Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 1 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

[RIN 2070–AJ57]

July 15, 2011

A number of commenters commented on aspects of the existing Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting (RRP) Rule. In certain cases, as a courtesy, EPA has addressed the points made in those 

comments. However, EPA’s proposal did not re-open for comment any issues underlying the 

existing rule except where it did so explicitly, and EPA is not re-opening any of those issues here 

except where EPA has explicitly done so by modifying an existing rule provision.

General Support for Clearance and Testing Provisions:

Several commenters argued that clearance is necessary in order to determine objectively that an 

area is safe for re-occupancy. They believe that clearance dust testing by disinterested parties 

remains the only objective method for determining the amount of lead dust that is present on a 

surface and for evaluating hazard potential. Some thought that it should be required in as wide a 

range of situations as possible, given the proven reliability of the method and its association with 

blood lead levels. 

As noted in response to commenters on the original Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) 

rule, EPA agrees that having dust wipe samples collected by a qualified person and analyzed by 

a qualified laboratory is a very effective way to determine the quantity of lead in dust remaining

after a renovation activity. However, the Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices 

effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovations. 

A number of commenters thought that clearance should be required because renovation firms are 

not motivated to perform the required specialized cleaning and cleaning verification properly. 

One commenter observed that, on performing inspections or risk assessments in target housing, 

he found that 50% or more of the replacement windows he tested were positive for lead dust. 

According to the commenter, there is no lead in the new windows, but dust from the old 

windows has settled back on them from the replacement process. The commenter further 

observed that some contractors he works with barely clean even when he is doing clearance 

testing. This commenter believes that, if these contractors are left on their own to do cleaning 

verification, proper cleaning will not be done and children will be at risk. Another commenter 

stated that he has experienced a 10-15% failure rate of clearance after abatements, but some 

contractors are much better and some are much worse. This commenter observed that, if this is 

the failure rate after cleaning performed by someone with 4 days of training and who knows that 

there will be sampling afterward, he anticipates that the failure rate for RRP contractors is or will 

be much worse. Yet another commenter argued that clearance should be required because 

cleaning verification is subject to falsification in ways that clearance testing is not. This 

commenter contended that, because EPA does not require any physical evidence to be retained to 

prove that cleaning verification was performed and achieved the required result, renovators can 

simply write in their records that they performed cleaning verification and make up a number for 

how many cloths were used. This commenter noted that with clearance dust testing, a chain of 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 2 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

custody form, lab analysis results and a report would be generated, thus providing evidence that 

the testing was actually done. In contrast, one commenter believed, based on student comments 

in the RRP classes attended by company employees, that most renovators take their 

responsibilities seriously and that the proposed dust wipe testing requirements will actually make 

little improvement over the existing rule. 

 

While isolated incidents are certainly possible, EPA does not generally believe that renovators, 

either accidentally or on purpose, will fail to correctly perform the required RRP cleaning 

protocol. EPA’s experience with the Dust Study shows that the full suite of RRP work practices, 

including containment and specialized cleaning, is easy for renovation firms to learn and 

implement. Furthermore, the Dust Study shows that these work practices are reliable, safe, and 

effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. In 

addition, cleaning verification is easy for renovators to learn and easy for them to perform 

correctly in a variety of situations. Finally, while some commenters urged the point that dust 

wipe testing would encourage better cleanup, and provided anecdotal support for that view, EPA 

has no record basis to judge the likelihood or frequency of this potential impact. This logic could 

potentially lead to requiring dust wipe testing for all jobs – a significant change in the existing 

rule that EPA is not prepared to make without better supporting evidence. 

The ability to falsify results is not specific to cleaning verification. It could also occur if dustwipe testing and clearance were required. Sample locations could be falsified, or there could be 

collusion between the sampling professional and the renovation or abatement contractor. EPA 

does not think it is appropriate to generally assume that contractors will falsely claim that 

cleaning cloths used in cleaning verification “passed” even when they have not. Further, the 

cleaning verification protocol is neither onerous nor time-consuming. On average in the Dust 

Study, cleaning verification took 13 minutes. Thus, there is little reason for renovators to skip 

the cleaning verification step, or to falsify results. 

Another commenter noted that, even following abatement procedures (including cleaning), the 

commenter’s firm has still failed clearance testing after door/window removal projects. This 

commenter did not believe that cleaning verification was the answer to this problem, and thought 

that clearance testing should be required.

EPA disagrees with this commenter. The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices, 

of which cleaning verification is an effective component, effectively minimize exposure to leadbased paint hazards created by renovations. In addition, cleaning verification is not simply

qualitative clearance. Unlike the sampling for dust clearance testing, the cleaning verification 

involves a cleaning component. The act of doing the cleaning verification has been shown to 

lower, often significantly, the dust lead levels. Moreover, in the Disposable Cleaning Cloth 

Study, the disposable cleaning cloths actually were biased toward a false positive rather than a 

false negative result. That is the cloths failed where they should have indicated that the dust had 

been sufficiently cleaned-up. This adds an additional margin of safety when considering the 

variables in the use of the disposable cleaning cloths. 

One commenter believed that clearance testing would reduce liability for contractors and 

landlords and leave more secure feeling about the finished job. Another argued that attempting 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 3 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

to limit clearance to high-risk situations would cause increased litigation because cleaning 

verification doesn’t work. 

EPA believes that the RRP regulation establishes a “standard of care” for the renovation 

industry. The RRP rule makes it more difficult to argue that contractors who follow the 

requirements of the regulation are negligent with respect to those requirements. As a result, EPA 

believes that the RRP regulation itself, even in the absence of a clearance testing requirement, 

lessens the potential liability of renovation contractors. Of course, renovation firms and 

landlords are always free to conduct dust wipe testing to reassure themselves about dust lead 

levels.

EPA also disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that cleaning verification doesn’t work. The 

Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices, of which cleaning verification is an

effective component, effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by the 

renovation, both during and after the renovation. 

One commenter thought that it would be worth spending $400 to ensure that a home is safe.

While EPA agrees that the clearance process provides valuable assurance regarding potential 

dust-lead hazards, EPA continues to believe that the full suite of RRP work practices, including 

containment and specialized cleaning, is reliable, safe, and effective at minimizing occupant 

exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. Building owners and occupants are always 

free to negotiate for dust wipe testing and clearance, either from the renovation firm or a third 

party. 

 

Clearance testing will cause more hygienist firms to get involved with renovations, which will 

result in increased compliance with EPA and OSHA lead regulations in general. 

EPA does not have sufficient information to determine whether clearance testing would cause 

more hygienist firms to get involved with renovations. That being said, EPA believes that 

industrial hygiene professionals or certified lead-based paint evaluation firms could likely

provide valuable assistance on regulatory compliance and worker and occupant protection. 

However, the suite of RRP work practices consist of relatively simple, low-cost measures that 

are nevertheless reliable, safe, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead 

hazards created by renovations. 

Some commenters agreed with EPA’s statement in the proposed rule that dust wipe testing 

would provide valuable feedback to renovation firms on how well they are cleaning up after 

renovations. Several stated their belief that there is no question that contractors improve their 

cleaning performance when they are quantitatively measured, and that the Evaluation of the 

HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program demonstrates that firm success in 

achieving clearance was associated with firm experience in achieving it. Others argued that the 

proposed requirements would protect children because clearance would be required for activities 

that generate more leaded dust. These commenters wondered how contractors would learn to 

effectively control the higher lead dust levels that may result from these activities in the absence 

of dust wipe testing. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 4 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA agrees that quantitative dust-lead measurements can provide valuable feedback to 

contractors on how well they are cleaning up after renovations, and that this feedback is likely to 

improve performance. However, EPA also believes that cleaning verification provides feedback 

to the renovator on the cleanliness of the surface. The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP 

work practices, of which cleaning verification is an important component, effectively minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by a renovation, both during and after the 

renovation. Moreover, the cleaning and feedback aspects of cleaning verification are important 

to its contribution to the effectiveness of the work practices. Therefore, EPA disagrees that dust 

wipe testing is the only way to improve the cleaning effectiveness of renovation firms. In

addition, while some commenters urged the point that dust wipe testing would encourage better 

cleanup, and provided some support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the 

likelihood or frequency of this potential impact. This logic could potentially lead to requiring 

dust wipe testing for all jobs – a significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared 

to make without better supporting evidence. 

One commenter argued that cleaning verification is subjective, speculative, convoluted, and 

confusing.

EPA disagrees that the cleaning verification is too complicated or confusing. EPA field tested it 

in the Dust Study and found that the contractors were easily able to follow the protocol. Indeed, 

EPA found that the contractors were able to conduct cleaning verification on average in 13 

minutes. In addition, renovators receive hands-on training in performing cleaning verification 

during the training course required for certified renovators.

Several commenters stated that cleaning verification doesn’t work or is based on bad science. 

One maintained that it is not sufficiently protective because it is a visual test. Another argued 

that it doesn’t work because lead dust is invisible and not everyone has perfect vision anyway. 

Several commenters contended that the Dust Study shows that the RRP work practices do not 

ensure that dust lead levels remaining after renovations are below the dust-lead hazard standard. 

These commenters observed that this problem will be more acute if EPA lowers the dust-lead

hazard standard. 

EPA disagrees with these commenters. If the Dust Study experiments involving the practices 

prohibited by the final RRP rule are removed, the average post-cleaning-verification dust-lead 

loading on the floors was below 40 μg/ft2 for 9 of the 10 experiments performed in accordance 

with the final RRP rule containment and cleaning requirements. For the 10th experiment, the 

average dust-lead loadings were 42.3, which is within the plus-or-minus 20% range permitted for 

accredited laboratories under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 

Thus, the Dust Study demonstrates that the work practices, of which cleaning verification is an 

effective component, effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by the 

renovation, both during and after the renovation. EPA believes that because cleaning 

verification includes both a cleaning aspect and a feedback aspect, it cannot be equated with a 

simple visual test or visual inspection of a workspace. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 5 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

With respect to the dust-lead hazard standard, in October 2009, EPA granted a petition 

requesting a re-evaluation of EPA’s dust-lead hazard standards and the regulatory definition of 

lead-based paint. If that action results in lower dust-lead hazard standards, EPA also plans to reevaluate the RRP rule work practices. 

Several commenters asserted that clearance testing would be consistent with HUD requirements 

for virtually all federally-assisted housing.

EPA disagrees that the RRP rule should require clearance simply because under HUD’s Lead 

Safe Housing Rule clearance is required. As discussed in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP 

rule and the preamble to the final clearance rule, EPA believes that dust clearance testing and 

clearance are not necessary given that EPA has determined that the RRP work practices 

minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovations. Specifically, the RRP 

work practices are expected to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by a 

renovation by effectively cleaning dust hazards.

HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule applies to all target housing that is federally owned and target 

housing receiving Federal assistance. HUD’s rule, among other things establishes procedures to 

eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards in a residential property that receives 

Federal rehabilitation assistance under a program administered by HUD, in residential property 

assisted under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 437 et seq. ), and in housing occupied by 

families receiving tenant-based rental assistance. Such assistance includes tenant-based rental 

assistance under the Section 8 certificate program, the Section 8 voucher program, the HOME 

program, the Shelter Plus Care program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS 

(HOPWA) program, and the Indian Housing Block Grant program. HUD’s rule includes 

requirements that range from abatement to interim controls, ongoing lead-based paint 

maintenance, and paint stabilization. As the purpose of the Lead-safe Housing Rule is to 

“eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards” its intent is different than the purpose 

of EPA’s RRP rule which is to address lead-based paint hazards generated during renovation 

activities. Thus, while HUD can require clearance and occupant relocation, which is appropriate 

under its rule, EPA does not believe that these requirements are appropriate for the RRP rule

which has a more specific focus – to address lead-based paint dust generated from renovation

activities. 

