[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24848-24862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10097]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173; FRL-8823-6]
RIN 2070-AJ56


Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and 
Commercial Buildings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is giving advance notice of the Agency's intention to 
regulate the renovation, repair, and painting of public and commercial 
buildings under section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA). This notice announces the commencement of proceedings to 
propose lead-safe work practices and other requirements for renovations 
on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings and to determine 
whether lead-based paint hazards are created by interior renovation, 
repair, and painting projects in public and commercial buildings. For 
those renovations in the interiors of public and commercial buildings 
that create lead-based paint hazards, EPA will propose regulations to 
address these hazards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA 
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC; 
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The DCO is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2010-0173. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The 
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in 
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA 
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is 
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic 
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor 
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must 
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Hans Scheifele, National Program 
Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3122; e-mail 
address: scheifele.hans@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI--Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This document is directed to the public in general. However, this 
document may be of particular interest to the following entities:
     Building construction (North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) code 236), e.g., commercial building 
construction, industrial building construction, commercial and 
institutional building construction, building finishing contractors, 
drywall and insulation contractors, painting and wall covering 
contractors, finish carpentry contractors, other building finishing 
contractors.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., 
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall 
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, 
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of non-
residential buildings and dwellings, non-residential property managers.
     Facilities support services (NAICS code 561210).
     Other general government support (NAICS code 921) e.g., 
general services departments, government, public property management 
services, government.

[[Page 24849]]

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others 
in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and 
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be 
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked 
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. EPA's Lead-Bhased Paint Programs

    In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was 
widespread among American children, affecting, at that time, as many as 
3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of household dust 
containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the 
most common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health 
and development of children living in as many as 3,800,000 American 
homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead paint, or excessive 
amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further 
determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was 
insufficient and enacted Title X of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also known as the 
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992) (``the Act'' 
or ``Title X''). Title X established a national goal of eliminating 
lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible and 
provided a leadership role for the Federal government in building the 
infrastructure necessary to achieve this goal.
    Subsequently, President Clinton created the President's Task Force 
on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Co-chaired 
by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
and the Administrator of EPA, the Task Force consisted of 
representatives from 16 Federal departments and agencies. The Task 
Force set a Federal goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by the 
year 2010 (Ref. 1). In October 2001, President Bush extended the work 
of the Task Force for an additional 18 months beyond its original 
charter. Reducing lead poisoning in children was the Task Force's top 
priority. Although more work remains to be done, significant progress 
has been made towards reducing lead poisoning in children. The 
estimated percentage of children with blood lead levels above 10 
micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) declined from 4.4% between 1991 and 
1994 to 1.4% between 1999 and 2004 (Ref. 25). More information on 
Federal efforts to address lead poisoning, including the 
responsibilities of EPA and other Federal Agencies under Title X, can 
be found in Units III.A. and III.B. of the preamble to the 2006 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Proposed Rule (2006 Proposal) 
(Ref. 3).
    The Act added a new title to TSCA entitled ``Title IV-Lead Exposure 
Reduction.'' Most of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based 
paint hazards can be found in this title, with section 402 of TSCA 
being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out these 
responsibilities. TSCA section 402(a) directs EPA to promulgate 
regulations covering lead-based paint activities to ensure that persons 
performing these activities are properly trained, that training 
programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these 
activities are certified. These regulations must contain standards for 
performing lead-based paint activities, taking into account 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, EPA 
promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern 
lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, 
and abatements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (also 
referred to as the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations) (Ref. 4). 
``Target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing 
constructed before 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with 
disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to 
reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. The Lead-based Paint 
Activities Regulations created a subset of public and commercial 
buildings called child-occupied facilities, and defined them in terms 
of the amount of time a young child might spend within them. These 
regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contain an 
accreditation program for training providers and training and 
certification requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk 
assessors, project designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement 
workers. Work practice standards for lead-based paint activities are 
included. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provision was made for 
interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes to apply for and 
receive authorization to administer their own lead-based paint 
activities programs.
    On June 9, 1999, the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations were 
amended to include a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA 
accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA certification 
(Ref. 5). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 
402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and 
enforcing the lead-based paint activities requirements in unauthorized 
States. The most recent amendment to the Lead-based Paint Activities 
Regulations occurred on April 8, 2004, when notification requirements 
were added to help EPA monitor compliance with the training and 
certification provisions and

[[Page 24850]]

the abatement work practice standards (Ref. 6).
    Another of EPA's responsibilities under Title X is to require that 
purchasers and tenants of target housing and occupants of target 
housing undergoing renovation are provided information on lead-based 
paint and lead-based paint hazards. As directed by TSCA section 406(a), 
the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and EPA, in consultation with the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly developed a 
lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead 
in Your Home (PYF) (Ref. 7). This pamphlet was designed to be 
distributed as part of the disclosure requirements of section 1018 of 
Title X and TSCA section 406(b), to provide home purchasers, renters, 
owners, and occupants with the information necessary to allow them to 
make informed choices when selecting housing to buy or rent, or 
deciding on home renovation projects. The pamphlet contains information 
on the health effects of lead, how exposure can occur, and steps that 
can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure during various 
activities in the home.
    Pursuant to the authority provided in section 1018 of Title X, on 
March 6, 1996, HUD and EPA jointly promulgated regulations requiring 
persons who are selling or leasing target housing to provide the PYF 
pamphlet and information on known lead-based paint and lead-based paint 
hazards in the housing to purchasers and renters (Ref. 8). These joint 
regulations, codified at 24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 
745, subpart F, describe in detail the information that must be 
provided before the contract or lease is signed and require that 
sellers, landlords, and agents document compliance with the disclosure 
requirements in the contract to sell or lease the property. Title X 
does not provide for these requirements to be administered by States or 
Tribes in lieu of the Federal regulations. Therefore, HUD and EPA are 
responsible for administering and enforcing these disclosure 
obligations.
    TSCA section 406(b) directs EPA to promulgate regulations requiring 
persons who perform renovations for compensation in target housing to 
provide a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants of 
the home being renovated. These regulations, promulgated on June 1, 
1998, are codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (Ref. 9). The term 
``renovation'' is not defined in the statute, but the regulation, at 40 
CFR 745.83, defines a ``renovation'' as the modification of any 
existing structure, or portion of a structure, that results in the 
disturbance of painted surfaces. The regulations specifically exclude 
lead-based paint abatement projects as well as small projects that 
disturb 2 square feet or less of painted surface per component, 
emergency projects, and renovations affecting components that have been 
found to be free of lead-based paint, as that term is defined in the 
regulations, by a certified inspector or risk assessor. These 
regulations require the renovation firm to document compliance with the 
requirement to provide the owner and the occupant with the PYF 
pamphlet. TSCA section 404 also allows States to apply for, and receive 
authorization to administer, the TSCA section 406(b) requirements.
    TSCA section 403 directs EPA to promulgate regulations that 
identify, for the purposes of Title X and Title IV of TSCA, dangerous 
levels of lead in paint, dust, and soil. EPA promulgated regulations 
pursuant to TSCA section 403 on January 5, 2001, and codified them at 
40 CFR part 745, subpart D (Ref. 10). These hazard standards define 
lead-based paint hazards in target housing and child-occupied 
facilities as paint-lead, dust-lead, and soil-lead hazards. A paint-
lead hazard is defined as any damaged or deteriorated lead-based paint, 
any chewable lead-based painted surface with evidence of teeth marks, 
or any lead-based paint on a friction surface if lead dust levels 
underneath the friction surface exceed the dust-lead hazard standards. 
A dust-lead hazard is surface dust that contains a mass-per-area 
concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 micrograms per square 
foot ([mu]g/ft\2\) on floors or 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ on interior windowsills 
based on wipe samples. A soil-lead hazard is bare soil that contains 
total lead equal to or exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in a play 
area or average of 1,200 ppm of bare soil in the rest of the yard based 
on soil samples.

B. EPA's Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

    Section 402(c) of TSCA addresses renovation and remodeling. For the 
stated purpose of reducing the risk of exposure to lead in connection 
with renovation and remodeling activities, section 402(c)(1) of TSCA 
requires EPA to promulgate and disseminate guidelines for the conduct 
of such activities that may create a risk of exposure to dangerous 
levels of lead. In response to this statutory directive, EPA developed 
the guidance document entitled ``Reducing Lead Hazards when Remodeling 
Your Home'' in consultation with industry and trade groups (Ref. 11). 
This document has been widely disseminated to renovation and remodeling 
stakeholders through the National Lead Information Center, EPA Regions, 
and EPA's State and Tribal partners and is available at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrpamph.pdf.
    Section 402(c)(2) of TSCA directs EPA to study the extent to which 
persons engaged in various types of renovation and remodeling 
activities are exposed to lead during such activities or create a lead-
based paint hazard regularly or occasionally. EPA conducted this study 
in four phases. Phase I, the Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 
12), evaluated the amount of leaded dust generated by various typical 
renovation activities. Phase II, the Worker Characterization and Blood 
Lead Study (Ref. 22), involved collecting data on blood lead and 
renovation and remodeling activities from workers. Phase III, the 
Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 14), was a retrospective 
study focused on assessing the relationship between renovation and 
remodeling activities and children's blood-lead levels. Phase IV, the 
Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and 
Repair) Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic Homes 
(Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals who 
worked primarily in old historic buildings. More information on the 
results of these peer-reviewed studies can be found in Unit III.C.1. of 
the preamble to the 2006 Proposal (Ref. 3).
    Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise the regulations 
promulgated under TSCA section 402(a), i.e., the Lead-based Paint 
Activities Regulations, to apply to renovation or remodeling activities 
in target housing, public buildings constructed before 1978, and 
commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. Based 
primarily on the four-phase study conducted under TSCA section 
402(c)(2), EPA issued a proposed rule in January 2006 to cover 
renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted 
surfaces in target housing and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 3). In 
the 2006 Proposal, EPA proposed to conclude that all such activities in 
the presence of lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards 
because available information indicated that all such activities create 
dust-lead levels that exceed the hazard standards established under 
TSCA section 403.
    After the 2006 Proposal was issued, EPA conducted a field study 
entitled ``Characterization of Dust Lead Levels

