INAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT Volume I & II May 1977 CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT Volume I May 1977 Prepared by: Economic Analysis, Hazard Identification and Analysis Directorate CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. \ 5401 Westbard Avenue Washington, D.C. 20207 Date: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Available: February 4, 1977 Date: Final Environmental Impact Statement Available: May 27, 1977 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Volume I Summary S-l General Background Legislative Background I-A-l Uses of Lead in Paint I-B-l General Economic Background of the Paint Industry I-C-l Health Effects of Lead in Paint and Risks From Consumer Products I-D-l Description of Regulatory Alternatives Introduction II-A-1 Discussion of Variables II-A-3 Discussion of Basic Alternatives II-A-5 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Introduction III-l Alternative No. 1 III-l Alternative No. 2 III-2 Alternative No. 3 III-6 Alternative No. 4 III-7 Alternative No. 5 III-8 Economic Effects of the Regulation III-8 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Effects IV-1 Measures Under Consideration to Minimize Unavoidable Negative Environmental Effects V-l Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environmental and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity VI-1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action If It Were Implemented VII-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page References VIII-1 Glossary IX-1 Appendix A - Health Effects of Lead In Paint Risks From Consumer Products (Detailed Background) Appendix B - Consumer Product Safety Commission Notices Regarding Lead-Based Paint in the Federal Register. August 10, 1976. Appendix C - Consumer Product Safety Commission Notices Regarding Lead-Based Paint in the Federal Register. October 6, 1976, February 16, 1977, and March 28, 1977. Appendix D - Listing of Organizations from whom Comments have been Requested. Volume II Summary X-l Discussion of Comments XI-1 Listing of Organizations Submitting Comments XII-1 Copies of Comments SUMMARY LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT ( ) Draft Environmental Statement (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: Mr. Walter Hobby, Director Bureau of Economic Analysis Consumer Product Safety Commission 5401 Westbard Avenue Room 533 Washington, DC 20207 Telephone: 301/492-6539 Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative Description of Activity: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent regulatory agency of the Federal government, is mandated to reduce unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. CPSC is considering the regulation of lead-containing paints under the Consumer Product Safety Act. The primary purpose of this is to help protect children from lead poisoning due to accessibility to lead-containing paints and painted surfaces. The Commission proposes to declare as banned hazardous products (1) lead-containing paint and~similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.06% lead, (2) toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead, and (3) articles of furniture bearing lead- containing paint or other similar surface coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead. The intent of this proposal is to change the existing regulations by (1) banning furniture with paint containing more than 0.06 perccent lead, and (2) establishing the permissible lead level under the Commission's regulations at the same level permitted under the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) Amendments (P.L. 94-317). The effect of the regulation will be that no lead above the limit will be used in paints or coatings or applied to toys and other children's articles or furniture for consumer use. Because the Commission has determined that existing scientific data do not support a finding that a lead level in paint above 0.06 percent is safe, the definition of "lead based paint" under the mandate of Congress through the LBPPPA will become, as to paint manufactured after June 22, 1977, paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead. Therefore, while regulatory alternatives posed by the CPSA proposal present various options, the goal of the proposal is to ban lead containing paint for consumer uses as well as certain other consumer products bearing such paint above the 0.06 percent lead level. The anticipated date for publication of the final regulation has been established, by notice published March 28, 1977 (42 FR 16445), as July 14, 1977. Environmental and Economic Impact: The action will result in consumer paints and certain coated consumer products having less hazardous levels of lead. No significant impact on the environment has been identified. The action will have a moderate beneficial health impact on children who may ingest chips and peelings of such paints. Slight adverse impacts will be incurred by the paint industry in reformulating types of coatings to eliminate the use of lead — particularly lead driers — in paint intended for consumer use and for use on the types of products listed above. Major adverse effects have been identified for manufacturers of some specialty coatings such as auto refinishing paints, touch-up paints, coatngs, industrial maintenance coatings, and graphic arts paint. The National Paint and Coatings Association has petitioned for an exemption for these specialty coatings. The Commission will address the exemptions question in issuing final regu- lations . Another slight adverse impact on the industry is the need to conduct routine monitoring for lead levels in paints, which is expected to cost $5-8 million per year. Other beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the proposed action, which are considered to have somewhat less effect that the impacts mentioned here, are described in Section III of the SIS. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT I. GENERAL BACKGROUND A - LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND RECENT CPSC NOTICES The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an inde- pendent regulatory agency of the Federal government. A primary mission of the Commission, activated on May 14, 1973, and man- dated by the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et. seq.), is to reduce unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products. In addition to the Consumer Product Safety Act, the CPSC also administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act; the Refrigerator Safety Act? the Poison Prevention Packaging Act; and the Flammable Fabrics Act. In the Federal Register of August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33636), the CPSC issued three notices dealing with lead containing paint. The first notice (41 FR 33636) concerned the CPSC determination under the 1976 amendments to the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) of whether a level of lead in paint which is greater than 0.06 percent but not in excess of 0.5 percent is safe. The second (41 FR 33637-33639) was a CPSC proposal to ban lead-containing paint under the Consumer Product Safety Act (FHSA). The proposal would ban paint and other similar surface- coating materials containing lead above the LBPPPA level as well as toys, articles intended for children, and articles of furniture bearing such paint or similar surface coating materials. Printing inks are not covered by the proposed regulation. The third notice proposed to revoke existing regulations under the FHSA related to lead containing paints. While the subject of the present Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS) directly relates only to the proposed CPSA banning rule, the other notices are relevant and will be discussed below. The August 10, 1976 proposal is presented in Appendix B of this EIS. THE LBPPPA AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS The LBPPPA, 42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq., was enacted in 1971 (P.L. 91-695) to deal with the problems of childhood lead poisoning caused by the ingestion of lead based paints. The Act, among other things, established grants for the detection, treatment, and elimination of lead based paint poisoning; authorized a research program; and provided for the prohibition after January 13, 1971, of the use of lead based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal government, or with Federal assis- tance in any form. The term, "lead based paint" was defined as any paint containing more than 1 percent lead in the dried paint film. The LBPPPA was amended by Public Law 93-151 on November 9, 1973. The law redefined the term "lead based paint" to mean any paint containing more than 0.5 percent lead by weight in the total nonvolatile content of liquid paints or in the dried film of paint already applied. This percentage of lead in paint was to be in effect between November 9, 1973 and December 31, 1974. After December 31, 1974 any paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead was considered lead based paint unless the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, prior to December 31, 1974 could determine, based on appropriate research studies, that another level of lead in paint, not to exceed 0.5 percent, was safe. If this were to happen, then such other level of lead in paint would form the basis for the definition of lead based paint. The 1973 amendments directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to prohibit the application of lead based paint to any toy, furniture, cooking utensil, drinking utensil, or eating utensil. Further, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was to prohibit the use of lead based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal government or with Federal assistance in any form. The LBPPPA amendments also called for the Chairman of the CPSC to "conduct appropriate research on multiple layers of dried paint film, containing the various lead compounds commonly used, in order to ascertain the safe level of lead in residential paint products. No later than December 31, 1974, the Chairman was required to submit to Congress a "full and complete report of his findings and recommendations as developed pursuant to such programs, together with a statement of any legislation which may be enacted or any changes in existing law which should be made in order to carry out such recommendations." On December 23, 1974, the Chairman of the CPSC submitted "A Report to Congress in Compliance with the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, as Amended." In his report, the Chairman interpreted a "safe level" of paint as "a level where we have a reasonable assurance, with expected exposures, of the absence of serious toxic effects." Based on the health effects information available at that time, which was summarized in his report, the Chairman determined "that a 0.5 percent level of lead in paint is safe." On June 23, 1976, the LBPPPA was extended and revised by enactment of the National Consumer Health Information and Health Promotion Act (Public Law 94-317). The LBPPPA, as amended, among other things, directs HEW to take action to prohibit the application of lead based paint to cooking utensils, eating utensils, and drinking utensils. In addition, HUD is to take action to prohibit the use of lead based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal government, or with Federal assistance in any form. These directions are reiterations of the original LBPPPA and the 1973 amendments. In the 1976 amendments, the CPSC (rather than HEW) is charged with prohibiting the application of lead based paint to any toy or furniture article. Section 501 (3)(A) of the LBPPPA as amended in 1976 once again defines lead based paint as paint containing more than 0.5 percent lead by weight. Section 501 (3)(B), however, directs the CPSC to determine, by December 23, 1976, if another level of lead in paint is safe which is greater than 0.06 percent, but not over 0.5 percent. This determination must be based on (1) oral hearings, (2) available data and information, (3) rec- ommendations of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (including the Center of Disease Control), and (4) recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. If a level of lead between 0.06 percent and 0.5 percent is determined by December 23, 1976 by CPSC to be safe, lead based paint will, effective six months after the determination, be defined as paint containing more than the established safe level. Section 501 (3)(b) also specifies that if a safe level of lead in paint is not determined by CPSC, then lead based paint will mean paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight. This definition would apply to paint manufactured after June 22, 1977. The Commission held public hearings on September 13f 1976. Among others, various Federal agencies, state and local health organizations, trade associations, and consumer groups testified. Additional comments were received on the LBPPPA determination as well as on the regulations proposed August 10, 1976. After considering all available information, including the recommen- dations of HEW, and NAS, the Commission, on December 16, 1976, decided that it was unable to determine that a level of lead in paint over 0.06 percent was safe (see 42 FR 9404, February 16, 1977). Therefore, as to paint manufactured after June 22, 1977, under the provisions of the LBPPPA, the definition of the term lead based paint will be paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight (calculated as lead metal) in the total nonvolatile content of the paint, or the equivalent measure of lead in the dried film of paint already applied, or both. FHSA REGULATIONS On March 11, 1972, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation in the Federal Register under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act declaring household paints and other similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.5 percent lead to be banned hazardous substances. This regulation applied to paint shipped in interstate com- merce after December 31, 1972 ( 37 FR 5229, 21 CFR 191.9 [a] [6]). The regulation also declared paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead to be similarly banned after December 31, 1973. Artists' paints and related materials were subsequently exempted from this regulation. In addition, toys and other articles in- tended for use by children bearing such paint or similar surface- coating materials were banned. However, on August 10, 1972 the FDA issued a notice in the Federal Register (37 FR 16078) in response to paint industry objections confirming those portions of the regulations per- taining to the 0.5 percent lead level, but stating that those portions pertaining to the 0.06 percent lead level would be the subject of a separate document to be published later. Effective May 14, 1973, functions under the FHSA were trans- ferred from the FDA to the newly-established Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). As a part of this transfer, the CPSC received and retains jurisdiction over the development of regu- lations pertaining to the use of lead in paint. On December 27, 1973, the CPSC issued a notice in the Federal Register (38 FR 35302) to continue the 0.5 percent lead level in paints pending completion of animal studies underway regarding the toxicity of paints containing lead. On December 9, 1974, the CPSC again issued a notice in the Federal Register (39 FR 42902), continuing the 0.5 percent lead level pending the results of ongoing research, which included a report being prepared by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). As of now, under the FHSA the 0.5 percent lead level remains in effect, and the 0.06 percent provisions are stayed (recodified as 16 CFR 1500.17 [a] [6]). The National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), a trade association representing the surface coatings manufacturing in- dustry, petitioned the FDA to amend 21 CFR 191.9(a)(6) (now 16 CFR 1500 17 [a] [6]) to exempt the lead containing coatings listed below from classification as banned hazardous substances for consumer use. 1. Automotive, agricultural, and industrial equipment refinish coatings. 2. Industrial (and commercial building) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety marking coatings. 3. Graphic arts coatings (products marketed solely for application on billboards, road signs, and similar uses and for identification marking in industrial buildings). 4. Touch-up coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and appliances. 5. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application. 6. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings. 7. Exterior primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products marketed solely for application on redwood and cedar). On December 5, 1972, FDA published in the Federal Register (37 FR 25849-26120) a proposal to exempt these seven types of coatings from classification as banned hazardous substances. It was noted, however, based on the petition, that these products should have the following inscriptions on the main panel of their labels: "WARNING" "CONTAINS LEAD. DRIED FILM OF THIS PAINT MAY BE HARMFUL IF EATEN OR CHEWED." In addition, these products should bear the following in- scription (or equivalent) on their labels: "Do not apply on toys and other children's articles, furniture, or interior surfaces of any dwelling or facility which may be occupied or used by children. "Do not apply on those exterior surfaces of dwelling units, such as window sills, porches, stairs, or railings to which children may be commonly exposed. "Keep out of reach of children." To date, this proposal has not been acted upon by FDA or CPSC (which assumed jurisdiction over the FHSA regulation in 1973). However, the preamble to the December 8, 1972 proposal stayed the provisions of the regulations pending issuance of the final regulations. Issuance of these proposed exemptions will be considered by CPSC, in acting upon its August 10, 1976 proposal to regulate lead containing paint and certain other consumer products under the CPSA rather than the FHSA. CPSA PROPOSAL As stated in the preamble to the August 10, 1976, notice proposing the regulation of lead-containing paint under the CPSA, the proposal would declare "as banned hazardous products (1) lead-containing paint and similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead, (2) toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead, and (3) articles of furniture bearing lead containing paint or other similar surface coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead." (41 FR 33637) The intent of this proposal is to change the existing regulations by (1) adding furniture to the list of banned products, (2) es- tablishing the permissible lead level at 0.06 percent under CPSA at the same level permitted under the LBPPPA. As stated pre- viously, the Commission has determined that the definition of "lead based paint" under the LBPPPA will become, after June 22, 1977, paint containing more than 0.06 percent. Therefore, while various options are possible in regulating under the CPSA proposal, the goal of the proposal is to ban lead containing paint for consumer uses as well as other consumer products within the scope of the proposal which have surface- coatings containing more than O.Co percent lead. The anticipated date for the final regulation, which may be extended by the Commission by notice published in the Federal Register, had been established by notice published October 6, 1976 (41 FR 44126), as April 1, 1976. A notice published on March 28, 1977 (42 FR 16445), revised the date of promulgation to July 14, 1977. These notices are presented in Appendix C of this EIS. REVOCATION OF FHSA REGULATIONS It has been noted earlier in this section that the functions under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) came under the jurisdiction of the CPSC in 1973. Lead based paint regulations have been covered under the FHSA up to now. The CPSC has announced in the August 10, 1976 issue of the Federal Register (41 FR 33637-33640) that it will revoke the lead based paint regulations which fall within the jurisdiction of the FHSA, and instead regulate lead based paints under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The FHSA revocation would be necessary once the CPSA regu- lation is issued to prevent duplication and possibly conflicting regulations. The CPSC has stated that the regulation of lead- containing paint under the CPSA instead of under the FHSA will be in the public interest because it will permit consolidation of the CPSA proceeding with the LBPPPA determination and thus facilitate greater public participation and a more expeditious resolution of the issues. To have amended the FHSA regulations rather than to proceed under the CPSA could have resulted, be- cause of the procedural requirements of the FHSA, in the need for a lengthy, formal adjudicatory hearing in addition to the oppor- tunity for an informal oral legislative-type hearing which has already been held as required by the LBPPPA. Since many of the same matters would be at issue under both of such hearings, the Commission believed it was in the public interest to hold a single legislative-type hearing. The CPSA, on the other hand, requires the opportunity for a legislative type hearing, and thus the hearing, which was conducted on September 13, 1976 was able to satisfy the requirements of both the CPSA and the LBPPPA. B - USES OF LEAD IN PAINT INTRODUCTION (a) Definition of Paint In common usage, the word "paint" is subject to various in- terpretations. In its narrowest definition, paint is defined as a product usually consisting of pigments, resin, solvents, driers, and additives of various types. The term "paint" may be applied to many types of surface coatings such as wall paint, exterior house paint, traffic paint, enamel, undercoating, primer, sealer, var- nish, lacquer, bituminous roof coating, filler, and stain. In spite of movements to adopt other nomenclature, "paint" remains established as the general term for all of these coatings and (1) will be generally used in this manner in this document. Paints are classified as either trade sales goods or industrial coatings. Trade sales paints are those surface coatings manu- factured as stock shelf items, and are sold primarily by retailers directly to consumers and also to jobbers, dealers, painters, automotive refinishers and builders. Industrial paints are used by industrial or commercial establishments on consumer and in- dustrial products, and are generally formulated by the manufacturer to particular specifications. (b) Basic Constituents of Paint The primary functions of the constituents used in paints are: 1. Natural or Synthetic Resins serve to form the pro- tective coating film, generally through oxidation and polymeriza- tion of the unsaturated constituents of the drying oil. 2. Solvents function as thinners to suspend pigments, dissolve film-forming material, to thin concentrated paints for better handling, and to permit their application to surfaces. 3. Driers accelerate the drying rate of the paint film in air through oxidation and polymerization. Driers are only ap- plied to solvent-thinned (oil-based) paints, and are not normally used in industrial coatings. Lead compounds are sometimes used as driers. A more detailed discussion of driers is provided later in this section. 4. Pigments are undissolved finely divided particles which function to protect and strengthen the paint film, occa- sionally to prevent corrosion to metal surfaces, and to impart an aesthetic appeal. Historically, lead compounds have been used ex- tensively for white, yellow, orange, and red pigments. These are also discussed later in this section. 5. Extenders function to reduce pigment usage and cost and to increase the covering and weathering power of the pigments. Examples of pigments and extenders include the following: Titanium dioxide Red lead Talc Calcium carbonate Mica Zinc oxide White lead Clay Barytes Carbon black Chrome yellow Pigments used during 1975 which contained a high concentra- (2) tion of lead were estimated as follows: Short Pigments Tons Pigment Colors 10,000 White Lead 2,500 Red Lead and Litharge 66,000 Leaded Zinc Oxide 600 (c) Uses of and Properties Imparted by Paint Paint is applied to wood, metals, concrete, and other sub- strates in virtually all of the current uses of these materials. In some form paint is a universal substance in its applications in dwellings, places of work, furnishings, transportation, tools, appliances, other structures, and objects of daily use. In these applications, it provides decorative properties and protection properties against corrosion and the elements in outside usages. While paint is generally acknowledged to protect and decor- ate, it can also serve many other useful purposes. Lighter colors with higher reflectance values can enhance lighting; white paint promotes cleanliness by increasing visibility of dirt? and a hard glossy paint surface is easier to clean than more porous ones? safety is furthered through painted traffic indicators, fire re- tardance of construction materials, color coding of machinery parts and pipes, and nonskid paints. Outside paint may aid in- terior temperature control—light colors reflect and darker colors absorb heat—and special paints are also used to preserve wood and to provide electrical insulation or conductance, mili- tary camoflage, luminescence, and grain simulation (wood, ham- (1) mered metals, leather, wrinkled textures, etc). GENERAL USES OF LEAD IN THE U.S.A. Lead was one of the first metals mined in North America, (4) where it was sought after especially for musket shot. With the ensuing development and growth of industry and technology, lead and its many compounds have gained widespread use in the United States and, indeed, in all industrialized countries. As shown in Exhibit I, which indicates the U.S. consumption of lead by product in 1975, the single most important commercial use of lead is in the manufacture of lead-acid storage batteries. In addition to this, and its use in paints, lead and it com- pounds are used in a great variety of products and processes. (4) For example, they are used in: Tetraethyl lead, a gasoline antiknock compound Matches Dyes Putty and calking Ceramics Textile printing Detonators for explosives Insecticides Antifriction metals, solder, and type metal Covering cables Lining for laboratory sinks and tanks Plumbing Supporting heavy machinery Protective shielding against x-rays and nuclear radia- tion LEAD IN PIGMENTS (a) Early Uses Basic carbonate white lead is the oldest white pigment known to man. Its history extends back to the fourth century B.C., for there is a written reference to white lead in the works of Xenophon, probably written about 400 B.C. During the latter part of the Middle Ages it was used by artists in paintings on wood and for the decorative paintings (5) on castle and church interiors. Red lead, like white lead, is a pigment of ancient origin. It was accidentally discovered when some jars of white lead were subjected to heat during the burning of a house. For centuries thereafter, red lead was made in this manner, i.e., by roasting white lead. An English patent for the manufacture of red lead from metallic lead was granted in 1622. In the eighteenth century, (5) red lead was manufactured in England on an extensive scale. (b) Properties of Lead Pigments Physically, all lead pigments are powders. It should be noted that many lead based paints generally contained 50% lead or more. Other physical and chemical properties of lead pigment which are used in paints are described briefly below: 1. Lead Chromate (Chrome Yellow and Chrome Orange). Normal lead chromate is a medium chrome yellow pigment. The more orange shades contain some lead hydroxide and reach basic lead chromate, the standard chrome orange. Green shades of chrome (1) yellow, often called "primrose," contain lead sulfate. These products currently account for more than half of the total lead used by the paint industry (1975 report), and are used in paint products not generally sold to consumers. The largest use is in yellow traffic paints for which chrome yellow is chosen for its brightness, good hiding power, and durability. Other uses are on school buses and gasoline stations. Chrome orange is used (1) only in small quantities. Molybdate red is a lead chromate containing some lead molybdate. The pigment becomes redder with increasing quantities of lead molybdate. It is largely used as a printing ink component, (1) with only very small amounts used in the paint in industry. 2. Red Lead and Lead Silico-Chromate. These materials are anti-corrosive pigments and produce the best, and in many cases, the only satisfactory primers for structural steel for (1) buildings and bridges. 3. Basic Carbonate White Lead. The annual U.S. produc- tion of white lead grew from about 3,000 tons in 1830 to more than 118,000 tons in 1936. The total lead-containing white pigment pro- duction in 1936 was 166,000 tons as compared to about 3,000 tons in 1975. A large proportion of total white lead production prior to 1940 was used in paint. White lead was the principal source of white pigment used by the paint industry. However, about 1940 white lead began to give way to titanium dioxide and zinc oxide which are more resistant to yellowing from sulfur containing gases and which have lower chalking tendencies. 4. White Basic Lead Sulfate. This is a recent pigment in comparison with basic carbonate white lead, having been origi- nated in 1855. The production and use of this pigment is relatively low. 5. Leaded Zinc Oxide. This white pigment was intro- duced into the paint industry in about 1896. The paint industry consumed practically the entire production of leaded zinc oxide prior to 1940, but its use by the industry has diminished to relatively low levels during the past 40 years. 6. Basic Lead Silicate. Like white lead and basic lead sulfate, basic lead silicate has almost disappeared from modern paints for performance and economic reasons. Basic lead silicate is used by some manufacturers in coatings for application to red- wood and western red cedar because it is more resistent than other pigments to staining from the water-soluble dyes in these (1) substrates. LEAD IN DRIERS Certain types of lead compounds are used as drying agents in many types of solvent-thinned paint marketed for residential use. Without driers, these paints may remain soft, collect dirt, have (7) poor durability and be generally unsatisfactory products. Driers are not used in industrial coatings or in latex (water-thinned) paints. Lead compounds used as driers include naphthenates, resinates, octoates, linoleates, and tallates. However, the lead metal ion is the key drying catalyst. About 0.1%-0.2% lead by weight in the (1) dried paint film is usually required to be effective. Lead driers are almost always used in combination with other drier compounds and usually have a synergistic effect on the action of the other driers. Lead, calcium and zirconium driers promote "through drying." Other driers such as cobalt and manganese promote "surface drying." Although lead driers are perhaps the most effective in terms of paint film "through dry" characteristics, other types of driers may be substituted for lead with little or no sacrifice to paint performance. However, there is no consensus as to which non-lead driers should be used in specific applications. It appears to be most difficult to substitute other driers for lead driers in areas such as New England and the Pacific Northwest, where climatic conditions sometimes prevail in which o low temperatures (less than 45 F) are accompanied by high humidity levels. At these colder temperatures, latex (or water-thinned) paints cannot be used. Substitutes for lead driers under these conditions may not provide equal performance. LEAD AS A CONTAMINANT IN PAINT (a) Contained in Raw Materials Lead may be contained in the raw materials used in paint as "added lead"- an inherent part of the composition of the material- (2) or as a "contaminant". (b) Added Lead Lead-bearing pigments and lead driers are the basic potential sources of added lead in paint. 1. Water-Thinned. The added lead in latex paints is no longer a major problem because at the current 0.5 percent limit for lead in consumer paints, no leaded pigments can be used. Prac- tically the only way that lead is added is through alkyd modifi- cation of the latex. Since some alkyds may contain lead compound catalysts, about 0.01 percent lead metal based on total alkyd solid is possible. 2. Solvent-thinned Paints. Added lead in the form of lead pigments in solvent-thinned paints, like water-thinned paints, is not considered a problem, since to conform to the present 0.5 percent* limit for lead content, these pigments cannot be used. Virtually all of the added lead in trade sales paint today is used in paints in the form of lead driers (lead naph- thenates, octoates, etc). Lead driers (used predominantly in combination with cobalt and manganese driers) are always used with film formers which contain substantial proportions of drying oils such as linseed and tung oils. These film formers in turn are almost exclusively used in solvent-thinned paints. (c) Trace Contamination From Raw Materials The following data show some of the materials used in manu- (2) facturing paints and the reported amounts of contamination: Material Lead, ppm* Titanium dioxide 60 Zinc oxide 700 Calcium sulfate 5-10 Silica sand 5-10 Fumed silicas 5-10 Clays 10-50 Bentonites 5-10 Talcs 5-10 Stearates—Al, Ca, Zn 5-10 Mica 5-10 Calcium carbonate 5-10 Iron oxides 0-15 Organic yellow pigments 10-30 * ppm = parts per million parts, by weight. I-B-ll 1. Water-Thinned. The possibility of trace-lead contamination exists in all the components of modern paints. Although these trace-lead levels are not high, they do contribute to the total lead content and should be considered. In a water- thinned latex paint, water can comprise up to 55 percent of the liquid paint. Data from the Bureau of Water Hygiene of the Environmental Control Administration showed that only 2 percent of the water samples tested exceeded the lead limit of 0.05 milligram per liter (0.000005 percent). Therefore, the trace (2) lead added by water can be neglected. The other major source of trace-lead contamination in latex paints is the pigment used. It has been reported that some grades of titanium dioxide contain up to 60 ppm of lead metal (0.006 percent). Review of several typical formulations shows that the lead content due to trace contamination can be as high as 0.02 percent of the total solids. A nationwide CPSC survey in 1974-75 showed that over 95 percent of a broad range of latex based paints sampled (349 (9) paints sampled) contained less than 0.06 percent lead by weight. 2. Solvent-thinned Paints. As in the case of water- based paints, trace contamination in solvent systems does not seem to be a general problem. The CPSC survey referred to above found that of the 709 solvent-thinned paints sampled, 54 (or 7.6%) had lead levels over 0.5 percent, while 68 percent contained lead at less than 0.06 percent. (d) Trace Contamination From Previous Batches Most large companies use separate facilities for production of trade sales and industrial paints. However, the small and medium sized companies (which form the vast majority of the paint industry) use the same equipment for both types of production. Since the use of lead pigments and driers is still permitted in many industrial finishes, there is a possibility of accidental (2) contamination of trade sales paint. Increased equipment wash- ing is seen as the main way to deal with this problem. Because of the importance of color tone and color matching in the paint industry, most companies are accustomed to following good housekeeping practices as a general rule. But the accidental use of an industrial pigment such as basic lead carbonate in a (2) trade sales paint is always a remote possibility. Overall, it appears that the lead level in paints from trace contamination is in the range of 0.01 - 0.06 percent. USES OF PAINTS AS INDUSTRIAL FINISHES Paints are generally classified as "trade sales products" or as "industrial finishes". Trade sales products are stock-type commodities generally distributed through wholesale-retail channels. Industrial finishes are specifically formulated to meet the conditions of application and use of the product to which they are applied and are generally applied as part of the (1) manufacturing process. This discussion is directed toward the industrial finishes. Industrial finishes are used both for products mainly found in the home and also for products not normally found in the home. (a) Industrial Finishes Found In Homes Industrial finishes found in homes can be broken roughly into two general categories: finishes for wood such as furniture, hardboard and paneling, and finishes for metal such as appliances, (2) metal furniture and toys. (b) Wood Finishes (2) 1. Clear Finishes. Major clear finishes used on wood furniture are nitrocellulose lacquer which do not depend on dryers for drying. These lacquers are estimated to account for 75 to 80 percent of the market. As a standard practice, most nitrocellulose lacquers are modified with short oil-length non- drying alkyd resins. Many of these alkyd resins are catalyzed during the cooking process with litharge (lead oxide); however, the lead con- tent based on total solids is generally less than 0.001 percent. Other clear finishes for wood furniture include urethanes, cellulose acetate butyrates, polyesters, oleoresinous varnishes, and alkyd-urea coatings. The above clear coatings are also used for interior plywood, floors, toys, pencils, and various other wood substrates. The only clear coating from the above list with more than lead content traces would be the oleoresinous varnishes. These coatings generally require the use of metallic driers to accelerate the drying. Spar varnishes for example, generally contain 0.03 to 0.3 percent lead metal based on total solids. This lead level meets the present 0.5 percent lead requirement, but probably could not meet a 0.06 percent lead requirement. However, spar varnish is normally applied as a marine coating and is not frequently used in the home. Substitute coatings for spar varnish include epoxies, urethanes, styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) - and chlorinated rubber-based paints and varnishes. Although these substitutes are nighly resistant to acids and alkalies, they are not generally resistant to salt water or organic solvents, as is spar varnish. The use of substitute driers (32) in spar varnish will prolong drying times by about 50 percent. (2) 2. Pigmented Finishes. A very low percentage of wood furniture is coated with pigmented coatings today. Possibly the largest use of pigmented finishes is in the areas of children's furniture and kitchen furniture. However, the trend is to molded plastic in both applications. Baby cribs now are using plastic strips to cover edges which the child is likely to chew. At the present time, it does not appear that furniture manufacturers are using pigmented coatings containing any added lead in the form of driers or pigments. (2) 3. Stains. There are three types of stains being used today- oil, latex, and N.G.R. (nongrain-raising). There is little use of the latex stain in fine furniture manufacturing because it causes grain raising and requires additional sanding. Oil stains generally require driers, and lead drier is usually added at 0.2 to 0.3 percent based on the oil. Cobalt driers are usually used in combination with the lead in this application. Oil stains are not normally used by furniture manufacturers since they do not dry rapidly enough. Oil stains are used by furniture refinishers and may be found in the home. If lead driers were not used, it is likely that other drier substitutes would be used The N.G.R. stain consists of pigments suspended in an alcohol solvent and dries by evaporation. No lead compounds are added to this type of stain. (c) Metal Finishes (2) 1. Metal Furniture. Manufacturers use a variety of coating materials which include alkyds, acrylics, polyesters, and epoxies. The most widely used systems are the alkyds which are generally baking enamels. All of the above coatings are baked, and therefore no lead driers are required. However, a major problem exists for these manufacturers when trying to get certain bright colors such as yellows, golds, greens, and some browns withoyt using lead pigments. Non-lead containing substitute pigments do not accurately match these colors. When using the lead pigments to get these bright colors, the lead content required to dry the coating can be as high as 12 percent. These coatings are baked and are generally hard and glass-like. Where lead primer may be used on furniture articles, several substitutes exist. These include zinc chromate, zinc dust, zinc phosphate and calcium molybdate. Using these substitutes may result in some reduction of performance. Lead driers are not normally used in factory-applied coatings on metal finishes. (2) 2. Appliances. In a broad sense, appliances may be considered articles of furniture and are treated as such in this document. Appliance finishes are extremely hard durable finishes, which may be either organic coatings or porcelain enamels. In general, organic coatings are lower in cost, easier to apply, re- quire lower cure temperatures, have improved color reproducibility, and have better impact resistance and flexibility. Appliance finishes include alkyds and modified epoxy ester primers and are topcoated with spot resistant alkyd-amine or acrylic enamels. Other systems also include epoxy-ether urea for interior cabinet shelves. Stoves and ranges are generally coated with porcelain enamels. White finishes for washing machines, light fixtures, and kitchen cabinets include alkydamine, styrenated alkyds, and melamine formaldehyde resins. Regardless of the type of paint system used, the major lead problem occurs when colors such as yellows, golds, greens, and some browns are formulated. To date, no really satisfactory substitute organic pigment has been developed to replace the lead chromates and molybdate oranges for color intensity. These coatings using ead pigments can contain up to 12 percent lead (based on dry weight). Lead driers are not normally used in appliance coatings. (2) 3. Toys. Domestic toy manufacturers apparently are using paints with low lead levels (0.06 percent or less). Several of the major manufacturers of metal toys test each batch of coating received from their suppliers for lead content. Others depend on their coating suppliers for certification. Typically, all of the coatings used are baked and most of them fall into the following general types of coatings: • Alkyds • Lacquers • Polyesters Foreign manufacturers of toys have stated that they comply with a voluntary standard of 0.25 percent lead in the paints they use on toys. Assuming that lead driers are not required in paints used for toy manufacture, it is estimated that imported toys could meet a lead-containing paint standard of 0.06 percent because (a) no lead based pigments could be used if a 0.25 percent lead level could be met, and (b) it is unlikely that there is sufficient lead in the paint raw materials as a contaminant to generally reach 0.06 percent lead in the dried paint film. EXHIBIT I UNITED STATES LEAD CONSUMPTION BY PRODUCT ~ 1975 Total: 1,270,000 Short Tons SOURCE: A. T. Kearney, Inc. C - GENERAL ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE PAINT INDUSTRY INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS The paint manufacturing industry consists of some 1,300-1,400 companies, a majority of which employ less than 20 people. These companies operate approximately 1,500 manufacturing plants in locations scattered throughout the country. Plants are typically located in urban areas in proximity to customers. Locational patterns are therefore directly related to population desities and growth levels. Transportation economics play a major role in the relationship between plant location and product markets. The cost of trans- porting raw materials in bulk is considerably lower than the cost of transporting finished paint products. As a result, there is strong incentive to locate close to product customers, minimizing total transportation costs. Several economic factors contribute to the numbers of small firms in the paint industry. As indicated above, there is a significant differential in transportation costs between shipment of raw material inputs and shipment of finished products. Capital requirements for entry are relatively limited. Equipment and space requirements are minimal in comparison with other manu- facturing industries. The preceding factors influence both the size and locational patterns characteristic of the paint manufacturing industry. Cost advantages in locating near customers are sufficient to encourage paint companies to decentralize their production operations. Scattered small-scale manufacturing operations are well-suited to this objective. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of new raw materials and increasing complexity of paint technology. This has resulted in a trend toward increased scale of production in the paint industry. Although the incentives for small-scale production remain powerful, there has been an upward shift in the scale of production. The number of manufacturing establishments has declined since the early 1960's, a trend which is expected to continue into the late 1970's. In many cases, smaller companies have been acquired by larger companies, or have merged to form larger companies. Between 1969 and 1975, 61 such mergers or acquisitions took place. In the proccess, a number of older, smaller-scale plants have discontinued production. The number of plants in the industry dropped from about 1,800 plants in (1) 1963 to approximately 1,600 plants in 1976. Although the majority of companies in the paint industry are relatively small-scale operations, there is substantial concen- tration of production activity among a handful of larger companies. As shown in Table 1, the four largest companies in terms of sales accounted for almost one-fourth of total sales during 1972. Each of these companies reported sales in excess of $100 million. The top 50 companies (or roughly 4 percent of the total companies) had almost two-thirds of the total industry value of shipments. Excluding the top 36 companies, average sales for the remaining companies were in the neighborhood of $600,000/year. Table 1 Share of Value of Shipments of Paints and Allied Products Accounted for by the Largest Companies 1972 1967 Total Value of Shipments (Million Dollars) 3 ,505.8 2,703.8 Percent of Total Value of Shipments Accounted for by: 4 Largest Companies 22 23 8 Largest Companies 33 35 20 Largest Companies 49 46 50 Largest Companies 64 59 Source: 1972 Census of Manufactures , 1975. A number of major non-paint companies operate paint production plants or hold controlling interests in paint companies. Although paint production represents a small part of their total operation, these companies are major participants in the paint industry itself. Many of the large paint companies are involved in the pro- duction of raw material inputs-not only for their own use, but also for sale to other paint companies. Production at these levels provides an illustration of vertical integration of production activities. The paint industry has experienced a steady growth in output and dollar sales during the past 10-15 years. Between 1958 and 1971, for example, the dollar value of paint sold increased at an average annual rate of 4.5 percent, and the quantity of paint sold increased at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent. During this same period, the Gross National Product increased at an average annual rate of 6.8 percent, while population increased at an average rate of 1.3 percent. Two major product markets can be distinguished within the paint industry. These are the market for trade sales paints and the market for industrial finishes. Trade sales paints are sold in varying quantities, generally through wholesale-retail networks. Industrial finishes tend to be highly specialized and are usually sold to industries in large quantities for use in the manufacturing process. Most of the large paint companies and many of the smaller companies are involved in the production of both trade sales paints and industrial finishes. The major distinction between product types in the paint industry is between solvent-thinned and water-thinned paints. Other, more specialized product types are important only within the market for industrial finishes. Once the major product within the trade sales market, solvent-thinned paints have steadily lost market shares to the newer water-thinned paints. Water-thinned paints now comprise over two-thirds of the total production of trade sales paints. The shift from solvent-thined I-C-5 paints to water-thinned paints is expected to continue in the future. Most companies engaged in the production of trade sales paints produce both water-thinned and solvent-thinned paints, and are therefore able to shift production internally. The market for industrial finishes has experienced a similar shift in product shares during recent years. Production in in- dustrial finishes has consisted almost exclusively of solvent- thinned paints. Production is now shifting strongly toward water-thinned paints and newly developed paints such as high- solids and powder coatings. Although diminishing in importance, solvent-thinned paints are expected to retain a major share of this market, at least in the near future. INDUSTRY STATISTICS In 1974, the paint industry, as defined by Standard Industrial Classification 2851, produced 932 million gallons of paint valued at $3.7 billion. A total of $1.9 billion was expended for materials, containers, and supplies. Expenditures on new plants, equipment, advertising, and other services totalled approximately $103 million. The industry (figures actually cover only 90 percent of the industry) employed 66,000 — 38,300 of which were production workers with 27,700 administrative, management, technical, clerical and sales personnel. Production and value of paint sales in 1974 were distributed rather evenly between trade sales paints and industrial finishes. Table 2 U.S. Production and Value of Surface Coatings (1974) Production (million gallons) Trade Sales Industrial Finishes 475 457 Total 932 Value of Shipments (million dollars) Trade Sales Industrial Finishes $1,871 1,801 Total $3,672 Source: Marketing Guide to the Paint Industry, 1975. Each of the two major product markets (trade sales and in- dustrial finishes) has exhibited significant shifts in market shares from solvent-thinned toward water-thinned paints. These trends are evident in the following tables. Table 3 U.S. Production of Trade Sales Paints by Product Category, 1972 and 1974 (million gallons) Solvent-Thinned Water-Thinned 1972 211 199 1974 130 280 Sources: 1972 Census of Manufacturers and Marketing Guide to the Paint Industry, 1975. Table 4 Projected Changes in Percentage of Industrial Finishes Market Held by Product Category Solvent-Thinned Water-Thinned 1972-1973 90 Percent 6 Percent 1977-1980 53 Percent 30 Percent Source: Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices: Paint and Allied Products Indus stry, 1975. D - HEALTH EFFECTS OF LEAD IN PAINT AND RISKS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS This section describes the health effects of lead in paint; namely lead poisoning in children. This adverse effect on children can cause a range of disorders such as hyperactivity, slowed learning ability, withdrawal, blindness and even death. The seriousness of these adverse effects has been studied by the National Academy of Sciences. They conclude in their report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Contract CPSC-C-75-0018 that the 0.5 percent lead level in paint is a (26) hazard to children. They recommend that the 0.06 percent lead level in paint be observed in final dried paint products and paints or coatings on infant toys and furniture. Of special concern with regards to lead poisoning are children with pica. Pica, the repetitive ingestion of nonfood substances, occurs in 50 percent of children between the ages of one and three, and at this age lead is absorbed more rapidly than absorption of lead in adults. The adverse health effects of lead poisoning show distinct physical symptoms and effects in children during the three stages of lead poisoning. The adverse health effects in the first stage are not clinically present but changes in the basic metabolism of the child do occur. During the second stage such symptoms such as loss of appetite, vomiting, apathy, drowsiness and inability to coordinate voluntary muscle movements occur. Such adverse health effects as restlessness, short-attention span, easy distractability, hyperactivity, withdrawal, temper tantrums, fear, refusal to play and slowed learning ability occur. The adverse health effects of the third stage are permanent and include blindness, mental retardation, behavior disorders and death. There are many controversies with regard to the safe lead level in paint. These pertain to the methods used to analytically determine safe levels such as the adequacy of animal studies, and the determination of Daily Permissible Intake. The National Academy of Sciences made its conclusions and recommendations based on the data and studies that were available (these studies are summarized in Appendix A). Their conclusions and recommendations are as follows: "1. Since the CPSC-supplied studies did not adequately simulate the conditions found in young children, particularly in relation to age and diet, we were unable, on the basis of these studies, to determine that 0.5 percent lead in paint is safe. 2. Since the first metabolic effects in children became evident when the blood level concentration exceeds 30 jug/dl, and since the most desirable means of controlling disease is prevention, we recommend that the total daily lead exposure, including exposure from food, ambient air and paint, for a one- to five-year old child not exceed levels sufficient to raise the blood lead concentration above 30 /jg Pb/dl. In order to allow for variations among indi- viduals, the mean blood lead concentration for groups should not exceed 20 jug Pb/dl. Among two to three year old children an absorption of 4.5 ;ug/kg/day is apparently associated with a mean blood lead concentration of 20 jug/Pb/dl. 3. Since control of the lead paint hazard is difficult to accomplish once multiple layers have been applied in homes over two or three decades, and since control is more easily regulated at the time of manufacture, we recommend that a limit for the lead content of paints be set and enforced at the time of manufacture. 4. Since 0.5 percent lead in paint represents a hazard to a child with pica for paint, and since most currently available household paints contain 0.06 percent lead in paint, thus demon- strating that lead is not an essential ingredient for all paints, and since a reasonable allowance must be made for variations due to contamination of raw materials and detection limits and pre- cision of analytical methods for analyzing the lead content of paints, we recommend that the deliberate addition of lead to paint for residential buildings or other sufaces accessible to young children be immediately discontinued and that a level not to exceed 0.06 percent lead in the final dried product be set for regulatory purposes. Since paints without lead additives may contain up to 0.03 percent lead, a level of 0.06 percent lead provides reasonable latitude for regulatory purposes. » 5. Since a time allowance is necessary to implement these recommendations, and since extensions may be sought to delay compliance, we recommend that variances be allowed only on the basis of demonstrated economic hardship and that none be allowed to extend beyond five years. A time limit of five years will prevent accumulation of lead to dangerous levels from repeated applications. 6. Since most cases of serious childhood lead poisoning found today are clearly related to the ingestion of old lead paints, and since this hazard may be expected to exist in older homes for some time, we strongly recommend that research be conducted to determine methods for the removal of old lead paints, which will provide adequate safety for both the residents and workmen performing the renovation procedures. 7. Since the infant is most vulnerable to the effects of lead and since little is known about the relationship between lead dose and effect in the child from birth to one year of age, we recommend that the lead content of paints or coatings on infant toys and furniture should not exceed 0.06 percent lead and that food commonly fed to infants should contain the lowest practical level of lead as determined by FDA. 8. Since few studies in experimental animals have provided adequate designs to simulate the conditions found in a young child and since no research has been conducted on the relationship between lead dose and effect in the human infant less than 12 months of age, and since few studies in preschool- age children have provided adequate information on the dose- response relationship for lead in the one- to five-year-age group, we recommend that future research focus on these areas. 9. Lead continues to have diverse uses, the regulations of which falls under numerous different governmental agencies depending on its use. We recommend that these various agencies coordinate their research efforts in relation to the dangers of lead and that they coordinate their policies regarding the limits for human exposure from industrial sources, consumer products, air, food and water so that an individual's total exposure from various sources falls within a range which allows a margin of safety for those individuals in the population who are affected (33) by relatively low doses." II - DESCRIPTION OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES A - INTRODUCTION Under the CPSA, the CPSC has proposed to ban certain consumer products consisting of: 1. Lead-containing paint and similar surface coating materials. 2. Toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead containing paint, and 3. Articles of furniture bearing lead-containing paint. In addition, on December 16, 1976, the CPSC decided that it is un- able to determine that a level of lead in paint over 0.06 percent but not over 0.5 percent is safe. As a result, on June 23, 1977, the definition of lead based paint under the LBPPPA will be paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead. Thus, the Consumer Product Safety Commission intends to choose some course of regulatory action by July 14, 1977. In taking such action, the Commission must make decisions on each of these four basic variables: 1. Issuance of final regulations 2. Maximum level of lead allowable 3. Scope of coverage 4. Effective date of the regulations. These variables are not regulatory alternatives themselves, although a regulatory alternative is defined by taking some action on all four of the variables. The combined action on the variables 2 thus becomes a regulatory alternative by a "building block approach." The principal advantage of structuring the alternatives in this way is that environmental impacts may be determined separately for each variable, depending upon the course of action taken regard- ing that variable. Then, by formulating alternatives from the four variables using the "building block approach," the environmental impacts associated with each alternative are simply all the environmental impacts determined for each of the four variables as specified. Each of the variables is discussed later in this section. There are five basic alternatives which the Commission may consider, although by making slight modifications to one or more variables, a large number of alternative permutations could be defined. However, all these permutations will be similar to at least one of the basic alternatives. For the purpose of assessing environmental impacts, only the five basic alternatives are considered. These alternatives are presented below and are summarized in Table 5. The environmental impacts associated with the five alternatives are presented in Section III. There are five basic alternatives that will be formulated for illustrative purposes. These alternatives will represent feasible scenarios. In Section III of this document, the environmental impacts associated with the five alternatives as well as each of the four variables will be documented. 3 B - DISCUSSION OF VARIABLES ISSUANCE OF FINAL REGULATIONS CPSC must decide whether or not to issue the regulations proposed under the CPSA on August 10, 1976. Shall lead-containing paint or other surface coatings containing lead above the LBPPPA level be banned under the CPSA? Shall toys and other articles intended for children containing lead based paint be banned under CPSA? Shall articles of furniture bearing lead based paint be banned under CPSA? Another consideration is whether or not to revoke existing regulations under the FHSA related to lead-containing paint. MAXIMUM LEVEL OF LEAD ALLOWANCE Will the maximum level of lead allowable in paint be set at 0.06 percent (the level at which the definition of lead based paint will be established as of June 23, 1977) or 0.5 percent? Will an intermediate level be possible? For example, the National Paint and Coatings Association has recommended a lead level of 0.2 percent. The Toy Manufacturer's Association has suggested 0.25 percent as a maximum level. It has been suggested that short-term interim regulations could be established between 0.06 and 0.5 percent. This interim regulation could be in effect for 1-3 years while paint manufac- turers continue to develop reformulations to allow the elimina- tion of lead compounds from trade sale paints as well as from 4 industrial coatings used to paint toys, furniture and related items without adversely affecting paint performance and appeal. After the prescribed 1-3 year period, the lead based paint stan- dard would be lowered to 0.06 percent. SCOPE OF COVERAGE It is intended that the scope of coverage will include trade sales paints and those coatings used on residential, recreational, and school structures as well as toys and other articles intended for use by children and articles of furniture. Will all types of surface coatings be covered by the regula- tion, or will certain classes of paints be exempted such as the seven types of coatings proposed for exemption (which are mainly used in commercial and industrial applications) under the FHSA in 1972 by the NPCA? Artists' paints are already exempted under the FHSA, and catalytic coatings for use on radio controlled powered model aircraft have recently been requested for exemption. In addition, certain articles intended for use by consumers and which are coated with lead containing paints could be exempted. Careful consideration must be exercised by the Commission in (a) determining what articles are included in the definition of "furniture", (b) ascertaining what articles, defined as furniture, should be exempted, and (c) determining what articles are not in- cluded within the strict definition of "furniture" as it is applied for the purposes of this regulation. The following are examples of articles which may or may not be defined as "furniture": 5 • Household appliances • Metal window dressing (Venetian blinds) • Lawn furniture • Artwork and decorative objects not intended to be functional • Lamps and lighting equipment If defined as furniture, any of these articles could be exempted from the proposed regulation. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS Under section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA, the maximum effective date for a banning regulation is 180 days from the date issued unless the Commission for good cause finds that a later effective date is in the public interest and publishes its reasons for such find- ing. A minimum 30 day period following issuance of the rule is mandated for effective dates for banning regulations under the CPSA unless the Commission for good cause finds that an earlier effective date is in the public interest. Thus, there is a wide range of possible effective dates for the regulations. The various environmental impacts associated with each of these variables are presented and discussed in Section III. 6 C - DISCUSSION OF BASIC ALTERNATIVES Five basic alternatives are described which illustrate the range of regulatory actions that the Commission may take. The first alternative is "status quo"; that is, the Commission will not take regulatory action pursuant to its August 10, 1976 pro- posals in the Federal Register. The other four alternatives consider differences in the regulatory actions that may be taken. Table 5 summarizes and compares these alternatives. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 This can be termed the "status quo" alternative in that the regulation for lead-containing paint and certain other con- sumer products bearing such paint will continue to be regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The FHSA regulations (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(6)) already ban paint and other similar surface coating material for household use containing more than 0.5 percent of lead (calculated as lead metal in the total nonvolatile content of the paint, or the equivalent mea- sure of lead in the dried film of paint already applied). These regulations also ban toys or other articles for children bearing such paint and similar coating material. Future regulations could be issued to alter the allowable lead level. This alternative considers that all types of trade sale paints intended or packaged for household use are covered under the regulation. Exemptions, such as those requested by the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) in 1972 and 7 in 1976 may be allowed at some future time. Factors in granting the exemptions will include the likelihood of accessibility of surfaces to children, chipping and flaking characteristics, and the need for the coating to contain lead. These conditions already prevail, so no effective date is applicable. ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) will be used to regulate lead-containing paint under this alternative, and the provisions of the FHSA which govern lead-containing paint will be superseded or revoked. Under the CPSA proposal, the present FHSA limit of lead in paint of 0.5 percent will be lowered to 0.06 percent. Un- like the FHSA regulation, regulation under the CPSA proposal applies to articles of furniture, as well as to toys and other articles intended for use by children which are coated with lead based paint. This alternative considers that all types of trade sales paints intended or packaged for consumer use are covered under the regula- tion. Specific exemptions for special types of paints or household articles which are covered by the CPSA regulations are denied at this time in this particular alternative. The earliest effective date for this regulation would be August 15, 1977. II-A- 8 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 In this alternative, lead in paint will be regulated under the CPSA. The definition of a lead based paint will be set as any paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead. the following types of coatings will be specifically excluded from the banned hazardous substances regulation by the Commission: Artists' paints (already exempt under FHSA). Automotive, agricultural, and industrial equipment refinish coatings. Industrial (and commercial building) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety marking coatings. Graphic art coatings (products marketed solely for application on billboards, road signs, and similar uses and for identification marking in industrial buildings) . Touchup coatings for automobiles, agri- cultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and appliances. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings. Exterior primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products marketed solely for application on redwood and cedar). Catalytic coatings manufactured for use on radio-controlled powered model aircraft. 9 The amount of lead in some of these coatings could reach 50 percent or more by weight in the dried film. Warning labels, as described in the Section I discussion of legislative background, will be required on containers for any of these types of paints. Special care must be exercised in regulating or exempting the specialized coatings described above. The Commission can only regulate products, and cannot regulate the end uses of any products. Thus, any coating that is exempted must be a truly specialized product, and not merely a general use product which is labelled, among other uses, as a substitute for a given exempted specialty coating. The use of any lead based paint will be prohibited for appli- cation to toys, articles intended for use by children, and furni- ture. In this alternative, the following articles of household goods which may be coated with a lead-containing paint are speci- fically exempted from the regulation. 1. Metal furniture 2. Metal window dressings (Venetian blinds) 3. Household appliances The earliest that this regulation can take effect is August 15, 1977. 10 ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 This alternative is identical to Alternative No. 3 except that the regulation issued under the CPSA will take effect on July 15, 1978 - not in 1977. This presumes that the Commission determines just cause for extending the effective date of the regulation. The definition of lead based paint will be established, under the LBPPPA, as any paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight in the dried film. The nine types of paints and three types of furniture listed in Alternative No. 3 are also exempted in this alternative. ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 The regulation of lead based paint and the prohibition of uses of such paints on toys, articles intended for use by children, and furniture is covered under the CPSA in this alternative. The nine paint classes and three types of furniture listed in Alternative No. 3 are exempted from this regulation. A final level for lead in paint is established as 0.06 percent. However, this level is achieved in two stages. The first stage calls for lowering the allowable lead level to 0.25 percent on August 15, 1977. This level will be maintained for two years - mainly to allow the paint industry and its suppliers to improve drier formulations which will substitute for lead. On July 15, 1979, the allowable level of lead in paint will be reduced to a final level of 0.06 percent. Alternative No. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 Issuance of Final Regulation Remain Under FHSA (Status Quo) Regulate Under CPSA Regulate Under CPSA Regulate Under CPSA Regulate Under CPSA Maximum Lead Level, Percent 0.5 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.25-0.06 Scope of Coverage All types of trade sale paints. All toys and articles intended for use by children. Same as No. 1 plus furniture. NPCA proposed exemptions denied. Same as No. 2 NPCA proposed exemptions granted. Metal furniture, metal window dressing, and appliances also exempted. Same as No. 3 Same as No. 3 Same as No. 3 Same as No. 3 Effective Date of Regulation Already in effect. August 15, 1977 August 15, 1977 July 15, 1978 August 15, 1977 and July 15, 1979 II-A-11 Table 5 Basic Regulatory Alternatives III - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES A - INTRODUCTION This section presents discussions of the beneficial and ad- verse impacts associated with each alternative that was formula- ted in Section II. The impacts are generally classified in terms of health effects, environmental factors, and economic factors and are applied to the four variables discussed in the previous section. Each impact is categorized as major, moderate, or slight. In general, the most significant beneficial impact associated with implementing the August 10, 1976 proposal in some form is that children will be exposed to a lower level of lead in paints and painted products that are found in their environment. Small adverse impacts will be incurred by the paint industry in technological and economic terms. B - ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 Alternative No. 1 corresponds to the existing situation. Lead in paint would continue to be regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The maximum allowable level of lead would remain at 0.5%. Trade sales paints, toys, and articles intended for use by children are specifically covered by existing regulations. Artist's paints are exempted from regulation, and the seven special purpose coatings proposed for exemption by the National Paint and Coatings Association 2 (NPCA) are effectively exempted pending resolution of their regulatory status. Since this is the baseline or "status quo" alternative, no changes are contemplated and no environmental impacts, in the traditional sense, can be assessed. However, some of the problems associated with maintaining the status quo are: 1. The new definition of a lead based paint would not be considered in the regulation. 2. Children would be exposed to levels of lead in paint which are higher than technologically achievable levels. 3. The possibility exists for having regulations on paints and painted products which duplicate or conflict with each other. 