soil test.\r\nCommenters expressed concern that the final rule could undermine more\r\nstringent State\r\n\r\n[[Page 21744]]\r\n\r\nand local standards, and asked EPA to make clear that more stringent\r\nstate and local requirements for clearance would apply despite the lack\r\nof mandatory clearance in the final rule.\r\n This final regulation does not supersede more stringent or\r\ndifferent requirements for interim control projects or renovations\r\nregulated by HUD, the States, or local jurisdictions. Renovation firms\r\nare still responsible for complying with all applicable Federal, State,\r\nor local laws when conducting renovations. In some cases, this may mean\r\nthat dust clearance testing must be performed at the conclusion of a\r\nrenovation rather than cleaning verification. EPA believes that\r\nrenovation firms will be able to integrate these new requirements into\r\ntheir existing business practices with very little difficulty.\r\n EPA also notes that the scope of the housing covered by HUD is\r\ndifferent than the scope covered by this final rule. As noted by the\r\ncommenter, HUD covers activities in projects in federally assisted\r\nhousing. The occupancy patterns, including turn-over, will be different\r\nthan in the general population covered by this final rule. While there\r\nis some overlap, there are substantial differences. Thus, EPA believes\r\nthat total consistency with HUD is not needed.\r\n 9. Optional use of clearance. In the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to\r\nallow optional dust clearance sampling at the completion of renovation\r\nactivities instead of the post-renovation cleaning verification\r\ndescribed in Sec. 745.85(b). Some commenters agreed that the decision\r\nwhether to perform clearance at the conclusion of the job should be\r\nleft to the homeowner. One commenter asked EPA to require that, if a\r\nresident arranged for clearance testing and found lead hazards, the\r\ncontractor would have to re-clean to the resident's satisfaction.\r\n As discussed, dust clearance sampling and cleaning verification are\r\nnot surrogates and EPA is not requiring renovation firms to perform an\r\nabatement, i.e., eliminate all lead-based paint hazards, as part of a\r\nrenovation. The Dust Study demonstrated that cleaning verification is\r\nquite often needed to minimize exposure to dust-lead hazards created\r\nduring renovations. EPA is concerned that if dust clearance sampling\r\nwere allowed instead of cleaning verification, without an accompanying\r\nrequirement that the renovation firm re-clean until clearance is\r\nachieved, the rule would actually be less protective because the\r\nsurfaces in the work area could be left less clean than if cleaning\r\nverification were performed.\r\n In response to these comments, EPA has further considered the issue\r\nand decided to allow dust clearance sampling instead of cleaning\r\nverification only in certain limited situations. EPA agrees with the\r\ncommenters that, if the rule were to allow clearance sampling instead\r\nof verification, EPA would have to require the renovator to achieve\r\nclearance, otherwise, there would be no check on whether the renovation\r\nhad been safely performed. HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule requires\r\nclearance to be achieved in many situations, as do several States. For\r\nexample, the State of New Jersey requires dust clearance sampling and\r\nclearance in certain situations in multi-unit rental housing.As noted\r\nin Unit III.G. of this preamble, States, Territories, and Tribes may\r\nchoose to have as protective as or more protective requirements than\r\nthis final rule. One example of a more protective requirement would be\r\na requirement to perform dust clearance testing and achieve clearance\r\nafter renovations. Another example may be requiring that trained\r\nrenovation workers demonstrate achievement of clearance levels by other\r\ncleaning verification methods, such as using newer technologies. If a\r\nfirm can demonstrate, for example, using data obtained in the field,\r\nthat it regularly meets the clearance standards without using the EPA\r\nspecified approach but rather by using newer technology or alternative\r\nmethods, a State may request that EPA evaluate such a provision as\r\nbeing as protective as or more protective than the methods described in\r\nthis final rule.\r\n Therefore, in situations where the contract between the renovation\r\nfirm and the property owner or another regulation, such as HUD's Lead-\r\nSafe Housing Rule or a state regulation, requires dust clearance\r\nsampling by a properly qualified person and requires the certified\r\nrenovator or a worker under the direction of the certified renovator to\r\nre-clean until clearance is achieved, EPA will allow the renovation\r\nfirm to use both dust clearance testing and clearance instead of the\r\ncleaning verification step.\r\n Property owners in other situations may still choose to perform\r\ndust testing at any time, such as after a renovation, including\r\ncleaning verification, has been completed. EPA recommends that property\r\nowners who choose to have dust testing performed use certified dust\r\nsampling professionals such as inspectors, risk assessors, or dust\r\nsampling technicians. EPA also recommends that property owners who wish\r\nto have dust testing performed after a renovation reach an agreement\r\nwith the renovation firm up front as to what will happen based on the\r\nresults of the dust testing, such as whether additional cleaning will\r\nbe performed if the surfaces do not achieve the clearance standards in\r\n40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii).\r\n\r\nF. Recordkeeping for Renovation Firms\r\n\r\n 1. Recordkeeping--a. Pre-renovation education. 40 CFR 745.86\r\nalready requires that persons performing renovations in target housing\r\ndocument compliance with the lead hazard information distribution\r\nprovisions of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule. Consistent with the\r\n2006 Proposal, this final rule deletes existing 40 CFR 745.88 because\r\nit contains only sample acknowledgment statements for the purpose of\r\ndocumenting compliance with the information distribution requirements\r\nand is thus unnecessary. EPA received no comments on this proposed\r\ndeletion. In addition, EPA received no substantive comments on the\r\nsample acknowledgment form provided with the proposed rule. New sample\r\nacknowledgment forms incorporating language consistent with this final\r\nrule and reflecting commenter editorial suggestions are available on\r\nEPA's website at http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/lead<\/a> and from the National Lead\r\nInformation Center at 1-(800)-424-LEAD (5323).\r\n In addition, as proposed in the 2006 Proposal, EPA has modified\r\nparagraph (a) of 40 CFR 745.86 to make compliance with the\r\nrecordkeeping requirements the responsibility of the renovation firm,\r\nnot the certified renovator. Although, as discussed below, this final\r\nrule requires the certified renovator assigned to a renovation to\r\ncertify compliance with the work practice requirements for that\r\nrenovation, the renovation firm may choose to delegate other tasks\r\nassociated with recordkeeping requirements to someone other than a\r\ncertified renovator. For example, this rule does not require a\r\ncertified renovator to distribute lead hazard information to owners and\r\noccupants before a renovation, nor does it require a certified\r\nrenovator to obtain the necessary acknowledgment statements or\r\ncertified mail receipts. The renovation firm may decide that it is more\r\nefficient to have someone other than the certified renovator perform\r\nthese tasks.\r\n As described in Unit III.B.2. of this preamble, this final rule\r\nexpands the information distribution requirements to renovations in\r\nchild-occupied facilities. In proposing this expansion, the 2007\r\nSupplemental Proposal included\r\n\r\n[[Page 21745]]\r\n\r\nassociated recordkeeping requirements for firms performing renovations\r\nin child-occupied facilities. Although EPA did receive comments on\r\nextending the information distribution requirements to child-occupied\r\nfacilities, none of these comments specifically addressed the\r\nrecordkeeping provisions themselves. EPA has determined that the\r\nrecordkeeping requirements are an important part of monitoring\r\ncompliance with and ensuring the effectiveness of the information\r\ndistribution provisions of this rule. Therefore, this final rule\r\nretains the existing recordkeeping requirements for pre-renovation lead\r\nhazard information distribution in target housing and extends those\r\nrecordkeeping requirements to renovations in child-occupied facilities.\r\nFirms performing renovations in target housing or child-occupied\r\nfacilities must obtain and retain signed and dated acknowledgements of\r\nreceipt of the lead hazard information from building owners or a\r\ncertificate of mailing for such information. In addition, renovation\r\nfirms must obtain and retain signed and dated acknowledgments of\r\nreceipt from the occupant (the resident of the housing unit being\r\nrenovated or the proprietor of the child-occupied facility) or\r\ncertificates of mailing for such information, or the firm must prepare\r\na certification that documents the attempts made to provide this\r\ninformation to the occupants. For renovations in common areas in target\r\nhousing, the firm must also document the steps taken to provide\r\ninformation to the tenants with access to the common area being\r\nrenovated. Finally, firms performing renovations in child-occupied\r\nfacilities must take steps to provide information to the parents and\r\nguardians of children under age 6 using the facility. Firms may do this\r\nby either mailing each parent or guardian the lead hazard information\r\npamphlet and a general description of the renovation or by posting\r\ninformational signs where parents and guardians are likely to see them.\r\nInformational signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the\r\npamphlet or information on how to obtain the pamphlet at no charge to\r\ninterested parents or guardians. The firm's activities with respect to\r\nparents and guardians must also be documented.\r\n b. Documentation of compliance with other regulatory provisions.\r\nThis final rule provides for a number of exceptions. Unit III.A.3. of\r\nthis preamble describes an exception for renovations in owner-occupied\r\ntarget housing that is neither the residence of a child under age 6 or\r\napregnant woman, nor a child-occupied facility. In order for a\r\nrenovation to be eligible for this exception, the renovation firm must\r\nobtain a signed statement from the owner of the housing to the effect\r\nthat he or she is the owner of the housing to be renovated, that he or\r\nshe resides in the housing to be renovated, that no child under 6 or no\r\npregnant woman resides there, that the housing is not a child-occupied\r\nfacility, and that the owner acknowledges that the work practices to be\r\nused during the renovation will not necessarily include all of the work\r\npractices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and painting rule.\r\nConsistent with the 2006 Proposal and the 2007 Supplemental Proposal,\r\nthis final rule requires renovation firms to maintain this signed\r\nstatement, which must include the address of the housing being\r\nrenovated, for 3 years after the completion of the renovation. Again,\r\nalthough EPA received comments on the merits of this exception, no\r\ncomments were directed specifically to the recordkeeping requirement.\r\nEPA has determined that the recordkeeping requirement is necessary to\r\nallow EPA to monitor compliance with the terms of this exception.\r\n This final rule also requires firms performing renovations to\r\nretain documentation of compliance with the work practices and other\r\nrequirements of the rule. Specifically, the firm must document that a\r\ncertified renovator was assigned to the project, that the certified\r\nrenovator provided on-the-job training for workers used on the project,\r\nthat the certified renovator performed or directed workers who\r\nperformed the tasks required by this final rule, and that the certified\r\nrenovator performed the post-renovation cleaning verification. This\r\ndocumentation must include a copy of the certified renovator's training\r\ncertificate. Finally, the documentation must include a certification by\r\nthe certified renovator that the work practices were followed with\r\nnarration as applicable. The certification must include the specific\r\ninformation listed in Sec. 745.86(b)(7). The firm must keep this\r\ninformation for 3 years after the completion of the renovation.\r\n The 2006 Proposal also included a requirement that renovation firms\r\nmaintain documentation of compliance with the renovator and worker\r\ntraining requirements and the work practice requirements. This\r\ndocumentation would have had to include signed and dated descriptions\r\nof how activities performed by the certified renovator were conducted\r\nin compliance with the proposed requirements. To demonstrate how these\r\nrecordkeeping requirements might be met, EPA prepared and placed into\r\nthe docket a draft recordkeeping checklist.\r\n EPA received many comments on the substance of these recordkeeping\r\nrequirements and on the draft recordkeeping checklist. Some commenters\r\nthought that the purpose of the recordkeeping requirement should be to\r\nprovide important information to consumers or to serve as part of the\r\nrecord of whether a particular structure was lead-safe. Some, but not\r\nall of these commenters suggested that there was no need for the\r\nrenovation firm to retain the records it prepares. Rather, the records\r\nshould be given to the owners and occupants of the building either\r\nbefore or after the renovation. However, as proposed, the recordkeeping\r\nrequirement served two purposes. The first is to allow EPA or an\r\nauthorized State to review a renovation firm's compliance with the\r\nsubstantive requirements of the regulation through reviewing the\r\nrecords maintained for all of the renovation jobs the firm has done.\r\nThe second is to remind a renovation firm what it must do to comply.\r\nEPA envisioned that renovation firms would use the recordkeeping\r\nrequirements and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done\r\neverything that they are required to do for a particular renovation.\r\nFor these two purposes, there is no substitute for recordkeeping by\r\nrenovation firms.\r\n However, EPA agrees with those commenters that felt that the\r\nrecordkeeping requirements were vague, particularly in light of the\r\ndraft recordkeeping checklist itself and the amount of time that EPA\r\nestimated it would take a renovation firm to complete the checklist.\r\nMany commenters said that it was unclear how much detail EPA would be\r\nlooking for in descriptions of how the firm complied with the various\r\nwork practices, and some noted that an extensive narrative would\r\ncontribute no more to compliance or enforcement than a box checked to\r\nindicate that the requirements had been complied with.\r\n In response to these commenters, EPA has revised that draft\r\nrecordkeeping checklist to be more in the nature of a checklist, with a\r\ncertification that the representations on the form are true and\r\ncorrect. Narrative information is still required where necessary, such\r\nas an identification of the brand of test kits used, the locations\r\nwhere they were used, and the results. EPA has also revised the\r\nregulatory text to describe the specific information that must be\r\nprovided and the specific items for which a certification of compliance is\r\n\r\n[[Page 21746]]\r\n\r\nrequired. The regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7) now contains a\r\nlist of work practice elements that must be certified as having been\r\nperformed. In response to two commenters that suggested that the only\r\nperson truly capable of certifying that the lead-safe work practices\r\nwere followed on a particular job would be the certified renovator\r\nassigned to that job, EPA is requiring the certification to be\r\ncompleted by the certified renovator assigned to the renovation. EPA\r\nhas determined that a review of the records maintained by renovation\r\nfirms will be an effective method of determining whether a particular\r\nfirm is generally complying with the regulations or not.\r\n 2. Notification to EPA. In the 2006 Proposal, EPA requested comment\r\non, but did not propose, a requirement that renovation firms notify EPA\r\nbefore beginning a covered renovation project. Most commenters\r\nsupported a notification requirement, arguing notifications would\r\nprovide information to EPA about where renovation activities will be\r\noccuring, so EPA could inspect ongoing renovation projects for\r\ncompliance with the requirements of this rule. These commenters stated\r\nthat EPA would be unable to enforce the requirements of the rule\r\nwithout a notification provision. Some commenters also suggested that\r\nthe act of informing EPA of their activities provides a powerful\r\nincentive for renovation firms to comply. Other commenters observed\r\nthat prior notification for every covered renovation would be too\r\nburdensome for the regulated community and for the Agency. Some of\r\nthese commenters suggested that notifications only be required for\r\nrenovations involving high-risk methods, housing where a child under\r\nage 6 or a pregnant woman resides, or renovations involving multiple\r\nrooms in a housing unit.\r\n This final rule does not include a prior notification requirement.\r\nEPA disagrees with the notion that there is no way to enforce this\r\nregulation without a prior notification requirement. As stated above in\r\nthe discussion on recordkeeping, EPA believes that a review of a\r\nrenovation firm's records will demonstrate whether or not a renovation\r\nfirm generally complies with the regulations. In addition, as at least\r\none commenter noted, many renovations require a building permit from\r\nthe local permitting authority. EPA can work with the local authorities\r\nto identify inspection targets. EPA can also follow up on tips and\r\ncomplaints.\r\n EPA agrees with those commenters that believe that prior\r\nnotification for every project is simply too burdensome for the\r\nregulated community and for the Agency. If the streamlined, telephone-\r\nbased system recommended by some of the commenters were implemented, it\r\nwould reduce the initial burden on the renovation firms. However, EPA\r\nwould still have to process millions of such notifications annually,\r\nand the collective burden on renovation firms and the government would\r\nbe considerable. Rather than require millions of notifications\r\nannually, the great majority of which would never be reviewed, EPA\r\nprefers to use other methods for targeting renovation projects for\r\ninspections.\r\n An initially attractive option considered by EPA was a prior\r\nnotification requirement for a subset of covered renovation projects.\r\nThis option could potentially reduce the notifications received to a\r\nmanageable level, while preserving the benefits of a prior notification\r\nrequirement, but EPA was unable to develop appropriate criteria for\r\ndefining which renovations would require prior notification. EPA\r\nconsidered requiring prior notification for renovations using certain\r\nhigh-risk practices, the practices prohibited by the HUD Lead Safe\r\nHousing Rule and EPA's Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations.\r\nHowever, EPA ultimately decided, as described in Unit III.E.6. of this\r\npreamble, to prohibit most of those practices for covered renovations.\r\nRequiring prior notifications only for renovations in housing where a\r\nchild under age 6 resides and in child-occupied facilities would not\r\nsignificantly reduce the notifications that would be required. EPA\r\ndetermined that a prior notification requirement tied to project size\r\nwould not be feasible or effective, because the hazard potential from a\r\nrenovation job is a combination of the size of the project and the\r\nactivity being performed.\r\n With regard to the compliance mindset mentioned by some commenters,\r\nEPA believes that the recordkeeping requirements are a less burdensome\r\nway to achieve the same goal. In fact, a prior notification requirement\r\ncould lead to EPA targeting for inspection those persons who are most\r\nlikely to be making an effort to comply with the substantive\r\nrequirements of the regulation. The person who would not bother to\r\ncomply with the substantive provisions of this rule would most likely\r\navoid filing a prior notification to EPA before beginning a covered\r\nrenovation, repair, or painting project. These persons are more likely\r\nto be performing renovations in a non-compliant manner than are persons\r\nwho have complied with a prior notification requirement and told EPA\r\nwhere to find them.\r\n EPA has therefore determined that a prior notification requirement\r\nis not an effective or efficient means of facilitating the monitoring\r\nof compliance with this regulation. States, Territories, and Tribes\r\ndeveloping their own renovation, repair, and painting programs may come\r\nto a different conclusion. These jurisdictions are free to establish\r\nprior notification schemes that make sense for their community.\r\n\r\nG. State, Territorial, and Tribal Programs\r\n\r\n 1. In general. Because of the enormous number of renovation\r\nactivities that occur in this country on an annual basis, EPA welcomes\r\nthe help of its State, Territorial, and Tribal partners to ensure that\r\nthese renovations are performed by trained persons in accordance with\r\nthis final rule. This final rule establishes, in accordance with TSCA\r\nsection 404 and EPA's Policy for the Administration of Environmental\r\nPrograms on Indian Reservations (Ref. 46), requirements for the\r\nauthorization of State, Territorial, and Tribal renovation, repair, and\r\npainting programs. The process for obtaining authorization to operate\r\nthese programs in lieu of the Federal program is the same process used\r\nto authorize State, Territorial, and Tribal lead-Based Paint Activity\r\nor Pre-Renovation Education programs found in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q.\r\n Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for,\r\nand receive authorization to, administer and enforce all of the\r\nelements of the new subpart E, as amended. States, Territories and\r\nTribes may choose to administer and enforce just the existing\r\nrequirements of subpart E, the pre-renovation education elements, or\r\nall of the requirements of the proposed subpart E, as amended. The 2006\r\nProposal and the 2007 Supplemental Proposal would not have provided for\r\nthe authorization of State, Territorial, or Tribal programs that\r\ninclude only the training, certification, accreditation, and work\r\npractice requirements for renovation, repair, and painting programs and\r\nnot the pre-renovation education provisions of subpart E. EPA proposed\r\nthis approach because the Agency believes that the pre-renovation\r\neducation provisions are an integral part of ensuring that consumers\r\nhave the information they need to make informed decisions about\r\nrenovation practices in their homes and other buildings. In addition,\r\nconsistent with the proposals, this final rule encourage renovation\r\nfirms to use the existing pamphlet acknowledgment\r\n\r\n[[Page 21747]]\r\n\r\nprocess to provide owner-occupants of target housing with the\r\nopportunity to opt out of the training, certification, and work\r\npractice requirements of the rule if they reside in the housing to be\r\nrenovated, there is no child under age 6 orpregnant woman in residence,\r\nthe housing does not otherwise meet the definition of child-occupied\r\nfacility, and the owner acknowledges that the work practices to be used\r\nduring the renovation will not necessarily include all of the lead-safe\r\nwork practices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and painting rule.