[[Page 24851]]

after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities'' (Dust Study) to 
better characterize dust-lead levels resulting from various renovation, 
repair, and painting activities (Ref. 16). This study, completed in 
January 2007, was designed to compare environmental lead levels at 
appropriate stages after various types of renovation, repair, and 
painting preparation activities were performed on the interiors and 
exteriors of target housing units and child-occupied facilities. The 
renovation activities were conducted by local professional renovation 
firms, using personnel who received lead safe work practices training. 
The activities conducted represented a range of renovation, repair, and 
painting activities that would have been permitted under the 2006 
Proposal, including work practices that are restricted or prohibited 
under the final rule, such as the use of high-speed machines without 
high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered exhaust control to 
remove paint. Of particular interest was the impact of using specific 
work practices that renovation firms would be required to use under the 
proposed rule, such as the use of plastic to contain the work area and 
a multi-step cleaning protocol, as opposed to more typical work 
practices. The Dust Study reinforced EPA's proposed finding that 
typical renovation and remodeling activities that disturb lead-based 
paint create lead-based paint hazards.
    In April 2008, EPA issued the final Renovation, Repair and Painting 
Rule (RRP Rule) under the authority of section 402(c)(3) of TSCA to 
address lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and 
painting activities that disturb lead-based paint in target housing and 
child-occupied facilities (Ref. 17). The term ``target housing'' is 
defined in TSCA section 401 as any housing constructed before 1978, 
except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any 
child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or 
any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under the RRP Rule, a child-occupied facility 
is a building, or a portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, 
visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on at least 
two different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period), 
provided that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined 
weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits 
last at least 60 hours. The RRP Rule establishes requirements for 
training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling 
technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 
renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust 
sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for 
recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may 
apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of 
the elements of the RRP Rule.

C. Recent Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Developments

    Shortly after the RRP Rule was published, several petitions were 
filed challenging the rule. These petitions were consolidated in the 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On 
August 24, 2009, EPA entered into an agreement with the environmental 
and children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions 
(Ref. 18). In this agreement, EPA committed to propose several changes 
to the RRP Rule. EPA also agreed to commence rulemaking to address 
renovations in public and commercial buildings, other than child-
occupied facilities, to the extent those renovations create lead-based 
paint hazards. For these buildings, EPA agreed, at a minimum, to do the 
following:
     Issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the exteriors 
of public and commercial buildings other than child-occupied facilities 
by December 15, 2011 and to take final action on that proposal by July 
15, 2013.
     Consult with EPA's Science Advisory Board by September 30, 
2011, on a methodology for evaluating the risk posed by renovations in 
the interiors of public and commercial buildings other than child-
occupied facilities.
     Eighteen months after receipt of the Science Advisory 
Board's report, either issue a proposal to regulate renovations on the 
interiors of public and commercial buildings other than child-occupied 
facilities or conclude that such renovations do not create lead-based 
paint hazards.
    On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from several 
environmental and public health advocacy groups requesting that the EPA 
amend regulations issued under Title IV of TSCA (Ref. 20). 
Specifically, the petitioners requested that EPA lower the Agency's 
dust-lead hazard standards issued pursuant to section 403 of TSCA from 
40 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for floors and from 250 [mu]g/
ft\2\ to 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for window sills. The petitioners also 
asked EPA to modify the definition of lead-based paint in 40 CFR 
745.103 and 745.223 from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million 
(ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding 
reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard. On 
October 22, 2009, EPA granted this petition under section 553(e) of the 
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e) (Ref. 21). In granting 
this petition, EPA agreed to commence the appropriate proceeding, but 
did not commit to a particular schedule or to a particular outcome. 
Because Congress gave the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) statutory authority to establish a lower level of lead in paint 
for the purpose of the definition of the term ``lead-based paint'' in 
target housing (see 15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), EPA agreed to work with HUD in 
taking the appropriate action on the request pertaining to the 
definition of the term ``lead-based paint.''

D. Information on Lead and Its Health Effects

    Lead is a soft, bluish metallic chemical element mined from rock 
and found in its natural state all over the world. Lead is virtually 
indestructible, is persistent, and has been known since antiquity for 
its adaptability in making various useful items. In modern times, it 
has been used to manufacture many different products, including paint, 
batteries, pipes, solder, pottery, and gasoline. Through the 1940's, 
paint manufacturers frequently used lead as a primary ingredient in 
many oil-based interior and exterior house paints. Usage gradually 
decreased through the 1950's and 1960's as titanium dioxide replaced 
lead and as latex paints became more widely available.
    1. Health effects in general. Lead bioaccumulates, and is only 
slowly removed, with bone lead serving as a blood lead source for years 
after exposure and may serve as a significant source of exposure. Bone 
accounts for more than 90% of the total body burden of lead in adults 
and 70% in children (Ref. 22). In comparison to adults, bone mineral 
turns over much more quickly in children as a result of growth. Changes 
in blood lead concentration in children are thought to parallel more 
closely to changes in total body burden. Therefore, blood lead 
concentration is often used in epidemiologic and toxicological studies 
as an index of exposure and body burden for children.
    Lead is known for its ``broad array of deleterious effects on 
multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action'' (Ref. 
22, p. 8-24 and section 8.4.1). This array of health effects includes 
effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological 
development and function,

[[Page 24852]]

reproduction and physical development, kidney function, cardiovascular 
function, and immune function. The weight of evidence varies across 
this array of effects and is comprehensively described in the EPA Air 
Quality Criteria for Lead (Criteria Document) (Ref. 22). There is also 
some evidence of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies, 
together with limited human evidence of suggestive associations (Ref. 
22, sections 5.6.2, 6.7, and 8.4.10). Lead has also been classified as 
a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer (inorganic lead compounds), based on limited evidence in humans 
and sufficient evidence in animals, and as reasonably anticipated to be 
a human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (lead and 
lead compounds) (Ref. 22, section 6.7.2). EPA considers lead a probable 
carcinogen based on the available animal data (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm (Ref. 22, p. 6-195)).
    This discussion is focused on those effects most pertinent to 
ambient exposures, which, given the reductions in ambient lead levels 
over the past 30 years, are generally those associated with individual 
blood lead levels in children and adults in the range of 10 [mu]g/dL 
and lower. These key effects include neurological, hematological, and 
immune effects for children, and hematological, cardiovascular, and 
renal effects for adults (Ref. 22, Tables 8-5 and 8-6, pp. 8-60 to 8-
62). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the 
Criteria Document, ``neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovascular 
effects in adults are among those best substantiated as occurring at 
blood lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL (or possibly 
lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public 
health concern'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-60). At mean blood lead levels, in 
children, on the order of 10 [mu]g/dL, and somewhat lower, associations 
have been found with effects to the immune system, including altered 
macrophage activation, increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels and 
associated increased risk for autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 22, 
sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6). A meta-analysis of numerous studies 
estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 
[mu]g/dL) is associated with ~1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) 
increase in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in 
diastolic pressure (Ref. 22, p. E-10). With respect to renal effects in 
adults, increased risk for nephrotoxicity was observed at the lowest 
lead exposure levels in epidemiological studies included in the 
Criteria Document (Ref. 22, p. 8-49). Nephrotic effects were reported 
among some adults with mean concurrent blood lead levels as low as 2 to 
4 [mu]g/dL. ``More specifically, the newly available general population 
studies have shown associations between blood Pb and indicators of 
renal function impairment at blood-Pb levels extending below 10 [mu]g/
dL, with nephrotic effects having been reported among some adults with 
mean concurrent blood-Pb levels as low as ~2 to 4 [mu]g/dL.'' (Ref. 22, 
p. 8-49).
    The toxicological and epidemiological information available 
``includes assessment of new evidence substantiating risks of 
deleterious effects on certain health endpoints being induced by 
distinctly lower than previously demonstrated lead exposures indexed by 
blood lead levels extending well below 10 [mu]g/dL in children and/or 
adults'' (Ref. 22, p. 8- 25). Some health effects associated with 
individual blood lead levels extend below 5 [mu]g/dL, and some studies 
have observed these effects at the lowest blood levels considered. With 
regard to population mean levels, the Criteria Document points to 
studies reporting ``lead effects on the intellectual attainment of 
preschool and school age children at population mean concurrent blood-
lead levels [BLLs] ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 [mu]g/dL'' (Ref. 
22, p. E-9).
    EPA notes that many studies over the past decade, in investigating 
effects at lower blood lead levels, have utilized the CDC advisory 
level or level of concern for individual children (10 [mu]g/dL). This 
level has variously been called an advisory level or level of concern. 
In addressing children's blood lead levels, CDC has stated, 
``[s]pecific strategies that target screening to high-risk children are 
essential to identify children with BLLs >= 10 [mu]g/dL'' (Ref. 1) as a 
benchmark for assessment, and this is reflected in the numerous 
references in the Criteria Document to 10 [mu]g/dL. Individual study 
conclusions stated with regard to effects observed below 10 [mu]g/dL 
are usually referring to individual blood lead levels. In fact, many 
such study groups have been restricted to individual blood lead levels 
below 10 [mu]g/dL or restricted to blood lead levels below levels that 
are lower than 10 [mu]g/dL (e.g., the blood lead levels must be below 8 
[mu]g/dL). EPA notes that the mean blood lead level for these groups 
will necessarily be lower than the blood lead level below which they 
are restricted, because the restricted blood lead level is the upper 
end of the blood lead level range of the study.
    Threshold levels, in terms of blood lead levels in individual 
children, for neurological effects cannot be discerned from the 
currently available studies (Ref. 22, pp. 8-60 to 8-63). The Criteria 
Document states, ``There is no level of lead exposure that can yet be 
identified, with confidence, as clearly not being associated with some 
risk of deleterious health effects'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-63). As discussed 
in the Criteria Document, ``a threshold for lead neurotoxic effects may 
exist at levels distinctly lower than the lowest exposures examined in 
these epidemiologic studies'' (Ref. 22, p. 8- 67). Physiological, 
behavioral and demographic factors contribute to increased risk of 
lead-related health effects. Population groups potentially at risk, 
sometimes also referred to as sensitive populations, include those with 
increased susceptibility (i.e., physiological factors contributing to a 
greater response for the same exposure), as well as those with greater 
vulnerability (i.e., those with increased exposure such as through 
exposure to higher media concentrations or resulting from behavior 
leading to increased contact with contaminated media), or those 
affected by socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to health 
care or low socioeconomic status (Ref. 22).
    Children are at increased risk of lead-related health effects due 
to various factors that enhance their exposures (e.g., via the hand-to-
mouth activity that is prevalent in very young children, (Ref. 22, 
section 4.4.3)) and susceptibility. While children are considered to be 
at a period of maximum exposure around 18-27 months, recent 
epidemiologic studies have found other blood lead measurements, 
including concurrent blood lead levels or lifetime averages, to be 
stronger predictors of lead-associated effects than peak blood lead 
concentration (Ref. 22, pp. 6-60 and 6-61). The evidence ``supports the 
idea that lead exposure continues to be toxic to children as they reach 
school age, and [does] not lend support to the interpretation that all 
the damage is done by the time the child reaches 2 to 3 years of age'' 
(Ref. 22, section 6.2.12). The following physiological and demographic 
factors can further affect risk of lead-related effects in some 
children.
     Children with particular genetic polymorphisms (e.g., 
presence of the d-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase-2 [ALAD-2] allele) 
may have increased sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may be due to 
increased susceptibility to the same internal dose and/or to increased 
internal dose associated with same

