*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1 EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_R2Cdocument_2011-04-0807-15.docx

2 

3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

4 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for 

5 the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 

6 [RIN 2070–AJ57] 

7 July 15, 2011 (Draft of 03/21/2011)

8 

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

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

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

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

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

14 

15 General Support for Clearance and Testing Provisions: 

16 

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

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

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

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

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

22 blood lead levels. 

23 

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

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

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

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

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

29 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 prove that cleaning verification was performed and achieved the required result, renovators can 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

48 how many cloths were used. This commenter noted that with clearance dust testing, a chain of 

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

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

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

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

53 little improvement over the existing rule. 

54 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67 

68 The ability to falsify results is not specific to cleaning verification. It could also occur if dust69 wipe testing and clearance were required. Sample locations could be falsified, or there could be 

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

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

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

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

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

75 the cleaning verification step, or to falsify results. 

76 

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

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

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

80 that clearance testing should be required. 

81 

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

83 of which cleaning verification is an effective component, effectively minimize exposure to lead84 based paint hazards created by renovations. In addition, cleaning verification is not simply 

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 variables in the use of the disposable cleaning cloths. 

92 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

94 landlords and leave more secure feeling about the finished job. Another argued that attempting 

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

96 verification doesn’t work. 

97 

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

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

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

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

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

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

104 levels. 

105 

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

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

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

109 renovation, both during and after the renovation. 

110 

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

112 

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

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

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

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

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

118 party. 

119 

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

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

122 

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

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

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

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

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

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

129 hazards created by renovations. 

130 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

138 that generate more leaded dust. These commenters wondered how contractors would learn to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

140 of dust wipe testing. 

141 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

155 to make without better supporting evidence. 

156 

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

158 confusing. 

159 

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

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

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

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

164 during the training course required for certified renovators.

165 

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

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

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

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

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

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

172 hazard standard. 

173 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

184 simple visual test or visual inspection of a workspace. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

185 

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

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

188 lead-based paint. If that action results in lower dust-lead hazard standards, EPA also plans to re189 evaluate the RRP rule work practices. 

190 

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

192 for virtually all federally-assisted housing. 

193 

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

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

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

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

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

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

200 renovation by effectively cleaning dust hazards. 

201 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

218 activities. 

219 

220 General Opposition: 

221 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

230 renovation projects, particularly in areas where lead testing services are not readily available. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

231 Some thought that letting clients back into the work area before test results are received would 

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

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

234 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

246 wipe testing or clearance requirement. 

247 

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

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

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

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

252 would inappropriate and unfair to make renovation contractors responsible for cleaning up pre253 existing hazards, one commenter specifically recommended that EPA retain the intent of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

262 homeowner for dust lead levels above the clearance standards. 

263 

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

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

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

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

268 effectively bridge the differences between abatement and renovation and remodeling while 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

276 children, typically under age 6, have blood lead levels at or above specified values. Typically, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

277 when an abatement is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

285 completion of the project. 

286 

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

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

289 2008 RRP rule. In 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe testing and clearance for certain 

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

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

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

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

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

295 requirement is unwarranted. 

296 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

306 greater than in a lead abatement project. 

307 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

320 

321 One commenter argued that cleaning to achieve cleaning verification addresses pre- and post322 renovation lead dust in the same way that cleaning to achieve clearance would. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

323 

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

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

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

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

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

329 of the work they were hired to do.

330 

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

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

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

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

335 

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

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

338 work in a lead-safe manner. 

339 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

347 standards for performance and clear limits on contractor obligations. 

348 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

358 testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

359 

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

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

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

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

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

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

366 resulting in increased likelihood of occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards, fewer energy367 efficient home repairs and window replacements, bankruptcy for private property or management 

368 owners who have invested in pre-1978 rental property as part of their retirement portfolio and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

369 revenue stream, bankruptcy of small companies and consolidation of renovation services in 

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

371 dangerous remaining in place than the dust generated by the removal, reduced market for pre372 1978 housing, and further hindrance to recovery from natural disasters. 

373 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

385 testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

386 

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

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

389 

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

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

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

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

394 imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

395 

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

397 unnecessary. Some based their argument on the premise that renovations do not create lead398 based paint hazards. Others specifically addressed the information presented in the 2010 

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

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

401 of clearance sampling was worthwhile from a public health perspective. 

402 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

410 

411 One commenter asserted that there was no lead problem in his community, that lead is an inner412 city, low-income problem. 

413 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

415 in urban areas, suburbs, and rural communities, anywhere there is pre-1978 housing. Among the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

431 a Victorian Farmhouse) 

432 

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

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

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

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

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

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

439 

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

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

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

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

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

445 testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

446 

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

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

449 the existing cleaning verification requirements. 

450 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

459 testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

460 

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

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

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

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

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

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

467 regulatory hazard standard. 

468 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

476 requirement is unwarranted. 

477 

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

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

480 would not be able to understand what would be required. 

481 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

500 dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

501 

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

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

504 without adequate enforcement cause economic disadvantages for those who comply with the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

506 industry already presents an extreme challenge. 

507 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

520 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

521 

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

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

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

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

526 worse. 

527 

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

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

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

531 clearance requirements. 

532 

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

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

535 every job involves new circumstances. 

536 

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

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

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

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

541 dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

542 

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

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

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

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

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

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

549 new requirements. Some commenters also asserted that EPA should not make a determination 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

551 the existing RRP rule when fully implemented. 

552 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

567 

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

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

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

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

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

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

574 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

582 flake. 

583 

584 Some commenters thought that EPA should emphasize educational campaigns rather than 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

592 wipe sampling and clearance. 