4. Furniture would not be covered under the regulation. Impacts associated with the remaining alternatives will be determined by comparison with the "status quo" alternative. C - ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 Alternatives No. 2 through 5 involve the regulation of lead in paint under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). Alterna- tive No. 2 is characterized by a maximum allowable level of lead in paint of 0.06%. Products subject to regulation include trade sales paints, toys and other articles intended for use by child- ren, and furniture. NPCA - proposed exemptions are denied under this alternative. The seven special purpose coatings involved would thus be subject to regulation. The effective date of regulation would be August 15, 1977. 3 ISSUANCE OF FINAL REGULATIONS A moderately beneficial impact results from issuing regu- lations under CPSA. This impact will be felt primarily by young children, especially children with pica. As noted in Section I, issuing regulations under CPSA will permit consolidation of the CPSA proceeding with the LBPPPA determination and thus facilitate greater public participation and a more expeditious resolution of the issues. SAFE LEAD LEVEL (a) Health Effects A moderate beneficial health impact of 0.06% lead in paint is that children will be exposed in a lesser degree of lead in paint than at the 0.5% lead in paint level. The National Academy of Sciences recommends that the level of lead in paint not exceed 0.06% for residential paint products and for paints or coatings on infant toys and furniture. It should be noted that the 0.06% lead level has not been established as a safe level by the NAS but rather as the lowest level estimated to be currently achievable by the paint and coatings manufacturing industry. The present level of knowledge pertaining to lead poisoning does not appear to allow any estimation of the number of cases of lead poisoning in children which may be avoided because of this regulation or of the possibility that some lead poisoning cases will be less severe. 4 (b) Environmental Factors 1. A slight beneficial environmental impact in lowering the allowable level of lead in paint to 0.06% is that the amount of lead in the process waste from paint manufacturing will be reduced. Most of the wastes from paint manufacturing are collected and disposed of in sanitary landfills (a generally undesirable disposal method for this waste). About 242,000 tons per year of wastes generated in the manufacture of trade-sales products are handled in this manner, and these wastes contain (1) roughly 0.06 tons per year of lead. The regulation should cause the quantity of lead in trade-sales paint processing wastes to decrease by nearly 100 percent. An undetermined amount of lead is discharged from paint manufacturing operations via air emissions emissions and process wastewateL, but the overall quantities of lead which they contain are expected to be significantly less than the amount of lead deposited in landfills. 2. Somewhat offsetting the previous impact is a slight adverse impact. In substituting other drier compounds for lead driers, which may contain zinc, zirconium, manganese, or cobalt, additional quantities of these toxic heavy metals will be dis- charged to the environment. These non-lead driers are already in use, often in combination with lead. The additional quantities of these other metals discharged above current levels cannot be accurately predicted without knowing the quantities of each metal required in reformulating drier combinations to eliminate lead. 5 However, an engineering estimate is offered that an additional one ton per year of substitute metals (including zinc, zirconium, and cobalt) will be discharged to the environment - mainly to land disposal operations. The substitution of other metals for lead driers will not significantly alter process waste disposal practices or costs. 3. A slight adverse impact will result from the need for some additional paint manufacturing equipment cleaning in paint plants which manufacture various coatings, some of which may be exempt and others which may be non-exempt from the regula- tions. Additional solvent may be required, above current levels, to clean equipment after the production of a batch of paint not covered by the regulations and prior to making a batch which is covered. Scofield (32) estimates that in such plants, the volume of equipment cleaning wastes should increase by roughly 10%. If it is assumed that 50% of the paint plants in the U.S. will incur such additional cleaning requirements, then about 4,000 tons/year of additional cleaning waste will be generated by the industry. Half of this will be reclaimed for further use and half will be disposed of in sanitary landfills. Approximately one ton per year of lead will be released to the environment in the United States due to the extra cleaning required. The cost to the in- dustry for disposing and reclaiming this extra cleaning waste is approximately $200,000/year. 6 EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION Regulations governing Alternative No. 2 would become ef- fective after August 15, 1977, consistent with the date of ap- plication of the new definition of lead based paint under the LBPPPA amendments. D - ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 Alternative No. 3 is identical to Alternative No. 2, with the exception that the proposed exemptions for seven special pur- pose coatings are granted here. These products have not been subject to regulation, pending formal dispensation. Granting the exemptions would not engender any economic consequences relative to existing conditions. In addition, the adverse impacts identi- fied under the "Economic Effects of Regulation" section which follows these alternatives would be negated for the speciality coatings exempted. The environmental impacts associated with (1) promulgating regulations under CPSA, (2) establishing the "safe" level of lead in paint at 0.06 percent, and (3) providing an effective date for the regulations as-August 15, 1977, are discussed in Alternative No. 2 and will not be repeated here. A slight adverse environmental impact results due to the availability of the exempted paints in that children may, in extreme cases, have access to chips and peelings which may contribute to lead poisoning if ingested. 7 E - ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 Alternative No. 4 is identical to Alternative No. 3, with the exception that the effective date of regulation is postponed one year until July 15, 1978. The environmental impacts of the factors common with Alternatives Nos. 3 and 4 are not repeated here. The effect of postponement would be to provide additional time for the paint industry to develop alternatives to lead driers and pigments in uses for which acceptable alternatives are not currently available. Although past efforts have yielded some encouraging results, the certainty of impending changes in the regulations may encourage a more vigorous effort, particularly for refinishing coatings commonly used by consumers. Adverse economic impacts previously delineated would be shifted one year forward, moderately benefiting the industry in this respect. Expanding the time for implementation of testing and housekeeping procedures (and additional research) would provide further opportunity to moderate associated adverse effects. F - ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 Alternative No. 5 involves final regulation under CPSA and scope of coverage consistent with Alternatives No. 3 and No. 4. It differs from the preceding alternatives in providing a staged reduction in the maximum allowable lead level from 0.5% to 0.25%, then to 0.06%. The effective date of regulation corresponding to the interim level is August 15, 1977. Final regulations be- come effective July 15, 1979. 8 A maximum allowable level of lead in paint established at 0.25% would preclude the addition of lead, either as pigment or (in most cases) driers. Impacts associated with these uses would remain as described. But a maximum level of 0.25 provides much greater allowance for accidental contamination of raw materials or processing equipment. While still necessitating the implementation of careful housekeeping measures and certi- fication of raw materials suppliers, testing of finished products could adequately be performed on a more infrequent basis. As a result, the most significant economic consequences associated with reduction to the 0.06% level would be moderated substanti- ally, at least for a two-year period. The two-year period of transition would facilitate a more gradual implementation of testing and housekeeping programs, and provide more time for reformulation research. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE REGULATION The reduction of the permissible level of lead in paint to the 0.06 percent level under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) will affect paint manufacturers, raw materials suppliers, profes- sional and non-professional painters and manufacturers of furniture and children's articles. For those producers of paint which are already subject to the regulation under the Federal Hazardous Sub- stances Act (FHSA), the effects involve only a change to non-lead driers since lead pigments are precluded from practical use under that law's 0.5 percent lead restriction. The manufacturers of some Ill - 9 painted furniture who were not affected by the 0.5 percent limit under the FHSA may be affected under CPSA if they use lead pigments or driers. Producers of children's articles who were subject to the FHSA limit will have to ensure that the paint they use conforms to the 0.06 percent level. The paints for which exemptions have been requested have not been subject to the 0.5 percent restriction. Since the exemptions will be considered individually, the possible effect of these regu- lations on each one will be examined in a separate section rather than here. (a) Industry Impacts 1. Water and Oil Based Paint. The reduction of lead to 0.06 percent level in paint would not affect trade sale water-based or latex paints directly for reasons already mentioned, however, analysis and certification of lead content will affect paint pro- ducers. As shown in Table 6, the sale of water base paints exceeds sales of oil based paints. The trend toward increased use of water based paints may be accelerated somewhat by the proposed regulations. The reduction of lead to the 0.06 percent level would affect most of the solvent based paints. Currently, lead driers, up to 0.5 percent by weight, are used in many trade sales solvent- based paints, and the proposed limitation to 0.06 percent would eliminate their use in such paints. Type of Coating Solvent Base Water Base Total Value Quantity $330 million 75 million gallons $590 million 190 million gallons $920 million 265 million gallons Value Quantity $335 million 55 million gallons $330 million 90 million gallons $665 million 145 million gallons • (c) Miscellaneous Value Quantity — $286 million 65 million gallons Value Quantity $665 million 130 million gallons $920 million 280 million gallons $1,871 million 475 million gallons (a) Solvent Base: Gloss and semigloss enamels, flat wall paint, varnish, primers, sealers, and others Water Base: Flat wall ($370 million/125 million gallons), semigloss, enamels, and others. (b) Solvent Base: House paint, and others Water Base: House paint trim and trellis enamels, porch and deck paints, primer/sealers, 1 • and others. (c) Auto refinishing, traffic paint, and others. Source: The Kline Guide to the Paint Industry, 1975, C.H. Kline and Co, Inc. , Fairfield, N.J., 1975. Table 6 U.S. Production and Value of Trade Sales Coatings—1974 11 2. Paint Formulations. An effect of the regulations will be to cause the reformulation of trade sales paint which now incorporates lead driers. The leading substitute for lead as a drier is zirconium which is now used by many manufacturers of solvent based paint. When converted to naphtenates, zirconium is generally a satis- factory drier. However, zirconium driers are apparently more sensitive to temperature and humidity conditions than lead driers and this may limit the application of such paint under certain climatic conditions of low temperature and high humidity where lead driers would have performed satisfactorily. There is on-going research to find other suitable lead free driers. A major manufacturer of driers has indicated that the cost of subsituting zirconium for lead driers is about $0.02 per gallon. If it assumed that all of the estimated 130 million gallons of solvent based interior and exterior paints and enamels produced in 1974 were to use zirconium driers in place of lead driers, the cost would be $2.6 million per year. However, if the CPSC survey of paint is used as a basis for estimating, the volume of solvent paints containing lead is approximately 42 million gallons. Then the more reasonable cost of lead replacement with zirconium would be $0.83 million per year. Even this lower figure may be an exaggeration because some of the 42 million gallons probably does not presently contain lead driers and some will not be intended for use in households. 12 Other compounds of manganese, cobalt, calcium, and selenium are now being used in paint in combination with lead and zirconium, and there is no expected increase in demand for these compounds. There will be some increased costs associated with the reformulation of paints which now contain lead driers. The in- creased costs of reformulation are estimated at about $1.5 million as a one time cost. As noted previously, many paint companies make both trade sales and industrial paints in the same plant and in many instances in the same equipment. This practice raises the possibility that a batch of paint intended to be lead-free can become accidentally contaminated by the residue from a prior batch of industrial paint containing a high level of lead. A few companies are disturbed by this possibility, but most feel it is negligible. Through necessity, the industry is thoroughly indoctrinated to cleaning its manufacturing equipment after each batch is completed. More likely, but still remote, is the possibility that lead pigments intended for industrial use could accidentally be added to trade sales paints. Such occurrence would, of course, be detected if all batches were required to be analyzed for lead prior to sales to a customer. A minor adverse impact on the paint industry involves analytical testing for lead. Testing requirements may not be 13 specified by regulation, but establishing a maximum lead level of 0.06 percent effectively imposes requirements upon manufacturers to monitor output adequately to assure compliance of all regulated products. At the 0.06 percent level, the permissable amount is sufficiently small that extensive testing may be required to assure compliance. The most accurate method for measuring low concentrations of lead in paint involves atomic absorption spectrometry such as described in ASTM Standard Method D 3335-74. Manufacturers would have two basic options in testing their output. They could either invest in the equipment and personnel necessary to perform tests in-house, or they could send samples of output to outside labora- tories for testing. Independent labs are generally located in urban areas, coinciding with the distribution of paint plants. The costs associated with these two options are summarized in Table 7. Annual costs were calculated for worst-case conditions, in which the average paint manufacturer, producing approximately five batches per day, tests every bath to help assure compliance. The average manufacturing firm (less than 20 employees) is assumed to produce batches of 300-400 gallons, depending upon product lines and product mix. Since fixed costs comprise the predominant share of total in-house analytical costs, average costs per sample are considerably lower for large manufacturers. A company which requires two or three samples per hour, rather than five samples per day, would experience average costs of less III- 14 Table 7 Estimated Average Cost of Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Analysis Annual Fixed Costs Personnel $18,000 Overhead (0.92 x Personnel Cost) 16,500 Instrument Cost ($8,000 minimum cost depreciated over five years) 1,600 Lab Provisions (balance, furnace, crucibles, volumetric flasks, miscellaneous glassware) 5,000 Total Fixed Costs 41,100 Annual Variable Costs Estimated Expendables (reagents, power, etc. = $0.33 per sample, five samples/day, 1,250 samples per year) 400 Total Annual Costs $41,500 Average Cost per Sample $33 Outside Laboratory Cost per Sample $10-40 Sources: Battelle Institute and A. T. Kearney, estimates. Inc. Ill - 15 than $10 per sample. Investment in test equipment would be cost- effective for manufacturers with such sampling requirements. A total of 475 million gallons of trade sales paints was produced in 1974. The bulk of production of the large companies is produced in 2,000 gallon sized batches. On this basis the 37 producers of about 75 percent of all production, or 356 million gallons, will have 180,000 batches to test and at $10 per batch the cost would be $1.80 million. The remaining 120 million gallons produced in 300-400 gallon batches will result in 300-400 thousand batches and at $25 per batch will cost $7.5-10.0 million. Therefore, the total estimated costs for testing would range between $9 and $12 million per year. Actual costs incurred by the industry to achieve satisfactory quality control in monitoring lead con- tamination are likely to be considerably lower because it is expected that firms will only test a fraction of their batches. Some testing already is being done. Taking these factors into account, it is estimated that testing would impose additional industry-wide costs in the $5-8 million per year range. Additional costs associated with the need for product testing could result from delays in the production process while tests are completed. Eight hours are generally required for completion of atomic absorption spectrometry analyses. The manu- facturer could either invest in additional equipment or perhaps suffer some reduction in effective production. 16 More stringent housekeeping standards and certifi- cation of raw materials suppliers will be necessary to minimize potential sources of lead contamination. This is particularly true for companies manufacturing both nonregulated and regulated products. Given the limited margin for error, investment in additional equipment and improved quality control procedures may be necessary in some cases to achieve desired lead levels in the production process. It is estimated that actual costs to the industry of testing, housekeeping, and quality control will be less than $10 million per year. (b) Specific Product Groups 1. Household Furniture. Household furniture which may be affected by the lead in paint regulation includes wood and metal furniture used in such places as living rooms, kitchens, breakfast rooms and dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, halls, libraries, recreation rooms, workshops, porches, lawns, and patios. Many diverse fur- niture items are included such as: chairs, tables, desks, cre- denzas, book cases and shelves, bars, magazine racks, stands of all types, benches, stools, buffets and servers, beds, dressers, vanities, headboards, bed rails, wardrobes, chests, cabinets, play yards, and playpens, rockers, gliders, swings, screens and dividers, couches, sofas, settees, high chairs, and other children's furniture including cribs and cradles, and television and radio cabinets. 17 In 1972, the value of shipments of items of furniture such as those named was as follows: wood household furniture $2,716 million; metal household furniture $859 million, wood TV and radio cabinets $293 million; and $190 million for other household furniture made of plastic, reed and rattan. Not included in the above are some $2 billion worth of upholstered furniture, and $300 million in convertible sofas, chair beds and studio couches. Many of these items will probably not be affected by lead in paint regulations. The manufacturers of metal furniture may presently be using some lead pigments in order to obtain certain colors. If they must shift to organic pigments, then color matching of new with older furniture may not be possible. Any furniture cost increases which might result from the use of the somewhat more expensive organic pigments are expected to be small. 2. Toys and Other Children's Articles. Toy manufacturers are presently complying with the 0.5 percent lead limit, and it is believed from statements made by several metal toy manufacturers that the majority of surface coatings on toy surfaces contain less than 0.06 percent lead. Several major toy manufacturers require certification of lead content from their paint suppliers. The major concern is that lead contamination may result in levels beyond the allowable limit, and that measures to control the lead content will be time consuming and costly. A rough estimate of retail sales of toys and other children's articles amounts to $4 billion for 1976. Of this total, about 6 percent were exported. Imports as 18 a percentage of domestic consumption are estimated at 15 percent. Foreign toy manufacturers presently use a voluntary standard which permits up to 0.25 percent lead in paint. The number of foreign toys imported into the U.S. with painted surfaces which exceed the 0.06 percent lead level and the number of toys coated with up to 0.25 percent lead is not known. However, the effects on foreign toy manufacturers in switching to paints with no more than 0.06 percent lead are not expected to be large. A list of 43 categories which may help define the scope of the term "toys and other articles intended for use of children" is provided in Figure 1. The range of articles which may be affected by these regulations is very wide. 19 FIGURE 1 CATEGORIES OF TOYS AND OTHER CHILDREN'S ARTICLES Category -No. 1 Fashion dolls 2 Other dolls (including stuffed dolls and ventriloquist dummies) 3 Stuffed animals and other stuffed toys 4 Doll clothes and accessories 5 Doll carriages and carts 6 Doll houses and furniture 7 Board games 8 Action games 9 Other games and puzzles (excluding educationa items) 10 Educational toys and games (mechanical) 11 Educational toys and games (nonmechanical) 12 Children's books 13 Toy trains and equipment 14 Vehicular racing sets 15 Powered toys 16 Nonpowered transportation toys (nonriding) 17 Structural kits 18 Model construction kits 19 Handicraft and hobby kits 20 Scientific toys 21 Toy guns, rifles, and other play-war items 22 Minature figures and scenes 23 Infant care items 24 Infant and preschool toys 25 Baby carriages, strollers, and walkers 26 Children's simulated transportation riding toys (pedal operated) 27 Velocipedes (3-whelled) and tricycles 28 Other children's riding toys 29 Housekeeping toys 30 Personal care toys 31 Work-o JdLneted toys 32 Musical toys and toy musical instruments 33 Costumes and disguises 34 Party favors 35 Novelty toys 36 Palyground equipment 37 Gymnasium, physical fitness, and exercising equipment 38 Other sports, camping and athletic equipment 39 Children's furniture 40 Decorations and accessories for children's roon and bathroom 41 Children's and infant's clothing and bedding 42 Children's accessories 43 School supplies Source: Interim Report on Preliminary Assessment of Economic Impacts of Proposed Sharp Points and Sharp Edge Standards for Toys and Other Children's Articles. Retail Store Survey for BEA by Battelle Laboratories, 12/4/75 20 (c) Utility Several industry sources have stated that the drying time of paint which uses zirconium drier is increased in conditions of low temperature and high humidity over that of paints which use lead driers. One source, a major supplier of driers, says o that zirconium driers will not perform satisfactorily under 50 F and 70 percent or more relative humidity but lead driers allow o satisfactory drying at 40 F. The painting industry has always been plagued by the vagaries of the weather and outdoor painting is not normally done during periods of precipitation, freezing temperatures and high winds. If only non-lead driers are used in oil based paints, their sensitivity to climatic conditions would then approximate that of water based paint and the temperature and humidity range of application would be narrowed. These circumstances will adversely affect the construction industry, in some areas, especially the Northwest and Northeast, to some extent, particularly the smaller operations with limited flexibility for staggering production. In addition, the consumer use of coatings for exterior painting in these areas will be adversely affected. Should the trend away from use of solvent-thinned paints to water-thinned coatings continue, manufacturers will be substituting mercury-containing paints for ones that contain lead. Mercury compounds, particularly phenyl mercuric acetate (PMA) are used in water-thinned paints as preservatives and fungicides. The 21 Environmental Protection Agency forbids the use of mercury in solvent based paint. Without preservatives, many of these paints will decay in the can. Water-thinned paints are also susceptible, after application, to an assortment of plant organisms, particularly fungi. Mercury is normally used as a biocide at less than 0.1 percent of the total paint solids. Approximately 880,000 pounds of PMA were used in paints in 1972. However, non-mercury containing compounds are being used as fungicides in paints. A recent study by National Bureau of Standards indicates that some of these chemical compounds are at least as effective as mercury when used as paint fungicides. It appears unlikely that there will be increased usage of mercury by the paint industry as shifts to production of water based paints occur. (d) Effective Date Various effective dates for the regulation are possible under Sec. 9(d)(1) of the CPSA: these range from 30 days after promul- gation to 180 days (the minimum and maximum allowable unless for "good cause shown"). Other periods of as long as two years have (33) been proposed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and by industry. 22 Selection of an effective date should take into account the time required for reformulation and development of quality control programs, certification plans, and testing arrangements. The 180 day effective date which is suggested by the staff would allow an adequate but not excessive period of adjustment for both the manufacturers and users of paint. The paint industry has had adequate notice of the impending regulations. The case for further delay has not been convincingly demonstrated. REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTIONS The National Paint and Coatings Association (NEPA), repre- senting their members, has asked the Commission for an exemption for eight types of paints. The stated bases for seeking exemptions for these paints are several: lack of satisfactory substitute paints, the contention that some of these paints are industrial finishes and are available to the public in limited ways, and that potential injury from the lead in these paints is only likely to occur through gross misuse. The eight types of paints are: 1. Refinish coatings for automobiles and machinery, 2. Industrial maintenance paints, including traffic and safety marking paints, 3. Graphic arts paints, 4. Touch-up paints, 5. Exterior marine paints for small craft, 23 6. Exterior rubber based roof coatings, 7. Exterior primer paints for wood sidings, and 8. Radio controlled model aircraft paints. Some of the above paints, such as refinish and touch-up paints and marine paints are sold as both trade sale and industrial finishes. All of these paints are available to consumers at retail and wholesale outlets, but some may not be considered household paints because of their limited use by consumers and high prices. Each of the eight types of paint is discussed separately below. (a) Refinish Coatings 1. Automotive. Refinish coatings are generally supplied to automotive refinishes in bulk form or in containers (including aerosols), for sales to auto supply houses, repair shops and auto- mobile dealers. They are of three types: (1) heat-convertible acrylic enamel, (2) acrylic lacquer; and (3) alkyds. The first two types do not use lead driers, the alkyds, however, use lead driers up to .2 percent. In order to duplicate identical shades and tints of some types of colors such as yellows and oranges, the refinish paints formulas must contain the same amount of lead chrome pigments which were used on the original automobile finish. 24 About 25 percent of all automobiles in the U.S. (22.5 million) have finishes which contain lead pigments. If the exemption is denied, accurate color matched refinish coatings for these cars will not be available. If repaired components cannot be color matched, then, perhaps, a complete repainting of the whole car in a different, lead free, tint may have to be done. This could result in additional costs for the first year of $360 million (assume 8 percent of the 22.5 million cars are repainted at an average cost of $200). This annual cost would decline each year to near zero within 10 years because the older cars would gradually wear out and, it is assumed that new car finishes would be reformulated without lead pigments. This reformulation of new car finishes would cost industry approxi- mately $10 million as a one time cost. 2. Agricultural Equipment. These coatings are similar in type and lead content to the above and are sold in containers for brush and spray applications. In 1974, an estimated 35 million gallons of refinishing paints were prodduced for both automotive and agricultural uses for an estimated value of shipments of $200 million. (b) Industrial and Commercial Building Maintenance Paints Including Traffic and Safety Marking Paints 1. Industrial paints consist of glossy enamels, and red lead primers and are used on machinery, equipment, steel doors and frames, and steel structural members and as safety 25 marking paints. Red lead is used predominately as a corrosion inhibitor in steel structures, railroad equipment, marine craft and metal containers for packing. Most of these coatings are intended for use on articles not generally found in households. In 1974, 55 million gallons of industrial maintenance coatings valued at $220 million were produced. 2. Commercial building maintenance coatings include a wide range of paints for use on plumbing, electrical conduits and equipment, steel doors and sash, as well as exposed steel structural members. (Interior and exterior wall surfaces are usually, coated with trade sales paints. The quantities and value of these paints cannot be computed from existing trade sales and industrial finish data.) 3. Traffic paints consists of two colors: white and yellow. White does not contain lead in concentration greater than 0.06 percent dry weight. As presently formulated, the present yellor traffic paint is highly visible, opague, and durable. A satisfactory substitute has not been found in this use. In 1974, an estimated 25 million gallons of traffic paint was produced and the value of shipments was $60 million. If the exemption is denied, little impact on industrial paints will be felt with two exceptions: red lead primers and yellow traffic paints. Red lead primers remain the best corrosion protective coating for ferrous 26 surfaces. Zine rich and ferric oxide primers are used as substitutes but have not won total acceptance for all applica- tions. No satisfactory substitute for yellow lead chromate has been found for use in traffic paint. Hansa yellows are poor substitutes because of lack of durability and lightfast qualities. Their use could quadruple the cost of yellow traffic paint to municipalities. Denial of the exemption would probably result in more white traffic markings, with loss of color contract and visibility. Attendant safety pro- blems may increase. (c) Graphic Arts Paints Including Billboard Paints These coatings are generally specially formulated for application to outdoor advertising billboards, road signs, and identification markings on industrial buildings and traffic signs. One coat coverage, durability and specific light fast colors and tints specified by the manufacturers of products advertised are the required characteristics of these paints. For yellows, oranges, greens, and some browns lead chromates are used. These paints are generally applied by professional sign painters, and are not readily available to consumers. There are millions of on-premise signs and billboards, and a reported 1,200,000 off-premise commercial signs adjacent 27 to highways. The quantity of these paints that are used annually is not known but up to half contain leaded pigments or driers. If the exemption is denied, substitutes will be used but some of the above qualities of visibility and dura- bility will be lost. Also, the substitute paints would cost industry an estimated additional several million dollars per year. (d) Touchup Paints These coatings are closely allied to refinish coatings. They are formulated to duplicate the exact colors of the original finishes on automobiles, agricultural and lawn equip- ment, small marine craft, and appliances. They are available for both brush and spray application in small containers including aerosols. They generally con- tain the same pigment mix as the original but the solvent and resin may be changed to permit atomization and quick drying. For those paints which contain alkyd or modified alkyd resins, lead driers are used. For certain yellows, browns and reds, lead chromate pigments may be used. These touchup paints are available from retail outlets such as hardware stores, paint stores, and department stores, lawn and garden stores, auto parts stores and sporting goods stores and are intended for consumer use. 28 These paints are consumer products, however, they are intended for use only on automobiles. They are similar to the original finishes which are exempt from the regulations. It is possible that these specialized paints could be used around the household for purposes other than that intended but they are very expensive for any application other than to a small area. It is estimated by an industry source that 25 million units of touchup paints (quarts, pints, ounces) were sold in 1976 indicating a large demand for those products, especially other than to a small area. Denial of the petition would result in the removal of about 25 percent of the present range of colors from the market. These would be replaced over time as original finish colors were reformulated (see automotive refinishes). (e) Exterior Marine Paint for Small Craft These coatings are formulated for the protection of wood and metal boats although some enamels used for coating machinery and equipment are also used. A majority of small crafts are now made of wood, aluminum, or fiberglass where the use of anti-corrosion primers, such as red lead is not needed except on iron keels and centerboards. Zinc rich primers are used as substitutes for red lead, but it is not known whether their use is satisfactory in all applications. 29 Spar vanish, which use lead drier, is used extensively on exposed wood on small craft. It has been claimed that there is no adequate substitute available for this clear, flexible and durable coating. However, it has been determined that lead-free driers can be used and other lead-free varnishes are available as substitutes and are equivalent in performance. In 1974 an estimated 5 million gallons of trade sales marine paints were produced, valued at some $25 million. The amount of industrial marine coatings shipped in 1974 was 15 million gallons for a value of $70 million. The share of this total which is used on small craft is unknown. The use of pigments and drier in marine paint is decreasing, but the extent to which they are presently used in not known. If the exemption is denied, the result will be a decrease in protection of ferrous surfaces and exposed wood. If sub- stitute primers and varnishes which provide equivalent pro- tection do not become available, more frequent painting would be required and maintenance costs would increase. (f) Exterior Rubber Based Roof Coatings These coatings consist of rubber based formulas and it is unknown as to what quantities are produced and shipped Manufacturers claim that no lead in any form is presently 30 being used in these catalyzed rubber coatings and that, because of leaching into rainwater runoff, lead has not been used for a number of years. The only data available that may be applicable are for the trade sales of roof and barn paints which includes some of this type of coating. In 1972, these totalled 2.9 million gallons, valued at $8.4 million. If an exemption is denied, there would be no known impact. (g) Exterior•Primer Coatings for-Wood Siding These coatings are specially formulated for use on surfaces of new wood, particularly cedar and redwood. These woods contain water soluble substance which bleeds into latex topcoats and causes discoloration. It is claimed that lead compounds in primers are needed to prevent this dis- coloration. It has been claimed that lead free primers have not provide satisfactory. However, two sources state authoritatively that an acrylic latex primer containing an additive (PR-26) which was developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment provides satisfactory prevention of bleeding. This primer was tested over a period of five years against lead primers and was found to be superior. 31 From existing data the quantity of square footage of these woods used as siding is not determinable nor are the quantities sold of these special purpose primers. Data on trade sales of exterior primers and undercoats, which probably includes such special primers, indicates that in 1974 an estimated 10 million gallons (2 percent of total trade sales paints), valued at $35 million (1.3 of total value were shipped). If the exemption is denied, present primers which contain lead will be replaced by lead-free primers, such as the one mentioned above. These are produced by the leading paint manufacturers and are readily available. (h) Coatings for Radio- Controlled, Powered Aircraft Radio-controlled, powered model aircraft are con- structed and used primarily by adults in hobby activities. It is claimed by the petitioners that the lead chromate pigment which is allegedly used on these aircraft is required for authenticity and would not constitute a hazard to children except through gross misuse. IV - SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Assuming that the Commission takes some form of regulatory action pursuant to its August 10, 1976 proposal, the unavoidable adverse effects described below will result. In general, these adverse effects will be incurred by the general public and the paint and coatings manufacturing industry and are the result of the reduced allowable level of lead in paints and various household items. 1. By reducing the allowable lead level in certain paints and in banning certain articles coated with such paints, the following effects will result: Lead driers cannot be used in trade sales paints, reducing the perfor- mance characteristics in certain special circumstances such as in low temperature/high humidity cli- mates. Substitute materials and new formulations to minimize this effect are being developed. Paint manufacturers must practice more careful housekeeping to avoid lead contamination of paint batches which fall within the promulgated regulation. An added financial burden will fall to paint manufacturers to monitor their paint batches and possibly some raw materials (either in-house or by outside laboratories) for lead concentration. Sophisticated analy- tical equipment is required for this. Water-thinned paints used in lieu of lead-containing solvent-thinned paints may result in a slight increase in mercury usage by the paint industry. Slight increases in the amount of paint processing waste generated will result from cleaning with solvents. V - MEASURES UNDER CONSIDERATION TO MINIMIZE UNAVOIDABLE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following measures can be taken to minimize adverse effects: Continue research and development for paint products and drier substitutes of near-equal characteristics to materials containing lead. Establish sampling frequency guidelines and analytical method specifications for monitoring lead in paints. Continue research by the paint industry and its suppliers to find substitutes for mercury in paints. Improve treatment, reuse, and disposal techniques for paint manufacturing wastes. Postpone the effective date for regulations to allow the industry to conduct further research, thus allowing the con- tinued use of lead driers and pigments temporarily. This will help assure that the reduction of certain paint performance characteristics will be minimized. VI - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY The basic tradeoff under consideration is the reduction of lead concentrations in paints to a less hazardous level (thereby offering more protection to children with pica for paint) versus some reduction in certain types of paint product quality and per- formance . Under the proposed regulations, the allowable level of lead in paints is being lowered to preclude the addition of lead compounds except those present as contaminants in paint raw materials. Eventually, the use of essentially lead-free paint should minimize the possibility of lead poisoning from paint in new applications. Other Federal agencies are participating in this effort. HEW is responsible, under the LBPPPA, for prohibiting the applica- tion of lead based paint to any cooking utensil, drinking utensil, and eating utensil. At the same time, HUD must prohibit the use of lead based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabili- tated by the Federal Government or with Federal assistance in any form. HUD is also investing in research to find ways to reduce the hazard of lead based paint already on walls and trim in the consumer sector. VI - 2 In the long term, industry research and development efforts should result in improved coatings and drying agents which will eliminate the need for lead compounds in paint and coatings gen- erally intended for consumer use. VII - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION IF IT WERE IMPLEMENTED Irretrievable commitments of resources include the research and development needed to find improved coatings and drying agents which will eliminate the need for lead compounds in paint and coatings for consumer use. Manpower and laboratory equipment must be committed to this effort plus the effort required to monitor lead levels in the manufacture of paints and their raw materials. Reductions in allowable lead levels will result in a slightly increased usage of cobalt, manganese, iron, calcium, zirconium, and mercury. The raw materials used in other coatings and drying agents that are now, or may be in the future, substi- tutes for lead-containing paint products must be committed. VIII - REFERENCES 1. WAPORA, Inc.f Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Applications of Coatings. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Washington D.C., September, 1975. 2. Battelle, Columbus Laboratories, Research Report on Impact Study of Lead in Paint. Prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Columbus, Ohio, September 27, 1976. 3. Shreve, Norris L., Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill, Inc., Chemical Engineering Series, 1967. 4. Columbia University Press, The New Columbia Encyclopedia, New York, 1975. 5. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Protective and Decorative Coatings, edited by Joseph J. Mattiello, 1942. 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census of Manufactures, 1967 and 1972. 7. National Paint and Coatings Association, Petition to Ex- tend 0.5 Percent as the Safe Level of Lead in Residential Paint Products Pending Completion and Final Evaluation of Appropriate Research, not dated. 8. Roland, Robert A., Testimony of Robert A. Roland, President of the National Paint and Coatings Association before the Consumer Product Safety Commission, September 13, 1976. 9. The bulk of this section has been referenced to: National Academy of Sciences, Recommendations for the Prevention of Lead Poisoning in Children, Washington D.C., July, 1976. 10. Ibid. p. 39. 11. Greenberg, Nauman H., M.D., Lead-Based Paint: Safe Level Determination, Statement for Oral Presentation before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington D.C., September 13, 1976. VIII - 2 12. National Academy of Sciences, Recommendations for the Pre- vention of Lead Poisoning in Children, Washington D.C., July, 1976. pp. 41-43. 13. Ibid. p. 40-41. 14. Ibid. p. 5. 15. Ibid. p. 20. 16. Ibid. p. 21. 17. Ibid. p. 38. 18. Ibid. p. 19. 19. Ibid. p. 7, 37. 20. Ibid. p. 7. 21. Ibid. p. 39. 22. Greenberg, Nauman H., M.D., Lead-Based Paint; Safe Level Determination, Statement for Oral Presentation before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington D.C., September 13, 1976. 23. National Academy of Sciences, Recommendations for the Preven- tion of Lead-Poisoning in Children, Washington D.C., July 1976, p. 50. 24. Ibid. p. 49. 25. Ibid. p. 45. 26. Ibid. pp. 45-48. 27. The Paint Red Book, 8th edition. 1976. 28. Marketing Guide to the Paint Industry, 4th edition, 1975. 29. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972 Census of Manufactures. 30. National Academy of Sciences, Recommendations for the Pre- vention of Lead Poisoning in Children, Washington, D.C., July, 1976. Appendix E. pp. 45-48. 31. Sources: American Society for Testing and Materials, Paint-Tests for Formulated Products and Applied Coatings, Philadelphia, PA, 1976. Columbia University Press, The New Columbia Encyclopedia, New York, 1975. Steelman, Thomas Lathrop, Steelman's Medical Dictionary, The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, MD, 1966. WAPORA, Inc., Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Application of Coatings. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September, 1975. 32. Personal communication with Francis Scofield, WAPORA, Inc., on December 6, 1976. (Former Vice President and Technical Director, National Paint and Coatings Association, Washington, D.C.). 33. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint, CPSC, January 19, 1977. IX - GLOSSARY amenolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALA-D) - a liver enzyme. architectural coatings - coatings intended for on-site application to interior or exterior surfaces of residential, commercial, institutional or industrial buildings. acrylic resin - under resin, synthetic, see acrylic resin. alkyd resin - under resin, synthetic, see alkyd resin. asymptomatic - without symptoms, or producing no symptoms. binder - the film forming ingredient in paint that binds the pigment particles together. brain edema - abnormal accumulation of fluid in the skull causing swelling. cholesterol - fatty substance found in the body tissues of ver tebrates. coating - a liquid, liquefiable or mastic composition that is converted to a solid protective, decorative, or functional adherent film after application as a thin layer. dendrite - one of the branching protoplasmic processes of the nerve cells, dindron. diluent - a liquid, usually a petroleum hydrocarbon, which is blended with an active solvent in a paint or lacquer to increase the bulk or reduce the cost. drier - a composition which accelerates the drying of oil, paint, or printing ink. Driers are usually metallic-based compositions and are available in both solid and liquid forms. enamel - a pigmented coating which is characterized by an ability to form an especially smooth film which is free from brush or other tool marks. Although most enamels are glossy, flat enamels are also available. They are usually considered to be relatively hard coatings. enzyme - ferment. A protein, secreted by the body walls, that acts as a catalyst, inducing chemical changes in other substances, itself remaining apparently unchanged in the process. extender - a pigment which is usually inexpensive and inert in nature, used to extend or increase the bulk of a paint, thus re- ducing its unit cost, and modifying its consistency. exterior paint - a coating for the outside surfaces of a structure factory-applied coating - a coating which is applied in a manu- facturing establishment as part of the operation of making an article of commerce. fecal excretion - feces excretion. film - layer or coat of paint or other material applied to a surface. flat finish - having no gloss or luster. fungicide - an agent that helps prevent mold or mildew growth on a painted surface. gastrointestinal - relating to both stomach and intestine. glial replication and differentiation - replication and dif- ferentiation of glial cells, hairlike filaments which structurally support the nerve cells in the brain. hematocrit - a centrifuge for separating the cells and other particulate elements of the blood from the plasma. hematopoietic - pertaining to or related to the formation of blood cells. hemoglobin - respiratory pigment found in the red blood cells of all vertebrates and some invertebrates. industrial coating - a paint used to coat a manufactured product prior to its sale. interior paint - a coating for the inside surfaces of a structure. lacquer - a fast-drying clear or pigmented coating that dries by solvent evaporation only. Other types of coatings, by comparison, dry by a combination of evaporation, oxidation, and polymerization of portions of their constituents. latex paint - a paint containing a stable aqueous dispersion of synthetic resin, produced by emulsion polymerization, as the principal constituent of the binder. Modifying resins may also be used. lead encephalopathy - convulsions, delirium, hallucinations, and other oerebral symptoms due to chronic lead poisoning. marine paint - a varnish specially designed to withstand im- mersion in water and exposure to marine atmosphere. metabolism - tissue change; the sum of the chemical changes whereby the function of nutrition is affected. mildewcide - see fungicide. mylineation - the formation of myelin; a near-white substance which sheaths the nerve fibers in the brain and forms the white matter of the brain. neurologic - having to do with nervous symptoms and disorders. oil paint - a paint that contains drying oil or oil varnish as the basic vehicle ingredient. paint n, specific - a classification sometimes employed to dis- tinguish pigmented drying oil coatings ("paints") from synthetic enamels and lacquers. emulsion paint - a paint, the vehicle of which is an emulsion of binder in water. The binder may be oil, oleoresinous var- nish, resin, or other emulsifiable binder. latex paint - a paint containing a stable aqueous dispersion of synthetic resin, produced by emulsion polymerization, as the principal constituent of the binder. Modifying resins may also be present. oil paint - a paint that contains drying oil or oil varnish as the basic vehicle ingredient. paste paint - a paint in which the pigment is sufficiently concentrated to permit a substantial reduction with vehicle before use. water paint - a paint, the vehicle of which is a water emul- sion, water dispersion, or ingredients that react chemically with water. pica - the repetitive ingestion of non-food substances. pigment - the fine solid particles used in the preparation of paint or printing ink and substantially insoluble in the vehicle. Asphaltic materials are not pigments except when they contain substances substantially insoluble in the vehicle in which they are used. plasticizer - a substance added to paint, varnish, or lacquer to impart flexibility. postnatal - occurring after birth, postpartum - occurring after childbirth. preservative - material added to water-thinned paints to prevent the growth of bacteria or yeast in the can during paint storage. primer - the first of two or more coats of a paint, varnish, or lacquer system. renal - relating to the kidneys. resin - a natural or synthetic material that is the main ingredient of paint which binds the various other ingredients together. It also aids adhesion to the surface. shellac varnish - a varnish made by dissolving shellac resin in alcohol. Shellac is the form of lac resin obtained in thin curled sheets (shells) . solvent - the volatile part of a paint composition that evaporates during drying. stain - a solution or suspension of coloring matter in a vehicle designed primarily to be applied to create color effects rather than to form a protective coating. A transparent or semi-opaque coating that colors without completely obscuring the grain of the surface. symptomatic - relating to a symptom or symptoms; indicative. synaptic connections - relating to the place where a nerve impulse is transmitted from one neuron to the other. trade sales coating - a paint sold for consumer use or for maintenance of commercial structures. ug Pb/dl - daily absorption of lead in micrograms of lead (Pb) per deciliter. urethane coatings - coatings based upon vehicles containing a minimum of 10 percent by weight (nonvolatile vehicle basis) of a polyisocyanate monomer reacted in such a manner as to yield polymers containing any ratio, proportion or combination of urethane linkages, active isocyanate groups of polyisocyanate monomer. The reaction products may contain excess isocyanate groups available for further reaction at time of application or may contain es- sentially no free isocyanate as supplied. varnish - a liquid composition that is converted to a transparent or translucent solid film after application as a thin layer. bituminous varnish - a dark-colored varnish containing bituminous ingredients. The varnish may be either of the oil or spirit type. oil varnish - a varnish that contains resin and drying oil as the basic film-forming ingredients and is converted to a solid film primarily by chemical reaction. spar varnish - a varnish for exterior surfaces. The name originated from its use on spars of ships. spirit varnish - a varnish that is converted to a solid film primarily by solvent evaporation. vehicle - the liquid portion of a paint. Anything that is dis- solved in the liquid portion of a paint is a part of the vehicle. APPENDIX A - HEALTH EFFECTS OF LEAD IN PAINT AND RISKS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS(9) SAFE LEVEL OF LEAD IN PAINT This section describes the health effects problems of lead in paint; namely lead poisoning in children. The National Academy of Sciences report to the Consumer Product Safety Com- mission under the Contract CPSC-C-75-0018 provides most of the information regarding the lead poisoning in children with pica for paint. The main objective of that contract was to recommend a "safe level" of lead in paints based on an evaluation of four studies submitted by the CPSC to the NAS. Although the NAS could not determine a safe level of lead above 0.06 percent in paint, they did conclude that the 0.5 percent lead level in paint is a hazard to children with pica for paint. NAS recommended that a lead level not to exceed 0.06 percent be set for regulatory purposes. The following para- graphs discuss the studies and research which brought the Na- tional Academy of Sciences to this conclusion. DISCUSSION OF LEAD POISONING The most serious health effect of lead in paint is lead poisoning in children. "Paint provides the most concentrated source of lead potentially available to a young child,"(10) according to the National Academy of Sciences' report, Recom- mendations for the Prevention of Lead Poisoning in Children. APPENDIX A Dr. Nauman H. Greenberg, Medical Director of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Control Program for the City of Chicago states that the main source of lead in childhood lead poisoning is lead- based paint. Lead-based paint chips or peelings are sometimes eaten by children, especially those children with pica (the repetitive ingestion of nonfood substances).(11) There are three stages which occur in lead poisoning, the first of these being asymptomatic lead poisoning. During the asymptomatic stage, symptoms are not clinically present, but changes in basic metabolism occur. The second stage is the symptomatic change where symptoms such as loss of appetite, vomiting, apathy, drowsiness and inability to coordinate volun- tary muscle movements occur. Aftereffects of the symptomatic stage include restlessness, short-attention span, easy distrac- tibility, and seizure disorders of minimal brain dysfunction. Other aftereffects include hyperactivity, withdrawal, temper tantrums, fear, refusal to play, slowed learning ability and perceptual disorders. Lead encephalopathy is the third stage of childhood lead poisoning with brain endema which involves alterations of the brain structure. During this stage, coma or convulsions occur. Effects in this stage are permanent and include blindness, mental retardation, behavior disorders, central nervous sys- tem pathology, and death. APPENDIX A EFFECTS OF LEAD Hematopoietic Effects The effects of lead occur in the hematopoietic, neurologic and renal systems. The hematopoietic system is currently con- sidered the cite where the "critical effect" or first effect occurs although this is not known for sure. In the hematopoietic system, lead interferes with the production of hemoglobin and inhibits the enzymes, aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALA-D) and ferro chelatase. This results in the accumulation of free erythrocyte protoporphyrin (FEP) in the blood and amino levulinic acid (ALA-U) in urine. Lead reduces the life span of the red blood cells and the result is lead-induced anemia. Hematopoietic effects occur in children with blood-lead levels in the range of 30-40 pig Pb/dl according to NAS. The hematopoietic effects of lead-poisoning are reversible. The National Academy of Sciences reports two studies re- lated to hematopoietic effects. They state, "European studies have shown that increases in free erythroctye protoporphyrin begin to occur in women and children when blood lead levels reach a range of 25-30 pig Pb/dl, and in men at 34-45 pig Pb/dl. It is now known that it is zinc protoporphyrin rather than the free pro toporphyrin IX which is present in excess in the circulating erythrocyte in lead poisoning and iron deficiency. Population studies of children in the United States have rarely included a sufficient number of children with<20 pig Pb/dl to determine this lower threshold level. A second threshold is seen in children when blood lead levels reach the range of 35-40 pig Pb/dl. The excretion of ALA-U begins to rise in both adults and children when blood lead levels reach the APPENDIX A range of 40-50 pg Pb/dl. In children, quantitative collections of urine are required for ALA-U. The determination of ALA-U in random urine specimens from children is of little value. "Hernberg has demonstrated that lead shortens the life span of the red blood cell and that this is a mechanism by which lead produces anemia. Tola had demonstrated a significant decrease in hemoglobin levels in new workers occupationally exposed to lead. Decreased hemoglobin levels became evident within two to three months, as Pb-B approached 50 pg/ dl. Pueschel found a significant negative relationship between hemologlobin levels and blood lead levels in children. Blood lead levels -60 pg Pb/dl were almost always associated with hemoglobin levels 10 pg/dl. Betts found hemoglobin levels 11 pg/dl in 36 percent of children with 37-60 pg Pb/dl, 71 percent with 60- 100 pg Pb/dl and 89 percent with -100 pg Pb/dl. Rosen et al found a negative relationship between hematocrit and blood lead concentrations at levels exceeding 40 pg Pb/dl."(12) NEUROLOGIC EFFECTS Neurologic effects (those effects associated with the nervous system) are difficult to measure and are difficult to attribute to lead poisoning alone because of the many other fac- tors attributed to malfunction of the nervous system. As stated, neurological effects are irreversible and occur during the lead encephalopathy stage. There is some controversy as to whether neurological effects occur during the asymptomatic and symptoma- tic stages, and this has not been proven. According to the NAS, neurological effects occur in children with blood lead levels in the range of 50-60 jag Pb/dl or above. The National Academy of Sciences cites several studies dealing with neurological effects in asymptomatic children. Two such studies were conduc- ted by B. de la Burde which NAS summarized below. APPENDIX A "Both study and control children were drawn from an on-going Child Development Study at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond. Mothers were fol- lowed during pregnancy and delivery and children fol- lowed for eight postnatal years. The study group consisted of 67 asymptomatic children who had a posi- tive history of pica for paint or plaster, lived in deteriorated old housing, had positive urinary copro- porphyrin tests and either a blood level level 40 jug Pb/dl or blood lead 30 pg Pb/dl and positive radiographic findings for lead lines in the long bones. Because of the analytical problems inherent in blood lead methodology, as performed in the 1960's, we feel that this combination of criteria for selecting the study group was more reliable than a selection based on blood lead levels alone. Even so, the absence of serial blood lead levels, which were not feasible at the time, is the major weakness of this study. This weakness is largely overcome by dependence on x-rays and repeatedly positive urinary coproporphyrin tests. Positive bone x-rays and positive urine copropor- phyrin tests are generally associated with blood lead concentrations equal to or greater than 60 pg Pb/dl. Lead levels in shed deciduous teeth were per- formed several years later on teeth from 29 of the lead-exposed children and 32 of the control children. The mean tooth lead level for the study group was significantly higher than the mean tooth lead level of the control group. The control group consisted of 70 children who had a negative history of pica for paint or plaster, lived in modern housing, did not visit older housing for day care and had negative tests for coproporphyrin in urine. In addition, all children were excluded from both groups who showed neurologic abnormalities or developmental lag either during the newborn period or at four months, if abnormalities were noted on the Bayley scale at eight months, or if confirmed or suspected disease of the central nervous system was noted anytime before seven years of age. In addition, the groups were comparable in age, sex, race, monther's nonverbal I.Q., socio- economic status, family composition and possible sources of family upheaval such as death in the family, foster home placement or working mother. "Neurological and psychological tests were admin- istered to both groups at four years of age and again at seven years of age. Fifty-eight children from each group also had tests repeated at eight years of age. At four years of age, the most significant difference between the groups were in the areas of fine motor coordination and behavior. Failure on fine motor tests APPENDIX A occured almost twice as frequently in the lead-exposed group as in the control group. Deviation in overall behavior ratings occured almost three times as fre- quently in the lead-exposed group. Mean I.Q. scores, as measured by the Standford-Binet test, were 89 + 13.1 for the lead-exposed group and 94+ 10.5 for the control group. At seven years of age, neurologic examination revealed deficits in more than twice as many children from the study group as from the control group. Full- scale I.Q., as measured on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children revealed that the majority of chil- dren from both groups had average intelligence, although the mean I.Q.'s were statistically significantly (p< 0.01) lower in the lead-exposed group. The fre- quency of results in the borderline or mentally defec- tive range was higher in the lead-exposed group. Short attention span and minimal goal orientation occurred in 32 percent of lead-exposed children and 14 percent of control children. Poor academic progress was noted in 27.8 percent of lead-exposed children and 4.1 percent of control children. The number of children repeating at least one grade was higher in the lead-exposed group (25.9 percent) than in the control group (6.1 percent). Eleven lead-exposed children and four control children were receiving speech therapy for speech impediments. "The authors felt that the most significant dif- ference between the groups was in the area of behavior and that this was the primary cause for poor school per- formance. Among the lead-exposed group, five had been seen by psychiatrists, one had been institutionalized and three were subject to seizures. None of these findings occurred in any of the control children. A review of school records revealed that hyperactivity, explosive behavior and frequent temper tantrums Occurred in 19 lead-exposed children and 5 control children. The behavior problems which had been apparent at four years of age, but which were adequately handled in the home environment, persisted at seven years and prevented appropriate functioning in the school environ- ment. It is of interest to note that these findings in asymptomatic children are similar to the findings of Byers and Lord in symptomatic children. Although Byers and Lord found little difference between lead poisoned and control children, in relation to overall I.Q., the lead-poisoned children were found to have significantly poorer school performance."(12) Other studies cited by NAS are as follows: "The results of several additional studies have suggested a relationship between increased lead ab- sorption and neurologic deficits in young children. APPENDIX A Albert £t al obtained data on 371 children with varying degrees of lead exposure. A record of blood lead levels was obtained from the New York City Health Department blood lead registry. The mean age at time of blood test was 2.5 years. Relocation and evaluation of the patients took place 3-11 years after blood lead test- ing. The children were divided into five groups according to degree of exposure. Group I contained six children with lead encephalopathy, Group II con- tained 154 children treated for lead poisoning who did not have encephalopathy. Group III contained 65 chil- dren with blood levels -60 jig Pb/dl who were not treated, Group IV contained 57 children with 60 jig Pb/dl, but elevated tooth lead levels, and Group V contained 89 children with both low blood lead and tooth lead levels. Neurologic disorders, including mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, seizure disorders and behavior disorders, were found in 66.7 percent from Group I, II. percent from Group II, 18.5 percent from Group III, 3.5 percent from Group IV and 4.5 percent from Group V. Psychometric tests were performed on 159 of the 371 children. A composite rating based on Intel- ligence Quotient, Bender-Gestalt quotient, Figure Draw- ing quotient and Purdue Pegboard error score was made by a clinical psychologist. Groups I and III had sig- nificantly lower ratings than Group V. Groups II and IV did not differ significantly from Group V. It is not surprising that the encephalopathy group showed neurologic deficits. The fact that the untreated chil- dren with 60 jig Pb/dl (Group III) showed a higher frequency of neurologic deficits than the diagnosed and treated cases of lead poisoning (Group II), lead the authors to conclude that this group contained children who should have received chelation therapy. Clinical records revealed that 37 of the 65 children in Group III had symptoms compatible with lead poison- ing . "Perino and Ernhart reported a significant negative relationship between blood lead levels and cognitive, verbal and perceptual abilities in 80 asymptomatic children, ages 3 years to 5 years, 11 months, who had blood lead levels ranging from 10-70 jig Pb/dl. They also found a significant negative relationship between parental education level and blood lead levels in the children. Their "low lead" group (10-30 jig Pb/dl) did not differ significantly from the "moderate lead" group (40-70 jig Pb/dl) in socio-economic status, sex, age, parental intelligence, number of siblings, birth order or birth weight."(13) APPENDIX A RISK FACTORS Evidence in both animals and children indicate age and diet are primary factors influencing absorption and effects of lead according to NAS. The Risk factors which increase the danger of lead poisoning include age, diet, and pica. Age is a risk factor because, up to the age of four, there is a rapid rate of brain growth in the newborn. This is known as the "growth spurt" which begins during the sixth month of pregancy and continues through the third and fourth year postpartum. Glial replication and differentiation and cerebellar growth are most rapid during the first 18 months of life. Mye- lination occurs into the third and fourth years of life. The brain is most vulnerable during the growth spurt. Studies in rats and lambs administered lead during the growth spurt have shown slowed learned abilities which persist in the adult stage even after blood lead levels have returned to normal.(14) Increased intestinal absorption of lead is related to age. Lead is absorbed to a greater degree in the young than the adult. "Alexander's balance study in eight healthy children showed that approximately 50 percent of dietary lead was absorbed. Kehoe's balance studies in adults showed that only 10 percent of dietary lead was absorbed. Using the average dietary lead intake for normal "nonexposed" adults and the different absorption ratios and caloric requirements for children and adults, a 3-year-old APPENDIX A child would absorb 12 times more dietary lead than the adult re- ceiving the same diet."(14). The following studies cited by the NAS concern the lead absorption rate during the growth spurt versus lead absorption in adults. "The growth spurt in rats occurs during the first 24 days post-parturn. Glial cell multiplication occu- pies the first half of this period. The second half extending to about the 25th postnatal day, is a period of rapid myelination. Dendritic authorization and synaptic connections are also occurring during this period, along with dramatic metabolic and neuro- chemical development and rapid cerebral growth. Demonstrable and permanent clumsiness is associated with cerebellar deficits caused by hyponutrit ion during the growth spurt. "Momcilovic and Kostial found that the uptake of lead in the brain of suckling rats was six to eight times greater than that found in the brain of the adult rat. Krigman et cQ, by adding PbC03 to the diet of the mother, induced a four-fold increase of lead in the brain of sucklings over the amount found in the mother. Total brain growth rate was inhibited and myelin production was reduced in the brain and in the sheath about the axons. Reduced amounts of galactolipids, cholestrol, plasmalogens and total phospholipids were observed in these animals. No data were reported for the lead content of milk or blood"(15) Dietary composition and deficiencies are also an influence on increased intestinal absorption of lead. A diet containing lipids or milk increases the absorption of lead. Dietary de- ficiencies include iron, calcium and copper which also increased the absorption of lead. According to the NAS report, a typical child's diet includes fats and milk and a significant percentage of children have a dietary deficiency of both calcium and iron. APPENDIX A NAS states that studies in rats have revealed deficiencies of calcium, copper and iron increase the absorbtion of lead. Other experimental animals have been used to reveal fats and milk increase lead absorption.(16) The National Academy of Sciences cites the following examples related to dietary composition and deficiencies: "Kostial's studies of rats show greater absorption of lead if administered in milk than if administered in dry feed. Animal studies involving dietary defic- iencies of calcium, copper and iron have shown that these deficiencies increase the absorption of lead. In long-term experiments in growing rats, restriction of dietary iron and calcium to 20 percent of the Recommended Daily Allowance for growing young rats increased the absorption and retention of lead by a factor of two or more. This degree of reduction in dietary intake of calcium and iron has been reported in two- to three-year old children from low-income familities. A population survey of American children showed less than optimal calcium intake ranging between 12-14 percent for white children and 23-25 percent for black children. Iron deficiency, defined as hemoglobin levels<10 grams, was seen in approximately 4 percent of white children from families above the poverty line, 10.8 percent of white children in families below the poverty line, 17.6 percent of Negro children in families above the poverty line and 15 percent have also reported die- tary deficiencies of calcium and iron in young children. Iron deficiency is most prevalent among children 12-24 months of age.(17) "Klein and associates studied the relationship between starvation, caused by pyloric stenosis, and intelligence. Pyloric stenosis occurs between birth and three months of age, is surgically correctable and is not associated with any particular socio- economic or cultural group. Klein found that the brief period of starvation in infancy, prior to surgery, had permanent effects on learning abilities and general adjustments, as measured 5-14 years later. Hertzig et. al_ found reduced I.Q. levels in school-age boys who had been malnourished during the first two years of life. In humans, the initial exposure to lead in paint usually coincides with ambulation and so begins at 10-12 months postpartum, while exposure APPENDIX A to lead from some canned nutrients may begin at or shortly after birth."