[[Page 24853]]

exposure (Ref. 22, p. 8-71, sections 6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6).
     Some children may have blood lead levels higher than those 
otherwise associated with a given lead exposure (Ref. 22, section 
8.5.3) as a result of nutritional status (e.g., iron deficiency, 
calcium intake), as well as genetic and other factors (Ref. 22, chapter 
4 and sections 3.4, 5.3.7, and 8.5.3).
     Situations of elevated exposure, such as residing near 
sources of ambient lead, as well as socioeconomic factors, such as 
reduced access to health care or low socioeconomic status can also 
contribute to increased blood lead levels and increased risk of 
associated health effects from air-related lead (Refs. 23, 24).
     Children in poverty and black, non-Hispanic children have 
notably higher blood lead levels than do economically well-off children 
and white children, in general (Ref. 25).
    2. Neurological effects in children. Among the wide variety of 
health endpoints associated with lead exposures, there is general 
consensus that the developing nervous system in children is among the, 
if not the, most sensitive. While blood lead levels in U.S. children 
have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have 
investigated and reported associations of effects on the 
neurodevelopment of children with these more recent blood lead levels 
(Ref. 22, chapter 6). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity 
during childhood include neurophysiologic, motor, cognitive, and 
behavioral impacts. Numerous epidemiological studies have reported 
neurocognitive, neurobehavioral, neurophysiologic, and neuromotor 
function effects in children with blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL 
(Ref. 22, sections 6.2 and 8.4). As discussed in the Criteria Document, 
``extensive experimental laboratory animal evidence has been generated 
that (a) substantiates well the plausibility of the epidemiologic 
findings observed in human children and adults and (b) expands our 
understanding of likely mechanisms underlying the neurotoxic effects'' 
(Ref. 22, p. 8-25; section 5.3).
    Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have been 
observed in epidemiological studies have included decrements in 
intelligence test results, such as the widely used IQ score, and in 
academic achievement as assessed by various standardized tests as well 
as by class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16 and 
pp. 8-29 to 8-30). As noted in the Criteria Document with regard to the 
latter, ``[a]ssociations between lead exposure and academic achievement 
observed in the studies noted in this section were significant even 
after adjusting for IQ, suggesting that lead-sensitive 
neuropsychological processing and learning factors not reflected by 
global intelligence indices might contribute to reduced performance on 
academic tasks'' (Ref. 22, pp. 8-29 to 8- 30). Further, neurological 
effects in general include behavioral effects, such as delinquent 
behavior (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.6 and 8.4.2.2), sensory effects, such 
as those related to hearing and vision (Ref. 22, sections 6.2.7 and 
8.4.2.3), and deficits in neuromotor function (Ref. 22, p. 8-36).
    With regard to potential implications of lead effects on IQ, the 
Criteria Document recognizes the ``critical'' distinction between 
population and individual risk, identifying issues regarding declines 
in IQ for an individual and for the population. The Criteria Document 
further states that a ``point estimate indicating a modest mean change 
on a health index at the individual level can have substantial 
implications at the population level'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-77). As an 
example, the Criteria Document states, ``although an increase of a few 
mm Hg in blood pressure might not be of concern for an individual's 
well-being, the same increase in the population mean might be 
associated with substantial increases in the percentages of individuals 
with values that are sufficiently extreme that they exceed the criteria 
used to diagnose hypertension'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-77). A downward shift in 
the mean IQ value is associated with both substantial decreases in 
percentages achieving very high scores and substantial increases in the 
percentage of individuals achieving very low scores (Ref. 22, p. 8-81). 
For example, for a population mean IQ of 100 (and standard deviation of 
15), 2.3% of the population would score above 130, but a shift of the 
population to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% of the population 
scoring above 130 (Ref. 22, pp. 8-81 to 8-82). ``For an individual 
functioning in the low [IQ] range due to the influence of developmental 
risk factors other than lead, a lead-associated [IQ] decline of several 
points might be sufficient to drop that individual into the range 
associated with increased risk of educational, vocational, and social 
failure'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-77).
    Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have 
included effects on attention, executive functions, language, memory, 
learning, and visuospatial processing (Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.5, 
and 8.4.2.1), with attention and executive function effects associated 
with lead exposures indexed by blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL 
(Ref. 22, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8-30 to 8-31). The evidence for the 
role of lead in this suite of effects includes experimental animal 
findings (Ref. 22, section 8.4.2.1; p. 8-31), which provide strong 
biological plausibility of lead effects on learning ability, memory and 
attention (Ref. 22, section 5.3.5), as well as associated mechanistic 
findings.
    The persistence of such lead-induced effects is described in the 
Criteria Document (e.g., Ref. 22, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.11, and 8.5.2). 
The persistence or irreversibility of such effects can be the result of 
damage occurring without adequate repair offsets or of the persistence 
of lead in the body (Ref. 22, section 8.5.2). It is additionally 
important to note that there may be long-term consequences of such 
deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and achievement can have 
``enduring and important effects on objective parameters of success in 
real life,'' as well as increased risk of antisocial and delinquent 
behavior (Ref. 22, section 6.2.16).
    Multiple epidemiologic studies of lead and child development have 
demonstrated inverse associations between blood lead concentrations and 
children's IQ and other cognitive-related outcomes at successively 
lower lead exposure levels over the past 30 years (Ref. 22, section 
6.2.13). For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, 
described in the Criteria Document, provides clear substantiation of 
neurocognitive decrements being associated in children with mean blood 
lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL, and some analyses 
indicate lead effects on intellectual attainment of children for which 
population mean blood lead levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8 
[mu]g/dL (Ref. 22, sections 6.2, 8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, while blood 
lead levels in U.S. children have decreased notably since the late 
1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of 
effects on the neurodevelopment of children with blood lead levels 
similar to the more recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 22, chapter 
6).
    Children in minority populations and children whose families are 
poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels (Ref. 
25, at e376). Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination 
Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 shows that the prevalence 
of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 [micro]g/dL in children 
aged 1 to 5 years has decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-
2004, which is an 84% decline (Ref. 25, at e377). However, the NHANES 
data from

[[Page 24854]]