593 

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

595 renovations and increased blood lead levels in particular, continues to be important. As part of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

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

598 consumers. The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) advertisement aimed at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

605 

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

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

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

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

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

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

612 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

620 flake. 

621 

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

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

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

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

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

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

628 

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

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

631 and others who perform maintenance on pre-1978 housing. 

632 

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

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

635 collection requests, including recordkeeping requirements. The information collection 

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

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

638 seq. 

639 

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

641 because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

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

644 already-approved recordkeeping and reporting requirements for training course providers in this 

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

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

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

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

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

650 OMB approves them. 

651 

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

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

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

655 address the May 2010 flooding event as an example. 

656 

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

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

659 compliance costs directly on states or local governments. 

660 

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

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

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

664 schools and on homeowner weatherization assistance programs. 

665 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

674 UMRA, please consult the preamble to the 2010 proposal. 

675 

676 

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

678 (SBAR) panel violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

679 

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

681 Agency has fully complied with the requirements of the RFA. 

682 

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

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

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

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

687 required to complete an IRFA or FRFA for this rule. Nonetheless, EPA exercised its discretion 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

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

690 and clearance requirements on affected small entities. EPA has not completed a FRFA for this 

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

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

693 small entities. 

694 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

711 scope of those considered by the RRP Panel. 

712 

713 Specific Comments on Proposed Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance Provisions: 

714 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

724 projects or when an area has failed cleaning verification twice. 

725 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

733 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

735 rule, including “destructive demolition,” window replacement,” and “poor condition.” 

736 

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

738 no additional clarification of these terms is necessary. 

739 

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

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

742 

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

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

745 promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements. 

746 

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

748 requirement to sample outside of the contained work area, whether random sampling in multi749 unit buildings should be permitted, and whether sampling should be required on carpeted floors. 

750 

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

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

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

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

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

756 sampling protocols is moot. 

757 

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

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

760 Lead Disclosure Rule. 

761 

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

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

764 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

772 

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

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

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

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

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

778 imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

779 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

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

782 abatement work areas and do not permit residents in until clearance has been confirmed, while 

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

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

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

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

787 not change. 

788 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

797 imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

798 

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

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

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

802 residential property. 

803 

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

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

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

807 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

808 

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

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

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

812 space of a home. 

813 

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

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

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

817 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

818 

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

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

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

822 requirement would increase costs and cause delays. 

823 

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

825 among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

827 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

828 

829 Miscellaneous Comments on Proposed Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance Provisions: 

830 

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

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

833 

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

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

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

837 will consider this issue. 

838 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

846 practices. 

847 

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

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

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

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

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

853 regulations require such testing. 

854 

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

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

857 

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

859 as part of this rulemaking. 

860 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

870 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

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

873 wide range of renovation activities. 

874 

875 Clearance in Lieu of Cleaning Verification 

876 

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

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

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

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

881 inconsistency with the HUD regulations. Commenters noted that contractors performing 

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

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

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

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

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

887 

888 EPA does not agree that removing this provision is inconsistent with the HUD regulations. The 

889 Dust Study demonstrates that cleaning verification is an important final fine cleaning step that 

890 also provides some feedback about the cleanliness of the surface to the renovator. In fact, the 

891 Dust Study showed that, in a significant number of cases, the cleaning verification step was 

892 necessary in order to remove the dust-lead hazards created by the renovation. It is likely that 

893 completing the entire RRP cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, increases the 

894 probability that clearance, where required, will be achieved on the first attempt. Thus, requiring 

895 the performance of the entire RRP rule cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, is 

896 hardly inconsistent with the HUD regulations. In addition, EPA believes that the cleaning 

897 verification process, in almost all cases, is minimally burdensome. EPA’s “Electrostatic Cloth 

898 and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing” showed that cleaning verification should take 

899 approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square 

900 feet of uncarpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. The material requirements for 

901 cleaning verification are very inexpensive. EPA estimated, as part of the 2008 final RRP rule 

902 analyses, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles are $13.60 

903 apiece. Cleaning verification is an integral component of the entire suite of RRP work practices. 

904 EPA believes that there is value in the cleaning protocol of the RRP rule, including cleaning 

905 verification, becoming the accepted standard practice for cleaning up after renovations. 

906 

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

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

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

910 be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve clearance. 

911 

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

913 verification may undermine incentives for clearance testing. 

914 

915 Because the costs associated While EPA does not agree with this commenter, EPA is 

916 nevertheless retaining the provision that allows the cleaning verification are minimal, EPA does 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

917 not agree that requiring contractorsstep to perform cleaning verification evenbe skipped if they 

918 arethe renovation firm must also doing clearance undermines incentives for performingachieve

919 clearance. 

920 

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

922 should pick one method and stick to it. 

923 

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

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

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

927 

928 Paint Chip Collection

929 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

937 surfaces. 

938 

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

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

941 disadvantages. 

942 

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

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

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

946 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

955 

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

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

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

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

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

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

962 on how to properly collect a paint chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis. This 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

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

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

965 

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

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

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

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

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

971 

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

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

974 qualified to determine the presence or absence of lead-based paint. One noted that improperly975 taken samples are worse than no samples, because without samples, lead-based paint must be 

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

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

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

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

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

981 

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

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

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

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

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

987 an 8-hour class. EPA is not sure how allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples 

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

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

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

991 

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

993 samples. 