\r\n One State commenter disagreed with EPA's proposed approach and\r\nrequested that EPA authorize State, Territorial or Tribal programs that\r\nincorporate only the training, certification, accreditation, and work\r\npractices of this final rule because TSCA section 404 allows states to\r\nadminister and enforce the standards, regulations, or other\r\nrequirements established under TSCA section 402 or TSCA section 406 or\r\nboth. EPA agrees with this commenter's reading of TSCA. Therefore, this\r\nfinal rule provides for the authorization of State, Territorial, or\r\nTribal programs that include either the pre-renovation education\r\nrequirements of 40 CFR part 745, subpart E, or the training, certification,\r\naccreditation and work practice requirements of this rule, or both.\r\n States, Territories, and Tribes that wish to administer and enforce\r\nthe pre-renovation education provisions of subpart E, as amended, must\r\ninclude both target housing and child-occupied facilities within the\r\nscope of their program. Similarly, States, Territories, and Tribes that\r\nare also interested in obtaining authorization to administer and\r\nenforce the training, certification, accreditation, work practice, and\r\nrecordkeeping elements of subpart E, as amended, must include both\r\ntarget housing and child-occupied facilities within the scope of their\r\nprogram. States with existing authorized pre-renovation education\r\nprograms are required to demonstrate that they have modified their\r\nprograms to include child-occupied facilities. These States must\r\nprovide this demonstration no later than the first report submitted\r\npursuant to 40 CFR 745.324(h) on or after April 22, 2009.\r\n 2. Process. The authorization process currently codified at 40 CFR\r\npart 745, subpart Q, will be used for the purpose of authorizing State,\r\nTerritorial, and Tribal renovation, repair, and painting programs.\r\nStates, Territories, and Tribes seeking authority for their programs\r\nmust obtain public input, then submit an application to EPA.\r\nApplications must contain a number of items, including a description of\r\nthe State, Territorial, or Tribal program, copies of all applicable\r\nstatutes, regulations, and standards, and a certification by the State\r\nAttorney General, Tribal Counsel, or an equivalent official, that the\r\napplicable legislation and regulations provide adequate legal authority\r\nto administer and enforce the program. The program description must\r\ndemonstrate that the State, Territorial, or Tribal program is at least\r\nas protective as the Federal program. In this case, the Federal program\r\nconsists of the requirements for training, certification, and\r\naccreditation and the work practice standards of this final rule.\r\n One commenter suggested that EPA require States with a currently\r\nauthorized TSCA 402(a) lead-based paint activities program to submit\r\nonly an amended application for incorporating the TSCA section\r\n402(c)(3) renovation, repair, and painting program requirements since\r\nmany of the required documents would be the same as those submitted for\r\nthe original TSCA 402(a) application. Furthermore, the commenter\r\nrecommended that a letter from the State agency identified in the\r\noriginal 402(a) authorization application with a synopsis detailing how\r\nthe State proposes to administer and enforce the renovation, repair,\r\nand painting program serve as an amended application. EPA has\r\ndetermined that a new application for authorization for the renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting program is necessary because there may be a\r\ndifferent State agency or consortia of agencies implementing and\r\nenforcing this program, a long time may have elapsed since most States\r\nsubmitted their TSCA section 402(a) program application, and many of\r\nthe requirements within the elements of the renovation, repair, and\r\npainting program differ from their counterparts in the lead-based paint\r\nactivities program.\r\n To be eligible for authorization to administer and enforce the\r\ntraining, certification, accreditation, and work practice requirements\r\nof this final rule, State, Territorial, and Tribal renovation programs\r\nmust contain certain minimum elements, e.g., work practice standards\r\nand procedures and requirements for the certification of individuals\r\nand\/or firms, that are very similar to the existing minimum elements\r\nspecified in 40 CFR 745.326(a) for lead-based paint activities\r\nprograms. In order to be authorized, State, Territorial, or Tribal\r\nprograms must have procedures and requirements for the accreditation of\r\ntraining programs, which can be as simple as procedures for accepting\r\ntraining provided by an EPA-accredited provider, or a provider\r\naccredited by another authorized State, Territorial, or Tribal program.\r\nProcedures and requirements for the certification of renovators are\r\nalso necessary. At a minimum, these must include a requirement that\r\ncertified renovators have taken accredited training, and procedures and\r\nrequirements for re-certification. State, Territorial, and Tribal\r\nprograms applying for authorization must also include work practice\r\nstandards for renovations that ensure that renovations are conducted\r\nonly by certified renovation firms and the renovations are conducted\r\nusing work practices at least as protective as those of the Federal\r\nprogram. As is the current practice with lead-based paint activities,\r\nEPA will not require State, Territorial, or Tribal programs to certify\r\nboth firms and individuals that perform renovations. States,\r\nTerritories and Tribes may choose to certify either firms or\r\nindividuals, so long as the individuals that perform the duties of\r\nrenovators are required to take accredited training.\r\n 3. Implementation. In order to provide interested States,\r\nTerritories and Tribes time to develop, or begin developing renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting programs in accordance with this rule, EPA will\r\nnot begin to actively implement the Federal program until April 22,\r\n2009, at which time EPA will begin accepting applications for training\r\nprogram accreditation. Several commenters thought 1 year would be\r\nadequate for the purpose of allowing States, Territories, and Tribes to\r\ndevelop their own programs, while others expressed concern that 1 year\r\nwould not be enough time to get these programs developed and\r\nauthorized. Most commenters who expressed an opinion on this topic\r\ngenerally agreed that an implementation delay is necessary. Reasons\r\ngiven in support of a delay were conservation of State financial and\r\nadministrative resources and the fact that some States have had\r\ndifficulties in retraining contractors to new State-specific\r\nrequirements after the contractors had become accustomed to working\r\nunder the Federal program. In contrast, some commenters argued that, in\r\nlight of the 2010 goal, no delay whatsoever was warranted. This final\r\nrule retains the 1 year implementation delay set forth in the 2006\r\nProposal. EPA has determined that this period of time represents an\r\nappropriate balance between the need to implement this rule quickly and\r\nconcerns over potential duplication of effort and additional\r\n\r\n[[Page 21748]]\r\n\r\ncosts incurred by the regulated community if EPA begins accrediting\r\ntraining providers and certifying firms in jurisdictions that are also\r\nworking towards implementing their own programs. States, Territories,\r\nand Tribes may begin the authorization process at any time after the\r\neffective date of this final rule, even after the Federal program has\r\nbeen implemented in their jurisdiction.\r\n Some commenters were concerned about the effect of this rule on\r\nexisting State programs. Several commenters asked EPA to expressly\r\nstate that this rule does not pre-empt existing State programs and that\r\nState programs that are more stringent than the Federal program will be\r\neligible for authorization. One commenter noted that the number of\r\nhouses with lead contaminated paint is disproportionately distributed\r\nthroughout the U.S. This commenter pointed out that this apparent\r\ndisparity supports the need for State control of lead programs and for\r\nEPA to practice ``regulatory restraint.'' According to this commenter,\r\nthis ``regulatory restraint'' will allow States with more severe lead\r\npaint problems to impose stricter standards and requirements regarding\r\ncertification and work practices without imposing unnecessary burdens\r\non States with less severe problems.\r\n This final rule does not preempt existing programs that address\r\nrenovations. However, to the extent that these programs are less\r\nprotective than the requirements of this final rule, the requirements\r\nof this final rule will apply. To be eligible for authorization, State,\r\nTerritorial, and Tribal programs need not exactly duplicate the Federal\r\nprogram contained in this final rule, but they must still meet the\r\nrequirement of TSCA section 404 that they be ``at least as protective\r\nas'' the Federal program. It would be difficult for the Agency to\r\ndescribe specific requirements that would make a program more or less\r\n``protective.'' EPA will review each program application separately\r\nagainst the protections provided by this final rule.\r\n Several commenters expressed concern regarding the uniformity and\r\nconsistency of State programs. Some recommended that EPA take States'\r\nconcerns into account, but guarantee uniformity of State programs by\r\nprohibiting States from arbitrarily deviating from program elements.\r\nOthers noted that if there are uniform regulations for approved\r\ntraining courses for State certification, there should be reciprocity\r\nbetween States since many people work in multiple States. One commenter\r\nsuggested that, in an effort to promote consistency, States institute a\r\nlead-safety test that renovators must pass prior to receiving permits\r\nto conduct work. Several commenters noted that a lack of reciprocity\r\nbetween States and\/or duplicative or divergent certification\r\nrequirements will add an unnecessary burden and level of complexity for\r\nrenovation and remodeling firms, especially those working in multi-\r\nState areas. One commenter argued that this could lead to a problem in\r\nmaintaining certifications similar to the problem the commenter\r\nbelieves exists in maintaining lead-based paint inspector, risk\r\nassessor, and other certifications associated with TSCA section 402\r\nabatements. One suggested that EPA should exert control over the right\r\nto refuse approval of State programs unless they provide for\r\nreciprocity with the Federal program and programs of other\r\njurisdictions approved by EPA.\r\n The standard of EPA review for State, Territorial, and Tribal\r\nprograms under TSCA section 404 is that they be ``at least as\r\nprotective'' as the Federal program. In addition, TSCA section 404 (e)\r\nreserves the right of States and their political subdivisions to impose\r\nrequirements that are more stringent than the Federal program. EPA\r\ninterprets this to mean that EPA cannot compel States, Territories, and\r\nTribes to adopt programs identical to the Federal program or to\r\nestablish reciprocity provisions. However, EPA continues to encourage\r\nStates, Territories, and Tribes that may be considering establishing\r\ntheir own renovation programs to keep reciprocity in mind as they move\r\nforward. The benefits to be derived from reciprocity arrangements with\r\nthe Federal program and other authorized jurisdictions include\r\npotential cost-savings from reducing duplicative activity and the\r\ndevelopment of a professional renovation workforce more quickly, thus\r\nproviding maximum flexibility to State, Territorial, or Tribal\r\nresidents. In addition, the Agency encourages States, Territories and\r\nTribes to consider the use of existing certification and accreditation\r\nprocedures as they develop their programs. These existing programs need\r\nnot be limited to lead-based paint. For example, a State may choose to\r\nadd lead-safe renovation requirements to their existing contractor\r\nlicensing programs.\r\n\r\nH. Effective Date and Implementation Dates\r\n\r\n This final rule is effective on June 23, 2008. This final rule will\r\nbe implemented according to the following schedule:\r\n 1. As of June 23, 2008.\r\n a. States, Territories, and Tribes may begin applying for\r\nauthorization to administer and enforce their own renovation, repair,\r\nand painting programs. EPA will begin authorizing States, Territories,\r\nand Tribes as soon as it receives their complete applications.\r\n b. No training program may provide, offer, or claim to provide\r\ntraining or refresher training for EPA certification as a renovator or\r\na dust sampling technician without accreditation from EPA under 40 CFR\r\n745.225.\r\n 2. As of April 22, 2009. Training programs for renovators or dust\r\nsampling technicians may begin applying for accreditation under 40 CFR\r\n745.225. EPA will begin accrediting training programs as soon as it\r\nreceives complete applications from training providers. Individuals who\r\nwish to become certified renovators or dust sampling technicians may\r\nbegin taking accredited training as soon as it is available.\r\n 3. As of October 22, 2009. Renovation firms may begin applying for\r\ncertification under 40 CFR 745.89. EPA will begin certifying renovation\r\nfirms as soon as it receives their complete applications.\r\n 4. As of April 22, 2010. The rule will be fully implemented.\r\n a. No firm may perform, offer, or claim to perform renovations\r\nwithout certification from EPA under 40 CFR 745.89 in target housing or\r\nchild-occupied facilities, unless, in the case of owner-occupied target\r\nhousing, the firm has obtained a statement signed by the owner that the\r\nrenovation will occur in the owner's residence, no child under age 6\r\nresides there, the housing is not a child-occupied facility, and the\r\nowner acknowledges that the work practices to be used during the\r\nrenovation will not necessarily include all of the lead-safe work\r\npractices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and painting rule.\r\n b. All renovations must be directed by renovators certified in\r\naccordance with 40 CFR 745.90(a) and performed by certified renovators\r\nor individuals trained in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) in target\r\nhousing or child-occupied facilities, unless, in the case of owner-\r\noccupied target housing, the firm performing the renovation has\r\nobtained a statement signed by the owner that the renovation will occur\r\nin the owner's residence, no child under age 6 resides there, the\r\nhousing is not a child-occupied facility, and the owner acknowledges\r\nthat the work practices to be used during the renovation will not\r\nnecessarily include all of the lead-safe work practices contained in\r\nEPA's renovation, repair, and painting rule.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21749]]\r\n\r\n c. All renovations must be performed in accordance with the work\r\npractice standards in 40 CFR 745.85 and the associated recordkeeping\r\nrequirements in 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) in target housing or\r\nchild-occupied facilities, unless, in the case of owner-occupied target\r\nhousing, the firm performing the renovation has obtained a statement\r\nsigned by the owner that the renovation will occur in the owner's\r\nresidence, no child under age 6 resides there, the housing is not a\r\nchild-occupied facility, and the owner acknowledges that the work\r\npractices to be used during the renovation will not necessarily include\r\nall of the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting rule.\r\n With respect to the new renovation-specific pamphlet and the\r\nrequirements of the Pre-Renovation Education Rule, as of the effective\r\ndate of the rule June 23, 2008, renovators or renovation firms\r\nperforming renovations in States and Indian Tribal areas without an\r\nauthorized Pre-Renovation Education Rule program may provide owners and\r\noccupants with either of the following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your\r\nFamily From Lead in Your Home; or Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard\r\nInformation for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools. As of\r\nDecember 22, 2008, Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information\r\nfor Families, Child Care Providers and Schools must be used exclusively.\r\n\r\nIV. References\r\n\r\n The following is a list of the documents that are specifically\r\nreferenced in this final rule and placed in the public docket that was\r\nestablished under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. For\r\ninformation on accessing the docket, refer to the ADDRESSES unit at the\r\nbeginning of this document.\r\n 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Air Quality\r\nCriteria for Lead (September 29, 2006).\r\n 2. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety\r\nRisks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal\r\nStrategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards (February 2000).\r\n 3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed\r\nRule. Federal Register (71 FR 1588<\/a>, January 10, 2006).\r\n 4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final\r\nRule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778<\/a>, August 29, 1996).\r\n 5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and\r\nCertification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule.\r\nFederal Register (64 FR 31091<\/a>, June 9, 1999).\r\n 6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-Based Paint\r\nAbatement Activities and Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR\r\n18489<\/a>, April 8, 2004).\r\n 7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S.\r\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family\r\nFrom Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K-99-001, June 2003).\r\n 8. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of\r\nTarget Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 29907<\/a>, June 1, 1998).\r\n 9. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final\r\nRule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206<\/a>, January 5, 2001).\r\n 10. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-\r\nK-97-001, September 1997).\r\n 11. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling\r\nActivities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-\r\n007, May 1997).\r\n 12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling\r\nActivities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study (EPA\r\n747-R-96-006, May 1997).\r\n 13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling\r\nActivities: Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 747-R-\r\n99-002, March 1999).\r\n 14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling\r\nActivities: Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of\r\nR&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes (EPA\r\n747-R-99-001, March 1999).\r\n 15. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program;\r\nSupplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register (72 FR\r\n31022<\/a>, June 5, 2007).\r\n 16. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Notice\r\nof Availability. Federal Register (72 FR 12582<\/a>, March 16, 2007).\r\n 17. USEPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation,\r\nRepair, And Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007).\r\n 18. USEPA. Lead Safety for Remodeling, Repair, And Painting. Joint\r\nEPA\/HUD Renovation Training Curriculum (EPA 747-B-03-001\/2, July 2003).\r\n 19. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Lead Safe Work\r\nPractices Survey Project Report. Prepared by Atrium Environmental\r\nHealth and Safety Services (November 9, 2006).\r\n 20. McMillan Associates. Response to SBREFA Panel Recommendations\r\nfor Further Analysis of Existing Phase III Data (August 6, 2001).\r\n 21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Public\r\nHealth Service (PHS), CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels\r\nAttributed to Home Renovation and Remolding Activities--New York, 1993-\r\n1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123, January\r\n3, 1997).\r\n 22. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B.\r\nKaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ``Is Home Renovation or Repair a Risk\r\nFactor for Exposure to Lead Among Children Residing in New York City?''\r\nJournal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine.\r\nVol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, (December 2005).\r\n 23. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities;\r\nProposed Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 45872, September 2, 1994).\r\n 24. USEPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)\r\n``Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting\r\nProgram Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities''\r\n(March 2008).\r\n 25. S. Rep. 102-332, P.L. 102-550, Housing and Community\r\nDevelopment Act of 1992 (July 23, 1992).\r\n 26. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Spot\r\nTest Kits for Detecting Lead in Household Paint, a Laboratory\r\nEvaluation (NISTIR 6398, May 2000).\r\n 27. HUD. National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, Volume I:\r\nAnalysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31, 2002).\r\n 28. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Evaluating the\r\nPerformance Characteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for\r\nLead in Paint (E 1828-01).\r\n 29. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Education Rule;\r\nInterpretive Guidance, Part I (May 28, 1999).\r\n 30. USEPA and HUD. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure of Information\r\nConcerning Lead-Based Paint in Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register\r\n(61 FR 9064<\/a>, March 6, 1996).\r\n 31. USEPA, HUD. Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information\r\nfor Families, Child Care Providers and Schools. (March 2008).\r\n 32. USEPA. Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Education Rule;\r\nInterpretive Guidance, Part II (October 15, 1999).\r\n\r\n[[Page 21750]]\r\n\r\n 33. USEPA. Lead Sampling Technician Course (EPA 747-B-00-002, July\r\n2000).\r\n 34. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based\r\nPaint Hazards in Housing (June 1995).\r\n 35. USEPA. Lead Dust Minimization Work Practices for Renovation,\r\nRemodeling and Repainting; Draft Technical Manual (September 29, 1998).\r\n 36. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).\r\nHealth Hazard Evaluation; Rhode Island Department of Health; HETA 96-\r\n0200-2799 (June 2000).\r\n 37. USEPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in\r\nResidential Housing (September 2005).\r\n 38. United States Department of Energy. Office of Health, Safety\r\nand Security. http:\/\/www.hss.energy.gov\/csa\/csp\/hepa<\/a>.\r\n 39. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),\r\nDepartment of Labor (DOL). Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of the\r\nOccupational Safety Standard for Lead in Construction Labor (72 FR\r\n54826, September 27, 2007).\r\n 40. Rich, David Q. George G. Rhoads, Lih-Ming Yiin, Junfeng Zhang,\r\nZhipeng Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, and Paul J. Lioy.\r\n``Comparison of Home Lead Dust Reduction Techniques on Hard Surfaces:\r\nthe New Jersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques Trial.'' Environmental\r\nHealth Perspectives 110(9): 889-893 (September 2002).\r\n 41. HUD. Evaluation of Household Vacuum Cleaners in the Removal of\r\nSettled Lead Dust from Hard Surface Floors. (December 27, 2002, revised\r\nFebruary 2006).