(18) PICA AND LEAD INGESTION Pica, the repetitive ingestion of nonfood substances, is another risk factor to be considered. Pica occurs in 50 per- cent of children between the ages of one and three. Pica has long been associated with lead-paint poisoning since within that range of age the growth spurt occurs. "Pica for paint is believed to be episodic and can occur two to three times a week."(19) Pica for paint usually occurs after a child has learned to crawl or walk. The National Academy of Sciences states that the 0.5 per- cent lead in paint represents a hazard for a child with pica for paint. They state the following: "Abdominal x-ray films showed radiopaque materials in the intestinal tract in 35 percent of children at- tending the Chicago Lead Clinic. The best available clinical evidence indicates that children with pica may ingest one to three grams of paint per week. If the paint contained the present legal limit of 0.5 percent lead (5,000 jxg/g paint), then the daily in- gestion of lead from paint would be 714 /xg Pb/day, 1,429 jig Pb/day or 2,143 fig Pb/day, respectively, for one, two or three grams of paint ingested per week. Calculated on the basis of body weight for a two-year old child weighing 12.5 kg, and using an absorption factor of 17 percent for lead from paint, the amount of lead absorbed would be 9.7 /xg Pb/kg/day, 19.4 fig Pb/kg/day and 29.1 fig Pb/kg/day, respectively, for one, two and three grams of paint ingested per week. The daily absorption of 4.5 fig Pb/kg/day has been found in children with essentially normal blood lead levels of approximately 20 fxg Pb/dl. The estimated daily absorption of lead from paint must be superim- posed on the estimated absorption of lead from diet, APPENDIX A in order to obtain a total daily absorption. Thus, the daily absorption of lead in a child with pica for paint (containing 0.4 percent Pb) may be three to seven times that found in a child receiving a normal diet."(20) "Paint provides the most concentrated source of lead potentially available to a young child. House paints containing the present legal limit of 0.5 per- cent lead would provide 5,000 /xg Pb/g paint. Sachs has indirectly estimated the quantity of paint in- gested by a child with pica for paint. Model x-ray films were made, using known quantities of paint. Model x-ray films were made, using known quantities of paint. These were then compared to abdominal x-ray films taken of children known to have pica for paint. Seven out of 10 randomly selected films showed radio- pacities equivalent to an estimated 1 gram of paint. At least one film was established to show 20 grams of paint".(21) Children with pica for paint eat such things as peeling, cracking or flaking paint or painted plaster inside their homes. Dr. Nauman Greenberg maintains that the association of paint- peeling ingestion and lead poisoning is fundamental. Dr. Greenberg states that given a paint peeling two-inches square from a wall coated with three layers of 0.5 percent lead in paint, the lead content would exceed the daily permissible in- take (DPI) five times. Dr. Greenberg defines DPI as an amount of lead which could be metabilized in a 24-hour period or about 500 grams lead/day. Based on his studies of pica behavior, a two-year old child with a moderate pica for paint would result in a daily ingestion of 10 or more such peelings. The amount ingested, according to Dr. Greenberg, would exceed the DPI 50 times. A brief duration for a pica habit would be from 2 to 4 months and a child with a pica for paint lasting 90 days would APPENDIX A exceed the DPI 4,500 times. Dr. Greenberg goes on to state that the amount of lead absorbed could be between 10 and 80 percent. The amount of lead actually absorbed in the bloodstream for the above example could be anywhere from 450 and 3,600 times the DPI.(22) Dr. Greenberg does not reference where he obtained the definition of DPI, the conditions, or the location of the study. The Committee on Toxicology, National Academy of Sciences feels the daily permissable intake (DPI) should be recalculated. They feel specific consideration should be given to: 1. Lowering the currently acceptable blood lead level of 40 jig Pb/dl for children. 2. Accounting for a higher intestinal absorp- tion rate in young children. 3. Allowing a "safety factor" for children less than one year of age, since no data regarding effects or absorption rates are known for this group. 4. Expressing the DPI on either a body weight Pb/kg/day) or caloric (fig Pb/Kcal) basis."(23) The currently acceptable blood lead level of 40 fig Pb/dl for children was decided by an ad hoc committee convened by the Bureau of Community Environmental Management, Public Health Ser- vice, DHEW in 1971. They also decided that the DPI for children should not exceed 300 jig/Pb/day. Kehoe' s balance studies on adult volunteers were used as reference for the acceptable blood level.(24) APPENDIX A Page 14 of 19 Since more recent studies have come about NAS feels they should take precedence over Kehoe's studies. NAS cites them as follows: "More recent evidence indicates that the absorp- tion of dietary lead is approximately 50 percent in young children. Alexander found that an intake of 10 /Ag/kg/day resulted in a daily fecal excretion of 5 /rg/kg/day. Barltrop found that children with a fecal excretion of approximately 5 /tg/kg/day had a geometric mean blood lead level of 20 jxg Pb/dl with a range of 11-38 /iq Pb/dl. Studies in suckling ani- mals suggest that the intestinal absorption rate of lead from milk may be as high as 70-90 percent. These studies suggest that the absorption rate of lead in children less than one year of age may be higher than 50 percent. In addition, the brain of infant rates accumulates lead to a greater extent than the brain of adult rats. "Based on this new information, the daily absorp- tion of lead from diet can be recalculated. The caloric requirement of a three-year old child weigh- ing 15 kg is one-half of the caloric requirement of an adult weighing 70 kg. Tepper, cited in King,reported that the average adult diet contained 220jiq Pb/24 hours. If a three-year old child consumed the same diet, reduced to one-half to meet his caloric requirements, his dietary lead intake would be Pb/24 hours. Based on a dietary absorption factor of 10 percent, the adult would absorb 22 jxg Pb/24 hours or 0.31 Jlq Pb/kg body weight/day ([220 x 10 percent] - 70 kg). Based on the dietary absorption factor of 50 percent, the child would absorb 55 /xq Pb/24 hours or 3.61/xq Pb/kg body weight (110 x 50 percent - by 15 kg). Thus, when dietary lead absorption is expressed in terms of body weight, it can be calculated that the child would absorb 12 times as much lead as an adult receiv- ing the same diet. The safety of blood lead levels in the range of 25-40 jxq Pb/dl has recently been questioned. Early hematologic changes can be seen in women and children when blood lead levels reach 25-30 jxg Pb/dl. Neuro- logic changes have not been documented at this low level. No data are available relating blood lead levels to possible adverse effects in children less than one year of age."(24) APPENDIX A EVALUATION OF THE HAZARD OF 0.5 PERCENT LEAD PAINT The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that a 0.5 percent level of lead cannot be considered a "safe level". Since NAS claims that no study they have reviewed could estimate a "safe level" of lead in paint, the level of safety associated with 0.5 percent lead in paint was determined by relating mea- surements found in various source documents. The estimated in- take of paint chips in a child with pica for paint were related to adverse effects which had appeared in that child.(25) The NAS used two methods (Method A and 3) for estimating the safety of 0.5 percent lead in paint. They are as follows: "The potential hazard of ingesting lead-contain- ing paints is related to the average amount absorbed on a daily or weekly basis over a period of months. The percentage of ingested lead that is actually ab- sorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into the body varies according to the chemical and physical form of the ingested lead (i.e., paints, dust, etc.), age and other factors. Differences in the rates of absorption of lead from each source can be largely compensated, if the available data are recalculated as jzg Pb absorbed/kg body weight/day. In this way, a resonable estimate of the amount of paint containing 0.5 percent lead necessary to raise Pb-B to a hazardous level can be made. We will use two methods for estimating the hazard of paint containing 0.5 percent lead: "Method A - The first method of estimating the safety of TTT5 percent lead paint will be made by re- lating estimated paint intake to fecal lead outputs found in children with blood lead levels (Pb-B) 60 /ig'Pb/dl. Pica for paint has been observed to be episodic, occuring up to two to three times per week. The analysis of lead in consecutive fecal samples seems to confirm this observation. Through the use of abdominal x-rays, Sachs has demonstrated that some children with pica for paint are capable of consuming more than 1 gram of paint in the 24-36 hour period preceding the time of x-ray. One child was estimated APPENDIX A to have consumed 20 grams of paint during this time. "An estimated range of lead intake can be calcula- ted, using a figure of 0.5 percent lead in paint ( 5000 fig Pb/g paint), a figure of 1 gram paint per ingestion and a figure varying from one to three for frequency of ingestions per week. The estimated week- ly intake is then divided by seven to obtain an aver- age daily intake. Using these figures, the average daily intakes would be 714 jig Pb, 1,429 fig Pb and 2,143 fig Pb, respectively, for one, two and three in- gestions per week. "It is estimated that 50 percent of lead from foods is absorbed by a young child. However, studies in rats have shown that lead chromate in paint films is not as well absorbed as the simple inorganic salts of lead. Gage and Litchfield estimate that lead chromate pigment in paint is absorbed one-fourth to one-third as well as the simple inorganic salts, when incorpora- ted into standard laboratory rat feed, and that lead napthenate is absorbed about one-half as well. Simi- larly, lead octoate in dried ground paint, when fed to monkeys, yields Pb-B's one-third to one-half as high as when lead octoate is fed directly. These data incicate that lead compounds, incorporated into a paint matrix, are absorbed only one-fourth to one-half as well as the free lead salts. We will use an aver- age one one-third for estimating a child's absorption of lead from paint. This average is used because a variety of lead compounds are used in paint. Thus, if children absorb 50 percent of dietary lead, experi- mental data indicate that they will absorb only one- third of this amount or an average of 17% of the lead from paint. Table 4 gives the estimated amounts of lead absorbed and excreted, based on an absorption factor of 17% and estimates of weekly intakes of 1, 2, 3 grams of 0.5 percent paint. Average daily in- takes are also calculated on a per kilogram basis for an average two-year-old child weighing 12.5 kg. APPENDIX A Table 4 Calculated Lead Intake and Absorbed Dose from Paint Pica Amount of Paint Ingested/Week (grams paint Intake if Paint Contains 0.5 per- cent Pb (5,000) Mg Pb/g paint) (ug Pb/day) (Mg Pb/kg/day)* Amount Absorbed (17 (fig Pb/day) Pb percent) (ug Pb kg/day)* Amount Pb Excreted in Feces (83 percent (Mg Pb) 1 714 57.1 121 9.7 593 2 1,429 114.3 243 19.4 1,186 3 2,143 171.4 364 29.1 1,779 * For average two -year old child weighing 12. 5/kg. Source: Appendix E of NAS report (30). "Chisolm and Harrison found a median fecal lead output of 1,110 fig Pb/day in asymptomatic children with blood lead levels 260 jig Pb/dl and positive ro- entgenographic evidence of lead storage in bones. Some also had elevations in urinary coproporphyrin levels. Barltrop found fecal lead outputs ranging from 570 - 1,900 pig Pb/stool sample in three two-year-old symp- tomatic children with blood lead levels ranging from 68-92 fig Pb/dl, positive roentgenographic evidence of lead storage and hemoglobin levels<10 g/dl. From the estimated given in Table 4 and the studies of Chisolm and Harrison and Barltrop and Killala, it appears that the ingestion of between 1 and 2 grams of paint (con- taining 0.5 percent Pb) per week could produce fecal lead outputs equal to those found in children with 260 fig Pb-B. Clinical studies in children have in- dicated that blood lead levels 260 fig Pb/dl are assoc- iated with increased risk of later CNS effects. In contrast, Alexander's balance studies in ele- ven health children receiving a normal diet showed a mean lead intake of 10.61 g Pb/kg body weight/day and a mean fecal lead output of 5.13 fig/kg/day. Using the figures from Table 4, a 12.5 kg child consuming one gram of 0.5 percent Pb paint per week would have a daily lead intake of 57.1 fig Pb/kg body weight, a five-fold increase above that found in a normal diet. Two grams of paint would produce an eleven-fold increase and 3 grams, a sixteen-fold increase. APPENDIX A "Since the best available clinical evidence indi- cates that children with pica can and do ingest 1-3 grams of paint per week and, since the ingestion of between 1 and 2 grams of 0.5 percent lead paint per week would be sufficient to produce daily fecal lead outputs equivalent to those found in children with >60 fig Pb-B, a level of 0.5 percent lead in paint cannot be considered a "safe level." "Method B - An alternative method for determining the safety of 0.5 percent lead paint is based on the absorption studies carried out by Kehoe on adult volun- teers. Kehoe found that blood lead levels increased 17 fig/dl over a period of nine months for each additional mg of lead administered per day. Lead acetate or lead chloride were administered with the diet at dosages of 0.3, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 mg Pb/day. Increases in blood lead levels were proportional to dosage. For the sake of simplicity, we will discuss the subject receiving 1.0 mg Pb/day. An observed intestinal absorption rate of 10 percent resulted in an absorption of 100 fig Pb/day. Calculated on a body weight basis for a standard 70 kg man, this represented 1.43 fig Pb absorbed/kg/day. Thus, the absorption of 1,43 fig Pb/kg/day would be sufficient to produce a rise in blood lead of 17 fig/dl and an ab- sorption of 2.86 fg Pb/kg/day could produce a rise of 34 fig/dl. Similar increments in blood lead concentra- tion have recently been reported by Stuik who has ad- ministered lead acetate at 20 fig Pb/kg/day to 5 adult male and 5 adult female volunteers over a period of 12 weeks. If one assumes an absorption of 10% of the dose, the rate recently found by Rabinowitz et al, then these healthy volunteers would have absorbed*”"?.*0*”fig Pb/ kg/day. In Stuik's subjects, blood lead concentrations increased by 17.7 fig Pb/dl in the females and 20.3 fig Pb/dl in the males after 2-1/2 weeks. "The average blood lead level in normal unexposed children is approximately 20 fig Pb/dl. Early metabolic changes in the hematologic system begin to occur in children when blood lead levels reach the range of 30-40 tig Pb/dl. From the standpoint of preventive medicine, it would seem appropriate to insure that mean blood lead levels for groups do not exceed 20 fig Pb/dl. An addi- tional daily absorption of 1.43 fig Pb/kg/day could in- crease blood lead levels from 20 fig Pb/dl to 37 fig Pb/dl, while an additional absorption of 2.86 fig Pb/kg/day could increase levels to 54 fig Pb/dl. "Based on an absorption factor of 17 percent for lead in paint, Table 5 shows the amount of lead in- take necessary to produce absorption of either 1.43 APPENDIX A ug/kg/day or 2.86 /xg/kg/day. Total daily intakes are also calculated for an average one-year 10 kg child and a two-year-old 12.5 kg. child. Tab].' 5 Calculated Daily External Dose and Associated Internal Dose Increase in Blood Lead (Pb-B) . The LBPPPA, as amended, among other things, directs the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to take action with respect to lead-based paint on cook- ing, eating, and drinking utensils; the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment to take action with respect to lead-based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Fed- eral Government or with Federal assist- ance; and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) to “take such steps and impose such condi- tions as may be necessary or appropriate to prohibit the application of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article” (sec. 401, 90 Stat. 705). The term “lead-based paint” is de- fined in section 501 of the LBPPPA, as amended by Pub. L. 94-317 (90 Stat. 706), as paint containing more than 0.5 percent lead by weight (calculated as lead metal) in the total nonvolatile con- tent of the paint, or the equivalent meas- ure of lead in the dried film of paint al- ready applied, or both. Section 501(3) provides that if the CPSC determines that another level of lead is safe which is greater than 0.06 percent, but not over 0.5 percent, the term “lead-based paint,” with respect to paint manufactured after the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the Commission’s determination, means paint containing by weight (cal- culated as lead mteal) in the total non- volatile content of the paint, more than the level of lead determined by the Com- mission to be safe, or the equivalent measure of lead in the dried film of paint already applied, or both. Section 501(3) (B) (ii) also provides that if the definition of the term “lead- based paint” has not been established by a Commission determination, the term means, with respect to paint which is manufactured after the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on June 23, 1976, paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight (calculated as lead metal) in the total nonvolatile con- tent of the paint, or the equivalent meas- ure of lead in the dried film of paint al- ready applied, or both. Procedurally, the amended LBPPPA provides that the Commission shall make its determination of a safe level of lead in paint during a 6-month period begin- ning on the date of enactment of the amendments (June 23, 1976.) The deter- mination is to be made on the basis of available data and information, after providing opportunity for an oral hear- ing, and after considering recommenda- tions of the Secretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare (including those of the Center for Disease Control) and of the National Academy of Sciences. Letters requesting these recommendations will soon be transmitted. Public Hearing The oral hearing in this matter is open to all interested members of the public and is scheduled to be conducted on September 13, 1976, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on September 14, 1976, from 9:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. Any change in these dates will be announced in the Federal Register. The hearing will be held in the General Services Adminis- tration Auditorium, 18th and F Streets, NW, Washington, D.C. Persons wishing to make oral presen- tations should contact the Office of the Secretary by telephone (202-634-7700) or in writing (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207) at least 10 days before the proceeding so that scheduling arrangements can be made. Presentations will be limited to mat- ters relevant to a determination of a safe level of lead in paint, and any poten- tial technological, economic and envi- ronmental effects of lowering the level. In addition, presentations may be made relevant to the proposal to declare “lead- based paint,” as determined by this pro- ceeding or by operation of law, as well as certain other articles bearing such paint, as “banded hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.), and the proposal to revoke a regulation (16 CFR 1500.17 (a)(6)) under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.), as discussed in separate notices also in this issue of the Federal Register. (See FR Docs. 76-23112 and 76-23113, infra.) The regulations for oral presentations regarding proposed consumer product safety rules, 16 CFR Part 1109, issued by the Commission on October 14, 1975 (40 FR 48122), shall govern this proceeding. Copies of these regulations may be ob- tained from the Office of the Secretary. Oral testimony will be presented to the Commission with Chairman S. John By- ington acting as presiding officer. The presiding officer and the Commission may direct questions to persons testify- ing. In addition, the presiding officer will, to the extent practicable, permit ques- tions from interested persons and Com- mission staff members to be presented to persons testifying. In addition to making oral presenta- tions, interested persons may also sub- mit relevant written material, including data, views, and arguments. Such ma- terial should be submitted, preferably in five copies, addressed to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207, before the close of business, September 24, 1976. Received submissions may be inspected in the Of- fice of the Secretary, 8th Floor, 1750 K Street NW., Washington, D.C., during working hours Monday through Friday. The determination of a safe level of lead in paint shall be announced as soon as practicable by notice published in the Federal Register upon completion on these proceedings. Dated: August 4,1976. Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc.76-23111 Filed 8-9-76;8:45 am] FEDERAf REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 155—TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1976 PROPOSED RULES 33637 CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [ 16 CFR Parts 1145,1150 ] LEAD-BASED PAINT AND CERTAIN CON- SUMER PRODUCTS BEARING LEAD BASED PAINT Proposed Regulation Under the Consumer Product Safety Act as Banned Hazardous Products The purpose of this document is to propose regulating lead-based paint and certain other consumer products bearing such paint under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq., rather than the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq., and to propose a regulation under the CPSA declaring as banned hazardous products (1) lead-containing paint and similar sur- face-coating materials containing more than a safe level of lead, (2) toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating mate- rials containing more than a safe level of lead; and (3) articles of furniture bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials con- taining more than a safe level of lead. Background As discussed in more detail in a sepa- rate document in this issue of the Fed- eral Register, (See FR Doc. 76-23111, supra) the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC), pursuant to the Lead-Based Paint Poi- soning Prevention Act (LBPPPA), 42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq., as amended by the Na- tional Consumer Health Information and Health Promotion Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-317, 90 Stat. 705-706) has commenced a proceeding to determine whether a level of lead greater than 0.06 percent but not more than 0.5 percent is safe. If the Commission makes a determina- tion within this range, then under the amended LBPPPA, paint with lead above that level will be considered “lead-based paint” for purposes of administration of the LBPPPA, effective 6 months after the date of such determination. If the Commission makes no determination within that range, the present limit of lead in paint of 0.5 percent will be low- ered automatically by statute to 0.06 per- cent as applied to paint manufactured after the expiration of the 12-month pe- riod commencing June 23, 1976, the date of enactment of Public Law 94-317 amending the LBPPPA. The Commission is also directed by the amended LBPPPA to “take such steps and impose such conditions as may be necessary or appro- priate to prohibit the application of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article” (sec. 401(c), 90 Stat. 705). In addition to Its responsibilities under under the LBPPPA, the Commission also regulates lead paint and certain articles bearing such paint under the FHSA. Issued under the authority of the FHSA, 16 CFR 1500.17(a) (6) (i) declares as banned hazardous substances, “any paint or other similar surface-coating material intended, or packaged in a form suit- able for use in or around the household that: (A) Is shipped in interstate commerce after December 31, 1973, and contains lead compounds of which the lead content (cal- culated as the metal) is in excess of 0.06 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film; or (B) Is shipped in interstate commerce after December 31, 1972, and contains lead compounds of which the lead content (cal- culated as the metal) is in excess of 0.5 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film. Except that: (D) The provisions of paragraph (a) (6) (1) of this section do not apply to artists’ paints and related materials. In addition to the ban on paint and other similar surface coatings in para- graph (a) (6) (i), paragraph (a) (6) (ii) declares as banned hazardous substances the following: (ii) Any toy or other article intended for use by children that: (A) Is shipped in interstate commerce after December 31, 1973, and bears any paint or other similar surface-coating material containing lead compounds of which the lead content (calculated as the metal) is in ex- cess of 0.06 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film; or (B) Is shipped in interstate commerce after December 31, 1972, and bears any paint or other similar surface-coating material containing lead compounds of which the lead content (calculated as the metal) is in ex- cess of 0.5 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film. Because of objections filed to the pro- vision lowering the level to 0.06 percent, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on August 10, 1972 (37 FR 16078), pursuant to section 701(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 371(e), stayed the portions of the regulation lowering the level to 0.06 percent. The 0.5 percent level was unaffected. On May 14, 1973, functions under the FHSA were transferred from FDA to CPSC and on December 27, 1973 (38 FR 35302), the Commission amended § 1500.17(a) (6) to continue the 0.5 percent level pending completion of ani- mal studies underway regarding the tox- icity of paint containing lead. The Com- mission, on December 9, 1974 (39 FR 42902), again amended the regulation to continue the 0.5 percent level pend- ing the results of ongoing research, which included a report being prepared by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Thus, at the present time, under § 1500.17(a) (6), the 0.5 percent level re- mains in effect, and the 0.06 percent pro- visions are stayed. In addition to the ongoing FHSA regu- latory activity in this matter, Consumers Union filed a petition on February 24, 1975, requesting the Commission to issue a regulation under the FHSA banning household paint and toys or other chil- dren's articles bearing paint containing more than 0.06 percent of lead. The peti- tion also requests the Commission to take action under the CPSA to achieve a similar result. To date no action has been taken by the Commission on the petition because the Commission has been await- ing the final NAS report on lead-contain- ing paint. Thus, the Commission has responsibil- ities under the amended LBPPPA to de- termine a safe level of lead in paint and to prohibit application of lead-based paint to toys and furniture. This deter- mination under the LBPPPA will affect the regulation of lead-containing paint used in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal Govern- ment or with Fedreal assistance and lead paint on cooking, eating, and drinking utensils. Moreover, the Commission is responsible under the FHSA for regulat- ing lead-containing paint for use in or around households and certain other ar- ticles bearing such paint and has before it a petition under both the FHSA and the CPSA to lower the permissible level from 0.5 to 0.06 percent. As mentioned previously, the provi- sions of § 1500.17(a)(6) regarding lead- containing paint above the 0.06 percent level have been stayed because of objec- tions. The rulemaking procedures in- volved (21 U.S.C. 371(e)) require the conduct of evidentiary hearings once ob- jections have been filed to a regulation. Under the CPSA, an opportunity for an oral hearing is required before issuance of a consumer product safety rule. Also, as noted above, under the LBPPPA, an oral hearing is required to be conducted before the Commission’s determination of a safe level of lead. Thus, if the Com- mission were to proceed independently under more than one of these acts, it would be required to hold public hearings on essentially the same subject matter. Accordingly, the Commission has de- cided to consolidate the proceedings un- der the various acts. Section 30(d) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2079(d)), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Commission Improve- ments Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-284; 90 Stat. 510), provides for certain regula- tory actions to proceed under the CPSA rather than the FHSA and reads as follows: (d) A risk of injury which is associated with a consumer product and which could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action under the Federal Hazardous Sub- stances Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, or the Flammable Fabrics Act may be regulated under this Act only If the Commission by rule finds that it is in the public interest to regulate such risk of injury under this Act. Such a rule shall identify the risk of injury proposed to be regulated under this Act and shaU be promulgated in ac- cordance with section 653 of the title 5, United States Code, except that the period to be provided by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c) of such section for sub- mission of data, views, and arguments re- specting the rule shall not exceed thirty days from the date of publication pursuant to subsection (b) of such section of a notice respecting the rule. Pursuant to section 30(d) of the CPSA, the Commission believes that the public interest requires the regulation of lead- containing paint, and certain other con- sumer products bearing such paint under provisions of the CPSA rather than the FHSA. Because the Commission is obligated under the amended LBPPPA BASED PAINT Except that: FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 155—TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1976 33638 PROPOSED RULES to make its determination of a safe level of lead in paint within 6 months after June 23, 1976, proceeding under the FHSA at the same time is unfeasible because of the time-consuming nature of hearings that would be conducted under section 701(e) of the FDCA. (See 21 U.S.C. 371(e) and 21 CFR 2.48 et seq.) Moreover, the complex nature of the FHSA proceedings might tend to deter interested parties from participating to the extent possible under the LBPPPA and the CPSA. On the other hand, section 9 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058), which' governs the issuance of consumer product safety rules, requires notice of proposal with opportunity for submitting written com- ments in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, with the added requirement that inter- ested persons be given an opportunity for the oral presentations of data, views, or arguments. The requirements for oral presentation of views under the CPSA and the requirements for an oral hearing under the LBPPPA are compatible and may be consolidated procedurally be- cause both hearings are informal. Therefore, since the risk of injury ad- dressed in both proceedings involves de- termination of a level of lead which would be permitted in paint, the Com- mission concludes that the public inter- est would be served by resolving all re- lated questions in one proceeding whereby all interested members of the public would be able to present their in- formation and views at one time. A regu- lation (16 CFR Part 1145) is proposed below, pursuant to section 30(d) of the CPSA, to provide for regulating lead- based paint and certain other consumer products bearing such paint under the CPSA, rather than the FHSA. Under the CPSA the Commission is authorized to, among other things, is- sue consumer product safety standards pursuant to sections 7 and 9 of the act and to issue rules under sections 8 and 9 of the act declaring products to be banned hazardous products. A product may be declared a banned hazardous product if the Commission finds that it presents an unreasonable risk of injury and that no feasible consumer product safety standard under the CPSA would adequately protect the public from the risk of injury presented. The scope of product coverage under the CPSA is de- fined and limited by the definition of "consumer product" in section 3(a)(1) of the act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)). Ex- cept for certain specific exclusions, a “consumer product” includes any arti- cle, or component part thereof, pro- duced or distributed for sale to, or for the personal use, consumption, or en- joyment of, a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or oth- erwise. Thus, coverage under the CPSA is similar to, but somwhat broader than, coverage under the FHSA, which in- cludes articles intended or packaged for use in or around the household plus toys or other articles intended for use by children. As specified above, the currently ef- fective provisions of § 1500.16(a) (6) un- der the FHSA already ban paint and other similar surface-coating material for household use containing more than 0.5 percent of lead and toys or other articles for children bearing such paint or similar surface-coating material. Thus, regulating such products under the CPSA amounts to simply a transfer of the regulations from the authority of the FHSA to the CPSA. A notice proposing revocation of § 1500.17(a) (6) is there- fore published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (See FR Doc. 76-23113, infra.) Regarding lead-containing paint and certain other consumer products bearing such paint not currently subject to § 1500.17(a) (6), the Commission believes that the Congressional intent expressed in the amended LBPPPA is for all paint for consumer use containing lead in ex- cess of what is determined to be a safe level under the LBPPPA proceedings, and certain other consumer products bearing lead-containing paint, to be considered as presenting an ‘‘unreason- able risk of injury” as that term is used in sections 8 and 9 of the CPSA. This intent is manifested in the LBPPPA by the provisions directing this and other Federal agencies to take certain regu- latory actions with respect to lead-based paint, including the specific provision di- recting the CPSC to prohibit the appli- cation of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article. With respect to the directions to the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment, “lead-based paint” as defined in the LBPPPA has already been found to be unsafe for use in housing construct- ed or rehabilitated by the Federal Gov- ernment, or with Federal assistance in any form. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has been man- dated to prohibit the application of “lead-based paint” as defined in the LBPPPA to any cooking utensil, drinking utensil, or eating utensil. Therefore, since paint containing lead above cer- tain levels has been deemed unsafe by Congress for these certain uses, the Com- mission concludes that it is also unsafe for other similar consumer and nonfed- erally-assisted housing uses and that it presents an unreasonable risk of injury. Findings Accordingly, the Commission prelimi- narily finds the following to present an unreasonable risk of injury: 1. Paint and other similar surface- coating materials that contain lead com- pounds of which the lead content (calcu- lated as the metal) is in excess of the percent of lead found under the LBPPPA proceeding to be safe. 2. Toys and other articles intended for use by children that bear any paint or similar surface-coating materials in ex- cess of the percent of lead found under to LBPPPA proceeding to be safe. 3. Articles of furniture that bear any paint or similar surface-coating mate- rials in excess of the percent of lead found under the LBPPPA proceeding to be safe. In addition to the finding of unrea- sonable risk of injury required to ini- tiate rulemaking under sections 8 and 9 of the CPSA, the Commission, to propose a consumer product safety rule declar- ing a consumer product a banned haz- ardous product, must find that no fea- sible consumer product safety standard under the CPSA would adequately pro- tect the public from the unreasonable risk of injury associated with such prod- uct. With respect to declaring as banned hazardous products certain consumer products containing or bearing paint containing lead in excess of a specific level, the Commission also finds prelim- inarily that known technology cannot make such paint safe. Accordingly, the Commission finds that a consumer prod- uct safety standard for paint containing more than a safe level of lead is unfea- sible and unlikely to serve as adequate protection of the public. Proposal The Commission therefore proposes below to declare that certain lead-con- taining paints and similar lead-contain- ing surface-coating materials, and toys and articles of furniture bearing such paints or coating materials, are banned hazardous products. Accordingly, pursuant to provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (secs. 8, 9, 30(d), 86 Stat. 1215-17, 1231, as amended 90 Stat. 506, 510; 15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058, 2079(d)), the Commission proposes that Title 16, Chapter n, be amended by adding to Subchapter B the following new Parts 1145 and 1150: PART 1145—REGULATION OF PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO OTHER ACTS UNDER THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT Sec. 1145.1 Scope. 1145.2 Paint (and other similar surface- coating materials) containing lead; toys, children's articles, and arti- cles of furniture bearing such paint (or similar surface-coating mate- rials) ; risk of lead poisoning. Authority: Sec. 30(d), 86 Stat. 1231, as amended, 90 Stat. 510; 15 U.S.C. 2079(d). § 1145.1 Scope. This Part 1145 sets forth risks of in- jury associated with consumer products that could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action under the Fed- eral Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261-1274), the Poison Prevention Pack- aging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471-1476), or the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1191-1204), but for which, pursuant to section 30(d) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has, by rule, found that it is In the public interest to institute a regulatory action under the Consumer Product Safety Act. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 155—TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1976 PROPOSED RULES 33639 § 1145.2 Paint (and other similar sur- face-coating materials) containing lead; toys, children’s articles, and ar- ticles of furniture bearing such paint (or similar surface-coating ma- terials) ; risk of lead poisoning. (a) The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to regulate the risk of lead poisoning to young children from the ingestion of paint and other similar surface-coating materials under the Consumer Product Safety Act rather than under the Federal Hazardous Sub- stances Act because of the desirability of consolidating the public procedures re- lated to such regulation with the proce- dure under the Lead-Based Paint Poison- ing Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.), as amended by the National Con- sumer Health Information and Health Promotion Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-317; 90 Stat. 705-706), for the determination of a safe level of lead. Consolidation of these proceedings will facilitate greater public participation and a more expedi- tious resolution of the issues. (b) Paint and other similar surface- coating materials containing lead and toys, children’s articles, and articles of furniture bearing such paint or other similar surface-coating materials that present a risk of lead poisoning to young children by ingestion shall therefore be regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Such regulation shall include all directly related pending and future rulemaking, as well as all directly related pending and future action on petitions. PART 1150—BANNED HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS Sec. 1150.1 Scope. 1150.5 Lead-containing paint and other similar surface-coating materials. 1150.6 Toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead-con- taining paint or other similar sur- face-coating materials. 1150.7 Articles of furniture bearing lead- containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials. Authority: Secs. 8, 9, 86 Stat. 1215-1217, as amended, 90 Stat. 506; 15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058. § 1150.1 Scope. This Part 1150 sets forth the regula- tions whereby the Consumer Product Safety Commission declares certain con- sumer products to be banned hazardous products under section 8 of the Con- sumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057) on the basis that (a) the consumer product is being, or will be, distributed in commerce; (b) such consumer prod- uct presents an unreasonable risk of in- jury; and (c) no feasible consumer prod- uct safety standard under said act would adequately protect the public from the unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product. § 1150.5 Lead-containing paint and other similar surface-coating ma- terials. On the basis that the dried film of such consumer products presents the hazard to young children of lead poisoning upon ingestion, paint, and other similar sur- face-coating materials that contain lead compounds of which the lead content (calculated as the metal) is in excess of (the level, expressed as a percentage, to be determined “safe” by CPSC under pro- ceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, as amended by the National Consumer Health Informa- tion and Health Promotion Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-317; 90 Stat. 705-706)) of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film are banned hazardous products, except for the following; (a) Artists paint and related materials. § 1150.6 Toys and other articles in- tended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials. On the basis that the dried film from paint or other similar surface-coating materials on such consumer products presents the hazard to young children of lead poisoning upon ingestion, toys and other articles intended for use by chil- dren that bear any paint or other simi- lar surface-coating material containing lead compounds of which the lead con- tent (calculated as the metal) is in excess of (the level, expressed as a percentage, to be determined “safe” by CPSC under proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, amended as stated in § 1150.6 above) of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film are banned hazardous prod- ucts. § 1150.7 Articles of furniture bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials. On the basis that the dried film from paint or other similar surface-coating materials on such consumer products presents the hazard to young children of lead poisoning upon ingestion, arti- cles of furniture that bear any paint or other similar surface-coating material containing lead compounds of which the lead content (calculated as the metal) is in excess of (the level, expressed as a percentage, to be determined “safe” by CPSC under proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, amended as stated in § 1150.6 above) of the total weight of the contained solid or dried paint film are banned hazardous products. Regarding proposed Part 1145, inter- ested persons are invited to submit writ- ten comments on or before September 9, 1976. Comments may be accompanied by written data, views, and arguments and should be submitted, preferably in five copies, addressed to the Secretary, Con- sumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 29207. Received com- ments and other related material may be seen in the Office of the Secretary, 8th Floor, 1750 K Street NW., Washington, D.C., during working hours Monday through Friday. Regarding proposed Part 1150, inter- ested persons are invited to submit writ- ten comments before the close of busi- ness, September 24, 1976. Comments may be accompanied by written data, views, and arguments and should be sub- mitted, preferably in five copies, ad- dressed to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washing- ton, D.C. 20207. Received comments and other related material may be seen in the Office of the Secretary, 8th floor, 1750 K Street NW., Washington, D.C., during working hours Monday through Friday. In the matter of proposed Part 1150, an oral hearing open to all interested members of the public is scheduled to be conducted on September 13,1976, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September 14, 1976, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Any change in these dates will be announced in the Federal Register. The hearing will be held in the General Services Administra- tion Auditorium, 18th & F Streets NW., Washington, D.C. The hearing in this matter is to be consolidated with the hearing on the determination under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act of a safe level of lead announced separately in this issue of the Federal Register. A written transcript of the pro- ceedings will be prepared. The regula- tions for oral presentations, 16 CFR Part 1109, issued by CPSC on October 14, 1975 (40 FR 48122), shall govern this proceed- ing. Copies of these regulations may be obtained from the Office of the Secre- tary. Oral testimony will be presented to the Commission with Chairman S. John Byington acting as presiding of- ficer. The presiding officer and the Com- mission may direct questions to persons testifying. In addition, the presiding of- ficer will, to the extent practicable, per- mit questions from interested persons and Commission staff members to be presented to persons testifying. Persons wishing to make oral presenta- tions should contact the Office of the Secretary by telephone (202-634-7700) or in writing (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207) at least 10 days before the proceeding so that scheduling arrangements can be made. Oral presentations as well as writ- ten comments will be limited to matters relevant to a determination of a safe level of lead in paint and any technological, economic, and environmental effects of lowering the level. In addition, written comments and oral presentations may be made relevant to the instant proposal under the Consumer Product Safety Act and the revocation of regulations (16 CFR 1500.17(a) (6)) under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, also proposed in this issue of the Federal Register. In particular, with respect to proposed Part 1150, the Commission solicits data, information, views, and arguments as to the following: 1. The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is designed to eliminate or reduce. .2. The approximate number of con- sumer products, or types or classes thereof, subject to such rule. 3. The need of the public for the con- sumer product subject to such rule and the probable effect of such rule upon the utility, cost, or availability of such prod- ucts to meet such need. 4. Any means of achieving the objec- tive of the rule while minimizing adverse FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 155—TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1976 33640 PROPOSED RULES effects on competition or disruption or dislocation of manufacturing and other commercial practices consistent with the public health and safety. 5. The necessity of the rule to eliminate or reduce the unreasonable risk of injury associated with the consumer products subject to the rule. 6. Whether the rule is in the public interest. 7. The feasibility of a consumer prod- uct safety standard under the CPSA to protect the public adequately from the unreasonable risk of injury associated with lead in paint above the safe level. 8. The potential environmental effects of the rule. In making its final decision on the rules proposed herein, the record shall consist of all information available to the Commission, whether obtained during the course of this proceeding or outside of this proceeding. Dated: August 4,1976. Sad ye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc.76-23112 Filed 8-9-76;8:45 am] [ 16 CFR Part 1500] CERTAIN LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT; TOYS AND OTHER ARTICLES BEARING SUCH PAINT INTENDED FOR USE BY CHIL- DREN Proposed Revocation of Regulation The purpose of this document is to pro- pose revoking a regulation (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(6)) under the Federal Haz- ardous Substances Act (FHSA), (15 UJS.C. 1261 et seq.), declaring certain lead-containing paint, and toys or other articles Intended for use by children bearing such paint, to be banned hazard- ous substances. Background Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, (See FR Doc. 78-23112, supra) regulations (16 CFR Part 1150) are pro- posed under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.), declaring as banned hazardous products: (1) Lead-containing paint and similar surface-coating materials con- taining more than a safe level of lead, (2) Toys and other articles Intended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials containing more than a safe level of lead, and (3) Articles of furni- ture bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials containing more than a safe level of lead. A determination of a “safe level of lead” will be made by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA), (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.), as amended by the National Consumer Health Information and Health Promo- tion Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-317, 90 Stat. 705-706). This determination, based on proceedings announced in a separate no- tice in this issue of the Federal Register, involve consideration of whether a level of lead in paint which is greater than 0.06 percent but not in excess of 0.5 percent is safe. (See FR Doc. 76-23111, supra) Currently, 16CFR 1500.17(a) (6) under the FHSA declares as banned hazardous substances any paint or other similar surface-coating material that contains lead compounds of which the lead con- tent (calculated as the metal) is in ex- cess of 0.5 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film. Section 1500.17(a)(6) also declares as banned hazardous substances any toy or other article intended for use by children that bears such paint or coating ma- terial. Section 1500.17(a)(6) also contains certain provisions (subdivisions (i) (A) and (ii) (A)) that were stayed as a re- sult of objections filed pursuant to sec- tion 701(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)). The stayed provisions would have lowered the 0.5 percent permitted level of lead to 0.06 percent. Thus, only the 0.5 per- cent level prescribed by § 1500.17(a) (6) is in effect. (See Federal Register docu- ments of August 10, 1972 (37 FR 16078), December 27, 1973 (38 FR 35302), and December 9,1974 (39 FR 42902)). As the two asociated CPSC documents also in this Federal Register Indicate, the Commission is presently commenc- ing action to determine a “safe level of lead” under the LBPPPA and proposing ing paint under the CPSA. These CFSA to establish regulations for lead-contain- regulatlons, when issued, would render the FHSA regulation (5 1500.17(a)(6)) obsolete and unnecessary. Proposal § 1500.17 [Amended] Accordingly, pursuant to provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (sec. 2 (f) (1) (A), (q), 74 Stat. 372, 374, as amended by 80 Stat. 1304-05; (15 U.S.C. 1261(f) (1) (A), (q))) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 701 (e), (f), (g), 52 Stat. 1055- 56, as amended 70 Stat. 919, 72 Stat. 948; (21 U.S.C. 371 (e), (f), (g)) and under authority vested in the Commission by the Consumer Product Safety Act (sec. 30 (а) 86 Stat. 1231; (15 U.S.C. 2079(a))), the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR Part 1500 by revoking § 1500.17(a) (б) In its proposal to replace § 1500.17(a) (6) by regulations promulgated under the CPSA, the Commission has included in the proposed CPSA regulations amend- ments and exemptions presently con- tained in § 1500.17(a) (6). Any outstand- ing proposals under the FHSA to amend § 1500.17(a) (6) shall, upon promulgation of the CPSA be transferred to the authority of, and acted upon under, the CPSA. Any outstanding petitions to amend 5 1500.17(a)(6) shall also, upon promulgation of the CPSA regulations, be transferred and considered under that act. The effective date of the proposed rev- ocation of 5 1500.17(a)(6), if promul- gated, will be the same as the effective date of the CPSA regulations replacing it. Interested persons are invited to sub- mit, on or before September 24, 1976, written comments regarding this pro- posal. Written comments and any ac- companying data or material should be submitted, preferably in five copies, ad- dressed to the Secretary, Consumer Prod- uct Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207. Comments may be accom- panied by a memorandum or brief in support thereof. Received comments may be seen In the Office of the Secretary, 8th floor, 1750 K Street NW., Washington, D.C., during working hours Monday through Friday. Dated: August 4,1976. Sadyx E. Dukn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [TO Doc.76-23113 Filed 6-0-76; 8:« mb] FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41. NO. 155—TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1976 APPENDIX C federal register WEDNESDAY, OCTODER 6, 1976 PART III: CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION LEAD-BASED PAINT Consumer Products; Proposed Promulgation and Revocation of Regulation; Extension of Comment Periods Hearing: Safe Level Determination 44126 PROPOSED RULES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [16CFR Part 1150] LEAD-BASED PAINT AND CERTAIN CON- SUMER PRODUCTS BEARING LEAD- BASED PAINT Banned Hazardous Products; Extension of Date for Filing Comments; Extension of Date for Promulgating Rule or Withdraw- ing Proposed Rule The purpose of this notice is to an- nounce the extension until April 1, 1977, of the period of time within which the Consumer Product Safety Commission is required to either promulgate or with- draw the consumer product safety rule regarding lead-based paint proposed on August 10, 1976. This notice also an- nounces that the period of time for sub- mitting "written comments on the Au- gust 10 proposal is extended until Oc- tober 26, 1976. In the Federal Register of August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33637), the Commission pro- posed to establish a regulation (16 CFR Part 115ft) under sections 8 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058) to declare-as banned hazardous products (1) lead-containing paint and similar mate- rials containing more than a safe level of lead, (2) toys and other articles in- tended for use by children bearing lead- containing paint or other similar surface- coating materials containing more than a safe level of lead, and (3) articles of furniture bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating mate- rials containing more than a safe level of lead. An oral hearing on the matter at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to testify was conducted on September 13, 1976. The last date for filing written comments on the proposal was September 24, 1976. The determination of a safe level of lead will be made in accordance with a separate proceeding under the Lead- Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.), as amended (Pub. L. 94-317). This proceeding was also commenced by an announcement in the Federal Register on Apgust 10, 1976, 41 FR 33636, and the peribd of time for filing written Comments relating to that proceeding has also been extended from September 24, 1976 until October 26, 1976 by FR Doc. 76-29321 appearing in this Issue of the Federal Register. As provided in section 9 of the Con- sumer Product Safety Act, whenever the Commission proposes a rule declaring a product to be a banned hazardous prod- uct, it must, within 60 days after pub- lication of the proposal, (1) promulgate the consumer product safety rule if the appropriate findings are made, or (2) withdraw the proposal if it determines that the the rule is not reasonably nec- essary or not in the public interest. The 60-day period, however, may be extended for good cause if the Commission pub- lishes Its reasons for the extension in the Federal Register. In the case of the August 10 proposal, the 60th day falls on October 9,1976. With respect to promulgating or with- drawing the consumer product safety rule proposed on August 10, the Com- mission believes that a reasonable date for publication of the appropriate Fed- eral Register notice is April 1, 1977. As indicated in the August 10 proposal, the Commission intends to establish the maximum level of lead in paint under the Consumer Product Safety Act rule ht the level determined to be a safe level under the LBPPPA. Therefore, since the determination under the LBPPPA is re- quired to be made after consideration of available information, including the rec- ommendations of several specific agen- cies and organizations, and after provid- ing the opportunity for an oral hearing, an extension of the period until April 1 is necessary to permit the Commission to first consider the information avail- able with respect to determining a safe level of lead in paint. Thereafter, the Commission must consider available in- formation with respect to the findings necessary for promulgating the proposed consumer product safety rule. Additional time will also be required to consider and respond to the comments submitted on the proposal and to draft the Federal Register notice establishing the rule. Regarding the period of time for sub- mitting written comments and informa- tion relating to the consumer product safety rule proposed on August 10, the Commission (as in the matter of ex- tending the comment period in the LBPPPA proceeding from September 24 until October 26, 1976, announced else- where in this issue of the Federal Reg- ister) is /&lso extending the comment period in the instant proceeding until October 26, based on a request sub- mitted by the National Paint and Coat- ings Association. This is to ensure that the information available is as complete as possible. Accordingly, pursuant to provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (secs. 8, 9, 86 Stat. 1215-17; 15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058), the Commission, for good cause, as stated above, extends the period of time within which it must promulgate or withdraw the consumer product safety rule (16 CFR Part 1150) proposed in the Federal Register of August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33637) until April 1, 1977. Interested persons may submit writ- ten material relevant to the proposal, in- cluding data, views, and arguments, preferably in five copies, addressed to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207, before the close of business, October 26, 1976. Received submissions may be in- spected in the Office of the Secretary, 3rd Floor, 1111 18th Street NW„ Wash- ington, D.C., during working hours Monday through Friday. Dated: October 1, 1976. Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.j [FR Doc.76-29322 Filed 10-5-76:8:45 am] [ 16CFR Part 1500] CERTAIN LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT; TOYS AND OTHER ARTICLES BEARING SUCH PAINT INTENDED FOR USE BY CHIL- DREN Proposed Revocation of Regulation; Exten- sion of Time for Submitting Comments The purpose of this notice is to an- nounce that the comment period on the proceeding to revoke a regulation (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(6)) under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.), declaring certain lead-containing paint, and toys or other articles intended for use by children bearing such paint, to be banned hazard- ous substances, has been extended from September 24, 1976, until October 26, 1976. A notice was published in the Federal Register of August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33636), commencing a proceeding under recent amendments (Pub. L. 94-317) to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven- tion Act (LBPPPA) (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.) for a determination by the Con- sumer Product Safety Commission of a safe level of lead in paint for residential uses. On the same date a notice was also published proposing a consumer product safety rule under the Consumer Product Act (CPSA) to declare as banned hazardous products paint, similar sur- face-coating materials, toys, articles in- tended for use by children, and articles of furniture, containing or bearing lead or paint or other similar surface-coating materials with lead in excess of the level determined safe under the LBPPPA. Since the proposal under the Consumer Product Safety Act would, if promul- gated, supplant the FHSA lead paint regulation, a proposal was also published on August 10 (41 FR 33640) to revoke the regulation simultaneous with the pro- mulgation of the consumer product safety rule. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, (FR Doc. 76-29322, Proposed Rules and FR Doc. 76-29321, notices) notices have been published extending the period of time for the filing of writ- ten comments and information on the LBPPPA and CPSA proceedings from September 24, 1976, until October 26, 1976. This extension was based upon a request submitted by the National Paint and Coatings Association for additional time to submit information. Since the proposed revocation of the regulation under the'FHSA is directly related to the proceedings under the LBPPPA and CPSA, it is appropriate to extend the comment period on the FHSA proposal from September 24, 1976, until Octo- ber 26,1976, as well. Accordingly, pursuant to provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (sec. 2(f)(1)(A), (q), 74 Stat. 372, 374, as amended by 80 Stat. 1304-05; (15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A), (q))) and the Federal Pood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 701(e), (f), (g), 52 Stat. 1055-56, as amended 70 Stat. 919, 72 Stat. 948; (21 U.S.C. 371(e), (f), (g)) and under authority vested In the Commission by the Consumer Product Safety Act (sec. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 195—WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1976 PROPOSED RULES 30(a), 86 Stat. 1231; 15 U.S.C. 2079(a)), the Commission extends the period of time for submitting written comments on the proposal of August 10, 1976 (41 PR 33640), to revoke 16 CFR 1500.17(a)(6) until October 26,1976. Interested persons are invited to sub- mit, on or before October 26, 1976 writ- ten comments, regarding this proposal. Written comments and any accompany- ing data or material should be sub- mitted preferably in five copies, ad- dressed to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Wash- ington, D.C. 20207. Comments may be accompanied by a memorandum or brief in support thereof. Received com- ments may be seen in the Office of the Secretary, 3rd floor, 1111 18th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. during working hours Monday through Friday. Dated: October 1,1976. Sad ye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc.76-29323 Filed 10-6-576:8:45 am] 44127 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 195—WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1976 44128 NQTICES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION LEAD-BASED PAINT Proceeding To Determine Safe Level; Extension of Comment Period The purpose of this notice is to an- nounce that the comment period on the proceeding to determine a safe level of lead in paint has been extended from September 24, 1976, until October 26, 1976. On August 10, 1976, the Consumer Product Safety Commission published a notice in. the Federal Register (41 FR 33636) commencing a proceeding under recent amendments (Pub. L. 94-317) to the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Pre- vention Act (LBPPPA) (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.) to determine a safe level of lead in paint for residential uses. Under the amended LBPPPA the Commission has been directed to deter- mine whether a level of lead in paint which is greater than 0.06 percent, but not over 0.5 percent, is safe. If the Com- mission makes such a determination the definition of the term “lead-based paint,” with respect to paint manufac- tured after the expiration of the 6- month period beginning on the date of the Commission’s determination, means paint containing by weight (calculated as lead metal) in the total non-volatile content of, the paint, or the equivalent measure of lead in the dried film of paint already applied, or both, more than the level of lead determined by the Com- mission to be safe. If the definition of the term “lead- based paint” has not been established by a Commission determination the term means, with respect to paint which is manufactured after June 22, 1977, paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight. The present definition of the term “lead-based paint” is paint con- taining more than 0.5 percent 'lead by weight. The amended LBPPPA specifies that the Commission determination of a safe level of lead in paint is to be made be- fore December 23, 1976, and is to be based on all available data and informa- tion after providing an opportunity for an oral hearing and after considering recommendations of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (includ- ing those of the Center for Disease Con- trol) and of the National Academy of Sciences. The oral hearing in this matter was conducted on September 13, 1976, and a transcript was made which is available for inspection at the Office of the Sec- retary, 3rd floor, 1111 18th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. The recommendations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the National Academy of Sciences as well as other comments and information pertaining to the mat- ter have also been received and are available for inspection in the Office of the Secretary. The last date for the submission of written information and comments re- garding this proceeding had been estab- lished by the Commission and announced in the Federal Register notice of Au- gust 10, 1976, as September 24, 1976. The National Paint and Coatings Association, however, representatives of which testi- fied at the oral hearing on September 13, has requested that the comment period be extended to provide additional time to submit responses to questions pre- sented at the hearing by counsel for Consumers Union and certain other in- formation. The Commission, after con- sidering this request, believes that it is desirable to have the record for decision as complete as possible, and has there- fore decided to extend the comment period to October 26, 1976 for all inter- ested parties. An extension of the com- ment period to this date is reasonable because it will permit all available in- formation to be evaluated by the Com- mission prior to its December 22, 1976 deadline for a decision on a safe level of lead in paint. Accordingly, interested persons may submit relevant written material, includ- ing data, views, and arguments, prefer- ably in five copies, addressed to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207, before the close of business, October 26, 1976. Received submissions may be in- spected in the Office of the Secretary, 3rd floor, 1111 18th St. N.W., Washing- ton, D.C., during working hours Monday through Friday. Dated: October 1,1976. Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc.76-29321 Filed 10-5-76;8:45 am] FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 19S—WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1976 9404 CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF SAFE LEVEL OF LEAD IN PAINT Announcement of Decision This notice announces the decision of the Consumer Product Safety Commis- sion under the Lead-Based Paint Poison- ing Prevention Act that available scien- tific information is insufficient to establish that a level of lead in paint above 0.06 percent but not over 0.5 per- cent is safe. Background In 1971 the Lead-Based Paint Poison- ing Prevention Act (LBPPPA), 42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq., was enacted to help prevent the problem of lead poisoning among children caused by the ingestion of lead- containing paints. The act defined the term lead-based paint as any paint con- taining more than one percent lead and directed the Secretary of Health, Edu- cation and Welfare to prohibit the use of lead-based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal government or with Federal as- sistance in any form. The act also estab- lished grants for the detection, treat- ment, and elimination of lead-based paint poisoning. In 1973 the LBPPPA was amended (Pub. L. 93-151), among other things, to direct the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct appropriate research on multiple layers of dried paint film containing lead in order to ascertain the safe level in residential paint products. If the Chairman, in a report to be submitted to Congress by December 31,1974, deter- mined that a level of lead no greater than 0.5 percent was safe, then the def- inition of lead-based paint after De- cember 31, 1974, would be paint contain- ing more than that level of lead. If the Chairman was unable to make such a determination, the definition of lead- based paint would be paint containing FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 42. NO. 32—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1977 NOTICES 9405 more than 0.5 percent lead until January 1, 1975, when the definition would be paint containing more than 0.06 per- cent lead. On December 23, 1974, the Chairman issued “A Report to Congress in Compli- ance with the Lead-Based Paint Poison- ing Prevention Act, as Amended,” which found a 0.5 percent level of lead in paint to be safe. This finding, based on animal studies conducted for the Commission by the New York Institute of Environ- mental Medicine and The Southwest Foundation for Research and Education, and other available data and informa- tion, utilized as a definition for a “safe level” of lead in paint “a level where we have a reasonable assurance with ex- pected exposures, of the absence of ser- ious toxic effects.” On the basis of the Chairman’s finding that 0.5 percent, was a safe level of lead In paint, the defini- tion of the term lead-based paint con- tinued, after December 31, 1974, to uti- lize the 0.5 percent level. Subsequently, Congress amended the definition of the term lead-based paint in the LBPPPA in passing the National Consumer Health Information and Health Promotion Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-317 (90 Stat. 705-706). Under this amendment the full Consumer Product Safety Commission was directed to deter- mine, by December 23, 1976, whether a level of lead in paint in excess of 0.06 per- cent, but not over 0.5 percent, was safe. If the Commission were able to make such a determination, lead-based paint would consist of any paint manufactured six months after such determination con- taining more than the determined safe level of lead. If the Commission were un- able to determine a safe level of lead in paint, paint manufactured after June 22, 1977, containing more than 0.06 per- cent lead, would be considered lead-based paint. Until such time, lead-based paint would continue to be defined as any paint containing more than 0.5 percent lead. In addition to providing for a Commis- sion determination of a safe level of lead in paint, the amended LBPPPA also di- rects (1) the Department of Health, Ed- ucation, and Welfare to take action with respect to lead-based paint on cooking, eating, and drinking utensils; (2) the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment to take action with respect to lead-based paint in residential struc- tures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal Government or with Federal as- sistance; and (3) the Consumer Product Safety Commission to “take such steps and impose such conditions as may be necessary or appropriate to prohibit the application of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article.” Safe Level Determination The Commission determination of whether a level of lead in paint in excess of 0.06 percent, but not over 0.5 percent, is safe, was to be made on the basis of available data and information after pro- viding and opportunity for an oral hear- ing and after considering recommenda- tions of the Seoretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare (including those of the Center for Disease Control) and of the National Academy of Sciences. On August 10, 1976, by publication of a notice in the Federal Register (41 FR 33636), the Commission commenced the proceeding to determine whether it could determine a safe level of lead. This notice invited the submission of written com- ments and also announced the time and place of the hearing to be held in ac- cordance with the LBPPPA. At the same time, the Commission issued a proposal under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2057, which would declare as banned hazardous products paint and other similar surface- coating materials containing more than the level of lead ultimately to be estab- lished as the definition of the term lead- based paint under the LBPPPA (41 FR 33637). The proposal also would declare as banned hazardous products toys, other articles intended for use by children, and articles of furniture bearing such paint or other similar surface-coating mate- rials. The existing regulations, issued under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq., banning lead- containing paint above the 0.5 percent level and toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing such paint (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(6)), would be re- voked when any final CPSA regulations are issued in order to prevent an unnec- essary duplication of existing regulations (41 FR 33640). As announced in the August 10, 1976, notices, the oral hearing in both the LBPPPA and CPSA matters was held on September 13, 1976. The written com- ment period for both matters was sched- uled through September 24, 1976, and was, by notice published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1976 (41 FR 44126-44128) , extended to October 26, 1976. At the hearing, testimony was pre- sented by representatives of the Center for Disease Control of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment; Consumers Union; National Paint and Coatings Association; Com- mittee for Lead Elimination Action in the District of Columbia; American Academy of Pediatrics; the Chicago De- partment of Health Child Lead Poison- ing Prevention Program; and the Na- tional Academy of Sciences ad hoc Com- mittee on Lead in Paint. In addition, numerous written comments and recom- mendations were received including rec- ommendations from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (includ- ing those of the Center for Disease Con- trol) and the National Academy of Sci- ences, as required under the LBPPPA. The recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, as stated in a re- port submitted to the Commission en- titled “Recommendations for the Pre- vention of Lead Poisoning in Children” (“NAS Report”), concluded, among other things, that: “since the CPSC-supplied studies did not adequately simulate the conditions found in young children, particularly in relation to age and diet, we were unable, on the basis of these studies, to determine that 0.5 percent lead in paint is safe.” (NAS Report, p. 9.) The NAS Report also found that 0.5 percent lead in paint represents a hazard to a child with pica for paint and specifi- cally recommended: “that the deliberate addition of lead to paint for residential buildings or other surfaces accessible to young children be immediately discontinued and that a level not to exceed 0.06 percent lead in the final dried product be set for regulatory purposes.” (NAS Report, p. 10.) The recommendations of the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, including those of the Center for Disease Control, as presented at the September 13 hearing, and in written comments to the Commission, (1) generally supported the recommendations in the NAS Re- port, (2) criticized the lead paint studies previously conducted by the Commission as support for establishing 0.5 percent, as being safe, and (3) urged the Com- mission to adopt a level below 0.5 per- cent. They stated that they believed the 0.06 percent level to be achievable and 'enforceable. In addition, a representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics, medical experts, and several consumer groups expressed opinions in support of the 0.06 percent lead level. The National Paint and Coatings As- sociation (NPCA) stated it would support a standard of “no lead intentionally added in the formulation of the prod- uct.” They suggested, however, a level of 0.2 percent in order to provide a margin for inadvertent contamination of paint with lead. Representatives of the toy in- dustry recommended adoption of a 0.25 percent lead level primarily to achieve uniformity with certain foreign stand- ards. Neither the NPCA nor those repre- senting the toy industry, however, pro- vided toxicity data in support of a de- termination that the suggested levels vjere safe. In addition, a medical consul- tant for NPCA expressed in written com- ments his concern regarding the evi- dence offered by NAS that 0.5 percent lead in paint represents a hazard to chil- dren. He did not, however, present infor- mation which would support a deter- mination that the 0.5 percent level of lead in paint is safe or that another level, greater than 0.06 percent, is safe. In addition to comments related to the toxicity of lead-containing paint, com- ments and testimony were also presented on various issues related to the economic and practical effects of lowering the lead level, including the cost and need for the development and establishment of meth- ods for analyzing th6 lead content of paint and the possible consequences of eliminating lead as a drier in paint. Such information is relevant to the Commis- sion’s proposal of AugUst 10, 1976, re- garding the regulation under the CPSA of lead-containing paint and certain other articles bearing such paint. Since the principal concern under the LBPPPA is with toxicity and safety of lead in paint, such comments will be considered in the context of issuance of the Com- mission’s final regulations under the CPSA. After considering all relevant data and information with respect to the deter- mination of a safe level of lead In paint FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 32—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1977 9406 NOTICES under the LBPPPA, the Commission has concluded that such data and informa- tion do not support a finding that a level of lead in paint above 0.06 percent but not over 0.5 percent is safe. The Commis- sion believes it cannot ignore the criti- cisms contained in the comments and testimony of the representatives of the National Academy of Sciences, the Cen- ter for Disease Control of the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and others regarding the weight of the aforementioned animal studies con- ducted for the Commission as evidence of the safety of paint containing 0.5 per- cent lead. Moreover, the Commission is unaware of any other data or informa- tion sufficient to establish the safety of lead at a level over 0.06 percent. Conse- quently under the LBPPPA, paint manu- factured after June 22, 1977, containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight (calculated as lead metal) in the total nonvolatile content of the paint, or the equivalent measure of lead in the dried film of paint already applied, or both, will be considered “lead-based paint.” It is also noted that the August 10, 1976 notice under the CPSA proposed to reg- ulate lead-containing paint at the LBPPPA level for consumer product paints and toys, articles intended for use by children, arid furniture, bearing such paint. Environmental Considerations In considering the other information available on the question of a safe level of lead under the LBPPPA, the Com- mission also had before it a preliminary draft environmental impact statement on the lead paint regulations proposed under the CPSA. This preliminary draft contained information on the manufac- ture of paint and explored the possible economic and environmental conse- quences of the proposed Commission regulations under the CPSA. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., agencies of the Federal Government are required to include in proposals for major Fed- eral actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a de- tailed statement on the environmental impact of the proposed action (42 U.S.C. 4332). As described above, the Commis- sion’s functions under the LBPPPA are twofold. The first is to determine whether a safe level of lead can be estab- lished, and the second is to take steps as necessary or appropriate to prohibit the application of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article. The first function under the LBPPPA consisted of simply an evaluation of available in- formation to determine if it supported a finding of a safe level of lead. The Commission action in this regard has been merely to determine that such a finding cannot be supported, thus al- lowing the Congressionally established definition of lead-based paint to be- come automatically effective at the 0.06 percent level. Thus, the Commission does not believe its exercise of this func- tion constitutes a “major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” This view is sup- ported by the fact that the Commission and the other Federal agencies involved must undertake rulemaking and other administrative actions to implement the directives of the LBPPPA. Consequently, while the Commission considered the possible economic and environmental effects of its proposed CPSA rulemak- ing in reaching its safe level decision under the LBPPPA, no environmental impact statement has been prepared specifically on the LBPPPA decision. The preliminary draft environmental impact statement on the proposed Com- mission action to regulate lead-contain- ing paint under the CPSA has been re- vised and approved by the Commission for release and public comment. These comments will be considered in issuing a final impact statement. The final im- pact statement will be utilized in issu- ing the final CPSA regulation in accord- ance with the requirements of NEPA. Those persons interested in comment- ing’ on the draft environmental impact statement may obtain a copy from the Office of the Secretary of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1111 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20207. Comments should be filed in the Office of the Secretary before the close of busi- ness, March 23, 1977. The draft state- ment formally became available for comment on February 4, 1977, as an- nounced in the notice published in the Federal Register of that date (42 FR 6879) by the Council on Environmental Quality. Dated: February 11, 1977. Sayde E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc.77—4903 Filed 2-15-77:8:45 am) FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 32—WEDNESDAY, FERRUARY 16. 1977 PROPOSED RULES 16445 44126) from September 24, 1976 to Octo- ber 26, 1976. Within respect to this proceeding the Commission, in the Fed- eral Register of February 16, 1977 (42 FR 9404), formally announced its deter- mination which was made on Decem- ber 16, 1976, under the LBPPPA that the available scientific information is insuffi- cient to establish that a level of lead in paint above 0.06 percent but not over 0.5 percent is safe. As provided in section 9 of the Con- sumer Product Safety Act, whenever the Commission proposes a rule declaring a product to be a banned hazardous prod- uct, it must, within 60 days after publica- tion of the proposal, (1) promulgate the consumer product , safety rule if the appropriate findings are made, or (2) withdraw the proposal if it determines that the rule is not reasonably necessary or not in the public interest. The 60-day period, however, may be extended for good cause if the Commission publishes its reasons for the extension in the Fed- eral Register. In the Federal Register of October 6, 1976 (41 FR 44126), the Commission published its reasons for ex- tending the period of time for either promulgating the rule or withdrawing the proposal from October 9, 1976 to April 1, 1977. The Commission now announces a further extension of the period of time for promulgation or withdrawal of the consumer product safety rule proposed on August 10, 1976, for the reasons set forth below. In the Federal Register of February 4, 1977, the Council on Environmental Quality announced the receipt and avail- ability of a draft environmental impact statement submitted by the Commis- sion. Under Council Guidelines (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) the minimum period of time for public review and comment is forty-five (45) days from publication of the notice of availability, which in this instance has been established as ending March 23, 1977. Thereafter, the Commis- sion and staff will require a sufficient period of time to adequately review and analyze the comments which are re- ceived preparatory to the development and publication of a final environmental impact statement. In that regard, the Council Guidelines explicitly state that to the maximum extent practicable no administrative action is to be taken sooner than (90) days after a draft en- vironmental statement has been circu- lated for comment and no sooner than thirty (30) days after the final state- ment has been made public. The eco- nomic findings required to be made by the Commission by section 9 of the Con- sumer Product Safety Act prior to pro- mulgating a consumer product safety rule are currently being prepared. How- ever, their completion would best await review and analysis of the public com- ments made in response to the draft environmental impact statement, since the draft statement addresses economic issues. In light of that fact, it is be- lieved that the responsive public com- ments may contribute substantially to the development of the economic find- ings required by section 9. Accordingly, pursuant to provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (secs. 8, 9, 86 Stat. 1215-17; 15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058) the Commission, for good cause, as stated above, extends the period of time within which it must promulgate or withdraw the consumer product safety rule (16 CFR Part 1150) proposed in the Federal Register of August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33637) until July 14, 1977. This pe- riod may be further extended by a no- tice published in the Federal Register showing good cause. Dated: March 23,1977. Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [PR Doc.77-9137 Piled 3-25-77;8:45 am] CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [ 16CFR Part 1150] LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT AND CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS BEARING LEAD- CONTAINING PAINT Banned Hazardous Products; Extension of Date for Promulgating Rule or Withdraw- ing Proposed Rule The purpose of this notice is to an- nounce the extension until July 14, J977, of the period of time within which the Consumer Product Safety Commission is required to either promulgate or with- draw the consumer product safety rule proposed on August 10, 1976. In the Federal Register of August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33637), the Commission pro- posed to establish a regulation (16 CFR Part 1150) under sections 8 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058) to declare as banned hazard- ous products (1) lead-containing paint and similar surface-coating materials containing more than a safe level of lead, (2) toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials containing more than a safe level of lead, and (3) articles of furniture bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials con- taining more than a safe level of lead. An oral hearing on the matter at which all interested persons were given the op- portunity to testify was conducted on September 13, 1976. The last date for fil- ing written comments on the proposal was extended by notice published Octo- ber 6, 1976 (41 FR 44126) from Septem- ber 9,1976 to October 26,1976. The determination of a safe level of lead was to be made by the Commission in accordance with a separate proceeding under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.), as amended (Pub. L. 94- 317). This proceeding was also com- menced by an announcement in the Fed- eral Register on August 10, 1976 (41 FR 33636), which invited submission of writ- ten comments and also advised of the aforementioned September 13, 1976 oral hearing. Subsequently, the last date for filing written comments was extended by notice published October 6, 1976 (41 FR FEDERAL RE61STER, VOL. 42, NO. 54—MONDAY, MARCH 28, 1977 APPENDIX D Listing of Organizations from Whom Oomnents Have been Requested: Dr. Irwin Billick Director, Office of Community & Environmental Standards HUD, Rm 7206 Wash. D.C. 20410 Food & Drug Administration HEW Office of the Environmental Officer 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville Md. Office of Dep. Sec. for Environmental Affairs Dept, of Commerce Wash. D.C. 20230 Director, Office of Federal Activities Environmental Protection Agency 401 M St. S.W. Wash. D.C. 20460 Dr. Walter Muir Council of Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place N.W. Wash. D.C. 20006 Allegheny County Health Department 3333 Forkes Ave. Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213 Attn: Albert H. Brunwasser Director Bur. of Environmental Health Children's Hospital Medical Center 300 Longwood Ave. Boston, Mass. 02115 Herbert L. Needleman, Director Lead Exposure New York Univ. Med. Center 550 First Ave. New York, New York 10016 Professor Theodore J. Kneip (212) 679-3200 National Paint & Coating Association 1500 R.I. Ave. N.W. Wash. D.C. 20005 Robert Roland, President Gordon Bartels Co. 2600 Harrison Ave. Rockville, 111. 61101 Mr. Marshall Erickson EuropeanFederation of Toy Manufacturers Assoc. 80 Camberwell Rd. London, England S.E. 5 Mr. G.R. Goude State of New Jersey, Dept, of Health Trenton, N.J. 08625' Edmond D. Duffy Jr.,MPA Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Dept. Boston Mass 02133 Michael S. Dukakis Consumer Union 1714 Mass. Ave. N.W. Wash. D.C. 20036 Mr. Mark Silbergeld Univ. of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry 601 Elmwood Ave. Rochester, N.Y. 14642 Dr. James W. Sayre Ford Motor Co. American Rd. Dearborn Mi 48121 J.C. Eckhold, Direcotr Automotive Safety Massachusetts Advocacy Center 2 Park Square Boston, Mass. 02116 Kathleen Boundy Philadelphia Dept, of Public Health Municipal Services Bldg. Phila. Pa. 19107 Dr. Lewis D. Polk Aaron Locker Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc. 1 Penn. Plaza New york, New York 10001 HEW-Dept. of Health Education and Welfare Office of Environmental Affairs Office of Secretary for Administration Wash. D.C. 20202 Food and Drug Administration HEW Office of Environmental Officer 50 7th St. N.E. Atlanta, Ga. 30323 Dr. Vernon Houck Communicable Disease Center, HEW 50 7th St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30323 Director Office of Consumer Affairs, DHEW Washington, D.C. 20201 Dr. Julian Chisholm Chairman, NAS/NRC Ad Hoc Committee Baltimore Dept, of Hospitals Baltimore, MD 21202 Dr. Muriel Wolf Committee for Lead Elimination Action in D.C. Children's Hospital 2135 L3th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Richard W. Scott Sherwin-Williams Co. Research Ctr. 10900 S. Cottage Grove Ave. Chicago, IL 60628 Dorothy Noyes Kane, MPH. PHD 14 Charlton Hill Hamden, CT 06518 Alcatraz Company, Inc. Martin A. Trenkle, Vice President, for Manufacturing & Development 1900 Ellen Rd. Richmond, VA 23230 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FRIDAY December 27, 1974 Contact: Ron Aaron Eisenbsrg (202) 634-7780 (Office) (202) 686-0077 (Home) CPSC CHAIRMAN SIMPSON MAINTAINS 0.5 PERCENT LEVEL OF LEAD IN PAINT Washington, D.C. (Dec. 27, 1974)--In a report submitted to Congress, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Richard 0. Simpson today determined that 0.5 percent level of lead in paint is "safe" and should continue to be permitted as the maximum lead content in household paints. Simpson's action will prevent an automatic drop to a 0.06 percent maximum lead level on December 31, 1974, as stipulated in the amendments to the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act The 1973 amendments directed the CPSC Chairman to conduct appropriate research and to determine a "safe level" of lead for residential paint products. Simpson stated in the report that absolute safety could only be achieved by banning all lead in paint. And he interpreted safe as a "level where we have a reasonable assurance, with expected exposures, of the absence of serious toxic effects." Simpson's decision was based upon research designed to determine what level of paint causes or contributes to illness, particularly in young children prone to the pica syndrome-- eating non-food items, such as paint chips. more In making his determination, Simpson relied on the results of studies using juvenile baboons undertaken at the New York University Institute of Environmental Medicine and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education, as well as other studies cited in the full report. These investigations indicated that there was no observable adverse biological effects at or below 0.5 percent lead level. U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Raturn this nawalattar to abova addraaa If you do NOT with to racaiva It I i or If chan pa of addraaa la naadad.f I Indicata changa, Including ZIP coda. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1st Class Mail NEWS RELEASE U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission . Washington, D.C. 20207 Mews ftCUASC Office of Public Affairs Media Inquiries: 202/634-7780 76-87 FOR RELEASE FRIDAY DECEMBER 17, 1976 CPSC ANNOUNCES DECISION ON LEAD-IN-PAINT ISSUE RAISED BY CONGRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. (Dec. 17) -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today announced that available scientific information is insufficient to support a finding that a level of lead-in-paint above 0.06 percent is safe. The Comission was asked by Congress under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) to determine if a higher level of lead-in-paint could be considered safe. The concern of Congress in passing the LBPPPA was to protect children from lead poisoning due to eating of lead-containing paint chips. In passing the LBPPPA Congress defined lead-based paint that is manufactured after June 22, 1977, as paint with more than 0.06 percent lead unless the CPSC by December 23, 1976, was able to determine some safe level greater than 0.06 percent but not to exceed 0.5 percent. The present limit is 0.5 percent. The Commission reviewed all information and literature available, including a study by an ad hoc committee of the National Academy of Sciences; the recommendations of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, including the comments from the Center for Disease Control; testimony at a public hearing September 12, 1976; and other available information and written comments, in order to fulfill its obligation under the LBPPPA. The Commission concluded that because of the limitations of the existing available scientific data, it was unable to establish whether a level of lead in residential paint in excess of 0.06 percent, but not exceeding 0.5 percent, was safe. -MORE- Under the LBPPPA the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is instructed to prohibit lead-based paint in residential structures constructed or rehabilitated by the Federal government or with Federal assistance; the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is to take steps to ban lead-based paint from cooking, drinking or eating utensils; and the CPSC is directed to prohibit lead-based paint on any toy or furniture article. On August 10, 1976, the Commission indicated in a Federal Register proposal that its determination of a definition of ’’lead-based paint” under the LBPPPA would form the basis for a banning action under the Consumer Product Safety Act. The banning action, as proposed, would cover lead-based paint on toys or furniture articles as set forth in the LBPPPA. It would also cover lead-containing paint generally. U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20207 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE & FEES PAID U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FIRST CLASS MAIL Return this newsletter to above address if you do NOT wish to receive it I 1 or if change of address is needed, | | indicate change, including ZIP CODE. HEWS RELEASE Dated Material • Useless If Delayed INAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT Volume May 1977 CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT Volume II May 1977 Prepared by: Economic Analysis, Hazard Identification and Analysis Directorate CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, 5401 VVestbard Avenue Washington, D.C. 20207 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II Page Summary X-l Discussion of Comments XI-1 Listing of Organizations XII-1 Copies of Comments XIII-1 X-l SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Fifty-six comments on the draft EIS were received by the end of the comment period. Copies of these comments are included in this report. Thirty-three comments were re- ceived from companies, organizations, or individuals in, or associated with the paints and coatings producing industry. These include 31 comments from paints and coatings producers (comment numbers 2, 4, 6-10, 13, 15-19, 21-25, 27-31, 33, 35-37, 45, 49, 54, 55), a supplier to the industry (32), and the National Paint and Coating Association (39). Eleven comments were received from companies or organizations associated with the use of certain paint and coating pro- ducts or with their distribution. These include comments from six associations (11, 34, 40, 43, 44, 56) and from five companies (12, 14, 41, 47, 51) that use or distribute paint products. Twelve comments were received from organizations or individuals representing what may be termed the public sector. These include a consumer organization (1), repre- sentatives of hospitals and medical centers (46, 48, 50), and city (3, 20), state (5, 26, 52), and federal (38, 42, 53) groups. Comments on the draft EIS fall into three main cate- gories: critiques of sections of the draft EIS; data or information in support of exemptions for certain specialty X-2 paints; and other miscellaneous comments, including expres- sions of preferences for effective dates of a ban and for alternatives discussed in the draft EIS, in particular the scope of the regulation and definitions. Most of the comments are brief, but several lengthy comments from manufacturers of paint or equipment were received. These tend to consist of quantitative estimates of economic effects or impacts on some aspect of paint production or use. In the discussion that follows, where many comments expressing similar concerns were received, all comments are not individually cited. In some instances, comments may be specifically cited as representative of the concerns expressed. All comments received, however, are included in this report. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS A. Comments on Sections of the Draft EIS 1. Degree of Beneficial Impact Three comments (1, 3, 50) object to the use of the term "moderate" in the draft EIS to describe the degree of beneficial impact accruing from a reduction of the lead content in paints and coatings. These comments present information to support their contention that the appropriate term should be "major" or "extremely" beneficial impact. The choice of qualifying terms such as "slight," "moderate," "major," and the like, is a judgmental matter when sufficient data are not available upon which to make quantifiable orders of magnitude comparisons. As several comments (42, 48, 52) point out, paint is not the only environmental source of lead leading to lead poisoning, and the most serious cases of childhood lead poisonings found today are traceable to the ingestion of old paints. Although the reduction of lead content to the 0.06 percent level will provide a margin of safety above that of the 0.5 percent level, it will not affect exposure to lead from non-paint sources, nor will it affect exposure to old paints already applied in housing and on products. Thus, when the entire range of exposure is considered, the reduction to 0.06 percent lead content in paints and on certain products has and is not in and of itself, characterized as resulting in a 'major' beneficial impact." 2. Exemption of Exterior Paints Several comments object to a consideration of exempting all exterior paints from the proposed ban on lead content. The Commission never intended to consider such a blanket exception, for which there is no basis, and regrets that the draft EIS made the statement inadvertently. The appropriate sections of this final report do not contain the statement, and it is not being considered. 3. Health Effects and Environmental Effects Comments from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (42) , and from the New York University Medical Center (46), among others, point out that Section I-D of the draft EIS, dealing with health effects of lead in paint, in attempting to paraphrase the recommendations of the National Academy of Science omits certain necessary material and inaccurately presents the conclusions of the NAS committee. Accordingly, the section of the report has been rewritten. Since the lead in paint is only one facet of the environmental lead problem, several comments suggest that the section on health effects should include a thorough discussion of the total exposure of individuals to lead- bearing contaminants. Routes of exposure other than through ingestion of lead-bearing paint are discussed briefly in the section on health effects and in Appendix A, and the cumu- lative effects of exposure to lead are recognized. However, as the National Academy of Sciences' report states, "Paint provides the most concentrated source of lead poten- tially available to a young child." Since the scope of the proposed ban is restricted to paints and certain painted surfaces, other routes of exposure to lead are not affected and need to be considered in this EIS only inasmuch as they define a threshold from which to estimate the beneficial impacts resulting from a reduction of the lead content in paints. In the comment from HEW's Center for Disease Control (42), concern was expressed that the statements in the Draft EIS tend to link undue lead absorption in children with the condition of pica for paint. While the child with pica is at increased risk, the comment points out that all young children constitute the population at risk because mouthing and swallowing of non-food materials is common in the majority of children under age three. Appropriate sections of this final report have been revised to reflect this concern. Regarding certain environmental aspects, one comment (3) stated that, while lead, mercury, and cadmium compounds are known poisons, considerable margins of safety can be expected from substitute compounds using calcium, iron, manganese, and zinc because these elements are frequently deficient in the human diet. Information was also submitted (3) to confirm that a 50-60 mg level of lead in children is asso- ciated with impaired visual discrimination and slowed learning. Another comment C23) submitted test data indi- cating the insolubility of lead sulfate and chromates in simulated gastric juices. It is however, the level of lead, and not the solubility of lead compounds, which provides the basis for a ban. 4. Lead Driers Several comments objected to the discussion in the draft EIS concerning the degree to which the elimination of lead driers may result in unsatisfactory paint characteris- tics in areas with prevailing adverse weather conditions. Some comments, notably that from Consumers Union (1), contend that substituting for lead driers presents only minor incon- veniences. Other comments contend that the elimination of lead driers will have dire repercussions on paints and painting in the New England and Pacific Northwest area. Neither of the contentions is wholly supportable by data in the record. While it may be true that it is difficult to substitute other driers for lead driers under conditions of low temperature accompanied by high humidity, it is also true that painting is generally not undertaken by profes- sional painters or others during cold, wet, rainy, humid, windy or icy conditions. Thus, dire adverse effects cannot be substantiated since there is usually a complete cessation of outdoor painting during extreme weather conditions. On the other hand, although other types of driers may be substituted for lead, there is currently no consensus on which non-lead driers should be used for specific applica- tions. Therefore, substitution is not a "mere inconvenience" in that substantial research and development may be neces- sary to arrive at satisfactory reformulations for specific application characteristics. 5. Degree of Adverse Economic Effects Some 75 percent of the comments dealt with economic aspects of reducing the level of lead in paint. Most of these concern one or more of the speciality paints for which exemptions are sought and these will be discussed in a following section. In general, however, there was consider- able criticism of the characterization of the overall economic impact as "moderate." These objections fall into two categories: those which contend that economic effects should be considered "small" in relationship to the risks of lead poisoning and its effects; and those which contend that economic impacts should be termed "major" because of the size of various cost effects associated with reducing lead content. As with characterization of beneficial impacts, the use of such qualifying terms is a judgmental matter. Unlike the previous example, however, estimates of the potential economic impacts are quantifiable. These estimates are given in Section III of this report. The material on economic effects of regulation has been extensively revised from that contained in the draft EIS to reflect more recent information submitted in the comments and otherwise developed after the draft was issued. For other than cer- tain specialty paints, cost estimates fall into three general categories: costs to replace lead; reformulation costs; and increased testing and monitoring costs. On an industry basis, these increased costs amount to only a small fraction of total sales of trade sales paints. Cer- tain adverse economic effects have, therefore, been termed "slight" in this report because the basis of comparison is the entire industry. It is, however, recognized that differential impacts will fall on particular firms within the industry. The size of these impacts will depend on several factors such as the size of the firm, the nature of its quality control program, and the extent to which its product lines will require reformulation, among others. B. Exemptions for Specialty Paints 1. Special Purpose Coatings Discussed in the Draft EIS Almost all the comments supported exempting some kinds of specialty paints. Support was based on two con- siderations: that the risk to children of lead poisoning from the paints and products was remote; and that the economic costs of not exempting certain of these items could be high. Reasons cited as a basis for the low risk include: that exposure or accessibility by children to such specialty paints is remote; that the surfaces on which such paints are applied are not chewable or gnawable, and, for some pro- ducts, do not flake or chip; that certain types of products to which such coatings are applied are not found in or around households; and that there are no reported ingestions by children of such paint. A review of the comments shows that there are sub- stantial quantitative differences among producers and dis- tributors concerning the potential economic effects of reducing the lead content in specialty paints. Some of these differences can be attributed to the following: Size of the company and its market share; —Type of product and the number of producers of it; —Special characteristics of the products to which coatings are applied; —Degree of acceptance of available substitute non- leaded paint ingredients; and —Uniqueness or special properties attributed to particular ingredients such as pigments or driers. For example, several producers of traffic paint claim that there is no satisfactory non-lead replacement for yellow chrome pigment (containing up to 24 percent lead (41)). Organic pigments for use in traffic paints (as well as for appliances, metal furniture, signs, and billboards) are more costly on a per pound basis, and more such pigments must be used per gallon of paint. In addition, these reformulated coatings tend to have reduced hiding and covering properties, thus requiring the application of more paint. Their reduced durability and reduced color retention also increase the frequency of painting. Comments estimated the increased costs of Hansa Yellow, a yellow chrome pigment substitute, at from three to thirty (27A) times more than leaded pigment. And the increased finished costs of apply- ing paints with organic pigments were estimated to range from 50 to 500 percent (27A). These adverse impacts are reflected in the economic effects section of this report. Several comments state that there are no satisfactory lead pigment substitutes for certain graphic arts and bill- board coatings. Eight of some 19 basic colors contain lead pigments for which no satisfactory replacements are avail- able. Comments estimated the increased costs of substi- tutes, if available, at double (40) the price or more (35) of current pigments. The increased cost of these coatings to graphic arts professionals and outdoor advertisers was estimated to be millions of dollars annually (40). The section on economic effects has been revised to reflect these estimates. Estimated increased costs of automobile, agricultural and industrial equipment refinishes, should lead pigments be banned, varied widely. It is conceded, and so noted in appropriate sections of this report, that original finishes which contain leaded pigments, especially in the yellows, reds, greens, organges, and some browns, cannot be matched when refinish coatings are formulated without lead. It is estimated by a major insurance company (37) that one of every 13 cars is refinished annually, and the comment by Dupont (33) states that only 25 percent of all automobile paints are formulated with leaded pigments. Yet, the estimated increased costs resulting from a ban on lead pigments vary widely, from double present costs in one comment (33), $0.5 billion in another (37), and as much as $3,559 billion in a third (39). Given the estimated number of annual car refinishings and the proportion of leaded paints used, these estimates seem extremely high. Other examples from the comments in which estimates of increased costs vary by considerable margins include the following: —A $250 million (13) and an $850 million (15) esti mated cost impact of denying exemptions for all speciality paints; —A 20 (15) to 660 percent (24) increase in material costs for the specialty paints; —A three-fold increase in coverage costs (29); and —Up to $5.5 million (33) for reformulating 500 leaded paints. Many of these estimates cannot be substantiated on the basis of data presented. As discussed in the section of this report on economic effects, there may be substantial adverse effects on certain specialty coatings if exemption is denied. The estimated cost effects of denial given in certain comments, however, appear to be exaggerated. Other comments of a more general nature include state- ments such as the following: —There will be adverse economic effects on paint producers supplying equipment manufacturers should leaded pigments and driers not be exempted; —There will be price increases of varying amounts to users and consumers; —There will be adverse impacts on safety should certain colors such as yellow chrome be prohibited; —Poor quality and performance of many paints can be expected should the use of present pigments and driers be prohibited; and —Reduction of corrosion protection and resistance will result if red lead primers cannot be used. These effects are discussed in the appropriate section of this report and some of the impacts are supported by avail- able data and information. The dire economic effects pre- dicted by some comments, however, cannot be substantiated. There are, for example, substitutes for red lead primers, including zinc and zinc rich oxides as well as ferric oxides. There are lead-free exterior wood primers used and produced by major manufacturers, and there are organic pigments which can be used. It is true that not all sub- stitutes are presently suitable for every application, and it is so noted in this report. 2. Mirror Backing Paint Several comments, notably the comment from PPG Industries (37) , brought to the attention of the Commission the need to consider an additional special coating, mirror backing, for possible exemption. Lead-containing mirror backing paint is used to protect the silvered coating on mirrors and to prevent deterioration of the silver from salts, sulfur compounds, and moisture. According to PPG, mirror backing with a lead concentration from 10 to 25 percent by weight forms a film highly impervious to mois- ture and salts and prevents clouding and tarnishing. In addition, because the leaded mirror backing has excellent adhesion to the silvered surface, the cutting and working of mirror edges is facilitated. Unleaded backings tend to flake-off during cutting operations. In support of the exemption, the comment notes that accessibility of children to the leaded backing is limited and that to ingest the lead containing paint would require breaking the integrity of the mirror, if not the mirror itself. Information is provided that the U.S. market for mirrors is about 140 million square feet of glass sheet annually, about 98 percent of which uses lead-containing backing. If an exemption for this type of coating were not granted, the following adverse effects could result: —Service life expectancy of mirrors would be reduced (because of tarnishing and other deterioriation); —Consumers would face higher costs for earlier replacement; and —The utility of mirrors would be severely reduced. C. Other Miscellaneous Comments 1. Scope and Definitions Several comments support exempting such things as appliances, light fixtures, lamps, art works and other decorative products, and antique toys. It is contended that such items are not appropriately defined as furniture or children's articles and that the exposure of children to risk from these items is minimal or remote. Several com- ments also support the exclusion of metal furniture, espe- cially lawn furniture, from any definition of furniture covered by the ban There are, however, several comments which specifically request that metal furniture, especially lawn furniture, not be considered for exemption. These comments maintain that such furniture, as well as Venetian blinds, may very well be a potential source of lead exposure for children. One comment (33) notes that the risk of child ingestion of paint or paint flakes depends on three factors: the frequency of exposure; the geometry of accessibility; and the tenacity of the paint to substrates. This comment and several others point out that the use of baked enamels on metal furniture, appliances and the like, results in a thin, hard, abrasion resistant, impact resistant, and highly durable film. It is claimed that these items do not have a tendency to chip or flake in ways that would pose a risk to children and that the surfaces are also not chewable. It is, however, also noted in some comments that certain types of inexpensive lawn and porch furniture as well as some kinds of metal furniture are coated with other than baked enamels, and may, therefore, be subject to chipping and flaking. Thus, a general exemption for metal furniture of all types may not be appropriate. The suggestions and recommendation contained in the comments on what should or should not be appropriately included as furniture will be considered by the Commission in determining the regulation's scope and definitions. 2. Expressions of Preference for Alternatives Most comments stated a preference for Alterna- tive 3 (CPSA with certain exemptions), or for Alternative 4 (#3 with a one-year effective date). Several comments strongly favored Alternative 5 with its delayed effective date and gradual reduction to the .06 percent level. The reasons generally given for preferring this alternative were that a staged reduction over a longer time period would moderate the adverse cost impacts on industry and allow more time to research and develop substitute products At least one comment, however, from Dr. Whalen of the New York Department of Health (52) , urged that a staged reduc- tion be considered to allow sufficient time to evaluate the toxicity of materials substituted for lead. If not, the fear was expressed that one hazard (lead) might be replaced with another. XII-1 LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS SUBMITTING COMMENTS COMMENT NUMBER CORRESPONDENT SIGNED BY 1 Consumers Union Washington, D.C. Mark Silbergeldf Attorney 2 Wyandotte Paint Products Co. Norcross, Ga. Robert R. Kern, V. Pres., Gen. Manager 3 City of Baltimore Dept. Of Hospitals Baltimore, Mi. J. Julian Chisolm, Jr., M.D., Chairman NAS Committee on Lead in Paint 4 The Gilbert Spruance Co. Philadelphia, Pa. Robert M. Cox, Sr., President 5 The Commonwealth of Mass. Dept of Public Health Jamaica Plain, Mass. Richard W. Clapp, M.P.H., Director 6 Zac Lac Paint & Lacquer Go. Atlanta, Ga. L.H. Jones, President 7 Southern Protective Products Go. Atlanta, Ga. Larry Hecht, President 8 Trinity Coatings Co. Fort Wbrth, Texas Mel Gardner, President 9 The Dean & Barry Co. Columbus, Ohio Robert S. McKay II, President 10 Perfection Paint & Color Co, Inc. Indianapolis, Ind. George Gable, President 11 European Federation of Toy Mfg., Assoc., London G.R. Goude 12 Deere & Co. Moline, 111. Kathleen R. Gibson, Attorney 13 The Enterprise Companies Wheeling, 111. Arthur F. Bohnert, V. Pres. Research and Dev. COMMENT NUMBER CORRESPONDENT SIGNED BY 14 International Harvester Hinsdale, 111. Ronald F. Zitko Chief Engineer, Operator Environment & Safety 15 Blatz Paint Co. Inc. Louisville, Ky. Lee Kitchen, President 16 Preservative Paint Co. Seattle, Wa. W.L. Smith, President 17 Danacolors, Inc. San Francisco, Ca Charles H. Dana, President 18 Hoppers Co., Inc. Pittsburgh, Pa. Charles P. Brush, Manager Product Registration and Labeling 19 Glidden-Durkee, Div. of SCM Gorp. Cleveland, Ohio Arne C. Lindholm, Vice Pres., Chem. Coatings 20 Dept, of Public Health Philadelphia, Pa. Lewis D. Polk, M.D. Act. Health Commissioner 21 Enmar, An Ameron Go. Wichita, Kansas Charles M. Downs, General Manager 22 Dupli-Color Products Elk Grove Village, 111. Wirt V. Dunlop, President 23 The Voltax Co.,Inc. Bridgeport, Gonn. John J. Riccio, Administrator 24 Van Sickle Paint Mfg.,0o. Lincoln, Nebraska J. David McMahan, Technical Director 25 Industrial Chemicals Div./NL Ind., Inc. Hightstown, N.J. C.W. Moore, Vice Pres. 26 State of N.J., Dept, of Health, Trenton, N.J. Edmond D. Duffey, Jr., M.P.H. COMMENT NUMBER CORRESPONDENT SIGNED BY 27 The Valspar Corp. Mineapolis, Minn. J.B. Kenney, Technical Director 21 A The Valspar Corp. Mineapolis, Minn. Richard L. Fricker, Mgr. Tech. Projects 28 North Jersey Paint Co. Inc. Wallington, N.J. Bernard F. Malizia, President 29 Seymour of Sycamour, Inc. Sycamore, 111. S.M. Heatley, President 30 Randolph Products Co. Carlstadt, N.J. W.G. Randolph 31 Conchemco Coatings Lenexa, Kansas R.D. Radford, President 32 O.G. Innes Corp. New York, New York R.O. Innes, President 33 E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Go. Wilmington, Del. J.S. Harrison, Dir. Finishes Div. 34 Outdoor Power Equip. Institute, Inc. Washington, D.C. Donald E. Purcell, Dir. Govt. Rein. & Counsel 35 Wilmer, CutlerSPickering, Counsel for Consumers Paint Factory, Inc., Washington, D.C. Richard A. Lowe Ronald J. Greene 36 The Sherwin Williams Co. Cleveland, Ohio H.E. Spitzer, Vice Pres. & Tech. Dir., Coatings Group 37 PPG Industries, Inc. Pittsburgh, Pa. T.Z. Korsak, Assistant Counsel Elmer C. Larsen, V. Pres. & Gen. Mgr., Coatings and Resin Div. COMMENT NUMBER CORRESPONDENT SIGNED BY 38 The Office of Consumer Affairs, HEW, Washington, D.C. Frank R. Marvin, Acting Dir. Allan Finkel, General Counsel Susan E. Johnson, Attorney-Advisor 39 National Paint & Goating Assoc., Washington, D.C. John M. Montgomery, General Counsel Larry L. Thomas, Assoc. General Counsel 40 Outdoor Advertising Assoc, of America, Inc. Washington, D.C. Vernon A. Clark, V. Pres., Legislative 41 Ford Motor Co. Dearborn, Mich. J.C. Eckhold 42 Dept. HEW, Office of Environ. Affairs, Washington, D.C. Charles Custard, Director 43 Toy Mfg. of America, Aaron Locker Counsel New York, N.Y. Aaron Locker 44 Farm & Industrial Equipment Institute Chicago, 111. Emmet Barke, Executive Secretary 45 The O'Brien Oorp. S. San Francisco, Ca. Frank A. Delke, Quality Assurance 46 N.Y. University Medical Center New York, N.Y. Theo. J. Kneip, PhD., Deputy Director Environ. Studies 47 Simpson Timber Co. Research Ctr. Redmond, Wash. Don F. Laughnan, Sr. Specialist- Finishes 48 The University of Rochester School of Medical & Dentistry & Strong Manorial Hospital Rochester, N.Y. James W. Sayre, MD. Dir. In-Patient Services Dept, of Pediatrics XII-5 COMMENT NUMBER CORRESPONDENT SIGNED BY 49 Napko Corp. Houston, Tx. L.B. Odell, FAIC, Tech. Adm. Mgr. 50 The Children's Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Mass. Herbert L. Needleman,MD., Dir. Lead Exposure Study 51 Tempo Products Co. Cleveland, Ohio David L. Shaar, Sales Manager 52 State of N.Y., Dept, of Health Albany, N.Y. Robert P. Whalen,M.D. Goirmissioner 53 U.S. Dept, of Coimerce, The Asst. Sec. for Science & Tech., Washington, D.C. Norris A. Lynch 54 R.E. Mutzberg Atlanta, Ga. R.E. Mutzberg 55 Finnaren & Haley, Inc. Ardmore, Pa. Daniel J. Haley, Jr., President 56 National Assoc, of Mirror Mfg. Washington, D.C. James E. Mack, Exec. Sec. & General Counsel CONSUMERS UNION / A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION / PUBLISHER OF CONSUMER REPORTS Washington Office 1714 MASSACHUSETTS AVE.. N.W. WASHINGTON. DC. 20036/202 785-1906 March 16, 1977 Sadye Dunn, Secretary U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Ms. Dunn: These are comments of Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. * on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Lead Content in Paint. Upon review of the draft EIS, we find a number of proposed statements which warrant serious reconsideration. These are discussed, below, in the order in which the issues first appear in the draft statement. The page numbers of the draft EIS portions in issue precede each comment in brackets. Degree of Beneficial Impact [S-3, III-3] The draft EIS states that reduction of the permissible level of lead in residential paints and other products proposed to be covered from 0.5% to 0.06% will result in a "moderately beneficial environmental impact". This seriously undertakes the prospective benefits. The 0.06% level was originally calculated and recommended to the Congress by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It was intended to provide a margin of safety—given estimated amounts of lead ingested by children with pica for paint and estimated * Consumers Union is a nonprofit membership organization chartered in 1936 under the laws of the State of New York to provide informa- tion, education, and counsel about consumer goods and services and the management of the family income. Consumers Union's income is derived solely from the sale of Consumer Reports, other publications and films. Expenses of occasional public service efforts may be met, in part, by nonrestrictive, noncommercial grants and fees. In addition to reports on Consumers Union's own product testing, Consumer Reports, with its almost 1.8 million circulation, regularly carries articles on health, product safety, marketplace economics, and legislative, judicial and regulatory actions which affect consumer welfare. Consumers Union's publications carry no advertising and receive no commercial support. National Office: 256 WASHINGTON STREET. MOUNT VERNON. NEW YORK 10550 / 914-664-6400 TNG-3 rates of absorption of ingested lead across the gut from the stomach into body tissue—five times below the level at which absorbed lead was believed to affect blood metabolism (heme synthesis) and twenty times below the level at which lead was then reported to be associated with more serious medical effects. Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Amendments of 1972, Hearings on S.3080 before the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate (1972), pp. 30-31, 45-56. Since the 0.5% level is almost ten times greater than the 0.06% level, this meant that—on the basis of those calculations—there was no margin of safety with a 0.5$ standard for lead's effect on heme synthesis, and a very narrow margin of safety for more serious, associated medical effects. These calculations assumed no metabolic effects in a young child with blood lead levels of 40 megs, lead per del. of blood, and extrapolate from the 40 meg. figure a "daily permissible intake" of lead by young children of 300 megs. However, the National Academy of Sciences, in its July, 1976 report to the CPSC, states that more recent evidence shows blood lead levels in the 25-40 mcg./dl. range to be associated with changes in the blood metabolism of young children. This, the NAS reports, requires a downward recalculation of the 300 meg. daily permissible intake and 40 meg./ml. "no effect" blood lead level figures. This means that a 0.06% permissible level would no longer provide the "times five" and "times twenty" margins of safety originally intended. And, depending on how far downward the recommended revision would be recalculated, it could mean that the almost ten times greater 0.6% level would provide no margin of safety whatsoever, even from "more serious" medical events associated with lead absorption. Therefore, a 0,06% standard may provide a beneficial impact which, far from being merely "moderately beneficial," would be extremely beneficial because it would reduce child exposure to a known toxin from levels which may provide no margin of safety from associated adverse medical effects to levels which provide at least some margin of safety. Possible Exemption of Exterior Paints [S—3; I-A-8, 9; sections II-IV throughout.] The draft statement discusses possible exemption from a 0,06% standard for the so-called "extractive-bearing wood" coatings used to paint inherently moist lumber used in residential construction. 3 It does not set forth the very serious considerations, testified to by pediatricians at the CPSC hearings in September, 1976, that exterior paint, even when it is not directly accessible to children while on exterior surfaces, eventually comes off the walls in the form of paint flakes or dust and mingles with the dirt along the side of the residential structure. Young children play in dirt, frequently put their dirty hands into their mouth and, thus, the lead-bearing exterior coating finds this indirect path into children's systems. It may be necessary to accept the conse- quence of more frequent painting of exterior surfaces made of extractive-bearing wood in order to avoid exterior coatings as an additional source of lead to which young children are exposed. Additionally, the CPSC cannot control end use. The leftover of paints purchased by owners of residential property for exterior application, common experience shows, will sometimes be used for interior application. This greatly increases the danger to the child with paint pica of ingesting such paint. Because it omits these considerations, the impact statement inadequately discusses the potential environmental impact of a possible exemption for exterior residential paints. Climatological Considerations [I-B-9; III-6, 7.] The draft states that reduction of the permissible level to 0.06% would have a more severe economic impact in the Pacific Northwest and New England, where the combination of cool temperatures and high humidity cause paint to dry more slowly than in other climates. However, there is no citation of supporting evidence or source materials to demonstrate that the use of lead-based paints is significantly higher in these two regions than in other regions of the country. In fact, the spokesman for the National Paint and Coatings Association, Mr. Robert Roland, testified at the CPSC's September hearings that NPCA does not have evidence as to the geographical distribution of lead paint use among the various climatological regions of the nation. Therefore, the assertions in this regard should not be included in the final environmental impact state- ments unless supporting evidence is obtained. Further, Consumers Union's Technical Division estimates that the drying time difference between oil paints containing lead driers and those using other driers is no more than twenty to twenty-five percent. And paint without any drier not only will dry adequately over a period of several days, but will dry 4 with a coat of superior durability and resistance to flaking. Thus, the substitution of another drier for lead creates a mere incon- venience as a trade-off for removal of substantial amounts of a toxic substance from exposure to young children. And even omission of a drier would not make paint formulations technically inadequate under many conditions. We recommend that the final EIS include these considerations. Geographical Distribution of Producers [I-C-l and following.] The draft statement sets forth an extensive discussion of the economic importance of geographical proximity of paint manufacturing plants to customers. The state- ment does not specifically state what implications this supposedly important cost-control factor has to a potential administrative determination to set a 0.06% standard. The apparent purpose for the discussion lies in the hidden implication that a 0.06$ could cause some plant closing and, hence, higher transportation costs which would significantly increase the price of paint. Whatever the purpose of the discussion, its purpose and point should be made explicit. And if its purpose and point are as suggested here, the discussion is self-contradictory and insuf- ficiently supported by facts and analysis. The draft EIS indicates that there are now approximately 1,400 paint manufacturing plants belonging to approximately 1,300 - 1,400 companies. In other words, there is only a small excess in number of plants over number of producing firms and, hence, few multi-plant firms. In view of the fact that a number of brands are distributed nationally or on a broad regional basis, this fact would appear to contradict the analysis that close proximity of manufacturing plant to customer is an economically essential characteristic of the industry. Thus 5 the final EIS either should include more specific evidence, including a plant location and distribution characteristics analysis of the industry, to support this assertion, or the insuf- ficiently supported analysis should be omitted from the final EIS. Effective Date for a More Strict Standard [II-A-3; III-20; IV-2.] The draft EIS discusses a possible need for a 1 - 3 year period during which manufacturers could reformulate their paints with driers other than lead. This argument appears to be based in part on the assumption that new formulae 5 must be discovered. In fact, formulae with non-lead driers are not trade secrets known exclusively to the producers of the large volume of non-lead paint now on the market. Producers and sellers or driers other than lead would readily make formulae using these other products known to manufacturers in seeking to sell their products. Additionally, there are no technological barriers to laboratory analysis of the non-lead paints now on the markets, and the draft EIS indicates no patents barriers to use of currently marketed non-lead paint formulae. Further, it appears inconceivable that, in view of the statutory provision in 1973 for a possible 0.06$ lead standard under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, and gradual reduction of the permissible level for shipment in commerce under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, that manufacturers now using lead drier paint formulae have taken no steps to identify, select from among, and test, alternatives to lead driers. Certainly, as a matter of equity, those now producing the lead-based paints which would come within the CPSC’s proposed regulation have had more than adequate notice to do so. To have failed to do so can only be deemed to be, at best, risky business judgment. The only justifications for a delay of more than a few weeks in implementation of a 0.06$ standard would be (a) need to select a supplier of non-lead driers and to receive shipments of a supply of substitutes, (b) need for a manufacturing facility "housecleaning" to assure that non-lead paints will not be con- taminated with traces of lead remaining from manufacturing operations using a lead drier formula, and (c) possibly, a period to test the actual production run formulae for unleaded paint, assuming that reasonable steps were taken prior to the Commissions decision in anticipation of possible promulgation of a 0.06$ standard. The CPSC should determine what period is reasonably necessary for these purposes, and allow no more delay than that for imple- mentation of the 0.06$ standard. We strongly urge that the final EIS reflect these considera- tions . Sincerely, , / Ot/nfi |ia>t rttj? Mark SilbGrgeld/ Attorney, Washington Office 6369 Old Peachtree Road Norcross, Georgia 30071 404-448-4511 WYANDOTTE Es February 4, 1977 Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Mr. Secretary: In reviewing the draft of your environmental impact statement concerning the limiting of lead in paints on December 20, 1976, we find disagreement with the statement on page 111-15 since Graphics Arts Coatings are a major product of our company and a major portion of these coatings are formulated with lead containing pigments. These are not consumer products and are used strictly by professional painters on exterior identification signs. We feel that the cost of the use of these coatings they should still be considered special purpose coatings and as such have an exemption from the regulation. We would appreciate your consideration of the above. Cordially yours, Robert R. Kern Vice President & General Manager RRK:db '/71 5//JJ CITY OF BALTIMORE WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Mayor DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS 4940 Eastern Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21224 Baltimore City Hospital March 9, 1977 Sadye E. Dunn Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D. C. 20207 In re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Contkenfin Paint, dated January 19, 1977, Contract No. CPSC-C-Tj-OOO^ Dear Ms. Dunn: Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the above-named draft document. I shall first comment on several points in the body of the document and finally on the five basic alternatives for regulation by CPSC. Throughout the document, there are references to the replacement of lead in driers by other metals, including calcium, zinc, iron, manganese, cobalt and zirconium. Lead, cadmium and mercury are non-essential trace metals whose only known effects are adverse. Poisoning eventually results when these metals are ingested daily in microgram amounts. On the other hand, calcium, zinc, iron and manganese are essential elements with daily dietary requirements in milligram amounts. * From the viewpoint of human health, there is greater concern about deficiencies of calcium, zinc and iron than there is about their toxicity. Furthermore, there appears to be a reasonable latitude between the required and the toxic amounts of these ele- ments. There would appear to be a considerable margin of safety if calcium, zinc, iron or manganese were substituted for lead in paint driers. The nu- tritional requirement for cobalt is infinitesimally small; however, adults have tolerated the daily administration of 50 mg of cobalt chloride for up to two months without toxic side effects. Zirconium does have toxic effects. Such considerations could play some role in the choice of substitutes for lead in driers. On page II-A-4, the following statement appears: "It is possible that exterior trade sales paints could also be exempted. " Earlier in the document, it is stated that trade sales paints are to be distinguished from industrial coatings and that trade sales paints are distributed through ’Wholesale and retail channels. I interpret this to mean that exterior trade Ms. S. E. Dunn March 9 , 1977 sales paints would include paints sold for the covering of porches, fences, railings, exterior windowsills and frames, exterior doors and frames and siding. These definitely are areas of residences which are accessible to young children and, furthermore, lead paint poisoning has been traced to the consumption of lead-containing paints by young children, from these areas. I would strongly oppose any such exemption. It certainly would not be in line with the intent of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. Although I find no further discussion of this possibility in the docu- ment, I would strongly oppose an exemption that applies to paints and coat- ings that can be applied to the exterior of residences in areas accessible to young children. On page I-B-17, it is stated that domestic toy manufacturers are apparently now meeting the 0. 06% lead standard, but that foreign toy man- ufacturers have a voluntary standard of 0. 25% lead. One should be partic- ularly stringent when dealing with toys intended for infants and toddlers; i. e. , children Robert M. Cox, Sr. President RMC/jk <2^4M4m6tU' J/fau/M Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program 305 South Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass. 02130 (617) 522-3700 Secretary- Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D. C. 20207 Dear Secretary: I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on LaadUC ontent in Paint and I fully support the proposal to regulate paint and surface coating materials containing more than 0. 06% lead. I concur with testimony given by the previous Director of this program on the subject and offer the following excerpt from his June 16, 1977 testimony: "The reduction in allowable concentration of lead in paint allowed to be sold for use in or on residences from 0. 5% to 0. 06% makes em- inent good sense. It is the total amount of lead that a child ingests which produces lead poisoning. The repeated ingestion of 150 mic- rograms of lead from food, drink, and inhaled air will exceed the maximal permitted daily intake of lead for a young child, and will poison the child. 150 micrograms is tha amount of lead found in a single coat of 0. 5% leaded paint on an area about the size of a little fingernail. Obviously, it is not extremely difficult nor unlikely for a child to ingest this amount of paint daily. Equally obvious is the fact that a child must eat eight times as much paint of 0. 06% lead concentration as paint with 0, 5% lead to ingest the same amount of lead. Furthermore, if it were feasible to produce a paint with no lead whatsoever, it would be even safer. Since the effects of lead in- take are cumulative, even a little bit of poison is not good for the child. " (given by Dr. Robert Klein before Senate Subcommittee on Health, June 16, 1977) I look forward to the adoption of this standard and bringing the Mass. Regulations into conformity with it. S incerely, U), Obff> Richard W. Clapp, M. P. H. Director cc: Governor's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning TELEPHONE 522-5998 Zac-Lac Paint 6c Lacquer Company P. O. BOX 92217 • 350 SIMPSON STREET. N.W. ATLANTA. GA. 30314 March 7,1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N.W. Washington,D.C. 20207 Dear Sir: We feel strongly that exemptions for all the special purpose v coatings should be effected for the following reasons. There are no substitutes for the four items in our line of the twenty two that are used to tint automobile colors. In general, not exempting these items would have no material effect on health, for it is applied by adult specialists, under controlled conditions, and does not peel and chip as those materials that would be exposed to children. The total economic effects of denying the exemptions, at least for us, would be all but fatal. Respectfully yours Sincerely, ZAC LAC PAINT & LACQUER CO. v /£ / >-7 it ty L.H. Jones President LHJ/am Manufacturers of LACQUERS - ACRYLICS - PAINTS - ENAMELS - SYNTHETICS southern protective products company March 9, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Re: Lead in Paint Dear Mr. Secretary: This letter is in support of the NPCA request for exemptions for special purpose coatings. Our company is a small one and we find that the failure to grant these exemptions would create a serious impact on our ability to do business. It would also be a serious blow to our many product finish customers. In particular, we believe that baked enamel finishes on outside metal furniture, stoves, and on appliances should be exempted since these are not "chewable" surfaces and the small amounts of lead in them cannot be ingested by children. Since paint techno- logy has not yet found satisfactory substitutes for some of the lead uses, failure to exempt these would severely damage the lawn furniture, stoves and appliance industries. Your consideration will be appreciated. Cordially, SOUTHERN PROTECTIVE PRODUCTS CO. Larry Hecht, President LH/ej manufacturers of calking, sealants, adhesives, asphalt products and industrial paints since 1922 post office box 10915 atlanta, georgia 30310 (404) 758-2611 Trinity Coatings Company Division of G & W Enterprises TIME TESTED QUALITY 926-6811 • P. O. Box 721 • Fort Worth, Texas 76101 March 8, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 Eighteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Gentlemen: It is with a great deal of concern that we write this letter after much thoughtful consideration. We wish to refer to proposals on "lead-based" paint, which, we understand, would regulate these products under the CPSA, instead of the FHSA. Being a manufacturer of many different types of coatings which are sold and used throughout many areas in the United States, we are vitally concerned with any rules or regula- tions which would affect our industry. We take great pride in producing coatings of the highest quality at the most economical prices feasible within the realm of good business practices. A great deal of time and money is spent in formu- lating these products in our Research Laboratory to assure their quality and performance. Safety, both in manufacturing processes and in the use of the final product, is one of primary concerns, as it is with all reputable coatings manufacturers. However, we feel that some of the proposed regulations on "lead-based" Paints should have exemptions included, specifically those listed below: 1. All metal furniture, because of the methods of appli- cation of finishes and the fact that they have hard, unchewable surfaces. 2. Other types of furniture where the likelihood of chewing and the availability to children of any lead in a coating is practically non-existent. 3. Coatings for mirror-backing, which would be virtually impossible for a child to have access to chew. 4. Appliances, which are not considered articles of furni- ture and thus, should not be included in the furniture regulation or, if included, should be specifically exempt. Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission March 8, 1977 Therefore, we request your serious consideration of these various points. We feel that a denial of exemptions for coatings manufactured for use in areas where children would not be affected would have a decidedly adverse economic impact on our company's operation, and in addition, would serve no useful purpose. We urge that exemptions covering these coatings be allowed. Respectfully, TRINITY COATINGS COMPANY • 1 / /' y*/ . ' i ( s (- -J /c-Ai ,/^c'^y ( , r> / *' ) Mel Gardner President MG :mc THE DEAN & BARRY CO MANUFACTURERS OF COLUM BUS, OH IO -43215 OFFICE AND FACTORY 296 MARCONI BLVD, Phone 22-4-3131 Area Code 61-4 March 8, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20207 Dear Sir: Now that the ruling finally has been made that . 