General Opposition:

Numerous commenters expressed opposition to the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance 

requirements. Commenters thought that dust wipe testing and clearance would be expensive, 

that it was a bad time, economically speaking, to increase the cost of renovations. Commenters 

noted that the additional costs would be particularly bad for small businesses. Some commenters 

cited a survey done for the National Association of Home Builders and argued that the survey

demonstrates that most homeowners are unwilling to absorb significant costs for dust wipe 

testing and clearance. Many commenters argued that a dust wipe testing and clearance 

requirement would also cause significant and unreasonable delays in scheduling and completing 

renovation projects, particularly in areas where lead testing services are not readily available. 

Some thought that letting clients back into the work area before test results are received would 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 6 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

not be advisable, due to liability concerns. One commenter noted that some renovation projects 

will not be able to pass clearance the first time, causing further delays.

EPA agrees that dust wipe testing and clearance would increase the costs of renovations, and that 

such requirements could delay the scheduling and completion of projects. EPA has disagreed 

with industry predictions of unintended consequences arising from the existing RRP rule in part 

because the Agency, in developing work practices that are reliable, effective, and safe, has 

striven to keep the work practices simple and easy to understand, and has been mindful of the 

compliance costs associated with the rule. While EPA believes industry’s predictions here are 

overstated, the Agency does acknowledge that significant increases in the cost and complexity of 

the RRP rule could increase the possibility of unintended consequences arising from additional 

requirements. EPA is reluctant to add additional requirements without strong record support. 

Here, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements 

primarily because EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 

wipe testing or clearance requirement. 

Many commenters thought that dust wipe testing and clearance requirements were not 

appropriate for renovations, because renovation contractors are not in the business of abating 

lead hazards. Some argued that abatements are performed to eliminate lead-based paint and 

lead-based paint hazards, while renovations are not designed to do so. Many thought that it 

would inappropriate and unfair to make renovation contractors responsible for cleaning up preexisting hazards, one commenter specifically recommended that EPA retain the intent of the 

existing RRP rule, to make renovation contractors responsible for the dust they create while, for 

the most part, absolving them of responsibility for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. Several 

commenters expressed concern that they would be responsible for dust created by homeowner 

activities occurring at the same time as the renovation. Some stated that establishing dust wipe 

testing and clearance testing requirements is inconsistent with the intent of Congress because, at 

a fundamental level, it eliminates the distinction between abatement contractors on the one hand 

and renovators on the other. At least one commenter noted that, even if the requirement is only 

for dust wipe testing and not clearance, the renovation firm will still be held responsible by the 

homeowner for dust lead levels above the clearance standards. 

EPA agrees that there are many differences between renovations and abatements. As discussed in 

the preamble to the final RRP rule, renovations are different from abatements in intent, 

implementation, type of workforce, funding, and goal. One of the biggest challenges that faced 

EPA in revising the TSCA section 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations was how to 

effectively bridge the differences between abatement and renovation and remodeling while 

acknowledging that many of the activities employed in both (e.g., window replacement) are the 

same and generate the same amount of dust. Abatements are generally performed in three 

circumstances. First, abatements may be performed in the residences of children who have been 

found to have elevated blood lead levels. Second, abatements are performed in certain housing 

receiving financial assistance from HUD when required by HUD’s Lead-Safe Housing Rule. 

Third, state and local laws and regulations may require abatements in certain situations 

associated with rental housing, or when abatement orders have been issued when resident young 

children, typically under age 6, have blood lead levels at or above specified values. Typically, 

when an abatement is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 7 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement has been demonstrated to have 

been properly completed through dust clearance testing. Abatements have only one purpose—to 

permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. On the other hand, 

renovations are performed for myriad reasons that may have nothing to do with lead-based paint. 

Renovations involve activities designed to update, maintain, or modify all or part of a building. 

Renovations may be performed while the property is occupied or unoccupied. If the renovation 

is performed while the property is occupied, the occupants do not typically relocate pending the 

completion of the project.

The difference between abatement and renovation is one of the reasons why EPA developed the 

specific containment requirements and cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, for the 

2008 RRP rule. In 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe testing and clearance for certain 

renovations that EPA felt had the potential to result in higher dust-lead levels than the clearance 

standards, even if the renovation firm followed all of the RRP rule requirements. EPA is not 

promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other 

things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 

requirement is unwarranted. 

 

Other commenters disagreed with the argument that clearance is not appropriate for renovations 

because they differ from abatements. One argued that this objection misses the point that, 

because of the widespread presence of lead-based paint in the U.S. housing stock, both 

renovation contractors and abatement contractors create hazardous levels of invisible lead dust 

that can harm occupants and which cannot be cleaned up separately from any pre-existing lead 

dust. At least one commenter asserted that there is no real difference between renovation and 

abatement because a new window, wall, or door generates the same amount of dust whether it 

was done with the purpose of abating lead-based paint or not. Finally one commenter believed 

that the risk of residual lead dust being left behind in a standard RRP-oriented project is MUCH 

greater than in a lead abatement project.

While EPA agrees that renovations and abatements can share specific tasks, such as window or 

door replacement, EPA does not agree that it is appropriate to hold renovation firms responsible 

for cleaning up pre-existing lead-based paint hazards as a matter of course. EPA believes that 

abatements and renovations are equally capable of generating hazardous levels of leaded dust. 

However, the purpose of abatement is to eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards, 

so it is sensible to require abatement contractors to demonstrate that they have done so through 

dust wipe testing and clearance. The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP rule requirements, 

including containment and specialized cleaning, are effective at minimizing occupant exposure 

to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the 

available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on 

balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

One commenter argued that cleaning to achieve cleaning verification addresses pre- and postrenovation lead dust in the same way that cleaning to achieve clearance would. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 8 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA disagrees with this commenter. While the requirements of the RRP rule will, in some 

cases, have the ancillary benefit of removing some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, the specialized 

cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, required by the RRP rule strikes the proper 

balance of addressing the lead-based paint hazards created during the renovation but at the same 

time not requiring renovation firms to remediate or eliminate hazards that are beyond the scope 

of the work they were hired to do.

One commenter wondered whether it was the intent of the RRP rule to turn renovation 

contractors into lead dust hazard control specialists or to change how renovation contractors 

conduct their current work so it can be done in a lead-safe manner. The commenter asserted that, 

if it is the former, the training and work procedures are woefully inadequate.

As stated in the preamble to the 2008 final RRP rule, EPA’s primary objective with the RRP rule 

is to ensure that persons who already know how to perform renovations perform their typical 

work in a lead-safe manner. 

Several commenters contended that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements 

place greater economic and legal liabilities on renovators, and some of these liabilities should 

more appropriately be placed on target housing and child-occupied facility owners and 

managers. One thought that EPA should require property owners to have testing done. Another 

was concerned about additional requirements that insurers might place on companies, such as 

ensuring that the clearance standards are met by refinishing floors. Still another commenter 

believed that the RRP cleaning protocol, while by no means perfect, at least establishes clear 

standards for performance and clear limits on contractor obligations. 

EPA understands the logic of placing a testing requirement on property owners. However, EPA 

interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA 

section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as 

homeowners. EPA also understands the commenter’s concern that insurance companies might 

require more of contractors than EPA does, should EPA promulgate dust wipe testing 

requirements. EPA agrees with the commenter who supported the existing RRP cleaning 

protocol. EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements 

because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not 

support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

 

Commenters argued that the added cost and burden of the proposed dust wipe testing and 

clearance requirements would lead to a host of unintended consequences. These included 

reduced availability of low-income rental housing, deferred maintenance contributing to the 

decline in urban core areas, refusal of trained or knowledgeable contractors to work on older 

homes, thus resulting in more renovations done by unskilled and uncertified contractors, more 

homeowners doing work themselves or hiring unskilled and uncertified contractors, thus 

resulting in increased likelihood of occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards, fewer energyefficient home repairs and window replacements, bankruptcy for private property or management 

owners who have invested in pre-1978 rental property as part of their retirement portfolio and 

revenue stream, bankruptcy of small companies and consolidation of renovation services in 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 9 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

larger contractors, lost jobs, reduced replacement of lead-based paint windows, which are more 

dangerous remaining in place than the dust generated by the removal, reduced market for pre1978 housing, and further hindrance to recovery from natural disasters.

EPA agrees that dust wipe testing and clearance would increase the costs of renovations. EPA 

has disagreed with industry predictions of unintended consequences arising from the existing 

RRP rule in part because the Agency, in developing work practices that are reliable, effective, 

and safe, has striven to keep the work practices simple and easy to understand, and has been 

mindful of the compliance costs associated with the rule. While EPA believes industry’s 

predictions here are overstated, the Agency does acknowledge that significant increases in the 

cost and complexity of the RRP rule could increase the possibility of unintended consequences 

arising from additional requirements. EPA is reluctant to add additional requirements without 

strong record support. Here, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirements because EPA has determined that the available information does not 

support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

 

One commenter argued that this requirement will bankrupt cities like Detroit, who is disposing 

of 10,000 homes this year with another 65,000 to tear down over the coming years.

EPA does not understand how this could be the case, because the RRP rule does not apply to 

complete demolitions. Nevertheless, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available 

information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, 

imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Many commenters argued that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements were 

unnecessary. Some based their argument on the premise that renovations do not create leadbased paint hazards. Others specifically addressed the information presented in the 2010 

proposal, and contended that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP work practices are 

protective. Some thought that no new evidence had been presented showing that the added cost 

of clearance sampling was worthwhile from a public health perspective.

EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue of whether renovations create lead-based paint 

hazards. With respect to this final rule, EPA does agree that the Dust Study shows that the 

existing RRP rule work practices are safe, reliable, and effective at minimizing occupant 

exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. EPA is not promulgating the proposed 

dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined 

that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and 

that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

One commenter asserted that there was no lead problem in his community, that lead is an innercity, low-income problem. 

EPA disagrees with this commenter. Lead-based paint can be found in all areas of the country, 

in urban areas, suburbs, and rural communities, anywhere there is pre-1978 housing. Among the 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 10 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

numerous studies EPA conducted and reviewed during the course of the rulemaking on RRP 

were several case studies that addressed lead poisoning in situations unlike those described by 

the commenter. One detailed a case of childhood lead poisoning and documents the costs of 

decontamination after uncontained power sanding was used to remove paint down to bare wood 

from approximately 3,000 ft2 of exterior siding on a large, well-maintained 75-year-old house in 

a middle-income neighborhood. After the uncontrolled removal of lead-based paint, interior dust 

lead levels ranged from 390 to 27,600 μg/ft2 (on floors and windowsills) and bare soil lead levels 

ranged from 360 ppm in the yard to 3,900 ppm along the foundation to 130,000 ppm in the 

child’s play area. The family’s three children had blood lead levels ranging from 19 to 23 μg/dL. 