\r\n 42. Lih-Ming Yiin, George G. Rhoads, David Q. Rich, Junfeng Zhang,\r\nZhipeng Bai, John L. Adgate, Peter J. Ashley, and Paul J. Lioy.\r\n``Comparison of Techniques to Reduce Residential Lead Dust on Carpet\r\nand Upholstery: the New Jersey Assessment of Cleaning Techniques\r\nTrial.'' Environmental Health Perspectives 110(12): 1233-1237.\r\n(December 2002).\r\n 43. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).\r\n``Effectiveness of Clean up Techniques for Leaded Paint Dust.'' (1992).\r\n 44. USEPA. A Comparison of Post-Renovation and Remodeling Surface\r\nCleaning Techniques. Prepared by Clemson Environmental Technologies\r\nLaboratory (December 14, 2001)\r\n 45. CMHC. ``Evaluation of the Cleanup of Lead Paint Dust In\r\nHouses.'' Prepared by Pinchin Environmental Consultants (1995).\r\n 46. USEPA. EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental\r\nPrograms on Indian Reservations (November 8, 1984).\r\n 47. USEPA. ICR Final Rule Addendum for rulemaking entitled ``Lead;\r\nRenovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule'' (March 2008).\r\n 48 USEPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the\r\nLead-based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling\r\nRequirements (March 3, 2000).\r\n 49. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Lead; Renovation,\r\nRepair, and Painting Program; Final Rule (March 2008).\r\n 50. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Clearance\r\nExaminations Following Lead Hazard Reduction Activities in Single-\r\nFamily Dwellings and Child-Occupied Facilities (E 2271-05).\r\n 51. ASTM International. Standard Guide for Evaluation, Management,\r\nand Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities (E 2052-99).\r\n\r\nV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews\r\n\r\nA. Executive Order 12866\r\n\r\n Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and\r\nReview (58 FR 51735<\/a>, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this\r\nrule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) of\r\nthe Executive Order because EPA estimates that it will have an annual\r\neffect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action\r\nwas submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review\r\nunder Executive Order 12866 and any changes made based on OMB\r\nrecommendations have been documented in the public docket for this\r\nrulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.\r\n In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs\r\nand benefits associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is\r\ncontained in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 24), which is available in the\r\ndocket for this action and is briefly summarized here.\r\n 1. Types of facilities. This rule applies to an estimated 37.8\r\nmillion pre-1978 facilities. Of these, approximately 37.7 million\r\nfacilities are located in target housing, either in rental housing,\r\nowner-occupied housing where a child under age 6 resides, or owner-\r\noccupied housing where no child under age 6 resides but that otherwise\r\nmeets the definition of a child-occupied facility. Approximately\r\n100,000 facilities are child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 public or\r\ncommercial buildings.\r\n 2. Options evaluated. EPA considered a variety of options for\r\naddressing the risks presented by renovation, repair, and painting\r\nactions where lead-based paint is present. The Economic Analysis\r\nanalyzed several different options for the scope of the rule, which\r\nwould limit the coverage of the rule's substantive provisions depending\r\non when the facility was built (such as pre-1960 or pre-1978), and\r\nwhether or not there are children under the age of 6 or a pregnant\r\nwoman residing in owner-occupied housing. In some options, coverage of\r\nthe rule was phased in over time. EPA also considered different options for\r\nwork practices, such as containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification.\r\n 3. Number of events and individuals affected. In the first year\r\nthat all of the rule requirements will be in effect, there will be an\r\nestimated 8.4 million renovation, repair, and painting events where\r\nlead-safe work practices will be used due to the rule. As a result,\r\nthere will be approximately 1.4 million children under the age of 6 who\r\nwill be affected by having their exposure to lead dust minimized due to\r\nthe rule. There will also be about 5.4 million adults who will be\r\naffected. After improved test kits for determining whether a painted\r\nsurface contains lead-based paint become available (which is assumed in\r\nthe analysis to occur by the second year of the rule), the number of\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting events using lead-safe work practices\r\nis expected to drop to 4.4 million events per year. No change in the\r\nnumber of exposures avoided due to the rule is expected because the\r\nimproved test kit will more accurately identify paint without lead,\r\nthus reducing the number of events unnecessarily using the required\r\nwork practices.\r\n 4. Benefits. The Economic Analysis describes the estimated benefits\r\nof the rulemaking in qualitative and quantitative terms. Benefits\r\nresult from the prevention of adverse health effects attributable to\r\nlead exposure. These health effects include impaired cognitive function\r\nin children and several illnesses in children and adults. EPA estimated\r\nthe benefits of avoided incidence of IQ loss due to reduced lead\r\nexposure to children under the age of 6. There are not sufficient data\r\nat this time to develop dose-response functions for other health\r\neffects in children or for pregnant women. The benefits of avoided\r\nexposure to adults were not quantified due to uncertainties about the\r\nexposure of adults to lead in dust from renovation, repair, and\r\npainting activities in these facilities.\r\n The rule is estimated to result in quantified benefits of\r\napproximately $700 million to $1,700 million in the first year. The 50-\r\nyear annualized benefits provide a measure of the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21751]]\r\n\r\nsteady-state benefits. The quantified IQ benefits to children are\r\nexpected to be approximately $700 million to $1,700 million per year\r\nwhen annualized using a 3% discount rate, and $700 million to $1,800\r\nmillion per year when using a 7% discount rate. The estimated benefits\r\nfor the other scope options range from approximately $300 million to\r\n$1,700 million using a 3% discount rate and from $300 million to $1,800\r\nmillion using a 7% discount rate. The benefits from prohibiting certain\r\npaint preparation and removal practices in renovations requiring lead-\r\nsafe work practices under the rule are estimated to be $400 million to\r\n$900 million per year using a 3% discount rate. There are additional\r\nunquantified benefits, including other avoided health effects in\r\nchildren and adults.\r\n 5. Costs. The Economic Analysis estimates the costs of complying\r\nwith the rule. Costs may be incurred by contractors that perform\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting work for compensation, landlords that\r\nuse their own staff to perform renovation, repair, and painting work in\r\nleased buildings; and child-occupied facilities that use their own\r\nstaff to perform renovation, repair, and painting work.\r\n The rule is estimated to result in a total cost of approximately\r\n$800 million in the first year that all of the rule requirements will\r\nbe in effect. The cost is estimated to drop to approximately $400\r\nmillion per year in the second year when the improved test kits are\r\nassumed to become available. The 50-year annualized costs provide a\r\nmeasure of the steady-state cost. Annualized costs of the rule are\r\nestimated to be approximately $400 million per year using either a 3%\r\ndiscount rate or a 7% discount rate. Annualized costs for the other\r\nscope options range from approximately $300 million to approximately\r\n$700 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $400 million to $700\r\nmillion per year using a 7% discount rate. The cost of prohibiting\r\ncertain paint preparation and removal practices is estimated to cost\r\nless than $10 million per year using either a 3% or a 7% discount rate\r\n 6. Net benefits. Net benefits are the difference between benefits\r\nand costs. The rule is estimated to result in net benefits of--$50\r\nmillion to $1,000 million in the first year, based on children's IQ\r\nbenefits alone. The 50-year annualized net benefits for the rule based\r\non children's benefits are estimated to be $300 million to $1,300\r\nmillion per year using either a 3% or a 7% discount rate. The\r\nannualized net benefits for the other scope options range from\r\napproximately--$50 million to $1,300 million per year using either a 3%\r\nor a 7% discount rate. The net benefits of prohibiting certain paint\r\npreparation and removal practices for renovations requiring lead-safe\r\nwork practices are estimated to be approximately $400 million to $900\r\nmillion per year using either a 3% or a 7% discount rate. There are\r\nadditional unquantified benefits, including other avoided health\r\neffects in children and adults that are not included in the net\r\nbenefits estimates.\r\n It is important to note that the EPA analysis generates certain\r\nresults that seem to indicate that more stringent control options yield\r\nsmaller improvements reducing the risks of elevated blood lead levels\r\nin children than do less stringent control options. For example, the\r\nanalysis estimates that using only containment of dust and debris\r\ngenerated during a RRP activity yields higher benefits than using all\r\nof the rule's work practices (containment, specialized cleaning, and\r\ncleaning verification). This is the opposite of what one might expect\r\nand of what is observed in the Dust Study for the 10 experiments that\r\nused the proposed rule cleaning and containment, since the benefits\r\nanalysis implies that the combination of rule-style containment with\r\nrule-style cleaning and verification would result in more exposure than\r\nwhen such containment is combined with conventional cleaning. This is\r\ninconsistent with the Dust Study which shows that the largest decreases\r\nwere observed in the 10 experiments where this final rule's practices\r\nof containment, specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification were\r\nused. Therefore, the anomalous results are likely to be artifacts of\r\nsparse underlying data and modeling assumptions. Although EPA\r\nsummarizes some of the potential causes of these unexpected results in\r\nthe Economic Analysis, at this time EPA is unclear as to precisely what\r\nis leading to these unexpected results. Because EPA has not determined\r\nwhy the benefits analyses contain anomalous results, EPA has limited\r\nconfidence in the estimated benefits. EPA does not view the results as\r\nbeing sufficiently robust to represent the difference in magnitude of\r\nthe benefits across regulatory alternatives. Nevertheless, EPA is\r\nconfident that there are positive benefits.\r\n\r\nB. Paperwork Reduction Act\r\n\r\n The information collection requirements contained in this rule have\r\nbeen submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget\r\n(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An\r\nInformation Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA, an\r\namendment to an existing ICR and referred to as the ICR Final Rule\r\nAddendum (EPA ICR No. 1715.10, OMB Control Number 2070-0155) has been\r\nplaced in the public docket for this rule (Ref. 47). The information\r\ncollection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.\r\n The new information collection activities contained in this rule\r\nare designed to assist the Agency in meeting the core objectives of\r\nTSCA section 402, including ensuring the integrity of accreditation\r\nprograms for training providers, providing for the certification of\r\nrenovators, and determining whether work practice standards are being\r\nfollowed. EPA has carefully tailored the recordkeeping requirements so\r\nthey will permit the Agency to achieve statutory objectives without\r\nimposing an undue burden on those firms that choose to be involved in\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting activities.\r\n Burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act means the total time,\r\neffort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,\r\nmaintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal\r\nagency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,\r\nacquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes\r\nof collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and\r\nmaintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;\r\nadjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable\r\ninstructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to\r\na collection of information; search data sources; complete and review\r\nthe collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the\r\ninformation.\r\n Under this rule, the new information collection requirements may\r\naffect training providers and firms that perform renovation, repair, or\r\npainting for compensation. Although these firms have the option of\r\nchoosing to engage in the covered activities, once a firm chooses to do\r\nso, the information collection activities contained in this rule become\r\nmandatory for that firm.\r\n The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated\r\nburden and costs for 3 years of the program. The aggregate burden\r\nvaries by year due to changes in the number of firms that will seek\r\ncertification each year. The burden and cost to training providers and\r\nfirms engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities is\r\nsummarized below.\r\n It is estimated that approximately 170 training providers will\r\nincur burden to\r\n\r\n[[Page 21752]]\r\n\r\nnotify EPA (or an authorizing State, Tribe, or Territory) before and\r\nafter training courses. The average burden for training provider\r\nnotifications is estimated at 20 to 100 hours per year, depending on\r\nthe number of training courses provided. Total training provider burden\r\nis estimated to average 9,000 hours per year. There are approximately\r\n211,000 firms estimated to become certified to engage in renovation,\r\nrepair, or painting activities. The average certification burden is\r\nestimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is initially\r\ncertified, and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified (which occurs\r\nevery 5 years). Firms must also distribute lead hazard information to\r\nthe owners and occupants of public or commercial buildings that contain\r\nchild-occupied facilities and in target housing containing child-\r\noccupied facilities. Finally, firms must keep records of the work they\r\nperform; this recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 5\r\nhours per year per firm. Total burden for these certified firms is\r\nestimated to average 1,373,000 hours per year. Total respondent burden\r\nduring the period covered by the ICR is estimated to average\r\napproximately 1,382,000 hours per year.\r\n There are also government costs to administer the program. States,\r\nTribes, and Territories are allowed, but are under no obligation, to\r\napply for and receive authorization to administer these requirements.\r\nEPA will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, and\r\nTerritories that do not become authorized. Because the number of\r\nStates, Tribes, and Territories that will become authorized is not\r\nknown, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA will\r\nadminister the program everywhere. To the extent that other government\r\nentities become authorized, EPA's administrative costs will be lower.\r\n An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required\r\nto respond to a collection of information unless it displays a\r\ncurrently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's\r\nregulations codified in Chapter 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the\r\npreamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed\r\neither by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate\r\nmeans, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if\r\napplicable. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a\r\ntechnical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display\r\nthe OMB control number for the approved information collection\r\nrequirements contained in this final rule.\r\n\r\nC. Regulatory Flexibility Act\r\n\r\n The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency\r\nto prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to\r\nnotice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative\r\nProcedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the\r\nrule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial\r\nnumber of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,\r\nsmall organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.\r\n For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small\r\nentities, small entity is defined in accordance with section 601 of the\r\nRFA as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business\r\nAdministration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small\r\ngovernmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,\r\nschool district, or special district with a population of less than\r\n50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit\r\nenterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not\r\ndominant in its field.\r\n Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial\r\nregulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and\r\nconvened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and\r\nrecommendations of representatives of the regulated small entities. A\r\nsummary of the IRFA, a description of the Panel process, and a summary\r\nof the Panel's recommendations can be found in Unit VIII.C. of the\r\npreamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3). A detailed discussion of the\r\nPanel's advice and recommendations is found in the Panel Report (Ref. 48).\r\n As required by section 604 of the RFA, we also prepared a final\r\nregulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The FRFA\r\naddresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA, which was\r\npart of the proposal of this rule. The FRFA is available for review in\r\nthe docket and is summarized below (Ref. 49).\r\n 1. Legal basis and objectives for the rule. As discussed in Unit\r\nII.A. of this preamble, TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study the\r\nextent to which persons engaged in renovation, repair, and painting\r\nactivities are exposed to lead or create lead-based paint hazards\r\nregularly or occasionally. After concluding this study, TSCA section\r\n402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise its Lead-based Paint Activities\r\nRegulations under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to renovation or\r\nremodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Because\r\nEPA's study found that activities commonly performed during renovation\r\nand remodeling create lead-based paint hazards, EPA is revising the\r\nTSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to individuals and firms\r\nengaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities. In so doing,\r\nEPA has also taken into consideration the environmental, economic, and\r\nsocial impact of this final rule as provided in TSCA section 2(c). The\r\nprimary objective of the rule is to minimize exposure to lead-based\r\npaint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting\r\nactivities in housing where children under age 6 reside and in housing\r\nwhere a pregnant woman resides and in housing or other buildings\r\nfrequented by children under age 6.\r\n 2. Potentially affected small entities. Small entities include\r\nsmall businesses, small organizations, and small governmental\r\njurisdictions. The small entities that are potentially directly\r\nregulated by this rule include: small businesses (including contractors\r\nand property owners and managers); small nonprofits (certain day care\r\ncenters and private schools); and small governments (school districts).\r\n In determining the number of small businesses affected by the rule,\r\nthe Agency applied U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA's definition of\r\nsmall business. However, applying the U.S. Economic Census data\r\nrequires either under or overestimating the number of small businesses\r\naffected by the rule. For example, for many construction\r\nestablishments, the SBA defines small businesses as having revenues of\r\nless than $13 million. With respect to those establishments, the U.S.\r\nEconomic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10\r\nmillion or more into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data\r\nfor the entire industry would overestimate the number of small\r\nbusinesses affected by the rule and would defeat the purpose of\r\nestimating impacts on small business. It would also underestimate the\r\nrule's impact on small businesses because the impacts would be\r\ncalculated using the revenues of large businesses in addition to small\r\nbusinesses. On the other hand, applying the closest, albeit lower,\r\nrevenue bracket would underestimate the number of small businesses\r\naffected by the rule while at the same time overestimating the impacts.\r\nSimilar issues arose in estimating the fraction of property owners and\r\nmanagers that are small businesses. EPA has concluded that a\r\n\r\n[[Page 21753]]\r\n\r\nsubstantial number of small businesses will be affected by the rule.\r\nConsequently, EPA has chosen to be more conservative in estimating the\r\ncost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, revenue\r\nbracket for which Census data is available. For other sectors\r\n(nonprofits operating day care centers or private schools), EPA assumed\r\nthat all affected firms are small, which may overestimate the number of\r\nsmall entities affected by the rule.\r\n The vast majority of entities in the industries affected by this\r\nrule are small. Using EPA's estimates, the renovation, repair, and painting\r\nprogram will affect an average of approximately 189,000 small entities.\r\n 3. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA evaluated two\r\nfactors in its analysis of the rule's requirements on small entities,\r\nthe number of firms that would experience the impact, and the size of\r\nthe impact. Average annual compliance costs as a percentage of average\r\nannual revenues were used to assess the potential average impacts of\r\nthe rule on small businesses and small governments. This ratio is a\r\ngood measure of entities' ability to afford the costs attributable to a\r\nregulatory requirement, because comparing compliance costs to revenues\r\nprovides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory\r\nburden relative to a commonly available measure of economic activity.\r\nWhere regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical entity's\r\nrevenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on such entities may\r\nbe considered as not significant. For non-profit organizations, impacts\r\nwere measured by comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When\r\nexpenditure data were not available, however, revenue information was\r\nused as a proxy for expenditures. It is appropriate to calculate the\r\nimpact ratios using annualized costs, because these costs are more\r\nrepresentative of the continuing costs entities face to comply with the\r\nrule.\r\n EPA estimates that there are an average of 189,000 small entities\r\nthat would be affected by the renovation, repair, and painting\r\nactivities program. Of these, there are an estimated 165,000 small\r\nbusinesses with an average impact of 0.7%, 17,000 small non-profits\r\nwith an average impact of 0.1%, and 6,000 small governments with an\r\naverage impact of 0.004%. These estimates are based on an average cost\r\nof approximately $35 per renovation.