994 

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

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

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

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

999 guidance document covering paint chip sample collection procedures, including recordkeeping 

1000 and laboratory submission procedures, and post it on EPA’s website. The experience related by 

1001 one commenter, that of being instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to 

1002 properly collect a paint chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis, shows that 

1003 renovators are able to easily understand what is required. 

1004 

1005 One commenter wondered what would happen if a property owner wants the renovator to sample 

1006 a component that isn’t going to be affected by the renovator’s work. This commenter asked 

1007 whether the renovator would include this information within his testing report. 

1008 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1009 Certified renovators are not lead-based paint inspectors or risk assessors. EPA regulations only 

1010 permit certified renovators to sample components that are intended to be disturbed by a 

1011 renovation. Certified renovators are not permitted to perform whole or partial lead-based paint 

1012 inspections. 

1013 

1014 Several commenters thought that EPA should also allow dust sampling technicians to collect 

1015 paint chip samples. These commenters thought that there would be time available in the course, 

1016 and similar activities, such as documentation, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission 

1017 procedures, are already being taught there. 

1018 

1019 EPA disagrees with these commenters. The dust sampling technician course teaches how to 

1020 collect and process dust wipe samples, it does not include information on testing for lead-based 

1021 paint. Since renovators are already permitted to test for lead-based paint using approved test 

1022 kits, it makes more sense for renovators to make use of the paint chip sampling option. 

1023 

1024 Vertical Containment

1025 

1026 Several commenters supported the proposed changes to the vertical containment language in the 

1027 RRP rule. One noted that contamination of neighboring properties is a common and serious 

1028 problem. 

1029 

1030 EPA agrees with these commenters and further agrees that contamination of neighboring 

1031 properties can be a problem if containment, including vertical containment, is not used properly. 

1032 

1033 Some commenters thought that the proposed changes to the vertical containment language in the 

1034 RRP rule were too inflexible and unnecessary. 

1035 

1036 EPA disagrees with these commenters. The Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior 

1037 renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity. In the absence of somea system of vertical 

1038 containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way 

1039 to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint 

1040 within 10 feet of the property line. In addition, EPA disagrees that the vertical containment 

1041 language is too inflexible. To the contrary, the The vertical containment requirement is intended 

1042 to provide flexibility for certified renovators to design effective containment systems based on 

1043 the renovation activity and the work site. Vertical containment systems can span a range from 

1044 simple barriers to more extensive scaffolding, depending on the size of the job and other relevant 

1045 factors. Complex vertical containment systems with extensive scaffolding are often not 

1046 necessary to effectively contain the dust generated by a renovation. However, to ensure that 

1047 renovation firms understand that the requirement refers to a wide variety of effective work area 

1048 containment systems, EPA is including the phrase “or equivalent extra precautions in containing 

1049 the work area” in this requirement. 

1050 

1051 One commenter thought that it should be sufficient to require the renovation firm to inform the 

1052 neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while the renovation is ongoing. 

1053 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1054 EPA does not agree that this would be effective or sufficiently address the identified concern. 

1055 Specifically, while this might prevent leaded dust from drifting into the interiors of adjacent 

1056 buildings, it does not address contamination of the neighboring porches, balconies and yards. 

1057 This does not meet the standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not be 

1058 permitted to leave the work area while the renovation is ongoing. EPA is also concerned about 

1059 the ability of renovation firms to affect the behavior of neighbors whose homes are not being 

1060 renovated. 

1061 

1062 Several commenters expressed concern about the safety of workers and vertical containment. 

1063 One argued that OSHA has said that vertical containment is not required in situations where 

1064 worker safety would be compromised, such as in windy conditions. 

1065 

1066 EPA agrees that erecting certain types of vertical containment in some windy conditions may be 

1067 unsafe for workers. In these situations, EPA knows of no alternative but to reschedule 

1068 renovations for more clement days. The HUD Guidelines state that exterior renovation work 

1069 should not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 miles per hour. The Guidelines 

1070 also state that work must cease and cleanup be completed before rain begins. EPA has not 

1071 imposed these specific requirements, but renovation firms should consider this guidance when 

1072 deciding how to proceed. 

1073 

1074 One commenter stated that EPA should partner with OSHA when developing strategies for 

1075 vertical containment that are both safe and effective instead of working solely with HUD. The 

1076 commenter further states that EPA should reconsider the recommendations made in its model 

1077 training course for exterior containment and work with OSHA to devise safe and effective means 

1078 to contain dust and protect workers. 

1079 

1080 EPA consulted with OSHA when it developed the RRP model training courses which contain 

1081 recommendations on setting up vertical containment. OSHA reviewed the course materials and 

1082 provided comments and suggestions to EPA on various aspects of the course. Although the 

1083 training materials contain recommendations for setting up vertical containment, the final rule 

1084 does not require specific methods for constructing vertical containment. Rather, the rule sets 

1085 requirements for when vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 

1086 work area must be used. At this time, the Agency does not intend to expand the 

1087 recommendations for constructing vertical containment in the model training courses but may do 

1088 so in the future. EPA intends to work collaboratively with DOE and HUD and other agencies 

1089 and stakeholders as appropriate to develop further guidance on equivalent extra precautions in 

1090 containing the work area.

1091 

1092 Other commenters were concerned about the additional costs that the revisions to the vertical 

1093 containment provisions would impose on renovations. 

1094 

1095 EPA agrees that it is more expensive to conduct exterior renovations with vertical containment 

1096 than without. In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those 

1097 situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and 

1098 debris, including work areas in close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a 

1099 property line, and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1100 sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris 

1101 from contaminating the ground or any object beyond the work area. To account for these 

1102 situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior 

1103 containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall to 

1104 $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has already accounted for the 

1105 additional costs incurred for using vertical containment systems or equivalent extra precautions 

1106 in containing the work area on renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line. 