1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic black children aged 1 to 5 years 
had higher percentages of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 
[micro]g/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) 
(Ref. 25). In addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same 
period, the geometric mean blood lead level was significantly higher 
for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 [micro]g/dL), compared with Mexican 
Americans (1.9 [micro]g/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 [micro]g/dL) 
(Ref. 25, at e377). For children aged 1 to 5 years from families with 
low income, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2.4 [micro]g/dL 
(Ref. 25, at e377). Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels 
greater than 10 ug/dL and greater than or equal to 5 ug/dL were higher 
for non-hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4%, respectively) than for Mexican 
Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic whites (4.4% 
and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 25). The ``analysis indicates that 
residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black 
are still major risk factors for higher lead levels'' (Ref. 25, at 
e376).
    3. Adult health effects. As previously noted, the adult health 
effects of lead exposure include negative impacts on renal and 
cardiovascular function. While cardiovascular effects in adults are 
well substantiated as occurring at blood lead levels as low as 5 to 10 
[mu]g/dL (or possibly lower), newly-demonstrated renal system effects 
among general population groups are also emerging as low-level lead 
exposure effects of concern (Ref. 22, p. 8-60).
    Most studies in general adult and patient populations published 
during the past two decades have observed associations between ``Pb 
dose and worse renal function.'' (Ref. 22, p. 6-112) The cumulative 
effect of higher blood lead levels from past exposure may be a factor 
in the nephrotoxicity observed at current blood lead levels. However, 
one study found associations between blood lead and concurrent serum 
creatinine in participants whose peak blood lead levels were equal to 
or less than 10 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 22, p. 6-112). ``The threshold for lead-
related nephrotoxicity cannot be determined based on current data, but 
associations with clinically-relevant renal outcomes have been observed 
in populations with mean blood lead levels as low as 2.2 [mu]g/dL'' 
(Ref. 22, p. 6-112). In addition, the available data are not sufficient 
to determine whether the observed nephrotoxicity is related more to 
such current blood lead levels, higher levels from past exposures, or 
both (Ref. 22, p. 8-49). Some adult populations are at an even greater 
risk for adverse health effects as a result of lead exposure. ``The 
influence of an individual's health status on susceptibility to lead 
toxicity has been demonstrated most clearly for renal outcomes.'' 
``Individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and chronic renal 
insufficiency are at increased risk of Pb-associated declines in renal 
function, and indications of altered kidney function have been reported 
at blood Pb levels ranging somewhat below 5 [mu]g/dL (Lin et al., 2001, 
2003; Muntner et al., 2003; Tsaih et al., 2004).'' (Ref. 22 p. 8-72).
    Positive associations between lead exposure and increased blood 
pressure have been observed in numerous studies. Epidemiologic studies 
that have examined the effects of blood lead levels on blood pressure 
have generally found positive associations, even after controlling for 
confounding factors such as tobacco smoking, exercise, body weight, 
alcohol consumption, and socioeconomic status (Ref. 22, p. 8-45). 
Recent meta-analyses of these studies have reported robust, 
statistically-significant, though small effect-size, associations 
between blood-Pb concentrations and blood pressure. For example, the 
meta-analysis of Nawrot et al. (2002) indicated that a doubling of 
blood lead corresponded to a 1 mm Hg increase in systolic blood 
pressure. Although this magnitude of increase is not clinically 
meaningful for an individual, a population shift of 1 mm Hg is 
important (Ref 22, p. 8-45). The majority of the more recent studies 
employing bone lead level have also found a strong association between 
long-term lead exposure and arterial pressure. ``Since the residence 
time of Pb in blood is relatively short but very long in bone, the 
latter observations have provided compelling evidence for the positive 
relationship between Pb exposure and a subsequent rise in arterial 
pressure in human adults.'' (Ref 22, p. 8-45)
    Studies also demonstrate a relationship between increased lead 
exposure and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including increased 
incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality 
(Ref. 22, p. 6-154). ``Lead interference in calcium-dependent 
processes, including ionic transport systems and signaling pathways 
important in vascular reactivity may only represent the first step in 
the cascade of Pb-induced physiological events that culminates in 
cardiovascular disease. Lead alteration of endothelial cell response to 
vascular damage, inducement of smooth muscle cell hyperplasia, 
alteration of hormonal and transmitter systems regulating vascular 
reactivity, and its clear role as promoter of oxidative stress suggest 
mechanisms that could explain the Pb-associated increase in blood 
pressure, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease noted in this 
section'' (Ref. 22, p. 6-153).
    Current research does not definitively indicate whether health 
impacts observed later in life are the result of current lead exposure 
or exposure which occurred during early childhood or at some other time 
in the past. The following excerpts from the Criteria Document 
illustrate the uncertainties surrounding this issue:
     ``It could be that damage occurred during a circumscribed 
period when the critical substrate was undergoing rapid development, 
but that the high correlation between serial blood Pb levels impeded 
identification of the special significance of exposure at that time.'' 
(Ref. 22, p. 8-73).
     ``While some observations in children as old as 
adolescence indicate that exposure biomarkers measured concurrently are 
the strongest predictors of late outcomes, the interpretation of these 
observations with regard to critical windows of vulnerability remains 
uncertain'' (Ref. 22, p. 8-74).
    4. Renovations in residential settings and elevated blood lead 
levels. EPA's Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study, described more 
fully in Unit III.C.1.c. of the preamble to the 2006 Proposal, provides 
ample evidence of a link between renovation activities and elevated 
blood lead levels in resident children (Ref. 14). This peer-reviewed 
study concluded that general residential renovation and remodeling is 
associated with an increased risk of elevated blood lead levels in 
children and that specific renovation and remodeling activities are 
also associated with an increase in the risk of elevated blood lead 
levels in children. In particular, removing paint (using open flame 
torches, using heat guns, using chemical paint removers, and using wet 
scraping/sanding) and preparing surfaces by sanding or scraping 
significantly increased the risk of elevated blood lead levels.
    Three studies from New York support the findings of the Wisconsin 
Childhood Blood-Lead Study. In 1995, the New York State Department of 
Health assessed lead exposure among children resulting from home 
renovation and remodeling in 1993-1994. A review of the health 
department records of children with blood lead levels equal to or 
greater than 20 [mu]g/dL identified 320, or 6.9%, with elevated blood 
lead levels that were attributable to renovation and remodeling (Ref. 
26). An update to that study with data from environmental

[[Page 24855]]

investigations conducted during 2006-2007 in New York State (excluding 
New York City) identified renovation, repair, and painting activities 
as the probable source of lead exposure in 14% of 972 children with 
blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 20 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 27). The 
authors concluded that children living in housing undergoing 
renovation, repair, and painting that was built before 1978, and 
particularly before 1950, when concentrations of lead in paint were 
higher, are at high risk for elevated blood lead levels. The final 
study was a case-control study that assessed the association between 
elevated blood lead levels in children younger than 5 years and 
renovation or repair activities in homes in New York City (Ref. 28). 
EPA notes that the authors show that when dust and debris was reported 
(by respondents via telephone interviews) to be ``everywhere'' 
following a renovation, the children's blood lead levels were 
significantly higher than those of the children at homes that did not 
report remodeling work. On the other hand, when the respondent reported 
either ``no visible dust and debris'' or that ``dust and debris was 
limited to the work area,'' there was no statistically significant 
effect on blood lead levels relative to homes that did not report 
remodeling work. Although the study found only a weak and 
nonsignificant link between a report of any renovation activity and the 
likelihood that a resident child had an elevated blood-lead level, the 
link to the likelihood of an elevated blood-lead level was 
statistically significant for surface preparation by sanding and for 
renovation work that spreads dust and debris beyond the work area. The 
researchers noted the consistency of their results with EPA's Wisconsin 
Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 28, at 509).

III. Renovations in Public and Commercial Buildings

    In many respects, EPA's approach to determining whether and how to 
regulate exterior renovations on public and commercial buildings and 
whether and how to regulate interior renovations in public and 
commercial buildings will be similar to the approach taken towards 
renovation activities in and on target housing and child-occupied 
facilities. Although the statutory directive under TSCA section 
402(c)(3) is the same for all of these buildings, each type of building 
may present a different level of exposure to occupants. In this ANPRM, 
EPA is taking comment on the many considerations it must take into 
account when revising the regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a) 
to apply to those renovations that create lead-based paint hazards in 
public and commercial buildings.
    An important consideration in determining how to regulate 
renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial buildings is that 
these renovations can create lead-based paint hazards on and in target 
housing and child-occupied facilities. Lead dust can travel in the 
environment and has been shown to be readily tracked into homes and 
other buildings. In fact, as discussed in Unit III.B.1. a substantial 
proportion of interior dust is due to track-in activities.