06% lead will be mandatory for consumer paint products, I think it is extremely urgent that the exemption for the seven classes of products requested by the National Paint Coatings Association be given favorable consideration. So far as these seven categories are concerned, our company would be involved with two of the seven--Non-staining Wood Primers and Traffic Paint. Treating these individually, to the best of my knowledge, there are no successful formulations for Non-staining Primers that do not contain lead. Also, insomuch as these products are applied on the exterior of houses, and only on certain type siding, the exposure to children is minimal. If these primers are not available, it will result in many unsightly stained paint jobs, particularly where latex paint is used over cedar and redwood siding. As for the Traffic Paint, if it were not permitted to use the lead pigment for Yellow Traffic Paint, the cost would escalate immeasurably and the durability of the yellow color would be greatly reduced. Insomuch as Traffic Paint is used on highways, parking lots, and in industrial plants, the exposure to children, once again, is negligible. Therefore, I hope you will give favorable consideration to the exemption request for the seven categories, and particularly to the two noted above. I do not know but what the other five might be equally important to some companies, but in our particular case, we do not manufacture products that come under the other five categories. Sincerely, ' "V y Robert S. McKay II, President 7 SPSS's Perfection Point $ Color Company, Inc. manufacturer/ for Home and Indu/try 715E.ITlaryland .Street Indionopoli/. Ind. 46202 317-632-4311 A SUBSIDIARY OF HEALTH-CHEM CORPORATION March 10, 1977 Secretary, Consumer Products Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Dear Sir: As a manufacturing member of the Paint Industry, we must reluctantly accept the new lead limitation at .06% in paints rather than the previous maximum of .5%. The drop from the .5% to the .06% will not make paint one bit safer than it was before at .5%, because it was 99.9% safe at the higher level. But, at least it will satisfy some of the consumer advocates who do not understand that the danger from lead-based paints comes from that type of paint manufactured 50 years ago. However, we must request that the exemptions to this Law as listed and requested by the National Paint and Coatings Association be granted. There are just certain products which cannot be made satisfactorily without the use of lead. For example, if you deny the use of lead chromate in traffic marking paint and require non-lead products, the color will have to be changed to a tan or to white - or the cost per gallon will have to be increased by approxi- mately two to three dollars per gallon. This would, of course, present a great hardship on the budgets of all states and municipalities in having to put a lead- free traffic paint on the highways. I doubt if any children will ever chew the paint from a traffic line. Other products , such as lead-based metal primers for construction work would be down-graded in quality or much up-graded in price, if rust inhibitive lead pigments were not allowed. This would, of course, present a great hardship on the building industry which is already so high that prices are becoming prohibitive for building new construction in buildings, roads, bridges, etc. We hope you u/ill grant the exemptions as requested by the National Paint and Coatings Association, who certainly know the field much better than any consumer product commissioners. We are not attempting to make things easier for the Paint Industry; we are only trying to keep inflation down. Sincerely yours, PERFECTION PAINT & COLOR CO.} INC. COLORS FROM Trenditioib J-Jouse GG: jg cc: Robert Roland, President National Paint and Coatings Association George' Gable, President March 10, 1977 Secretary, Consumer Products Safety Commission Washington, D. C. 20207 P. 5. Certainly the use of lead-containing paint should be banned in children's cribs and toys, as it has been for a long time; but it certainly is not necessary to ban it from appliances, refrigerators and furniture which will never be chewed by children. EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF TOY MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATIONS EUROPAISCHEN FODERATION DER SPIELWAREN HERSTELLER FEDERATION EUROPEENNE DES SYNDICATS DE FABRICANTS DE JOUETS FEDERAZIONE EUROPEA DEI FABBRICANTI Dl GIOCATTOLI Co > >■■// All communications to R 80 CAMBERWELL ROAD, LONDON SE5 OEG 58 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207, U.S.A. 28th February, 1977 Dear Sir, This Federation (FEJ) wishes to express its appreciation of the/opportunityT to make comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement of ftetad COnJent in Paint dated 19th January, 1977 (Contract No. CPSC-C-77-0009). Ih-iSlst is understood that the Commission envisages regulating the lead level in paints over a wider field, FEJ submits its comments basically in relation to toys and similar articles intended for use by children: its competence is confined to this field. It is, however, clear that the wider application must be of benefit to the toy industry, which is a relatively small consumer of paint, in that there will be pressures for research and development within the paint industry. In recognising that the weight of medical opinion supports action to restrict the level of lead (and certain other heavy metals) in paint to which a child may be exposed, FEJ would draw the Commission’s attention to the work that has been carried out in Europe over the past 10 years and the ensuing legal re- quirements in certain countries. Its attention is more particularly directed to the work that has been recently proceeding under the auspices of the European Association for the Harmonisation of Standards (CEN) in the course of the preparation of a European Toy Safety Standard and is now currently being further progressed by a working group of the European Economic Community res- ponsible for the drafting of a directive. Experts in the toxicological field, drawn from national governments, industry and also other interested organisations, have considered in some depth the degree of hazard to which a child may be exposed from heavy metals in paint used on toys. On the one hand the safety of the child must be taken into full account but on the other the practical problems of the toy manufacturer and his paint supplier are not to be ignored, always provided that the child is not exposed to any unreasonable degree of hazard. The Commission may therefore allow FEJ to draw attention to the conclusion that has been reached in Europe that at the present time, after account has been taken of the limitations of existing technical 'know-how' and recognition given to the problems that inevitably arise in the day-to-day processes of manufacture in the factories, the limit to be applied for lead in paint should be set at 0.25% (2,500 parts per million). FEJ is aware that there is an opinion held by certain European experts that work should continue in the technicological field to make it commercially practicable to enable this limit to be reduced in the future: such an opinion is to be endorsed. However, to set the limit at a lower level at the present time would seem t<> be placing an undue responsibility on the toy industry, apart from re- stricting the range of colours for toys and detracting from their quality in certain circumstances. Adverse consumer comment would be invited on the product, in addition to the toy manufacturer being unduly exposed to a charge of non- compliance with the law. FEJ welcomes the specific statement that printing inks are not to be covered by the proposed Regulation: experience in Europe shows that considerable confusion for the toy manufacturer will be obviated thereby. It would also wish to record U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 28th February, 1977 its view that artist's paints and related materials could with advantage be exempted from the Regulation, as these are the 'tools' of responsible adults. There would be concern felt, should the Regulation result in a greater reliance on the use of mercury in paint: even at this late stage in the drafting of the European Toy Safety Standard the desirability of the reduction of the permissible level for mercury from 100 parts per million to 50 parts per million is being examined: expert medical opinion has in recent years directed attention to the hazard that exists from the use of this metal. FEJ therefore wishes to submit the view that Alternative Number 5, (as set out in II-A-10), takes best into account the conflicting factors that arise in the matter. It would welcome the reduction of the lead level in paint to 0.25% and then, as and when technicological advances are made within the paint industry, a further reduction - perhaps by more than one stage. In Europe, and it is understood also elsewhere, toy manufacture is carried out not only in large factories but also by a considerable number of small manu- facturers who cannot immediately avail themselves of all the latest developments, by way of equipment and otherwise: in brief, they are dependent on their suppliers of materials. In such circumstances, to avoid their unwitting failure to comply with the law, there should surely be reasonable tolerances allowed for error and, for example, to take account of contamination. FEJ believes that its view is closely aligned to that of the Toy Manufacturers of America Inc., both in regard to the necessary safety factor and also to the practical problems that a Regulation can create. It is hopeful that, through the initiative of the International Committee of Toy Industries, harmonisation can be achieved in the not too distant future on a number of important toy safety requirements so that a potential barrier to trade will be removed. Yours faithfully, G. R. jBoude GRG/cmw DEERE & COMPANY JOHN DEERE ROAD, MOLINE, ILLINOIS 61265 Law Department 14 March 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Secretary: Deere & Company herewith submits its written comments to the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint which is dated 19 January 1977. Deere & Company is one of the largest manufacturers of agricultural and industrial equipment. In addition Deere produces lawn and garden tractors, snowmobiles, outdoor maintenance equipment, and a few leisure-time items. These products are all sold under the trade name "John Deere." Deere is not opposed to lead content in paint regulation as long as the harm to be rectified is addressed in a regulation that properly reflects the scope of the harm. Deere feels that the proposed regulation could have an unnec- essarily adverse impact if the regulation is written so that it is overbroad in scope. Deere's association with paint is twofold: most of the paint the company purchases is used as the original coating on the machines; however a portion is packaged and marketed as refinish and touchup paint. The paint is spe- cially matched to the original equipment coats. It is also formulated so that it will be able to endure the harsh conditions in agricultural fields, exposure to agricultural chemicals, prolonged exposure to sunlight, and adverse weather conditions. Refinish and touchup paints are currently marketed under the exemption pro- posed by the National Paint and Coatings Association to the Federal Hazardous Substances Act regulation which was first issued in 1972. Several of Deere's paints contain in excess of 0.5% lead. The company does print warnings on all lead-based paint labels that such paint contains lead and should not be applied to anything to which children might commonly be exposed. Deere & Company would like to comment on this exemption as it is discussed in the draft environmental impact statement of 19 January 1977. Since Deere & Company is concerned about only that part of the exemption which addresses itself to touchup and refinish coastings for agricultural, indus- trial, lawn and garden equipment and for motorized recreational vehicles, that is the only issue this comment will discuss. DEERE & COMPANY Page two Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 14 March 1977 Deere understands that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is basically trying to protect young children from steady exposure to lead- bearing paints. In order to accomplish this goal in a realistic manner, the CPSC must also consider the negative effects a lead-based paint ban would have on the economy and the environment. Deere & Company advocates the retention of the present exemption in whatever regulation is finally promulgated by the CPSC. Deere feels that the harmful effects its lead-based refinish and touchup coastings would have on children is negligible while the costs that would be imposed on both Deere and its paint-buying customers if the exemption is not allowed would be substantial. Deere & Company markets its equipment through an independent dealer system. These dealers are separate business entities; they usually concentrate on one line of Deere equipment, such as agricultural or industrial machinery. The paints that Deere & Company markets as an accomodation in conjunction with equipment are offered for touchup and refinish use; such touchup and refinish work is performed by both the dealer and customer. A large percentage of the paints Deere sells do not even reach the consumer. They are used by the dealer in his shop work. In February, 1977, Deere con- ducted a national cross-section survey of 20 of its dealers that have or- dered the largest quantity of paint and asked them how they used the paint they purchased from Deere & Company.' ' With respect to the paint packaged for brush or non-aerosol spray application the dealers indicated that 44% was used in the shop while 56% was sold at retail. With respect to the paint in aerosol cans, the dealers indicated that 33% was used in the shop while 67% was sold at retail. Therefore, any potential harmful exposure to the consumer is drastically lessened since much of Deere's refinish paints never leave the dealer's shop; rather, these paints are used to refinish and touchup customers' equipment in shop repair work. (a) These dealers were asked to give figures on the amount of paint sold at retail and on the amount of paint used in the shop. In addition, each dealer was asked to contact five of his customers and ask them how they used the paint they purchased from him. Customers were given four categories of response: 1. Touch-up and Refinish Equipment 2. Paint Items in Household, Including Walls and Porches 3. Paint Children's Toys, Including Swingsets 4. Paint Items in Barn, Including Barn Figures used in the text are averages -- 3/4 of the customers said they used the paint only to refinish and touchup equipment. DEERE & COMPANY Page three Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 14 March 1977 Retail customers indicated that 977„ of their John Deere paint was used to refinish and touchup equipment. They indicated that 2.6% was used to paint items in and around the barn, including the barn itself. Only a total of 1% of the use was in response to categories 2 and 3. Therefore, Deere & Company believes that because of the manner in which the company's paint is sold and because of the manner in which its customers use the paint that the paint is unlikely to end up on items to which children might commonly be exposed. Since 1972 Deere has been cooperatively working with its several paint suppliers to develop an acceptable low-lead paint. To date these efforts have not produced paints of comparable cost and quality to those presently marketed. Deere has run extensive tests on over 100 low-lead paints which correspond to its present corporate color line-up. Of these less than one-third met minimum application and performance requirements. This minimum standard is lower than the standard currently applied to Deere's paints. In fact, if Deere were to apply its present quality requirements on these low-lead substitutes, only 3-5 of the greens and yellows, out of more than 100 tested, could meet these standards. And if Deere were to presently adopt these low-lead paints, the cost to the company would rise anywhere from 30-300%, depending on the specific color. In general these low-lead substitutes have poor color stability. After being exposed to the elements for over a period of time they soon fade. In addition, they are inferior in gloss and sheen retention. Deere's greatest difficulty in finding an acceptable low-lead substitute, both from the quality and cost viewpoint, lies in the industrial yellow coating. In addition the low-lead substitutes require different raw materials than those presently in use in the leaded paints. Deere's suppliers state that if a massive shift is required by regulatory action, the paint industry presently lacks the capacity to supply the low-lead paints that would be required. It would take the paint industry some time to switch their tooling and other equipment to meet a sudden large demand for low-lead paints. So even if the regulation were to require a massive shift to low- lead paints, it would be impossible, practically speaking, since there is not that much low-lead paint available. For the preceding reasons Deere & Company urges the CPSC to maintain the exemption for touchup and refinish paints in formulating its new regulation under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Deere feels that when the risks are balanced against the costs, the latter wins the balancing test. As a less desirable alternative, Deere would urge the CPSC to postpone the effective date of the regulation vis-a-vis touchup and refinish paints. This would DEERE & COMPANY Page four Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 14 March 1977 give the industry more time to develop acceptable low-lead paints and to tool up to supply the increased demand. Deere feels that if the CPSC ignores these considerations and denies the exemption, it could find itself with an unenforceable regulation. Sincerely, Kathleen R. Gibson Attorney KRG/gg DEERE & COMPANY JOHN DEERE ROAD, MOLINE, ILLINOIS 61265 Law Department 14 March 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Secretary: Enclosed are five copies of Deere & Company's comments to the BrmtG Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint. If you have any questions, please contact me at 309/792-4840. Sincerely, Kathleen R. Gibson Attorney KRG/gg Enclosures THE ENTERPRISE COMPANIES 1191 SOUTH WHEELING ROAD WHEELING, ILLINOIS 60090 312/541-9000 March 10, 1977 Ms. Sayde E. Dunn Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20207 Dear Ms. Dunn: The opportunity to express our position and views regarding the "Lead in Paint Issue" is greatly appreciated. We fully support former Chairman Richard 0. Simpson's December 23, 1974, report to Congress in which he concluded 0.5% lead as a "Safe Level" with the interpretation of "Safe" as "a level where we have a reasonable assurance, with expected exposures, of absence of serious toxic effects." We are well aware that the issue is not only factual, but also political and very emotional. The law requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to determine a "Safe Level" of lead in paint, not over 0.5%. It does not permit a conclusion that a level of 0.5% lead or some lower level is as safe as 0.06%. This places the Commissioners in a very difficult position. It is not pos- sible to state that any level of lead is a "Safe Level" any more than it is possible to state that it is safe to ingest any non-food product. Our company has not used Lead Pigments in the formulation of Interior Residential Paints for over 25 years, nor any lead containing white pigments for over 40 years. Realizing the nature of the issue and that a standard of 0.06% lead seemed probable, we discontinued the use of Lead Driers in all Interior Residential Coatings during 1973. By this time, our research indicated this was possible without creating too many serious problems. The consumer receives a product of equal quality after it dried. However, under poor drying conditions, the products require a longer time to dry. (continued) DIVISION OF Insilco Home Products Enterprise Paint Magicolor Paint Federal International Chemicals Enterprise Chemical Coatings BPS Paint The elimination of Lead Driers from Exterior Oil House Paints was much more difficult. A complete reformulation was required. It was necessary to use an alkyd modification in order to have satisfactory drying in certain areas of the country where poor drying conditions are normal a large part of the time. We discontinued the manufacture of our Non-Staining Exterior Wood Primer which was formulated with a Lead Pigment even though it was one of the exempt Special Purpose Coatings to be marketed solely for use on Redwood or Cedar. The pigment used in it is white and contains a high percentage of lead. The product created a serious lead contamination problem being both white and having a high lead content. The elimination of all lead containing white pigments from our formulations improved our ability to spot any potential contamination. White paint amounts to over 50% of our production; therefore, more time and effort can be used to locate and prevent contamination in equipment used for other products. Discontinuing our Non-Staining Primer placed us in a slight marketing disadvantage; however, all factors had to be considered. After studying the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint," dated January 19, 1977, issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, we offer the following comments: Page 111-15 under Agricultural equipment refinishing a "Moderate Adverse Impact" is stated and that pigments are not a problem with the exception of Caterpiller Yellow, which requires the use of lead pigments for exact replication. This is completely misleading. It should be stated a "Major Adverse Impact" because most of the colors used on Agricultural Equip- ment are made with lead pigments. The main colors are Yellow, Orange, Red and Green, and all of them use lead pigments. (continued) Alternate No. 1 It certainly would be more desireable and less costly to retain the 0.5% lead level under Alternate No. 1 or even a 0.2% level with a regulation which would specify that no lead could be added, if only to reduce the excessive monitoring required under a 0.06% Lead Standard. The cost of monitoring will be a serious financial impact for small manufacturers where an increase of 10 or 20 cents per gallon may be required for lead analysis. Our objection to Alternate No. 1 is based upon the fact that the special coating issue is not resolved. Alternate No. 2 It is completely unacceptable because the specific exemptions for Special Purpose Coatings are denied. This denial could eventually have a yearly financial cost impact of over $250,000,000. It would not only eliminate the use of Lead Pigments, which are very important for proper performance in these coatings, but eventually it would eliminate these pigments from Industrial Coatings which are used as the original finish. It is necessary to use the same pigments in refinish or touch up coatings as is used in the original coating; otherwise, there can be no color match. The materials will be metameric. The elimination of lead pigments in these coatings will increase the raw material cost 50% to 100% depending upon the color. It could even exceed this if the use of Vat Dyes are required to provide satisfactory color retention for certain exterior coatings. Not only will there be an excessive cost increase but the quality of many products will be inferior Some may require 2 coats, whereas only 1 coat would be needed if the product was made with lead pigments. This data is based upon our laboratory evaluation of various coatings using lead pigments and non-lead pigment to produce similar colors. This will create a situation where everyone must pay consid- erably more because some one individual might completely disregard the Directions and the Warnings and misuse the product. (continued) Alternates No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 We can support either of these although a slightly higher standard including a regulation prohibiting the use of added lead would be more desireable. It would reduce the necessity of excessive monitoring as we stated in our remarks under Alternate No. 1. Alternates No. 4 and No. 5 They would permit smaller companies, who have not been able to reformulate without lead drier, an opportunity to do additional research in order to meet the 0.06% lead standard. An exemption for certain household articles, finished with lead containing coatings, such as Metal Furniture, Venetian Blinds and Appliances seems proper, as they certainly cannot contribute to the lead ingestion problem. We hope the above information and comments will be helpful to the Commissioners in their deliberations and final consideration in resolving the Lead in Paint Issue. Sincerely, THE ENTERPRISE COMPANIES CX'iicWta. Arthur F. Bohnert Vice-President Research and Development AFB:sc INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER March 14, 19,77 Office of the Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission 1111 18th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Subject: Comments on the Consumer Product Safety Commission Notice on Lead Based Paint in the Feb. 16, 1977 Federal Register Vol.43, No.32 Gentlemen: International Harvester Company appreciates the opportunity to present its comments on the proposed ban on paints having a lead content in excess of .06 and up to .5 percent. Our company is one of the largest manufacturers of agricultural and industrial equipment in the world. The extensive research and development work that goes into providing safe products for our customers provides us with a good overview of the work the Consumer Product Safety Commission is doing. We concur with the intent of the CPSC to protect consumers, and in this case children, from excessive lead levels in paints intended for use on toys, furniture, and other items used in and about the home. Our products, whether they be colored red, white, or yellow, cannot by any stretch of the imagination, fall into this category. Agricul- tural and industrial products are used outdoors, remain outdoors, remain remote from the home as such, and have a substantially longer life span than most consumer products. Since large sums of money are invested in the purchase of our products, touch-up and refinishing of this equipment is very common. Because of the weathering and constant outdoor use, durability, rust and corrosion protection, and extended life of these products is essential. A complete ban on the use of lead containing paints would impose a serious penalty on our products and a hardship on our customers. Lead based pigments, in particular lead chromates, are currently used in the majority of outdoor product finishes because of their outstanding durability and because they significantly enhance the corrosion pro- tection required. Switching to water-thinned paints introduces other undesirable compounds in the paints, while producing an inferior product. AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING 7 South 600 County Line Road Hinsdale, Illinois 60521 Phone 312 887-2233 March 14, 1977 In the Federal Register of March 11, 1972, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs published a proposal to declare paint and other similar surface coating, for use in and around the household, banned as a hazardous substance if shipped in interstate commerce after Dec. 31, 1972, providing the lead content was in excess of .05%. On Sept. 21, 1972, the National Paint and Coatings Association filed a petition with the Commission of the Food and Drug Administration asking that 7 classes of coating products be declared outside the scope of the March 11th order. Those classes were as follows: 1. Automotive, agricultural and industrial equipment refinish coatings. 2. Industrial maintenance coatings including traffic and safety marking coatings. 3. Graphic art coatings. 4. Touch up coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment. 5. Exterior marine coatings. 6. Exterior rubber based roof coatings. 7. Exterior prime coatings for wood. To the best of our knowledge, this proposal was never acted upon nor are there presently any restrictions on lead content in industrial finishes. We strongly urge the Consumer Product Safety Commission to grant these exemptions. In conclusion, we support the goals and objectives of the CPSC, however, banning the use of lead in all paints including those used for touch up and refinishing purposes where rust and corrosion prevention is re- quired and on applications so remote from children seem to be totally unjustified and not in the best interest of the public. We strongly urge the CPSC to grant an exception in these two areas for use on our products. Very truly yours, Ronald F;/zi£la/ Chief Engi^er Operator Environment & Safety bw Blatz BLATZ PAINT COMPANY, INC. 319 South Shelby Street Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Area 502 584-8364 Qjtitee/<$7(? March 14, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission llll-18th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Secretary: The CPSC in its notice in the Federal Register February 16, 1977 invited comments concerning multiple regulatory proposals on "lead-based" paint. (41 F.R. 33636-40) The industry has requested special exemption for seven categories of special purpose coatings. By your own admission, the economic impact of denying the exemptions "cannot be accurately assessed." This states in essence that you have not made an economic evaluation. It is evident however that you have made the assumption that it will be slight, thereby allowing you to presume that even though beneficial health and environment impact would be "slight", the denial would have little impact on the paint industry. Wrong 1 The categories considered represent approximately $850,000,000 in product sales at the manufacturing level. Reformulation of products involved with compliance in other categories indicate a minimum Raw Cost increase to the end user of 20%-25%. Coupled with this cost is reformulation expense to the paint supplier. This can easily (and particular for the smaller business unit) increase laboratory cost by 2%-3% in the year of reformu- lation. The raw cost increase is then subject to our annual increase of 6%/annum. The net effect is to squeeze the manufacturer and the end user in terms of pass through costs, thus forcing considerable erosion in operating income for both. Assuming full pass through cost to the consumer, the product purchase price of all end use items would result in increased accommodation by the consumer of $1.7 million to $2.2 million/year with no change in the functionality of the end use product. This new higher base would in turn be subject to 6% annual increase in raw cost. I would hardly judge this to be a slight impact either to the manufacturer or to the consumer. I agree with your assumption that the benefit to health and environment would. I recommend that you permit the exemptions. Sincerely, BLATZ PAINT COr,7 INC. "" Lee Kitchen President LK: tk cc: Gene Snyder Ron Mazzoli March 10, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 13th Street N. W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Gentlemen: Reference is made to, "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint", discussed in your notice published in the Federal Register of February 16, 1977. It is our purpose to assist you in assessing the economic effects of deny- ing the exemptions for special purpose coatings. This position is taken in view of your stated recognition that beneficial health effects and beneficial environmental impact as a result of such denial would be siight. We have been manufacturing coatings since 1908 and over the years have had to develop and maintain a high level of skill, awareness and technical knowledge concerning what is required in the coatings industry. Technical developments have not been achieved that will permit us to manufacture the seven "special purpose" coatings to meet the underlying needs and still fall within the 0.06% lead limit. Each of the proposed seven exempt coatings are required for economic reasons in terms of cost to the public, protection to the surface and safety to the user. The extent of the adverse economic impact on our economy in denying the exemptions would be substantial. Sincerely, PRESERVATIVE PAINT COMPANY 'j.t.wb W. L. Smith President WLS:cg PRESERVATIVE PAINT CO. 5400-5*110 AIRPORT WAY SOUTH SEATTLE, WA. 98108 • 763-0300 Dariacolors PROFESSIONAL COLORS CLASSIC . Jrtists Colors DAN ACOLORS, INC. 1833 Egbert Ave., P.O. Box 24212, San 94124 • 415-467-2710 March 10, 1977 Ms. Sadye Dunn, Secretary U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Ms. Dunn: It has come to our attention that your commission is considering extending the ban on lead based pigments to include the field of graphic arts coatings. We are manufacturers of bulletin colors and other coatings for the Outdoor Advertising and Commercial Sign Industry and would be seriously affected by such a ban. It is our understanding that the purpose for elimating lead from paint is to elimate the possibility of ingestion by children such as had happened where coatings have flaked off of interior walls, toys, cribs, etc. Our materials are used for the execution of advertising messages on the display facing of painted bulletins which are built and maintained out of doors on commercially zoned high traffic locations where their adver- tising message will be read by the traveling public. There is physically no possible way in which paint used for this purpose could come in contact with children or in fact anyone other than the people actually painting or building these advertising displays. Furthermore, the materials are sold exclusively through sign supply dealers or directly by the manufacturer to the sign or advertising company so that they are not even available in normal retail channels. I am enclosing a color card showing the standard bulletin colors which are used throughout the United States for painting all types of advertising displays and commercial signs. There are nineteen standard colors plus black and white of which eight normally contain pigments which are derived from various chemical lead compounds. These pigments have been found to be the most economical and satisfactory for creating these specific colors and to ban their use would double the cost of manufacturing these colors from substitute materials. This seems to us a needless waste which serves no purpose. Please bring these comments to the attention of the commission and urge them to continue the present exemption for graphic arts paints. Ywts very tridiy, Charles H. Dana ~ . Koppers Company, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219 Telephone 412-391-3300 KOPPERS March 9, 1977 Secretary- Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Re: Federal Register Notice of February 16, 1977 inviting comments on the lead content of paints. Gentlemen: We support the continued exemption of "special-purpose" coatings where it can be shown that children will not be exposed to the potential hazards of a higher lead content in the paint film. As manufacturers of industrial maintenance and marine coatings, we believe a denial of an exemption for these special-purpose coatings would result in desirable products that will not function in certain areas. The damp and humid conditions associated with all marine applications, and the usual conditions of dew, fog and frost, associated with large outdoor projects such as water tanks, requires drier systems that will produce suitable results with alkyd resin systems. Our research and development have not found any non-lead drier that will produce satisfactory results for the above applications. Without lead containing driers in marine applications the coatings will not dry, and in the industrial maintenance area we find considerable film damage and early failure resulting from dew, rain or frost many hours after application of the paint. We have not tried to calculate the loss to our customers if they were required to use more expensive systems (vinyls, epoxy, etc.) or have a shorter service life for their paint systems. It is apparent, however, that it would be an unnecessary expense to prohibit the use of lead containing driers in coatings intended for these special uses. March 9, 1977 Consumer Product Safety Commission 2. Regulations concerning paint for household and furniture applications should be very specific and have a common-sense approach to actual surfaces accessible to and chewable by children. It is our opinion that lawn mower touch-up paint and metal office desks are examples where there is limited exposure to children. On the other hand, wood furniture for children's bedrooms should be of great concern. Please call upon us if we can provide you with additional remarks or details with respect to these comments. Respectfully submitted, (itiju A:.. Charles P. Brush, Manager Product Registration and Labeling CPB/jb cc: Robert A. Roland National Paint Coatings Association rs/£7Af CL I ODEN - DURKEE DIVISION OF SCM CORPORATION/ COATINGS AND RESINS GROUP 900 UNION COMMERCE BUILDING, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44115* ARNE C. LINDHOLM VICE PRESIDENT-CHEMICAL COATINGS March 11, 1977 Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Re: Proposed Regulation of Certain Lead Containing Paints and Other Similar Surface-Coating Material (16 CFR 1150) Gentlemen: We submit the following comment with respect to the regulatory proposals pending with the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 16 CFR part 1150. The paint industry realizes and understands the need for controlling the use of lead compounds in coating applications to eliminate the hazards of exposure of lead to humans, particularly children. The hazards to children have already been documented from past medical data. Measures have already been taken by the paint industry to eliminate lead compounds from all coatings which would be used in such areas and applications that would provide exposure and easy access to children. Initial reductions of lead levels have been from 1% lead in the dried film as originally called for in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act of 1960 to 0.5% under current regulations and many in the industry have already reduced the level to less than 0.06% in all of their consumer oriented products. However, there are areas of coating applications where it is firmly believed that lead levels higher than 0.06% in the dried film would not be a hazard to persons or children living or working in the vicinity of such products. The need for such coatings containing lead is due to the technical and economic advantages that can be achieved and the fact the current technology has not provided answers for substitute materials to match the technical performance of certain lead compounds. The Glidden Coatings <5c Resins Div. of SCM Corporation, a manufacturer of coatings in the consumer and industrial markets, concurs that a 0.06% lead level is a feasible range to obtain for consumer products (with a minor sacrifice in product performance in a few product lines). In fact, Glidden has been pursuing an active program to remove all lead compounds from consumer goods since 1971. That goal was achieved in 1973. In the industrial maintenance and chemical coatings area efforts were also made to replace lead wherever feasible or possible. However, there are certain applications where product performance cannot be achieved without the lead materials, nor with substitute materials. In addition, in these particular areas it is believed that the presence of lead does not present a hazard. It is in the following industrial applications that Glidden (and the paint industry) has found that certain lead compounds are necessary in coatings to achieve the properties that are required to make a product for the consumer and industry which will meet performance standards that are required for the life of that product. Secretary - CPSC March 11, 1977 Page Two 1. Automotive, agricultural implements, tractor, earth moving equipment, etc. 2. Industrial Maintenance - Structural steel, chemical tanks and equipment, etc. 3. Coil Coating Industry - Residential siding, mobile homes, metal finishes. 4. Appliance Coatings - Washers, dryers, air conditioners, home appliances. 5. General Metal Finishing - Steel partitions, registers, metal furniture, desks, filing cabinets, etc. 6. Marine Finishes - 7. Miscellaneous - Mirror backing. Coatings used in the above applications are applied at the factory where industrial know-how and modern safety practices eliminate exposure to hazardous materials. The films are baked at temperatures from 200-500°F. The coatings end up as extremely hard, smooth finishes with extreme adhesion and durability that resist cracking, chipping or peeling. The painted surface cannot be removed by gnawing or chewing or rubbing off to result in exposure to any hazardous ingredients such as lead. Denying the permission to use certain lead compounds in the above product areas would result in making goods of inferior quality causing dissatisfaction to the consumer. Corrosion resistant properties would be lost leading to rusting and early failure of materials resulting in shorter life span of appliances and other products. Durability would be lost, again resulting in replacing or repairing current long-life products. All this at the replacement of a lead hazard which is not believed to be there in the first place. It is therefore our considered opinion that the Commission should allow the above- referenced categories as exemptions to the proposed regulation on the grounds that the use of lead based paint in such categories does not destroy the primary purpose of the regulation. The hazard of toxicity caused by a child’s ingestion is virtually non-existent. We respectfully submit that the Commission recognize such exemptions. Very truly yours, Kwf- ACLrcam DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Room 540, Municipal Services Building Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LEWIS D. POLK, M.D Acting Health Commissioner LAWRENCE J. DEVLIN Deputy Health Commissionei March 11, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, DC P0207 Dear Sir: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead l%inf prepared by your Department and dated January 19, 1977 baa reviewed by the professional staff of the Philadelphia Impart riignt. of Public Health and the following recommendations are b<©Sig forwarded for your consideration: 1. The responsibility for regulating lead content in paint is presently the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission but under two different and separate federal Acts. We strongly recommend that the responsibility remain in the CPSC and that the Federal Hazardous Substances Act be amended to delete that section pertaining to lead based paints since lead based paint is appropriately defined and regulated under the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act now a part of the National Health Information and Disease Prevention Act. ?. Regulations already developed by the CPSC indicate that paint containing more than 0.06% lead by weight are in violation of the federal Act. These regulations should be amended and include defin- itions of trade sales paint and industrial finishes. 3. Regulations should also provide clear cut definitions of what constitutes furniture and household appliances. This is especially important in the area of patio or outdoor furniture when made of metal construction. These articles may have baked on enamels or paints which contain large amounts of lead. 4-. The CPSC should remove from the list of exempted paints presently in the Federal Hazardous Substandes Act the redwood and cedar primers. The reason is that these primers contain high concentrations of lead and may be used on exterior window sills and door frames, and thus present health hazards for children. These recommendations are best represented in alternative #3 as proposed by the CPSC except for the recommendations asking for Secretary, GPSC March 11, 1977 specific definitions on furniture, appliances and exempt primers and paints. I wish to thank you for the opportunity provided the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to respond to this matter and would appreciate being informed on final action contemplated by your agency. Sincerely, Lewis D. Polk, M.D. LDP:WJS:es cc: Mr. Sobolesky ® fit ti i ® g An Ameron Company BOX 2153, WICHITA, KANSAS 67201 Telephone: (316) 733-1361 March 15, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Sirs: As a parent, grandparent, and a sincere Christian my tolerance for products injurious to children is zero. As a chemist and General Manager of a paint company my concerns are very great that legislation and administrative rulings by non-scientific groups or scientific groups operating out of their area of exper- tise will inpose needless overkill on industry and ultimately vje the citizens. Recent changes in the definition of lead based paint were the result of political pressure applied to a problem without adequate data when such data are feasible. To minimize the costs of some- body's assumptions we strongly urge that all unchewable objects (metal furniture, appliances, etc.) be exempted from this regula- tion. Coatings for these uses must be abrasion and chip resistant to be marketed. Consumers will not tolerate a paint that mars or chips. Costs for re-formulating and testing these coatings will be a con- stant and unnecessary expense which will eventually be passed on to the consumer and add to inflationary costs. Some of the pigments involved are ten times the price of conventional pigments and because of their lower hiding must be used in larger quantities. A lead free yellow appliance coating is four times as expensive as a product new in use. Our petition is for continued research to determine the need for the 0.067, level and exemption for obviously safe objects in resi- dential paints. Very truly yours, Charles M. Dorns General Manager vupu-coLon DUPLI-COLOR PRODUCTS DIVISION OF AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1601 NICHOLAS BOULEVARD • ELK GROVE VILLAGE, ILLINOIS 60007 PHONE 312-439-0600 Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested March 15, 1977 Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Re: Rule-making on Lead-in-Paint Regulatory proposals-Fed. Register 41 F.R. 33636-40 16 C F.R. 1150.5 Exemption of certain Mspecial purpose'1 coatings Dear Sir: As a leading manufacturer of touch-up coatings for automobiles, we have been and are very concerned about the necessity for such products to be exempted from regulations that would prevent the use of coatings that contain lead or heavy metals for such purposes. Although industry sales figures are not available, based upon our own sales and our assessment of sales by others, we estimate that, in 1976, sales of automobile touch-up paints and the like totaled over 25 million units. This is evidence of a widespread demand for and need of such products by millions of vehicle owners. If such touch-up products were not available to the vehicle owner and when refinishing is necessary to maintain the appearance of the vehicle and prevent rusting, his or her only alternative would be to utilize the services of a professional refinisher at a greatly higher cost. This would add tremendously to the already high cost of vehicle maintenance. Considering the fact that an automobile represents one of the largest investments most families ever make, it is essential to protect this investment and depriving them of relatively inexpensive touch-up products would impose a large and undue financial burden upon them. To suit the tastes and preferences of the public and provide durable, long lasting finishes in an attractive range of colors, March 15, 1977 Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission Washington, D. C. vehicle manufacturers use coatings that contain lead. Many millions of vehicles in use today have such finishes and it is impossible to manufacture touch-up products to match these colors and finishes unless the same pigmentation is used as was used in the original vehicle finish. As is well known, coatings applied to automobiles and the like by the vehicle manufacturers are of a special, durable and "hard” nature and not given to peeling or removal. It is completely un- likely that a child would be apt to, have the opportunity to or even be able to obtain, chew or ingest even a small fragment of such a coating. Touch-up coatings to be applied to vehicles must also be of a special nature, adhere firmly to the vehicle’s surface and be applied in relatively thin coatings. Again, it is inconceivable that a child would have access to or be able to obtain even a small fragment from a vehicle on which a touch-up coating has been applied. It should also be noted that if touch-up coatings were not avail- able and if the vehicle owner had repairs made by a professional refinisher, the refinisher would have to use coatings containing lead with the same result, as far as lead is concerned, as would have been obtained by using touch-up at a considerably lower cost to the vehicle owner. It is also unlikely that anyone would be apt to purchase an auto- mobile touch-up product for other uses in or about the home. The type of coating used and the colors available are not suited to such use and such products would cost the user far more than a great many products readily available and made for in-home use and more satisfactory for such uses. It has been proposed and we agree that, regardless of the above, it is appropriate for all containers of touch-up coatings to carry appropriate "warning" statements as proposed by the Department Of Health, Education and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration (21 C F.R. Part 191.1) as reported in the Federal Register Vol. 37 No. 234 - Tuesday, December 5, 1972. Banning the use of lead in touch-up coatings for automobiles and the like would impose an undue cost burden upon millions of vehicle owners, destroy an important industry that provides a great many March 15, 1977 Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission Washington, D. C. jobs and a livlihood for a great many people, and the risk to children is practically non-existant. For all of the above valid and compelling reasons, we strongly urge that automobile touch-up paint and the like to exempted from regulations that would prevent the use of lead in such special and unique coatings. We have a vital and important interest in this matter and will be glad to supply any additional information you may require an be of every possible service to you. Very truly yours, DUPLI-COLOR PRODUCTS Division American Home Products Corporation Wirt V. Dunlop fj President WVD:hh Submitted in 5 copies. - 3 - THE VOLTAX COMPANY INCORPORATED MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL PAINTS — ENAMELS — LACQUERS — ADHESIVES Telephone (203) 333-2158 Sable: VOLTAX 460 BOSTWICK AVENUE BRIDGEPORT, CONN. 06605 March 17th, 1977 Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D. C. 2020? Attn: Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary RE: The Lead Issue related to paints Dear Ms. Dunn: It is our opinion that proposed actions to eliminate lead compounds from all paints is an over-reaction to a political issue. The political chemists have based their demands on lead pigments used in paints prior to 194-0 which were highly soluble and toxic. The enclosed testimony presented to the Senate by Nichem Corporation in 1972 demonstr- ates the differences between the types of pigments. Our products are manufactured for use on a variety of metal surfaces in industrial applications for protective and decorative purposes. If the less soluble lead pigments used today are formulated in baking enamels and other industrial finishes, it is illogical to believe children suffering from pica would ever have an opportunity to eat these paints. The enclosed test data also explains the harmless nature of these pigments. All we ask is a realistic approach to legislation and enforcement determined by truth rather than hysteria. Very truly yours, THE VOLTAX COMPANY, INC. Jl. Hiccio Administrator JJR:k enc. K> 3 £ 3=31M 83 (Area 312) 924-37©[i3Mi©KI (Area 312) <>24-3700 Executive Offices: 600 H'esf 52nd Street • Chicago, Illinois 606/,0 March 17, 1972 United States Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare Washington, D. C. 20510 Re:#S 3080 Gentlemen: This is a plea for sanity. Let us not have another hexachlorophene, MSG (monosodium glutamate), or phosphate fiasco. Let us be aware that there are many compounds that are harmless or beneficial in one form and toxic in another. Cyanide as a gas HCN is a poison, yet cyanide in Prussian Blue is a non-toxic pigment. Soluble barium is toxic. But barium sulfate is used for x-ray analysis and is orally ingested. It is insoluble in this form. Paint makers use the insoluble barium sulfate. So it is with lead compounds. The issue should be T,What are the effects of specific lead compounds if ingested?”, and not a blanket condemnation of all lead-containing pigments. For example, lead acetate and lead carbonate are highly soluble under conditions of gastric digestion, and studies with laboratory animals indicate that they are highly toxic. Such compounds should, of course, be banned from general usage, and be used only under strictly controlled laboratory or manufacturing conditions. On the other hand, lead sulfate and lead chromate are almost insolu- ble in gastric juice. Thus, even if paint chips containing these compounds are eaten by children with pica, the amount of lead being dissolved and absorbed into the system is negligible. The attached laboratory animal studies support this conclusion. SMCIKllSsO (Area 312) 924-3700 Chicago, Illinois 60609 Executive Offices: 600 Kesf 52nd Street March 17, 1972 United States Senate Re:#S 3080 Page 2 The above comparison is only one illustration of the radical variation that exists among lead compounds in their effect on living organisms. While some are potentially harmful, and should be stringently controlled, others are essentially innocuous. Their use is not dangerous to the human organism; their elimination for no proven reason is dangerous to the continuation of our national economy. Anti-trust laws, federal loans, the Small Business Administration — all are intended to foster free enterprise and encourage the entrepreneur. But who except the few mammoth corporations can survive the crushing blows of unnecessary, unwarranted and unsubstantiated legislation? It appears that legislation is being based on public opinion rather than objective technical testimony. One result of such practices is public funds spent on subsequent reparation, as in the case of MSG. Nor are such practices consistent with the best interests of the American public. If all lead compounds are about to be banned, though many are demonstrated to be harmless, why is tobacco being left on the market, though repeated research has shown it to be carcinogenous? Your very serious consideration of all the above factors and the subsequent lawsuits that will result is warranted. Very truly yours, Ilf (r'/L-ZvxL— William G. Lerch President Enel. WGL:ab ROSNER - HIXSON LABORATORIES I , Telephone 7737 South Chicago Avenue/Chicago. Illinois 60619 Area Code 312 REgcnt i-0112 R E P 0 R T Laboratory No. 16085 CLIENT: National Industrial Chemical of Chicago, Illinois. SAMPLE: Lead Chromate, Product No. 1610 JM LA Med Chr Yellow. The lead content of the sample was stated to be 65%. OBJECT: To determine the solubility of the test sample under conditions of gastric digestion. EXPERIMENTAL: Five hundred milligrams of the test product was placed in a bottle to which was then added 100 ml of dilute hydrochloric acid, pH 1.5. The bottle was placed on a rotor in a 37 C room for a period of two hours. The suspension uas then filtered. Each filtrate was thereupon tested for lead content by means of atomic absorption spectrophotometry. RESULTS: 1. Total lead content of sample: 325 mgs 2. Total lead dissolved: 5.19 mgs 3. Soluble lead as percent of total lead: 1.59 4. Soluble lead as percent of total sample: 1.04 CONCLUSION: The degree of solubility of lead in the test sample was found to be quite low. On the basis of this finding we conclude that the use of the test product as a component of paint would cause negligible hazards if the paint were to be eaten by children. February 3, 1972 ROSNER-HIXSON LABORATORIES Lawrence Rosner, Ph.D. President ROBNER - HIXSON LABORATORIES t j Telephone 7737 South Chicago Avenue j Chicago, Illinois 00619/Area Code 312 RE gent 4-0142 U I IP (S) U T La bora II Vo. 1225) CLIENT: American Chemet Corporation of Chicago, Illinois. OBJECT: To determine the relative solubility of various lead compounds under conditions of gastric digestion. SAMPLES: The following samples were tested: 1. Lead acetate, J. T. Baker Reagent Pb(Ac) .3H?0 2. Lead carbonate, M. C. B. Reagent PbCO 3. Lead oxide, B&A Reagent PbO 4. Lead hydroxide, Pfalz & Bauer 3. Lead Sulfate, Fisher Certified PbSO, 6. Lead Sulfate, Basic (PbO.PBsO ), American Chemet 7. Leaded Zinc 102R, Lot 132, American Chemet Samples 1-5 were obtained by us from laboratory supply companies. Samples 6 and 7 were submitted by the client. EXPERIMENTAL: Five hundred milligrams of each test product were placed in a bottle to which was then added 100 ml. of dilute hydro- chloric acid, pH 1.5. The bottles were placed on a rotor in a 37 C room for a period of two hours. The suspensions were then filtered. Each filtrate was thereupon tested for lead content by means of atomic absorption spectrophotometry. - continued - American Chemet Corporation Lah. \l\lTil COMMENT: It is assumed that the toxicity of lead compounds for humans and-animals is a function of solubility in gastric juice. That is, the lower the solubility the lower the toxicity. Thus if a lead compound is relatively insoluble in gastric juice then its ingestion should not produce the deleterious effects that occur with more soluble lead compounds, such as effects that result from the eating of paint by children. While a search of the literature revealed a number of publications bearing upon solubility of lead compounds we could find none which compared solubilities under the usual conditions of gastric acidity and time or residence in the stomach. Thus the present study is designed to yield data from a practical simulated test under gastric conditions . Under conditions of this experiment the lead acetate dis- solved completely. All of the other products showed some residues after digestion, with varying degrees of lead solubility. The lead sulfate and leaded zinc showed the least degrees of lead solubility, whether related to total lead or total sample. September 3, 1971 R0SNER-H1XS0N LABORATOKIES v y , —t Lawrence Rosner, Ph.D. President Lead Content Lead Content of Filtrate Soluble Lead as Percent of Total Lead Soluble Lead as Percent of Total Sample 1. Lead acetate 7. 54.5 7. 0.270 99.3 54.1 0 •» • Lead carbonate 77.6 0.125 32.2 25.0 3. Lead oxide 92.8 0.203 43.8 40.6 4. Lead hydroxide 86.0 0.203 47.2 40.6 3. Lead sulfate 68.3 0.019 5.5 3.7 r 0. Lead sulfate, basic 78.8 0.188 47.8 37.6 7. Leaded Zinc 102R 6.63 0.004 12.0 0.8 R0SNER-HIXS0N LABORATORIES American Chemet Corporation La 1/12257 ROSNER - HIXSON LABORATORIES i , Telephone 7737 South Chicago Avenue/Chicago, Illinois c>06l9 Area Code 312 REgent 4-0142 R E P D R T Laboratory No. PT 71 - 2 2 5 CLIENT: National Industrial Chemical Company of Chicago, Illinois. SAMPLE: Lead Chromate, Product No. 1610 JM LA Med Chr Yellow. OBJECT: To determine acute oral toxicity potential of sample. EXPERIMENTAL & RESULTS: The sample was administered orally as a 25% suspension to overnight fasted rats of the Sprague-Dawley strain. The oral administration was performed by the use of a syringe with a modified 17 gauge hypodermic needle as an oral feeding tube. The animals were observed following dosing and over a subsequent fourteen day observation period. At the conclusion the survivors were weighed, sacrificed and subjected to a gross autopsy. Upon autopsy, thoracic and abdominal organs appeared normal. The doses and animal fates are shown in Table 1. Based upon the data obtained, the acute oral of the sample is greater than 40 g.m/kg. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION: The acute oral toxicity of Lead Chromate, Product No. 1610 JM LA Med Chr Yellow was determined. The acute oral LD of sample for rats is greater than 40 gm/kg. February 3, 1972 ROSNER-HIXSON LABORATORIES h 7 ) i f *./—•/--v. 0. F. Hixson Technical Director JA TABLE 1 ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY SAMPLE: LEAD CHROMATE PRODUCT NO. lb 10 JM LA Med Chr Ye 1 low Anima1 Number Body Weight in Grams Dose Gm/Kg 1 Dose in Ml. Solution Weight Gain in 14 Days G rams Fate 872 288 5.0 5.76 81 Survived 873 2 70 it 5.40 60 Survived 874 288 10.0 11.52 * 57 Survived 875 303 II 12.12 * o2 Survived 876 293 20.0 23.14 * 42 Survived 877 202 ii 20.20 * 28 Survived 878 190 40.0 30.40 ** 38 Survived 879 198 ii 31.68 ** 34 Survived 880 200 ii 32.00 ** 50 Survived 881 198 n 31.68 ** 35 Survived 882 330 ii 52.80 ** 35 Survived * Administered in 2 divided doses on day of treatment ** Administered in 3 divided doses on day of trea tment The acute oral is greater than 40 gm/kg. ROSNER • HIXSON LABORATORIES l j , Telephone '7:i7 A luth Chicago Avenue'Chicago, Illinon bObl9(Area Code 312 RL'gent 4-0142 i IE ? @ R T Laboratory Ar Dose in Grams One Month Weight Gain Grams Days to Death 122 180 1.0 0.188 65 Survived 123 176 1.42 0.249 36 Survived 124 190 2.0 0.38 46 Survived 125 177 2.84 0.50 51 Survived 126 174 4.03 0.70 37 Survived 127 192 5.68 1.09 56 Survived 133 202 8.06 1.63 55 Survived 134 170 11.4 1.94 52 Survived 135 214 16.2 3.47 42 Survived 136 200 23.0 4.60 38 Survived 137 196 28.7 5.62 59 Survived 219 220 40.0 8.8 120 Survived 220 219 40.0 8.8 109 Survived 221 158 40.0 6.4 102 Survived 222 187 40.0 7.6 67 Survived The acute rat oral LD50 is greater than 40 gro/kg. TABLE /» AC]THE RAT ORAL TOXICITY S;‘.k?L3: LEAD SOI .FATE Aru:vV) 1 Body Weight Do3 e Dooe In One Honth Weight Gain Days to <*-. CrPT j Gro/Kr> Gram** Gram Death 97 16.0 1,0 0.165 75 Survived 33 »0f> 1,42 0.226 80 Survived 93 201 2.0 0.322 54 Survived ICO 150 2.84 0.426 64 Survived 101 146 4.03 0.629 61 Survived 102 160 5.68 0.909 80 Survived 103 150 8.06 1.2 96 Survived 104 ICO 11.4 1.8 93 Survived 101 if'. 16.2 2.49 95 Survived 100 150 23.0 3.45 90 Survived 107 ioo 28.7 4.3 91 Survived 103 166 35.9 5.20 89 Survived 223 222 40.0 8.88 130 Survived 229 210 40.0 8.56 134 Survived 2:0 193 40.0 7.92 143 Survived 231 216 40.0 8.64 171 Survived The acute rat oral LD50 iS greater than 40 gm/kg. TABLE 3 ACUTE RAX URAL TOXICITY SAMPLE: LEAD OXIDE Animal Body Weight Dose Dose in One Month Weight Gain Days to Number in Grams Gm/KK Grams Grams Death 29M 268 1.0 0.268 110 Survived 31M 292 1.42 0.415 139 Survived 46M 276 2.0 0.55 109 Survived 79F 187 2.84 0.53 69 Survived 80F 212 4.0 0.85 69 Survived 96F 210 5.68 1.19 63 Survived 97F 199 8.06 1.60 74 Survived 98F 203 11.4 2.31 34 Survived 99F 182 16.2 2.95 80 Survived 100F 168 23.0 3.86 — 7 101F 198 28.7 5.68 59 Survived 91F 152 28.7 4.36 63 Survived 92F 156 35.9 5.60 44 Survived 102F 206 35.9 7.39 102 Survived 1343F 270 44.8 12.1 * 11 Survived 93F 158 44.8 7.08 57 Survived 1351F 236 56.0 13.2 * 31 Survived 1367F 260 70.0 18.2 * 9 Survived 94 F 150 56.0 8.4 * 80 Survived 95F 162 70.0 11.3 * 52 Survived 96F 166 99.4 16.5 * 74 Survived * Given in two divided < doses, A.M. < AND P.M. The acute rat oral LD50 was found to be greater than 40 gm/kg. TABLE 6 ACUTE RAT ORAL TOXICITY SAMPLE: LEAD CARBONATE Animal Number Body Weight in Grams Dose Cm/Ka Dose In Grame One Month Weight Gain Grams Days to P*«th 150 184 1.0 0.18 37 Survived 151 215 2.0 0.43 51 Survived 152 215 4.0 0.86 60 Survived 153 201 8.0 1.60 41 Survived 162 211 12.0 2.53 64 Survived 163 200 16.0 3.20 51 Survived 164 213 20.0 4.26 49 Survived 165 223 24.0 5.35 41 Survived 166 182 28.0 5.10 44 Survived 167 212 32.0 6.76 42 Survived 168 212 36.0 7.63 52 Survived 232 204 40.0 8.16 152 Survived 233 214 40.0 8.56 132 Survived 234 182 40.0 7.28 119 Survived 235 206 40.0 8.24 126 Survived The acute rat oral LD50 is greater than 40 gra/kg. TABLE 7 ACUTE RAT ORAL TOXICITY SAMPLE: LEAD HYDROXIDE Animal Number Body Weight in Grama Dose Gra/K* Dose in Grams One Month Weight Gain Grams Days to Death 15 208 40.0 8.3 158 Survived 212 200 40.0 8.0 150 Survived 213 180 40.0 7.2 136 Survived 214 203 40.0 8.1 105 Survived The acute rat oral LDS0 is greater than 40 gm/kg. Win SicKle PAINT Mfa$4&FA CO. "Quality Paints since 1907” m ~ » r c 305 M ST. LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68501 P. O BOX 8???2 March 1$, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111-18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Sir: Van Sickle Paint Manufacturing Company produces a full line of trade safe paints for farm and home use. Our primary outlet is farm and home stores in smaller towns. Our customers associate our paint with high quality at a reasonable price. In one of our paint lines, Tractor, Equipment and Industrial Enamel we use certain lead pigments. These lead pigments are essential to these various Equipment Enamels for both cost and quality reasons. Cost - To replace lead yellow, orange or green would require drastically higher priced pigments costing 280% to 660% more per pound. A good yellow enamel that now costs $1.69 per gallon for pigment would cost $9.U£ per gallon - just for pigment!! Quality - Extensive tests on our test fence reveal much poorer exterior durability of non-lead pigments. Early failure by hazing and chalking resulted in bad gloss loss and color change. These results agree with those of pigment manufacturers! Also extremely important is consideration of the surface to which these enamels will be applied. The chance of children being lead poisoned from chewing on tractors or farm equipment is almost nonexistent! Page 2 The economic impact to our company would be disastrous! First, 78% of all enamels we produce are Equipment Enamels. Second, even if we absorbed part of the necessary cost increase, the price would still rise substantially. Result - a much higher consumer price for a lower quality product and almost total loss of profit for us, the manufac- turer. Finally, if current margins were maintained, the $15>.00 to $20.00 selling price would be highly resisted by our customers. This resistance has been verbalized to us by farmers who regularly use Tractor, Equipment Enamel. Therefore, I urge you as strongly as possible to exempt the "special purpose" coatings described above. These would be covered by former exemptions #1 - refinish and #h - touch up coatings for agricultural and industrial equipment. In the public interest, the very, very slight hazard reduction that might possible result does not justify the extensive reformulation necessary, the drastically higher price and the substantially lower quality that would result! liMil- Sincerely, vj. David McMahan Technical Director C. W. Moore Vice President PL Industrial Chemicals March 21, 1977 Office of Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th St. N.W. Washington, D. C. 20207 Attention: Sadie E. Dunn, Secretary Re: 42 F.R. 9404 - February 16, 1977 Gentlemen: NL Industries, Inc. makes the following comments with re- spect to the above-mentioned proposal. Since the proposed environmental impact statement raises the issue exemption of the following categories of special coatings, reference is also made to the proposed rule published in 41 F.R. 33636-40, August 10, 1976. That proposal did not specifi- cally deal with the following seven classes of special coatings. 1. Automotive, agricultural and industrial equipment refinish coatings. 2. Industrial (and commercial building) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety marking coatings. 3. Graphic art coatings (products marketed solely for application on billboards, road signs, and similar uses and for identification marking in industrial buildings. 4. Touch-up coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equip- ment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and appliances. 5. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application. Industrial Chemicals Division/NL Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 700, Hightstown, N.J. 08520 Tel. (609) 448-3200 Office of Secretary March 21, 1977 6. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings. 7. Exterior primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products marketed solely for application on redwood and cedar). These seven classes of special coatings are used in both con sumer and non-consumer applications. The predominant usage of most of these categories are by non-consumers, including commercial painters and governmental units. Non-consumer applications are not subject to regulation under the Consumer Protection Safety Act. NL supports exemption of the above categories of special coatings from the regulations proposed in 41 F.R. 33636-40 for the reasons set forth below: 1. NL is not aware of any incident of harm or injury to consumers arising out of the use of the seven classes of special coatings. The recognized risk in the use of lead based paint is its ingestion by children. This has normally occurred in older housing where paint has flaked or scaled when improperly maintained. Because of the nature of usage of the seven classes of special coatings, and the unliklihood of their ingestion by children, application of current regula- tions to those classes was stayed. Lead based interior house paint has not been manu- factured for approximately thirty years. 2. Lead based paints in these seven classes offer economic advantages to the consumer. There are no cost effective substitutes for these applications. Furthermore all available higher priced substitutes are less effective in protecting surfaces from rust and corrosion and must be applied much more frequently. The higher cost of substitute coating materials, their general ineffectiveness and the greater frequency with which they must be applied will have a substantial and adverse impact on consumers. 3. There would be a loss of revenue by NL Industries with consequent cut backs in employment if the seven classes of special coatings are not exempted. The amount of lost revenue and number of lost jobs would be dependent on the scope and nature of regulation. However, as many as sixty employees could be adversely affected. Office of Secretary March 21, 1977 4. Any concerns which the Agency has regarding consumer use of lead based paints in the seven classes of special coatings can be adequately covered by labeling and consumer education without depriving the consumer of useful and inexpensive products. Very truly yours, C. W. Moore Vice President S>tat* of Nno Jersey DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH JOHN FITCH PLAZA P.O. BOX 1540, TRENTON, N.J. 08625 March 18, 1977 OANNE E. FINLEY, M.D., M.P.H COMMISSIONER Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, DC 20207 Dear Sir: Thank you for providing a copy of the "Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint," for my review. I feel that the.statement was quite comprehensive in describing the problem regarding lead poisoning in children, and in offering several alternative courses of action to attack the problem. Personally, I would tend to favor the latter alternatives, since they: 1. Recognize that specific exemptions are necessary; 2. Minimize adverse effects; and 3. Present a justifiable overall basic trade off to both industry and the consumer. I trust that the Consumer Product Safety Commission will follow the National Academy of Science's recommendation that a limit for lead content in paint be set and enforced at the time of manufacture. In the time that I have had the document in my posses- sion, I have found it to be an extremely useful resource tool. Again, I would like to extend my thanks and apprecia- tion to you for giving me the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely yours, / f i i r j f / \ Eamond D. Duffy, Jr., M.P.H. Coordinator Accident Prevention and Poison Control Program EDD:js:ddv/402 The Valspar Corporation 1101 Third Street South/Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 612/332-7371 March 17, 1977 Secretary Consumer Products Safety Commission 1111 - 18th St. N.W. Washington, DC 20207 Dear Sir: In answer to your invitation for comments on a draft environmental impact statement on lead in paint, we have the following comments to make. First: We object to the setting of 0.06% lead on the non-volatile of the paint as being the maximum level of lead permitted in a non-lead based paint. We feel a maximum level of 0.2% lead on the non-volatile would give the Consumer Products Safety Commission the safety they demand and be easier for a paint manufacturer to meet. There are some low solids products (stains and sealers) in which lead-contamination present in some pigments could make the finish product unable to pass the 0.06% level of lead allowed after June 22, 1977, in a non-lead based paint. Second: We feel that the Consumer Products Safety Commission should allow the exemptions for the seven classes of special purpose coatings requested by the National Paint and Coatings Association. These are coatings which in their application are not used on surfaces ordinarily exposed to young children. Also the re- placement of lead base pigments in these coatings by lead free pigments will result in much higher cost paints with inferior properties for the consumer. Sincerely, J.B. Kenney 1 Technical Director JBK/keh March 21, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111—18th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lead in Paint 1972 NPCA Petition—Special Purpose Coatings Gentlemen: In 1972 the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) submitted to FDA a petition asking for exemption of several special purpose coatings. This has been taken over by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The following information is presented in respone to an invitation by the Consumer Product Safety Conmission on the draft environmental impact statement on lead in paint. The Chemical Coatings Division of the Valspar Corporation is a major supplier of automotive, agricultural and industrial equipment refinish enamels. In addition, we also make touch-up coatings for the same type products. Our customers are the major producers of those products. Examples are Deere and Company, International Harvester Company, Allis Chalmers and many of the smaller specialized companies in the industry like Hesston, Farmhand and others. We are estimating our sales to these companies for the current year to be on the order of 350,000 gallons. This is important business for our division. In turn, our customers use these products in production or resell in company owned stores. If 300,000 gallons are sold at an average cost of $12 per gallon, the estimated sales would be $3,600,000. HEALTH IMPACT The products applied in our customers’ plants are sprayed under well controlled conditions. The coating is done in well ventilated spray booths or spray areas. The workers wear respirators so are exposed to very little air-borne particulates. Containers which are sold over the counter in farm implement stores are clearly labeled with a precautionary label similar to the one on page 2: Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission Page 2 March 21, 1977 Use with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep away from heat sparks and open flame. Avoid contact with skin and breathing of vapor or spray mist. Close container after each use. Do not apply to window sills, toys, furniture and interior surfaces of rooms that may be used by children. KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN. FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY This is a typical industrial cautionary label used on paint. It is unlikely that the coating would be used where children will come in contact with the product. The substrate painted when refinishing equipment is steel or some other metal. Paint applied to this type of surface does not fail by peeling; and because of its hardness is not likely to be chewed. ECONOMIC IMPACT The colors used by these companies are bright reds, oranges, yellows and greens. They have been used for many years and have become a symbol of corporate identity. There is a reluctance to make any color changes because of this. The pigments used to formulate these colors are chrome yellow, molybdate orange and chrome green. All of these pigments contain lead. They are used because of their bright color, high hiding, rheological pro- perties and low cost. What can be done to replace these pigments with lead-free products? There are no known pigments which compare with these which have the color, tinting strength, working properties, bleed resistance and cost. The organic type pigments are the ones first selected because of their color. These pig- ments, however, do not have the tinting strength, bleed resistance, working properties and hiding required. The cost can be from three to thirty times the price per pound. The amount of pigment used per gallon of paint is less, but the user will have to apply greater film thicknesses in order to cover the substrate. Inorganic pigments are another alternative but most do not have the color intensity required. The amounts of organic pigment substitutes are not sufficient to meet the demands of all users if lead chromate (chrome yellow), molybdate orange and chrome green were banned. The consumer in many cases would have an inferior product. Color, gloss, durability and hiding would be some of the properties that would suffer. Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission Page 3 March 21, 1977 There will be a considerable laboratory expense to the paint companies. Although the technology of converting to lead-free pigments is known, there will be a substantial amount of time involved in reformulating, testing and running exterior exposure of new products. Our customers in turn will run their own tests. The NPCA estimated it would cost $1000 per sample. We think this is a conservative figure. We believe the exemptions for special purpose coatings should be allowed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for the following reasons: 1. The products being sold in the following two classes do not constitute an undue health hazard considering how they are used. a. Automotive, agricultural and industrial refinish coatings. b. Touch-up coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles and appliances. 2. The economic impact on our customers and the final end user will be extremely costly. The end user for the majority of our paint is the farming industry which can not afford a major increase. The National Paint and Coatings Association in one report estimated costs would go up from 50 to 500%. On an average, selling price of $12, the cost to a consumer would be $18 to $84. There is no way a consumer will pay this kind of money. He either will not paint or use an inferior product. 3. Paints produced with many of the substitute pigments will not be of equal quality to present materials. Gloss, hiding, and durability are three properties that will not be as good. 4. The coatings are not used on articles that children will be chewing. Consequently, there is a minimal hazard to children from paint chips and peeling paint. 5. If all manufacturers of these types of paints are forced to use organic pigments to replace lead pigments, there is not enough organic pigments to supply the demand. Our suppliers do not have enough organic pigment manufacturing facilities to supply the demand. 6. At the present time we know the risks involved in handling lead pigments. By proper warning labels and instructions we advise our customers of the hazards. If we adopt the use of organic pigments, we have no idea, nor does anyone else know, what are the toxicological effects on humans. We may be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission Page 4 March 21, 1977 Thank you for considering our reasons for exempting special purpose coatings from the ban on lead regulations. Very truly yours, THE VALSPAR CORPORATION '■- -fl"" R. L. Fricker, Manager Technical Projects RLF/jek 3-1100 GRegory NORTH JErSMkSi CO., Inc. ••THE PEAK OF PAIN% PERFECTION” MANUFACTURERS OF FINE PAINTS and VARNISHES 27-29 ORCHARD STREET WALLINGTON NEW JERSEY March 17, 1977 Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary Consumer Product Safety Comm. Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Sir: Please be advised that the 1972 NPCA petition to exempt seven (7) catagories of special purpose paint is absolutely necessary for the paint industry to continue to supply coatings that will perform properly. Not only will substi- tute coatings cost considerably more, but they will also fall far below present performance standards. We feel the very slight, if any, benefits to the environment are far outweighed by the losses in properties of the coating, e.g., corrosion resistance, stain resistance, mar and abrasion resistance, etc.. Sincerely, NORTH JERSEY PAINT CO., INC. . • / ‘ t L i , s * i i l s*- L r / / 4 w v c e Bernard F. Malizia President BFM/lg SEYMOUR OF SYCAMORE INC March 14, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th Street NW Washington, D.C. SUBJECT: LEAD IN PAINT/NPCA Exemption Request Gentlemen: We are taking this opportunity to submit comments relative to your consideration of the Exemption Request by the National Paint Coating Association for certain categories of paints, not subject to be chewed by children. Seymour of Sycamore is a manufacturer of aerosol coatings which includes a number of coatings covered by the Exemption Request. The lowering of the lead limit to 0.061 will have a significant impact on our industry even for those products that will have to comply with the new standard. This is due to the contamination of the coating from the lead solder used in the manufacture of most aerosol cans. To avoid this source of contamination, it will be necessary to use either welded side seam containers or high tin type. The welded cans are limited in supply and usually cannot be bought as competitively as the more popular lead soldered can. Also the tin soldered can is more costly. Obviously, it would be of benefit to the industry to have the option to use the conventional lead soldered can on those products that are not subject to be chewed by children which is covered by the Exemption Request. Furthermore, the use of lead pigments in certain products covered by the Exemption Request, will permit the manufacturer of a superior product at a significant reduced cost as compared to using a non-leaded pigment. The cost differential for the manufacturer can be as high as $.15 per can or approximately 917 CROSBY AVENUE • SYCAMORE, ILLINOIS 60178 • PHONE 815/895-9101 West Coast Warehouse: 13209 E. Imperial Highway, Whittier, California 90605 Phone 213/941-0779 -"The Inventor of Aerosoi Point and Spr-'ty-isel Seymour of Sycamore, Inc., Sycamore, Illinois Consumer Product Safety Commission Page 2 March 14, 1977 $.60 at the retail level. Additionally, the leaded pigments have superior hiding qualities over the non-leaded type. For example: approximately 3 times as many coats are required for equivalent hide using a non-leaded pigment as compared to the leaded type. Perhaps another way of saying this, ”it would require 3 cans using non-leaded type pigments to do what one can of the leaded type would achieve. The consumer will be the ultimate loser in the event the Exemption Request is denied. We strongly urge your support of the request. Sincerely, , RANDOLPH PRODUCTS CO. INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS, ENAMELS, SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS CARLSTADT, NEW JERSEY 07072 MANUFACTURERS OF (201) 438-3700 March 18, 1977 Consumer Products Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Attention: Sadye E. Dunn Secretary Dear Sadye E. Dunn: We regret to learn that the question of removing lead pigments from the seven industrial categories has come up again. Assuredly, the permission to use lead pigments on industrial equipment, airplanes, automobiles, and taxi cabs should be continued Nothing, absolutely nothing, will make it possible to match existing equipment and produce durable finishes for autos, garden equipment and so forth, without the use of lead chromate pigments. We hope that industry can prevail in regard to this necessary procedure. Very truly yours, RANDOLPH PRODUCTS CO. W.G. Randolph WGR:rc Mailing Address: P. O. Box 2078 Shawnee Mission. Kansas 66201 CONCHEMCO coatings 10000 MARSHALL DRIVE LENEXA. KANSAS 66215 • (913) 888-6710 R. D. Radford President March 18, 1977 Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Sir: Recent decisions by CPSC Lead Based Paint Poisoning prevention Act are of considerable interest to my company. I understand, the recent change in definition of what will be considered lead-based paint after June 23, 1977, although am in disagree- ment with the decision. I would like for you to consider the seven "special-purpose" coatings that The National Paint and Coatings Association has petitioned for exemption thereof. They are: 1. Automotive, agricultural, and industrial equipment refinish coatings. 2. Industrial (commercial building) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety marking coatings. 3. Graphic art coatings (products marketed solely for appli- cation on billboards, road signs, and similar uses, and for identification marking of industrial buildings). 4. Touchup coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicle, and appliances. 5. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application. 6. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings. continued . . . CONCHEMCO CHEMICAL COATINGS • COLONY PAINTS • MASURY PAINTS • CONCHEMCO SPECIALTY RESINS A division of CONCHEMCO Incorporated CONCHEMCO COATINGS Consumer Product Safety Commission March 18, 1977 Page Two 7. Exterior wood primer coatings for wood siding containing extractive (products marketed solely for use on redwood or cedar). Certainly all seven of these "special-purpose” coatings deserve to be in the exempt category, however, two have a special significance. The first is (2) traffic and safety marking coatings. Traffic paints are not accessible to children, therefore are not chewable. The available replacement organic yellow pigments that would replace lead chromate pigments in traffic paints are more expensive and considerably less durable. The result is: the customer must pay more, and receive less. A continuing problem in our over-regulated society in inflationary times. Exterior wood primer coatings formulated for use on redwood and cedar (for bleed resistance) is an area where lead pigment contributes to quality without jeopardizing the health of our children. This is strictly for exterior use. For the last 3 years the coatings industry has been working on substitute additives for lead in exterior primers, and the consumer (again) is paying more, but receiving less. These substitute additives are expensive, considerable less effective for bleed resistance, and package stability is poor. In 1975, my company manufactured approximately 8,000 gallons of off-standard latex primer due to unstable conditions created by the lead substitute. The result was customer dissatisfaction and a tremendous unbudgeted expense for our company. As a member of the Kansas City Society for Coatings Technology and the Federation, we are aware of other manufacturers of coatings that are facing the same type of unnecessary expense. We would also recommend a permanent exemption be extended to Touch-Up Paints for automobiles, industrial equipment, farm implements and metal buildings. These are sold in small quantities and must contain the same pigmentation as the original equipment coatings or poor color match will result. continued . . . CONCHEMCO COATINGS Consumer Product Safety Commission March 18, 1977 Page Three We doubt many children will be eating chips of paint from automobiles or tractors. If it is felt that there is that danger then the finishes for OEM should be lead-free also. We understand a new regulation banning lead in articles of furniture has been proposed. Most metal furniture and appli- ances around the house, whether they contain lead or not, are hard Baking Enamels which would be impossible for a child to chew off significant amounts of chips. For this reason we feel an exemption should be made for metal furniture coated with hard enamels. The use of lead-free decorator colors would more than double the cost of a typical yellow or green baking enamel. As a father, I would not worry about the safety of my children because of the lead content of any of the above "special- purpose" coatings. If we examine the purpose of the law which was to protect unsuspecting children from lead poisoning, I!m sure The Commission will agree with these conclusions and grant exemptions for the seven special finishes and metal furniture. Thus, the consumer will not be paying excessive costs for unnecessary lead protection. Very truly yours, n i ,n / / h /x v(7/L R. D. Radford President RDR/jl R.O. 1NNES PRESIDENT TELEPHONE 212) 679-6180 O. G. Innes Corporation Natural and Processed Resins 10 EAST 40th STREET NEW YORK, N. Y. 10016 CAUL k ADDRESS INNESCO March 18, 1977 Ms. Sadye E. Dunn, Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D. C. 20207 Dp a t* Ms 4 Dunni As suppliers of resin to the Paint and Coatings Industry*we are very much concerned about action that might be taken in conjunction with banding certain products in formulations where adverse affects on the industry would be unnecessarily brought about without further careful study. All of us are concerned about the fact that paint, for example, would be a hazard where the pigments might be lead but on the other hand the infinitesimal amounts of lead that are used as driers become a very important part of the formulating controls to place products on the market that dry quickly and are efficient and easy to use, a great benefit to the consumer. Further study is needed before broad action may be taken to ban the use of small amounts of lead in areas where hazards are minimal. Rather than have any broad classification made, it is felt that careful consideration of the individual outlets and uses be given before bringing to a head action that might at a later date be proved unwarranted and a hardship on the industry as well as those who use its products. While our resins are completely safe in themselves, they are used with other materials in composing current superior coatings. We can only express our thoughts with regard to such components with the thought that any action to be taken will be done on a most careful and considered basis. We are familiar with work by the National Paint and Coatings Association as well as the New York group and would like to back up their efforts by this expression of our thoughts. Sincerely, (V'trr^INNES^GRPOftATION President ROI:mb FF-3386 REV. 10-63 E. I. du Pont de Nemours 5i Company ESTABLISHED 1802 INCORPORATED Wilmington, Delaware 19898 FABRICS & FINISHES DEPARTMENT March 22, 1977 S' Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 111 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT - EXEMPTIONS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE COATINGS RE: 42 F.R. 32 - February 16, 1977 (pp. 9404-9406) E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, a Delaware corpora- tion, with headquarters at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19898, is a major supplier of industrial, commercial, and consumer coatings through its Fabrics and Finishes Department. We have long had an interest in the removal of any lead-based paint hazards to children. This letter underscores our ongoing advocacy of that objective. We also support the pending petition of the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) for continued exemptions for special-purpose coatings. These special-purpose coatings are dis- cussed in the above-cited Draft Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY The Draft Environmental Impact Statement sets forth five regulatory alternatives of which one may be promulgated by the Commission in the anticipated April 1, 1977, final regulation. Our comments upon these alternatives may be summarized as follows: Alternative No. 1; (Continued regulation will be under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA)• The acceptable lead level would remain at 0.5% on dried paint film solids. Exemptions, such as NPCA has requested, may be allowed at some future time.) This is a "status quo" option and is not acceptable because it will perpetuate inconsistencies between regulations issued under the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) and those issued under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). In BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING . . . THROUGH CHEMISTRY 2 addition, the issues raised in NPCA's 1972 petition regarding special-purpose coatings would remain unresolved. Alternative No. 2; (All regulation will be under the CPSA which will supersede FHSA. The present FHSA limit of 0.5% will be lowered to 0.06%. All types of trade sales paints will be covered and exemptions for special-purpose coatings will be deniedo) Du Pont is unalterably opposed to this option because it extends, or attempts to extend, the lead ban to automotive refinishes, agricultural and industrial equipment coatings, and appliance coatings. Alternative No. 3; (All regulation will be under the CPSA. The limit will be lowered to 0.06%. Special-purpose coatings will be specifically exempted. Certain articles of household goods might also be exempted as well.) This option cannot be assessed with confidence because it is described differently in different sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In Section II, page A-9, as well as in Table 5, it is stated that metal furniture, metal window dressings, and household appliances are articles which are intended to be exempted from regulation. In Section III, page 17, it is specifically stated that only the seven special-purpose coatings covered by the NPCA petition are to be exempt from the lead ban. Tentatively, however, this alternative may be acceptable. Alternative Nos. 4 and 5; (No. 4 is identical to No. 3 except that the effective date will be June 23, 1978, instead of June 23, 1977. No. 5 is identical to No. 3 except that the 0.06% level would be achieved in two stages, 0.25% by June 23, 1977, then to 0.06% by June 23, 1979.) These options are des- cribed in terms of Alternative No. 3. Thus, just as in Alterna- tive No. 3, the extent of coverage and/or exemption in the remaining options is unclear. They too, however, may be accept- able. In summary, it is our opinion that the petition of the National Paint and Coatings Association should be adopted? that appliance coatings should not be subject to the proposed ban; and that Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, continuing the status quo or denying all exemptions, should not be adopted. DISCUSSION The classes of coatings for which the exemptions are being sought are comprised of products whose use and application do not present any lead-based paint hazards to children , and 3 which have long-established utility. Discussion of the health, environmental and economic impact associated with special-purpose coatings appears in Section III of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement under Alternative No. 2. We are concerned that the discussions which appear under the subheadings, "Environmental Factors", "Economic Factors", and "Scope of Coverage", are not in sufficient depth to really explain the application and function of the special- purpose coatings for which exemptions have been sought. Also, the unsuitability of substitute materials in the event Alterna- tive No. 2 is chosen is not explored, and downstream economic effects have not been considered. We have marshalled our comments below according to the applicable class numeration for special-purpose coating exemptions. Class 1. Automotive Agricultural, and Industrial Equipment Refinish Coatings The statement is made on page III-15 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that, "The total economic effects of denying the exemptions cannot be accurately assessed". While we agree that a total assessment is difficult, we suggest that segments of the economic effect can and should be estimated. In the case of Refinish Coatings, the Draft Statement recognizes that the absence of lead pigments will present color matching problems and that exact matches will not be possible in certain yellow and orange ranges. The Draft Statement does not recognize that other color ranges are also involved. For these, the cost of redevelopment on a lead-free basis will be substantial. While the general principles involved in such work are well known, the actual work requires a large amount of careful effort and we estimate redevelopment costs to range from $300 to $1,100 per color. Considering that the Du Pont Company alone produces approximately 5,000 formulas containing lead pigments, it is easy to see that these development costs will be significant Another area of economic impact results from the increased cost of replacement pigments. The pigments available for use in automotive finishes are limited because of stringent requirements for light fastness and film durability. Non-lead replacement candidates are between 15 and 30 times as expensive as lead pigments (on a pound of pigment basis)» 4 For many colors, the formulator will be able to blend the expensive replacement candidates with lower cost pigments and produce a final formula that is less expensive than the 15 and 30 times figure might suggest. But it must be emphasized that the cost of raw materials to make most formulas will increase 50 to 500 percent. Further, many of these formulas (the more intense reds, yellows and oranges) will have poor hiding power which means that the user must apply more paint. We estimate that the average cost will at least double for those colors where lead pigments are replaced. For the agricultural and industrial equipment market, special characteristics of automobile finishes are not required, permitting reformulation with pigments ranging in price from $4 to $20 per pound with the average price in the $7 to $9 per pound range. These pigments have the same hiding power limitations mentioned above and the expected need for more paint will raise coverage costs 50 to 500 percent. A third field of economic impact arises from the fact that a car owner will be unable to have his car spot repainted when it is damaged. The alternative will be an all-over paint job. We estimate that about 25 percent of automotive refinish color matches would be affected and the increased paint demand will be six times the amount needed for spot repaint. A corollary effect will be the release into the atmosphere of six times the amount of solvent currently released in spot repainting operations0 This constitutes a significant adverse environmental impact. We are unable to estimate the economic impact upon farm and con- struction implements but expect it to be somewhat less. A fourth source of impact will be the consequence of an anticipated lowering in durability and corrosion protection. Lead pigments add substantially to these characteristics. A reduction of 10 to 20 percent in the useful life of a coating is expected if lead pigments are forbidden. These economic impacts are not only adverse but also unreasonable as well, since they are not counter-balanced by a beneficial environmental health impact. The paint on the family car is, perhaps, physically accessible to children, but the film characteristics and those of the metal substrate to which it is applied make it almost impossible to remove the coating by chewing or peeling. Under these conditions, ingestion by children becomes a virtual impossibility. Consequently, we do not believe that a health hazard to children from any of these refinish coatings is or can be supported by evidence of past ingestions or the possi- bility of future harm. Similarly, CPSC doesn't claim to have reports of any children suffering from lead poisoning because of chewing on tractors or air compressors, for example. 5 The adverse safety impact of radical reformulation or possible elimination of bright color finishes should not be overlooked. The familiar "Caterpillar Yellow" is more than simply a tradition. Vehicles and equipment coated with this particular color, orange, or bright green, can be seen and avoided at greater distances on high-speed roads. The economic penalties flowing from a lead ban for this class of products (automotive refinishes and agricultural and industrial equipment), together with the adverse safety impact the resulting color elimination would produce, cannot be justified. Class 2. Industrial and Commercial Building Maintenance Coatings This class includes products such as lead-containing structural steel primers which inhibit corrosion, a function which in certain applications cannot be comprised without also jeopardizing the structural integrity of factories, plants, office buildings and bridges. In the Alternative No. 2 discussion, Industrial Maintenance coatings are disposed of with a single statement on page III-16, "... (no impact): industrial maintenance coatings do not constitute a consumer product of any consequence". While we agree that the coatings do not constitute a consumer product of consequence, we emphatically disagree with the initial con- clusion that there will be no impact. Adoption of Alternative No. 2 will effectively ban such lead-containing coatings thus eliminating their beneficial effects. A greater impact could not be found. Industrial plant sites in every part of the United States rely upon maintenance painting in one form or another to lengthen the useful life of buildings and equipment. Maintenance painting, then, helps to hold down the cost of innumerable consumer products, and the value of such painting is based, in part, upon the longevity and anti-corrosive properties of maintenance coatings as presently constituted. Far from being a nullity, the impact .here is so large as to be incalculable. The Du Pont Company is not a major factor in the marketing of the remaining classes of products included in the NPCA petition. However, we endorse the discussion of their characteristics in the petition and consider it germane to any exemption decisions. Alternative Nos. 3, 4 and 5 mention the possibility of exempting appliance finishes. Factory applied coatings for appliances were not included in the NPCA's 1972 petition for 6 special exemptions because industrial coatings supplied in bulk packagings were considered outside the scope of the FHSA. However, the Commission's apparent intent under Alternative No.2 to apply a lead limit to "articles of furniture containing lead- based paint" and the interpretation that the term "articles of furniture" includes appliances, has the effect of banning lead from such coatings. In our opinion, such a ban applied to organic and porce- lain coatings for appliances cannot be justified any more than extending the ban to original finish coatings for automobiles can be justified. Both types of coatings are applied to articles which may meet the definitions of a consumer product, but the presence in or around a household of a coating containing lead compounds cannot be equated with the availability of those com- pounds to children by chewing. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement recognizes this distinction in the Section I-A comment, "It is difficult, however, for a child to chew a chip of this paint without seriously cutting his mouth". Considering the limited physical abilities of young children likely to exhibit pica, the comment is grossly understated. We submit that appliance coatings are not subject to peeling nor to removal by chewing0 The coatings, therefore, do not present an ingestion hazard. Since appliance coatings do not meet the FHSA test (may cause substantial personal illness as a result of reasonably forseeable ingestion by children), or the CPSA test (presents an unreasonable risk of injury), it is inappropriate to impose ingestion-related restrictions on their composition. Your consideration of these comments in support of National Paint and Coatings Association's petition regarding exemptions for special-purpose coatings, in support of an exemption for appliance coatings, and against the adoption of Alternative Nose 1 and 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, is appreciated. Very truly yours, /Jy S. Harrison Director Finishes Division JSH/bjr outdoor power equipment institute inc. suite 903-905 1725 k street,n.w. Washington,d.c. 20006 (202) 296 3484 March 22, 1977 Ms. Sadye E. Dunn Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Dear Ms. Dunn: Re * Request for Comments on "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint" Dated January 19, 1977 On behalf of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), enclosed for filing with the Commission are an original and five copies of comments on the above-referenced proposed impact statement. OPEI is the national trade association representing 53 manufacturers of lawn and garden-care equipment. The legislative and regulatory history of the proposed regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) are set forth in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint" (Impact Statement), dated January 19, 1977, and the Federal Register notice of Wednesday, February 16, 1977, and will not be set forth by OPEI except to note that in 1972, the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA), a trade association representing surface coatings manufacturing industries, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to amend 21 CFR 191.9(a)(6) [now 16 CFR 1500 17(a)(6)] to exempt certain special use paint coatings in- cluding, among others: 4. Touch-up coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and appliances. (Emphasis added.) NPCA’s petition was granted, and these exemptions have continued in effect until the present time. OPEI's comments are limited to lawn and garden equipment in exemption four, as set forth above. outdoor power equipment institute inc. Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 22, 1977 Page 2 The Impact Statement indicates that of the five regulatory alternatives being considered by CPSC, the special use exemptions will be continued with the exception of alternative 2, in which the exemptions would be denied. Under alternative 2, the Impact Statement speculated that the denial of exemption four would have a "slight beneficial help effect" even though it would have a major adverse impact. In addition, the Impact Statement indicated that the total economic effects of denying exemption four could not be accurately assessed. OPEI is concerned about the denial of an exemption under circumstances where the exemption is consistent with the purpose of the regulation, and in addition, denial may affect product safety and utility. Special use paint coatings identified in exemption four are almost invariably used under circum- stances in which children would not be exposed to the paint coatings. Further- more, it is probable that lawn and garden-care equipment products, exposed to a wide range of weather and environmental conditions, would more easily be corroded and damaged unless the weather surfaces were covered with an adequate paint coating. Product safety and product utility of lawn and garden equipment might be impaired. Accordingly, OPEI urges the Commission to preserve exemption four relating to special use paint coatings used to touch up lawn and garden-care products. Very truly yours, Donald E. Purcell Director of Government Relations and Counsel DEP/mm Wilm er, Cutler & Pickering 1666 K STREET, N . W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20006 CABLE address: wicring wash., d. c. INTERNATIONAL TELEX! 440*239 TELEX'. 89-2402 TELEPHONE 202 872-6000 EUROPEAN OFFICE 5, CHEAPSIDE LONDON, EC2V 6AA, ENGLAND TELEPHONE 01*236*2401 TELEX: 851 SB32A2 CABLE ADDRESS: WICRING LONDON LLOYD N.CUTLER JOHN H. PICKERING MANUEL F. COHEN HUGH R. H. SMITH LOUIS F. OBERDORFER J. ROGER WOLLENBERG CHARLES C. GLOVER, EC MARSHALL HORNBLOWER HENRY T. RATHBUN REUBEN CLARK SAMUEL J. LANAHAN WILLIAM R. PERLIK SAMUEL A. STERN ARNOLD M. LERMAN ROBERT P. ST RAN AH AN, JR MAX O. TRUITT, JR. JOEL ROSENBLOOM HOWARD P. WILLENS ANDREW T. A. MACDONALD ROBERT A. HAMMOND, m OANIEL K. MAYERS TIMOTHY B. DYK DAVID R. ANDERSON J RODERICK HELLER, m ARTHUR F. MATHEWS JAMES S. CAMPBELL DENNIS M. FLANNERY DANIEL MARCUS JAMES ROBERTSON RAYMOND C. CLEVENGER,IH LOUIS R. COHEN MICHAEL R. KLEIN STEPHEN A. WEISWASSER TIMOTHY N. BLACK SALLY KATZEN F. DAVID LAKE, JR. PAUL J. MODE, JR . STEPHEN F. BLACK C BOYDEN GRAY RONALD J. GREENE JAY F. LAPIN DEANNE C. SIEMER GARY D. WILSON C. LORING JETTON, JR. WILLIAM T. LAKE STEWART A. BLOCK LACKLAND H. BLOOM, JR. LYNN BREGMAN MICHAEL L. BURACK RICHARD G. BURT RICHARD W. CASS WILHELMINA REUBEN COOKE MICHELE B. CORASH MARY CAROLYN COX PATRICIA D. DOUGLASS S. ALLEN EARLY, JH JAMES R. FARRAND NANCY C. GARRISON NEAL M.GOLDBERG CORNELIUS J. GOLDEN, JR. FRANCES M. GREEN ROBERT C. HACKER EDWARD T. HAND ALLEN H. HARRISON, JR. JOHN H. HARWOOD H MICHAEL S. HELFER A. STEPHEN HUT, JR. DAVID R. JOHNSON JAMES T. KILBRETH,HI NEIL J. KING WILLIAM J. KOLASKY, JR. CANDACE S. KOVACIC DONALD C. LANGEVOORT ELWYN C. LEE RICHARD A. LOWE BRUCE E. MAXIMOV ROBERT B. McCAW MARY A. Me REYNOLDS A.DOUGLAS MELAMED LOWELL B. MILLER ROBERT R. MORRIS WILLIAM J. PERLSTEIN PHILLIP L. RADOFF RENE TOWNSEND ROBINSON JOHN ROUNSAVILLE, JR. MICHAEL S. SCHOOLER GAIL F. SCHULZ KAREN KOSER SCHWARTZ THEODORE S. SIMS ARTHUR B. SPITZER ALAN B. STERNSTEIN DOUGLAS G. THOMPSON, JR. JAY P. URWITZ ERICA A. WARD CAROL DRESCHER WEISMAN ANDREW B. WEISS MAN ALAN S. WEITZ ROBERT G. WILSON ROGER M. WITTEN March 23, 1977 EZEKIEL G. STODDARD GERARD C. SMITH ARTHUR Z. GARDINER, JR COUNSEL Ms. Sadye E. Dunn Secretary U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Re: Draft Environmental Impact State- ment on Lead Content in Paint. Dear Ms. Dunn: On behalf of Consumers Paint Factory, Inc., enclosed for filing with the Commission are an original and five copies of comments on the above-referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please communicate to the undersigned any questions or comments concerning this matter. Very truly yours, > .v J { Richard A. Lowe Enclosures Before The Consumer Product Safety Commissi(|ffif RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON LEAD CONTENT IN PAINT. COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS PAINT FACTORY, INC. On January 24, 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"), in connection with proposed rulemaking on regulation of lead-containing paints and other coatings under the Consumer Product Safety Act ("CPSA"), released a draft Environmental Impact Statement ("Draft EIS") in which various alternative regulatory actions were discussed. One of the alternatives discussed involved, inter alia, the denial of the pending proposed exemption for graphic arts coatings—lettering enamels and bulletin and poster colors. Consumers Paint Factory, Inc. ("Consumers Paint") submits these Comments on the Draft EIS in order to cor- rect a major factual error contained in the discussion V of the impact of a denial of the exemption. */ In comments filed on February 2, 1977, Consumers Paint set forth its views as to why the proposed exemption for graphic arts coatings should be adopted. 2 The Draft EIS considers five alternative courses of regulatory action with respect to paints and coatings containing lead. The second alternative provides for the regulation of these products under the CPSA and the denial of all the currently proposed exemptions including that for graphic arts coatings. The Draft EIS acknowledges that the total economic effects of denying the exemptions V cannot be accurately assessed. However, in referring to graphic arts coatings, the Draft EIS states that the * */ denial of the proposed exemption would have "no impact." This statement can only be based on erroneous assumptions or information. As we show below, the denial of the exemption would have a major adverse economic effect on both manufacturers of graphic arts coatings and the sign painters who use them in their trade. Almost all of the lettering enamels and poster and bulletin colors used by professional sign painters are "mass- tones" — that is, the pigmentation consists almost entirely of color pigments, with almost no white pigment added to lighten or tone down the strong color. Lead-containing pigments are used to obtain the yellow and orange and certain shades of the green and red paints used by sign painters. These colors account for approximately half of all the colors used in the sign painting trade. V Draft EIS at III-15. **/ Id. at III-16. 3 The graphic arts coatings used by sign painters for lettering must have several performance characteristics: hiding power, brilliance, a viscosity or consistency that permits brush application, exterior durability and light- fastness, flow-out of brush marks, and gloss. For certain colors, in particular yellow, orange, and some shades of green and red, this combination of characteristics can be obtained only with lead-containing pigments. For those colors there is simply no substitute for lead-containing pigments which provide the characteristics needed by the sign painting trade. Hiding power is of prime importance to sign painters. It allows them to complete a lettering job in a single trip to the job location and with one brush stroke for each single line or curve of each letter. To repaint the lettering with a second coat is slow, costly, and an extremely difficult process because of the free- hand nature of much professional lettering; covering exactly the same area with a second coating is simply a very hard task to accomplish successfully. */ The wet paint film levels or flows just enough so that the brush marks or miniature ripples produced by the brush will disappear, permitting the film to dry completely smooth without those ripples or marks. (At the same time the flow must not be too free, or the wet film would drip or run down a vertical surface.) Excessive viscosity prevents flow-out of brush marks. 4 Non-lead-containing pigments (when used in mass- tone colors as distinguished from pastels) have a special technical failing: If they are used in high concentrations in an attempt to obtain hiding power comparable to that of lead-containing pigments, they produce paints which are too viscous to apply with a brush and certainly too viscous for the delicate and artistic brush work involved in letter- 1/ ing. This failing is compounded by the tendency of such paints to steadily increase in viscosity during storage prior to use. Attempts to overcome high viscosity through thinning results in a loss of hiding power, gloss, and durability. Thus, without lead-containing pigments for yellow, orange, and certain shades of green and red, the sign painter cannot have both the hiding power and the viscosity that are essential to brush lettering. The possible substitutes for lead-containing pig- ments currently available are not only inadequate in performance, but are also much higher in cost. One of the most popular lead-containing pigments used in the manufacture of graphic arts coatings is Chrome Yellow. As the Draft EIS noted, Chrome Yellow is largely used for its brightness, */ As a manufacturer tries to increase the amount of non- lead-containing pigments in the formula in an attempt to get hiding power closer to that provided by the lead-containing pigments, there is an increase in the viscosity of the product and the result is a jel rather than a paint. 5 good hiding power and durability. The cost per pound of Chrome Yellow to manufacturers of graphic arts coatings ranges from 83 cents to 93 cents. A substitute which would provide far less hiding power along with ex- cessive viscosity, but which is the best currently available, Hansa Yellow, costs from $4.50 to $5.75 per pound. Similarly, the available substitutes for another popular lead-containing pigment, Molybdate Orange, are also both inadequate and much higher in cost. The per pound cost of Molybdate Orange to manufacturers is $1.09. The available inadequate substitutes would be, depending on whether the end product is to be red, maroon or orange, either Chlorinated Paranitraniline Toner at $3.60 per pound, Toluidine Toner at $3.80 per pound, or Dinitraniline Orange at $3.70 per pound. Additionally, the cost of the product would be further increased due to the fact that the substitution of these products would not be on a pound-for-pound basis. A manufacturer would have to use much larger quantities of Hansa Yellow in order to approximate the hiding power ob- tained from a single pound of Chrome Yellow. Thus, while Hansa Yellow may cost from 5 to over 6 times more than Chrome Yellow on the basis of a straight substitution, in order for it to attempt to approximate the hiding performance of Chrome Yellow for sign painters, the cost ratio as a substitute would be */ Draft EIS at l-B-6. 6 much higher since much larger quantities would have to be used. Thus, because of the increased cost of substi- tutes, there would necessarily be a substantial increase in the cost of graphic arts coatings which now utilize lead-containing pigments in their production. In the case of Consumers Paint, this increased cost would be reflected in the price of approximately 44% of all the graphic arts coatings which it currently manufactures. The increased price of these products would undoubtedly inhibit the employment of sign painters as the increased cost of this tool of their trade would be felt by those who pay for their services and thus lessen their attractiveness. This adverse impact, which would be felt both in quality and cost, is unnecessary to achieve Congress' and the Commission's objectives in this proceeding. The aim of CPSC in regulating lead in paint is to eliminate possible hazards to young children who may chew the dried film found around their homes. Since graphic arts coatings are not used around the home, it is clear that a denial of the exemption would not aid in attaining this objective. As the Draft EIS noted with regard to Chrome Yellow, . . . [Chrome Yellow is] used in paint products not generally sold to consumers. The largest use is in yellow traffic paints for which Chrome Yellow is chosen for its brightness, good hiding power, and durability. Other uses are on school buses and gasoline stations.*/ V Draft EIS at l-B-6. 7 As to the specific use of graphic arts coatings, the Draft EIS also observed that "these products are sold almost exclusively to professionals, and are not generally V considered as consumer products." Therefore, only in "extreme cases" would children be even likely to have **/ access to chips and peelings from such products. In summary, denial of the proposed exemption for graphic arts coatings would indeed have a substantial adverse economic impact on manufacturers as well as sign painters. And as we showed in our comments of February 2, 1977, the denial is not necessary to protect the safety of children. A grant of the proposed exemption for graphic arts coatings is wholly consistent with the purpose of the CPSA. Respectfully submitted, Ronald J y&reene A Richard A. Lowe Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 1666 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 872-6000 Counsel for Consumers Paint Factory, Inc. V Draft EIS at III-16. Id. at III-18. Williams The Sherwin-Williams Company 101 Prospect Avenue, N.W. Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Phone (216) 566-2441 Harold E. Spitzer Vice President and Technical Director- Coatings Group March 21, 1977 Ms. Sadye E. Dunn Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint dated January 19, 1977, Contract No. CPSC-C-77-0009 Dear Ms. Dunn: The Sherwin-Williams Co. has and continues to strongly support efforts to reduce the possibility of ingestion of materials harmful to children. Sherwin- Williams has over the last four years removed lead driers and pigments from Consumer type paint for architectural use. We are conforming to the practice of not adding lead-containing compounds to these paints and restricting the known level of lead contamination from our raw materials so that the finished product will contain less than 0.06% lead on the non-volatile paint. Paints packaged in aerosol containers for consumer use (overall painting rather than simply touch up) have already been formulated to a .06% maximum lead). This reduction was accomplished promptly with some sacrifice in quality and cost of certain slower drying colors among the color ranges of the several trade sales lines of products for interior and exterior use in dwellings. This prompt action does not constitute an endorsement of the lead toxicology date from field surveys and animal feeding laboratory studies on which the LBPPPA is based. We accept also the .06% restriction as it applies to toys and other children’s articles. However, we are concerned about the application of the .06% level to all articles found in or around the home. The problem of ingestion of excessive amounts of.lead was identified as children with pica chewing paint chips. These chips were accessible primarily in deteriorated houses which had been painted with high lead-containing products. These houses are often 40-50 years old with multiple coats of paint often 10-20 mils thick. By contrast, it is virtually impossible for a child to remove and ingest coatings on articles such as appliances (refrigerators, air conditioners, etc.), automobiles, lamps,' etc. Coatings on such articles are generally not over 2 mils thick, (and the articles themselves would rarely have a useful life of anywhere near 40 years). There should be some criteria on which to base judgment as to the unreasonable risk these coatings pose to children and the possibilities of their ingesting the dried film. 11719 fUJimams Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Two (2) "Unreasonable risk" is scarcely discussed in the CPSC January 19, 1977 "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" in regard to correlating Health Effects in Section I-D, to sources of lead in Sections of I-B and I-C, and to kinds of paints and uses thereof in Sections II and III. Preoccupation with animal feeding studies of the various physiological effects of laboratory reagent lead have diverted attention from the real world of accessibility of lead in paint. Prior to the recent National Bureau of Standards Report NB SIR 76-1024, April, 1976, on "Statistical Analysis of Blood Lead Levels of Children Surveyed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Analytical Methodology and Summary" there was no statistically sound definition of "unreasonable risk". Until that statistical approach is extended to other communities and to categories of paint products and painted surfaces, there is no statistically valid definition of "unreason- able risk". "Unreasonable risk" relates to many kinds of factors. Among these are: 1. Frequency of exposure, e.g., a painted toy in the hand of an infant or toddler where mouthing of toys is a common activity versus a painted automobile alongside a dwelling. 2. Geometry of accessibility, e.g., a gnawable window sill edge with a radius under one-fourth inch versus a refrigerator with few chewable edges. 3. Tenacity of the paint to its substrate. This combines the properties of adhesion, hardness and tensile strength. There may be several orders of magnitudes of difference between a paint which peels from a plaster wall when water from behind it soaks it off versus a refrigerator case where paint is still intact after twenty years in a home and more years on a refuse dump. One convenient measure of tenacity is "pencil hardness". "Pencil Hardness" as defined in ASTM D3363, "Standard Method of Test for (Paint) Film Hardness by Pencil Test" uses fourteen standardized pencils, from 6B (very soft) through HB and F to 6H (very hard) with chisel-shaped graphite cores to impinge on a paint surface to be tested. Pencil hardness is a very common test on factory applied paints on metal where high values of hardness, strength and adhesion are primary objectives. This test can be thought of as intermediate between Mohs' scale of hardness (where diamond is ten and graphite is one) and what the "milk" teeth of a small child can do to a painted window sill. This D3363 test is less commonly used on paints on wood, plaster and other non-metals because the substrate is more resilient and these paints are commonly softer. Thus, this test is all the more appropriate to establish ranges of magnitude of "unreasonable risk" for various categories of paints. A list of these magnitudes may be used for CPSC exemptions of paint categories as follows: [uj imams Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Three (3) Hardest 4H-6H Enamels applied in factories and baked or catalyzed on metals and wood, e.g., refrigerators, et al. Very Hard H-3H Enamels applied in factories and air dried or "force dried" such as furniture. Hard B-HB-F Enamels applied in the field, as with Automotive Refinishes. An HB enamel may resist a strong thumb nail. Soft 4B-2B Wall and trim enamels for dwellings. Very soft 6B-4B House Paints. "Pencil Hardness" can be used both to establish paint categories for exemption by CPSC and by field inspectors where a painted surface category is open to interpretation by him. The pencil hardness test can also be useful in field inspections for extra risk due to softening by water. "Wet Adhesion" means to a paint technologist a need to distinguish between the good adhesion expected on a normally dry substrate and the loss of adhesion due to soaking by water, either on top as on a window sill or from behind as through wall plaster from a plumbing leak in a neglected house. Typical factory coated appliances and furnture and automotive finishes are likely to suffer no loss of adhesion, whereas a wall paint may, particularly if it is either a very old and neglected paint or a very fresh water-reduced coating. Thus, this relatively simple test could serve a dual purpose. Touch-up enamels for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles and appliances sometimes require the use of lead. Where lead-containing pigments are used in the original finish, it is not possible to match the colors without the use of similar lead pigments in the touch-up enamels. These products are intended primarily for use by auto repair shops and the like. They can, however, be purchased by the consumer to repair the finish on such articles. The health hazard is minimal since the pro- ducts once dried are practically inaccessible to chewing. For these items and many of the types of coatings for which National Paint & Coatings Association petitioned for exemption (Federal Register-21-CFR 191.9) the technology to re- duce lead to .06% does not now exist. In view of the minimal or non-existent danger to health, we urge the Commission to define certain categories of coatings as not being consumer products and thus not subject to the regulations. 1) Automotive, Agricultural, and Industrial Equipment Refinish Coatings. Automotive, agricultural and industrial equipment refinish coatings are functional coatings which provide protection to the surfaces from the hostile environment to which they are subjected. The coatings are Williams Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Four (4) characterized by application of thin films (approximately 2 mils), extreme hardness, excellent adhesion, abrasion resistance, corrosion resistance and color retention (generally will not fade or chalk). Lead driers are used to speed the oxidation curing of the film to reduce the amount of dirt or dust particles trapped in the film. Lead pigments are used to match the factory-applied original finish. It is impossible to match the original lead-containing finish with non-leaded pigments as the non-lead pigments will fade causing the refinished areas to be unaccep- table to the customer. The refinish coatings are designed for spray applic- ation to metal and do not obtain satisfactory results when applied by brush or roller, thus practically precluding the use of these coatings around the household on surfaces accessible to children. The cost of these pro- ducts is generally 30% to 50% greater than the non-lead containing consumer products that are designed for easy application to surfaces and articles in and around the household. It is extremely unlikely that consumers would purchase these refinish coatings for application to household surfaces of articles, when less expensive, better suited products are readily available. * The refinish coatings are designed for application to very specific sur- faces demanding characteristics of hardness, abrasion resistance, color, color retention, corrosion resistance and durability. These coatings are used only as intended because of cost, method of application and unsatisfactory results when applied to surfaces other than intended. Sherwin-Williams manufactures three basic types of automotive refinish coatings: A. Alkyd enamel coatings which require lead driers and lead pigments in various colors. These coatings generally are used for complete automotive refinishing. B. Acrylic enamel coatings which require lead driers and lead pigments in various colors. These coatings are used for complete refinishing and refinishing of large sections of cars. C. Acrylic lacquer coatings which do not contain lead driers. Approxi- mately 27% of the colors contain lead pigments. These coatings are generally used for spot and small area refinishing. The alkyd and acrylic enamels and approximately 27% of the lacquer formulas would not be available, if these coatings containing lead were banned as the present technology for possible substitute pigments and driers does not give satisfactory performance for cure time, color matching and durability. Con- sequently, many repairs on the body of automobiles that now would be a partial refinish job would become a complete refinishing job. Sherwin-Williams will not discuss the economic impact of a 0.06% level in automotive paints. Rather, we have supplied data to the NPCA for use in the economic impact statement they prepare for the industry. [uuimamsi Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Five (5) 2) Industrial (and commerical building) Maintenance Coatings, including Traffic and Safety Marking Colors. The industrial maintenance coatings are formulated and designed for the coating of industrial plants and equipment, commercial buildings and structural steel. There are many types of coatings available because of the various environmental conditions to which they are subjected, such as resistance to heat, sun, water, salt, acids, alkali, organic materials and abrasion. The demands of these coatings for the specific conditions to which they are subjected require utilization of the best technology avail- able. Lead pigments and driers must be used in many of these coatings to provide the maximum durability and color retention. Many of the maintenance coatings require extensive surface preparation in order to achieve the proper adhesion to the metallic surfaces. Substitute pigments would require more frequent and costly repainting. The safety marking colors are specific colors under OSHA regulations, federal and military specifications, and voluntary organizations such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Lead pigments are used in yellow and orange marking colors for their brilliance and durability. There are not any non-lead pigments to substitute which have the same brilliance and durability as the lead pigments. The coatings generally are used in industrial and commerical buildings to warn of hazards that exist. Traffic marking paints are controlled by federal, state and local govern- ment specifications. They must conform to specific color, drying time and durability which are all based on lead pigments. There are no existing non-lead pigments available to achieve the requirements of the traffic paints The areas and surfaces on which the maintenance paints, safety and traffic marking colors are used are not reasonably accessible to small children so that the risk of ingesting these coatings is negligible. The cost of the coatings is generally 50% higher than consumer coatings designed for the household. These products are generally packaged in one gallon or larger containers and seldom, if ever, found around the home. 3) Graphic Arts Coating (products marketed solely for application on bill- boards, road signs and similar uses, and for identification marking of industrial buildings). The graphic arts coatings are designed to withstand outdoor exposure over a long period of time and retain their color brilliance and durability under the condition of sun, extremes of temperature and rain. There are no non-lead containing pigments available that will match the performance of the leaded pigments in colorfastness and durability. There is no acceptable non-leaded pigment for some of the yellows and reds that can withstand the temperature when baked without changing color. UJI III dm 51 Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Six (6) These coatings are expensive and generally not available to the con- sumer. The surfaces to which these coatings are supplied are not accessible to children. Therefore, the risk to children is negligible. 4) Exterior Marine Coatings for small craft application. Lead pigment is used as a necessary corrosion resistant pigment on steel parts of small crafts which will be exposed to water, especially salt water. There are no substitute pigments that will give the same corrosion resistance. More frequent painting of these surfaces will be required. Spar varnishes are used extensively on decking and all exterior parts of wooden water crafts. It is necessary for these coatings to withstand the constant exposure to the water without adversely effecting the protective quality the coatings impart to the wood. The deck coatings are walked on necessitating an abrasion resistant quality. There is presently no drier system that can be substituted for the lead driers and impart all the necessary require- ments of the spar varnishes. The marine coatings are more expensive than better-suited consumer products for use in and around the household. The surface to which these coatings are intended are not accessible to small children. All of the coatings listed in the NPCA petition that we manufacture have very specific precaution statements relating to the lead content. The following statement is an example of the caution applied to the labels on a product containing lead greater than 0.06%. (FRONT PANEL) WARNING CONTAINS LEAD DRIED FILM OF THIS PAINT MAY BE HARMFUL IF EATEN OR CHEWED Before using, carefully read CAUTIONS elsewhere on label. (BACK PANEL) CAUTIONS CONTAINS LEAD. Avoid breathing vapor and spray mist. Use only with adequate ventilation. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Wash hands after using. Keep container closed when not in use. Do not transfer contents to other containers for storage. Respiratory protection must be used when sanding, wirebrushing or other types of abrading and while burning, brazing or welding the dried film of this paint. nojimams Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Seven (7) DO NOT TAKE INTERNALLY KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN CONTAINS LEAD. Do not apply on toys and other children's articles, furni- ture, or any interior surface of a dwelling or facility which may be occup- ied or used by children. Do not apply on any exterior surface of dwelling units, such as window sills, porches, stairs, or railings, to which children may be commonly exposed. The cautions give adequate warning of the danger of ingesting dried film and designate the types of surfaces to which the coating should not be applied. The caution also warns not to transfer the contents to other containers for storage so that the label warnings will not be separated from the contents. Appliances should not be considered furniture. They should be listed as a unique household product. Appliances have large flat surfaces with a very hard factory applied and baked coating. The surface is not chewable nor can it flake or peel. Therefore, ingestion of appliance finishes presents no risk to small children. Metal furniture should be exempted from any ban on furniture. Coatings for metal furniture are baked finishes which provide a hard abrasion resistant film with excellent adhesion to the substrate. These coatings will not peel or flake off and are not chewable. Most metal furniture is used outdoors or as office furniture. These have to withstand exposure to the element or constant wear in order to justify the high initial cost. Lead primers and lead driers are used in these coatings to achieve the durable coating required. As previously mentioned lead driers and pigments are the best available materials to impart corrosion and abrasion resistance to coatings on metallic surfaces. The specialized coatings in this discussion are primarily for application to non-household surfaces and are not intended or suitable for use on surfaces accessible and chewable by children either because of size, location or shape of the articles. These coatings are characterized as very hard, abrasion resistant, thin films which do not peel or flake off as chips. These coatings are developed and sold for very specialized purposes. Generally, they are designed for spray application by professionals and do not perform satisfactorily when applied by brush or roller. Many of these coatings cannot be applied directly from the container as sold, but require 15 to 50 per cent reduction with the appropriate solvent for each of the coatings. It is unlikely that the consumer would use specialized products because of their high cost and the necessity of purchasing additional solvent for reduction, when less expensive fUJimamsi Ms. Sadye E. Dunn March 21, 1977 Page Eight (8) consumer products are readily available. The precautionary labeling on these specialized coatings warns that the products contain lead and therefore, should not be used on surfaces in and around the household. For these reasons we feel the exemptions discussed above should be granted. Very truly yours, THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY HES/cda INDUSTRIES PPG INDUSTRIES, INC./ONE GATEWAY CENTER/PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15222/AREA 412/434-3719 March 22, 1977 ELMER C. LARSEN, Vice President General Manager, Coatings and Resins Division Office of the Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 In re: Consumer Product Safety Commission Notice, Dated February 11, 1977 Published in the Federal Register for February 16, 1977 (42 F.R. 9404) Dear Sirs: In response to the Commission's invitation for comments on the environmental impact statement relating to the proposed Commission action on regulating lead - containing paint, herewith are enclosed the written comments of PPG Industries, Inc. Sincerely yours, ElmeirC. Larsen Vice President and General Manager Coatings and Resins Division Enclosure (in quintuplicate) COMMENTS OF PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., ON THE PROPOSED CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION REGULATIONS UNDER THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT IN LIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INSOFAR AS THEY AFFECT LEAD-BEARING PAINTS I. PPG Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, hereinafter called "PPG," manufactures and distributes paint products which contain in excess of 0.06% of lead by weight. Some of these products may be classified as consumer products and some as industrial and industry products. Some of these paints are used as components (coatings) of furniture and of some other items which are furnishings and the like. No matter under what guise the Commission's action takes place, its aim is, we believe, primarily to protect children from the hazards of ingesting lead-containing paint droppings which usually make their appearance in the form of dried chips or flakes. The review of the legislative history, as well as of the proceedings originally undertaken, under the provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, as subsequently amended, and under the provisions of the Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, as amended, it is clear that the particular purpose was to protect children from unreasonable risk of harm. Although, under the Consumer Product Safety Act, the thrust seems to be addressed at the consumer, the danger to children of such ingestion was recognized since it may be difficult, if not foolish, to maintain that ingestion of dried paint chips or flakes by adults is a normally foreseeable condition creating an unreasonable risk of harm in the product which causes such chips or flakes to exist, to-wit, a lead-bearing paint. When the original proceedings to declare lead-bearing paint, surfaces covered by it, etc., as a banned hazardous substance were being conducted by the Food and Drug Administration, PPG, under the date of January 23, 1973, submitted to the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare its memorandum in support of the proposed amendment to the banning order to exempt certain lead- containing coatings from the classification of banned hazardous sub- stances. The memorandum which was then submitted made it clear that PPG supported the ban insofar as it was applicable to lead-bearing paints designed for use in households and dwellings or other places that children could congregate and be exposed to the hazard of ingesting paint chips and flakes. However, at the same time, PPG expressed its support of the amendment exempting certain coatings which, in the strictly technical interpretation of the regulations could be classified as banned hazardous substances but which in reality were not such substances since the coatings as applied would not be likely to result in surfaces, chips or flakes that children could reasonably be expected to chew or ingest. 2 PPG hereby incorporates its earlier views as being applicable to the matter now at hand. For easy reference, a copy of the January 23, 1973, memorandum is herewith attached. II. Since the environmental impact statement is supposed to reflect the effect of activity of banning the substances upon the environment and since the environment includes not only the flora and fauna, but also the inhabitants, the risk and benefit balance must be considered. The commercial application of lead-bearing paints to commercial establishments or industrial establishments does not expose children to the hazard of picking and eating paint chips. Naturally, hospitals, schools and places where children may sojourn or congregate should be excluded from the commercial classification. Application of the lead- containing paint to certain surfaces in industrial and commercial establishment should also not expose children to the hazard since, in most instances, principally automotive refinish shops and other similar type establishments, the paint applied to a metal substrata after it is dry is not readily capable of being chewed so that the paint chips and the lead therein cannot be ingested. Traffic marking and zone paints, which increase visibility and alert motorists and pedestrians to traffic hazards, require a high degree of brightness. Yellow or orange colors must be permitted for application on highways and other similar locations Again, they do not present a substantial risk of harm, since chewing of paved surfaces on highways or in industrial establishments by children is not likely. In considering the impact of the regulations, the economic burden on the inhabitants, that is, the consumers, must be considered if the regulations are to be structured or interpreted so as not to countenance the exemptions previously sought or administered in order to encompass areas clearly not intended to be covered by the Congress of the United States. The economic burden is important where the technical strict interpretation results in a minute reduction of the hazard since the hazard (ingestion of lead-containing paint chips or flakes) in those areas does not materially exist. This is not a situation where the hazard may be now discovered, where the hazard did not appear to exist years ago, because of more sophisticated methods of measurement, detection, and medical knowledge, but a hazard whose presence or absence depends in the first instance on a very important, but a simple, fact. Can the lead-containing surface be chewed and then ingested? Taking as an example paints used to refinish automotive equip- ment, let us address ourselves briefly to the matter of the added cost imposed upon the consumers by the lack of exemption. 3 It is generally assumed, and we do not believe that the Commission's role is to do otherwise, that an automobile represents "status" to an average consumer. Consequently, the automobile must look as opulent as possible regardless of its age and exigencies of traffic mishaps, effect by the elements and other causes. The auto- mobile refinish applied after many years has to look as well as the original finish did when the car left the factory; the consumers ask for it. Not everybody, even today with the energy shortage, takes the utilitarian view of the automobile. The refinish must first match the original finish. A sub- stantial portion of the original finishes contains lead. Lead is not only utilized to give the desired hue or effect but also to give a better lasting quality to the paint. If all automobiles originally to be repainted are repainted with non-lead-bearing paints, such a match will not be possible. In most, if not all, instances, a complete paint job will be required, at about double the cost, since few people like to have a variegated car. We are not talking here about custom painting, but about effects of improper match, lack of hiding and early deterioration which may occur without the lead present in the paint. It is estimated by insurance carriers that about one out of every 13 automobiles is refinished each year. We are talking about the substantial burden which will add to the consumers already strapped for cash well in excess of half a billion dollars. An additional expendi- ture just for "new" paint jobs will not contribute an iota to the abatement of the lead paint ingestion hazard. The additional cost of the non-lead-bearing paint will have to be included, since the cost of raw materials without lead will be higher. Although the comments here are made by the manufacturer, let us say in all fairness that an increased cost is not absorbed by the manufacturer but is usually passed on to the consumer. The other areas for which the exemptions were being sought insofar as they deal with the application of the coatings to surfaces which are clearly not chewable or even potentially chewable, including metal objects, whether movable or not, of the various shapes and sizes and all industrial and commercial maintenance surfaces do not contribute to the hazard. The replacement and change, although not as emphatically governed by the color match, will nevertheless be governed by the matters of durability, fading and other factors. The replacement of certain components will again increase the cost and since in our economically-free society the cost is eventually absorbed by the consumer, the consumer will pay for it whether the consumer is small or large. If hazard was thereby reduced, the increased cost might be justified. But this is not the case. By permitting the use of lead in these certain circumstances in paints will not contribute to the hazard and will maintain the quality of the coatings that by now the consumers have come to expect. III. It appears that the Environmental Impact Statement filed in connection with the proposed regulations to be issued under the pro- visions of the Consumer Product Safety Act and Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act did not take into account one type of "paint" which contains more than .06% of lead by weight in the dried film; in fact such paint usually contains from 10 to 25% of lead by weight in the dried film. That paint is the mirror backing paint, hereinafter referred to as the "Mirror Backing." Perhaps the reason for such omission is the fact that Mirror Backing is not a consumer product applied on surfaces to which children may be exposed. Mirror Backing is not a component of furniture and such mirror backing is not a "hazardous household substance." Mirror Backing is normally and universally applied to the back of the mirror whether such mirror is a free standing, affixed to the wall or made a part of another article Mirrors are prepared by applying a continuous film of silver metal to one side of a clean sensitized glass surface. The highly reactive silver is immediately coated with a protective thin film of copper. This composite metal film is coated in-line within several minutes with a backer coating to completely seal it from environmental attack. For example, salt from human hands would immediately react with the silver on a cut edge to form a dark precepitate of silver chloride. Mirror backing having a lead concentration from 10 to 2570 by weight forms a film highly impervious to moisture and salts. Lead containing mirror backing also has excellent adhesion to the silvered surface. The latter feature is important during in-plant cutting and working of mirror edges. Non-lead containing mirror backing has a tendency to flake off during edge cutting operations while those con- taining lead do not tend to flake off. Outside of making the process of cutting feasible, Mirror Backing performs another quite important function and that is to prevent "black edge" corrosion on the mirror, that is a condition which will cause the mirror to look cloudy or tarnished. This con- dition is most likely to occur in the geographical areas of high humidity and where salt water is present in the air. However, this is not to say that even in drier areas "black edge" does not occur. The lead in the Mirror Backing also functions to react with airborne sulfur compounds which, would otherwise tarnish the silver and cloud the mirror in the same manner as silverware is tarnished. Although economic considerations are not normally given the weight accorded to other factors in the decision making process when the matter of unreasonable risk of injury is being passed on, never- theless, economics play an important role in the environmental impact of the regulations. 