1107 

1108 One commenter thought that EPA should target the vertical containment requirements to what he 

1109 considered actual trouble areas, such as buildings within the 20-foot “closed windows and doors” 

1110 area that cannot be closed, or renovations involving hand scraping at a height greater than the 

1111 distance to the property line. 

1112 

1113 The existing RRP rule requires work areas to be contained such that no dust or debris leaves the 

1114 work area. This means vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 

1115 work area when necessary, which could include those situations mentioned by the commenter. 

1116 However, because the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior renovations travels at 

1117 least 10 feet from the activity, in the absence of some system of vertical containment or 

1118 equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way to ensure that 

1119 adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of 

1120 the property line. Therefore, EPA will require vertical containment or equivalent extra 

1121 precautions in containing the work area when exterior renovations are conducted within 10 feet 

1122 of the property line. 

1123 

1124 One commenter thought that this requirement would result in unequal treatment for urban 

1125 properties, which are frequently located within 10 feet of the property line. Vertical containment 

1126 would far exceed the value of the improvement in most cases. 

1127 

1128 EPA agrees that urban properties are more likely to be located close to the property line than 

1129 rural properties. However, because the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior 

1130 renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity. In the absence of some system of vertical 

1131 containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way 

1132 to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint 

1133 within 10 feet of the property line. Therefore EPA will require vertical containment or 

1134 equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area when exterior renovations are conducted 

1135 within 10 feet of the property line. 

1136 

1137 One commenter thought that the vertical containment revisions were unjustifiable, given that 

1138 owners of neighboring properties are free to perform renovations without containment. 

1139 

1140 Do-it-yourself renovations in and on owner-occupied property are not regulated under the RRP 

1141 rule. While do-it-yourself renovations may also create lead-based paint hazards, EPA interprets 

1142 the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA section 

1143 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners. 

1144 While the RRP rule does not prohibit do-it-yourself renovations without containment, there are 

1145 likely to be other legal authorities that address contamination of neighboring properties. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1146 

1147 Prohibited or Restricted Practices

1148 

1149 Two commenters noted that EPA uses the term “painted surfaces” throughout the RRP rule and 

1150 it is unclear whether this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well. These 

1151 commenters noted that the definition of “lead-based paint” includes paint and other surface 

1152 coatings but there is no definition of the term “painted surfaces.” These commenters observed 

1153 that other surface coatings, such as varnish, can contain significant amounts of lead. The 

1154 commenters suggested that EPA address this issue throughout the RRP rule. 

1155 

1156 EPA agrees with these commenters. In using the term “painted surfaces,” EPA meant 

1157 component surfaces that contain a coating that could be lead-based paint. The term was designed 

1158 to encompass situations where the surface is covered with lead-based paint as defined by the 

1159 regulation as well as situations where the lead content of the surface coating had not been 

1160 determined. EPA never intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from the 

1161 coverage of the RRP rule. In fact, the applicability section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, 

1162 limits the exclusions for testing to those situations where the components to be disturbed by a 

1163 renovation have been demonstrated to be free of paint and other surface coatings that contain 

1164 lead at levels equal to or exceeding the regulatory threshold. Therefore, EPA will replace the 

1165 term “lead-based paint” with “painted surfaces” in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) and EPA will also 

1166 adding a clarifying definition of “painted surface” to 40 CFR 745.83. This definition states that 

1167 painted surface means a component surface that contains paint or other surface coatings. 

1168 

1169 Two commenters thought that there should be a performance standard included in EPA’s 

1170 proposed clarification on what is meant by high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) exhaust 

1171 control. They recommended a visual standard that warns the workers that the shroud or 

1172 containment system is not working properly. One commenter suggested a requirement that the 

1173 power-tool and shroud must neither generate nor release visible dust and must permit no air 

1174 movement on the outside. The other thought that the definition for power tool shroud should 

1175 include a requirement that the HEPA shroud/vacuum be capable of collecting the air generated 

1176 by the tool. This commenter also asserted that a more sensitive dust measure would improve the 

1177 definition further. 

1178 

1179 EPA generally agrees with these commenters and will add a requirement that power tools be 

1180 operated so that no visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud or containment 

1181 system. This requirement will also work to mitigate the concern EPA had with the efficiency of 

1182 shrouded tools and the possibility that such tools might overwhelm the containment and 

1183 specialized cleaning protocols of the lead safe work practices. This requirement should also 

1184 ensure that the shroud or containment system used is capable of collecting the air generated by 

1185 the tool. While a more sensitive dust measure might improve the performance of the dust 

1186 collection system, EPA is concerned that any such measure would impose significant burdens on 

1187 renovation firms, such as requiring them to purchase and learn to use particle counters. EPA 

1188 believes that the no visible dust or air release standard is sufficiently protective and represents an 

1189 appropriate balance between accuracy and cost. 

1190 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1191 Another commenter thought that the term “shrouded” in the proposed revision would make the 

1192 RRP rule more stringent than the requirements applicable to abatement contractors. 

1193 

1194 After consulting the abatement chapter of the HUD Guidelines, EPA has determined that the 

1195 proposed language could potentially be read to exclude one of the two types of sanders described 

1196 by HUD as appropriate for abatement work because they provide HEPA exhaust control. 

1197 Accordingly, EPA will revise the regulatory language to require either a shroud or a containment 

1198 system for these power tools. 