\r\n 4. Relevant Federal rules. The requirements in this rulemaking will\r\nfit within an existing framework of other Federal regulations that\r\naddress lead-based paint. The Pre-Renovation Education Rule, discussed\r\nin Unit II.A.2. of this preamble, requires renovators to distribute a\r\nlead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants before conducting\r\na renovation in target housing. This rule has been carefully crafted to\r\nharmonize with the existing pre-renovation education requirements.\r\n Disposal of waste from renovation projects that would be regulated\r\nby this rule is covered by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act\r\n(RCRA) regulations for solid waste. This rule does not contain specific\r\nrequirements for the disposal of waste from renovations.\r\n HUD has extensive regulations that address the conduct of interim\r\ncontrols, as well as other lead-based paint activities, in federally\r\nassisted housing. Some of HUD's interim controls are regulated under\r\nthis rule as renovations, depending upon whether the particular interim\r\ncontrol measure disturbs more than the threshold amount of paint. In\r\nmost cases, the HUD regulations are comparable to, or more stringent\r\nthan this rule. In general, persons performing HUD-regulated interim\r\ncontrols must have taken a course in lead-safe work practices, which is\r\nalso a requirement of this rule. However, this rule does not require\r\ndust clearance testing, a process required by HUD after interim control\r\nactivities that disturb more than a minimal amount of lead-based paint.\r\n Finally, OSHA's Lead Exposure in Construction standard covers\r\npotential worker exposures to lead during many construction activities,\r\nincluding renovation, repair, and painting activities. Although this\r\nstandard may cover many of the same projects as this final rule, the\r\nrequirements themselves do not overlap. The OSHA rule addresses the\r\nprotection of the worker, this EPA rule principally addresses the\r\nprotection of the building occupants, particularly children under age 6\r\nand pregnant women.\r\n 5. Skills needed for compliance. This rule establishes requirements\r\nfor training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling\r\ntechnicians; certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and\r\nentities engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities;\r\naccrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician\r\ntraining; and for renovation work practices. Renovators and dust\r\nsampling technicians would have to take a course to learn the proper\r\ntechniques for accomplishing the tasks they will perform during\r\nrenovations. These courses are intended to provide them with the\r\ninformation they would need to comply with the rule based on the skills\r\nthey already have. Renovators would then provide on-the-job training in\r\nwork practices to any other renovation workers used on a particular\r\nrenovation. They would also need to document the work they have done\r\nduring renovations. This does not require any special skills.\r\nRenovation firms would be required to apply for certification to\r\nperform renovations; this process does not require any special skills\r\nother than the ability to complete the application. Training providers\r\nmust be knowledgeable about delivering technical training. Training\r\nproviders would be required to apply for accreditation to offer\r\nrenovator and dust sampling technician courses. They would also be\r\nrequired to provide prior notification of such courses and provide\r\ninformation on the students trained after each such course. Completing\r\nthe accreditation application and providing the required notification\r\ninformation does not require any special skills.\r\n 6. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. Since the earliest stages\r\nof planning for this regulation under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, EPA\r\nhas been concerned with potential small entity impacts. EPA conducted\r\noutreach to small entities, and, in 1999, convened a Small Business\r\nAdvocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of\r\nrepresentatives of the small entities that would potentially be subject\r\nto this regulation's requirements. At that time, EPA was planning an\r\ninitial regulation that would apply to renovations in target housing,\r\nwith requirements for public and commercial building renovations,\r\nincluding child-occupied facility renovations, to follow at a later\r\ndate. The small entity representatives (SERs) chosen for consultation\r\nreflect that initial emphasis. They included maintenance and renovation\r\ncontractors, painting and decorating contractors, multi-family housing\r\nowners and operators, training providers\/consultants, and\r\nrepresentatives from several national contractor associations, the\r\nNational Multi-Housing Council, and the National Association of Home\r\nBuilders. After considering the existing Lead-based Paint Activities\r\nRegulations, and taking into account preliminary stakeholder feedback,\r\nEPA identified eight key elements of a potential renovation and remodeling\r\nregulation for the SBAR Panel's consideration. These elements were:\r\n \u2022 Applicability and scope.\r\n \u2022 Firm certification.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21754]]\r\n\r\n \u2022 Individual training and certification.\r\n \u2022 Accreditation of training courses.\r\n \u2022 Work practice standards.\r\n \u2022 Prohibited practices.\r\n \u2022 Exterior clearance.\r\n \u2022 Interior clearance.\r\n EPA also developed several options for each of these key elements.\r\nAlthough the scope and applicability options specifically presented to\r\nthe SBAR Panel covered only target housing, background information\r\npresented to the SERs and to the SBAR Panel members shows that EPA was\r\nalso considering a regulation covering child-occupied facilities. The\r\n2007 Supplemental Proposal (Ref. 15) extended the potentially regulated\r\nuniverse to include child-occupied facilities. When the 2007\r\nSupplemental Proposal was issued, EPA conducted a targeted mailing\r\ncampaign to specifically solicit input on the rule from child-occupied\r\nfacilities, such as child care providers and kindergartens, in public\r\nor commercial buildings. More information on the SBAR Panel, its\r\nrecommendations, and how EPA implemented them in the development of the\r\nprogram, is provided in Unit VIII.C.6. of the preamble to the 2006\r\nProposal (Ref. 3).\r\n 7. Alternatives considered. The following is a discussion of\r\nsignificant alternatives to the rule, originated by EPA or by\r\ncommenters, that could affect the economic impacts of the rule on small\r\nentities. These alternatives would have applied to both small and large\r\nentities, but, given the large number of small entities in the\r\nindustry, these alternatives would primarily affect small entities. For\r\nthe reasons described below, these alternatives are not consistent with\r\nthe objectives of the rule.\r\n a. Applicability and scope. EPA considered a number of options for\r\nthe scope and applicability of the rule: include all pre-1978 housing,\r\nall pre-1978 rental housing, all pre-1960 housing, and all pre-1960\r\nrental housing. Although the scope and applicability options\r\nspecifically presented to the SBAR Panel covered only target housing,\r\nbackground information presented to the SERs and to the SBAR Panel\r\nmembers shows that EPA was also considering a regulation covering\r\nchild-occupied facilities.\r\n The SBAR Panel recommended that EPA request public comment in the\r\nproposal on the option of limiting the housing stock affected by the\r\nrule to that constructed prior to 1960, as well as the option of\r\ncovering all pre-1978 housing and other options that may help to reduce\r\ncosts while achieving the protection of public health. EPA asked for\r\ncomment in the proposed rule on alternative scope options, including an\r\noption limited to buildings constructed prior to 1960. After\r\nconsidering the public comments, EPA has determined that limiting the\r\nrule to exclude buildings constructed on or after 1960 is not\r\nconsistent with the stated objectives of the rule, in part because this\r\nwould not protect children under the age of 6 and pregnant women.\r\n b. Staged approach. EPA proposed a staged approach that would\r\ninitially address renovations in pre-1960 target housing and child-\r\noccupied facilities, or where a child had an increased blood-lead\r\nlevel. EPA requested comment about whether to delay implementation for\r\npost-1960 target housing and child-occupied facilities for 1 year. Most\r\ncommenters objected to the phased implementation, expressing concerns\r\nabout adding complexity to implementation and about potential exposures\r\nto children in buildings built between 1960 and 1978 during the first\r\nyear. After reviewing the comments, EPA determined the reduced burdens\r\nof a staged approach did not outweigh the complexity that it added to\r\nimplementation.\r\n c. Exclude categories of contractors or renovation activities. EPA\r\nrequested comment on whether to exclude any categories of specialty\r\ncontractors and whether certain renovation activities should be\r\nspecifically included or excluded. In response, no commenter offered\r\nany data to show that any category of contractor or type of renovation\r\nactivity should be exempt because they do not create lead-based paint\r\nhazards. All of the renovation activities in the Dust Study and the\r\nother studies in the record for the rule created lead-based paint\r\nhazards. EPA determined that it had no basis on which to exempt any\r\ncategory of contractor or type of renovation. However, some small jobs\r\nwill be exempt from the requirements of the rule under the minor\r\nmaintenance exception.\r\n d. Prohibited practices. The current abatement regulations in 40\r\nCFR part 745, subpart L prohibit the following work practices during\r\nabatement projects: Open-flame burning or torching, machine sanding or\r\ngrinding, abrasive blasting or sandblasting, dry scraping of large\r\nareas, and operating a heat gun in excess of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.\r\nEPA presented four options to the SBAR Panel on this topic: prohibit\r\nthese practices during renovations; allow dry scraping and exterior\r\nflame-burning or torching; allow dry scraping and interior and exterior\r\nflame-burning or torching; or allow all of these practices. The SBAR\r\nPanel recognized industry concerns over the feasibility of prohibiting\r\nthese practices, especially when no cost-effective alternatives exist.\r\nThe SBAR Panel was also concerned about the potential risks associated\r\nwith these practices, but noted that reasonable training, performance,\r\ncontainment, and clean-up requirements may adequately address these risks.\r\n EPA followed the SBAR Panel's recommendation and requested public\r\ncomment on the cost, benefit, and feasibility of prohibiting certain\r\nwork practices. In response to its request for comment in the proposed\r\nrule, the Agency received information on techniques including benign\r\nstrippers, steam stripping, closed planing with vacuums, infrared\r\nremoval, and chemical stripping. Therefore, EPA believes that there are\r\ncost-effective alternatives to these prohibited or restricted\r\npractices. In addition, the Dust Study (Characterization of Dust Lead\r\nLevels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities) found that\r\nmost practices prohibited or restricted under EPA's Lead-based Paint\r\nActivities Regulations produce large quantities of lead dust, and that\r\nthe use of the proposed work practices were not effective at containing\r\nor removing dust-lead hazards from the work area.\r\n EPA has concluded that these practices should be prohibited or\r\nrestricted during renovation, repair, and painting activities that\r\ndisturb lead-based paint because the work practices in the rule are not\r\neffective at containing the spread of leaded dust when these practices\r\nare used, or at cleaning up lead-based paint hazards created by these\r\npractices. Thus, the work practices are not effective at minimizing\r\nexposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation\r\nactivities when these activities are used.\r\n e. HEPA vacuums. The proposed rule required the use of a HEPA\r\nvacuum as part of the work practice standards for renovation\r\nactivities. One commenter stated that EPA did not have sufficient\r\nevidence showing that HEPA vacuums are significantly better at removing\r\nlead dust than non-HEPA vacuums. EPA has determined that the weight of\r\nthe evidence provided by the studies it reviewed demonstrates that the\r\nHEPA vacuums consistently removed significant quantities of lead-based\r\npaint dust and reduced lead loadings to lower levels then did other\r\nvacuums. While there may be some vacuums cleaners that are as effective\r\nas HEPA vacuums, EPA has not been able to define quantitatively the\r\nspecific attributes of\r\n\r\n[[Page 21755]]\r\n\r\nthose vacuums. That is, EPA is not able to identify what criteria\r\nshould be used to identify vacuums that are equivalent to HEPA vacuums\r\nin performance. Thus, EPA does not believe that it can identify in the\r\nfinal rule what types of vacuums can be used as substitutes for HEPA-\r\nvacuums. Therefore, EPA has not adopted this alternative.\r\n f. Visual inspection in lieu of cleaning verification. EPA\r\nrequested comment on whether cleaning verification is necessary given\r\nthe cleaning required by the rule. Some commenters contended that a\r\nvisual inspection following cleaning after a renovation is sufficient\r\nto ensure the lead-based paint dust generated by a renovation has been\r\nsufficiently cleaned-up. EPA disagrees with those commenters who\r\nrequested that the work practices in the final rule not include any\r\nverification beyond visual inspection. The weight of the evidence\r\nclearly demonstrates that visual inspection following cleaning after a\r\nrenovation is insufficient at detecting dust-lead hazards, even at\r\nlevels significantly above the regulatory hazard standards. Further,\r\nEPA disagrees with the implication that easily visible paint chips and\r\nsplinters are necessarily the primary materials generated during a\r\nrenovation. EPA studies, including the Dust Study, show that renovation\r\nactivities generate dust as well as chips and splinters. Therefore, EPA\r\nhas not adopted this alternative.\r\n 8. Significant issues raised by comments on the Initial Regulatory\r\nFlexibility Analysis. A commenter requested that the plumbing-heating-\r\ncooling industry be exempted from the rule, claiming that the rule is\r\nimpractical for the industry. The commenter did not provide any\r\nsupporting data as to why the rule is impractical for the plumbing-\r\nheating-cooling industry, or any data indicating that renovations\r\nconducted by plumbing, heating, or cooling contractors do not create\r\nlead hazards. By contrast, the Dust Study indicated that cutting open\r\ndrywall (an activity often performed by plumbing, heating, and cooling\r\ncontractors) can create a lead hazard. Therefore, EPA believes that\r\nplumbing, heating, and cooling contractors who disturb more than an\r\nexempt amount of lead-based paint can create lead hazards. EPA does not\r\nbelieve that there is a factual basis for exempting this, or any other,\r\nindustry from the rule.\r\n Another commenter stated that EPA's proposed rule gave little\r\ndeference to HUD's rules, and thus is inconsistent with the Regulatory\r\nFlexibility Act's requirements to fit new rules within the framework of\r\nexisting Federal regulations. The commenter stated that EPA's rule\r\nneeded to give greater deference to the framework established in HUD's\r\nrules (especially HUD's requirements for independent clearance\r\nexaminations and its prohibition of dangerous work practices), and to\r\nclearly explain how the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule will\r\ninterface with HUD's rules to avoid confusion.\r\n Regarding HUD's requirements for independent clearance\r\nexaminations, EPA's final rule clarifies that dust clearance sampling\r\nis allowed in lieu of post-renovation cleaning verification in cases\r\nwhere another Federal, State, Territorial, Tribal, or local regulation\r\nrequires dust clearance testing and requires the renovation firm to\r\nclean the work area until it passes clearance. This would apply to HUD-\r\nregulated renovations. Regarding the prohibition of dangerous work\r\npractices, EPA's final rule prohibits the use of the following work\r\npractices during regulated renovations: Open flame burning or torching\r\nof lead-based paint; the use of machines that remove lead-based paint\r\nthrough high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing,\r\nneedle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting unless such machines are\r\nused with HEPA exhaust control; and operating a heat gun above 1100\r\ndegrees Fahrenheit. EPA believes that the provisions in the final rule\r\nprovide an appropriate measure of consistency with other regulatory\r\nprograms (including HUD's), and will cause minimal disruption for\r\nrenovation firms.\r\n One commenter contended that EPA said that ``[n]one of the housing\r\nauthorities identified in section 8.2.1 as operating public housing\r\nthat does not receive HUD funding qualifies as a small government under\r\nthe Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' According to the commenter, public\r\nhousing authorities are government entities, and hundreds of them are\r\nlocated in and are part of communities with a population of less than\r\n50,000.\r\n EPA's small entity analysis was not claiming that no small\r\ngovernments operate housing authorities, but that they would not be\r\nsignificantly impacted by the rule. EPA's reasoning was as follows:\r\n \u2022 The only public housing authorities that EPA could\r\nidentify that do not receive HUD funds are operated by Massachusetts,\r\nNew York, Hawaii, Connecticut, and New York City.\r\n \u2022 Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, and New York City have\r\npopulations over 50,000 and thus do not qualify as small governments.\r\n \u2022 To the best of EPA's knowledge, governments with populations under\r\n50,000 that operate public housing authorities all receive HUD funds.\r\n \u2022 Public housing that receives funding from HUD already must\r\ncomply with HUD regulations regarding lead paint and so are not likely\r\nto incur significant additional costs due to this rule.\r\nThe commenter has offered no factual information to dispute this\r\nreasoning. Therefore, the Agency believes its conclusions regarding\r\npublic housing authorities operated by small governments were appropriate.\r\n A commenter stated that the proposed rule will have a significant\r\nimpact on small businesses, and that EPA's own economic analysis of\r\nthis rule finds that residential property managers and lessors of\r\nresidential real estate will bear the largest share of costs in\r\nassociation with the rule. EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim\r\nthat residential property managers and lessors of residential real\r\nestate will bear the largest share of costs in association with the\r\nrule. EPA analyzed small business impacts by estimating the average\r\ncost impact ratio for each industry, calculated as the average annual\r\ncompliance cost as a percentage of average annual revenues. The average\r\ncost impact ratio for lessors of real estate is below the average cost\r\nimpact ratio for all small businesses under the rule. And while the\r\naverage cost impact ratio for residential property managers is above\r\nthe average cost impact for all small businesses under the rule, small\r\nresidential property managers make up approximately 3% of the small\r\nentities impacted by the rule. Therefore, it is not accurate to claim\r\nthat residential property managers and lessors of residential real\r\nestate will bear the largest share of costs in association with the rule.\r\n Another commenter stated that given the lack of evidence showing\r\nthat HEPA vacuums are significantly better at removing lead dust from\r\nfloors, and because HEPA vacuums are significantly more costly than\r\nnon-HEPA units, EPA should modify its proposed rule to allow cleanup\r\nwith either a HEPA or non-HEPA vacuum. According to the commenter,\r\ndoing so would reduce the cost to small entities in the renovation and\r\nlead mitigation businesses without compromising the level of lead dust\r\nclearance achieved by the standard.\r\n EPA disagrees that it should modify its proposed rule to allow\r\ncleanup with a non-HEPA vacuum. EPA has determined that the weight of\r\nthe evidence provided by various studies\r\n\r\n[[Page 21756]]\r\n\r\ndemonstrate that the HEPA vacuums consistently removed significant\r\nquantities of lead-based paint dust and reduced lead loadings to lower\r\nlevels then did other vacuums. While there may be some vacuums that are\r\nas effective as HEPA vacuums, EPA has not been able to define\r\nquantitatively the specific attributes of those vacuums. That is, EPA\r\nis not able to identify what criteria should be used to identify\r\nvacuums that are equivalent to HEPA vacuums in performance. Thus, EPA\r\ndoes not believe that it can identify what types of vacuums can be used\r\nas substitutes for HEPA-vacuums. EPA also notes that non-HEPA vacuums\r\nthat perform as well as HEPA vacuums may not be less expensive than\r\nHEPA vacuums. For these reasons, EPA has determined that modifying its\r\nproposed rule to allow cleanup with non-HEPA vacuums would compromise\r\nthe level of lead dust clearance achieved by the standard, and might\r\nnot result in meaningful cost reductions.\r\n As required by section 212 of SBREFA, EPA also is preparing a Small\r\nEntity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule.\r\nBefore the date that this rule's requirements take effect for training\r\nproviders, renovation firms, and renovators, the guide will be\r\navailable on EPA's website at http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/lead<\/a> or from the\r\nNational Lead Information Center by calling 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).\r\n\r\nD. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act\r\n\r\n Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public\r\nLaw 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the\r\neffects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal\r\ngovernments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA\r\ngenerally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit\r\nanalysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that\r\nmay result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in\r\nthe aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any\r\n1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement\r\nis needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify\r\nand consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt\r\nthe least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative\r\nthat achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205\r\ndo not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,\r\nsection 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least\r\ncostly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the\r\nAdministrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that\r\nalternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory\r\nrequirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small\r\ngovernments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under\r\nsection 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must\r\nprovide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling\r\nofficials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely\r\ninput in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant\r\nFederal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and\r\nadvising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.