5 The absence of lead in mirror backing results in adverse field service life expectancy of a mirror. The Government Specifications DDM 411b requires that the penetration or corrosion from a cut edge of a mirror when exposed for 150 hours in a laboratory salt spray vapor test should not exceed 3/16 of an inch. Non-lead bearing backing did not perform as required. A lead containing mirror backing normally has a penetration in the range of 0 to no more than 2/16 of an inch in 150 hours of salt spray vapor testing. The actual service life expectancy of mirror backed with lead containing paint can be expected to be in excess of 25 years with normal humidity exposure. The removal from the market of Mirror Backing containing lead will adversely affect the mirror industry. It will result in a product not having the positive characteristics of the mirror backed with lead containing paint. It will result in higher costs to consumers due to early replacement of the mirrors. This will result in reduced usage of mirrors in many applications. Probably the most important factor to consider in the matter of Mirror Backing should be the absence of the hazard of lead ingestion which could be reasonably attributed to the presence of the Mirror Backing on the rear of mirrors. Mirror Backing paint seals off the reflecting silver and provides for good adhesion so that no loosening or falling off of Mirror Backing free of the "mirror" can occur. Because of such adhesion it is possible to cut the mirror sheet, which really is glass, without flaking. In the case of mirrors used as a furnishing, in order for a child, or anybody else for that matter, to get at the Mirror Backing to ingest the lead containing paint will require the breaking of the integrity of the mirror. When such breaking occurs, the ingestion of pieces of glass, whether or not "backed" with lead containing substance almost universally will result in a fatality or a very severe injury. In case of ladies compact mirrors, it would not be possible for an infant to bite on the mirror backing without first breaking the mirror. When the mirror is bitten it would break in the mouth with an obvious result. The market for mirrors in the United States is about 140,000,000 square feet of glass sheet annually about 98% of which has the lead con- taining backing applied to it. Consequently, we believe that Mirror Backing was not intended to be covered by the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act since it would not create the hazard for the abatement of which the Act was enacted. A mirror is not furniture. A mirror may be a consumer product, however, mirrors with Mirror Backing do not present any higher degree of hazard than a backing that does not contain lead. In fact, the mirror not backed with sufficient quantity of lead may present a greater hazard by being more susceptible to flaking off of the coating on the edges. 6 It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Consumer Product Safety Commission when promulgating the appropriate regulations whether under the Consumer Product Safety Act, or as an amendment tothe heretofore existing regulations under the Federal Hazards Substances Act, not include mirror backing paint as a sub- stance or commodity or a consumer product which is banned or, if it appears to the Commission in its wisdom that the mirror backing paint is subject to the regulations, which we earnestly believe the product is not, that in such an event, an appropriate exemption therefrom should be made by the Commission in an appropriate form. PPG 3/22/77 INDUSTRIES PPG INDUSTRIES, INC./ONE GATEWAY CENTER/PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15222/AREA 412/434-3719 ELMER C. LARSEN, Vice President General Manager, Coatings and Resins Division January 23, 1973 Hearing Clerk Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Room 6-88 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland 20852 In re: /21 CFR Part 191/ BANNED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Proposed Exemption of Certain Lead-Containing Paints And Other Similar Surface-Coating Materials Dear Sir: In response to the notice of the proposed rule making published in the Federal Register for Tuesday, December 5, 1972, (37 F.R. 25849), PPG Industries, Inc. respectfully submits its views on the proposed amend- ment to Section 191.9(a)(6)(i) to exempt certain lead-containing coatings from classification as banned hazardous substances. PPG Industries, Inc. most respectfully urges that the proposed amendment be adopted as it is in the public interest since the coating materials to be exempted present no significant lead poisoning hazard to children. Attached hereto is a memorandum in support of this Company's position. Sincerely yours, Hsu-voi. v"rc^'-—- Elmer C. Larsen Vice President and General Manager Coatings and Resins Division Enclosure (in quintuplicate) MEMORANDUM OF PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUB-DIVISION (i) OF SECTION 191.9(a)(6) of TITLE 21 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS DEALING WITH BANNED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES I. PPG Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, hereinafter called "PPG”, manufactures and distributes certain of the coatings that are the subject matter of the proposed amendment to exempt such coatings from the classification as banned hazardous substances. PPG also manu- factures and distributes coatings that are not classified as banned hazardous substances and it did in the past manufacture and distribute lead-bearing paints and similar surface coatings that are now classified as banned hazardous substances. As such manufacturer and distributor, PPG is vitally interested in seeing to it that the users of its products are not exposed to undue hazards in their use and application. Conse- quently, PPG strongly supports the premise underlying the declaration as banned hazardous substances and the resulting prevention of use of paints and similar surface coatings, that contain proscribed levels of lead, which by being applied to certain surfaces may present a hazard to children who augment their diet by chewing thereon. However, by the same token, PPG strongly supports the proposed amendment since the coatings, the subject matter of the amendment, are not intended for use in a household, and on surfaces or objects to which 2 children should reasonably be expected to be exposed. The published literature and even the testimony and arguments of the strongest pro- ponents of the curtailment of the use of lead in coatings indicate that the danger and hazard to children arising out of lead-bearing paints centers almost exclusively on the accessible surfaces of dwell- ings and articles to which children may commonly be exposed like toys, children furniture and the like. Human experience in published data fails to reveal instances of ingestion of lead by children from sur- faces to which the coatings, for which exemption is sought, are applied, such as surfaces of automobiles and industrial equipment, bottoms of boats, highways, traffic signs and the like. II. It is most unlikely that many of the coatings, the subject mat- ter of the proposed amendment, can be used for application on proscribed surfaces. Even if such coatings somehow are brought into the household, it is most unlikely that many of them, primarily automotive refinish coat- ings and the like, will be used on the interior or exterior surfaces of dwellings because of the nature of such coatings, their special hue and because of the difficulty of application by the methods customarily used by a householder, that is by brush or ordinary roller. Most of them require rather sophisticated application equipment since many of them are quick drying. With respect to touch-up coatings, these are distrib- uted in containers having usually not more than a few ounces of paint. It would be highly improbable that containers bearing such relatively 3 small quantities of paint will be used to cover interior or exterior surfaces of dwellings since, in addition, the nature of the touch-up paint is such as to result in a poor painting job when applied to larger surfaces. It is also most unlikely that most of these coatings would be purchased by householders for use in and around the house because, generally speaking, such coatings are rarely, if at all, available in the customary retail channels of trade and their cost to the consumer, primarily automotive refinishes and touch-up paints, is much higher than that of the appropriate grade of household paint. III. Lead is frequently the necessary component of the coatings, the subject matter of the proposed exemption. Lead is not formulated into such coatings because it is cheaper. Lead is added because of its performance as a component of such coatings. Lead is the necessary com- ponent for the following reasons: a. Lead containing pigments are used in original industrial coatings such as automotive, agricultural equipment and indus- trial products as well as in industrial and commercial mainte- nance coatings for both appearance and resistance to weathering and corrosion purposes. Refinish or touch-up coating for auto- motive, agricultural equipment or industrial products require the use of the same pigments as employed in the original prod- uct for the sake of similarity of appearance as well as weather- ability or corrosion control. 4 b. Lead driers are used in some of the coatings in catalytic amounts and are used to speed the oxidation or drying of the coatings. These lead driers are particularly important in some of the touch-up and refinish coatings where they speed the through dry of the film more efficiently than other metal driers, and thereby prevent dirt or dust becoming imbedded in the paint film. c. Lead containing pigments, such as red lead, are particularly essential in industrial and commercial maintenance coatings, particularly as aids to corrosion resistance and weathering. Red Lead primers, for example, are important in corrosion resistant coatings for structural steel, bridge and highway paints and industrial equipment coatings. d. Lead pigments are also important ingredients of bright colors of good durability employed in safety colors and highway marking paints. For example, the yellow paint pigment that meets the cost requirements and most readily meets the special color standard specified for all cautionary highway control devices, including signs, is lead chromate or "chrome yellow" paint. There are presently no worthwhile substitutes for lead which could be readily used in such coatings. If lead were not allowed in such coatings, the added protection to children would be at best minimal since there is practically no hazard 5 to children from the use of lead in such coatings. If lead were removed from such coatings, in the long run, the general public would suffer since the coatings without lead would not have the usefulness and the desired features required. Substitutes would be more costly, even if they could be found and there is some doubt that the substitutes could be readily found. It must be said that the special features of lead-bearing paint in some instances are most important. In the case of traffic markings, traffic control devices and the like, bright paint is essential. It can be reasonably argued that if less visible paint of a less intense hue was used, the usefulness of such devices might not be as great. If such devices were not too useful, more problems could arise because of poor driving practices. It cannot be said that bright paint used in traffic signs or control devices is the sole cause of saving lives and property and avoiding automobile accidents; however, it must be emphatically stressed that the use of such paint contributes to the lessening of injury and damage since clear, well visible and durable warning signs are essential to protect the public from itself and to flag to it the exist- ence of hazards. IV. Although when considering the public interest, the increased cost to the manufacturer and the resulting higher price to the users of the coatings, the subject matter of the proposed exemption, may not be the 6 most important factor, the economic consequences cannot be absolutely ignored. If the exemption is not granted, there will be higher costs and prices resulting from inadequate substitutes. The performance required of these coatings, corrosion resistance, durability, hiding efficiency and the like, will not be obtained. The coatings will not perform as they perform now and larger quantites of not as effective coatings will have to be used over the same period of time. In addition, because of the lack of technological advancement, the effort in research and development made by the industry for the betterment of its products will have to be diverted to the finding of substitutes and the reformu- lation of such coatings. This economic burden, although somewhat intang- ible, will not result in a better protection for the children, whether now or in the future. As pointed out above, these coatings do not now present a substantial hazard, if at all any hazard. V. The adoption of the proposed amendment will also have a secondary benefit, and quite an important one, which will be in the public interest and that is, the adoption of a substantially uniform warning label which will make easier the identification of coatings having more than the pro- scribed quantity of lead. It will prevent the diversion of such coating, even if unintended, to the areas where such coatings should not be applied. It will also enable the industrial users of such coatings to ascertain without much effort that such coatings should or should not be applied to toys or other articles intended for use by children. 7 To summarize, the granting of the exemption for the categories of the coatings listed in the proposed regulation will not increase the exposure hazard to children resulting from the presence of lead-bearing coatings on surfaces of places where children may congregate or on sur- faces of toys or articles intended for use by children. The proposed amendment will facilitate the identification of coatings that are pro- scribed and should not be used in dwellings, on toys or articles intended for children. PPG INDUSTRIES PPG INDUSTRIES, INC./ONE GATEWAY CENTER/PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15222/AREA 412/434-2474 T. Z. KORSAK, Assistant Counsel March 22, 1977 Office of the Secretary Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 In re: Consumer Product Safety Commission Notice, Dated February 11, 1977 Published in the Federal Register for February 16, 1977 (42 F.R. 9404) Dear Sirs: Enclosed herewith are five (5) copies of the comments of PPG Industries, Inc., relating to the lead-containing paint regulations. Please address all correspondence to PPG Industries, Inc., pertaining to the subject matter to my attention. Very truly yours, (?ZfU2 T. Z. Korsak s- Assistant Counsel /mnsw Enclosures (5) BEFORE THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) ) Proposed Regulations) on Lead Content in ) Paint ) DOCKET NO. CG£XtT COMMENTS OF FRANK R. MARVIN ACTING DIRECTOR ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS The Office of Consumer Affairs appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations of lead- containing paints under the Consumer Product Safety Act, as published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1976. The regulation would ban lead-containing paint for consumer uses as well as certain other consumer products bearing such paint above a 0.06% lead level. We are pleased to see that the Commission has resolved all evidence concerning the safe level of lead on the side of safety by recommending the lowest level which is achievable under present technology. The Commission has formulated five alternatives of regulatory action by using four basic variables: (1) issuance of final regulations; (2) maximum level of lead allowable; (3) effective date of regulation; and (4) scope of coverage. Our office believes that Alternative No. 3, with one major modifica- tion, would best represent the interests of the consumer. Under this alternative, the Commission has structured the above four variables as follows: (1) -Issuance of final regulations—lead in paint would be regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Act instead of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. 2 (2) Maximum level of lead allowable — 0.06 percent. (3) Effective date of regulation—June 23, 1977* (4) Scope of coverage—the regulation would cover all trade sales paints, toys and other children’s articles, and furniture, with the exception of eight special purpose coatings. Also exempted are metal furniture, metal window dressings, and appliances. These four variables will be discussed separately. 1. Issuance of the final regulation In Alternative No. 3, lead in paint would be regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), and the Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) regulations on the subject would be revoked. We support the Commission’s view that it is in the public interest to issue the regulations under the CPSA. The Commission decided to proceed under the CPSA rather than to amend the FHSA regulations because such a pro- cedure permitted the consolidation of the CPSA hearing (which was conducted on September 13, 1976) with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) determination and also because it allowed a more informal oral legislative-type hearing than that required by the FHSA, thus facilitating greater public participation and a more expeditious resolution of the issues. We agree that it was in the public interest to hold such a single legislative-type hearing. However, there is another more sub- stantial benefit to consumers in regulating lead-based paints under the CPSA, which relates to the scope of coverage of the regulations. Regulation of lead-based paint under the FHSA is limited to articles intended and packaged for household use and to toys and other children’s articles!./, while the CPSA covers all ’’consumer products." A "consumer product" is defined under the Act as:2/ ...any article, or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for sale to a consumer for use 1/ 16 C.F.R. §1500.17(a)(6)(1972). 2/ 15 U.S.C. §2079(d)(1972 ). 3 in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or other- wise, or (ii) for the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise... Thus, the CPSA’s coverage of lead-based paint is broader than coverage under the PHSA because it applies not only to articles intended or packaged for household use, but also to articles which may be available to children in their schools or in recreational facilities. Because of this wider coverage, we support regulation of lead-containing paints under the Consumer Product Safety Act. We also agree with the Commission that the PHSA regulations on lead-based paint should be revoked in order to avoid duplicative or conflicting language. In such a complex area as regulation of lead in paint, it is essential that there exist coordinated regulations in order to avoid confusion in regard to compliance. 2. Maximum lead level allowable The recommended alternative also provides that the definition of ’’lead-based paint" would be set as any paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead. Since the Commission has determined that existing data do not support a finding that a lead level in paint above 0.06 percent is safe, we believe that safety demands this lower level rather than the 0.5 percent level recommended by Alternative No. 1 or the 0.25 percent interim level established by Alternative No. 5* It is generally recognized that the daily permissible intake (DPI) of lead is 0.3 mg.2/ jf the lead intake per day exceeds this value, a child cannot excrete the total amount and the body begins to accumulate the lead. It has also been esti- mated that about 0.1 mg per day is taken in the diet, leaving a maximum of 0.2 mg per day that can be taken in from nonfood lead sources, such as paint chips.2/ The following is a summary table of the maximum number of square centimeters of 1 and of 6 layers of interior paint with levels of .5 percent, .2 percent, and .06 percent lead which can be ingested before the DPI will be exceeded:5/ 3/ Public Health Service, U.S. Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare, Childhood Lead Poisoning: The Problem and Solution, App. A-3 (1973). V Id. 5/ Id.at A—6. 4 LEAD CONTENT (Percent) No. of Sq. Cm. 0.2 mg of lead Per Layer to Contain (2/3 of DPI) Per 6 Layers .5 6.2 1.0 .2 15.0 2.5 .06 51.3 8.5 Since clinical findings show that a child with pica may eat as much as 11 square centimeters of paint chips per it is obvious from the above table that the danger of lead poisoning due to pica substantially lessens as the lead level within paint decreases. Thus, until there is evidence which clearly refutes the possibility of the potential danger of paint containing more than the 0.06 percent standard, any coating containing more than that level should be banned by the Commission as a hazardous substance. We realize that adoption of the 0.6 percent standard would involve costs to the paint industry because of the nec- essary testing, monitoring, and research of lead substitutes. However, it should be recognized that these costs may be counter- acted by a substantial reduction in costs to society caused by lead poisoning. In 1972, the annual cost of lead poisoning was $195,000,000. Deaths per year caused by such poisoning numbered 200, and 6,000 children suffered neurological handicaps, including mental retardation!./ Because ingestion of lead-based paint is generally acknowledged to be the principal source of lead poison- ing in children today, regulation of lead in paint at the lowest level that is technologically possible is a top priority in the attempt to eliminate the costs, handicaps and death caused by lead poisoning. Therefore, since the Commission has not determined that a higher level than 0.06 percent is safe, we recommend that the 0.06 percent standard be adopted. 6/ Id. at 106. 7/ Id. at 8. 5 3. Effective date of regulation Alternative No. 3 provides that the regulation would take effect on June 23, 1977. Besides Alternative No. 1, which retains the present FHSA regulations, this alternative provides for the earliest possible effective date of regulation. A 0.06 percent standard for lead in paint was suggested as early as March 11, 1972, when the Food and Drug Administration issued a regulation under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act declaring that paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead would be banned after December 31, 1973. This part of the regulation was subsequently stayed pending further research, which has now been completed. We believe that a stay of over three years is long enough. To delay the effective date of the 0.06 percent standard for one or two years, as suggested by Alternative Nos. and 5, would mean at least one more year of applications of possibly unsafe paint to surfaces which are available to children, and at least one more year of handicaps, institutionalization, or even death to children who are exposed to these surfaces. Thus, we recommend enactment of regulations controlling all sources of lead hazards as rapidly as possible. 4. Scope of Coverage The recommended alternative would regulate all trade sale paints containing more than 0.06 percent lead except for artist’s paints and eight other types of coatings which are mainly used in commercial and industrial applications. The use of any lead-based paint would also be prohibited in toys, articles intended for use by children, and furniture, with the exception of (1) metal furniture, (2) metal window dressings (Venetian blinds), and (3) household appliances. OCA believes it is reasonable to exclude from regulation the eight coatings used mainly for commercial and industrial applications. These eight exemptions apply to sur- faces which are rarely available to children. Since a minimum exposure of three months is required for production of symptoms of lead the danger of poisoning due to constant exposure appears to be minimal or nonexistent. Considering that the imposition of a 0.06 percent standard on these coatings 8/ Id.” at 9. 6 will have a major adverse impact upon their durability, abrasion resistance, and drying ability, the safety benefits resulting from the inclusion of these eight coatings in the regulation appears to be outweighed by the cost to the consumer in the form of deteriorated product quality. However, the exemptions of metal furniture, Venetian blinds, and metal appliances should be eliminated. The surfaces of these products are readily available to children and may contain up to 12 percent lead. Because of the enormous danger of repeated exposure by children to these high quantities of lead, we feel that in this case safety of children should be placed on a higher priority than product quality. In conclusion, we commend the Commission on its efforts toward comprehensive regulation on this potential hazard to our children. We urge the Commission to adopt Alternative No. 3 as the final regulation, modified so as to include metal furniture, Venetian blinds, and metal appliances. A lv _ Frank R. Marvin Acting Director nJ&& Allan Finkel General Counsel MjiAJXAi £. a-n. 2 Susan E. Johnson/ Attorney-Advisor THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Washington, D.C. 20201 (202/245-6933) March 23, 1977 Ms. Sadye E. Dunn Secretary U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Re: Determination of Safe Level of Lead irf-Paint Draft Environmental Impact Statement (42 F.R. 9404) i\pc Dear Ms. Dunn: Transmitted herewith for filing as a part of the official record in these proceedings are the original and five (5) copies of the written comments of the National Paint and Coatings Association, Inc. on the above-captioned matter. We thank you for this opportunity to participate, and urge that these views be given careful consideration. Very truly yours, v)i /John M. Montgomery' General Counsel JMM:nb Enclosures 500 thode Island kvenue, N.W. Vashington, D.C. 0005 elephone 02 462-6272 March 22, 1977 Ms. Sadye E. Dunn Secretary U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Re: Determination of Safe Level of Lead in Paint [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] Dear Ms. Dunn: The National Paint and Coatings Association"*", in response to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's invitation (42 F.R. 9404; February 16, 1977), wishes to take this opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft environmental impact statement on the proposed Commission action to regulate lead-containing paint under the Con- sumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The draft environmental impact statement (EIS), in evaluating various regulatory alternatives, raises a number of important issues such as the regulatory lead r\pc The National Paint & Coatings Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as NPCA, and headquartered at 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.), is a voluntary, non-profit industry association originally organized in 1888 and comprising today more than 900 members, who are engaged in the manufacture and distri- bution of paint, varnish, lacquer, and allied products, or of the materials used in such manufacture. The membership of NPCA collectively produces about 90% of the total dollar volume of paint, varnish, lacquer and allied products produced in the United States. 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone 202 462-6272 2 standard, the transfer of regulation from the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) to the CPSA, product exemptions and the regulation of furniture. These matters are of extreme impor- tance to the paint and coatings industry. Therefore, we will focus our comments on these issues, with special attention to product exemptions and regulation of furniture. The Lead Standard The Commission has decided under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA), 42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq., that available scientific information is insufficient to establish that a level of lead in paint above 0.06 percent but not over 0.5 percent is safe. In light of this action, regardless of different burdens of proof under the FHSA or CPSA (as opposed to the LBPPPA), it appears that the Commission intends to adopt the 0.06 percent standard for its own regulatory purposes. Therefore, we believe it would be fruitless to belabor the issue. Our only recommendation is that the Commission follow the lead of the United States Congress in providing for an orderly transition. Thus, we urge that the new standard apply only to those products manufactured six months after the Com- mission's final regulatory decision. The Transfer from the FSHA to the CPSA The Commission's rationale for proposing to regulate lead-based paint and certain other consumer products bearing such paint under the CPSA rather than the FHSA is open to 3 serious question. Again, we have expressed our views on this subject (see Attachment 1) and will not belabor the issue. Since, however, it appears that the Commission plans to go forward with regulations under the CPSA and then revoke the FHSA regulations, the remainder of our comments will be pre- dicated on that premise. Product Exemptions The exclusion from regulation of those special-purpose coatings, for which a proposal still is pending, is completely justified. The reason these products should be excluded is that they do not pose any unreasonable risk or hazard of lead poisoning to children. At the outset, we are pleased to note that this position is supported by Dr. J. Julian Chisolm, Jr., a leading authority on lead poisoning, a strong advocate for a 0.06 percent lead standard and the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Lead in Paint, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Chisolm, in his comments on the draft environmental impact statement, had this to say about these special-purpose coatings: On Page II-A-8, there appears a list of special purpose coatings which may be specifically excluded from the banned hazardous substances regulation by the Commission. These special purpose paints and coatings include artists paints, automotive, agricultural and industrial equipment, as well as a number of other special purpose paints. It is also pro- posed under Alternative No. 3 on Page II-A-9 that metal furniture, metal win- dow dressings and household appliances 4 be excluded. In my opinion, all of the exclusions proposed under Alternative No. 3 are reasonable and within the intent of LBPPPA. With the possible exception of primer coatings for red- wood and cedar and the misuse of these products to cover exterior and interior walls and door frames, they appear to pose little, if any, hazard to young children with pica who are at risk for lead (Emphasis supplied). These views of an expert in the field demonstrate a clear recognition of the risk to be prevented: The risk is the avail- ability of lead-containing dried paint film in areas where it can be consumed by young children. The special-purpose coatings under consideration do not pose such an unreasonable risk. Therefore, in addition to artists' paints and related materials which have already been the following categories of special-purpose coatings should be excluded from regulation when the Commission adopts its proposal to declare certain lead-containing paints as banned hazardous substances 2 Comments of J. Julian Chisolm, Jr., M.D., on Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint, March 9, 1977, at 2. o J In adopting an exemption for artists' paints and re- lated materials under the FHSA (38 F.R. 27514) , the Commission recognized these certain elements which justified their action: 1) the need for lead in artists' paint; 2) the high cost involved, mitigating against general household use; and 3) the fact that such paints are not likely to be in- gested once applied to the intended surfaces. These same elements justify exemption of the special- purpose coatings under consideration. 5 under Section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act: 1. Artists' paints (already exempt under FHSA). 2. Automotive, agricultural, and indus- trial equipment refinish coatings. 3. Industrial (and commercial building) maintenance coatings, including traf- fic and safety marking coatings. 4. Graphic arts coatings (products--in- cluding lettering enamels, poster colors and bulletin colors—marketed solely for application on indoor and outdoor signs, industrial and commer- cial buildings and vehicles, and simi- lar applications).4 5. Touchup coatings for automobiles, agri- cultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and appliances. 6. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application. 7. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings. 8. Exterior primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products mar- keted solely for application on redwood and cedar). 9. Catalytic coatings manufactured for use on radio-controlled powered model air- craft. NPCA's pending proposal for seven of these categories of This description differs somewhat from that proposed by NPCA in 1972. Since it better identifies the product category of graphic art coatings, we request that hereinafter it be used in place of ours. 5 This proposal was issued, in part, pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (§ 701(e), 52 Stat. 1055, as amended; (21 U.S.C. 371(2)). This evidences an initial decision on the part of the Food and Drug Administration that the NPCA petition was based on reasonable grounds. 6 special-purpose coatings (Attachment 2) and its petition for exemption of coatings for radio-control powered aircraft pro- vide product descriptions and data which justifies exclusion of these products from regulation. We urge the Commission's careful review of these materials. We also request careful consideration of the following additional factors. 1. The Lack of Unreasonable Risk What are the key factors which justify the regulation of the lead content in paint products on the grounds that they present an unreasonable risk of injury? In our opinion, they are primarily (1) whether the products contain lead in suffi- cient quantities to cause lead poisoning if ingested and (2) whether the paint film is available for ingestion. The special- purpose coatings under consideration should not be subject to regulation since, regardless of lead content, they cannot be obtained and ingested by children, the population at risk. It must be remembered that it is the dried paint film which presents the risk of lead poisoning of children, not the liquid product in its container. And, more specifically, it is only the dried paint film which can obtain and eat which presents the hazard. The United States Congress recognized this in its adoption of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act: c According to noted authorities on lead poisoning, the most critical age for exposure of a child through ingestion of paint and other lead-containing non-food materials is usually 1 to 3 years of age. 7 Although H. R. 19172 which passed the House prohibits the use of lead-based paints on "any building or structure," the committee feels that where lead- based paint may have unique qualities it should be able to be used so long as the lives of children are not in dan- ger. For that reason ... the committee adopted substitute language relating to the use of lead-based paint on "interior surfaces, porches, and exterior surfaces to which children may be commonly exposed.' • • • The committee feels that the language in the reported bill (amended in the nature of a substitute) is consistent with the desire of the paint industry to utilize the unique qualities of lead- based paint in instances where it is inaccessible to children, yet maintain the intent of the committee that the health and lives of children are not subordinate to those unique qualities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in implementing the LBPPPA and following through on the legis- lative intent, identified those areas which pose a risk of o lead poisoning to children. In their regulations , "applicable surfaces" of residential structures are defined by HUD as "all interior surfaces and those exterior surfaces, such as stairs, decks, porches, railings, windows and doors, which are readily accessible to children under 7 years of age." And, "health hazard" is defined as "cracking, scaling, peeling, and loose lead-based paint on applicable surfaces." 7 See Sen. Rep. No. 91-1432. 8 24 CFR Part 35, Subpart A, §35.3. 8 Thus, the agency instructed by Congress to determine the nature and extent of the problem of lead-based paint poisoning in the United States has identified those areas which pose a risk. The areas of risk are interior surfaces and certain exterior surfaces of residential structures. The authorities in the field have also recognized that not all lead-containing paint products pose the risk of lead poisoning. Only those used in areas accessible to children in the sense that they can be removed and ingested pose such a hazard. In numerous reports the existing problem has been identified as lead-based paint on accessible residential sur- faces and in a deteriorating condition so that it can be re- moved and ingested. In turn, the problem to be prevented is the future use of lead-based paints on such accessible sur- faces . Dr. Chisolm's opposition to the possible exemption of 9 exterior trade sales paints (raised in the draft EIS) is clear recognition of this: I interpret this to mean that exterior trade sales paints would include paints sold for the covering of porches, fences, railings, exterior windowsills and frames, exterior doors and frames and siding. These definitely are areas of residences which are accessible to young children and, furthermore, lead paint poisoning has been traced to the consumption of lead-containing paints by young children, from these areas. I would strongly oppose any such exemption. 9 NPCA has never sought an exemption for this type of coating. 9 It certainly would not be in line with the intent of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. Although I find no further discussion of this possibility in the docu- ment, I would strongly oppose an exemption that applies to paints and coatings that can be applied to the exterior of resid- ences in areas accessible to young children. By the same token, as noted at the outset, Dr. Chisolm (with the possible exception of primer coatings for redwood and cedar) believes that exemption for the special-purpose coatings under consideration are reasonable because "... They appear to pose little, if any, hazard to young children with pica who are at risk for lead poisoning." The reason these products pose little or no risk is that their dried paint films are not available for ingestion. As extensively covered in our pending proposal (Attachment 2), which we urge you to carefully consider, these special- purpose coatings do not pose an unreasonable risk because the dried paint films of such coatings are not now and will not in the future be available for ingestion by children. Refinish coatings for automobiles, farm and industrial equipment, etc. are not accessible. Even if a child would have access to the dried film in the general sense of being able to reach out and touch it, the dried film is not available in the sense that a child is able to obtain and eat it. The nature of the film, the method of application and, primarily, the hard substrate to which it is applied precludes such re- moval and ingestion. See note 2, supra at 1-2 Moreover, factors such as cost, coating characteristics and difficulties in application militate against any use other than intended. Less expensive, better-suited interior and exterior household paints are available for use on accessible residential surfaces. Industrial plants, commercial office buildings, metal equipment, structural steel, bridges, and the like are not accessible to children. Neither are safety markings on roads and highways. Nor do road signs, billboards or identification and safety markings of buildings and equipment present surfaces from which dried paint film is available for ingestion. Therefore, industrial and commercial building maintenance coatings and graphic art coatings do not present the hazard the regulations seek to prevent. Touch-up coatings for automobiles and other equipment (see category No. 4 of our proposal), while often intended for use by consumers in or around the household, still do not pose any hazard. Again, the hard surfaces to which these coatings are applied do not lend themselves to chewing. Thus, removal and ingestion of the dried paint film by children is not pos- sible. Additionally, these coatings are marketed in small amounts making it costly and inconvenient to use on anything but extremely small areas. Moreover, these coatings dry to a hard, thin film and have excellent adhesion to the substrate. With respect to exterior marine coatings for small craft application, again the dried paint film does not pose a lead hazard to children since the coated surfaces are not accessible to them. And, again, these coatings are not likely to be misused in accessible household areas because better-suited and much less-costly household paints are more readily avail- able . Exterior wood primer coatings for wood containing extrac- tives (products marketed solely for use on redwood or cedar), since used, among other things, on certain residential siding, raises the question as to whether they normally are used on surfaces accessible to children. This apparently accounts for Dr. Chisolm's concern. As pointed out in our pending proposal, however, the nature of the product and its limited use substantially diminish this product's availability for ingestion even though it may be intentionally applied on residential siding. This product is a primer for bleeding woods such as red- wood and cedar. Thus, it need only be used once on certain kinds of new wood siding, precluding multi-layer buildup of dried paint film. Further, as pointed out in the Battelle Economic Impact Statement: ... These primers are specially for- mulated materials that are applied only over virgin wood, and then after three days to one week covered with one or two coats of top coat containing no lead. The viscosity of these primers is quite low so that they penetrate into the wood pores, and hence do not come off with the flakes which occur later during the aging process, to any appreciable degree. • • • Since (1) these coatings represent only a small fraction of the total paint film (less than 1/3 of the first applica- tion) , (2) the lead content of a typical primer of this type is about 6 percent or less, based on the dry film solids, (3) the primer is applied only once in the lifetime of a house, (4) the primer is usually applied by professional painters, and (5) the primer almost completely pene- trates the pores of the virgin wood, and hence is present in any paint flakes only to a minimal degree, the hazard presented by using such primers under the recommended procedures is felt to be small enough to be considered negligible.H In light of the above factors, we believe an exemption for the specialized primers under consideration is justified. To summarize the question of risk, in our opinion the special-purpose coatings under consideration do not present any unreasonable risk of injury. These products, regardless of lead content, are inaccessible to children in the sense that the dried paint film can be obtained and ingested. There- fore, these products do not present an unreasonable risk of lead poisoning to children and should be excluded from the ban of lead containing paint proposed under Section 8 of the CPSA. 2. Benefits and Economic Impact Under Section 8 of the CPSA if certain findings are made, the Commission may propose and, in accordance with Section 9, issue a rule declaring a consumer product to be a banned hazardous product. H Battelle Draft Research Report on Impact Study of Lead In Paint, September 27, 1976 at 41. One of the findings the Commission must make, however, is that the product in question presents an unreasonable risk of injury. As noted above, we do not believe such a finding can be supported with respect to the special-purpose coatings being considered for exemption. Moreover, with respect to these products, there is a feasible consumer product safety standard under the Act which would adequately protect the public even if an unreasonable risk were presented. The labeling requirements proposed (and already in use by most manufacturers) provide adequate pro- ... . 12 tection against any possibility of misuse. Since an action under Section 8 must be in accordance with Section 9, the following provisions of Section 9 must be given due consideration: Section 9(c)(1): Prior to promulgating a consumer product safety rule, the Commission shall consider, and shall make appropriate findings for inclusion in such rule with respect to— (A) The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is designed to eli- minate or reduce; (B) the approximate number of consumer products, or types or classes thereof, subject to such rule; (C) the need of the public for the consumer products subject to such rule, and the probable effect of such rule upon the utility, cost, or availability of such products to meet such need; and I2 As noted herein and in our initial proposal, numerous other factors such as excessive cost, undesirable coating char- acteristics and difficulty in application act as strong deterrents against misuse, regardless of labeling. (D) any means of achieving the objective of the order while minimizing adverse effects on competition or disruption or dislocation of manufacturing and other commercial practices consistent with the public health and safety. (2) The Commission shall not promulgate a consumer product safety rule unless it finds (and includes such finding in the rule)— (A) that the rule (including its effect- ive date) is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product; (B) that the promulgation of the rule is in the public interest; and (C) in the case of a rule declaring the product a banned hazardous product/ that no feasible consumer product safety standard under this Act would adequately protect the public from the unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product. (Pub. L. 92-572, 86 Stat. 1216, Emphasis supplied.) With respect to Section 9(c)(1) of the Act, we have dis- cussed the degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is designed to eliminate or reduce. We have pointed out that the special-purpose coatings under consideration do not pose an un- reasonable risk of lead poisoning of children which is the risk of injury the rule is designed to eliminate or reduce. Therefore, in accordance with Section 9(c)(1)(D) of the Act, exempting these products from regulations pertaining to lead content is a "means of achieving the objective of the order while minimizing adverse effects on competition or disruption or dislocation of manufacturing and other commercial practices consistent with the public health and safety." Lack of such adverse effects on both consumers and industry is a valid bene- fit which must be measured against the degree of risk involved. Exempting the special-purpose coatings is justified because the degree of risk is minimal and the benefits from the con- tinued use of lead ingredients outweigh the risks. Further, under Section 9(c)(1)(C) of the CPSA, the Com- mission is required to consider the need of the public for the consumer products subject to such rule, and the probable effect of such rule upon the utility, cost, or availability of such products to meet such need. The Need for the Special-Purpose Coatings The need of the public for these coatings is clear. They provide essential safety, protective and decorative functions which cannot be replaced. Certainly highly functional industrial maintenance coatings are needed to protect bridges, structural steel, etc. from rust and corrosion. Traffic marking coatings with adequate service life and visability characteristics are needed for highway safety. Refinish coatings are necessary to the public to protect and beautify damaged or older motor vehicles and to protect and maintain industrial and farm equipment. Since the original coatings often contain lead pigments, it is essential that touch-up and refinish coatings contain these same pigments if color match is to be achieved and color stability and uniformity are to be maintained upon use and exposure. Graphic art coatings are needed for traffic signs, indus- trial safety markings and similar uses. Exterior primers are needed for new redwood and cedar to prevent unsightly bleeding of tannins. These and many other important functions are pro- vided by the products in question. Thus, there is a clear public need for such products. There is a clear need for lead ingredients in these pro- ducts as well, if the products are to continue to meet the needs of the public. These essential benefits of lead ingre- dients are covered in detail in our attached proposal (Attach- ment 2) and need not be repeated here. It must be emphasized, however, that the reasons for the need for lead ingredients in these products are still valid. Thus, the utility and availability of such products to meet the needs of the public and provide significant benefits would be severely affected if lead ingredients were prohibited. Cost to Consumers Since cost to the public must be considered (in accordance with 9(c) (1) (C) of the CPSA) , we felt it would be helpful to the Commission if we could provide some specific economic data. In view of time constraints and because the product line lends itself well to economic analysis, we asked the major factors in the manufacture of automotive refinish coatings to provide us with economic data just for those products. In preparing this cost data, we began with the premise that the consuming public wished to continue receiving essentially the same quality in automotive refinishing as is presently being provided. Then, we provided the major manufacturers of automotive refinish products a series of guideline economic impact assump- tions, based on our own understanding of industry practice. The companies involved adjusted these economic assumptions to fit their own situations and provided us calculations as to increased costs of automotive refinishing to consumers if re- finish products were denied exemption and, thus, required to meet a 0.06 percent lead standard. These costs include the increased need for overall repainting, as opposed to spot or panel repair, if lead-containing refinish products are unavail- able, preventing color matches. NPCA has totaled the figures provided by the major manu- facturers. In so doing, we determined that the cost to the con- sumer for the first year would be $3,559,000,000.00. In other words, the initial, first year economic impact to consumers, just from the denial of an exemption for automotive refinish products, would be over 3.5 billion dollars. NPCA does not have the economic data upon which to pre- dicate a total economic impact figure for all of the special- purpose coatings under consideration. As noted, however, these product categories include essential products in terms of safety and protection as well as decoration. They also include touch- up coatings which allow the consumer to engage in his own re- pairs, at substantial savings. Lead ingredients play an impor- tant role in the performance of each of these special-purpose coatings. In light of these factors, we believe the adverse economic impact to the public from the denial of any of these exemptions would be extremely significant. Thus, we urge the Commission to give these cost factors very careful considera- tion. To summarize our comments with respect to the special- purpose coatings, we believe a careful analysis will lead to a conclusion by the Commission that: (1) The dried films of the special-purpose coatings are unavailable for ingestion by children. There- fore, a finding cannot be made that they present an unreasonable risk of injury, and regulation of such products is unnecessary; (2) The costs to the public, in terms of loss of pro- duct utility (including loss of safety and perform- ance factors) and adverse economic impact, far out- weigh the minimal degree of risk involved, if any; (3) The exclusion of these special-purpose products is a valid means of achieving the objective of the order under consideration while minimizing unnecessary adverse effects; and (4) The granting of these exemptions is in the public interest. The Regulation of Furniture NPCA has submitted comments on the issue of furniture bearing lead-containing paint (see Attachment 3). Since this issue and the issue of appliances bearing lead-containing paint are raised in the draft environmental impact statement, we wish to supplement our views. As we pointed out in our original comments, the Commis- sion is given a great deal of latitude by the LBPPPA with respect to the regulation of lead-based paint on furniture. The Com- mission is directed to "take such steps and impose such condi- tions as may be necessary or appropriate to prohibit the appli- cation of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article". (Pub. L. 93-151, §401(c), 90 Stat. 705). Since toys and other children's articles already are regulated, we believe the only step the Commission need take and the only condition which needs to be imposed is to ensure that toys, children's articles and all children's furniture are included within the scope of regulation. This would ensure that cribs, play pens, high chairs, etc. which are an every- day part of a child's environment are coated with products which meet the standard. We believe that any lead-based paint hazard associated with other than children's furniture would be traced to a situa- tion in which the furniture article had been repainted by con- sumers a number of times with lead-based paint and the layers of dried film were in a flaking or peeling condition. Since consumer products used in such repainting must now meet a 0.5 percent lead standard and shortly must meet a 0.06 percent lead standard the cause of this hazard has been eliminated. NPCA believes that a thorough evaluation of all types of furniture bearing factory-applied finishes would reveal that, due to the nature of the finish, the application, and the sub- strate involved, the coating is not available for ingestion by children. Therefore, before going forward with regulation of furni- ture, other than children’s furniture, we urge the Commission to make a factual determination as to whether any hazard actually exists with respect to factory-applied, lead-containing furniture finishes. In this regard, the Commission may wish to utilize the provisions of Section 5 of the CPSA and conduct research, studies, and investigations on the safety of the consumer pro- ducts, i.e., furniture, other than children's furniture, bearing factory-applied, lead-containing coatings. In the alternative, if the Commission decides that some regulation of furniture other than children's furniture is in order, the scope of the regulation should be limited to articles of wood household furniture bearing lead-based paint or other similar surface coating materials. Such a regulation would properly exclude metal furniture of all types such as metal beds, chairs, bookcases and other metal items which could fall within a definition of household furniture. As we pointed out in our earlier comments, industrial coatings for metal articles normally are cured in an oven for ten to twenty minutes at high temperatures (300 - 400°F). The heat-cured organic coatings, because of the heat-reactive poly- mers used, provide an extremely hard, smooth, tough, adherent and durable film. These products undergo rigorous testing against industry standards for hardness, toughness, adhesion and crack and chip resistance. Usually, metal articles of this type have no more than 1 to 2 thousandths of an inch of coating, so there is little film which could be removed. Articles of metal furniture, thus, do not pose an unrea- sonable risk of lead poisoning of children. The extremely hard, factory-applied, dried paint film on such articles can- not be removed and ingested by children. Regardless of the coating application process, the metal substrates of such articles simply do not lend themselves to chewing. These hard, impenetratable substrates, combined with factory application processes specifically designed to pro- vide thin, highly durable paint films, completely preclude removal and ingestion of the film by children. Thus, to limit the scope of regulation of furniture bearing lead-based paint and similar surface coating materials to "articles of wood household furniture" would preclude any possible unreasonable risk of lead poisoning while avoiding unnecessary adverse impacts. Lead-type pigments are important ingredients for articles of metal furniture. Without such ingredients, the cost to the consumers for such articles would increase substantially, while appearance and functional properties would deteriorate. Moreover, the costs in reformulating existing factory- applied finishes for metal furniture, as well as the continuing costs of testing and quality control to ensure that the regu- latory standard was being met, would be substantial. Why impose these substantial economic burdens and injury to performance when these metal articles do not present an unreasonable risk of injury? Why require the factory-applied finishes for these metal articles to meet a lead standard when the dried paint film is totally inaccessible to children, in the sense that it cannot be removed and ingested? Any definition of furniture also should be clarified to exclude articles such as lamps, lighting fixtures, artwork and decorative objects and similar items which do not pose a lead hazard to children. Again, this can be done by limiting the scope of the regulation to wood household furniture. One example of the type of "articles" which could be considered to be covered, without proper clarification, is mirrors. Lead is an important ingredient in the coatings used for mirror backings. Lead compounds in coatings for mirror backings protect against environmental factors, such as moisture from the atmosphere and moisture or salt from human hands. Lead-containing mirror backing also has excellent adhesion which is important to the cutting and processing of mirrors. Thus, the removal from the market of mirror backing con- taining lead would adversely affect the mirror industry. It will result in a product of inferior quality at higher costs to consumers. On the other hand, no positive benefits, in terms of elimination of unreasonable risk of injury can be gained by regulation of such a product. Mirrors simply do not lend themselves to chewing by children. If such chewing were to take place, the hazards associated with ingestion of pieces of glass would be of concern, not the ingestion of the mirror backing. Therefore, to clarify the regulation and to prevent the unnecessary coverage of items such as mirrors with a lead-con- taining backing, we again urge the Commission to regulate only those articles of furniture from which it is reasonable to conclude that a child can remove and ingest the dried paint film. As we have indicated, a regulation pertaining only to articles of wood household furniture is more than is necessary to prevent any unreasonable risk in this regard. Appliances Appliances normally are not considered articles of furni- ture. Indeed, articles of household furniture and household appliances are distinguished and separately identified in dic- tionaries and in the U. S. Government's "Standard Industrial Classification Manual." Thus, appliances should not fall within the scope of regulations pertaining to furniture. Even if, however, the Commission adopted a definition for furniture broad enough to include appliances, they should be specifically ex- cluded. Coatings which are factory applied to appliances can- not be removed and ingested by children. Due to the type of substrate and the type of coatings and application (heat-cured, thin coatings which are extremely hard and durable) these coatings cannot be removed or ingested by biting or chewing by anyone, let alone children. Again, such coatings do not pose an unreasonable risk of lead poisoning to children because children cannot ingest the film. Lead ingredients, however, make a valuable contribution to factory-applied appliance finishes in terms of product quality and performance. Therefore, appliances should not be subject to regulations pertaining to the lead content of surface coatings. In summary, just because certain articles of furniture and other items bearing lead-based paint may be accessible to children in a physical sense, they do not pose the hazard of lead poisoning. Such articles only pose such a risk if the dried paint film can be removed and ingested by children. Therefore, we recommend that the Commission focus any regula- tion it adopts on only those articles of furniture from which it can reasonably be concluded that a child might be capable of removing and ingesting the dried paint film. A regulation covering only articles of wood household furniture would, in our opinion, more than adequately achieve this objective. Jurisdiction Since the question of jurisdiction has been raised by other comments, NPCA believes it must at least briefly address the subject. In filing our original petition for exemption for seven categories of special-purpose coatings, we pointed out the following: The Federal Hazardous Substances Act applies to paint products which are found to be toxic, which are intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in or around a household, and which may cause substan- tial personal injury or illness as a result of "reasonable foreseeable ingestion by children" (15U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A)). Most paints in liquid form are not considered toxic under this act because the viscosity of the paint product renders the ingestion hazard extremely remote. Only after the paint product has been applied to a sur- face accessible to children, and then usually only after the film has flaked or chipped, does a hazard arise that children may ingest the lead content. Thus, this petition is not necessary because of the requirements of the act since the specialty paints, which are the subject of this petition, are neither intended nor likely to be used on surfaces which are reasonably available to children or on surfaces which will enable flaking and chipping of the paint. This petition is required only because the language of §191.9(a)(6)(i) appears to be broader in scope than the language in the statute and broader in scope than is necessary to protect against the lead hazard from the dried paint film. The pertinent portion of the regulation reads as follows: "Any paint or other similar surface-coating material intended, or packaged in a form suitable, for use in or around the house- hold". If this operative language had been limited to surface-coating materials which after application would pose a lead hazard because of reasonably foreseeable ingestion by children, it is clear that the regulation would not apply to these specialty products. This petition for an amendment is submitted, therefore, only to clarify the scope of §191.9(a)(6)(i) of the regulations.13 See Attachment 2 at 2-3. We further pointed out that industrial coatings, such as original finish coatings for automobiles, industrial equipment, etc. were outside the scope of the and we discussed simi- larities between industrial coatings and the special-purpose coatings udner consideration. Thus, a question as to juris- diction over at least some of these products under the FHSA has already been raised. Regulation under the Consumer Product Safety Act raises even further jurisdictional questions with respect to certain of the special-purpose coatings. As you are aware, Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Consumer Product Safety Act excludes from the definition of consumer product "any article which is not customarily pro- duced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer." Automotive refinish products are customarily used by auto- motive body shops. They are not marketed primarily for use by retail customers. Industrial (and commercial building) maintenance coatings, i.e., bridge paints, tank paints, traffic marking paints and similar coatings are not customarily used by consumers. Instead they are used by professional painting contractors. The draft EIS substantiates this: "Industrial maintenance coatings do not 14 Such industrial products are outside the scope of both the FHSA and CPSA. constitute a consumer product of any consequence. Graphic art coatings16, while they may be stocked by some retail outlets, are intended principally for use by pro- fessional sign painters. Thus, again they are not customarily used by consumers and again the draft EIS supports this posi- tion: "These products [Graphic Arts Coatings] are sold almost exclusively to professionals, and are not generally considered „ I7 as consumer products. Since the occasional use of what may be considered to be industrial products by consumers would not be sufficient to bring the product under the Commission's jurisdiction16, a valid question exists as to whether the above categories of products are consumer products subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. A more specific question of jurisdiction relates to auto- motive refinish products. Under Section 3(a)(1)C of the CPSA, motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment (as defined by §§102(3) and (4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) are specifically excluded from the term, "consumer product" as defined by the CPSA. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content In Paint, January 19, 1977 at III-16. For a more detailed discussion of the substantial doubt as to the Commission's jurisdiction over these coatings, see the Comments of Consumers Paint Factory, Inc. filed in this matter on February 2, 1977. 17 See note 15, supra. 18 See H.R. Rep. No. 92-1153; 92nd Cong. 2d Sess., 27 (1972) The definition of "motor vehicle equipment" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is quite broad: "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufac- tured or sold for replacement or improve- ment of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle, and any device, article, or apparel not a system, part, or com- ponent of a motor vehicle (other than medicines, or eyeglasses prescribed by a physician or other duly licensed practitioner), which is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death. (Pub. L. 89-563, Title I, §102(4), Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 718; emphasis supplied). Certainly this definition can be held to include automotive refinish products. Thus, an additional serious question exists as to whether the Commission has jurisdiction over automotive refinish products. Other jurisdiction questions arise in the area of regula- tion of furniture. What about office or commercial furniture? Again, there is a serious question as to whether or not these items would fall within the category of articles which are "not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or use or con- sumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer", under Section 3(a)(1)A of the CPSA. NPCA does not believe that these jurisdictional questions must be resolved under the current proceedings. To us, the more compelling question is this: Does granting exemptions for the special-purpose coatings under consideration and restricting the scope of the proposed regulations pertaining to furniture, as we have suggested, represent a failure on the part of the Commission to adequately protect the public? NPCA believes that granting the product exemptions and restricting the scope of furniture regulations is definitely in the public interest. Such action would be a completely effective means for the Commission to accomplish the full intent of the regulatory proceedings (as well as the spirit and intent of the Federal law, LBPPPA) to protect children from lead poisoning due to ingestion of lead-containing paint. At the same time, it would alleviate unnecessary adverse impact on consumers, the paint and coatings industry and certain of our industrial customers. Such action would also prevent the creation of other risks to the public due to failure of these specialized coatings to perform their essential safety and pro- tective functions. Conclusion It appears that the Commission intends to adopt a final regulation under Section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act which would declare as banned hazardous products paint and other similar surface-coating materials containing more than the level of lead ultimately to be established as the defini- tion of the term lead-based paint under the LBPPPA. For the reasons stated herein, such regulation should only apply to those products manufactured six months after the adoption of a final regulation. Also, for the reasons stated herein, the categories of special-purpose coatings under consideration should be excluded from any such regulation. It further appears that the final regulation would de- clare as banned hazardous products toys, other articles intended for use by children, and articles of furniture bearing such paint or other similar surface-coating materials. For the reasons stated herein, the regulation of furniture bearing such paint or other similar surface-coating materials should apply only to children's furniture or, in the alternative, only to articles of wood household furniture. NPCA appreciates the Commission's careful consideration of our views and stands ready to provide additional informa- tion if necessary. Respectfully submitted, NATIONAL PAINT & COATINGS ASSOCIATION By: John M. Montgomery General Counsel /—'J irf?