1199 

1200 HEPA Vacuums 

1201 

1202 Some commenters argued that the proposed clarification regarding a minimum efficiency 

1203 reporting value (MERV) of 17 was too stringent. One commenter noted that the performance of 

1204 the filter and the performance of the vacuum containing the filter would be different. This 

1205 commenter referenced standard industry practice for high-efficiency vacuums used in lead dust 

1206 clean-up. This commenter cited Table E-1, entitled “Application Guidelines,” from the 

1207 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Heating, 

1208 Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2-2007, which suggests 

1209 that a MERV 11 filter is appropriate for removing “lead dust.” This commenter nevertheless 

1210 thought that the required performance ought to be higher than MERV 11. Several commenters 

1211 cited research done on the efficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that the HEPA vacuums used in 

1212 EPA’s Dust Study would not have met the MERV standard of 17 proposed by EPA. However, 

1213 these commenters did not provide sufficient information to support this assertion. Other 

1214 commenters expressed a general concern that the proposed clarifications to the HEPA vaccum 

1215 requirements would result in contractors not being able to use the affordable consumer grade 

1216 HEPA vacuums that they have just purchased in order to comply with the RRP rule. 

1217 

1218 EPA is concerned about establishing a requirement for HEPA vacuums that would result in 

1219 renovation firms having to replace vacuums they recently purchased with every indication that 

1220 the vacuums would comply with the RRP rule requirements. Therefore, EPA will not add a 

1221 minimum MERV value to the HEPA vacuum definition at this time. The definition already 

1222 includes a standard for HEPA vacuums, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 

1223 microns with 99.97% efficiency. 

1224 

1225 Some commenters thought that EPA should have manufacturers test their vacuums to ensure 

1226 compliance with the standards, and several thought that EPA should require HEPA vacuums to 

1227 be tested in the field with a particle counter periodically, and whenever the main filter is 

1228 replaced. 

1229 

1230 EPA disagrees with these commenters. Section 402(c) of TSCA and the RRP rule are primarily 

1231 intended to address the behavior of contractors, persons who perform renovations for 

1232 compensation, not vacuum manufacturers. EPA continues to recommend that renovation firms 

1233 have information from the manufacturer that the particular model of vacuum that the renovation 

1234 firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with an 

1235 applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1236 Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to 

1237 meet the HEPA standard. 

1238 

1239 With respect to field tests, EPA is concerned that any such measure would impose significant 

1240 burdens on renovation firms, such as requiring them to purchase and learn to use particle 

1241 counters. EPA believes that the requirement that renovation firms operate and maintain their 

1242 HEPA vacuums in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, including filter change 

1243 intervals, is sufficiently protective and represents an appropriate balance between accuracy and 

1244 cost. 

1245 

1246 One commenter noted, that while EPA’s recommendations on manufacturer documentation are 

1247 reasonable, it can occasionally be difficult to consult the owner’s manual before purchasing a 

1248 vacuum to determine whether it would comply with the HEPA standard. EPA should provide a 

1249 regularly-updated list of HEPA vacuums that meet the standard. 

1250 

1251 EPA understands the commenter’s concerns, and will consider providing such a list. 

1252 

1253 One commenter thought that more information on vacuum maintenance should be added to the 

1254 renovator curriculum. The commenter noted that the State of Wisconsin has illustrated guide to 

1255 HEPA vacuum maintenance that would be a good model. 

1256 

1257 EPA believes that HEPA vacuum operation and maintenance is, in general, relatively simple and 

1258 that the owner’s manual for the specific model, or other information provided by manufacturers, 

1259 is the best source of information on maintenance for renovation firms. However, EPA will 

1260 consider developing a guidance document on the subject. 

1261 

1262 One commenter thought that vacuums that the manufacturer warns are not suitable for use with 

1263 hazardous substances or asbestos or lead cleanup should be prohibited from use. 

1264 

1265 EPA agrees that, if a manufacturer recommends that a particular vacuum not be used for leaded 

1266 dust cleanup, the vacuum should not be used for RRP purposes. EPA believes that the 

1267 requirement that vacuums be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

1268 recommendations will ensure that such vacuums are not used for RRP purposes. 

1269 

1270 Several commenters thought that the use of HEPA vacuums is unnecessary and that they are too 

1271 expensive. 

1272 

1273 EPA did not propose to eliminate the requirement that HEPA vacuums be used and is not 

1274 reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

1275 

1276 e-Learning

1277 

1278 Some commenters were concerned with verifying the identity of persons logging into e-learning 

1279 courses. Several noted that, because it is impossible to verify with certainty the identity of 

1280 persons completing online training, an in-person final course test is necessary to ensure that the 

1281 trainee is adequately trained. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1282 

1283 EPA generally agrees that it is important to be able to verify that the trainee who completes the 

1284 e-learning portion of the course is also the trainee who completes the hands-on training and the 

1285 course test. Accordingly, EPA is amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require e1286 learning training providers to assign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the 

1287 student’s progress through the course. EPA believes that this requirement, along with the 

1288 existing requirement that the trainee participate in the hands-on training and take the final course 

1289 test in person, will provide reasonable assurance that the same person has completed all of the 

1290 portions of the course. In response to these commenters, EPA is modifying the regulations to 

1291 specifically state that e-learning or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the 

1292 hands-on training, the final course test, or the proficiency test, if one is given. 

1293 

1294 One commenter was concerned about the possibility that trainees could complete EPA’s model 

1295 e-learning course for renovators in one hour. Thus, according to this commenter, trainees could 

1296 complete the entire renovator course in 3 hours (including the 2 hours for hands-on training), 

1297 which does not meet the 8-hour regulatory requirement. 