The hard costs of decontamination were over $195,000. (Jacobs (2003). The High Cost of 

Improper Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Housing: A Case Report.) Another described a 

series of four cases of childhood lead poisoning and two cases of adult lead toxicity in a 

professional family exposed to lead dust and fume during renovation of a rural farmhouse. 

Initial blood lead levels in the children ranged from 56 to 87 μg/dL and all four required 

chelation therapy. (Marino (1990). A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation of 

a Victorian Farmhouse) 

Commenters argued that EPA’s proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements were 

insufficiently supported by the science. Some asserted that the proposed rule was arbitrary and 

capricious because EPA merely changed its mind on dust wipe testing without citing any new 

data or circumstances to justify its new direction. Others contended that EPA’s proposed 

requirements were unjustified because they were based solely on assumptions. Several thought 

that EPA had ignored the results of the Dust Study in issuing its proposal. 

EPA agrees that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP rule work practices are safe, 

reliable, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by 

renovations. EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements 

because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not 

support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Several commenters argued that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because the costs 

outweigh the benefits, particularly in light of EPA’s conclusions regarding the effectiveness of 

the existing cleaning verification requirements.

While costs were considered in making the statutory finding of reliable, effective, and safe, EPA 

did not develop the work practices on a cost-benefit basis. EPA does not agree that doing so is 

required under Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). With respect to this final 

rule, EPA agrees that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP rule work practices are 

reliable, effective, and safe at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by 

renovations. EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements 

because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not 

support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 11 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

Many commenters believed that EPA should give consideration to the significant costs that will 

be passed along to the homeowner as a result of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance 

requirements. Because the EPA’s Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 

Housing indicated that the cleaning verification cloths that reached the “white glove” test were 

approximately 91% to 97% likely to be below the regulatory hazard standard, some commenters

contended that the proposal would improve cleaning efficiency by as little as 3% of the 

regulatory hazard standard.

While EPA agrees that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements would 

increase the cost of renovation for homeowners, EPA does not agree that the findings of the 

Electrostatic Cloth study are the best measure for determining the potential improved cleaning 

efficiency to be gained from dust wipe testing or clearance procedures. Nevertheless, EPA is not 

promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other 

things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 

requirement is unwarranted. 

Several commenters thought that the RRP rule was already too complex, and that the proposed 

dust wipe testing and clearance requirements would add so much complexity that renovators 

would not be able to understand what would be required.

EPA believes that, given the highly variable nature of the regulated community, the work 

practices required by the RRP rule should be simple to understand and easy to use. EPA is 

cognizant of the fact that the RRP rule applies to a range of individuals from day laborers to 

property maintenance staff to master craftsmen performing a whole range of activities from 

simple drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to 

building additions and everything in between. Work practices that are easy and practical to use 

are more likely to be followed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore, 

more likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovation activities. EPA believes that most certified renovators and certified 

renovation firms understand the basic requirements of the RRP rule--training, certification, 

containment, acceptable work practices, cleaning, and recordkeeping. Moreover, EPA agrees

that the proposed three-tier system of no additional requirements, additional dust wipe testing 

requirements, and additional clearance requirements would add a level of complexity to the rule 

that is undesirable. While EPA could potentially draw different lines in this final rule, or 

promulgate a requirement that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe it has a strong 

basis to do so. EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance 

requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information 

does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a 

dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

 

Some commenters argued that it was inappropriate to add more requirements to the existing RRP 

rule because nobody was enforcing it as it was. Several stated that more stringent requirements 

without adequate enforcement cause economic disadvantages for those who comply with the 

requirements. They noted that enforcing the existing rules in the smaller half of the renovation 

industry already presents an extreme challenge. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 12 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA agrees that a credible enforcement program is necessary to the successful implementation 

of the RRP rule. EPA also agrees that, because of the scope of the rule and the industry sector 

that it regulates, it will be challenging to implement an effective enforcement program. As 

discussed in Section J. of the Response-to-Comments document for the 2008 final RRP rule, 

EPA’s plan was to undertake a program of compliance assistance to the regulated community, 

followed by a compliance monitoring and enforcement program for those who do not comply. 

The RRP rule became fully effective in April 2010. While EPA concentrated more on education 

and compliance assistance during the first year that the rule was fully in effect, EPA has been 

gearing up its compliance monitoring and enforcement program in recent months. In any event, 

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, 

among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 

wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Some commenters were concerned about a potential lack of testing resources, including certified 

individuals and recognized laboratories. Others expressed concern that there had already been 

shortages of training resources for RRP implementation and argued that the proposal, which 

would require significant retraining to effectively implement, would only make the situation 

worse. 

While EPA disagrees that there have been widespread shortages of certified renovator courses, 

EPA does agree that the proposed rule raised implementation concerns and EPA took these 

concerns into account as part of its decision not to promulgate the proposed dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirements. 

One commenter believed that there would be no sensible way to bid for renovations with a 

clearance requirement, because it would be impossible to achieve clearance in all cases and 

every job involves new circumstances.

EPA agrees that a clearance requirement would add several new considerations to the bidding 

process. In any event, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance 

requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information 

does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a 

dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

 

A variety of commenters suggested that EPA had issued its proposal to require dust wipe testing 

and clearance too soon after promulgation of the RRP rule. Several contended that renovation 

firms were still in the process of working through how to achieve compliance with the rule on a 

daily basis and that EPA should wait to add new requirements until firms were generally

comfortable with the requirements promulgated in 2008. Others argued that EPA should solve 

the underlying training capacity and outreach support problems of the RRP rule before adding 

new requirements. Some commenters also asserted that EPA should not make a determination 

that additional requirements are needed without first carefully assessing the status and impact of 

the existing RRP rule when fully implemented. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 13 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA agrees with the general principle expressed by these commenters; that it is too soon to 

impose additional work practice requirements for renovations already covered by the RRP rule. 

EPA also agrees that many renovation contractors are still figuring out what the RRP rule 

requires from them on renovation projects. EPA disagrees that there are widespread training 

capacity or outreach problems with the existing RRP rule. As part of its Lead Renovation, 

Repair and Painting program’s Lead-Safe Certified media campaign, EPA developed and made 

available to the public outreach materials aimed at both contractors and consumers. The 

materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) advertisement aimed at contractors, 

banners for web sites, sample articles for magazines, newsletters or other publications to help 

inform contractors about the rule, post cards and buck slips to stuff into mailers, as well as an 

informational brochure about the rule for building managers. EPA also developed fact sheets 

about the rules that hardware or paint supply stores can hand out to their customers to inform 

them of the rule’s requirements. All of this information is available to the public on EPA’s web 

site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press-materials.htm. 

The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build demand for 

lead-safe certified firms among the public. The consumer outreach materials include consumer 

print advertisements, PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet about 

the rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them about the advantages of hiring 

lead-safe renovation firms. The consumer outreach materials are also downloadable from EPA’s 

web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-consumers.htm.

Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among parents and 

pregnant women who live in homes built before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead 

Poisoning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a national multimedia 

PSA campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common pathways for 

lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on older windows, doors and trim, or walls) or 

improperly-performed renovation, repair and painting activities that cause paint to chip, peel, or 

flake. 

 

Some commenters thought that EPA should emphasize educational campaigns rather than 

additional regulatory approaches at this time. One thought that it was clear from the reaction to 

the current RRP rule and the proposed changes to the rule that contractors and much of the 

public remain unaware of the significant danger presented by lead-based paint and leaded dust. 

Another contended that there is a lack of understanding and buy-in from homeowners. This 

commenter thought that, by neglecting the demand side of the equation, consumers are left 

uninformed and will focus on the bottom line costs. Several commenters suggested that EPA 

revise the Renovate Right brochure to better inform property owners about the benefits of dust 

wipe sampling and clearance.

EPA agrees that outreach and education on lead poisoning in general, and the link between 

renovations and increased blood lead levels in particular, continues to be important. As part of 

its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting program’s Lead-Safe Certified media campaign, EPA 

developed and made available to the public outreach materials aimed at both contractors and 

consumers. The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) advertisement aimed at 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 14 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

contractors, banners for web sites, sample articles for magazines, newsletters or other 

publications to help inform contractors about the rule, post cards and buck slips to stuff into 

mailers, as well as an informational brochure about the rule for building managers. EPA also 

developed fact sheets about the rules that hardware or paint supply stores can hand out to their 

customers to inform them of the rule’s requirements. All of this information is available to the 

public on EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press-materials.htm. 

The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build demand for 

lead-safe certified firms among the public. The consumer outreach materials include consumer 

print advertisements, PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet about 

the rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them about the advantages of hiring 

lead-safe renovation firms. The consumer outreach materials are also downloadable from EPA’s 

web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-consumers.htm.

Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among parents and 

pregnant women who live in homes built before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead 

Poisoning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a national multimedia 

PSA campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common pathways for 

lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on older windows, doors and trim, or walls) or 

improperly-performed renovation, repair and painting activities that cause paint to chip, peel, or 

flake. 

EPA will continue to evaluate and consider additional outreach and educational opportunities to 

improve homeowner understanding of dust-lead hazards that may be left behind after 

renovations. EPA will also consider the commenters’ suggestions regarding future editions of 

Renovate Right. EPA agrees with the general principle expressed by commenters that the 

Agency should allow a period of time for the regulated community and public to understand the 

existing RRP rule, rather than to promulgate the proposed new requirements.

One commenter argued that the proposed rule fails to meet the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act because it imposes significant recordkeeping requirements on renovators, realtors, 

and others who perform maintenance on pre-1978 housing.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not prohibit recordkeeping requirements, but it does impose 

a requirement for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve information 

collection requests, including recordkeeping requirements. The information collection 

requirements contained in the proposed rule were submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. 

In any event, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements 

because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not 

support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. EPA is making minor adjustments to the 

already-approved recordkeeping and reporting requirements for training course providers in this 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 15 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

rule. Accordingly, EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document to 

amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR document, referred to as the Clearance and 

Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program and identified 

under EPA ICR No. 2381.02 and OMB Control Number 2070–NEW, has been placed in the 

docket for this rule (Ref. 16). The information collection requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them.

 

One commenter argues that both the proposed rule and existing RRP rule conflict with the 

Federalism Executive Order because, contrary to EPA’s allegations, the rules do have an impact 

on states. The commenter cites Tennessee’s denied request to suspend the RRP regulations to 

address the May 2010 flooding event as an example.

EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue with respect to the 2008 RRP rule. This final 

rule does not conflict with the Federalism Executive Order because it does not impose substantial 

compliance costs directly on states or local governments. 

One commenter argued that the proposed requirements conflict with the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act because these changes will be financially burdensome not only to the private sector, 

but also to state, local, and tribal governments. For example, this will have significant effects on 

schools and on homeowner weatherization assistance programs. 

EPA disagrees with this commenter. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) does not 

prohibit rules that impose burdens, the Act requires EPA to do additional analyses before 

promulgating such rules. Although not dispositive, in deciding whether promulgating the 

proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements was warranted, EPA nonetheless did take 

into consideration the costs of such requirements. In sum, EPA determined that, among other 

things, the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement 

and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. For 

more information, including a summary of the written statement EPA prepared in response to the 

UMRA, please consult the preamble to the 2010 proposal. 

 

Several commenters argued that the failure to convene a new Small Business Advocacy Review 

(SBAR) panel violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

EPA disagrees with these comments. Contrary to the assertions of these commenters, the 

Agency has fully complied with the requirements of the RFA. 