\r\n Under UMRA Title II, EPA has determined that this rule contains a\r\nFederal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed the\r\ninflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by the private sector\r\nin any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by State,\r\nlocal, and Tribal governments in the aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has\r\nprepared a written statement under section 202 of UMRA which has been\r\nplaced in the public docket for this rulemaking and is summarized here.\r\n 1. Authorizing legislation. This rule is issued under the authority\r\nof TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3),\r\n2684, 2686, and 2687.\r\n 2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs\r\nand benefits associated with this rulemaking, a copy of which is\r\navailable in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 24). The Economic\r\nAnalysis presents the costs of the rule as well as various regulatory\r\noptions and is summarized in Unit III.A. of this preamble.EPA has\r\nestimated that the total annualized costs of this rulemaking are\r\napproximately $400 million per year using either a 3% or a 7% discount\r\nrate,and that benefits are approximately $700 to $1,700 million per\r\nyear using a 3% discount rate and $700 to $1,800 million per year using\r\na 7% discount.\r\n 3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input\r\nfrom State, local and Tribal government representatives throughout the\r\ndevelopment of the renovation, repair, and painting program. EPA's\r\nexperience in administering the existing lead-based paint activities\r\nprogram under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that these governments will\r\nplay a critical role in the successful implementation of a national\r\nprogram to reduce exposures to lead-based paint hazards associated with\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting activities. Consequently, as discussed\r\nin Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3), the\r\nAgency has met with State, local, and Tribal government officials on\r\nnumerous occasions to discuss renovation issues.\r\n 4. Least burdensome option. EPA considered a wide variety of\r\noptions for addressing the risks presented by renovation activities\r\nwhere lead-based paint is present. As part of the development of the\r\nrenovation, repair, and painting program, EPA has considered different\r\noptions for the scope of the rule, various combinations of training and\r\ncertification requirements for individuals who perform renovations,\r\nvarious combinations of work practice requirements, and various methods\r\nfor ensuring that no lead-based paint hazards are left behind by\r\npersons performing renovations. The Economic Analysis analyzed several\r\ndifferent options for the scope of the rule. Additional information on\r\nthe options considered is available in Unit VIII.C.6. of the preamble\r\nfor the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3), and in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 24).\r\nEPA has determined that the preferred option is the least burdensome\r\noption available that achieves the primary objective of this rule,\r\nwhich is to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created\r\nduring renovation, repair, and painting activities in housing where\r\nchildren under age 6 reside and where a pregnant woman resides and in\r\nhousing or other buildings frequented by children under age 6.\r\n This rule does not contain a significant Federal intergovernmental\r\nmandate as described by section 203 of UMRA. Based on the definition of\r\n``small government jurisdiction'' in RFA section 601, no State\r\ngovernments can be considered small. Small Territorial or Tribal\r\ngovernments may apply for authorization to administer and enforce this\r\nprogram, which would entail costs, but these small jurisdictions are\r\nunder no obligation to do so.\r\n EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory\r\nrequirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small\r\ngovernments. Small governments operate schools that are child-occupied\r\nfacilities. EPA generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as\r\nbeing expenditures, in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small\r\ngovernment revenues in any 1 year. As explained in Unit III.C.3., the\r\nrule is expected to result in small government impacts well under 1% of\r\nrevenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly\r\naffect small governments. Nor does the rule uniquely affect small\r\ngovernments, as the rule is not targeted\r\n\r\n[[Page 21757]]\r\n\r\nat small governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and\r\ndoes not impose a different burden on small governments than on other\r\nentities that operate child-occupied facilities.\r\n\r\nE. Federalism\r\n\r\n Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR\r\n43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this rule does not\r\nhave ``federalism implications,'' because it will not have substantial\r\ndirect effects on the States, on the relationship between the national\r\ngovernment and the States, or on the distribution of power and\r\nresponsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified\r\nin Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to\r\nthis rule. States would be able to apply for, and receive authorization\r\nto administer these requirements, but would be under no obligation to\r\ndo so. In the absence of a State authorization, EPA will administer\r\nthese requirements. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of\r\nthis Executive Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote\r\ncommunications between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA has\r\nconsulted with representatives of State and local governments in developing\r\nthe renovation, repair, and painting program. These consultations\r\nare as described in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3).\r\n\r\nF. Tribal Implications\r\n\r\n As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and\r\nCoordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951<\/a>, November 9,\r\n2000), EPA has determined that this rule does not have tribal\r\nimplications because it will not have substantial direct effects on\r\ntribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government\r\nand the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and\r\nresponsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as\r\nspecified in the Order. Tribes would be able to apply for, and receive\r\nauthorization to administer these requirements on Tribal lands, but\r\nTribes would be under no obligation to do so. In the absence of a\r\nTribal authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. While\r\nTribes may operate child-occupied facilities covered by the rule such\r\nas kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, and day care facilities, EPA has\r\ndetermined that this rule would not have substantial direct effects on\r\nthe Tribal governments that operate these facilities.\r\n Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Although\r\nExecutive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, EPA consulted with\r\nTribal officials and others by discussing potential renovation\r\nregulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painting program at\r\nseveral national lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other\r\ninterested Federal agencies.\r\n\r\nG. Children's Health Protection\r\n\r\n Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from\r\nEnvironmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885<\/a>, April 23,\r\n1997) applies to this rule because it is an ``economically significant\r\nregulatory action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because\r\nthe environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may\r\nhave a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, EPA has\r\nevaluated the environmental health or safety effects of renovation,\r\nrepair, and painting projects on children. Various aspects of this\r\nevaluation are discussed in the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3).\r\n The primary purpose of this rule is to minimize exposure to lead-\r\nbased paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting\r\nactivities in housing where children under age 6 reside and in housing\r\nor other buildings frequented by children under age 6. In the absence\r\nof this regulation, adequate work practices are not likely to be\r\nemployed during renovation, repair, and painting activities. EPA's\r\nanalysis indicates that there will be approximately 1.4 million\r\nchildren under age 6 affected by the rule. These children are projected\r\nto receive considerable benefits due to this regulation.\r\n\r\nH. Energy Effects\r\n\r\n This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in\r\nExecutive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that\r\nSignificantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355<\/a>,\r\nMay 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on\r\nthe supply, distribution, or use of energy.\r\n\r\nI. Technology Standards\r\n\r\n Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement\r\nAct of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272\r\nnote), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its\r\nregulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with\r\napplicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards\r\nare technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,\r\nsampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or\r\nadopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA\r\nto provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides\r\nnot to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. In\r\nthe 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to adopt a number of work practice\r\nrequirements that could be considered technical standards for\r\nperforming renovation projects in residences that contain lead-based\r\npaint. As discussed in Unit VIII.I. of the 2006 Proposal, EPA\r\nidentified two potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards\r\n(Ref. 3 at 1626). ASTM International (formerly the American Society for\r\nTesting and Materials) has developed two potentially applicable\r\ndocuments: Standard Practice for Clearance Examinations Following Lead\r\nHazard Reduction Activities in Single-Family Dwellings and Child-\r\nOccupied Facilities (Ref. 50), and ``Standard Guide for Evaluation,\r\nManagement, and Control of Lead Hazards in Facilities'' (Ref. 51). With\r\nrespect to the first document, EPA did not propose to require\r\ntraditional clearance examinations, including dust sampling, following\r\nrenovation projects. However, EPA did propose to require that a visual\r\ninspection for dust, debris, and residue be conducted after cleaning\r\nand before post-renovation cleaning verification is performed. The\r\nfirst ASTM document does contain information on conducting a visual\r\ninspection before collecting dust clearance samples. The second ASTM\r\ndocument is a comprehensive guide to identifying and controlling lead-\r\nbased paint hazards. Some of the information in this document is\r\nrelevant to the work practices required by the rule. Each of these ASTM\r\ndocuments represents state-of-the-art knowledge regarding the\r\nperformance of these particular aspects of lead-based paint hazard\r\nevaluation and control practices and EPA continues to recommend the use\r\nof these documents where appropriate. However, because each of these\r\ndocuments is extremely detailed and encompasses many circumstances beyond\r\nthe scope of this rulemaking, EPA determined that it would be impractical\r\nto incorporate these voluntary consensus standards into the rule.\r\n In addition, this final rule contains performance standards and a\r\nprocess for recognizing test kits that may be used by certified\r\nrenovators to determine whether components to be affected by a\r\nrenovation contain lead-based paint.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21758]]\r\n\r\nEPA will recognize those kits that meet certain performance standards\r\nfor limited false positives and negatives. EPA will also recognize only\r\nthose kits that have been properly validated by a laboratory\r\nindependent of the kit manufacturer. For most kits, this will mean\r\nparticipating in EPA's Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)\r\nprogram. With stakeholder input, EPA is adapting a volunary consensus\r\nstandard, ASTM's ``Standard Practice for Evaluating the Performance\r\nCharacteristics of Qualitative Chemical Spot Test Kits for Lead in\r\nPaint'' (Ref. 28), for use as a testing protocol to determine whether a\r\nparticular kit has met the performance standards established in this\r\nfinal rule.\r\n\r\nJ. Environmental Justice\r\n\r\n Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address\r\nEnvironmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income\r\nPopulations (59 FR 7629<\/a>, February 16, 1994) establishes federal\r\nexecutive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs\r\nfederal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by\r\nlaw, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying\r\nand addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse\r\nhuman health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and\r\nactivities on minority populations and low-income populations in the\r\nUnited States.\r\n EPA has assessed the potential impact of this rule on minority and\r\nlow-income populations. The results of this assessment are presented in\r\nthe Economic Analysis, which is available in the public docket for this\r\nrulemaking (Ref. 24). As a result of this assessment, the Agency has\r\ndetermined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high\r\nand adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-\r\nincome populations because it increases the level of environmental\r\nprotection for all affected populations without having any\r\ndisproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental\r\neffects on any population, including any minority or low-income\r\npopulation.\r\n\r\nVI. Congressional Review Act\r\n\r\n The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the\r\nSmall Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally\r\nprovides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating\r\nthe rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,\r\nto each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the\r\nUnited States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other\r\nrequired information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of\r\nRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior\r\nto publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot\r\ntake effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal\r\nRegister. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.\r\n804(2). This rule is effective June 23, 2008.\r\n\r\nList of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745\r\n\r\n Environmental protection, Child-occupied facility, Housing\r\nrenovation, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and\r\nrecordkeeping requirements.\r\n\r\n Dated: March 31, 2008,\r\nSteven L. Johnson,\r\nAdministrator.\r\n\r\n\u2022 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:\r\n\r\nPART 745--[AMENDED]\r\n\r\n\u2022 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows:\r\n\r\n Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.\r\n\r\n\u2022 2. Section 745.80 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.80 Purpose.\r\n\r\n This subpart contains regulations developed under sections 402 and\r\n406 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2682 and 2686) and\r\napplies to all renovations performed for compensation in target housing\r\nand child-occupied facilities. The purpose of this subpart is to ensure\r\nthe following:\r\n (a) Owners and occupants of target housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities receive information on lead-based paint hazards before these\r\nrenovations begin; and\r\n (b) Individuals performing renovations regulated in accordance\r\nwithSec. 745.82 are properly trained; renovators and firms performing\r\nthese renovations are certified; and the work practices in Sec. 745.85\r\nare followed during these renovations.\r\n\r\n\u2022 3. Section 745.81 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.81 Effective dates.\r\n\r\n (a) Training, certification and accreditation requirements and work\r\npractice standards. The training, certification and accreditation\r\nrequirements and work practice standards in this subpart are applicable\r\nin any State or Indian Tribal area that does not have a renovation\r\nprogram that is authorized under subpart Q of this part. The training,\r\ncertification and accreditation requirements and work practice\r\nstandards in this subpart will become effective as follows:\r\n (1) Training programs. Effective June 23, 2008, no training program\r\nmay provide, offer, or claim to provide training or refresher training\r\nfor EPA certification as a renovator or a dust sampling technician\r\nwithout accreditation from EPA under Sec. 745.225. Training programs\r\nmay apply for accreditation under Sec. 745.225 beginning April 22, 2009.\r\n (2) Firms. (i) Firms may apply for certification under Sec. 745.89\r\nbeginning October 22, 2009.\r\n (ii) On or after April 22, 2010, no firm may perform, offer, or\r\nclaim to perform renovations without certification from EPA under Sec.\r\n745.89 in target housing or child-occupied facilities, unless the\r\nrenovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in Sec.\r\n745.82(a) or (c).\r\n (3) Individuals. On or after April 22, 2010, all renovations must\r\nbe directed by renovators certified in accordance with Sec. 745.90(a)\r\nand performed by certified renovators or individuals trained in\r\naccordance with Sec. 745.90(b)(2) in target housing or child-occupied\r\nfacilities, unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions\r\nidentified in Sec. 745.82(a) or (c).\r\n (4) Work practices. On or after April 22, 2010, all renovations\r\nmust be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in\r\nSec. 745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in Sec.\r\n745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7) in target housing or child-occupied facilities,\r\nunless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in\r\nSec. 745.82(a) or (c).\r\n (5) The suspension and revocation provisions in Sec. 745.91 are\r\neffectiveApril 22, 2010.\r\n (b) Renovation-specific pamphlet. Before December 22, 2008,\r\nrenovators or firms performing renovations in States and Indian Tribal\r\nareas without an authorized program may provide owners and occupants\r\nwith either of the following EPA pamphlets: Protect Your Family From\r\nLead in Your Home or Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information\r\nfor Families, Child Care Providers and Schools. After that date,\r\nRenovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child\r\nCare Providers and Schools must be used exclusively.\r\n (c) Pre-Renovation Education Rule. With the exception of the\r\nrequirement to use the pamphlet entitled Renovate Right: Important Lead\r\nHazard Information for Families, Child Care\r\n\r\n[[Page 21759]]\r\n\r\nProviders and Schools, the provisions of the Pre-Renovation Education\r\nRule in this subpart have been in effect since June 1999.\r\n\r\n\u2022 4. Section 745.82 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.82 Applicability.\r\n\r\n (a) This subpart applies to all renovations performed for\r\ncompensation in target housing and child-occupied facilities, except\r\nfor the following:\r\n (1) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in\r\nwhich a written determination has been made by an inspector or risk\r\nassessor (certified pursuant to either Federal regulations at Sec.\r\n745.226 or a State or Tribal certification program authorized pursuant\r\nto Sec. 745.324) that the components affected by the renovation are\r\nfree of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or\r\nin excess of 1.0 milligrams\/per square centimeter (mg\/cm\\2\\) or 0.5% by\r\nweight, where the firm performing the renovation has obtained a copy of\r\nthe determination.\r\n (2) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in\r\nwhich a certified renovator, using an EPA recognized test kit as\r\ndefined in Sec. 745.83 and following the kit manufacturer's\r\ninstructions, has tested each component affected by the renovation and\r\ndetermined that the components are free of paint or other surface\r\ncoatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or\r\n0.5% by weight. If the components make up an integrated whole, such as\r\nthe individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the\r\nrenovator is required to test only one of the individual components,\r\nunless the individual components appear to have been repainted or\r\nrefinished separately.\r\n (b) The information distribution requirements in Sec. 745.84 do\r\nnot apply to emergency renovations, which are renovation activities\r\nthat were not planned but result from a sudden, unexpected event (such\r\nas non-routine failures of equipment) that, if not immediately attended\r\nto, presents a safety or public health hazard, or threatens equipment\r\nand\/or property with significant damage. Interim controls performed in\r\nresponse to an elevated blood lead level in a resident child are also\r\nemergency renovations. Emergency renovations other than interim\r\ncontrols are also exempt from the warning sign, containment, waste\r\nhandling, training, and certification requirements in Sec. Sec.\r\n745.85, 745.89, and 745.90 to the extent necessary to respond to the\r\nemergency. Emergency renovations are not exempt from the cleaning\r\nrequirements of Sec. 745.85(a)(5), which must be performed by\r\ncertified renovators or individuals trained in accordance with Sec.\r\n745.90(b)(2), the cleaning verification requirements of Sec.\r\n745.85(b), which must be performed by certified renovators, and the\r\nrecordkeeping requirements of Sec. 745.86(b)(6) and (b)(7).\r\n (c) The training requirements in Sec. 745.90 and the work practice\r\nstandards for renovation activities in Sec. 745.85 apply to all\r\nrenovations covered by this subpart, except for renovations in target\r\nhousing for which the firm performing the renovation has obtained a\r\nstatement signed by the owner that the renovation will occur in the\r\nowner's residence, no child under age 6 resides there, no pregnant\r\nwoman resides there, the housing is not a child-occupied facility, and\r\nthe owner acknowledges that the renovation firm will not be required to\r\nuse the work practices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and\r\npainting rule. For the purposes of this section, a child resides in the\r\nprimary residence of his or her custodial parents, legal guardians, and\r\nfoster parents. A child also resides in the primary residence of an\r\ninformal caretaker if the child lives and sleeps most of the time at\r\nthe caretaker's residence.\r\n\r\n\u2022 5. Section 745.83 is amended as follows:\r\n\u2022 a. Remove the definitions of ``Emergency renovation operations'' and\r\n``Multi-family housing.''\r\n\u2022 b. Revise the definitions of ``Pamphlet,'' ``Renovation,'' and\r\n``Renovator.''\r\n\u2022 c. Add 13 definitions in alphabetical order.\r\n\r\nSec. 745.83 Definitions.