1298 

1299 EPA disagrees with this commenter. The current model course posted on the EPA website is not 

1300 a functioning course and does not contain the background learning management system (LMS) 

1301 which tracks the student’s progress and requires satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks 

1302 and the final test. Therefore, the time it takes to page through the model course is not 

1303 representative of the time it would take to successfully complete an accredited e-learning course. 

1304 Assuming that 2 training hours are spent on hands-on training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) 

1305 requires a minimum of six 50 minute training hours or 5 hours of classroom time for renovators. 

1306 This requirement applies equally to traditional classroom settings as well as to e-learning courses 

1307 course offered for accreditation. While EPA realizes that renovator trainees will not all proceed 

1308 through an e-learning course at the same pace, an e-learning course offered for accreditation 

1309 must be generally designed so that an average trainee takes approximately 5 hours to proceed 

1310 through the course, including all of the knowledge checks and the course test. 

1311 

1312 One commenter wondered about the duty of the training provider in evaluating the progress of 

1313 the student, and whether they should be evaluating the time spent on the course to complete the 

1314 training. The commenter also questioned the meaning of “track each student’s course log-in, 

1315 launches, progress, and completion.” The commenter wondered whether the intent of this 

1316 requirement was to provide overall documentation or whether it was to track progress while the 

1317 student is taking the course so that the instructor can intervene and make corrections. 

1318 

1319 The requirements to track a student’s progress are in place to ensure that the student reviews all 

1320 required portions of the course, completes the knowledge checks and passes the final exam. The 

1321 course was designed to be completed on the student’s schedule which will often be outside of 

1322 normal business hours. The accredited training provider should maintain a database of 

1323 frequently asked questions and/or respond within 24 hours to student e-mail and phone call 

1324 questions regarding the course. The training provider is required to track whether the student has 

1325 completed the training including answering all the knowledge check questions and passing the 

1326 electronic final exam. 

1327 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1328 One commenter thought that EPA’s proposed requirement of an 80% minimum passing score on 

1329 the course test for the online course was too restrictive. Another commenter disagreed, 

1330 reasoning that it was appropriate to have a higher passing score requirement for the e-learning 

1331 portion of a training course, because the student would have an opportunity to review the 

1332 material and retake the test. However, this commenter also thought that a 100% passing score 

1333 would be too restrictive, because it would likely results in students being penalized for poorly1334 worded questions or alternate interpretations, regardless of the state of the student’s knowledge. 

1335 

1336 EPA agrees with the second commenter. The 80% minimum passing score is intended to 

1337 demonstrate mastery of the subject and lower scores do not achieve this goal. If students do not 

1338 pass the test, they must review the material and try again. EPA understands that some students 

1339 may require significantly more than 6 training hours to complete the e-learning component. 

1340 

1341 One commenter supported required knowledge checks for e-learning courses, but thought that 

1342 EPA should use more flexible language, such as requiring the system to offer “periodic” 

1343 knowledge checks or another tool to ensure the student is actively engaged and retaining 

1344 information. 

1345 

1346 EPA agrees with this comment and will require periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the 

1347 number and content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s model course. This would be 

1348 16-24 knowledge checks over the entire course. 

1349 

1350 One commenter suggested that EPA consider separately accrediting entities that provide online 

1351 training and entities that provide hands-on training. The commenter argued that developing an 

1352 online course is a capital-intensive project that requires a large number of trainees to recover the 

1353 costs, so relatively few entities are likely to undertake online course development. In contrast, 

1354 the commenter stated that the delivery of hands-on training must be more local and mobile, it 

1355 requires a smaller capital investment, and each entity may have relatively few trainees. 

1356 

1357 EPA recognizes that this may be the case, at least for now, while EPA is administering the RRP 

1358 program in most States. However, this may change as more States become authorized and 

1359 impose requirements for training that may differ from the EPA requirements. In any event, EPA 

1360 has developed a streamlined process to allow accredited training providers to add an e-learning 

1361 component to their accreditation by using an already developed and accredited online course. 

1362 This allows accredited training providers to offer online training without having to make a large 

1363 capital outlay to develop a course. EPA continues to believe that the training provider who 

1364 issues the final course completion certificate to a trainee, thus conferring certified renovator 

1365 status on the trainee, must be responsible for ensuring that the student has completed all of the 

1366 required training. EPA does not offer partial accreditations, or accreditation for a portion of a 

1367 course. 

1368 

1369 A commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the hands-on training provider to 

1370 maintain records of the specific times each student logged in to the online portion of the course, 

1371 each student’s progress, and completion data. The commenter believed that, in the case where 

1372 the online provider and the hands-on provider are separate entities, working under a contractual 

1373 agreement to present an entire training course, it would be relatively easy for the online provider 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1374 to maintain the records. In contrast, the commenter thought that it would be much more 

1375 burdensome for EPA to require that the hands-on provider download or otherwise take 

1376 possession of these records. 

1377 

1378 EPA disagrees with this commenter, because EPA believes that the amount of data associated 

1379 with this particular requirement for each trainee is not substantial. However, if a particular 

1380 accredited training provider felt otherwise, the provider could contract with the provider of the 

1381 online training to store the records. Although the accredited training provider would remain 

1382 ultimately responsible for being able to produce those records, as long as the training provider is 

1383 able to produce them in response to a request from EPA, EPA would consider the training 

1384 provider in compliance with the recordkeeping requirements. 