The RFA states that agencies “may consider a series of closely related rules as one rule for the 

purposes of [an IRFA]” in order to avoid “duplicative action.” 5 U.S.C. § 605(c) (emphasis 

added). This rule is closely related to the 2008 RRP rule. Indeed, this rule addresses some of the 

issues considered during the promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule. Accordingly, EPA was not 

required to complete an IRFA or FRFA for this rule. Nonetheless, EPA exercised its discretion 

to complete an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) on this proposal. The robust 

analysis contained in the IRFA considers the potential impacts of the proposed dust wipe testing 

and clearance requirements on affected small entities. EPA has not completed a FRFA for this 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 16 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

final rule because EPA is not promulgating the dust wipe testing or clearance requirements. EPA 

is certifying that the final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

Moreover, EPA did convene and conduct a SBAR panel (RRP Panel) in connection with

the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities in target housing. EPA relied upon

the RRP Panel to inform its decisions on the 2008 RRP rule. The RRP Panel is equally

applicable to this closely related amendment to the RRP rule, pursuant to which EPA has

reconsidered some of the same work practice issues. The RRP Panel discussed all major aspects 

of the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, including issues related to 

ensuring that proper cleanup occurs after renovation activities. As a part of the panel process, 

EPA “collect[ed] advice and recommendations” from several Small Entity Representatives

(SERs) on the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). In 

response to the comments from the SERs, EPA issued a report. See Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-based Paint; Certification and Training; Renovation and 

Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000). The RRP Panel report expressly addressed dust 

wipe testing and clearance. Thus, the primary issues considered in this rulemaking are wholly 

within the scope of the issues EPA considered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were within the 

scope of the issues considered by the RRP Panel. EPA believes that reconvening the RRP Panel 

would be procedurally duplicative and is unnecessary given that the issues here were within the 

scope of those considered by the RRP Panel.

Specific Comments on Proposed Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance Provisions:

Many commenters opined on the inclusion or exclusion of specific renovation jobs in the 

proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements. Some commenters thought that the jobs 

for which dust wipe testing would have been required under the proposal were as likely to create 

high dust-lead levels as those for which clearance would have been required. Others argued that 

specific renovation jobs did not create high levels of leaded dust, so they should not be included 

in the list of jobs covered by the proposed rule. Still other commenters thought that dust wipe 

testing or clearance should only be required in older housing, such as that built before 1950, or in 

housing occupied by children under age 6 or pregnant women. Some commenters thought that 

dust wipe testing or clearance should be required in other situations, such as after weatherization 

projects or when an area has failed cleaning verification twice. 

Although EPa attempted in its proposal to distinguish renovation activities that it thought 

warranted the addition of a dust wipe testing requirement from those that did not (and from those 

that warranted imposition of a clearance requirement), EPA acknowledges that its proposal 

lacked a strong basis for drawing these lines. EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the 

available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on 

balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Several commenters asked for additional clarification on some of the terms used in the proposed 

rule, including “destructive demolition,” window replacement,” and “poor condition.”
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 17 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA is not promulgating the dust wipe testing or clearance requirements of the proposed rule, so 

no additional clarification of these terms is necessary. 

Several commenters thought that EPA should wait to require dust wipe testing or clearance until 

alternative technologies that allow results to be obtained quickly on-site are widely available. 

EPA agrees that availability of alternative technologies is likely to make dust wipe testing and 

clearance more affordable and more practical in many instances. However, EPA is not 

promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements. 

A number of commenters addressed the sampling requirements of the proposed rule, such as the 

requirement to sample outside of the contained work area, whether random sampling in multiunit buildings should be permitted, and whether sampling should be required on carpeted floors.

EPA agrees that the proposed rule raised concerns regarding the appropriate testing protocol, 

including whether sampling outside the area should be required or whether random sampling in 

multi-unit buildings should be permitted. EPA took these concerns into account as part of its 

decision not to promulgate the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements. Because 

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements, the issue of 

sampling protocols is moot. 

Some commenters argued that the information would be valuable to many property owners and 

occupants, and subsequent owners and occupants, who would receive the information under the 

Lead Disclosure Rule. 

EPA does not believe that providing information for the purpose of the Lead Disclosure Rule is a 

proper basis for a TSCA § 402(c)(3) work practice. 

Some commenters were concerned about the effect that the proposed dust wipe testing and 

clearance requirements would have on renovator training courses. They argued that these 

changes would require additions to the existing RRP training course, which they claimed is 

already strained to cover necessary elements in one day. Others questioned how already-trained 

renovators would be informed of these changes, and whether additional training would be 

required. A related comment was that the proposed requirements were too complicated, that it 

would be difficult for renovators to figure out what would be required on any given project. 

EPA agrees that the proposed requirements would have required additional information in the 

renovator course, and that EPA would have had to design a plan to get this information out to 

already-trained renovators. However, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available 

information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, 

imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Some commenters were concerned about occupant protection. Some pointed out that 

renovations differ from abatements in that abatement contractors typically maintain control over 

abatement work areas and do not permit residents in until clearance has been confirmed, while 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 18 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

renovation firms typically do not have the authority to keep residents out of areas being 

renovated. Others suggested that occupant protection measures should be instituted when 

sample results exceed the hazard standards. One commenter thought that, because building 

occupants are not required to vacate the premises until clearance is confirmed, their exposures do 

not change. 

EPA agrees that renovations and abatements are different, and that occupants typically vacate the 

premises when an abatement is being performed, but not during renovations. This does present 

challenges for occupant protection. However, the RRP work practices do include provisions 

designed to minimize exposure to occupants, including the requirement that the work area be 

isolated to contain dust and debris. In sum, EPA has concluded that the existing work practices 

are reliable, effective, and safe and EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available 

information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, 

imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

 

Some commenters thought that clearance should be required in rental property, or in rental 

property where work is being performed to remedy existing code or other violations. Other 

commenters thought that rental property should not be held to a different standard than other 

residential property. 

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, 

among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 

wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

One commenter argued that foundation windows should be exempt from the proposed dust wipe 

clearance testing requirements entirely, or regulated only when basement meets definition of 

COF. The commenter’s reasoning was that foundation windows are not part of the habitable 

space of a home. 

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, 

among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 

wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Many commenters supported a requirement for dust wipe testing and clearance testing to be 

performed by an independent third party. These commenters thought that such a requirement 

would provide more accurate results. Others expressed concerns that a third-party testing

requirement would increase costs and cause delays. 

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, 

among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 

wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 19 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

Miscellaneous Comments on Proposed Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance Provisions:

 

One commenter recommended that EPA remove language on composite dust sampling from all 

of EPA’s materials, because laboratories won’t accept them.

EPA recognizes that many laboratories have concerns about composite dust samples. EPa took 

this concern into account as part of its decision not to promulgate the proposed dust wipe testing 

or clearance requirements. If EPA revises the abatement clearance protocol in the future, EPA 

will consider this issue. 

Instead of a requirement for dust wipe testing or clearance, several commenters supported a 

requirement for renovation firms to offer dust wipe testing and clearance services. One 

commenter thought that this should take the form of an additional, itemized charge, accompanied 

by educational materials about testing. Another thought that it should be presented more as an 

opportunity for homeowners to opt out of testing or clearance. One commenter believed that a 

requirement of this type would make it easier for low-income homeowners who are unable to 

afford testing services to continue to use certified contractors who will follow the RRP work 

practices. 

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements, because, 

among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 

wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. EPA notes that property owners and occupants can 

always choose to have dust wipe testing performed after a renovation, regardless of whether EPA 

regulations require such testing. 

One commenter thought that, instead of dust wipe testing or clearance, the rule should just 

require the homeowner to sign off on the cleaning verification procedure.

EPA addressed this issue in the 2008 RRP rule. EPA is not reconsidering or reopening this issue 

as part of this rulemaking. 

Several commenters suggested different requirements for the renovation jobs for which dust 

wipe testing or clearance would have been required. One commenter thought that EPA should 

consider additional containment requirements instead of testing or clearance for high dust 

generating jobs. Another thought that the Dust Study supported a requirement for two cleaning 

verification procedures using a wet cloth. A third commenter thought that EPA should develop 

procedures for the removal and disposal of contaminated components so as not to require 

clearance. The commenter suggested that one procedure might be covering painted components 

with duct tape at the area where paint would be disturbed during removal. The taped joint could 

be cut and the component removed with the tape holding the majority of the paint intact.

As stated elsewhere, with respect to this final rule, EPA has determined that the current RRP 

work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by a 

wide range of renovation activities. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 20 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

Clearance in Lieu of Cleaning Verification

A number of commenters argued that cleaning verification should not be required before 

clearance, so the rule should continue to allow renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification 

step where clearance is required, either by another law or by the contract between the property 

owner and the renovation firm. Several argued that removal of this provision would create more 

inconsistency with the HUD regulations. Commenters noted that contractors performing 

abatements or interim controls had been meeting EPA and HUD clearance standards for more 

than a decade without performing cleaning verification. Some thought that the contractor should 

have the option of using whatever cleaning methods it chooses. In contrast, one commenter 

supported the elimination of the provision allowing the cleaning verification step to be skipped, 

because cleaning verification is an effective way to clean up leaded dust. 

While EPA does not agree with all of these assertions, EPA does agree that it is unnecessary to 

require renovation firms who must achieve clearance to follow the specific cleaning verification 

protocol. Therefore, EPA is retaining the provision that allows the cleaning verification step to 

be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve clearance. 

One commenter thought that eliminating the option to do clearance in place of cleaning 

verification may undermine incentives for clearance testing. 

While EPA does not agree with this commenter, EPA is nevertheless retaining the provision that 

allows the cleaning verification step to be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve 

clearance. 

One commenter thought that cleaning verification and clearance are redundant, and that EPA 

should pick one method and stick to it.

EPA disagrees with this commenter. Based on a careful consideration of the Disposable

Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust Study, EPA concluded in the 2008 final RRP rule that 

cleaning verification should not be used as a substitute for dust wipe clearance testing.

Paint Chip Collection

A number of commenters supported EPA’s proposal to allow certified renovators to collect paint 

chip samples and send them to a laboratory recognized under the National Lead Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NLLAP). These commenters thought that this would provide valuable 

flexibility in testing components in the work area, although one observed that it should not be 

seen as a viable substitute or alternative for improved test kits because the lead-based paint 

determination must occur at the pre-bid stage of the job, and paint chip sampling would add a 

delay. This commenter also noted that paint chip sampling is not inexpensive and it damages 

surfaces. 

EPA agrees that allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples provides additional 

important flexibility for renovation firms, but EPA recognizes that the option is not without 

disadvantages. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 21 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

At least one commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the recordkeeping 

requirements to include information specific to paint chip sample collection, such as component 

and location tested, identity of the NLLAP entity analyzing the samples, and the sample results. 

EPA agrees with this commenter, so EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) to add a new 

subsection (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint chip sample collection and analysis, 

including a description of the components that were sampled, and the locations sampled, the 

name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the analysis, and the results for 

each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the 

certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected 

from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were submitted for analysis to 

the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results were as specified. 

Some commenters thought that it would take a lot of time to teach renovators how to collect 

paint chip samples. Others thought it would be difficult to fit the additional training on sample 

collection, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission procedures into the 8-hour renovator 

class. In contrast, some commenters believed that paint chip sampling is easy to learn, and 

thought it would be a simple add-on to the instruction on test kits. In particular, one commenter 

stated that, as a homeowner, he had been instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone 

on how to properly collect a paint chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis. This 

experience led him to believe that it would be feasible to include in the renovator course 

instruction on how to collect a paint chip sample and forward it for analysis. 