\r\n\r\n* * * * *\r\n Child-occupied facility means a building, or portion of a building,\r\nconstructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6\r\nyears of age, on at least two different days within any week (Sunday\r\nthrough Saturday period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least\r\n3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the\r\ncombined annual visits last at least 60 hours. Child-occupied\r\nfacilities may include, but are not limited to, day care centers,\r\npreschools and kindergarten classrooms. Child-occupied facilities may\r\nbe located in target housing or in public or commercial buildings. With\r\nrespect to common areas in public or commercial buildings that contain\r\nchild-occupied facilities, the child-occupied facility encompasses only\r\nthose common areas that are routinely used by children under age 6,\r\nsuch as restrooms and cafeterias. Common areas that children under age\r\n6 only pass through, such as hallways, stairways, and garages are not\r\nincluded. In addition, with respect to exteriors of public or\r\ncommercial buildings that contain child-occupied facilities, the child-\r\noccupied facility encompasses only the exterior sides of the building\r\nthat are immediately adjacent to the child-occupied facility or the\r\ncommon areas routinely used by children under age 6.\r\n Cleaning verification card means a card developed and distributed,\r\nor otherwise approved, by EPA for the purpose of determining, through\r\ncomparison of wet and dry disposable cleaning cloths with the card,\r\nwhether post-renovation cleaning has been properly completed.\r\n Component or building component means specific design or structural\r\nelements or fixtures of a building or residential dwelling that are\r\ndistinguished from each other by form, function, and location. These\r\ninclude, but are not limited to, interior components such as: Ceilings,\r\ncrown molding, walls, chair rails, doors, door trim, floors,\r\nfireplaces, radiators and other heating units, shelves, shelf supports,\r\nstair treads, stair risers, stair stringers, newel posts, railing caps,\r\nbalustrades, windows and trim (including sashes, window heads, jambs,\r\nsills or stools and troughs), built in cabinets, columns, beams,\r\nbathroom vanities, counter tops, and air conditioners; and exterior\r\ncomponents such as: Painted roofing, chimneys, flashing, gutters and\r\ndownspouts, ceilings, soffits, fascias, rake boards, cornerboards,\r\nbulkheads, doors and door trim, fences, floors, joists, lattice work,\r\nrailings and railing caps, siding, handrails, stair risers and treads,\r\nstair stringers, columns, balustrades, windowsills or stools and\r\ntroughs, casings, sashes and wells, and air conditioners.\r\n Dry disposable cleaning cloth means a commercially available dry,\r\nelectrostatically charged, white disposable cloth designed to be used\r\nfor cleaning hard surfaces such as uncarpeted floors or counter tops.\r\n Firm means a company, partnership, corporation, sole proprietorship\r\nor individual doing business, association, or other business entity; a\r\nFederal, State, Tribal, or local government agency; or a nonprofit\r\norganization.\r\n HEPA vacuum means a vacuum cleaner which has been designed with a\r\nhigh-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter as the last filtration\r\nstage. A HEPA filter is a filter that is capable of\r\n\r\n[[Page 21760]]\r\n\r\ncapturing particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency. The vacuum\r\ncleaner must be designed so that all the air drawn into the machine is\r\nexpelled through the HEPA filter with none of the air leaking past it.\r\n Interim controls means a set of measures designed to temporarily\r\nreduce human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based paint hazards,\r\nincluding specialized cleaning, repairs, maintenance, painting,\r\ntemporary containment, ongoing monitoring of lead-based paint hazards\r\nor potential hazards, and the establishment and operation of management\r\nand resident education programs.\r\n Minor repair and maintenance activities are activities, including\r\nminor heating, ventilation or air conditioning work, electrical work,\r\nand plumbing, that disrupt 6 square feet or less of painted surface per\r\nroom for interior activities or 20 square feet or less of painted\r\nsurface for exterior activities where none of the work practices\r\nprohibited or restricted by Sec. 745.85(a)(3) are used and where the\r\nwork does not involve window replacement or demolition of painted\r\nsurface areas. When removing painted components, or portions of painted\r\ncomponents, the entire surface area removed is the amount of painted\r\nsurface disturbed. Jobs, other than emergency renovations, performed in\r\nthe same room within the same 30 days must be considered the same job\r\nfor the purpose of determining whether the job is a minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activity.\r\n Pamphlet means the EPA pamphlet titled Renovate Right: Important\r\nLead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools\r\ndeveloped under section 406(a) of TSCA for use in complying with\r\nsection 406(b) of TSCA, or any State or Tribal pamphlet approved by EPA\r\npursuant to 40 CFR 745.326 that is developed for the same purpose. This\r\nincludes reproductions of the pamphlet when copied in full and without\r\nrevision or deletion of material from the pamphlet (except for the\r\naddition or revision of State or local sources of information). Before\r\nDecember 22, 2008, the term ``pamphlet'' also means any pamphlet\r\ndeveloped by EPA under section 406(a) of TSCA or any State or Tribal\r\npamphlet approved by EPA pursuant to Sec. 745.326.\r\n* * * * *\r\n Recognized test kit means a commercially available kit recognized\r\nby EPA under Sec. 745.88 as being capable of allowing a user to\r\ndetermine the presence of lead at levels equal to or in excess of 1.0\r\nmilligrams per square centimeter, or more than 0.5% lead by weight, in\r\na paint chip, paint powder, or painted surface.\r\n Renovation means the modification of any existing structure, or\r\nportion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces,\r\nunless that activity is performed as part of an abatement as defined by\r\nthis part (40 CFR 745.223). The term renovation includes (but is not\r\nlimited to): The removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or\r\npainted components (e.g., modification of painted doors, surface\r\nrestoration, window repair, surface preparation activity (such as\r\nsanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint\r\ndust)); the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings,\r\nplumbing, windows); weatherization projects (e.g., cutting holes in\r\npainted surfaces to install blown-in insulation or to gain access to\r\nattics, planing thresholds to install weather-stripping), and interim\r\ncontrols that disturb painted surfaces. A renovation performed for the\r\npurpose of converting a building, or part of a building, into target\r\nhousing or a child-occupied facility is a renovation under this\r\nsubpart. The term renovation does not include minor repair and\r\nmaintenance activities.\r\n Renovator means an individual who either performs or directs\r\nworkers who perform renovations. A certified renovator is a renovator\r\nwho has successfully completed a renovator course accredited by EPA or\r\nan EPA-authorized State or Tribal program.\r\n Training hour means at least 50 minutes of actual learning,\r\nincluding, but not limited to, time devoted to lecture, learning\r\nactivities, small group activities, demonstrations, evaluations, and\r\nhands-on experience.\r\n Wet disposable cleaning cloth means a commercially available, pre-\r\nmoistened white disposable cloth designed to be used for cleaning hard\r\nsurfaces such as uncarpeted floors or counter tops.\r\n Wet mopping system means a device with the following\r\ncharacteristics: A long handle, a mop head designed to be used with\r\ndisposable absorbent cleaning pads, a reservoir for cleaning solution,\r\nand a built-in mechanism for distributing or spraying the cleaning\r\nsolution onto a floor, or a method of equivalent efficacy.\r\n Work area means the area that the certified renovator establishes\r\nto contain the dust and debris generated by a renovation.\r\n\r\nSec. 745.84 [Removed]\r\n\r\n\u2022 6. Section 745.84 is removed.\r\n\r\nSec. 745.85 [Redesignated as Sec. 745.84]\r\n\r\n\u2022 7. Section 745.85 is redesignated as Sec. 745.84.\r\n\u2022 8. Newly designated Sec. 745.84 is amended as follows:\r\n\u2022 a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) and revise paragraph\r\n(a)(2)(i).\r\n\u2022 b. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) and revise paragraphs\r\n(b)(2) and (b)(4).\r\n\u2022 c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).\r\n\u2022 d. Add a new paragraph (c).\r\n\u2022 e. Revise the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (d).\r\n\r\nSec. 745.84 Information distribution requirements.\r\n\r\n (a) Renovations in dwelling units. No more than 60 days before\r\nbeginning renovation activities in any residential dwelling unit of\r\ntarget housing, the firm performing the renovation must:\r\n* * * * *\r\n (2) * * *\r\n (i) Obtain, from the adult occupant, a written acknowledgment that\r\nthe occupant has received the pamphlet; or certify in writing that a\r\npamphlet has been delivered to the dwelling and that the firm\r\nperforming the renovation has been unsuccessful in obtaining a written\r\nacknowledgment from an adult occupant. Such certification must include\r\nthe address of the unit undergoing renovation, the date and method of\r\ndelivery of the pamphlet, names of the persons delivering the pamphlet,\r\nreason for lack of acknowledgment (e.g., occupant refuses to sign, no\r\nadult occupant available), the signature of a representative of the\r\nfirm performing the renovation, and the date of signature.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (b) Renovations in common areas. No more than 60 days before\r\nbeginning renovation activities in common areas of multi-unit target\r\nhousing, the firm performing the renovation must:\r\n* * * * *\r\n (2) Comply with one of the following. (i) Notify in writing, or\r\nensure written notification of, each affected unit and make the\r\npamphlet available upon request prior to the start of renovation. Such\r\nnotification shall be accomplished by distributing written notice to\r\neach affected unit. The notice shall describe the general nature and\r\nlocations of the planned renovation activities; the expected starting\r\nand ending dates; and a statement of how the occupant can obtain the\r\npamphlet, at no charge, from the firm performing the renovation, or\r\n (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs\r\ndescribing the\r\n\r\n[[Page 21761]]\r\n\r\ngeneral nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated\r\ncompletion date. These signs must be posted in areas where they are\r\nlikely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. The\r\nsigns must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or\r\ninformation on how interested occupants can review a copy of the\r\npamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to occupants.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (4) If the scope, locations, or expected starting and ending dates\r\nof the planned renovation activities change after the initial\r\nnotification, and the firm provided written initial notification to\r\neach affected unit, the firm performing the renovation must provide\r\nfurther written notification to the owners and occupants providing\r\nrevised information on the ongoing or planned activities. This\r\nsubsequent notification must be provided before the firm performing the\r\nrenovation initiates work beyond that which was described in the\r\noriginal notice.\r\n (c) Renovations in child-occupied facilities. No more than 60 days\r\nbefore beginning renovation activities in any child-occupied facility,\r\nthe firm performing the renovation must:\r\n (1)(i) Provide the owner of the building with the pamphlet, and\r\ncomply with one of the following:\r\n (A) Obtain, from the owner, a written acknowledgment that the owner\r\nhas received the pamphlet.\r\n (B) Obtain a certificate of mailing at least 7 days prior to the\r\nrenovation.\r\n (ii) If the child-occupied facility is not the owner of the\r\nbuilding, provide an adult representative of the child-occupied\r\nfacility with the pamphlet, and comply with one of the following:\r\n (A) Obtain, from the adult representative, a written acknowledgment\r\nthat the adult representative has received the pamphlet; or certify in\r\nwriting that a pamphlet has been delivered to the facility and that the\r\nfirm performing the renovation has been unsuccessful in obtaining a\r\nwritten acknowledgment from an adult representative. Such certification\r\nmust include the address of the child-occupied facility undergoing\r\nrenovation, the date and method of delivery of the pamphlet, names of\r\nthe persons delivering the pamphlet, reason for lack of acknowledgment\r\n(e.g., representative refuses to sign), the signature of a representative\r\nof the firm performing the renovation, and the date of signature.\r\n (B) Obtain a certificate of mailing at least 7 days prior to the\r\nrenovation.\r\n (2) Provide the parents and guardians of children using the child-\r\noccupied facility with the pamphlet and information describing the\r\ngeneral nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated\r\ncompletion date by complying with one of the following:\r\n (i) Mail or hand-deliver the pamphlet and the renovation information\r\nto each parent or guardian of a child using the child-occupied facility.\r\n (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs\r\ndescribing the general nature and locations of the renovation and the\r\nanticipated completion date. These signs must be posted in areas where\r\nthey can be seen by the parents or guardians of the children\r\nfrequenting the child-occupied facility. The signs must be accompanied\r\nby a posted copy of the pamphlet or information on how interested\r\nparents or guardians can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy\r\nfrom the renovation firm at no cost to the parents or guardians.\r\n (3) The renovation firm must prepare, sign, and date a statement\r\ndescribing the steps performed to notify all parents and guardians of\r\nthe intended renovation activities and to provide the pamphlet.\r\n (d) Written acknowledgment. The written acknowledgments required by\r\nparagraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i), (c)(1)(i)(A), and\r\n(c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must:\r\n* * * * *\r\n\u2022 9. Section 745.85 is added to subpart E to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.85 Work practice standards.\r\n\r\n (a) Standards for renovation activities. Renovations must be\r\nperformed by certified firms using certified renovators as directed in\r\nSec. 745.89. The responsibilities of certified firms are set forth in\r\nSec. 745.89(d) and the responsibilities of certified renovators are\r\nset forth in Sec. 745.90(b).\r\n (1) Occupant protection. Firms must post signs clearly defining the\r\nwork area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in\r\nrenovation activities to remain outside of the work area. To the extent\r\npracticable, these signs must be in the primary language of the\r\noccupants. These signs must be posted before beginning the renovation\r\nand must remain in place and readable until the renovation and the\r\npost-renovation cleaning verification have been completed. If warning\r\nsigns have been posted in accordance with 24 CFR 35.1345(b)(2) or 29\r\nCFR 1926.62(m), additional signs are not required by this section.\r\n (2) Containing the work area. Before beginning the renovation, the\r\nfirm must isolate the work area so that no dust or debris leaves the\r\nwork area while the renovation is being performed. In addition, the\r\nfirm must maintain the integrity of the containment by ensuring that\r\nany plastic or other impermeable materials are not torn or displaced,\r\nand taking any other steps necessary to ensure that no dust or debris\r\nleaves the work area while the renovation is being performed. The firm\r\nmust also ensure that containment is installed in such a manner that it\r\ndoes not interfere with occupant and worker egress in an emergency.\r\n (i) Interior renovations. The firm must:\r\n (A) Remove all objects from the work area, including furniture,\r\nrugs, and window coverings, or cover them with plastic sheeting or\r\nother impermeable material with all seams and edges taped or otherwise\r\nsealed.\r\n (B) Close and cover all ducts opening in the work area with taped-\r\ndown plastic sheeting or other impermeable material.\r\n (C) Close windows and doors in the work area. Doors must be covered\r\nwith plastic sheeting or other impermeable material. Doors used as an\r\nentrance to the work area must be covered with plastic sheeting or\r\nother impermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass\r\nthrough while confining dust and debris to the work area.\r\n (D) Cover the floor surface, including installed carpet, with\r\ntaped-down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in the work\r\narea 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a\r\nsufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater.\r\n (E) Use precautions to ensure that all personnel, tools, and other\r\nitems, including the exteriors of containers of waste, are free of dust\r\nand debris before leaving the work area.\r\n (ii) Exterior renovations. The firm must:\r\n (A) Close all doors and windows within 20 feet of the renovation.\r\nOn multi-story buildings, close all doors and windows within 20 feet of\r\nthe renovation on the same floor as the renovation, and close all doors\r\nand windows on all floors below that are the same horizontal distance\r\nfrom the renovation.\r\n (B) Ensure that doors within the work area that will be used while\r\nthe job is being performed are covered with plastic sheeting or other\r\nimpermeable material in a manner that allows workers to pass through\r\nwhile confining dust and debris to the work area.\r\n (C) Cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable\r\nimpermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces\r\n\r\n[[Page 21762]]\r\n\r\nundergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to collect falling paint\r\ndebris, whichever is greater, unless the property line prevents 10 feet\r\nof such ground covering.\r\n (D) In certain situations, the renovation firm must take extra\r\nprecautions in containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris\r\nfrom the renovation does not contaminate other buildings or other areas\r\nof the property or migrate to adjacent properties.\r\n (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed\r\nbelow shall be prohibited or restricted during a renovation as follows:\r\n (i) Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is prohibited.\r\n (ii) The use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high\r\nspeed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun,\r\nabrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited unless such machines\r\nare used with HEPA exhaust control.\r\n (iii) Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at\r\ntemperatures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.\r\n (4) Waste from renovations--(i) Waste from renovation activities\r\nmust be contained to prevent releases of dust and debris before the\r\nwaste is removed from the work area for storage or disposal. If a chute\r\nis used to remove waste from the work area, it must be covered.\r\n (ii) At the conclusion of each work day and at the conclusion of\r\nthe renovation, waste that has been collected from renovation\r\nactivities must be stored under containment, in an enclosure, or behind\r\na barrier that prevents release of dust and debris out of the work area\r\nand prevents access to dust and debris.\r\n (iii) When the firm transports waste from renovation activities,\r\nthe firm must contain the waste to prevent release of dust and debris.\r\n (5) Cleaning the work area. After the renovation has been\r\ncompleted, the firm must clean the work area until no dust, debris or\r\nresidue remains.\r\n (i) Interior and exterior renovations. The firm must:\r\n (A) Collect all paint chips and debris and, without dispersing any\r\nof it, seal this material in a heavy-duty bag.\r\n (B) Remove the protective sheeting. Mist the sheeting before\r\nfolding it, fold the dirty side inward, and either tape shut to seal or\r\nseal in heavy-duty bags. Sheeting used to isolate contaminated rooms\r\nfrom non-contaminated rooms must remain in place until after the\r\ncleaning and removal of other sheeting. Dispose of the sheeting as waste.\r\n (ii) Additional cleaning for interior renovations. The firm must\r\nclean all objects and surfaces in the work area and within 2 feet of\r\nthe work area in the following manner, cleaning from higher to lower:\r\n (A) Walls. Clean walls starting at the ceiling and working down to the\r\nfloor by either vacuuming with a HEPA vacuum or wiping with a damp cloth.\r\n (B) Remaining surfaces. Thoroughly vacuum all remaining surfaces\r\nand objects in the work area, including furniture and fixtures, with a\r\nHEPA vacuum. The HEPA vacuum must be equipped with a beater bar when\r\nvacuuming carpets and rugs.\r\n (C) Wipe all remaining surfaces and objects in the work area,\r\nexcept for carpeted or upholstered surfaces, with a damp cloth. Mop\r\nuncarpeted floors thoroughly, using a mopping method that keeps the\r\nwash water separate from the rinse water, such as the 2-bucket mopping\r\nmethod, or using a wet mopping system.\r\n (b) Standards for post-renovation cleaning verification--(1)\r\nInteriors. (i) A certified renovator must perform a visual inspection\r\nto determine whether dust, debris or residue is still present. If dust,\r\ndebris or residue is present, these conditions must be removed by re-\r\ncleaning and another visual inspection must be performed.\r\n (ii) After a successful visual inspection, a certified renovator must:\r\n (A) Verify that each windowsill in the work area has been\r\nadequately cleaned, using the following procedure.\r\n (1) Wipe the windowsill with a wet disposable cleaning cloth that\r\nis damp to the touch. If the cloth matches or is lighter than the\r\ncleaning verification card, the windowsill has been adequately cleaned.\r\n (2) If the cloth does not match and is darker than the cleaning\r\nverification card, re-clean the windowsill as directed in paragraphs\r\n(a)(5)(ii)(B) and (a)(5)(ii)(C) of this section, then either use a new\r\ncloth or fold the used cloth in such a way that an unused surface is\r\nexposed, and wipe the surface again. If the cloth matches or is lighter\r\nthan the cleaning verification card, that windowsill has been\r\nadequately cleaned.\r\n (3) If the cloth does not match and is darker than the cleaning\r\nverification card, wait for 1 hour or until the surface has dried\r\ncompletely, whichever is longer.\r\n (4)After waiting for the windowsill to dry, wipe the windowsill\r\nwith a dry disposable cleaning cloth. After this wipe, the windowsill\r\nhas been adequately cleaned.\r\n (B) Wipe uncarpeted floors and countertops within the work area\r\nwith a wet disposable cleaning cloth. Floors must be wiped using\r\nanapplication device with a long handle and a head to which the cloth\r\nis attached. The cloth must remain damp at all times while it is being\r\nused to wipe the surface for post-renovation cleaning verification. If\r\nthe surface within the work area is greater than 40 square feet, the\r\nsurface within the work area must be divided into roughly equal\r\nsections that are each less than 40 square feet. Wipe each such section\r\nseparately with a new wet disposable cleaning cloth. If the cloth used\r\nto wipe each section of the surface within the work area matches the\r\ncleaning verification card, the surface has been adequately cleaned.