1385 

1386 One commenter thought that the requirement that a student be able to generate an uneditable 

1387 copy of an e-learning course completion certificate was too stringent. The commenter pointed 

1388 out that almost anyone reasonably familiar with computers could alter a secure PDF, image, or 

1389 word processing file through the print function. 

1390 

1391 EPA agrees that this is a valid concern. EPA will add language to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) 

1392 to clarify that EPA merely meant that the certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and 

1393 easy editing by students. A secure PDF file would comply with these requirements. Allowing 

1394 students to generate and print the course completion certificate provides them with reasonable 

1395 certainty that they have completed the e-learning portion of the course before attempting the 

1396 hands-on portion. EPA recommends that accredited training providers verify through other 

1397 means, such as the e-learning progress records, that each student who completes the hands-on 

1398 training has also completed the online portion of the course before training providers issue the 

1399 final course completion certificate. 

1400 

1401 Trainee Photographs

1402 

1403 One commenter stated that trainee photographs on the course completion certificate for 

1404 renovators and dust sampling technicians should be in color. 

1405 

1406 Although EPA recommends that photographs be in color, this is not a requirement. The rule 

1407 requires that photos be recognizable. As long as they meet this requirement, EPA does not see 

1408 the need for a requirement that the photographs be in color. 

1409 

1410 One commenter stated that that the proposed requirements are adequate, and no further 

1411 clarifications of the photograph requirements are needed. 

1412 

1413 The Agency agrees with this comment and has finalized the requirement as proposed without 

1414 adding any additional requirements. 

1415 

1416 One commenter stated that EPA should require photographs on course completion certificates for 

1417 courses other than renovator or dust sampling technician in order to prevent fraud. 

1418 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1419 The Agency does not require pictures on the course completion certificates for the risk assessor, 

1420 inspector, supervisor, and worker courses because EPA issues a badge to each certified 

1421 individual that contains the individual’s picture. EPA believes that the photo on the badge 

1422 adequately addresses the issue raised by the commenter. 

1423 

1424 One commenter states that the recommendation that trainee photographs be 600 pixels high by 

1425 600 pixels wide is extremely burdensome to training providers. The commenter claims that 

1426 training providers must spend hours cropping photographs to meet this recommended size. The 

1427 commenter believes that the Agency should be less prescriptive with its photo recommendations. 

1428 

1429 EPA appreciates the information and will consider how it can change the recommended 

1430 photograph dimensions to make it less time consuming to submit photographs in post-training 

1431 notifications. 

1432 

1433 Hands-on

1434 

1435 A commenter wondered why report preparation would be a required hands-on topic for dust 

1436 sampling technicians when it has never been a hands-on topic for the other disciplines that must 

1437 prepare reports. 

1438 

1439 While it is true that hands-on training in report preparation is not required for most lead training 

1440 disciplines, it is required for the inspector discipline. Thus, certified inspectors and certified risk 

1441 assessors, who must successfully complete both the inspector course and the risk assessor course, 

1442 receive hands-on training in report preparation. EPA believes that report preparation for dust 

1443 sampling technicians is likewise important enough to warrant hands-on training in how to do it 

1444 properly. 

1445 

1446 Two commenters thought that requiring hands-on training for renovator refresher courses would 

1447 limit the availability of refresher training and increase costs unnecessarily. Both commenters 

1448 thought that enough information could probably be conveyed in a distance learning or e-learning 

1449 setting to warrant dispensing with the hands-on requirement for renovator courses. One 

1450 commenter pointed out that EPA’s current model refresher training course for renovators 

1451 contains two required hands-on skill sets—test kit usage and cleaning verification. This 

1452 commenter felt that this was appropriate, given that previously-trained individuals are still taking 

1453 advantage of the “grandfathering” provision that allows them to successfully complete an 

1454 accredited renovator refresher course to become certified renovators. Those individuals would 

1455 not have had previous training in those two skills, so hands-on training would be necessary. 

1456 However, once the grandfathering provision is no longer available, as discussed later in this 

1457 section of the preamble, all certified renovators would have had hands-on training in these skills. 

1458 

1459 EPA agrees with the second commenter that, for now, renovator refresher courses must include 

1460 hands-on training in test kit use and in cleaning verification. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

1461 proposed amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands-on training is 

1462 required for all refresher courses except project designer. EPA plans to re-evaluate the renovator 

1463 refresher course after the grandfathering provision sunsets, but before the currently-certified 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1464 renovators are due for refresher training. At that time, EPA will consider whether hands-on 

1465 training is still necessary and appropriate for renovator refresher training. 

1466 

1467 State Programs

1468 

1469 Several commenters thought that it would be unrealistic to expect states to make changes within 

1470 a year of EPA’s promulgation of regulatory amendments. These commenters thought that states 

1471 should be given two years, which is consistent with the current rules. 

1472 

1473 EPA inadvertently included the wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising 

1474 authorized State and Tribal programs to conform to revisions to the RRP rule. The existing 

1475 provisions at 40 CFR 745.326(f) give authorized State and Tribal programs two years from the 

1476 effective date of any EPA revisions to the RRP rule to demonstrate that the State or Tribal 

1477 program meets the requirements of the revised RRP rule. This two year period is also afforded 

1478 to States and Tribes that submit applications for authorization before the effective date of any 

1479 EPA revisions. EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States and Tribes 

1480 will still have two years to make changes to their programs necessitated by revisions to the 

1481 federal RRP program. 

1482 

1483 One commenter pointed out that EPA’s proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did 

1484 not accomplish EPA’s stated objective of clarifying that both individuals and firms must receive 

1485 certification. 