The selection of locations to test and the recordkeeping requirements would be identical whether 

test kits or paint chip sampling is used. Because renovator training courses are already required 

to include training in how and where to use test kits, EPA agrees with those commenters who 

believed that it would take very little additional time to also provide renovators with training in 

how to collect a chip sample and submit them for analysis. 

Some commenters argued that only certified inspectors and risk assessors should be permitted to 

collect paint chip samples. Several thought that certified inspectors and risk assessors are better 

qualified to determine the presence or absence of lead-based paint. One noted that improperlytaken samples are worse than no samples, because without samples, lead-based paint must be 

assumed. Another thought that this would further blur the line between renovators and 

inspectors and cause problems in enforcing the regulations. Several noted that State regulations 

may prohibit anyone other than certified inspectors or risk assessors from collecting paint chip 

samples. On the other hand, one commenter thought that the renovator course should teach 

random sampling, so renovators could use random sampling in multi-unit buildings. 

EPA disagrees with these commenters. Allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip 

samples does not turn them into inspectors or risk assessors. Certified renovators must still 

collect paint chip samples from each and every painted or coated component that they will 

disturb during the renovation. The renovator course does not teach sampling protocols or 

random sampling techniques, because that would take significantly more time than is available in 

an 8-hour class. EPA is not sure how allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 22 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

will lead to enforcement problems. Finally, just as with the current provisions for test kit use, in 

those states that do not permit persons other than certified inspectors or risk assessors to test for 

lead-based paint, certified renovators will not be able to exercise this option. 

 

One commenter wondered how already-trained renovators would learn how to collect paint chip 

samples.

EPA plans to revise the model renovator initial and refresher courses to include information on 

paint chip sample collection. Because currently-trained renovators have already had training in 

how and where to use test kits, EPA believes that certified renovators do not need a significant 

amount of training to be able to collect paint chip samples properly. EPA plans to develop a 

guidance document covering paint chip sample collection procedures, including recordkeeping 

and laboratory submission procedures, and post it on EPA’s website. The experience related by

one commenter, that of being instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to 

properly collect a paint chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis, shows that 

renovators are able to easily understand what is required. 

One commenter wondered what would happen if a property owner wants the renovator to sample 

a component that isn’t going to be affected by the renovator’s work. This commenter asked 

whether the renovator would include this information within his testing report. 

Certified renovators are not lead-based paint inspectors or risk assessors. EPA regulations only

permit certified renovators to sample components that are intended to be disturbed by a 

renovation. Certified renovators are not permitted to perform whole or partial lead-based paint 

inspections. 

Several commenters thought that EPA should also allow dust sampling technicians to collect 

paint chip samples. These commenters thought that there would be time available in the course, 

and similar activities, such as documentation, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission 

procedures, are already being taught there. 

EPA disagrees with these commenters. The dust sampling technician course teaches how to 

collect and process dust wipe samples, it does not include information on testing for lead-based 

paint. Since renovators are already permitted to test for lead-based paint using approved test 

kits, it makes more sense for renovators to make use of the paint chip sampling option. 

Vertical Containment

Several commenters supported the proposed changes to the vertical containment language in the 

RRP rule. One noted that contamination of neighboring properties is a common and serious 

problem.

EPA agrees with these commenters and further agrees that contamination of neighboring 

properties can be a problem if containment, including vertical containment, is not used properly. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 23 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

Some commenters thought that the proposed changes to the vertical containment language in the 

RRP rule were too inflexible and unnecessary. 

EPA disagrees with these commenters. The Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior 

renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity. In the absence of a system of vertical 

containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way

to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint 

within 10 feet of the property line. The vertical containment requirement is intended to provide 

flexibility for certified renovators to design effective containment systems based on the 

renovation activity and the work site. Vertical containment systems can span a range from 

simple barriers to more extensive scaffolding, depending on the size of the job and other relevant 

factors. Complex vertical containment systems with extensive scaffolding are often not 

necessary to effectively contain the dust generated by a renovation. However, to ensure that 

renovation firms understand that the requirement refers to a wide variety of effective work area 

containment systems, EPA is including the phrase “or equivalent extra precautions in containing 

the work area” in this requirement. 

One commenter thought that it should be sufficient to require the renovation firm to inform the 

neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while the renovation is ongoing. 

EPA does not agree that this would be effective or sufficiently address the identified concern. 

Specifically, while this might prevent leaded dust from drifting into the interiors of adjacent 

buildings, it does not address contamination of the neighboring porches, balconies and yards. 

This does not meet the standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not be 

permitted to leave the work area while the renovation is ongoing. EPA is also concerned about 

the ability of renovation firms to affect the behavior of neighbors whose homes are not being 

renovated.

Several commenters expressed concern about the safety of workers and vertical containment. 

One argued that OSHA has said that vertical containment is not required in situations where 

worker safety would be compromised, such as in windy conditions. 

EPA agrees that erecting certain types of vertical containment in some windy conditions may be 

unsafe for workers. In these situations, EPA knows of no alternative but to reschedule 

renovations for more clement days. The HUD Guidelines state that exterior renovation work 

should not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 miles per hour. The Guidelines 

also state that work must cease and cleanup be completed before rain begins. EPA has not 

imposed these specific requirements, but renovation firms should consider this guidance when 

deciding how to proceed. 

One commenter stated that EPA should partner with OSHA when developing strategies for 

vertical containment that are both safe and effective instead of working solely with HUD. The 

commenter further states that EPA should reconsider the recommendations made in its model 

training course for exterior containment and work with OSHA to devise safe and effective means 

to contain dust and protect workers.
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 24 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA consulted with OSHA when it developed the RRP model training courses which contain 

recommendations on setting up vertical containment. OSHA reviewed the course materials and 

provided comments and suggestions to EPA on various aspects of the course. Although the 

training materials contain recommendations for setting up vertical containment, the final rule 

does not require specific methods for constructing vertical containment. Rather, the rule sets 

requirements for when vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 

work area must be used. At this time, the Agency does not intend to expand the 

recommendations for constructing vertical containment in the model training courses but may do 

so in the future. EPA intends to work collaboratively with DOE and HUD and other agencies 

and stakeholders as appropriate to develop further guidance on equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area.

Other commenters were concerned about the additional costs that the revisions to the vertical 

containment provisions would impose on renovations. 

EPA agrees that it is more expensive to conduct exterior renovations with vertical containment 

than without. In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those 

situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and 

debris, including work areas in close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a 

property line, and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is 

sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris 

from contaminating the ground or any object beyond the work area. To account for these 

situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior 

containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall to 

$1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has already accounted for the 

additional costs incurred for using vertical containment systems or equivalent extra precautions 

in containing the work area on renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line. 

One commenter thought that EPA should target the vertical containment requirements to what he 

considered actual trouble areas, such as buildings within the 20-foot “closed windows and doors” 

area that cannot be closed, or renovations involving hand scraping at a height greater than the 

distance to the property line.

The existing RRP rule requires work areas to be contained such that no dust or debris leaves the 

work area. This means vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 

work area when necessary, which could include those situations mentioned by the commenter. 

However, because the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior renovations travels at 

least 10 feet from the activity, in the absence of some system of vertical containment or 

equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way to ensure that 

adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of 

the property line. Therefore, EPA will require vertical containment or equivalent extra 

precautions in containing the work area when exterior renovations are conducted within 10 feet 

of the property line. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 25 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

One commenter thought that this requirement would result in unequal treatment for urban 

properties, which are frequently located within 10 feet of the property line. Vertical containment 

would far exceed the value of the improvement in most cases.

EPA agrees that urban properties are more likely to be located close to the property line than 

rural properties. However, because the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior 

renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity. In the absence of some system of vertical 

containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way

to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint 

within 10 feet of the property line. Therefore EPA will require vertical containment or 

equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area when exterior renovations are conducted 

within 10 feet of the property line. 

One commenter thought that the vertical containment revisions were unjustifiable, given that 

owners of neighboring properties are free to perform renovations without containment. 

Do-it-yourself renovations in and on owner-occupied property are not regulated under the RRP 

rule. While do-it-yourself renovations may also create lead-based paint hazards, EPA interprets 

the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA section 

402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners. 

While the RRP rule does not prohibit do-it-yourself renovations without containment, there are 

likely to be other legal authorities that address contamination of neighboring properties. 

Prohibited or Restricted Practices

Two commenters noted that EPA uses the term “painted surfaces” throughout the RRP rule and 

it is unclear whether this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well. These 

commenters noted that the definition of “lead-based paint” includes paint and other surface 

coatings but there is no definition of the term “painted surfaces.” These commenters observed 

that other surface coatings, such as varnish, can contain significant amounts of lead. The 

commenters suggested that EPA address this issue throughout the RRP rule. 

EPA agrees with these commenters. In using the term “painted surfaces,” EPA meant 

component surfaces that contain a coating that could be lead-based paint. The term was designed 

to encompass situations where the surface is covered with lead-based paint as defined by the 

regulation as well as situations where the lead content of the surface coating had not been 

determined. EPA never intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from the 

coverage of the RRP rule. In fact, the applicability section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, 

limits the exclusions for testing to those situations where the components to be disturbed by a 

renovation have been demonstrated to be free of paint and other surface coatings that contain 

lead at levels equal to or exceeding the regulatory threshold. Therefore, EPA will replace the 

term “lead-based paint” with “painted surfaces” in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) and EPA will also 

adding a clarifying definition of “painted surface” to 40 CFR 745.83. This definition states that 

painted surface means a component surface that contains paint or other surface coatings. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 26 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

Two commenters thought that there should be a performance standard included in EPA’s 

proposed clarification on what is meant by high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) exhaust 

control. They recommended a visual standard that warns the workers that the shroud or 

containment system is not working properly. One commenter suggested a requirement that the 

power-tool and shroud must neither generate nor release visible dust and must permit no air 

movement on the outside. The other thought that the definition for power tool shroud should 

include a requirement that the HEPA shroud/vacuum be capable of collecting the air generated 

by the tool. This commenter also asserted that a more sensitive dust measure would improve the 

definition further. 

 

EPA generally agrees with these commenters and will add a requirement that power tools be 

operated so that no visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud or containment 

system. This requirement will also work to mitigate the concern EPA had with the efficiency of 

shrouded tools and the possibility that such tools might overwhelm the containment and 

specialized cleaning protocols of the lead safe work practices. This requirement should also 

ensure that the shroud or containment system used is capable of collecting the air generated by

the tool. While a more sensitive dust measure might improve the performance of the dust 

collection system, EPA is concerned that any such measure would impose significant burdens on 

renovation firms, such as requiring them to purchase and learn to use particle counters. EPA 

believes that the no visible dust or air release standard is sufficiently protective and represents an 

appropriate balance between accuracy and cost. 

Another commenter thought that the term “shrouded” in the proposed revision would make the 

RRP rule more stringent than the requirements applicable to abatement contractors. 

After consulting the abatement chapter of the HUD Guidelines, EPA has determined that the 

proposed language could potentially be read to exclude one of the two types of sanders described 

by HUD as appropriate for abatement work because they provide HEPA exhaust control. 