\r\n (1) If the cloth used to wipe a particular surface section does not\r\nmatch the cleaning verification card, re-clean that section of the\r\nsurface as directed in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(B) and (a)(5)(ii)(C) of\r\nthis section, then use a new wet disposable cleaning cloth to wipe that\r\nsection again. If the cloth matches the cleaning verification card,\r\nthat section of the surface has been adequately cleaned.\r\n (2) If the cloth used to wipe a particular surface section does not\r\nmatch the cleaning verification card after the surface has been re-\r\ncleaned, wait for 1 hour or until the entire surface within the work\r\narea has dried completely, whichever is longer.\r\n (3) After waiting for the entire surface within the work area to\r\ndry, wipe each section of the surface that has not yet achieved post-\r\nrenovation cleaning verification with a dry disposable cleaning cloth.\r\nAfter this wipe, that section of the surface has been adequately cleaned.\r\n (iii) When the work area passes the post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification, remove the warning signs.\r\n (2) Exteriors. A certified renovator must perform a visual\r\ninspection to determine whether dust, debris or residue is still\r\npresent on surfaces in and below the work area, including windowsills\r\nand the ground. If dust, debris or residue is present, these conditions\r\nmust be eliminated and another visual inspection must be performed.\r\nWhen the area passes the visual inspection, remove the warning signs.\r\n (c) Optional dust clearance testing. Cleaning verification need not\r\nbe performed if the contract between the renovation firm and the person\r\ncontracting for the renovation or another Federal, State, Territorial,\r\nTribal, or local law or regulation requires:\r\n\r\n[[Page 21763]]\r\n\r\n (1) The renovation firm to perform dust clearance sampling at the\r\nconclusion of a renovation covered by this subpart.\r\n (2) The dust clearance samples are required to be collected by a\r\ncertified inspector, risk assessor or dust sampling technician.\r\n (3) The renovation firm is required to re-clean the work area until\r\nthe dust clearance sample results are below the clearance standards in\r\nSec. 745.227(e)(8) or any applicable State, Territorial, Tribal, or\r\nlocal standard.\r\n (d) Activities conducted after post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification. Activities that do not disturb paint, such as applying\r\npaint to walls that have already been prepared, are not regulated by\r\nthis subpart if they are conducted after post-renovation cleaning\r\nverification has been performed.\r\n\r\n\u2022 10. Section 745.86 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.\r\n\r\n (a) Firms performing renovations must retain and, if requested,\r\nmake available to EPA all records necessary to demonstrate compliance\r\nwith this subpart for a period of 3 years following completion of the\r\nrenovation. This 3-year retention requirement does not supersede longer\r\nobligations required by other provisions for retaining the same\r\ndocumentation, including any applicable State or Tribal laws or regulations.\r\n (b) Records that must be retained pursuant to paragraph (a) of this\r\nsection shall include (where applicable):\r\n (1) Reports certifying that a determination had been made by an\r\ninspector (certified pursuant to either Federal regulations at Sec.\r\n745.226 or an EPA-authorized State or Tribal certification program)\r\nthat lead-based paint is not present on the components affected by the\r\nrenovation, as described in Sec. 745.82(b)(1).\r\n (2) Signed and dated acknowledgments of receipt as described\r\ninSec. 745.84(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i), (c)(1)(i)(A), and\r\n(c)(1)(ii)(A).\r\n (3) Certifications of attempted delivery as described in Sec.\r\n745.84(a)(2)(i) and (c)(1)(ii)(A).\r\n (4) Certificates of mailing as described in Sec. 745.84(a)(1)(ii),\r\n(a)(2)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(i)(B), and (c)(1)(ii)(B).\r\n (5) Records of notification activities performed regarding common\r\narea renovations, as described in Sec. 745.84(b)(3) and (b)(4), and\r\nrenovations in child-occupied facilities, as described in Sec.\r\n745.84(c)(2).\r\n (6) Any signed and dated statements received from owner-occupants\r\ndocumenting that the requirements of Sec. 745.85 do not apply. These\r\nstatements must include a declaration that the renovation will occur in\r\nthe owner's residence, a declaration that no children under age 6\r\nreside there, a declaration that no pregnant woman resides there, a\r\ndeclaration that the housing is not a child-occupied facility, the\r\naddress of the unit undergoing renovation, the owner's name, an\r\nacknowledgment by the owner that the work practices to be used during\r\nthe renovation will not necessarily include all of the lead-safe work\r\npractices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and painting rule, the\r\nsignature of the owner, and the date of signature. These statements\r\nmust be written in the same language as the text of the renovation\r\ncontract, if any.\r\n (7) Documentation of compliance with the requirements of Sec.\r\n745.85, including documentation that a certified renovator was assigned\r\nto the project, that the certified renovator provided on-the-job\r\ntraining for workers used on the project, that the certified renovator\r\nperformed or directed workers who performed all of the tasks described\r\nin Sec. 745.85(a), and that the certified renovator performed the\r\npost-renovation cleaning verification described in Sec. 745.85(b). If\r\nthe renovation firm was unable to comply with all of the requirements\r\nof this rule due to an emergency as defined in Sec. 745.82, the firm\r\nmust document the nature of the emergency and the provisions of the\r\nrule that were not followed. This documentation must include a copy of\r\nthe certified renovator's training certificate, and a certification by\r\nthe certified renovator assigned to the project that:\r\n (i) Training was provided to workers (topics must be identified for\r\neach worker).\r\n (ii) Warning signs were posted at the entrances to the work area.\r\n (iii) If test kits were used, that the specified brand of kits was\r\nused at the specified locations and that the results were as specified.\r\n (iv) The work area was contained by:\r\n (A) Removing or covering all objects in the work area (interiors).\r\n (B) Closing and covering all HVAC ducts in the work area (interiors).\r\n (C) Closing all windows in the work area (interiors) or closing all\r\nwindows in and within 20 feet of the work area (exteriors).\r\n (D) Closing and sealing all doors in the work area (interiors) or\r\nclosing and sealing all doors in and within 20 feet of the work area\r\n(exteriors).\r\n (E) Covering doors in the work area that were being used to allow\r\npassage but prevent spread of dust.\r\n (F) Covering the floor surface, including installed carpet, with\r\ntaped-down plastic sheeting or other impermeable material in the work\r\narea 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a\r\nsufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater\r\n(interiors) or covering the ground with plastic sheeting or other\r\ndisposable impermeable material anchored to the building extending 10\r\nfeet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a\r\nsufficient distance to collect falling paint debris, whichever is\r\ngreater, unless the property line prevents 10 feet of such ground\r\ncovering, weighted down by heavy objects (exteriors).\r\n (G) Installing (if necessary) vertical containment to prevent\r\nmigration of dust and debris to adjacent property (exteriors).\r\n (v) Waste was contained on-site and while being transported off-site.\r\n (vi) The work area was properly cleaned after the renovation by:\r\n (A) Picking up all chips and debris, misting protective sheeting,\r\nfolding it dirty side inward, and taping it for removal.\r\n (B) Cleaning the work area surfaces and objects using a HEPA vacuum\r\nand\/or wet cloths or mops (interiors).\r\n (vii) The certified renovator performed the post-renovation\r\ncleaning verification (the results of which must be briefly described,\r\nincluding the number of wet and dry cloths used).\r\n (c) When test kits are used, the renovation firm must, within 30\r\ndays of the completion of the renovation, provide identifying\r\ninformation as to the manufacturer and model of the test kits used, a\r\ndescription of the components that were tested including their\r\nlocations, and the test kit results to the person who contracted for\r\nthe renovation.\r\n (d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning\r\nverification as permitted by Sec. 745.85(c), the renovation firm must\r\nprovide, within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, a copy of\r\nthe dust sampling report to the person who contracted for the renovation.\r\n\r\n\u2022 11. Section 745.87 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as\r\nfollows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.87 Enforcement and inspections.\r\n\r\n* * * * *\r\n (e) Lead-based paint is assumed to be present at renovations\r\ncovered by this subpart. EPA may conduct inspections and issue\r\nsubpoenas pursuant to the provisions of TSCA section 11 (15 U.S.C.\r\n2610) to ensure compliance with this subpart.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21764]]\r\n\r\n\u2022 12. Section 745.88 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.88 Recognized test kits.\r\n\r\n (a) Effective June 23, 2008, EPA recognizes the test kits that have\r\nbeen determined by National Institute of Standards and Technology\r\nresearch to meet the negative response criteria described in paragraph\r\n(c)(1) of this section. This recognition will last until EPA publicizes\r\nits recognition of the first test kit that meets both the negative\r\nresponse and positive response criteria in paragraph (c) of this\r\nsection.\r\n (b) No other test kits will be recognized until they are tested\r\nthrough EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program or other\r\nequivalent EPA approved testing program.\r\n (1) Effective September 1, 2008, to initiate the testing process, a\r\ntest kit manufacturer must submit a sufficient number of kits, along\r\nwith the instructions for using the kits, to EPA. The test kit\r\nmanufacturer should first visit the following website for information\r\non where to apply:http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/etv\/howtoapply.html<\/a>.\r\n (2) After the kit has been tested through the Environmental\r\nTechnology Verification Program or other equivalent approved EPA\r\ntesting program, EPA will review the report to determine whether the\r\nrequired criteria have been met.\r\n (3) Before September 1, 2010, test kits must meet only the negative\r\nresponse criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The recognition\r\nof kits that meet only this criteria will last until EPA publicizes its\r\nrecognition of the first test kits that meets both of the criteria in\r\nparagraph (c) of this section.\r\n (4) After September 1, 2010, test kits must meet both of the\r\ncriteria in paragraph (c) of this section.\r\n (5) If the report demonstrates that the kit meets the required\r\ncriteria, EPA will issue a notice of recognition to the kit\r\nmanufacturer, provide them with the report, and post the information on\r\nEPA's website.\r\n (6) If the report demonstrates that the kit does not meet the\r\nrequired criteria, EPA will notify the kit manufacturer and provide\r\nthem with the report.\r\n (c) Response criteria--(1) Negative response criteria. For paint\r\ncontaining lead at or above the regulated level, 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or 0.5%\r\nby weight, a demonstrated probability (with 95% confidence) of a\r\nnegative response less than or equal to 5% of the time.\r\n (2) Positive response criteria. For paint containing lead below the\r\nregulated level, 1.0 mg\/cm\\2\\ or 0.5% by weight, a demonstrated\r\nprobability (with 95% confidence) of a positive response less than or\r\nequal to 10% of the time.\r\n\r\n\u2022 13. Section 745.89 is added to subpart E to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.89 Firm certification.\r\n\r\n (a) Initial certification. (1) Firms that perform renovations for\r\ncompensation must apply to EPA for certification to perform renovations\r\nor dust sampling. To apply, a firm must submit to EPA a completed\r\n``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm,\r\nand pay at least the correct amount of fees. If a firm pays more than the\r\ncorrect amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the firm for the excess amount.\r\n (2) After EPA receives a firm's application, EPA will take one of the\r\nfollowing actions within 90 days of the date the application is received:\r\n (i) EPA will approve a firm's application if EPA determines that it\r\nis complete and that the environmental compliance history of the firm,\r\nits principals, or its key employees does not show an unwillingness or\r\ninability to maintain compliance with environmental statutes or\r\nregulations. An application is complete if it contains all of the\r\ninformation requested on the form and includes at least the correct\r\namount of fees. When EPA approves a firm's application, EPA will issue\r\nthe firm a certificate with an expiration date not more than 5 years\r\nfrom the date the application is approved. EPA certification allows the\r\nfirm to perform renovations covered by this section in any State or\r\nIndian Tribal area that does not have a renovation program that is\r\nauthorized under subpart Q of this part.\r\n (ii) EPA will request a firm to supplement its application if EPA\r\ndetermines that the application is incomplete. If EPA requests a firm\r\nto supplement its application, the firm must submit the requested\r\ninformation or pay the additional fees within 30 days of the date of\r\nthe request.\r\n (iii) EPA will not approve a firm's application if the firm does\r\nnot supplement its application in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii)\r\nof this section or if EPA determines that the environmental compliance\r\nhistory of the firm, its principals, or its key employees demonstrates\r\nan unwillingness or inability to maintain compliance with environmental\r\nstatutes or regulations. EPA will send the firm a letter giving the\r\nreason for not approving the application. EPA will not refund the\r\napplication fees. A firm may reapply for certification at any time by\r\nfiling a new, complete application that includes the correct amount of fees.\r\n (b) Re-certification. To maintain its certification, a firm must be\r\nre-certified by EPA every 5 years.\r\n (1) Timely and complete application. To be re-certified, a firm\r\nmust submit a complete application for re-certification. A complete\r\napplication for re-certification includes a completed ``Application for\r\nFirms'' which contains all of the information requested by the form and\r\nis signed by an authorized agent of the firm, noting on the form that\r\nit is submitted as a re-certification. A complete application must also\r\ninclude at least the correct amount of fees. If a firm pays more than the\r\ncorrect amount of fees, EPA will reimburse the firm for the excess amount.\r\n (i) An application for re-certification is timely if it is\r\npostmarked 90 days or more before the date the firm's current\r\ncertification expires. If the firm's application is complete and\r\ntimely, the firm's current certification will remain in effect until\r\nits expiration date or until EPA has made a final decision to approve\r\nor disapprove the re-certification application, whichever is later.\r\n (ii) If the firm submits a complete re-certification application\r\nless than 90 days before its current certification expires, and EPA\r\ndoes not approve the application before the expiration date, the firm's\r\ncurrent certification will expire and the firm will not be able to\r\nconduct renovations until EPA approves its re-certification application.\r\n (iii) If the firm fails to obtain recertification before the firm's\r\ncurrent certification expires, the firm must not perform renovations or\r\ndust sampling until it is certified anew pursuant to paragraph (a) of\r\nthis section.\r\n (2) EPA action on an application. After EPA receives a firm's\r\napplication for re-certification, EPA will review the application and\r\ntake one of the following actions within 90 days of receipt:\r\n (i) EPA will approve a firm's application if EPA determines that it\r\nis timely and complete and that the environmental compliance history of\r\nthe firm, its principals, or its key employees does not show an\r\nunwillingness or inability to maintain compliance with environmental\r\nstatutes or regulations. When EPA approves a firm's application for re-\r\ncertification, EPA will issue the firm a new certificate with an\r\nexpiration date 5 years from the date that the firm's current\r\ncertification expires. EPA certification allows the firm to perform\r\nrenovations or dust sampling covered by this section in any State or\r\nIndian Tribal area that does not have a renovation program that is\r\nauthorized under subpart Q of this part.\r\n\r\n[[Page 21765]]\r\n\r\n (ii) EPA will request a firm to supplement its application if EPA\r\ndetermines that the application is incomplete.\r\n (iii) EPA will not approve a firm's application if it is not\r\nreceived or is not complete as of the date that the firm's current\r\ncertification expires, or if EPA determines that the environmental\r\ncompliance history of the firm, its principals, or its key employees\r\ndemonstrates an unwillingness or inability to maintain compliance with\r\nenvironmental statutes or regulations. EPA will send the firm a letter\r\ngiving the reason for not approving the application. EPA will not\r\nrefund the application fees. A firm may reapply for certification at\r\nany time by filing a new application and paying the correct amount of fees.\r\n (c) Amendment of certification. A firm must amend its certification\r\nwithin 90 days of the date a change occurs to information included in\r\nthe firm's most recent application. If the firm fails to amend its\r\ncertification within 90 days of the date the change occurs, the firm\r\nmay not perform renovations or dust sampling until its certification is\r\namended.\r\n (1) To amend a certification, a firm must submit a completed\r\n``Application for Firms,'' signed by an authorized agent of the firm,\r\nnoting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating\r\nthe information that has changed. The firm must also pay at least the\r\ncorrect amount of fees.\r\n (2) If additional information is needed to process the amendment,\r\nor the firm did not pay the correct amount of fees, EPA will request\r\nthe firm to submit the necessary information or fees. The firm's\r\ncertification is not amended until the firm complies with the request.\r\n (3) Amending a certification does not affect the certification\r\nexpiration date.\r\n (d) Firm responsibilities. Firms performing renovations must ensure\r\nthat:\r\n (1) All individuals performing renovation activities on behalf of\r\nthe firm are either certified renovators or have been trained by a\r\ncertified renovator in accordance with Sec. 745.90.\r\n (2) A certified renovator is assigned to each renovation performed\r\nby the firm and discharges all of the certified renovator\r\nresponsibilities identified in Sec. 745.90.\r\n (3) All renovations performed by the firm are performed in\r\naccordance with the work practice standards in Sec. 745.85.\r\n (4) The pre-renovation education requirements of Sec. 745.84 have\r\nbeen performed.\r\n (5) The recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 745.86 are met.\r\n\r\n\u2022 14. Section 745.90 is added to subpart E to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician\r\ncertification.\r\n\r\n (a) Renovator certification and dust sampling technician\r\ncertification. (1) To become a certified renovator or certified dust\r\nsampling technician, an individual must successfully complete the\r\nappropriate course accredited by EPA under Sec. 745.225 or by a State\r\nor Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this part. The\r\ncourse completion certificate serves as proof of certification. EPA\r\nrenovator certification allows the certified individual to perform\r\nrenovations covered by this section in any State or Indian Tribal area\r\nthat does not have a renovation program that is authorized under\r\nsubpart Q of this part. EPA dust sampling technician certification\r\nallows the certified individual to perform dust clearance sampling\r\nunder Sec. 745.85(c) in any State or Indian Tribal area that does not\r\nhave a renovation program that is authorized under subpart Q of this part.\r\n (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited\r\nabatement worker or supervisor course, or individuals who have\r\nsuccessfully completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA\/HUD model renovation\r\ntraining course may take an accredited refresher renovator training\r\ncourse in lieu of the initial renovator training course to become a\r\ncertified renovator.\r\n (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-\r\nbased paint inspector or risk assessor course may take an accredited\r\nrefresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial\r\ntraining to become a certified dust sampling technician.\r\n (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician\r\ncertification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling\r\ntechnician refresher course accredited by EPA under Sec. 745.225 or by\r\na State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this\r\npart within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial\r\ncourse described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual\r\ndoes not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual\r\nmust re-take the initial course to become certified again.\r\n (b) Renovator responsibilities. Certified renovators are\r\nresponsible for ensuring compliance with Sec. 745.85 at all\r\nrenovations to which they are assigned. A certified renovator:\r\n (1) Must perform all of the tasks described in Sec. 745.85(b) and\r\nmust either perform or direct workers who perform all of the tasks\r\ndescribed in Sec. 745.85(a).\r\n (2) Must provide training to workers on the work practices they\r\nwill be using in performing their assigned tasks.\r\n (3) Must be physically present at the work site when the signs\r\nrequired by Sec. 745.85(a)(1) are posted, while the work area\r\ncontainment required by Sec. 745.85(a)(2) is being established, and\r\nwhile the work area cleaning required by Sec. 745.85(a)(5) is performed.\r\n (4) Must regularly direct work being performed by other individuals\r\nto ensure that the work practices are being followed, including\r\nmaintaining the integrity of the containment barriers and ensuring that\r\ndust or debris does not spread beyond the work area.\r\n (5) Must be available, either on-site or by telephone, at all times\r\nthat renovations are being conducted.\r\n (6) When requested by the party contracting for renovation\r\nservices, must use an acceptable test kit to determine whether\r\ncomponents to be affected by the renovation contain lead-based paint.\r\n (7) Must have with them at the work site copies of their initial\r\ncourse completion certificate and their most recent refresher course\r\ncompletion certificate.\r\n (8) Must prepare the records required by Sec. 745.86(b)(7).\r\n (c) Dust sampling technician responsibilities. When performing\r\noptional dust clearance sampling under Sec. 745.85(c), a certified\r\ndust sampling technician:\r\n (1) Must collect dust samples in accordance with Sec.\r\n745.227(e)(8), must send the collected samples to a laboratory\r\nrecognized by EPA under TSCA section 405(b), and must compare the\r\nresults to the clearance levels in accordance with Sec. 745.227(e)(8).