A. Definitions of ``Public Building'' and ``Commercial Building''

    While the term ``target housing'' is defined in TSCA section 401, 
TSCA Title IV does not provide definitions for the terms ``public 
building'' and ``commercial building.'' The issue of the buildings that 
could and should be covered by these terms was raised, but not 
conclusively resolved, in the rulemaking to establish the existing 
Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations.
    As discussed previously, EPA promulgated the final Lead-based Paint 
Activities Regulations under TSCA section 402(a) in 1996 (Ref. 4). 
These regulations cover lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard 
screens, risk assessments, and abatements. The regulations include 
training and certification requirements for individuals and firms, 
accreditation requirements for lead-based paint training providers, and 
work practice standards designed in accordance with the statutory 
directive to ensure that lead-based paint activities are conducted 
safely, reliably and effectively. As initially proposed in 1994, one 
set of requirements for the training and certification of contractors 
and the accreditation of training programs, as well as specific work 
practice standards would have applied to lead-based paint activities 
conducted in target housing and public buildings (Ref. 29). The 1994 
proposal would have defined public buildings to include all buildings 
generally open to the public or occupied or visited by children, such 
as stores, museums, airports, offices, restaurants, hospitals, and 
government buildings, as well as schools and day-care centers. In the 
final rule, EPA decided to focus on buildings frequented by children 
and, thus, established a subset of the buildings EPA had intended to 
define as public. This subset is called ``child-occupied facilities'' 
and it is delineated terms of the frequency and duration of visits by 
particular children (Ref. 4).
    EPA continues to believe that it is important to emphasize the 
deleterious effects of lead exposure on young children, a sub-
population that has long been identified as being particularly 
susceptible to the adverse effects of lead. However, it is also 
important to address exposures for other sensitive sub-populations, 
such as women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant in the 
future. In addition, as discussed in Unit II.D. of this preamble, a 
growing body of scientific literature documents lead's adverse effects 
on older children and adults at lower levels of exposure than 
previously documented. As a result, EPA does not believe that the 
options considered in this rulemaking should be limited to those 
buildings or situations where young children are likely to be exposed. 
EPA intends to evaluate all of the available information on hazards, 
exposures, and risk to determine which renovations TSCA requires EPA to 
regulate and how TSCA requires EPA to regulate them.
    While TSCA Title IV does not define ``public building'' or 
``commercial building,'' a definition of ``public and commercial 
building'' was provided in TSCA Title II. TSCA Title II addresses the 
management of asbestos-containing building materials in school 
buildings and the training and accreditation (or certification) of 
persons who perform asbestos inspections or design or conduct asbestos 
abatement in public or commercial buildings. Because the primary focus 
of TSCA Title II is primary and secondary schools, and ensuring that 
asbestos-containing building materials in such schools are properly 
managed, primary and secondary schools are specifically excluded from 
the definition of the term ``public and commercial building'' in TSCA 
section 202. However, the rest of the definition signals Congress's 
intention for EPA to interpret the term broadly, because a public and 
commercial building is defined as ``any building'' other than a school 
building or a ``residential apartment building'' of fewer than 10 
units. EPA's regulatory definition of ``public and commercial 
building'' at 40 CFR part 763, Subpart E, Appendix C, Asbestos Model 
Accreditation Plan, provides examples of the types of buildings 
covered, including industrial and office buildings, government-owned 
buildings, colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches, 
preschools, stores, warehouses and factories. Notwithstanding the 
differences in focus between TSCA Title II and Title

[[Page 24856]]

IV, EPA believes that a similar broad approach to interpreting ``public 
building'' and ``commercial building'' is warranted in this rulemaking. 
Of course, EPA must still determine which renovations in which 
buildings create lead-based paint hazards.
    One other factor must be considered in interpreting the terms 
``public building'' and ``commercial building.'' In 1978, the CPSC 
banned the use of paint containing more than 0.06% lead by weight on 
toys, furniture, and interior and exterior surfaces in housing and 
other buildings and structures used by consumers (Ref. 30). However, 
this ban specifically exempted ``[i]ndustrial (and commercial) building 
and equipment maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety 
marking coatings.'' It is likely that Congress was thinking of this 
ban, and the exemption, when it limited rulemaking authority in TSCA 
section 402(c)(3) to public buildings built before 1978, but applied no 
such limitation to commercial buildings.
    With this in mind, EPA requests comment, information and data from 
the public on the types of buildings that should be considered ``public 
buildings'' or ``commercial buildings.'' Specifically, EPA asks 
commenters to consider the following questions:
    1. What types of buildings should be considered to be public 
buildings? What types should be considered to be commercial buildings? 
Should outbuildings and structures on the property be included in 
either category as they are in respect to target housing? Why?
    2. What types of building classifications should be considered? 
Should the criteria for classifying buildings include the presence of 
young children, pregnant women, or population density? Is it possible 
to categorize buildings based on the contractors and the workforce 
renovating them (i.e., do different contractors perform renovations in 
different types of public and commercial buildings, or do such work 
differently)? Is it possible to classify public and commercial 
buildings using building codes, zoning, or other characteristics? 
Should various classifications of buildings be treated differently with 
regard to required work practices, cleaning methods, and reoccupancy 
criteria?
    3. Some public or commercial buildings are mixed-use buildings, 
with residences, schools and/or child care facilities in the buildings. 
If portions of the buildings are residences that are target housing 
(i.e., the building was constructed before 1978 and the residences are 
not otherwise exempt), how should such buildings, or particular 
portions of them, be addressed in this rulemaking?
    4. Every four years, the Department of Energy (DOE) collects 
information on the stock of commercial buildings in the United States, 
their energy-related building characteristics, and their energy 
consumption and expenditures. For the purposes of this survey, the 
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), commercial 
buildings include all buildings in which at least half of the floor 
space is used for a purpose that is not residential, industrial, or 
agricultural. This survey includes building types that might not 
traditionally be considered commercial, such as schools, correctional 
institutions, and buildings used for religious worship. More 
information on the CBECS can be found at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. DOE also collects data every four years on buildings used for 
manufacturing activities. The Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 
(MECS) collects data on buildings used by the manufacturing sector, 
defined by NAICS codes 31 to 33. The MECS data does not include 
information on building vintage. More information on MECS can be found 
at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/contents.html. What other 
information is available on the ages, types, sizes, and other 
characteristics of public and commercial buildings in the United 
States? In particular, what data are available on the age, types, 
sizes, and other characteristics of public or commercial buildings not 
included in the CBECS or MECS?
    Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 2003 American Housing Survey, 
there are 77,888,000 target housing units. ``Target housing'' is 
defined under section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed before 
1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities 
(unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 
housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. EPA estimates that there are 97,000 
child-occupied facilities (COFs), as defined at 40 CFR 745.83. By 
comparison, according to DOE's CBECS data, there are 2,826,000 
commercial buildings constructed prior to 1980. This includes building 
types such as schools and buildings used for religious worship, so 
there is some double-counting with the target housing and COFs figures 
described in this paragraph. According to DOE's MECS there are 368,000 
manufacturing buildings, but this includes post-1978 buildings because 
MECS does not indicate the age of the buildings. EPA is not aware of 
data on the number of agricultural buildings.
    The estimates from the CBECS and MECS data provide an indication of 
the relative magnitude of different building types, but at this time 
should not be considered reflective of the number of buildings that 
would be affected by a future EPA regulation. The number of buildings 
affected by an EPA regulation will depend on how EPA ultimately decides 
to define public and commercial buildings and the scope of the 
regulation within that definition. Aside from the number of structures, 
the characteristics of public and commercial buildings may differ from 
target housing and COFs, including the prevalence of lead-based paint; 
the frequency, type, and size of renovation work performed; and the 
baseline renovation work practices used. EPA is seeking information in 
this notice on all of these characteristics.

B. Lead-Based Paint Hazards and Public and Commercial Building 
Renovations

    1. Leaded dust and debris created by exterior renovations. The Dust 
Study, as described in Unit II.B., demonstrated that renovations on the 
exteriors of target housing and child-occupied facilities create an 
enormous amount of leaded dust that can contaminate soil in the 
vicinity. Including both bulk debris and dust created by these 
renovations, geometric mean lead levels in exterior samples from 
collection trays placed on top of the containment plastic covering the 
adjacent ground ranged from a low of 60,662 [mu]g/ft\2\ for door 
replacement to a high of 7,216,358 [mu]g/ft\2\ for removing paint with 
a high temperature heat gun (Ref. 16). EPA requests public comment on 
the extent to which this study should inform EPA's determination on 
lead-based paint hazards created by exterior renovations on public and 
commercial buildings, especially considering that some of the exterior 
renovations in the Dust Study were performed on a school building, 
which represents one type of public buildings.
    Studies have demonstrated that exterior dust and soil that contains 
lead will contaminate interior building areas when dust and soil is 
tracked inside on the shoes and clothing of building occupants and 
visitors and through air exchange. In one study, a regression analysis 
was used to investigate those factors that were most statistically 
significantly associated with lead loadings in dust samples taken from 
residential carpets (Ref. 29). The study found that soil-lead 
concentration, the practice of removing shoes before entering, and the 
use of walk-off mats at entrances were all statistically

[[Page 24857]]