Accordingly, EPA will revise the regulatory language to require either a shroud or a containment 

system for these power tools. 

HEPA Vacuums

Some commenters argued that the proposed clarification regarding a minimum efficiency

reporting value (MERV) of 17 was too stringent. One commenter noted that the performance of 

the filter and the performance of the vacuum containing the filter would be different. This

commenter referenced standard industry practice for high-efficiency vacuums used in lead dust 

clean-up. This commenter cited Table E-1, entitled “Application Guidelines,” from the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2-2007, which suggests 

that a MERV 11 filter is appropriate for removing “lead dust.” This commenter nevertheless 

thought that the required performance ought to be higher than MERV 11. Several commenters 

cited research done on the efficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that the HEPA vacuums used in 

EPA’s Dust Study would not have met the MERV standard of 17 proposed by EPA. However, 

these commenters did not provide sufficient information to support this assertion. Other 

commenters expressed a general concern that the proposed clarifications to the HEPA vaccum 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 27 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

requirements would result in contractors not being able to use the affordable consumer grade 

HEPA vacuums that they have just purchased in order to comply with the RRP rule. 

EPA is concerned about establishing a requirement for HEPA vacuums that would result in 

renovation firms having to replace vacuums they recently purchased with every indication that 

the vacuums would comply with the RRP rule requirements. Therefore, EPA will not add a 

minimum MERV value to the HEPA vacuum definition at this time. The definition already 

includes a standard for HEPA vacuums, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 

microns with 99.97% efficiency.

Some commenters thought that EPA should have manufacturers test their vacuums to ensure 

compliance with the standards, and several thought that EPA should require HEPA vacuums to 

be tested in the field with a particle counter periodically, and whenever the main filter is 

replaced. 

EPA disagrees with these commenters. Section 402(c) of TSCA and the RRP rule are primarily 

intended to address the behavior of contractors, persons who perform renovations for 

compensation, not vacuum manufacturers. EPA continues to recommend that renovation firms 

have information from the manufacturer that the particular model of vacuum that the renovation 

firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with an 

applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 

Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to 

meet the HEPA standard. 

With respect to field tests, EPA is concerned that any such measure would impose significant 

burdens on renovation firms, such as requiring them to purchase and learn to use particle 

counters. EPA believes that the requirement that renovation firms operate and maintain their 

HEPA vacuums in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, including filter change 

intervals, is sufficiently protective and represents an appropriate balance between accuracy and 

cost. 

 

One commenter noted, that while EPA’s recommendations on manufacturer documentation are 

reasonable, it can occasionally be difficult to consult the owner’s manual before purchasing a 

vacuum to determine whether it would comply with the HEPA standard. EPA should provide a 

regularly-updated list of HEPA vacuums that meet the standard.

EPA understands the commenter’s concerns, and will consider providing such a list. 

One commenter thought that more information on vacuum maintenance should be added to the 

renovator curriculum. The commenter noted that the State of Wisconsin has illustrated guide to 

HEPA vacuum maintenance that would be a good model.

EPA believes that HEPA vacuum operation and maintenance is, in general, relatively simple and 

that the owner’s manual for the specific model, or other information provided by manufacturers, 

is the best source of information on maintenance for renovation firms. However, EPA will 

consider developing a guidance document on the subject. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 28 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

One commenter thought that vacuums that the manufacturer warns are not suitable for use with 

hazardous substances or asbestos or lead cleanup should be prohibited from use.

EPA agrees that, if a manufacturer recommends that a particular vacuum not be used for leaded 

dust cleanup, the vacuum should not be used for RRP purposes. EPA believes that the 

requirement that vacuums be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations will ensure that such vacuums are not used for RRP purposes. 

Several commenters thought that the use of HEPA vacuums is unnecessary and that they are too 

expensive. 

EPA did not propose to eliminate the requirement that HEPA vacuums be used and is not 

reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

e-Learning

Some commenters were concerned with verifying the identity of persons logging into e-learning 

courses. Several noted that, because it is impossible to verify with certainty the identity of 

persons completing online training, an in-person final course test is necessary to ensure that the 

trainee is adequately trained. 

EPA generally agrees that it is important to be able to verify that the trainee who completes the 

e-learning portion of the course is also the trainee who completes the hands-on training and the 

course test. Accordingly, EPA is amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require elearning training providers to assign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the 

student’s progress through the course. EPA believes that this requirement, along with the 

existing requirement that the trainee participate in the hands-on training and take the final course 

test in person, will provide reasonable assurance that the same person has completed all of the 

portions of the course. In response to these commenters, EPA is modifying the regulations to 

specifically state that e-learning or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the 

hands-on training, the final course test, or the proficiency test, if one is given. 

One commenter was concerned about the possibility that trainees could complete EPA’s model 

e-learning course for renovators in one hour. Thus, according to this commenter, trainees could 

complete the entire renovator course in 3 hours (including the 2 hours for hands-on training), 

which does not meet the 8-hour regulatory requirement. 

EPA disagrees with this commenter. The current model course posted on the EPA website is not 

a functioning course and does not contain the background learning management system (LMS) 

which tracks the student’s progress and requires satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks 

and the final test. Therefore, the time it takes to page through the model course is not 

representative of the time it would take to successfully complete an accredited e-learning course. 

Assuming that 2 training hours are spent on hands-on training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) 

requires a minimum of six 50 minute training hours or 5 hours of classroom time for renovators. 

This requirement applies equally to traditional classroom settings as well as to e-learning courses 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 29 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

course offered for accreditation. While EPA realizes that renovator trainees will not all proceed 

through an e-learning course at the same pace, an e-learning course offered for accreditation 

must be generally designed so that an average trainee takes approximately 5 hours to proceed 

through the course, including all of the knowledge checks and the course test. 

One commenter wondered about the duty of the training provider in evaluating the progress of 

the student, and whether they should be evaluating the time spent on the course to complete the 

training. The commenter also questioned the meaning of “track each student’s course log-in, 

launches, progress, and completion.” The commenter wondered whether the intent of this 

requirement was to provide overall documentation or whether it was to track progress while the 

student is taking the course so that the instructor can intervene and make corrections. 

The requirements to track a student’s progress are in place to ensure that the student reviews all 

required portions of the course, completes the knowledge checks and passes the final exam. The 

course was designed to be completed on the student’s schedule which will often be outside of 

normal business hours. The accredited training provider should maintain a database of 

frequently asked questions and/or respond within 24 hours to student e-mail and phone call 

questions regarding the course. The training provider is required to track whether the student has 

completed the training including answering all the knowledge check questions and passing the 

electronic final exam.

One commenter thought that EPA’s proposed requirement of an 80% minimum passing score on 

the course test for the online course was too restrictive. Another commenter disagreed, 

reasoning that it was appropriate to have a higher passing score requirement for the e-learning 

portion of a training course, because the student would have an opportunity to review the 

material and retake the test. However, this commenter also thought that a 100% passing score 

would be too restrictive, because it would likely results in students being penalized for poorlyworded questions or alternate interpretations, regardless of the state of the student’s knowledge. 

EPA agrees with the second commenter. The 80% minimum passing score is intended to 

demonstrate mastery of the subject and lower scores do not achieve this goal. If students do not 

pass the test, they must review the material and try again. EPA understands that some students 

may require significantly more than 6 training hours to complete the e-learning component. 

One commenter supported required knowledge checks for e-learning courses, but thought that 

EPA should use more flexible language, such as requiring the system to offer “periodic” 

knowledge checks or another tool to ensure the student is actively engaged and retaining 

information.

EPA agrees with this comment and will require periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the 

number and content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s model course. This would be 

16-24 knowledge checks over the entire course. 

One commenter suggested that EPA consider separately accrediting entities that provide online 

training and entities that provide hands-on training. The commenter argued that developing an 

online course is a capital-intensive project that requires a large number of trainees to recover the 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 30 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

costs, so relatively few entities are likely to undertake online course development. In contrast, 

the commenter stated that the delivery of hands-on training must be more local and mobile, it 

requires a smaller capital investment, and each entity may have relatively few trainees. 

EPA recognizes that this may be the case, at least for now, while EPA is administering the RRP 

program in most States. However, this may change as more States become authorized and 

impose requirements for training that may differ from the EPA requirements. In any event, EPA 

has developed a streamlined process to allow accredited training providers to add an e-learning 

component to their accreditation by using an already developed and accredited online course. 

This allows accredited training providers to offer online training without having to make a large 

capital outlay to develop a course. EPA continues to believe that the training provider who 

issues the final course completion certificate to a trainee, thus conferring certified renovator 

status on the trainee, must be responsible for ensuring that the student has completed all of the 

required training. EPA does not offer partial accreditations, or accreditation for a portion of a 

course. 

A commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the hands-on training provider to 

maintain records of the specific times each student logged in to the online portion of the course, 

each student’s progress, and completion data. The commenter believed that, in the case where 

the online provider and the hands-on provider are separate entities, working under a contractual 

agreement to present an entire training course, it would be relatively easy for the online provider 

to maintain the records. In contrast, the commenter thought that it would be much more 

burdensome for EPA to require that the hands-on provider download or otherwise take 

possession of these records. 

EPA disagrees with this commenter, because EPA believes that the amount of data associated 

with this particular requirement for each trainee is not substantial. However, if a particular 

accredited training provider felt otherwise, the provider could contract with the provider of the 

online training to store the records. Although the accredited training provider would remain 

ultimately responsible for being able to produce those records, as long as the training provider is 

able to produce them in response to a request from EPA, EPA would consider the training 

provider in compliance with the recordkeeping requirements. 

One commenter thought that the requirement that a student be able to generate an uneditable 

copy of an e-learning course completion certificate was too stringent. The commenter pointed 

out that almost anyone reasonably familiar with computers could alter a secure PDF, image, or 

word processing file through the print function. 

EPA agrees that this is a valid concern. EPA will add language to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) 

to clarify that EPA merely meant that the certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and 

easy editing by students. A secure PDF file would comply with these requirements. Allowing 

students to generate and print the course completion certificate provides them with reasonable 

certainty that they have completed the e-learning portion of the course before attempting the 

hands-on portion. EPA recommends that accredited training providers verify through other 

means, such as the e-learning progress records, that each student who completes the hands-on 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 31 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

training has also completed the online portion of the course before training providers issue the 

final course completion certificate. 

Trainee Photographs

One commenter stated that trainee photographs on the course completion certificate for 

renovators and dust sampling technicians should be in color. 

Although EPA recommends that photographs be in color, this is not a requirement. The rule 

requires that photos be recognizable. As long as they meet this requirement, EPA does not see 

the need for a requirement that the photographs be in color.

One commenter stated that that the proposed requirements are adequate, and no further 

clarifications of the photograph requirements are needed. 

The Agency agrees with this comment and has finalized the requirement as proposed without 

adding any additional requirements.

One commenter stated that EPA should require photographs on course completion certificates for 

courses other than renovator or dust sampling technician in order to prevent fraud. 

The Agency does not require pictures on the course completion certificates for the risk assessor, 

inspector, supervisor, and worker courses because EPA issues a badge to each certified 

individual that contains the individual’s picture. EPA believes that the photo on the badge 

adequately addresses the issue raised by the commenter.

One commenter states that the recommendation that trainee photographs be 600 pixels high by

600 pixels wide is extremely burdensome to training providers. The commenter claims that 

training providers must spend hours cropping photographs to meet this recommended size. The 

commenter believes that the Agency should be less prescriptive with its photo recommendations.

