Skip to content

Paint Chip Sample Challenge of XRF Test Results

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Rule status: Adopted

Agency: HPD

Effective date: January 1, 2026

Proposed Rule Full Text
HPD-Rule-XRF-Paint-Chip-Challenge-July-2025.pdf

Adopted Rule Full Text
HPD-Adopted-XRF-LBP-Challenge-Rule-10.27.25.pdf

Adopted rule summary:

The Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) is adopting amendments to its rules related to lead poisoning prevention and control. The amendments establish a process to allow property owners to challenge certain violations based on the results of an x-ray fluorescence (“XRF”) test demonstrating the presence of lead-based paint (“LBP”). HPD’s amendments add a new section 11-07.1 to Chapter 11 of Title 28 of the Rules of the City of New York to permit a registered owner, registered officer or director of a corporate owner or a registered managing agent of a multiple dwelling to challenge a violation issued pursuant to § 27-2056.6 or § 27-2056.6.1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York that is based on a positive XRF test result on a surface where the substrate is either metal or ceramic. Per the amendments, such registered owner, registered officer or director of a corporate owner or a registered managing agent of a multiple dwelling will be required to submit a sworn written statement from the person who performed the paint chip sampling, a copy of that person’s certification as a certified LBP inspector or risk assessor, a copy of the inspection report provided by the person who performed the paint chip sampling, and the laboratory analysis of a paint chip sample. HPD’s amendments also reference existing definitions in statute and rules defining LBP, which must be followed in submitting a challenge based upon the testing of a paint chip sample. In addition, HPD is amending § 11-08(a) to clarify that an application for exemption from the presumption of the presence of LBP can be made either in writing or by using HPD’s online portal.

Comments are now closed.

Online comments: 4

  • Jodi Waxenberg

    Can I contest a 616 violation in an apartment already lead exempted and sent in paperwork to cure violation, and also already did a dismissal request and had 2 no access, without setting up a new dismissal inspection? This is going in circles to remove.

    Comment added August 1, 2025 12:38pm

  • CNS Environmental

    To strengthen both the fairness and credibility of enforcement, we respectfully request that the NYCHPD consider expanding the rule to allow confirmatory paint chip sampling for brick, concrete, and masonry substrates (in addition to metal and ceramic). These substrates have been documented to contain background minerals and heavy elements that may interfere with XRF analysis, sometimes producing elevated/false positive Lead results when no lead-based paint is actually present.

    Without this safeguard, property owners may face violations and costly renovation obligations for surfaces that are not truly hazardous, while tenants may be subjected to unnecessary disruption. Since the Performance Characteristic Sheets (PCSs) for modern XRF analyzers calibrated to the NYC Action Level no longer provide substrate correction values, confirmatory sampling is the most reliable way to ensure accurate determinations.

    By permitting paint chip verification for these substrates, NYCHPD can protect tenants from the risks of lead exposure while also protecting property owners from the undue burden of remediating non-lead-based surfaces. This balanced approach advances public health, promotes regulatory integrity, and strengthens trust between the City, tenants, and property owners.

    Comment added August 18, 2025 11:52am

  • Sarah Spira Environmental

    We respectfully request that the HPD expand the confirmatory paint chip sampling allowance to include drywall substrates.

    Drywall often contains or is installed directly over metal studs, fasteners, or joint reinforcements. These hidden metallic elements can scatter or reflect XRF emissions, which in turn may produce false-positive lead results even when no lead-based paint is actually present. This issue is particularly pronounced in modern construction and renovation, where drywall is nearly always supported by steel framing.

    By permitting paint chip verification for drywall, HPD can protect tenants from the real risks of dust exposure while also protecting property owners from the undue cost of remediating non-lead-based drywall surfaces that merely contain underlying metallic elements.

    Comment added August 25, 2025 11:15pm

  • Yehudah Fried

    This ammendment is absolutely necessary and basic common sense.

    Comment added August 26, 2025 1:57am