significant predictors of dust-lead loading in carpets. Dust and soil 
samples collected during the study were screened to include only 
particles smaller than 150 microns, because these particles were 
considered more likely to appear on a child's hand (Ref. 31).
    EPA possesses data on the transport of leaded dust and debris 
resulting from exterior renovations. In EPA's Dust Study, measured lead 
dust and debris were found up to 18 feet from the exterior work area, 
and the average distance traveled by lead dust and debris was 10.81 
feet (Ref. 16). However, it is important to keep in mind that exterior 
vertical containment was used where necessary during the Dust Study to 
ensure that leaded dust and debris did not contaminate adjacent 
properties, and this limited the distance leaded dust and debris could 
travel. Nevertheless, the Dust Study demonstrates that individuals 
residing in and visiting nearby properties could be exposed to leaded 
dust and debris created by exterior renovations when vertical 
containment or other containment measures are not used. Renovation 
firms or building owners and managers may not specifically consider the 
potential for these exposures on nearby properties when designing and 
performing renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial 
buildings.
    Numerous studies have found elevated soil lead levels in 
residential areas surrounding residential and public and commercial 
buildings that have been demolished. In one study of a major building 
demolition, lead dust was found to travel up to 20 kilometers from the 
demolition site (Ref. 32). While EPA recognizes that this situation 
involves whole building demolition, the Agency expects that partial 
demolition and similar renovation activities would be expected to 
release similar types of lead-based paint dust particles with the 
ability to travel long distances and contaminate soil and other 
horizontal surfaces such as streets, playgrounds and other surfaces 
with which children could come into contact. Another study (Ref. 33) 
found increased levels of lead in alleys up to 100 meters from row 
house demolition. These lead levels were observed despite the fact that 
water wetting was used during demolition and debris removal to reduce 
the amount of dust released. In another study, abrasive blasting of a 
bridge was found to deposit 50% of the removed lead-based paint beyond 
300 yards of the operation with a four mile per hour wind. This study 
indicates that current abrasive methods have the demonstrated potential 
to contaminate the surrounding environment and have the potential to 
create lead-based paint hazards (Ref. 34).
    There are data on the maintenance of bridges and structures (such 
as water towers) that could be used to determine the extent of 
transport of lead dust resulting from exterior renovations. Paints on 
many of these steel structures contain up to 60-70% lead by weight 
(Ref. 35). Of particular interest are studies of the impacts of 
renovating these structures in urban areas or near schools. Evidence 
from steel structures suggests that exterior public and commercial 
building renovations can result in significant health impacts for 
children and others in close proximity to the renovation, repair and 
painting work.
    Given these considerations, EPA requests public comment, 
information, and data, especially peer-reviewed studies, on the 
following topics:
    a. What information is available on dust-lead and soil-lead levels 
generated by exterior renovations on public and commercial buildings? 
To what extent is the data from the Dust Study relevant? EPA is aware 
of information on the content of lead in urban and rural soils, and 
other settings, such as near highways. Is there more information on the 
content of lead in soil or what concentrations of lead are currently 
found in soil that EPA could use to evaluate the risk of human and 
environmental lead exposure from the renovation of public and 
commercial buildings?
    b. To what extent will dust drift from exterior renovations, 
especially on public and commercial buildings, onto neighboring 
properties? Would this, for instance, resemble modeling plumes from 
smelters?
    c. How far will lead-containing dust and debris travel from the 
exterior of properties undergoing renovation? What factors will 
influence the travel of lead dust? Such factors might include 
particular renovation practices, the time of year, wind conditions, 
ground cover (e.g., asphalt, concrete, dirt, vegetation), average 
precipitation, or the height and concentration of surrounding 
structures.
    d. To what extent can the data on building demolition or steel 
structure maintenance be used to predict the extent to which dust and 
debris travel from exterior public and commercial building renovations?
    e. To what extent will exterior dust from the exterior renovation 
of public and commercial buildings be tracked into the interior of 
buildings being renovated or other buildings? To what extent will lead-
based paint dust enter these buildings through open windows, doorways 
and air exchange?
    f. What actions can a contractor take to prevent transportation of 
lead dust from exterior renovations or to prevent the lead dust from 
entering the environment?
    2. Leaded dust and debris generated by interior renovations in 
public and commercial buildings. In determining which renovations in 
target housing and child-occupied facilities create lead-based paint 
hazards for the 2008 RRP Rule, EPA relied heavily on two Agency studies 
that evaluated dust-lead levels generated by renovations. One of these 
studies, the Environmental Field Sampling Study (Ref. 12), Phase I of 
the study conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2), evaluated the amount 
of leaded dust generated by the following activities:
     Paint removal by abrasive sanding.
     Removal of large structures, including demolition of 
interior plaster walls.
     Window replacement.
     Carpet removal.
     HVAC repair or replacement, including duct work.
     Repairs resulting in isolated small surface disruptions, 
including drilling and sawing into wood and plaster.
The dust lead levels generated by abrasive sanding were evaluated 
through a literature survey. The results of the literature survey 
included both residential buildings and public or commercial buildings. 
The rest of the evaluated activities were performed as part of the 
study in residential buildings.
    EPA also relied heavily on the Dust Study (Ref. 16) to promulgate 
the final RRP Rule. The Dust Study evaluated the dust-lead and soil-
lead levels generated by the following activities in and on an 
unoccupied school building and/or unoccupied target housing:
     Making cut-outs in the walls.
     Replacing a window from the inside.
     Removing paint with high and low temperature heat guns.
     Removing paint by dry scraping.
     Removing paint with a power planer.
     Removing kitchen cabinets.
    EPA requests public comment, information, and data, particularly 
peer-reviewed studies, on the dust-lead levels that are generated by 
renovations on the interiors of non-residential buildings. EPA also 
requests comment on the extent to which these two EPA studies should 
inform EPA's determination on lead-based paint hazards created by 
renovations in the interiors of public and commercial

[[Page 24858]]

buildings, especially considering that some of the renovations in the 
Dust Study were performed in a school building.
    3. Other evidence of lead-based paint hazards. While EPA primarily 
relied on the two studies described in section III.B.2. to determine 
that renovations in and on target housing and child-occupied facilities 
create lead-based paint hazards, EPA also looked at the available 
evidence for a relationship between renovations and blood lead levels. 
In particular, EPA considered the results of the other three phases of 
the study conducted under TSCA section 402(c)(2). Phase II, the Worker 
Characterization and Blood Lead Study (Ref. 13), involved collecting 
data on blood lead and renovation and remodeling activities from 
workers. Notably, half of the renovations studied occurred in 
commercial buildings and half occurred in residential housing. Thus, 
this study provides evidence of a relationship between commercial 
building renovation activities and worker blood lead levels. Phase IV, 
the Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study of R&R (Renovation and 
Remodeling) Workers Who Specialize in Renovations of Old or Historic 
Homes (Ref. 15), was similar to Phase II, but focused on individuals 
who worked primarily in old historic buildings.
    EPA also relied on the evidence presented by Phase III of the TSCA 
section 402(c)(2) study, the Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (Ref. 
14), which documented a relationship between renovation and remodeling 
activities and the blood-lead levels of resident children. This 
evidence of a relationship is corroborated by New York studies also 
discussed in II.D.4.
    EPA also considered several studies conducted by the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that assessed 
worker exposure and transport of lead dust from renovation activities 
(Refs. 36 and 37). For example, one study done at the University of 
California, Berkeley, assessed lead-based paint exposures of workers 
during exterior renovation work on campus buildings (Ref. 37). 
Estimated average exposures during dry manual sanding, dry manual 
scraping, power finish sanding, and power finish sanding with bag would 
exceed the permissible exposure limit (PEL) within an 8-hr period. 
Estimated average exposures for power sanding with HEPA exhaust, flame 
burning, wet manual sanding, and wet scraping would be below the PEL. 
Although it resulted in relatively low worker exposures, flame burning 
was among the tasks associated with the higher lead levels in air and 
settled dust levels in nearby areas (Ref. 37).
    Lead-based paint is defined by TSCA as paint with lead levels equal 
to or exceeding 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm\2\) or 0.5% 
by weight (TSCA section 401(9) (15 U.S.C. 2681(9))). However, OSHA 
states in 29 CFR 1926.62 that if lead is present in the workplace in 
any quantity the employer is required to make an initial determination 
of whether any employee's exposure to lead exceeds the action level (30 
ug/m3) averaged over an 8 hour day. This position is supported by the 
following interpretations:

    OSHA's role is to protect workers from health and safety 
hazards, including exposure to harmful levels of lead, whatever the 
source. Accordingly, for all tasks governed by OSHA's Lead in 
Construction standard (29 CFR 1926.62) involving paints having any 
level of lead, employers must comply with the assessment measures 
and any applicable protections of that standard.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27319.

    The lead-in-construction standard was intended to apply to any 
detectable concentration of lead in paint, as even small 
concentrations of lead can result in unacceptable employee exposures 
depending upon on the method of removal and other workplace 
conditions. Since these conditions can vary greatly, the lead-in-
construction standard was written to require exposure monitoring or 
the use of historical or objective data to ensure that employee 
exposures do not exceed the action level. Historical data may be 
applied to all construction tasks involving lead. Objective data was 
intended to apply to all tasks other than those listed under 
paragraph 1926.62(d)(2) of the standard.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22701.

    EPA requests public comment, as well as additional information and 
data, particularly peer-reviewed studies, on the relationship between 
renovations in and on public and commercial buildings and blood lead 
levels in workers, building occupants, and visitors. EPA also requests 
public comment on the extent to which these blood-lead studies can 
inform EPA's determination on lead-based paint hazards created by 
public and commercial building renovations.

C. Prevalence of Leaded Paint and Lead Levels in Leaded Paint in and on 
Public and Commercial Buildings

    An important consideration in determining which renovations create 
lead-based paint hazards and how best to address those hazards is 
likely to be the prevalence of leaded paint disturbed and the level of 
lead in that paint. In issuing the 2008 RRP Rule covering renovations 
in target housing and child-occupied facilities, EPA relied heavily on 
two surveys sponsored by HUD. The first, the National Survey of Lead 
and Allergens in Housing, was a representative sampling of housing 
units where children could reside for lead-based paint, lead-based 
paint hazards, and allergens (Ref. 38). This survey provided valuable 
information on the prevalence of and levels of lead in lead-based paint 
in target housing. A similar survey, the First National Environmental 
Health Survey of Childcare Centers, was conducted in licensed child-
care centers and included sampling for lead in paint, lead-based paint 
hazards, allergens, and pesticides (Ref. 39).
    EPA requests public input on these issues related to the presence 
of leaded paint in and on public and commercial buildings:
    1. What information and data are available on the prevalence of 
leaded paint? What information and data are available on the levels of 
lead (concentration or percentage of total) in such paint? Does the 
prevalence or lead level differ by building age, component or type 
(e.g., interior or exterior; doors and windows, trim or walls; wood 
substrate or metal substrate)?
    2. What information and data are available on the trends in 
prevalence and lead levels over time?
    3. What available data would help EPA estimate the likelihood that 
a public or commercial building contains lead-based paint? Are there 
factors that should be considered other than the year in which it was 
constructed?
    4. What voluntary consensus standards or other guidelines or 
specifications affect the prevalence of leaded paint and the levels of 
lead in such paint?
    5. What federal, state, and local laws, regulations, or ordinances 
affect the prevalence of leaded paint and the lead levels in such 
paint?
    6. What information is available on the current manufacture and 
import of lead-based paint for commercial building use?