EPA appreciates the information and will consider how it can change the recommended 

photograph dimensions to make it less time consuming to submit photographs in post-training 

notifications.

Hands-on

A commenter wondered why report preparation would be a required hands-on topic for dust 

sampling technicians when it has never been a hands-on topic for the other disciplines that must 

prepare reports. 

While it is true that hands-on training in report preparation is not required for most lead training 

disciplines, it is required for the inspector discipline. Thus, certified inspectors and certified risk 

assessors, who must successfully complete both the inspector course and the risk assessor course, 

receive hands-on training in report preparation. EPA believes that report preparation for dust 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 32 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

sampling technicians is likewise important enough to warrant hands-on training in how to do it 

properly. 

Two commenters thought that requiring hands-on training for renovator refresher courses would 

limit the availability of refresher training and increase costs unnecessarily. Both commenters 

thought that enough information could probably be conveyed in a distance learning or e-learning 

setting to warrant dispensing with the hands-on requirement for renovator courses. One 

commenter pointed out that EPA’s current model refresher training course for renovators 

contains two required hands-on skill sets—test kit usage and cleaning verification. This 

commenter felt that this was appropriate, given that previously-trained individuals are still taking 

advantage of the “grandfathering” provision that allows them to successfully complete an 

accredited renovator refresher course to become certified renovators. Those individuals would 

not have had previous training in those two skills, so hands-on training would be necessary. 

However, once the grandfathering provision is no longer available, as discussed later in this 

section of the preamble, all certified renovators would have had hands-on training in these skills. 

EPA agrees with the second commenter that, for now, renovator refresher courses must include 

hands-on training in test kit use and in cleaning verification. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

proposed amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands-on training is 

required for all refresher courses except project designer. EPA plans to re-evaluate the renovator 

refresher course after the grandfathering provision sunsets, but before the currently-certified 

renovators are due for refresher training. At that time, EPA will consider whether hands-on 

training is still necessary and appropriate for renovator refresher training. 

State Programs

Several commenters thought that it would be unrealistic to expect states to make changes within 

a year of EPA’s promulgation of regulatory amendments. These commenters thought that states 

should be given two years, which is consistent with the current rules.

EPA inadvertently included the wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising 

authorized State and Tribal programs to conform to revisions to the RRP rule. The existing 

provisions at 40 CFR 745.326(f) give authorized State and Tribal programs two years from the 

effective date of any EPA revisions to the RRP rule to demonstrate that the State or Tribal 

program meets the requirements of the revised RRP rule. This two year period is also afforded 

to States and Tribes that submit applications for authorization before the effective date of any 

EPA revisions. EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States and Tribes 

will still have two years to make changes to their programs necessitated by revisions to the 

federal RRP program.

One commenter pointed out that EPA’s proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did 

not accomplish EPA’s stated objective of clarifying that both individuals and firms must receive 

certification. 

EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text throughout this section 

accordingly to ensure that EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA requires both renovators and 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 33 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

renovation firms to be certified. A renovator becomes certified by successfully completing an 

accredited renovator training class. A renovation firm becomes certified by submitting an 

application to EPA, attesting that it and its employees will follow the work practice standards at 

40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a certification fee. EPA believes that, 

in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as protective as EPA’s program, the State or 

Tribal program must, at a minimum, require formal certification for renovation firms. States and 

Tribes may, but are not required to, formally certify renovators. The certified renovation firm is 

responsible not only for the behavior of its certified renovators but also for the other workers that 

have been trained by the certified renovators. Thus, the renovation firm is ultimately responsible 

for the proper performance of the renovation. Requiring formal certification for renovation firms 

facilitates compliance monitoring and enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Tribal 

programs. A program that only required formal certification for individual renovators and not 

firms would not be as protective. 

One commenter suggested that EPA consider requiring states to recognize the dust sampling 

technician discipline because it would make services more affordable nationwide. 

While nationwide dust sampling technician recognition might make services more affordable, 

EPA does not have the authority to prohibit States and Tribes from having a more stringent 

program than the EPA’s, e.g., requiring more training for persons collecting dust wipe samples 

than EPA requires. 

Several state commenters argued that their legislatures had already created the authority to 

establish an RRP program, but the maximum penalty amount was less than $10,000 per violation 

per day. These States did not believe that they would be able to increase the maximum penalty

authority, because it was comparable to other programs administered by the State, or that it 

would take several years to get an increase through the legislature, during which time EPA 

would have to administer the program in their jurisdictions. One commenter argued that States 

should be able to set fines based on the needs of the States not the implied need of the EPA. 

EPA believes that strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and 

Tribal programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child 

occupied facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. Therefore, EPA 

believes that it must establish a threshold for authorized State and Tribal enforcement programs. 

However, EPA also agrees that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint 

programs would be against very small entities. It is likely that the regulated community in the 

lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has 

established minimum penalty authorities, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA). Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal 

programs of $5,000. EPA agrees that it will be responsible for administering the program in 

those jurisdictions that do not meet these minimum enforcement program requirements. 

At least two already-authorized State programs pointed out that they had been authorized with 

maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000. One of these States also noted that it had 

been effectively enforcing the Lead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre-Renovation 

Education Program for years now with a maximum penalty authority of $5,000 per violation, and 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 34 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

the State did not believe that an increase in its maximum penalty authority would improve the 

effectiveness of its programs in any way. 

As discussed above, authorized State and Tribal programs will have two years from the effective 

date of this rule to revise their programs to conform to the minimum enforcement program 

requirements. EPA agrees that a lower maximum penalty authority is appropriate for authorized 

State and Tribal lead-based paint programs and is establishing the threshold maximum penalty

authority at $5,000 per violation per day. 

Some commenters also noted that most enforcement actions in an RRP program would be 

against very small companies or individuals, and penalties of less than $10,000 per violation per 

day would still be very effective deterrents for such entities. 

EPA agrees that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs would 

be against very small entities. Although small entities also violate RCRA, it is likely that the 

regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other 

programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities. Therefore, EPA is 

establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000. 

Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA’s proposed minimum penalty authority of 

$10,000, arguing that substantial penalties are necessary to get the attention of the regulated 

community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule’s success at protecting individuals 

from exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 

EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement program. 

Strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and Tribal programs 

is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied facilities 

undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. However, EPA also agrees with those 

States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs 

would be against very small entities. Although small entities also violate RCRA, it is likely that 

the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the 

other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities. Therefore, EPA is 

establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000. 

State commenters did not favor adding a mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty

authorities for inflation. One environmental advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that 

it should not be a barrier to State and Tribal program authorization. 

EPA agrees with these commenters and no mechanism for adjusting these minimums for 

inflation is included in this final rule.

Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be considered by States and Tribes when 

imposing penalties for violations of their authorized programs. Several favored enforcement 

history and risk, but not to the extent of treating first-time offenders too lightly. A handful of 

commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be considered, 

because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 35 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

EPA believes that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA 

typically considers, such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation, the culpability of 

the violator, history of prior violations, ability to pay or continue in business, voluntary

disclosure, and attitude of the violator. However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to 

consider any of these factors.

Recordkeeping

Two commenters thought that the training provider recordkeeping requirements for all 

disciplines should be increased to 5 years. These commenters thought it would be less confusing 

for training providers if there was one period applicable to all. One commenter pointed out that 

EPA had extended the certification period for renovators trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 

2015, so the training records for those trainees ought to be kept for as long as their certification 

lasts. This commenter suggested that EPA require training records to be kept for 5 years or until 

the expiration of certification resulting from the training, whichever is longer. 

While EPA agrees that it may be easier for training providers to keep records for the same length 

of time regardless of the discipline, EPA does not believe that it is necessary make this a 

requirement. Training providers who prefer to have one single recordkeeping process can 

always choose to maintain their records for 5 years across the board. Therefore, EPA is 

promulgating the increased recordkeeping requirement for providers of accredited renovator and 

dust sampling technician training as proposed. EPA also agrees with the commenter who 

suggested that there be a longer recordkeeping requirement for renovator training courses offered 

before April 22, 2010. Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirement that records for 

renovator training courses completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015. 

One commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the recordkeeping requirements 

to accommodate the option of renovators collecting paint chip samples and include information 

specific to paint chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identity of the 

NLLAP entity analyzing the samples, and the sample results. 

EPA agrees with this commenter. Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) to add a 

new subsection (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint chip sample collection and analysis, 

including a description of the components that were sampled, and the locations sampled, the 

name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the analysis, and the results for 

each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the 

certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected 

from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were submitted for analysis to 

the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results were as specified. 

Accreditation

Two commenters supported the idea of combined renovator-worker and renovator-supervisor 

refresher courses and thought they would provide increased flexibility for industry. One thought 

that the certification time periods should be harmonized to 3 years for all disciplines because the 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 36 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

commenter believed that 5 years was too long to go without a refresher. The other commenter 

did not think that harmonization was necessary, because the abatement worker or supervisor 

would just take the combined refresher every three years to meet the shorter certification periods 

in the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule. 

EPA agrees with these commenters that combined refresher courses may be beneficial. While 

the current regulations permit training providers to offer refresher courses sequentially, e.g., a 4-

hour renovator course on the afternoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour worker course the next 

day, taking the courses sequentially would result in some duplication of training topics for 

persons certified as both renovators and abatement workers. On the other hand, EPA is not 

certain that appropriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covered in a single 8-hour 

day. EPA plans to evaluate the content of its supervisor, worker, and renovator refresher courses 

to determine what an appropriate combined course length might be. Depending on the results of 

this evaluation, EPA will consider amending these regulations to establish course length 

requirements for combined refresher courses. 

One commenter stated that EPA should streamline its process for accrediting training providers. 

The commenter claimed that the 180 days that EPA is allowed for processing applications for 

training provider accreditations is too long and that it should be shortened to 45 days if the 

application uses the EPA model course or 90 days if it develops its own course. The commenter 

further claimed that EPA merely ensures the training provider applicants meet a checklist of 

requirements which should not take 180 days to review.

EPA disagrees with this comment. While the Agency is has 180 days to approve or deny 

applications for accreditation, it strives to complete this process as quickly as possible. The time 

it takes to accredit an applicant depends on various factors including Agency resources, the 

number of applications EPA is reviewing at any given time, and how quickly the applicant 

responds to Agency questions about the application. In addition, EPA does more than simply

review a checklist of requirements. Agency staff conduct site visits of training facilities and 

view demonstrations of the trainings. They also review various parts of an application including 

the quality control plan, descriptions of activities and procedures for conducting the hands-on 

skills assessment, lists of equipment that will be used for the lecture and hands-on portions of a 

course, and course test blueprints, among other things. If any of these pieces of the application 

are deficient, the Agency will work with the applicant to address the deficiencies. Based on the 

amount of work that is involved in accrediting a training provider and the variability among 

applicants, EPA does not intend to shorten the 180 time limit at this time.

One commenter stated that EPA should be more consistent among its regional offices in 

accrediting training providers. The commenter pointed out that the student to instructor ratios 

and the format of training demonstrations can vary among the different regional offices. 