£ iC*r -- By: v. L. Thomas Associate General Counsel Attachment 1 PROPOSED REGULATION OF LEAD-BASED PAINT AND CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS BEARING LEAD-BASED PAIND UNDER THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT AS BANNED HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS With respect to proposed Part 1145, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has requested written comments on or before September 9, 1976. The National Paint & Coatings submits the following views and urges that they be given careful consideration. As we understand it, the Commission's rationale for proposing to regulate lead-based paint and certain other consumer products bearing such paint under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) rather than the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) is as follows: (1) The Commission has decided to consolidate the proceedings under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA), the FHSA and CPSA. (2) Because the Commission is obligated under the amended LBPPPA to make its determination of a safe level of lead in paint within six months after June 23, 1976, proceeding under the FHSA at the same time is unfeasible because of the time-consuming nature of hearings that would be conducted under section 701 (e) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). (3) Pursuant to section 30(d) of the CPSA, the Commission believes that the public interest requires the regulation of lead-containing paint, and certain other consumer products bearing such paint, under provisions of the CPSA rather than the FHSA. The National Paint & Coatings Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as NPCA, and headquartered at 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N W., Washington, D.C.), is a voluntary, non-profit industry association originally organized in 1888 and comprising today approxi- mately 1,000 members, who are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of paint, varnish, lacquer, and allied products, or of the materials used in such manufacture. The membership of NPCA collectively produces about 90% of the total dollar volume of paint, varnish, lacquer and allied products produced in the United States. NPCA supports a consolidated proceeding. We believe it is in the best interest of the public, interested parties and the affected industry that the issue of a safe level of lead in residential paint products be responsibly and finally decided in a fair, expeditious manner. NPCA believes the approach which best serves the public interest is to resolve this issue in a consolidated proceeding which will result in final regulations under the LBPPPA and the FHSA rather than the CPSC. We believe it is entirely feasible to proceed under the FHSA within the time-frame permitted under the LBPPPA and it is in the public interest to do so. The Commission's position is that before a final regulation can be adopted under FHSA a time-consuming complex evidentiary hearing must be conducted making consolidation impossible. The agency seems to be adopting the view that an evidentiary hearing is always a part of an FHSA proceeding. This appears to us to be contrary to a correct understanding of FHSA proceedings and contrary to CPSCVs own prior interpretations of such proceedings. The Commission's reasoning breaks down in that no evidentiary hearing is required to adopt a rule under FHSA. FHSA proceedings are two-stage in nature. The first stage is a simple, straight forward informal rule-making process involving no evidentiary hearing. This is clearly spelled out in FHSA Regulations, Part 1500.20! (a): "(a) The Commission may, upon its own initiative or upon the petition of any interested person, showing reasonable grounds therefor, propose the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation provided for in section 3(a) or 2 (q) of the Act, declaring particular substances to be ha zardous substances or banned hazardous substances. The proposal shall be published in the Federal Register, with an invitation for written comments. As soon as practicable after the comments have been received, the Commission shall by order act upon such proposal to declare the sub- stance to be a hazardous substance or banned hazardous substance for purposes of the act, or to amend or repeal any regulation previously issued." This FHSA proceeding is even simpler than a CPSA proceeding which requires oral presentation of views. A clear, totally relevant example that no evidentiary hearing is required under this informal rule-making is that the final adoption of the present FHSA regulations of lead-in-paint did not require even an oral hearing, let alone an evidentiary hearing. It is only under stage two of the FHSA proceedings that the possibility of an evidentiary hearing arises. This stage is explained in Part 1500.201 (b) of the FHSA regulations: "(b) Within 30 days after publication of such order, any person who will be adversely affected thereby, if placed in effect, may file objections and a request for a public hearing. The objections shall not be accepted for filing if they fail to establish that the objector will be adversely affected by the regulation, if the objections do not specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is taken, or if the objections do not state reasonable grounds. Reasonable grounds are grounds from which it is reasonable to conclude that facts can be established by reliable evidence at the hearing which will call for arranging the provisions specified in the objections whenever legally valid objections have been filed, a public hearing on the objections will be held." This language and the statutory language of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act from which it was make it clear the FHSA proceedings do not always require an evidentiary hearing. Only when objections and a request for a public hearing are filed does the possibility of an evidentiary hearing arise. 2 Section 701 (e) (2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 371 (e). 4 Further, our understanding of the Commission's interpretation of the FHSA regulatory language cited above is that objections and requests for hearings can be denied if not based on "reasonable grounds." If this is a correct interpretation then the Commission decides whether an evidentiary hearing is in order or not; it is not an automatic requirement under FHSA proceedings. Thus, to consolidate the LBPPPA proceedings with FHSA rather than CPSA, the Commission could: (1) Repeal that part of the current FHSA regulations dealing with the 0.06% lead level. Such repeal would have no practical effect on the existing FHSA lead standard since the 0.06% level is not in effect but would properly moot long-standing objections which have stayed that standard. (2) Propose a new FHSA regulation which would provide that whatever lead standard is established under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act will be considered the highest permissible level of lead in paint and other articles bearing such paint regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. A new FHSA proposal could easily be consolidated with the LBPPPA proceedings. As already noted, the adoption of a FHSA rule only requires an informal rule-making proceeding. By placing a notice in the Federal Register, conducting a public hearing and allowing for submission of written comments, the Commission will have even exceeded the minimum requirements necessary to adopt an FHSA regulation. Obviously, it can be argued that once these proceedings are consolidated and a determination is made which sets a standard under the LBPPPA and the FHSA, the standard 5 may become effective under the LBPPPA while the FHSA standard is stayed by new objections and a request for a hearing. But this possibility does not interfere with a consolidated proceeding and a final determination. Instead it is a logical, worthwhile extension of it. If objections are filed, under the Commission's interpretation of FHSA regulations, an evidentiary hearing can be denied if not based on reasonable grounds. Reasonable grounds, as defined in the above FHSA regulations, are "grounds from which it is reasonable to conclude that facts can be established by reliable evidence at the hearing which will call for changing the provisions specified in the objections." If reasonable grounds are established by legally valid objections, then it certainly is in the public interest to hold such a hearing, even if it means the FHSA standard is stayed while the LBPPPA remains in effect. While uniformity of standards under federal laws is in the public interest, the overriding public interest is to ensure that whatever standard is adopted is justified and supported by reliable evidence. An evidentiary hearing, if justified, would allow adversely affected parties a further opportunity to resolve the issue at the administrative level rather than through litigation. Appellate courts, in light of their already over-crowded dockets, are especially interested in resolution of such issues at the administrative level. Unlike the FHSA, the CPSA does not provide for further administrative proceedings if an actual, valid controversy exists. Instead, once a regulation is adopted under the CPSA, any further challenge must be taken to the courts. Surely, it is not the Commission's contention that further agency review of a regulation which has been challenged by "reasonable grounds" is not in the public interest. Such a position cannot be supported, especially when, under the Commission's interpretation of the 6 regulations, if decides what are "reasonable grounds" ond can either grant or deny a public hearing depending on this decision. In summary, a consolidated proceeding can be held under the LBPPPA and the FHSA since an evidentiary hearing is not initially required. Further, this would not deter interested parties from participating to the extent posable under the LBPPPA and the CPSA. In fact, it would allow added public participation, by allowing adversely affected parties to participate in an additional evidentiary hearing if the Comrr iso on deems it in order. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Commission continue to regulate lead-based paint and certain other consumer products beoring such paint unde*" the FHSA and not transfer the matter to CPSA. The LBPPPA and FHSA proceedings can be consolidated without the interference of an evidentiary hearing. Such a hearing, if held at all, is held subsequent to initial FHSA rule-making procedures. Also, in l«ght of the Commission's own interpretation of FHSA proceedings, objections and a for on evidentiary hearing must be based on "reasonable grounds" if they are to be granted. If "reasonable grounds" exist and the Com- mission is made aware of them by legally valid objections then an evidentiary hearing is decidedly in the public interest,. Accordingly, it is not in the public mterecf to regulate certain lead-containing paint and certain other consumer products bearing such paint, under provisions of the CPSA rather than the FHSA. In fact just the opposite. Any risks of injury associated with po>nt products have been traditionally eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. Through no small effort on the port of NPCA, the paint and coatings industry has been continually informed of FHSA requirements since the acfs enactment in 1960. Our extensive labeling guide, in large measure based on requirements of the FHSA, is clear evidence of this. 7 Moreover, os the Commission is oware, there is already an FHSA standard for lead-in- paint and toys and children's articles bearing such paint. The paint industry and other involved industries have generally developed an understanding of and learned to comply with the FHSA lead-in-paint rules, even though some provisions, such as repurchase of banned hazardous substances, are more stringent than under the CPSA. It is certainly not in the public interest to disrupt this understanding which is essential to compliance. This is especially true when the possibility exists that the lead-m-poin* standard will be lowered, presenting the industry with a new ar«d significant burden with which it must cope. If such is to be the case, why further confuse the issue by unnecessarily transferring regulation to a new, less understood law? Additionally, there is still pending before the Commission a petition to exempt certain products from the FHSA lead paint regulations. We recognize that if a transfer is made to CPSA, such petitions will continue their present status until ruled on, except they will be pending under the CPSC rather than the FHSA- These petitions, however, are couched in terms which apply to the provisions of FHSA. If the transfer is mode to CPSC, does this mean that these petitions must be revised and refiled to correspond to the provisions of the CPSA? This seems to us to be a waste of time and effort since the proceedings under the FHSA can be consolidated with the LBPPPA proceedings. Therefore, NPC.A believes that the public interest t an best be served by continuing regulation under FHSA and that the public interest does not require the regulation of lead- containing pa>n* and certain other consumer products bearing such paint under provisions of the CPSA rather than the FHSA- Thus, section 30(d) of the CPSA (15 UoS.C. 2079(d)), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Commission Improvements Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-284; 90 Stat. 510), does not provide authority for the Commission to, in this instance, proceed under the CPSA rather than the FHSA« We are confident that the Commission will give full and careful consideration to these views. Thank you. Attachment 2 J J / i i J _> J i j-'xl—t lit COATJNGKj AEJyOCJATJOj'J (See F.R. proposal and petition to exempt coatings marketed solely for use on radio-control powered aircraft' nf'fnrhpd October 24, 1972 Commissioner Food and Drug Administration U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Washington, D. C. 20204 Dear Sir: r\pc The undersigned National Paint and Coatings Association on behalf of its members, which manufacture and market certain specialty paints in which lead is a necessary component, submits this petition pursuant to Section 701(e) (1) (B) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act with respect to the amendment of the FDA regulation of March 11, 1972, classifying certain paints as banned hazardous substances, issued under Sections 2(q) (1) (B) and 3 (a) (2) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The petition also is submitted in response to and consistent with the invitation in the aforementioned regulation (of March 1 1, 1972) to consider petitions requesting amendment of this reg- ulation with respect to products intended for particular uses, of which lead is a necessary component. Attached hereto, in quintuplicate and constituting a part of this petition, are the followit (A) Proposed Amendment. (B) Statement of the grounds upon which the petitioner relies for the amendment of the regulation. This petition seeks the amendment of Section 1 91 .9(a) (6) (i) of Part 191 of Titie 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Very truly yours, National Paint and Coatings Association, Inc. (Peti tioner) Per John M. Montgomery, General Counsel Mail address 1500 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20005 r»Cf AS ,RM J 0 A UUHlt IN Nochlo'd » PiflidfM I ftftCVMfN J 0 W i mdollf C»U»* V .f • Piftidvnl • CRT A ROLAND W»«h.n9ion Z IARSIM 0>ltthu>0h AN W GA1(S Wcthmqlon M vet n ciuorr w«»h.n9io^ ■ CIOHAI VICC ■rs'orNis £• fn§l»fut ■stPH s W **«•»£* I ). IMtOWN. j ommrii (wtumH w«l c##m»i Hitirnv a urffnoom ci>u»r High m matoi iim. K'wM.ut r.« fc- IUmoio wfiwnrito #•»#»* It w. KCHMrOV. I •• An,*lti soo ! hode l*land | venue, N.W. /•shinglon, D.C. 0005 elephone 02 452*5272 (A) Proposed Amendment: § 191.9: (а) xxx (б) (i) (c) The provisions of this Section (i) do not apply to: 1. Automotive, agricultural, and industrial equipment refinish coatings. 2. Industrial (and commercial building) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety marking coatings. 3. Graphic art coatings (products marketed solely for application on billboards, road signs and similar uses, and for identification marking in industrial buildings.) 4. Touch-up coatings for automobi les, agricultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and appl iances. 5. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application. 6. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings. 7. Exterior primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products marketed solely for application on redwood and cedar.) Provided, that these products bear on the main panel of their label, in addition to any labeling that may be required under the Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the signal word "WARNING" and the following statement: "CONTAINS LEAD. DRIED FILM OF THIS PAINT MAY BE HARMFUL IF EATEN OR CHEWED. See other cautions on (side or back) panel." These products shall also bear on their label the following additional statement or its practical equivalent: "Do not apply on toys and other children's articles, furniture, or interior surfaces of any dwelling or facility which may be occupied or used by children. Do not apply on those exterior surfaces of dwelling units, such as window sills, porches, stairs, or railings, to which children may be commonly exposed. Keep out of reach of children." The placement, conspicuousness and contrast of the above labeling sha11 be in accordance with the requirements of 21 C.F.R. 191.101. 2 B. Statement of the Grounds Upon Which Petitioner Relies for the Amendment of the Regulation On March 11,1 972, the Food and Drug Administration published an order in the Federal Register (37 F.R. 5229) under Section 2(q) (1) (B) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act which, in part, declared any paints or other similar surface coating materials intended, or packaged in a form suitable for use in or around the household, to be banned hazardous substances if: (1) shipped in interstate commerce between December 31, 1972 and December 31, 1973 and (2) containing lead compounds of which the lead content is in excess of 0.5 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film. On August 10, 1972, this portion of the order was confirmed as effective; that portion of the order pertaining to a 0.06 percent lead level remained under consideration by the Agency. The Federal Hazardous Substances Act applies to paint products which are found to be toxic, which are intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in or around a household and which may cause substantial personal injury or illness as a result of "reasonably foreseeable ingestion by children" 15 U.S.C. § 1261 (f) (1) (A). Most paints in liquid form are not considered toxic under this Act because the viscosity of the paint product renders the ingestion hazard extremely remote. Only after the paint product has been applied to a surface accessible to children, and then usually only after the film has flaked or chipped, does a hazard arise that children may ingest the lead content. Thus, this petition is not- necessary because of Hie requirements of the Act since the specialty paints, which are the subject of this petition, are neither intended nor likely to be used on surfaces which are reasonably available to children or on surfaces which will enable flaking and chipping of the paint. This petition is required only because the language of 191 .9 (a) (6) (i) appears to be 3 broader in scope than the language in the statute and broader in scope than is necessary to protec. against the lead hazard from the dried paint film. The pertinent portion of the regulation reads as follows: Any paint or other similar surface coating material intended, or packaged in a form suitable, for use in or around the household .... If this operative language had been limited to surface coating materials,which after application would pose a lead hazard because of reasonably foreseeable ingestion by children, it is clear that the regulation would not apply to these specialty products. This petition for an amendment is submitted, therefore, only to clarify the scope of Section 191 .9 (a) (6) (i) of the regulations. The Definitions and Procedural and Interpretative Regulations, under FHSA (21 C.F.R. Part 191.1) specify that the Act covers those products that under customary or reasonably foresee- able conditions of storage or use may be brought into or around a house, apartment or other place people dwell, including a garage, carport, barn or storage shed. The same regulations expressly state that the Act does not cover industrial supplies that might be taken into a home by a servicemar The interpretations specifically provide that a product labeled as and marketed solely for industrial use does not become subject to the Act simply because an industrial worker could possibly misappropi a'supply for his own use. Thus, this interpretative regulation leaves no doubt that industrial coatings, such as original finish coatings for automobiles, industrial equipment and farm and garden equipment are outside the scope of the Act and therefore remain unaffected by the proposed tolerances. The specialized coating products which are the subject of this Petition are similar to the industrial or factory-applied coatings in many respects. They are intended primarily for application to non-household surfaces, usually by professional painters, and they are not intended or suitable for use on surfaces accessible 4 to children which would create a hazard. The Maich 1 1 regulalion appears to cover these specialized paints solely because they may at times be found in or around the household in packaged form and not because of any finding that they pose a lead hazard to children. Congress, in enacting the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, contemplated the dangers offered by a product or article in its liquid state and in its packaged form and thus designed the Act to regulate all products "intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in or around the house- hold." Implicit in the quoted language is the assumption that the particular hazard from a product is posed simply because that product is present in the household in packaged form. While this is true of a substance which presents a hazard in its liquid state as, for example, the flammability hazard of certain liquid paints, this is not true of the lead ingestion hazard from paints. The particulc hazard posed by lead content in paint does not occur from the liquid paint in the package but, instead the hazard occurs solely from the dried paint film if ingested by children. The best information available indicates that children who are disposed to chew paint chips confine their activity primarily to interior surfaces in the house and, perhaps, infrequently to an accessible exterior surface. Children usually are attracted by flakes from old, chipped paint film rather than newly-coated surfaces, and by toys or other articles which they may place in their mouths. This is due in large part to the limited physical abilities of the young children suffering from "pica," the habit of ingesting non-food items. As pointed out in comments to the subject regulation, submitted by Dr. Barry King and Dr. Julian Chisholm (noted authorities on lead poisoning), the most critical age for exposure of a child through ingestion of paint, putty and other lead-containing non-food materials is usually one to three years of age. In view of both the restricted mobility and physical limitations of children in this age bracket, they neither have access to, nor are capable of chewing or ingesting, paint chips from surfao to which the products for which exemptions are herein requested are applied. In fact, we are not awa of any documented case where a child has attempted to ingest the paint film on automobiles, farm and garden implements, etc. 5 The American Academy of Pediatrics, in its November 30, 1971 memorandum to the Food and Drug Administration, appears to confirm this: The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses the principle contained in the petition filed with the Commissioner that paints containing more than minute traces of lead be declared as banned hazardous substances, if intended for use on children's products or interior surfaces. (Emphasis supplied) Further, the Senate Committee Report on the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act Amendments of 1972 refers specifically to coatings "intended for interior residential surfaces" (S. Rep. No. 92-85 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)). Similarly, under Hie "Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (P.L. 91-695) the Secretary oi Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfai was instructed to develop and carry our a demonstration and research program "to determine the nature and extent of the problem of lead-based paint poisoning in the United States, particularly in urban areas, and the methods by which lead-based paint can most effectively be removed from interior surfaces, porches, and exterior surfaces to which children may be commonly exposed, of residential housing." Acting under this authority, the Secretary of HUD has determined that the existing conditions that pose a lead paint hazard to children are those surfaces reasonably available to children that present peeling or flaking paint. This has been recently confirmed by the agency by a publication in the October 21, 1972 issue of the Federal Register (at Page'22732) entitled "Prohibition of Use of Lead-Based Paint And Elimination of Lead-Based Paint Hazard." This revises pertinent parts of the Code of Federal Regulations already promulgated under authority of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. In this revision, with respect to the use of and elimination of existing 6 hazards caused by lead-based paint, the Secretary of HUD defines "applicable surfaces" as all interior surfaces and those exterior surfaces, such as stairs, decks, porches, railings, window and doors, which are readily accessible to children under 7 years of age." Further, "Health Hazard", with respect to lead-based paint, is defined to mean "crackling, (sic) scaling, peeling and loose lead-based paint on applicable surfaces." Since the prohibition against use of lead-based paint under this revision extends only to use on "applicable surfaces of any residential structure", clearly then these are the only surfaces found by this agency to pose a lead hazard to children. There is no indication by HUD that the surfaces to which the products under consideration are applied present either an existing or future lead poisoning hazard to children. It is clear from the foregoing that the hazard sought to be prevented by lead tolerances established in Section 191 .9 (a) (6) is lead ingestion by children who tend to chew dried paint film on interior and exterior household surfaces accessible to these children, and on toys or other articles intended for use by these children. The regulation is not intended to nor should it rea- sonably apply to the specialized paints under consideration since, through customary or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, they will not cause a lead hazard for pica children, even though they are packaged in a form suitable for use in or around the household, and thus, incidentally may meet the definitional test of Section 191.1 (c), namely, that Under any reasonable condition of purchase, storage or use the articles may be found in or around a dwelling Thus, petitioner believe these products should not be subject to the provisions of the regulation. 7 Unlike interior household paints or even exterior paints for household application which could conceivably be substituted for interior use or applied on an exterior surface accessible to children, these specialized products are never marketed for such application. They are neither intended, designed nor suitable for use in areas accessible to children. These products are limited in purpose and, since they are not general household products, are thus purchased infrequently and never stored around the household in any significant quantity. Furthermore, most of these products are intended for the professional consumer. The precautionary label proposed in this Petition adds an extra measure of protection against any conceivable risk from its lead content due to misuse. The possibility of misusing these products, even without the precautionary label is, however, very remote. The garish color and rough texture of an industrial maintenance coating such as a red-lead primer, in which lead is an important protective material, makes it exceedingly unlikely that anyone would use it on interior household surfaces or other surfaces accessible to children. Other specialty products, such as automobile refinishes, are generally too expensive to be feasible for use on such surfaces. Others such as touch-up coatings in aerosol containers are packaged in quantities too small for practical use on household surfaces. Additional significant factors militating against misuse of these products are explained in the following discussions of the individual products along with an explanation of why lead is a necessary component in these coatings. 8 DISCUSSION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE COATINGS 1. Automotive, agricultural, and industrial equipment refinish coatings Automotive, agricultural and industrial equipment refinish coatings are designed for use by automobile repair shops or agricultural or industrial equipment dealers for the refinish of automobiles, trucks, agricultural, and industrial machinery. These refinish coatings are marketed through automoti warehouse distributors to automotive parts jobbers, and then to automotive body shops. Agricultural and industrial equipment coatings are sold by equipment manufacturers and subsidiaries to equipment dealers. Although these refinish coatings are intended for use by automotive body shops or farm and industrial equipment dealers and are not marketed primarily for retail customers, some of these companies have a secondary retail trade. Such retail customers use these coatings to refinish automobiles, agricultural equipment, and industrial machinery. This refinishing may occur in or about a garage, barn or shed. These coatings are usually high-gloss and are customarily applied by spray equipment. Lead is an essential ingredient in many of these coatings for three reasons. First, it is a catalytic drier, necessary to speed the oxidation process and,thereby, prevent dirt or dust from becoming embedded in Fhe film. Second, lead-containing pigments are necessary to match original equipment colors and to prevent a displeasing patchwork effect in coloring which otherwise would appear after a short time due to color chalking and fading. Finally, lead provides the essential resistance to weathering, heat and other environmental conditions to which automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment are peculiarly exposed. When used for the intended purpose, there exists no health hazard to children. Indeed, the only difference between the original factory-applied finish (which is not regulated by the Act unless applied to any toy or other articles intended for use by children,) and the refinish product is that a 9 can of the latter may find its way into or near the home. The hazard exists, however, not from the liquid in the container but only from the dried film and then only if the film' can be ingested by children. It is not reasonably foreseeable that a child would chew on the paint because of the hard substrate to which the paint is applied. Because of the nature of these refinishing products and their labeling, it is not reasonably foreseeable that they would be used for other than their intended purpose. There are many reasons for this 1 . Spray application, usually with high-pressure sprayers, is recommended for all of these products, and satisfactory results are not obtained with a brush or roller- 2. The high gloss colors found in most of these coatings are not suitable for surfaces in the home; 3. At level, automotive refinishes are roughly twice as expensive as household enamels and paints, and thus it is exceedingly unlikely that consumers would purchase automotive refinish coatings for use on either an interior or exterior household surface since cheaper, better-suited products are more readily available. Further, such costs preclude purchasing more than is actually needed to refinish an automobile; 4. These refinishes, in contrast to general purpose household enamels and paints, often require careful preparation of the metal surface, including grinding,- etching, and priming in order to obtain proper adhesion; and 5. The pioposed warning label would provide additional profcclion by indicating lo the purchaser that such coatings should not be applied on any surface accessible to chi Idren. 10 2. Industrial (and commercial bui Iding) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety maikings coatings This category includes a variety of coatings sold for maintenance of plant and equipment, commercial buildings, structural steel such as bridges, or for safety markings or pavement markings in streets or parking lots. Lead pigment, such as in the commonly used red lead primer, is an important ingredient in these coatings, principally because it resists corrosion. Lead pigments also achieve the brilliant opaque and durable colors required for safety markings on pavements and industrial areas. There are no substitutes for the lead colors that will adequately perform the same purposes. Organic compounds are weaker in tinting strength, are less durable to weathering and have a tendency to bleed when overpainted. Those products are intended for uses which pose no health hazard to children. Industrial plants, commercial office buildings, metal equipment, structural steel, bridges, and the like are not accessible to children. Additionally, the Congress, after hearings has recognized that such uses are not hazardous. In enacting the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act of 1971 (P.L. 91-695 Congress eliminated the language "any building or structure," and substituted "interior surfaces, porches, and exterior surfaces to which children may be commonly exposed" in order to exclude industrial and commercial building maintenance use (S. Rep. No. 91-1432, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 4-5 (1970)). Again it is not reasonably foreseeable that industrial maintenance coatings would be misused and applied to a household surface accessible to children. Large volume users purchase these products directly from manufacturers, and these products are generally unavailable for use around the household. Some retail outlets may stock and sell certain lines of these coatings in limited volume to smaller industrial accounts. Such industrial maintenance coatings normally are labeled 11 "Intended for professional use only and not for retail sale. " In addition, they will bear the lead warning label required by the proposed amendment. Thus, the possibility of household use is vir- tually eliminated. 3. Graphic art coatings (Products marketed solely for application on billboards, road signs and similar uses, and for identification marking of industrial buildings.) These paints or coatings, applied free hand or by hand using a stencil or similar technique, are used to present a graphic image or convey a message. On the basis of intended use and because of a general lack of access by household consumers and children, to either the coating or coated surface, graphic arts coatings should be exluded from the regulation. While these coatings may be stocked by some dealers, they are intended principally for use by professional sign painters for the application of colors to billboards, billboard structures, road signs and similar items and for identification markings of industrial buildings and the equipment installed therein. Most of these coatings are used only under specific shop conditions for application to plastic and metal surfaces, such as illuminated signs advertising particular businesses (e.g. , service stations) or for road-directional markers. The need for such contrasting colors is mandatory for these types of identification. Existing tech nology knows of no substitute materials for lead which will provide the brilliance, color permanence and film durability necessary for extended periods of service, particularly under the temperature, sunlight and humidity conditions of outdoor exposure. Purthe_rmore, for many of these uses, such as application to road signs, these coatings are baked on. No acceptable non-leaded colorants, which can withstand such baking, are presently available. 12 4. Touch-up coatings for automobiles, agricultural and induslrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, outboard motors, motorized recreational vehicles, and applicances These coatings are packages in small containers or in aerosol containers, for use by the con- sumer in making minor surface repairs to his automobile, household appliance, or other mechanical equipment which may be found in the vicinity of his home. While intended primarily for use in and around the household, they are neither intended nor suitable for application to large surface areas accessible to children. Second, the hard metal surface of the vehicles, appliances, or other equip- ment on which these coatings are applied, do not lend themselves to chewing by children. Third, the very thin, hard coating film on such surfaces cannot be removed and ingested by chewing. These coatings are packaged and marketed in small quantities, discouraging their use on any- thing except an extremely small area. As with automotive refinish coatings, they generally are not suited for use other than as intended. Furthermore, to insure against any misuse of this product, each container will carry the required labeling, warning of the lead content and restricting the use of the product. 5. Exterior marine coatings for small craft application The bulk of marine coatings are marketed for industrial use only, and are sold in containers not suitable for use in and around the household and, therefore, are outside the coverage of the Act. Yet, marine coatings also are sold in significant volume at retail for use by consumers in coating small craft, and these coatings could be found in or around the household. Lead is an essential ingredient for these coatings, primarily for the same reasons it is needed in industrial maintenance . Lead is a necessary component for corrosion control; ihere are no satisfactoi substitutes. As with automotive refinish coatings, lead is needed in marine coatings to provide re- sistance to weathering and other environmental conditions. When used for their intended purpose, marine coatings do not pose a lead hazard to children since the coated surfaces are not accessible to them. Furthermore, it is not reasonably foreseeable that such coatings would be misused for other purposes in or around a household, because other, better suited, less costly coatings are more readily available. Finally, the proposed warning label would clearly indicate to the consumer that the coating should not be applied on any areas access- ible to chi Idren. 6. Exterior rubber-based roof coatings These coatings are unique, in that they are rubber-based as opposed to the types of materials used in other coatings. Lead oxides are the only known materials available for curing the liquid coatings when applied to surfaces such as roofs where waterproofing is essential. Oxides of no other metals exert any influence on the cure of these rubberized coatings. In addition, lead oxides are required for improved water resistance. These surfaces are obviously not accessible to children and, thus, the intended or reasonably foreseeable use will not create a health hazard for children. 7. Exterior wood primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products marketed solely for use on redwood or cedar.) Lumber used for fabrication of siding materials may at times be cedar or redwood, each of which contains water-soluble materials which can be leached by moisture and deposited at or near the paint surface. These staining chemicals can have increased solubility in the high pH of emul- sion paints, and can accentuate the development of unsightly stains on the paint film. A lead com- pound primer is used when the bare substrate is cedar or redwood, in order to insolubilize the stains before they reach the topcoat. Continued manufacture and sale of exterior staining wood primers of this type, which contains lead, is necessary for this limited purpose. We do not believe that the use of this product poses a reasonably foreseeable lead hazard to children for each of the following reasons: (I) A lead-containing primer need only be used once, and thus, there is no buildup of layers of lead-containing paint, which is recognized as a primary cause of lead poisoning; (2) Exterior house siding is not readily accessible to chiidien in the sense that porch railings and ornamental surfaces aie accessible; (3) Staining, as distinguished from non-staining, woods ate not widely used for siding; and (4) Some of the primer penetrates the wood substrate and thus, should the coating peel, little, if any, of the primer peels with it. SUMMARY While a number of these special purpose coatings may be found in or near the household in packaged form, no lead hazard to children arises either before or after they are applied to the sur- faces for which they are intended. Only ''household" paints that are intended to be applied to surfaces accessible to children can pose the lead hazard sought to be prevented by the regulation in question. We are not aware of any data, including reports in medical literature or human experience, which indicate that children have ingested dried paint films from the type of surfaces on which the products described herein are applied, nor is it reasonably foreseeable that such ingestion would occur. Additonally, considering the inaccessibiliry of the surfaces to which these paint films are applied and/or the hardness of the film or substrate to which they are applied, ingestion of these products after application is not reasonably foreseeable. Finally, and as previously pointed out, the likelihood of misuse of these products is exceedingly remote. Accordingly, this petition is submitted in the interest of establ ishing -- for both the consumer and the industry -- clarity and certainty with respect toihe scope of the subject regulation. This would also avoid the possibility of unwarranted regulatory action resulting from a lack of such clarity and certainty, and provide a sound enforcement basis for labeling these classes of products. 15 PROCEDURE Since this petition is filed prior to the implementation (December 31,1972) of the lead order, it is requested that the publication of this petition have the effect of suspending the effective date of the order, pending review of comments and promulgation of a final order in this matter, only as it applies to those paints and similar surface coating materials which petitioners submit should not be subject to the order. Without such a suspension* the manufacture and distribution of the pro- ducts would be totally disrupted. Manufacturers have not known and still do not know whether to continue or discontinue the marketing of these specialized coatings since there is a substantial unre- solved question of their status under the lead order. Additionally, until this question is finally re- solved by a final order, customers of these manufacturers — such as distributors or users having a secondary retail trade — cannot, with confidence, continue to purchase such products. This is because it may be necessary for them to introduce the products into interstate commerce subsequent to the December 31,1972 implementation date. This petition is not intended to affect the imple- mentation date of the lead standards as they apply to other paints and surface coating materials. An additional factor for consideration relates to the labeling required by the proposed amend- ment. Until the Commissioner determines by regulations the acceptable or desirable label statements for the special-purpose coatings under consideration, manufacturers cannot with confidence label or relabel new production. It will be necessary, therefore, to consider lead time for an implemen- tation date for such labeling as may be required. 25849 Attachment 2 A §191.9 Banned hazardous substances. (а) • • • (б) (1) • • • (c) The provisions of this subdivision (i) do not apply to: (1) Automotive, agricultural, and in- dustrial equipment refinish coatings: (2) Industrial (and commercial build- ing) maintenance coatings, including traffic and safety marking coatings; (3) Graphic art coatings (products marketed solely for application on bill- boards, road signs, and similar uses and for Identification marking in industrial buildings); (4) Touchup coatings for automobiles, agricultural and industrial equipment, lawn and garden equipment, boats, out- board motors, motorized recreational ve- hicles, and appliances; (5) Exterior marine coatings for small craft application; (6) Exterior rubber-based roof coat- ings; and (7) Exterior primer coatings for wood siding containing extractives (products marketed solely for application on red- wood and cedar); Provided, That these products bear on the main panel of their label, in addition to any labeling that may Lc required under the act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the signal word “WARNING” and the following state- ment: “CONTAINS LEAD. DRIED FILM ON THIS PAINT MAY BE HARMFUL IF EATEN OR CHEWED. See other cau- tions on (side or back) panel.” These products shall also bear on their label the following additional statement or its practical equivalent: Do not apply on toys and other children’s articles, furniture, or Interior surfaces of any dwelling or facility which may be occupied or used by chUdren. Do not apply on those exterior surfaces of dwelling units, such as window sills, porches, stairs, or railings, to which children may be commonly exposed. Keep out of reach of children. The placement, conspicuousness, and contrast of the above labeling shall be in accordance with the requirements of § 191.101. • • • • • The following is the statement of grounds given in the petition in support of the proposed amendment: On March 11, 1972, the Food and Drug Administration published an order in the Federal Register (37 F.R. 5229) under section 2(q)(l)(B) of the Federal Haz- ardous Substances Act which, in part, declared any paints or other similar sur- face-coating materials intended, or pack- aged in a form suitable for use in or around the household, to be banned haz- ardous substances if: (1) Shipped in in- terstate commerce between December 31, 1972, and December 31, 1973, and (2) containing lead compounds of which the lead content is in excess of 0.5 percent of the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film. On August 10, 1972, this portion of the order was confirmed as effective; that portion of the order per- taining to a 0.06 percent lead level re- mained under consideration by the Agency. nrPAPTMFMT nr upaitu *•!» I •!«•-••• WI ■ Ilf EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Food and Drug Administration [ 21 CFR Part 191 1 BANNED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Proposed Exemption of Certain Lead- Containing Paints and Other Simi- lar Surface-Coating Materials The Commissioner of Food and Drugs has received a petition from the National Paint and Coating Association, 1500 Rhode Island Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005, submitted pursuant to section 701(e) (1) (B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, proposing an amend- ment to a regulation (21 CFR 191.9(a) (6) (i)) promulgated under section 2(q) (1) (B) of the Federal Hazardous Sub- stances Act. The proposed amendment would exempt certain lead-containing coatings from classification ''"'> o lead hazard because of reasonably foreseeable inges- tion by children, it is clear that the reg- ulation would not apply to these specialty products. This petition for an amend- ment is submitted, therefore, only to clarify the scope of § 191.9(a) (6) (i) of the regulations. The Definitions and Procedural and Interpretative Regulations, under FHSA (21 CFR Part 191.1), specify that the act covers those products that under custom- ary or reasonably foreseeable conditions of storage or use may be brought into or around a house, apartment, or other place people dwell, including a garage, carport, barn, or storage shed. The same regulations expressly state that the act does not cover industrial supplies that might be taken into a home by a service- man. The interpretations specifically pro- vide that a product labeled as and mar- keted solely for industrial use does not become subject to the act simply be- cause an industrial worker could possi- bly misappropriate a supply for his own use. Thus, this interpretative regulation leaves no doubt that industrial coatings, such as original finish coatings for auto- mobiles, industrial equipment, and farm and garden equipment are outside the scope of the act and therefore remain unaffected by the proposed tolerances. The specialized coating products which are the subject of this petition are simi- lar to the industrial or factory-applied coatings in many respects. They are in- tended primarily for application to non- household surfaces, usually by profes- sional painters, and they are not in- tended or suitable for use on surfaces accessible to children which would cre- ate a hazard. The March 11 regulation appears to cover these specialized paints solely because they may at times be found in or around the household in packaged form and not because of any finding that they pose a lead hazard to children. Congress, in enacting the Federal Haz- ardous Substances Act, contemplated the dangers offered by a product or article in its liquid state and in its packaged form and thus designed the act to regulate all products “intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in or around the household.” Implicit in the quoted lan- guage is the assumption that the par- ticular hazard from a product is posed simply because that product is present in the household in packaged form. While this is true of a substance which presents a hazard in its liquid state as, for example, the flammability hazard of certain liquid paints, this is not true of the lead ingestion hazard from paints. The particular hazard posed by lead con- tent in paint does not occur from the liquid paint in the package but, instead, the hazard occurs solely from the dried paint film if ingested by children. The best information available indi- cates that children u'ho are disposed to chew paint chips confine their activity primarily to interior surfaces in the house and, perhaps, infrequently to an accessible exterior surface. Children usually arc attracted by flakes from old, chipped paint film rather than newly- coated surfaces, and by toys or other articles which they may place in their mouths. This is due in large part to the limited physical abilities of the young children suffering from “pica,” the habit of ingesting nonfood items. As pointed out in comments to the subject regulation, submitted by Dr. Ban-y King and Dr. Julian Chisholm (noted authorities on lead poisoning), the most critical age for exposure of a child through ingestion of paint, putty, and other lead-containing nonfood ma- terials is usually 1 to 3 years of age. In view of both the restricted mobility and physical limitations of childi'en in this age bracket, they neither have access to, nor are capable of chewing or ingesting, paint chips from surface to which the products for which exemptions are herein requested are applied. In fact, we are not aware of any documented case where a child has attempted to ingest the paint film on automobiles, farm and garden implements, etc. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in its November 30, 1971 memorandum to the Food and Drug Administration, appears to confirm this: “The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses the prin- ciple contained in the petition filed with the Commissioner that paints contain- ing more than minute traces of lead be declared as banned hazardous sub- stances, if intended for use on children’s products or interior surfaces (emphasis supplied).” Further, the Senate Com- mittee Report on the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act Amendments of 1972 refers specifically to coatings “intended for interior residential sur- faces” (S. Rep. No. 92-852, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)). Similarly, under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (Public Law 91-695) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, was instructed to develop and carry out a demonstration and re- search program “to determine the nature and extent of the problem of lead-based paint poisoning in the United States, particularly in urban areas, and the methods by which lead-based paint can most effectively be removed from interior surfaces, porches, and exterior surfaces to which children may be commonly ex- posed, of residential housing.” Acting under this authority, the Sec- retary of HUD has determined that the existing conditions that pose a lead paint hazard to children are those surfaces reasonably available to children that present peeling or flaking paint. This has been recently confirmed by the agency by a publication in the October 21, 1972, issue of the Federal Register (at page 22732) entitled “Prohibition of Use of Lead-Based Paint and Elimination of Lead-Based Paint Hazard.” This revises pertinent parts of the Code of Federal Regulations already promulgated under authority of the Lead-Based Paint Poi- soning Prevention Act. In this revision, with respect to the use of and elimination of existing hazards caused by lead based paint, the Secretary of HUD defines “ap- plicable surfaces” as all interior surfaces and those exterior surfaces, such as stairs, decks, porches, railings, windows, and doors, which are readily accessible to children under 7 years of age.” Further, “Health Hazard,” with respect to lead- based paint, is defined to mean “crack- ling (sic), scaling, peeling, and loose lead- based paint on applicable surfaces.” Since the prohibition against use of lead-based paint under this revision ex- tends only to use on “applicable surfaces of any residential structure,” clearly then these are the only surfaces found by this agency to pose a lead hazard to children. There is no indication by HUD that the surfaces to which the products under consideration are applied present either an existing or future lead poisoning hazard to children. 'It is clear from the foregoing that the hazard sought to be prevented by lead tolerances established in § 191.9(a) (6) is lead ingestion by children who tend to chew dried paint film on interior and exterior household surfaces accessible to these cliildren, and on toys or other arti- cles intended for use by these children. The regulation is not intended to nor should it reasonably apply to the special- ized paints under consideration since, through customary or reasonably fore- seeable conditions of use, they will not cause a lead hazard for pica children, even though they are packaged in a form suitable for use in or around the house- hold, and thus, incidentally may meet FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 234—TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1972 PROPOSED RULE MAKING 25851 the definitional test of § 191.1(c), namely, that “under any reasonably foreseeable condition of purchase, stor- age, or use the article may be found in or around a dwelling.” Thus, petitioners believe these products should not be sub- ject to the provisions of the regulation. Unlike interior household paints or even exterior paints for household ap- plication which could conceivably be substituted for interior use or applied on an exterior surface accessible to chil- dren, these specialized products are never marketed for such application. They are neither intended, designed, nor suitable for use in areas accessible to children. These products are limited in purpose and, since they are not general household products, are thus purchased infre- quently and never stored around the household in any significant quantity. Furthermore, most of these products are intended for the professional consumer. The precautionary label proposed in this petition adds an extra measure of protection against any conceivable risk from its lead content due to misuse. The possibility of misusing these products, even without the precautionary label is, however, very remote. The garish color and rough texture of an industrial main- tenance coating, such ao a red-lead primer in which lead is an important protection material, makes it exceedingly unlikely that anyone would use it on interior household surfaces or other sur- faces accessible to children. Other spe- cialty products, such as automobile refinishes, are generally too expensive to be feasible for use on such surfaces. Others, such as touchup coatings in aerosol containers, are packaged in quantities too small for practical use on household surfaces. Additional signifi- cant factors militating against misuse of these products are explained in the fol- lowing discussions of the individual products along with an explanation of why lead is a necessary component in these coatings. Discussion of Special Purpose Coatings 1. Automotive, agricultural, and indus- trial equipment re finish coatings. Auto- motive, agricultural, and industrial equipment refinish coatings are designed for use by automobile repair shops or agricultural or industrial equipment dealers for the refinish of automobiles, trucks, agricultural, and industrial ma- chinery. These refinish coatings are marketed through automotive warehouse distributors to automotive parts jobbers, and then to automotive body shops. Agricultural and industrial equipment coatings are sold by equipment man- ufacturers and subsidiaries to equipment dealers. Although these refinish coatings are intended for use by automotive body shops or farm and industrial equipment dealers and are not marketed primarily for retail customers, some of these com- panies have a secondary retail trade. Such retail customers use these coatings to refinish automobiles, agricultural equipment, and industrial machinery. This refinishing may occur in or about a garage, barn, or shed. These coatings are usually high-gloss and are customarily applied by spray equipment. Lead is an essential ingredi- ent in many of these coatings for three reasons. First, it is a catalytic drier, necessary to speed the oxidauon process and, thereby, prevent dirt or dust from becoming embedded in the film. Second, lead-containing pigments are necessary to match original equipment colors and to prevent a displeasing patchwork ef- fect in coloring which otherwise would appear after a short time due to color chalking and fading. Finally, lead pro- vides the essential resistance to weather- ing, heat, and other environmental con- ditions to which automobiles, agricul- tural and industrial equipment are peculiarly exposed. When used for the intended purpose, there exists no health hazard to children. Indeed, the only difference between the original factory-applied finish (which is not regulated by the act unless applied to any toy or other articles intended for use by children) and the refinish product is that a can of the latter may find its way into or near the home. The hazard exists, however, not from the liquid in the container but only from the dried film and then only if the film can be ingested by children. It is not reasonably foreseeable that a child would chew on the paint because of the hard substrate to which the paint is applied. Because of the nature of these re- finishing products and their labeling, it is not reasonably foreseeable that they would be used for other than their in- tended purpose. There are many reasons for this: a. Spray application, usually with high-pressure sprayers, is recommended for all of these products, and satisfactory results are not obtained with a brush or roller; b. The high gloss colors found in most of these coatings are not suitable for surfaces in the home; c. At the retail level, automotive re- finishes are roughly twice as expensive as household enamels and paints, and thus it is exceedingly unlikely that con- sumers would purchase automotive re- finish coatings for use on either an in- terior or exterior household surface since cheaper, better-suited products are more readily available. Further, such costs pre- clude purchasing more than gton, D C. 20230 April 1, 1977 Mr. Walter Hobby, Director Bureau of Economic Analysis Consumer Product Safety Commission 5401 Westbard Avenue Room 533 Washington, D. C. 20207 Dear Mr. Hobby: This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled "Lead Content in Paint." The enclosed comments from the Domestic and International Business Administration are forwarded for your consideration. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving four (4) copies of the final statement. Sincerely, Sidney R./Galler / Deputy Assistantsecretary for Environmental Affairs Enclosure - Memo, Domestic and International Business Administration, March 23, 1977 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Domestic and International Business Administration Washington, D.C. 20230 MAR . MEMORANDUM FOR: Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs THRU : Office of Business Research and Analysis SUBJECT : Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint. This is in response to Dr. Edwin Shykind's request for comments on Consumer Product Safety Commission's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Lead Content in Paint dated January 19, 1977. The CPSC proposes to declare as banned hazardous products: (1) lead-containing paint and similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead; (2) toys and other articles intended for use by children bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface-coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead; and (3) articles of furniture bearing lead-containing paint or other similar surface coating materials containing more than 0.06 percent lead. The comments contained in this memorandum relate to the impact of the proposed regulation on the toy and furniture industry, as contained in the draft Environmental Statement on Lead Content in Paint dated January 19, 1977 prepared for the Consumer Product Safety Commission by the National Academy of Sciences. For the past decade, finishes on domestically manufactured wood toy products have been lead-free, and are lead free at the present time. Also, for the past 4 or 5 years, domestic metal toy manufacturers have been furnishing products with baked enamel finishes that are lead-free or have less than the pro- posed 0.06 percent lead content. Accordingly, the proposed regulation will have no impact upon the toy industry. The finish industry has provided lead free stains, toners, coatings, fillings, enamels and varnishes for the past few years to the wood furniture industry. Most of the industry are currently using these finishes. However, lead content primers are still being used on both wood and metal furniture while lead content enamels are being used on metal furniture. In addition, lead solvents remain in use as a drying agent. Industry sources indicate that acceptable lead-free pigments and drying solvents are currently available; however, the lead-free pigments cost 200-300 percent more than the leaded pigments now in use. Only a small portion of the furniture industry would be required to modify their production processes to comply with the proposed regulation. In addition, the cost of finishing material is a small factor in the final price of furniture, and any increase would have little impact upon the total price of furniture. Therefore, the probable cost benefit to the ultimate consumer of the furniture industry's products would justify the promulgation of the CSPC proposed regulations. Norris A. Lyrrcn Director Consumer Goods and Services Division Office of Business Research and Analysis bcc: OCR / SJB Reading / 06C-SLemberg / OEX / QS-for Inclusion with comments on the proposal Prepared by TBoyd:tab:4/2/77 Control #C-03731 Honorable Sam Kunn 7 1Q77 United States Senate '' " 1 w// mlsh1ngton, D.C. 20610 bear Senator Nunn: This 1s 1n response to your Inquiry of February 2b, 1977, In behalf of R. t. Hutzberg, concerning mirror backing pmima wf 1wti| li>d> Pub. t. 94-317, which amended the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Preven- tion Act, directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to "take such steps and Impose such conditions as may be necessary and appropriate to prohibit the application of lead-based paint to any toy or furniture article." To carry out this directive, the Commission, on August 10, 1976, proposed a regulation under the Consumer Product Safety Act which would, among other things, ban furniture bearing paint or other similar surface-coating material containing lead-based paint. Lead-based paint has been defined, under Pub. L. 94-317, as paint containing more than 0.06 percent lead. This level becomes effective as to paint manufactured after dune 22, 1977, based on a finding by the Commission, as discussed 1n the enclosed February 16, 1977 Federal Register notice. For your constituent's Information, we are enclosing a copy of the August 10, 1976 proposal, as well as other Federal Register notices relating to this proceeding. Although your constituent's Tetter was received too late to meet the October 26, 1976 deadline for submission of comments on the proposal, his views will be considered to the extent practicable by the Commission staff 1n formulating the final regulation. I hope this Information Is helpful to you. If we may be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Carl llfert Director of Congressional Relations Enclosures (3) Sam Nunn GCORSIA 110 Scnatt OrrKc Building Tn_ 1202) ay4*ar*ai 'liiCmlcb Syicxiez WASHINGTON. D C. 20310 February 25, 1977 Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20207 Re: R.E. Mutzberg Attached is a communication within the area of your authority. Because of my desire to be or all possible assistance to my constituents, I. would appreciate your giving this request every consideration, of course within existing guidelines. Your response in duplicate form along with the return of the enclosure, will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, JC 3218 Wood Valley Road Atlanta, Georgia 30327 February 3, 1977 Hon. Sam Nunn 110 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Nunn: I am seeking your council as to what appropriate action can be taken to retain the sizeable quantities of lead in a specific industrial paint product, mirror backing paint. It is my understanding that Public Law 93-151, among some other rulings currently in effect, limits the amount of lead in all furniture products going into federally funded buildings. Mirrors for household and commercial buildings have been deemed to be furniture. The apparent well intended legislation has been motivated as a protection of the public from ingesting paint with lead salts, largely out of consideration of fatalities that may have been caused by old style paints peeling from walls and otherwise ingested by children. First, I submit the high improbability of getting access to the paint on the back side of a mirror because of its installation etc. to approach the term "never" for such a source of ingestion. Secondly, the lead carbonate used in mirror backings in size- able quantities in the range of 10% of the total mirror backing paint composition is a significant factor to anticipate long (25 year minimum) service life of the mirror. Without in- clusion of this lead compound in the mirror backing paint there would be rapid deterioration in the perimeter areas of the mirror with a substantial black border appearing within a year of installation where the silver was corrosively re- moved through average environmental attack. In short, a far inferior mirror would be available to consumers. Hon. Sam Nunn February 3, 1977 The company in which I am employed as product manager for mirror backing paints, in East Point, Georgia, produces 80% of the specialized paint used domestically with additional export sales. The backings produced contain substantial amounts of lead carbonate as to the products of our competitors. With these two primary cons.iderations--the remote accessabi 1 ity to .ingestion exposure; the value derived from the use of lead carbonate-'-and in recognition of the intended protection from lead poisoning by the legislation, would it be possible to re- quest an exemption, exclusion or some other means to "properly" exclude mirror backing paints from compliance? Further, with my knowledge, as a specialist in the overall needs of the product, and primarily a consumer, viewed from a con- sumer's viewpoint, the effect of the all inclusive legislation is in reality a disservice to the consumer overall interest. Will you kindly let me know what further action I may be able to take or what you may be able to do to effect this end? Very truly yours, R. E. Mutzberg . dp cc: Kon. Sam Nunn 275 Peachtree St. N.E. Room 430 Atlanta, Ga. 30303 FINNAREN & HALEY. INC GENERAL OFFICES: 2320 HAVERFORD ROAD, ARDMORE. PA. 19003 (215) Ml 9 5000 BEST BLOOMIN’ PAINT IN TOWN!® Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 1111 - 18th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20207 Subject: Lead in Paint Gentlemen: We would like to go on record as being opposed to any ban on the use of lead in metal furniture such as filing cabinets, desks, shelving, etc., which ordinarily would not be in use in the home. These articles, by their very nature, i.e. hardness or metal and the baked paint film would have to be considered unchewable by children. Substitute pigments for lead chromate in these applica- tions are not only very expensive, but in many instances unsuitable for processing by thermal curing. In addition, the low opacity of most organic yellows make the cost of formulation and application considerably more expensive than formulas based on lead chromate. We would be forced into costly laboratory expense to reformulate these coatings and we question whether there is any benefit whatsoever to the persons this regulation is supposed to protect. Sincerely / // . ) D JH: hr JL HaleF/ Jr, President NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MIRROR 5101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 504, Washington,'~B.C. 20016 '" E. MACK EXECUTIVE SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSJEl MANUFACTURERS TEIJPHONE: (202) %6-78ft8 April 7, 1977 OFFICERS President DON T. CULLER Gardner Mirror Corp. N. Wilkesboro, N.C. Secretary-Treasurer JIM I. PINSKY Radiant Mirror Co. Los Angeles, Calif. DIRECTORS WILLIAM C. BEELER Virginia Mirror Co. Martinsville, Va. ROY BUCHMAN Buchmin Industries Reedley, Calif. FRANK E. MORRIS American Mirror Co. Galax, Va. JOHN A. MORSE Toledo Plate & Window Glass Co. Toledo, Ohio MILTON K. RUBIN Metropolitan Mirror & Glass Co. Mount Vernon, N.Y. Mr. S. John Byington Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 - 18th Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20207 Dear Mr. Chairman: This has reference to the Commission announcement of February 11, which appeared in the Federal Register of February 16, page 9404, entitled, "Determination of Safe Level of Lead in Paint." Comments were invited on the proposal until March 23. Unfortu- nately, this matter escaped our attention until after that date; and, therefore, we have been precluded from formally submitting comments on the proposal. It is our request that you give con- sideration to this informal submission. On April 4, we were accorded the opportunity of an in-person meeting with the profes- sional staff of the Commission. Our interest, and it is a very important interest, pertains to the use of lead in mirror backing paint. This submission is in behalf of the members of the National Asso- ciation of Mirror Manufacturers, which is, as the name implies, the national trade association representing the nation’s manufac- turers of mirrors. We estimate that over 90 percent of the mirrors manufactured in the United States ( other than automobile mirrors) are manufactured by our members. This submission concerns paint which is applied to the back of a mirror to prevent the silver reflective material and the copper backing from scratching and deteriorating. In order for this back- ing paint to be effective, it must of necessity contain a signifi- cant percentage of lead (more than 10 percent). Some mirrors are used in commercial establishments. Many mirrors also, and perhaps most, are used in the home. A mirror indeed is a household item. No argument is advanced in opposition to the objective of preventing children from being exposed to paint which contains lead. Children do not get exposed to mirror backing paint; and, therefore, there S. John Byington April 7, 1977 should be an exemption for mirrors so that mirror backing paint, which necessarily contains lead, may continue to be used. The paint is only on the back of the mirror, and the back of the mirror is practically never exposed. Many mirrors are framed, and even so, practically always are affixed to the wall. An unframed mirror is always affixed to the wall so that in neither event may a child become exposed to the paint on the back of a mirror. Many years ago, silver spoilage occurred frequently; and an important business function of a number of companies was to resilver mirrors which had suffered deterioration. Today, mirror resilvering is a lost art be- cause the mirrors produced today, unless exposed to salt, unless clean- ing fluid gets behind them, or unless there are unusual moisture condi- tions, will not suffer spoilage. The Association occasionally does receive an inquiry from a person having an antique mirror which is treasured because of the frame, and the person wants to know how to get the mirror resilvered. It is very difficult to get a mirror resilvered today; and frequently the objective may only be attained by having a new mirror inserted in the frame. This point is made to illustrate that mirror manufacturing technology today is so advanced that mirror spoilage rarely occurs. A major reason why spoilage does not occur is the quality of the mirror paint backing. We are anxious for our members to be able to continue to lawfully produce quality mirrors which have a tremendous life span. This will not occur if the lead has to be removed from the backing paint. The theory of protecting children from lead poisoning from household products is fine, and we applaud it. In this instance, however, the shoe does not fit. Children do not get exposed to mirror backing paint; and, therefore, there is no reason to prohibit the use of lead in mirror backing paint. Respectfully submitted, James E. Mack JEM:pnp CC: Commissioner Barbara Franklin Commissioner Thaddeus Garrett, Jr. Commissioner Lawrence M. Kushner Commissioner R. David Pittle Secretary Sadye E. Dunn Mr. William Menza