D. Typical Renovation Activities and Building Management Practices for 
Public and Commercial Buildings

    In making the determination which renovation activities in and on 
public and commercial buildings create lead-based paint hazards, EPA 
must evaluate information on the typical renovations performed and the 
typical practices used in performing these renovations. EPA is also 
interested in types of lead-

[[Page 24859]]

paint containing building components that may be reused during a 
renovation of a public or commercial building. EPA encourages the 
public to submit comments, information, and data relating to these 
considerations.
    1. What types of renovations are typically performed in and on 
public and commercial buildings, and how often is each type performed? 
What is the span or range, both typical and extreme, in size and 
duration of each type of renovation job?
    2. Do renovation firms or the building owners or managers typically 
assess whether the paint the renovation firms will disturb during a 
renovation job in or on a public or commercial building contains lead? 
To what extent are there patterns in their making such assessments? 
Before hiring a renovation firm to perform a renovation, or performing 
a renovation using building maintenance staff, do public and commercial 
building owners or managers assess whether leaded paint is present? 
What methods and procedures are currently employed by contractors or 
building owners/managers to assess whether paint contains lead?
    3. Do building owners or managers typically provide notice of the 
lead content of building paint to renovation firms, building occupants 
or the public? What triggers these notifications? Do renovation firms 
or building owners/managers typically provide advance notice of 
renovation activities to building occupants or the public? To what 
extent are there patterns in their making such notifications?
    4. Do renovation firms typically separate renovation work areas 
from other areas of the building or grounds to limit access and 
minimize the spread of dust, chips, and debris? How often are the 
following practices used to accomplish this separation, and to what 
extent are there patterns in their using such practices? To what extent 
have renovation firms or the public building owners or managers 
assessed the efficacy of these separation practices on the projects 
where they are used, and what are the results of such assessments?
     Restricting access of other building occupants or the 
public into or around the building during renovation through warning 
signs and/or barriers.
     Closing the windows of the building during exterior 
renovations and the windows of other buildings adjacent to the work 
area.
     Placing plastic on the ground to capture the falling chips 
and paint dust during exterior renovations.
     Avoiding exterior renovation work during windy conditions.
     Shutting off the ventilation system and sealing the supply 
and return grills during interior renovation.
     Sealing off the work area (establishing a work area 
containment system) for interior renovations.
     Maintaining negative pressure in the work area with 
respect to the adjacent areas during interior renovations.
     Follow OSHA housekeeping provisions specified in the OSHA 
lead standards at 29 CFR 1926.62 or 29 CFR 1910.1025, or practice good 
housekeeping in the work area.
    5. What clean-up practices do renovation firms typically follow 
during and after renovation activities in and on public and commercial 
buildings? How often are brooms used? How often is wet cleaning or 
mopping performed? How often is vacuuming performed, and, in 
particular, how often are shop vacuums used, and how often are high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums used?
    6. How often is dust wipe testing for leaded dust performed after 
renovations in public and commercial buildings? How often is soil 
tested for lead after renovations on public and commercial buildings, 
especially after exterior renovations? Do renovation firms or building 
owners/managers use any other methods to assess lead levels in dust or 
soil remaining after renovations? Are the results of these tests or 
assessments used to determine whether the work area may be re-occupied 
by other building occupants or visited by the public?
    7. What routine cleaning procedures do the owners and managers of 
public and commercial buildings follow, apart from renovation projects? 
How often are these procedures followed? Are there differences in 
cleaning procedures and or frequencies between older (e.g., pre-1978) 
buildings and newer (e.g., post-1977) buildings?
    8. To what extent are building components that contain lead-based 
paint reused? To what extent are reused components tested for lead-
based paint before reuse?
    9. To what extent are measures taken to avoid the release of lead 
dust during the installation and use of reused lead-contaminated 
building materials (such as paint removal techniques)?
    10. What information is available on the scale and types of new 
renovation and repair projects on public and commercial buildings?

E. Renovation Waste

    Waste from building renovations can create lead-contaminated waste. 
Lead-contaminated waste from the renovation of residences, regardless 
of who generates the waste, is excluded from the Subtitle C Hazardous 
Waste Regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) (Ref. 40). This includes waste from the renovation of single 
family homes, apartment buildings, public housing, and military 
barracks. This waste may be disposed of in a municipal solid waste 
landfill or in a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill. However 
this exclusion does not apply to lead-contaminated waste generated from 
public and commercial building renovations. That waste must be managed 
in accordance with the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations. Given this 
regulatory status, EPA requests public comment, information, and data 
responsive to the following questions:
    1. What information is available on current practices for the 
cleanup, handling, and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes after 
public and commercial building renovations?
    2. Can you provide information and data on the amount of waste from 
renovation activities in public and commercial buildings that a 
contractor might currently manage as RCRA Hazardous Waste? What 
materials are typically included in this waste?
    3. To what extent (i.e. quantities) is lead-contaminated waste from 
public and commercial building renovations recycled? What information 
is available on the methods and practices currently in use for 
recycling such wastes?
    4. To what extent (i.e. quantities) are lead-containing building 
components and other waste removed from public and commercial buildings 
during renovations reused? What information is available on the methods 
and practices currently employed for reusing such components?
    5. Other than RCRA, what federal, state or local statutes, 
regulations, ordinances, or protocols govern the cleanup, handling, 
disposal, and reuse of lead-contaminated waste from public and 
commercial building renovations?
    6. What measures are typically taken to avoid the release of leaded 
dust during the removal and disposal of lead-contaminated wastes from 
public and commercial building renovations?

F. The Renovation Workforce in Public and Commercial Buildings

    In determining which public and commercial building renovations 
create lead-based paint hazards and in designing safe, reliable, and 
effective work practice standards to address those lead-based paint 
hazards, EPA must take into account the typical renovation workforce 
for public and commercial buildings. Accordingly, EPA seeks

[[Page 24860]]

public comment and data to help inform the Agency's understanding of 
this workforce.
    1. What kinds of contractors perform renovations in and on public 
and commercial buildings? How often is building maintenance staff used 
to perform renovations in and on public and commercial buildings? What 
differences are there in the size or type of projects typically 
conducted by contractors vs. building maintenance staff?
    2. When hiring a contractor to perform a renovation, how often do 
building owners/managers check to see whether the personnel who will be 
performing the renovation have been trained in lead-safe work 
practices, i.e., work practices designed to minimize the creation of 
leaded dust and debris, control the spread of such dust and debris, and 
properly clean up this dust and debris after the renovation has been 
completed? How often do building owners and managers train (either 
personally or through consultants) building maintenance staff in lead-
safe work practices? What kind of lead-safe work practices training do 
contractor employees or building maintenance staff typically receive?
    3. How often do building owners/managers or renovation contractors 
hire consultants trained to evaluate lead-based paint and lead-based 
paint hazards, architects, engineers, or others, to assess the 
renovation work area before work begins? How often do building owners/
managers or renovation contractors hire consultants trained in lead-
safe work practices, lead-based paint inspection, lead risk assessment, 
and/or lead project design to assist them in designing and conducting 
renovation projects? What are the patterns for the use of such 
consultants in these various situations?
    4. Who typically provides health, safety, and environmental 
oversight during renovation projects in public and commercial 
buildings--the building owner, the building manager, the construction 
contractor, or another party? Are other specially qualified individuals 
involved in the oversight of renovation projects? Are interior and 
exterior renovations handled differently in this respect?
    5. Typically, do contractors who perform renovations in public and 
commercial buildings also perform renovations in residential buildings? 
Are the same work practices followed in both settings? To what extent 
are the contractor employees the same from job to job? How likely is it 
that an employee used to perform a public or commercial building 
renovation will have received the training required by the 2008 RRP 
Rule for renovation work in target housing and child-occupied 
facilities? Do renovation contractors in public and commercial 
buildings typically establish and enforce standard renovation work 
practice procedures for their employees?