The Agency understands that training provider reviews can be slightly different among the ten 

regional offices. To address this, the Agency has developed policies for accrediting training 

providers that the regional offices follow. In addition, EPA holds regular meetings among staff 

from the ten regional offices and headquarters to share information on the accreditation process.
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 37 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

Grandfathering

One commenter argued that the grandfathering provision should only apply to certified 

abatement workers or supervisors, not workers or supervisors who have only taken the course 

but are not currently certified. This commenter asserts that certified individuals will receive 

updated information by taken the required refresher course every three years. The commenter 

believes that those who do not receive the updated information because their certification has 

lapsed should have to take the 8-hour initial renovator course. 

Even if individuals do not take the refresher abatement work or supervisor courses, these 

individuals have still received significant training in the required RRP work practices such as 

establishing containment and cleaning the area after the job is finished. Thus, the Agency

believes that someone who has not taken the refresher abatement worker or supervisor course 

should still qualify for the refresher training. 

One commenter states that EPA should continue grandfathering individuals who completed and 

EPA-accredited abatement worker or supervisor course until it can offer a combined course in 

abatement and renovations.

The Agency disagrees with this comment. A combined refresher course would allow individuals 

to more readily be able to keep up their dual certifications. EPA does not believe that the 

availability of a combined abatement worker or supervisor refresher course is relevant to whether 

someone should be eligible for the refresher renovator course. 

One commenter pointed out that the grandfathering date in the preamble to the proposed rule did 

not match the date in the proposed regulations and that the two date should be consistent. 

The Agency agrees that the dates should have been consistent and will change the grandfathering 

date in the regulations to the effective date of the final rule. 

Other Proposed Amendments and Related Comments

One commenter thought that, before starting the course, the training provider should be required 

to supply a paper copy of the specific training manual to each student.

The commenter did not supply a reason for imposing such a requirement and EPA believes that 

training providers generally do this as a matter of course. 

One commenter thought EPA should update the abatement courses because the commenter 

believes that they are very out of date.

While EPA does not necessarily agree that the abatement courses are very out of date, in the 

future EPA will nonetheless consider whether the abatement course should be updated. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 38 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

One commenter thought that EPA should require the OSHA regulations to be taught in the 

course. A certified firm was fined by OSHA for not knowing whether the HEPA respirators 

being worn were appropriate.

EPA does not believe that this is an appropriate requirement for EPA to impose, and OSHA 

already requires employees to be trained in its standards. 

One commenter noted 40 CFR 745.89(c) conflicts with the proposed change to 745.92(b)(3) 

regarding fees for certification amendments. 

EPA agrees with this commenter and will modify 40 CFR 745.89(c) to make it clear that no fee 

is required for a firm certification amendment. 

One commenter stated that EPA should require certified inspectors and risk assessors to received 

training specific to the RRP rule. Such items would include dust sampling, clearance testing, 

paint testing, documentation, reporting and recordkeeping.

The Agency disagrees that inspectors and risk assessors need additional training specific to the 

RRP rule in the areas of dust sampling, clearance testing, paint testing, documentation, reporting 

and recordkeeping. Inspectors and risk assessors currently receive training in dust sampling, 

clearance testing, and paint testing. These skills can be used when doing the clearance testing 

that is optional under the RRP rule. Furthermore, the RRP rule does not change the requirements 

for work performed by inspectors and risk assessors. Consequently, EPA does not intend on 

changing the requirements for inspectors and risk assessor training courses. 

One commenter stated that EPA should keep the RRP rule consistent with other lead laws being 

implemented throughout the country. The commenter pointed out that the many different laws 

with different standards create confusion resulting in less compliance, which will lead to more 

unsafe conditions. The commenter specifically requested that EPA use a de minimis standard of 

2 square feet or 10% when determining what work qualifies as minor repair and maintenance. 

While EPA agrees that consistency with other programs is an important consideration in 

promulgating regulations, consistency is not always the best approach. For example, as 

discussed previously in this document, HUD’s Lead-safe Housing Rule and EPA’s RRP rule 

have very different purposes. As such, consistency in all provisions is not necessarily desirable 

or appropriate. 

With respect to the minor maintenance standard EPA adopted for renovations in the 2008 RRP 

rule, EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

Renovator course trainers should have to have at least the abatement worker class and attend a 

renovator course. Persons taking the dust sampling tech course and attending the renovator 

course are not qualified to teach the renovator course.
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 39 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

In the final Opt-Out Rule, EPA reduced the prerequisite lead-based paint training requirement for 

principal instructors from 16 hours to 8 hours for several reasons, including available training 

capacity and subject matter relevance. EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

Several commenters supported lowering the dust-lead hazard standards and modifying the 

definition of lead-based paint. One specifically noted that it is confusing for trainees to 

distinguish between EPA/HUD hazard levels and the OSHA threshold of “any detectable 

concentration of lead in paint.” 

While not part of this rulemaking, in October 2009, EPA granted a petition requesting a reevaluation of EPA’s dust-lead hazard standards and the regulatory definition of lead-based paint. 

Miscellaneous Comments

Some contractors argued that EPA does not have the authority to promulgate work practice 

standards for RRP activities. According to these commenters, in enacting Section 402(c) of 

TSCA, Congress was very careful to distinguish between lead-based paint activities and RRP 

activities, and the subsection does not explicitly authorize EPA to promulgate regulations 

affecting the work practice standards for RRP activities, e.g., requiring clearance testing. The 

commenters mention TSCA Section 402(c)(1), which authorizes EPA to “promulgate guidelines 

for the conduct of such renovation and remodeling activities which may create a risk of exposure 

to dangerous levels of lead.” The commenters further note that Section 402(c)(3) requires EPA

to revise the regulations developed for abatement and other lead-based paint activities to apply to 

renovation and remodeling activities. However, the commenters argue that Congress intended 

that EPA would apply appropriate certification requirements developed in connection with leadbased paint activities to RRP contractors but that work practice standards – including clearance 

testing requirements – would remain the subject of guidelines, not regulations.

EPa is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. Nonetheless, EPA disagrees with these 

commenters. EPA’s interpretation of TSCA Section 402(c)(3) is that Congress intended EPA to 

revise the entire set of lead-based paint activities regulations to apply to renovation and 

remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Indeed, one possible interpretation is 

that Congress directed EPA to simply revise the lead based paint regulations by expanding them 

to apply to renovation and remodeling activities. Nonetheless, EPA has interpreted the directive 

to “revise” the lead-base paint activities regulations as allowing EPA to make common sense 

changes to the lead-based paint activities regulations to address a the differences between 

renovators and abatement contractors. In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

interpretation that 403(c)(1) somehow precludes EPA from regulating renovation activities and 

establishing lead safe work practices. Indeed, EPA believes that the commenters’ interpretation 

of section 402(c) makes little sense. Under section 402(a), Congress first directed EPA to 

promulgate, within 18 months, regulations concerning lead-based paint activities, i.e., activities 

designed to remove known lead-based paint hazards. At the same time, under section 402(c), 

Congress expressed a concern about renovation activities generally and directed EPA to first 

issue guidelines (also within 18 months) for renovation activities that “may” create a risk of 

exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In the context of section 402(c), these guidelines are best 

understood as an interim step because Congress then gave EPA more time (a total of 30 months) 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 40 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

to study renovation activities to determine, among other things, the extent to which renovation 

activities create a lead-based paint hazard. As a final step, Congress directed EPA to regulate 

renovation activities that EPA (after the studying the issue) has determined create lead-based 

paint hazards. No reasonable reading of 402(c) suggests that Congress merely intended EPA to 

issue guidelines and thereafter to study the extent to which renovation activities create leadbased paint hazards but then to revise the TSCA § 402(a) regulations to address activities that

create lead-based paint hazards without regard to work practice standards governing those 

activities. 

Several commenters argued that EPA has not established that the activities regulated under the 

RRP rule create lead-based paint hazards. 

EPA addressed this issue in the underlying RRP rule and is not reopening or reconsidering this 

issue.

Several commenters argue that EPA cannot regulate renovation, repair, and painting activities 

because the studies performed to determine whether such activities create lead-based paint 

hazards are flawed and do not establish a direct connection between renovation, repair, and 

painting activities and increased childhood or worker blood lead levels. 

EPA has already addressed this argument in the preamble to the 2008 final RRP rule and is not 

reopening or reconsidering the issue here. 

One commenter suggested that EPA focus its regulatory efforts on heavy metals in fish.

EPA agrees that there are many potential sources of lead that may contribute to the problem of 

childhood lead poisoning. However, this regulation is being issued pursuant to TSCA § 

402(c)(3), and therefore only applies to renovation and remodeling activities. EPA notes, 

however that this regulation is only one piece of the Federal, State, and local efforts to reduce 

exposures to lead and eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

One commenter asked EPA to limit the amount that states can charge contractors for 

certification.

EPA does not have the authority to regulate state certification fees. 

One commenter suggested that EPA allow building supply retailers to sell the Cleaning 

Verification Cards.

While EPA will take this commenter’s suggestion under consideration, EPA produces and 

distributes the cleaning verification cards through accredited training providers and the National 

Lead Information Center because EPA believes that exercising sufficient quality control during 

card production is critical to the success of the RRP cleaning protocol after renovations. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 41 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

One commenter requested that EPA clarify its interpretation of the test kit provisions, i.e., that 

EPA could approve kits before September 1, 2010 and allow their use until an improved kit is 

recognized.

The currently recognized test kits did not automatically lose their recognition on September 1, 

2010. As discussed in the 2008 RRP rule, prior to September 1, 2010, manufacturers seeking 

recognition of their test kit must meet only false negative response criterion, and that recognition 

of kits meeting this criterion will last until EPA publicizes its recognition of a kit that passes both 

the false negative and the false positive criteria.

One commenter argued that the model renovator training course spends too much time on the 

specifics of the rule and not enough on health effects, which would motivate workers to follow 

the lead-safe work practices. 

EPA appreciates this commenter’s concern. EPA continues to monitor and evaluate the content 

of the course. Given the skills and tasks required by the rule that must be covered in the course, 

EPA believes that the appropriate weight is being given to the health effects of lead. 

One commenter thought training requirements should include more hands-on time, for example, 

the commenter noted that the Washington weatherization program requires 6 hours of hands-on 

training.

EPA disagrees with this commenter. While hands-on training is beneficial, EPA believes that 

the hands-on skills required to be presented in the renovator course can adequately be covered in 

two hours. 

One commenter contended that regulatory policy shouldn’t address pets. 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is charged with protecting human health and the 

environment. Unfortunately, the effects of lead-based paint hazards are not limited to children or 

even just humans. Lead poisoning from renovations has been documented in both cats and dogs. 

This is often the first indicator that families have of human exposure as well. Moreover, in our 

society pets can be highly valued. Thus, in assessing the impacts of the rule, EPA has chosen not 

to ignore the concern over lead poisoning in pets from renovation activities. 

Several commenters thought EPA should require homeowners to use contractors who follow 

RRP rules. 

As discussed, EPA interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation 

activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category

of persons, such as homeowners. Thus, the RRP rule does not include provisions directly

applicable to homeowners, with the exception of homeowners who renovate rental property. 

Replacement components for which documentation is available should be exempt from the rule. 
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

Page 42 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 07/15/2011

The RRP rule provides a mechanism for this, by allowing certified inspectors and risk assessors 

to make determinations based on property records. See 40 CFR 745.227(b)(2). EPA believes 

that it would be difficult to establish criteria for documentation of replacement components that 

could be applied by certified renovators. Renovators do not have training in identifying painting 

histories and making other judgments of what to test.