\r\n (2) Must have with them at the work site copies of their initial\r\ncourse completion certificate and their most recent refresher course\r\ncompletion certificate.\r\n\r\n\u2022 15. Section 745.91 is added to subpart E to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.91 Suspending, revoking, or modifying an individual's or\r\nfirm's certification.\r\n\r\n (a)(1) Grounds for suspending, revoking, or modifying an\r\nindividual's certification. EPA may suspend, revoke, or modify an\r\nindividual's certification if the individual fails to comply with\r\nFederal lead-based paint statutes or regulations. EPA may also suspend,\r\nrevoke, or modify a certified renovator's certification if the\r\nrenovator fails to ensure that all assigned renovations comply with\r\nSec. 745.85. In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of\r\nviolation, execution of a consent\r\n\r\n[[Page 21766]]\r\n\r\nagreement in settlement of an enforcement action constitutes, for\r\npurposes of this section, evidence of a failure to comply with relevant\r\nstatutes or regulations.\r\n (2) Grounds for suspending, revoking, or modifying a firm's\r\ncertification. EPA may suspend, revoke, or modify a firm's\r\ncertification if the firm:\r\n (i) Submits false or misleading information to EPA in its\r\napplication for certification or re-certification.\r\n (ii) Fails to maintain or falsifies records required in Sec. 745.86.\r\n (iii) Fails to comply, or an individual performing a renovation on\r\nbehalf of the firm fails to comply, with Federal lead-based paint\r\nstatutes or regulations. In addition to an administrative or judicial\r\nfinding of violation, execution of a consent agreement in settlement of\r\nan enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this section,\r\nevidence of a failure to comply with relevant statutes or regulations.\r\n (b) Process for suspending, revoking, or modifying certification.\r\n(1) Prior to taking action to suspend, revoke, or modify an\r\nindividual's or firm's certification, EPA will notify the affected\r\nentity in writing of the following:\r\n (i) The legal and factual basis for the proposed suspension,\r\nrevocation, or modification.\r\n (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the\r\nsuspension, revocation, or modification.\r\n (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entity may take to avoid\r\nsuspension, revocation, or modification, or to receive certification in\r\nthe future.\r\n (iv) The opportunity and method for requesting a hearing prior to\r\nfinal suspension, revocation, or modification.\r\n (2) If an individual or firm requests a hearing, EPA will:\r\n (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunity to offer written\r\nstatements in response to EPA's assertions of the legal and factual\r\nbasis for its proposed action.\r\n (ii) Appoint an impartial official of EPA as Presiding Officer to\r\nconduct the hearing.\r\n (3) The Presiding Officer will:\r\n (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days\r\nof the request for a hearing.\r\n (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and\r\nargument submitted.\r\n (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing within 90 days of\r\ncompletion of the hearing of his or her decision and order. Such an\r\norder is a final agency action which may be subject to judicial review.\r\nThe order must contain the commencement date and duration of the\r\nsuspension, revocation, or modification.\r\n (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare\r\nwarrants immediate action to suspend the certification of any\r\nindividual or firm prior to the opportunity for a hearing, it will:\r\n (i) Notify the affected entity in accordance with paragraph\r\n(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section, explaining why it is\r\nnecessary to suspend the entity's certification before an opportunity\r\nfor a hearing.\r\n (ii) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing\r\non the immediate suspension within 15 days of the suspension taking\r\nplace and the procedures for the conduct of such a hearing.\r\n (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this\r\nsection, any transcript or other verbatim record of oral testimony, and\r\nany documents filed by a certified individual or firm in a hearing\r\nunder this section will be available to the public, except as otherwise\r\nprovided by section 14 of TSCA or by part 2 of this title. Any such\r\nhearing at which oral testimony is presented will be open to the\r\npublic, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public to the\r\nextent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be\r\nentitled to confidential treatment under section 14 of TSCA or part 2\r\nof this title.\r\n (6) EPA will maintain a publicly available list of entities whose\r\ncertification has been suspended, revoked, modified, or reinstated.\r\n (7) Unless the decision and order issued under paragraph\r\n(b)(3)(iii) of this section specify otherwise:\r\n (i) An individual whose certification has been suspended must take\r\na refresher training course (renovator or dust sampling technician) in\r\norder to make his or her certification current.\r\n (ii) An individual whose certification has been revoked must take\r\nan initial renovator or dust sampling technician course in order to\r\nbecome certified again.\r\n (iii) A firm whose certification has been revoked must reapply for\r\ncertification after the revocation ends in order to become certified\r\nagain. If the firm's certification has been suspended and the\r\nsuspension ends less than 5 years after the firm was initially\r\ncertified or re-certified, the firm does not need to do anything to re-\r\nactivate its certification.\r\n\r\n\u2022 16. Section 745.220 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as\r\nfollows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.220 Scope and applicability.\r\n\r\n (a) This subpart contains procedures and requirements for the\r\naccreditation of training programs for lead-based paint activities and\r\nrenovations, procedures and requirements for the certification of\r\nindividuals and firms engaged in lead-based paint activities, and work\r\npractice standards for performing such activities. This subpart also\r\nrequires that, except as discussed below, all lead-based paint\r\nactivities, as defined in this subpart, be performed by certified\r\nindividuals and firms.\r\n* * * * *\r\n\u2022 17. Section 745.225 is amended as follows:\r\n\u2022 a. Revise paragraph (a).\r\n\u2022 b. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (b), revise paragraph\r\n(b)(1)(ii), and add paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C).\r\n\u2022 c. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (c), add paragraphs\r\n(c)(6)(vi), (c)(6)(vii), (c)(8)(vi), and (c)(8)(vii), and revise\r\nparagraphs (c)(8)(iv) and (c)(10).\r\n\u2022 d. Remove the phrase ``lead-based paint activities'' and add in its\r\nplace the phrase ``renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based\r\npaint activities'' wherever it appears in paragraph (c)(13).\r\n\u2022 e. Add paragraph (c)(14)(ii)(D)(6).\r\n\u2022 f. Add paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7).\r\n\u2022 g. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (e).\r\n\u2022 h. Remove the word ``activities'' wherever it appears in paragraph (e)(1).\r\n\u2022 i. Revise paragraph (e)(2).\r\n\r\nSec. 745.225 Accreditation of training programs; target housing and\r\nchild-occupied facilities.\r\n\r\n (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offer\r\ncourses in any of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor,\r\nsupervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, and dust\r\nsampling technician. A training program may also seek accreditation to\r\noffer refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines.\r\n (2) Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of\r\ntheir lead-based paint activities courses or refresher courses pursuant\r\nto this section on or after August 31, 1998. Training programs may\r\nfirst apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or dust\r\nsampling technician courses or refresher courses pursuant to this\r\nsection on or after April 22, 2009.\r\n (3) A training program must not provide, offer, or claim to provide\r\nEPA-accredited lead-based paint activities courses without applying for\r\nand receiving accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph (b) of\r\nthis section on or after March 1, 1999. A training program must not\r\nprovide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited renovator or dust\r\nsampling technician courses without applying for\r\n\r\n[[Page 21767]]\r\n\r\nand receiving accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph (b) of\r\nthis section on or after June 23, 2008.\r\n (b) Application process. The following are procedures a training\r\nprogram must follow to receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based\r\npaint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust sampling\r\ntechnician courses:\r\n (1) * * *\r\n (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation.\r\nFor the purposes of this section, courses taught in different languages\r\nare considered different courses, and each must independently meet the\r\naccreditation requirements.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (iv) * * *\r\n (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other\r\nthan English, a signed statement from a qualified, independent\r\ntranslator that they had compared the course to the English language\r\nversion and found the translation to be accurate.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. For a\r\ntraining program to obtain accreditation from EPA to offer lead-based\r\npaint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust sampling\r\ntechnician courses, the program must meet the following requirements:\r\n* * * * *\r\n (6) * * *\r\n (vi) The renovator course must last a minimum of 8 training hours,\r\nwith a minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The\r\nminimum curriculum requirements for the renovator course are contained\r\nin paragraph (d)(6) of this section. Hands-on training activities must\r\ncover renovation methods that minimize the creation of dust and lead-\r\nbased paint hazards, interior and exterior containment and cleanup\r\nmethods, and post-renovation cleaning verification.\r\n (vii) The dust sampling technician course must last a minimum of 8\r\ntraining hours, with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training\r\nactivities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the dust sampling\r\ntechnician course are contained in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.\r\nHands-on training activities must cover dust sampling methodologies.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (8) * * *\r\n (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, project designer,\r\nsupervisor, or abatement worker course completion certificates, the\r\nexpiration date of interim certification, which is 6 months from the\r\ndate of course completion.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (vi) The language in which the course was taught.\r\n (vii) For renovator and dust sampling technician course completion\r\ncertificates, a photograph of the individual.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work\r\npractice standards contained in Sec. 745.85 or Sec. 745.227, as\r\napplicable, in such a manner that trainees are provided with the\r\nknowledge needed to perform the renovations or lead-based paint\r\nactivities they will be responsible for conducting.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (14) * * *\r\n (ii) * * *\r\n (D) * * *\r\n (6) A digital photograph of the student.\r\n (d) * * *\r\n (6) Renovator. (i) Role and responsibility of a renovator.\r\n (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects.\r\n (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OSHA, and other Federal,\r\nState, and local regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based\r\npaint and renovation activities.\r\n (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether\r\npaint is lead-based paint.\r\n (v) Renovation methods to minimize the creation of dust and lead-\r\nbased paint hazards.\r\n (vi) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods.\r\n (vii) Methods to ensure that the renovation has been properly\r\ncompleted, including cleaning verification, and clearance testing.\r\n (viii) Waste handling and disposal.\r\n (ix) Providing on-the-job training to other workers.\r\n (x) Record preparation.\r\n (7) Dust sampling technician. (i) Role and responsibility of a dust\r\nsampling technician.\r\n (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects.\r\n (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local\r\nregulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and\r\nrenovation activities.\r\n (iv) Dust sampling methodologies.\r\n (v) Clearance standards and testing.\r\n (vi) Report preparation.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training\r\nprograms. A training program may seek accreditation to offer refresher\r\ntraining courses in any of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk\r\nassessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator,\r\nand dust sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer\r\nrefresher training, a training program must meet the following minimum\r\nrequirements:\r\n* * * * *\r\n (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and\r\nabatement worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher\r\ncourses for project designer, renovator, and dust sampling technician\r\nmust last a minimum of 4 training hours.\r\n* * * * *\r\n\u2022 18. Section 745.320 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as\r\nfollows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.320 Scope and purpose.\r\n\r\n* * * * *\r\n (c) A State or Indian Tribe may seek authorization to administer\r\nand enforce all of the provisions of subpart E of this part, just the\r\npre-renovation education provisions of subpart E of this part, or just\r\nthe training, certification, accreditation, and work practice\r\nprovisions of subpart E of this part. The provisions of Sec. Sec.\r\n745.324 and 745.326 apply for the purposes of such program\r\nauthorizations.\r\n* * * * *\r\n\u2022 19. Section 745.324 is amended as follows:\r\n\u2022 a. Revise paragraph (a)(1).\r\n\u2022 b. Remove the phrase ``lead-based paint training accreditation and\r\ncertification'' from the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(iii).\r\n\u2022 c. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii).\r\n\u2022 d. Revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (e)(4).\r\n\u2022 e. Revise paragraph (f)(2).\r\n\u2022 f. Revise paragraph (i)(8).\r\n\r\nSec. 745.324 Authorization of State or Tribal programs.\r\n\r\n (a) Application content and procedures. (1) Any State or Indian\r\nTribe that seeks authorization from EPA to administer and enforce the\r\nprovisions of subpart E or subpart L of this part must submit an\r\napplication to the Administrator in accordance with this paragraph.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (b) * * *\r\n (2) * * *\r\n (ii) An analysis of the State or Tribal program that compares the\r\nprogram to the Federal program in subpart E or subpart L of this part,\r\nor both. This analysis must demonstrate how the program is, in the\r\nState's or Indian Tribe's assessment, at least as protective as the\r\nelements in the Federal program at subpart E or subpart L of this part, or\r\n\r\n[[Page 21768]]\r\n\r\nboth. EPA will use this analysis to evaluate the protectiveness of the\r\nState or Tribal program in making its determination pursuant to\r\nparagraph (e)(2)(i) of this section.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (e) * * *\r\n (2) * * *\r\n (i) The State or Tribal program is at least as protective of human\r\nhealth and the environment as the corresponding Federal program under\r\nsubpart E or subpart L of this part, or both; and\r\n* * * * *\r\n (4) If the State or Indian Tribe applies for authorization of State\r\nor Tribal programs under both subpart E and subpart L, EPA may, as\r\nappropriate, authorize one program and disapprove the other.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (f) * * *\r\n (2) If a State or Indian Tribe does not have an authorized program\r\nto administer and enforce the pre-renovation education requirements of\r\nsubpart E of this part by August 31, 1998, the Administrator will, by\r\nsuch date, enforce those provisions of subpart E of this part as the\r\nFederal program for that State or Indian Country. If a State or Indian\r\nTribe does not have an authorized program to administer and enforce the\r\ntraining, certification and accreditation requirements and work\r\npractice standards of subpart E of this part by April 22, 2009, the\r\nAdministrator will, by such date, enforce those provisions of subpart E\r\nof this part as the Federal program for that State or Indian Country.\r\n* * * * *\r\n (i) * * *\r\n (8) By the date of such order, the Administrator will establish and\r\nenforce the provisions of subpart E or subpart L of this part, or both,\r\nas the Federal program for that State or Indian Country.\r\n\r\n\u2022 20. Section 745.326 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements.\r\n\r\n (a) Program elements. To receive authorization from EPA, a State or\r\nTribal program must contain the following program elements:\r\n (1) For pre-renovation education programs, procedures and\r\nrequirements for the distribution of lead hazard information to owners\r\nand occupants of target housing and child-occupied facilities before\r\nrenovations for compensation.\r\n (2) For renovation training, certification, accreditation, and work\r\npractice standards programs:\r\n (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation\r\nand dust sampling technician training programs.\r\n (ii) Procedures and requirements for the certification of\r\nrenovators and dust sampling technicians.\r\n (iii) Procedures and requirements for the certification of\r\nindividuals and\/or firms.\r\n (iv) Requirements that all renovations be conducted by\r\nappropriately certified individuals and\/or firms.\r\n (v) Work practice standards for the conduct of renovations.\r\n (3) For all renovation programs, development of the appropriate\r\ninfrastructure or government capacity to effectively carry out a State\r\nor Tribal program.\r\n (b) Pre-renovation education. To be considered at least as\r\nprotective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must:\r\n (1) Establish clear standards for identifying renovation activities\r\nthat trigger the information distribution requirements.\r\n (2) Establish procedures for distributing the lead hazard\r\ninformation to owners and occupants of housing and child-occupied\r\nfacilities prior to renovation activities.\r\n (3) Require that the information to be distributed include either\r\nthe pamphlet titled Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information\r\nfor Families, Child Care Providers and Schools, developed by EPA under\r\nsection 406(a) of TSCA, or an alternate pamphlet or package of lead\r\nhazard information that has been submitted by the State or Tribe,\r\nreviewed by EPA, and approved by EPA for that State or Tribe. Such\r\ninformation must contain renovation-specific information similar to\r\nthat in Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families,\r\nChild Care Providers and Schools, must meet the content requirements\r\nprescribed by section 406(a) of TSCA, and must be in a format that is\r\nreadable to the diverse audience of housing and child-occupied facility\r\nowners and occupants in that State or Tribe.\r\n (i) A State or Tribe with a pre-renovation education program\r\napproved before June 23, 2008, must demonstrate that it meets the\r\nrequirements of this section no later than the first report that it\r\nsubmits pursuant to Sec. 745.324(h) on or after April 22, 2009.\r\n (ii) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a pre-\r\nrenovation education program submitted but not approved before June 23,\r\n2008, must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section\r\neither by amending its application or in the first report that it submits\r\npursuant toSec. 745.324(h) of this part on or after April 22, 2009.\r\n (iii) A State or Indian Tribe submitting its application for\r\napproval of a pre-renovation education program on or after June 23,\r\n2008, must demonstrate in its application that it meets the\r\nrequirements of this section.\r\n (c) Accreditation of training programs. To be considered at least\r\nas protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must\r\nmeet the requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section:\r\n (1) The State or Tribal program must establish accreditation\r\nprocedures and requirements, including:\r\n (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of training\r\nprograms, including, but not limited to:\r\n (A) Training curriculum requirements.\r\n (B) Training hour requirements.\r\n (C) Hands-on training requirements.\r\n (D) Trainee competency and proficiency requirements.\r\n (E) Requirements for training program quality control.\r\n (ii) Procedures and requirements for the re-accreditation of\r\ntraining programs.\r\n (iii) Procedures for the oversight of training programs.\r\n (iv) Procedures and standards for the suspension, revocation, or\r\nmodification of training program accreditations; or\r\n (2) The State or Tribal program must establish procedures and\r\nrequirements for the acceptance of renovation training offered by\r\ntraining providers accredited by EPA or a State or Tribal program\r\nauthorized by EPA under this subpart.\r\n (d) Certification of renovators. To be considered at least as\r\nprotective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must:\r\n (1) Establish procedures and requirements for individual\r\ncertification that ensure that certified renovators are trained by an\r\naccredited training program.\r\n (2) Establish procedures and requirements for re-certification.\r\n (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or\r\nmodification of certifications.\r\n (e) Work practice standards for renovations. To be considered at\r\nleast as protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program\r\nmust establish standards that ensure that renovations are conducted\r\nreliably, effectively, and safely. At a minimum, the State or Tribal\r\nprogram must contain the following requirements:\r\n (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified contractors.\r\n (2) Renovations are conducted using lead-safe work practices that\r\nare at least\r\n\r\n[[Page 21769]]\r\n\r\nas protective to occupants as the requirements in Sec. 745.85.\r\n (3) Certified contractors must retain appropriate records.\r\n\r\n\u2022 21. Section 745.327 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and\r\n(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and\r\nenforcement programs.\r\n\r\n* * * * *\r\n (b) * * *\r\n (1) * * *\r\n (iv) Requirements that regulate the conduct of renovation\r\nactivities as described at Sec. 745.326.\r\n (2) * * *\r\n (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a renovation program, State or\r\nTribal officials must be able to enter a firm's place of business or\r\nwork site.\r\n* * * * *\r\n\u2022 22. Section 745.339 is revised to read as follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 745.339 Effective date.\r\n\r\n States and Indian Tribes may seek authorization to administer and\r\nenforce subpart L of this part pursuant to this subpart at any time.\r\nStates and Indian Tribes may seek authorization to administer and\r\nenforce the pre-renovation education provisions of subpart E of this\r\npart pursuant to this subpart at any time. States and Indian Tribes may\r\nseek authorization to administer and enforce all of subpart E of this\r\npart pursuant to this subpart effective June 23, 2008.<\/pre>\n