G. Exposure Considerations

    In determining which public and commercial building renovations 
create lead-based paint hazards and in fashioning reliable, safe, and 
effective work practices for those renovations, EPA must consider the 
exposures of building occupants and visitors. To help inform EPA's 
decision-making, EPA requests public comment, information, and data, 
particularly relevant peer-reviewed studies, related to exposures.
    1. What are the pathways for exposure in each type of public or 
commercial building?
    2. While the Agency has developed research-based daily activity 
patterns for general use in its analyses for children and adults, none 
of the patterns distinguish activities based on the character or 
ownership of the buildings where activities occur (Ref. 41). What data 
or studies are available that would assist EPA in estimating the amount 
of time that any particular individual will spend in public and 
commercial buildings and what portion of that time will be in a 
building containing leaded paint or lead-based paint hazards? What data 
or studies exist that characterize the range or distribution of time 
spent by typical individuals? How much variation in exposure exists in 
exposure by typical people?
    3. What information and data are available on occupancy rates 
(e.g., number of people, days per year of occupancy), exposed 
population (e.g., demographic characteristics, reason for being in the 
building (working, visiting, etc.)), and time-activity patterns of 
occupants of each type of public or commercial building?
    4. How often are public and commercial buildings assessed to 
determine the presence, distribution and extent of lead-based paint?
    5. To what extent will people other than renovation workers, such 
as other building occupants, visitors, passers-by, and occupants of 
nearby buildings, be exposed to leaded dust and debris created by 
public and commercial building renovations? For instance, when 
scaffolding is installed, how likely are dust and debris to waft down 
to passersby or to fill the ambient air? To what extent do scaffolding 
enclosures affect the dispersion of the dust and debris?
    6. What information is available on the number of potentially-
exposed occupants of buildings undergoing renovations or buildings 
recently renovated, the duration of the occupants' exposure per work 
day, and the number of days or hours exposed per year during and after 
exterior and interior renovations? To what extent are these exposure 
rates affected by the scheduling of the renovations, e.g., to what 
extent are renovations conducted during shifts or days when few regular 
occupants of the buildings are present (typically nights and weekends)?
    7. What information and data are available on the proximity of 
residential properties to public or commercial buildings? What is the 
distribution of distances of residences, schools and childcare 
facilities from public or commercial buildings? In particular, to what 
extent are public or commercial buildings mixed-use buildings, with 
residences, schools and/or child care facilities in the buildings? What 
information and data are available on the correlation between the 
distribution of distances of residences, schools and day care 
facilities from public or commercial buildings and average incomes of 
communities or neighborhoods? For example, many low income communities 
are in mixed-use neighborhoods.
    8. What information and data are available on the demographics of 
mixed-use neighborhoods?
    9. For low income communities in mixed-use neighborhoods, 
particularly those in which the housing stock is primarily pre-1978, 
how should EPA consider multiple exposures from both residential 
buildings and public and commercial buildings?
    10. Do communities in mixed-use neighborhoods have higher burdens 
of lead exposure? What factors should EPA consider in assessing the 
extent to which renovations in and on public and commercial buildings 
contribute to disproportionate impacts?
    11. What studies and other sources of information are available on 
the frequency of use or effectiveness of work practices designed to 
prevent other building occupants and visitors and persons in nearby 
buildings from being exposed to leaded dust and debris created by 
renovations in and on public and commercial buildings?
    12. To what extent have recent building renovations or 
constructions installed reused building materials that are coated with 
lead-based paint? To what extent have installers abated or used 
techniques to eliminate worker or occupant exposure to lead from these 
materials?

[[Page 24861]]

    13. To what extent do green building certification systems 
encourage the reuse of lead-contaminated building materials? To what 
extent do these systems encourage lead abatement of reused materials?

IV. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for 
this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173. The 
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the 
technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal 
Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards (February 2000).
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health 
Service (PHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 
Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children; A Statement by the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention August 2005).
3. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed 
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006).
4. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in 
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities: Final Rule. Federal 
Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996).
5. USEPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and 
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999).
6. USEPA. Lead; Notification Requirements for Lead-based Paint 
Abatement Activities Training; Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 
18489, April 8, 2004).
7. USEPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From 
Lead in Your Home (EPA-747-K-99-001, June 2003).
8. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), USEPA. Lead; 
Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 
9064, March 6, 1996).
9. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation 
of Target Housing; Final Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 29907, June 
1, 1998).
10. USEPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001).
11. USEPA. Reducing Lead Hazards When Remodeling Your Home (EPA747-
K-97-001, September 1997).
12. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-
96-007, May 1997).
13. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase II, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 
(EPA747-R-96-006, May 1997).
14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin Childhood Blood-Lead Study (EPA 
747-R-99-002, March 1999).
15. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling 
Activities: Phase IV, Worker Characterization and Blood-Lead Study 
of R&R Workers Who Specialize in Renovation of Old or Historic Homes 
(EPA747-R-99-001, March 1999).
16. USEPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Activities. (November 13, 2007).
17. USEPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008).
18. USEPA, Sierra Club, etc. Settlement. (August, 2009).
19. USEPA. Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping 
Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed 
Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 55506, October 28, 2009).
20. Sierra Club, etc. Petition to Lower Dust Lead Hazard Standard. 
(2009)
21. USEPA. Response to Petition on Dust Lead Hazard Standard 
(October, 2009).
22. USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006).
23. USEPA. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment 
Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/P-02/001F (May 2003).
24. USEPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical 
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005a. Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (2005).
25. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. 
Brody, Kathleen L. Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. 
``Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. 
Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.'' Pediatrics 2009, Vol. 123, 
No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009.
26. HHS, PHS, CDC. ``Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels 
Attributed to Home Renovation and Remodeling Activities--New York, 
1993-1994.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-
1123, January 3, 1997).
27. HHS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Related 
to Home Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities--New York State, 
2006-2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (58(03); 55-58, 
January 30, 2009).
28. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gurnite, Rachel B. 
Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. ``Is Home Renovation or Repair a 
Risk Factor for Exposure to Lead Among Children Residing in New York 
City?'' Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of 
Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 4, 502-511, December 2005.
29. USEPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities: 
Proposed Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 45872, September 2, 1994).
30. CPSC. Federal Register (42 FR 44199, September 1, 1977, as 
amended at 43 FR 8515, March 2, 1978).
31. Roberts, J.W., D.E. Camann, and T.M. Spittler. ``Reducing Lead 
Exposure from Remodeling and Soil Track-In in Older Homes.'' In: 
Proceedings, Annual Meeting--Air and Waste Management Association. 
Publication No. 91-134.2. (1991a).
32. Stefani D, D. Wardman, T. Lambert. The Implosion of the Calgary 
General Hospital: Ambient Air Quality Issues. J Air Waste Manag 
Assoc. 2005 Jan; 55(1):52-9.
33. Farfel M.R., A.O. Orlova, P.S. Lees, C. Rohde, P.J. Ashley, J. 
Chisolm. ``A Study of Urban Housing Demolition as a Source of Lead 
in Ambient Dust on Sidewalks, Streets, and Alleys.'' Environ Res. 
2005 Oct; 99(2):204-13. Epub 2004 Dec 15.
34. Snyder, M.K. and D. Bendersky. ``Removal of Lead Based Bridge 
Paints.'' Midwest Research Institute. National Cooperative Highway 
Research Program Report 265 for the Transportation Research 
Board, National Research Council, December 1983.
35. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Department of 
the Attorney General. Rhode Island Lead Nuisance Abatement Plan 
(September 14, 2007).
36. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 
Health Hazard Evaluation; Vermont Housing & Conservation Board. HETA 
98-0285-2989 Montpelier, Vermont (December 2005).
37. NIOSH. Health Hazard Evaluation; University of California, 
Berkley. HETA 99-0113-2853 Berkeley, California (July 
2001).
38. HUD. National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, Volume I: 
Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report, Revision 7.1. (October 31, 
2002).
39. HUD. First National Environmental Health Survey of Child Care 
Centers, Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards, Final Report. (July 15, 
2003).
40. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Memorandum from Elizabeth A. 
Cotsworth, Director, ``Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by 
Contractors and Residents from Lead-Based Paint Activities Conducted 
in Households'' (July 31, 2000).
41. USEPA. Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report) EPA/600/P-95/
002F a-c (1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

[[Page 24862]]

Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes to 
the document that were made in response to comments received by EPA 
during that review have been documented in the docket as required by 
the Executive Order.
    Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, 
and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider 
in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other 
review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do 
not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on 
this document, you may include any comments or information that you 
have regarding the various other review requirements.
    In particular, EPA is interested in any information that would help 
the Agency to assess the potential impact of a rule on small entities 
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to 
consider environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to 
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997); or to consider human health or environmental effects on minority 
or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled 
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 
1994).
    EPA specifically requests information and data to facilitate its 
analyses in the following two areas:

    a. Small Entities. EPA is particularly interested in receiving 
comments and information about the various characteristics of 
potentially impacted small entities that would facilitate the 
Agency's evaluation of the number of firms that might experience an 
impact from a rulemaking in this area, as well as an assessment of 
the potential size of that impact on small entities. In commenting 
or providing information about small entities that might be impacted 
by a rulemaking in this area, please note that the phrase ``small 
entities'' encompasses small businesses, small governmental 
jurisdictions, and small organizations. In the analysis the Agency 
expects to perform under the RFA, these entities are specifically 
defined in sections 601(3)-(5) of the RFA. The definitions for 
``small business'' are codified in the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. SBA defines 
small business by category of business using the NAICS-Codes. 
(http://www.sba.gov/regulations/121/201.htm) Small business default 
definitions can be found on SBA's internet site at http://www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html. A ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is ``a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000.'' A ``small organization'' is any ``not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.''
    b. Environmental Justice. EPA is particularly interested in 
receiving comment and information about potential impacts--both 
benefits and costs--on the human health or environmental conditions 
in minority or low-income populations. Such information would 
facilitate the Agency's consideration of environmental justice 
during the development of the proposed rule.

    This information will be used in the identification and evaluation 
of options for the proposed rule, and will inform the analyses that the 
Agency intends to prepare for the proposed rule. Any comments on this 
topic should be submitted to the Agency in the manner specified under 
ADDRESSES. The Agency will consider such comments during the 
development of any subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate 
steps to address any applicable requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substance, Lead poisoning, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 22, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-10097 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P