1486 

1487 EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text throughout this section 

1488 accordingly to ensure that EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA requires both renovators and 

1489 renovation firms to be certified. A renovator becomes certified by successfully completing an 

1490 accredited renovator training class. A renovation firm becomes certified by submitting an 

1491 application to EPA, attesting that it and its employees will follow the work practice standards at 

1492 40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a certification fee. EPA believes that, 

1493 in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as protective as EPA’s program, the State or 

1494 Tribal program must, at a minimum, require formal certification for renovation firms. States and 

1495 Tribes may, but are not required to, formally certify renovators. The certified renovation firm is 

1496 responsible not only for the behavior of its certified renovators but also for the other workers that 

1497 have been trained by the certified renovators. Thus, the renovation firm is ultimately responsible 

1498 for the proper performance of the renovation. Requiring formal certification for renovation firms 

1499 facilitates compliance monitoring and enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Tribal 

1500 programs. A program that only required formal certification for individual renovators and not 

1501 firms would not be as protective. 

1502 

1503 One commenter suggested that EPA consider requiring states to recognize the dust sampling 

1504 technician discipline because it would make services more affordable nationwide. 

1505 

1506 While nationwide dust sampling technician recognition might make services more affordable, 

1507 EPA does not have the authority to prohibit States and Tribes from having a more stringent 

1508 program than the EPA’s, e.g., requiring more training for persons collecting dust wipe samples 

1509 than EPA requires. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1510 

1511 Several state commenters argued that their legislatures had already created the authority to 

1512 establish an RRP program, but the maximum penalty amount was less than $10,000 per violation 

1513 per day. These States did not believe that they would be able to increase the maximum penalty 

1514 authority, because it was comparable to other programs administered by the State, or that it 

1515 would take several years to get an increase through the legislature, during which time EPA 

1516 would have to administer the program in their jurisdictions. One commenter argued that States 

1517 should be able to set fines based on the needs of the States not the implied need of the EPA. 

1518 

1519 EPA believes that strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and 

1520 Tribal programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child 

1521 occupied facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. Therefore, EPA 

1522 believes that it must establish a threshold for authorized State and Tribal enforcement programs. 

1523 However, EPA also agrees that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint 

1524 programs would be against very small entities. It is likely that the regulated community in the 

1525 lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has 

1526 established minimum penalty authorities, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

1527 (RCRA). Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal 

1528 programs of $5,000. EPA agrees that it will be responsible for administering the program in 

1529 those jurisdictions that do not meet these minimum enforcement program requirements. 

1530 

1531 At least two already-authorized State programs pointed out that they had been authorized with 

1532 maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000. One of these States also noted that it had 

1533 been effectively enforcing the Lead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre-Renovation 

1534 Education Program for years now with a maximum penalty authority of $5,000 per violation, and 

1535 the State did not believe that an increase in its maximum penalty authority would improve the 

1536 effectiveness of its programs in any way. 

1537 

1538 As discussed above, authorized State and Tribal programs will have two years from the effective 

1539 date of this rule to revise their programs to conform to the minimum enforcement program 

1540 requirements. EPA agrees that a lower maximum penalty authority is appropriate for authorized 

1541 State and Tribal lead-based paint programs and is establishing the threshold maximum penalty 

1542 authority at $5,000 per violation per day. 

1543 

1544 Some commenters also noted that most enforcement actions in an RRP program would be 

1545 against very small companies or individuals, and penalties of less than $10,000 per violation per 

1546 day would still be very effective deterrents for such entities. 

1547 

1548 EPA agrees that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs would 

1549 be against very small entities. Although small entities also violate RCRA, it is likely that the 

1550 regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other 

1551 programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities. Therefore, EPA is 

1552 establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000. 

1553 

1554 Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA’s proposed minimum penalty authority of 

1555 $10,000, arguing that substantial penalties are necessary to get the attention of the regulated 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1556 community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule’s success at protecting individuals 

1557 from exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 

1558 

1559 EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement program. 

1560 Strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and Tribal programs 

1561 is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied facilities 

1562 undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. However, EPA also agrees with those 

1563 States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs 

1564 would be against very small entities. Although small entities also violate RCRA, it is likely that 

1565 the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the 

1566 other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities. Therefore, EPA is 

1567 establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000. 

1568 

1569 State commenters did not favor adding a mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty 

1570 authorities for inflation. One environmental advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that 

1571 it should not be a barrier to State and Tribal program authorization. 

1572 

1573 EPA agrees with these commenters and no mechanism for adjusting these minimums for 

1574 inflation is included in this final rule. 

1575 

1576 Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be considered by States and Tribes when 

1577 imposing penalties for violations of their authorized programs. Several favored enforcement 

1578 history and risk, but not to the extent of treating first-time offenders too lightly. A handful of 

1579 commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be considered, 

1580 because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies. 

1581 

1582 EPA believes that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA 

1583 typically considers, such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation, the culpability of 

1584 the violator, history of prior violations, ability to pay or continue in business, voluntary 

1585 disclosure, and attitude of the violator. However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to 

1586 consider any of these factors. 

1587 

1588 Recordkeeping

1589 

1590 Two commenters thought that the training provider recordkeeping requirements for all 

1591 disciplines should be increased to 5 years. These commenters thought it would be less confusing 

1592 for training providers if there was one period applicable to all. One commenter pointed out that 

1593 EPA had extended the certification period for renovators trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 

1594 2015, so the training records for those trainees ought to be kept for as long as their certification 

1595 lasts. This commenter suggested that EPA require training records to be kept for 5 years or until 

1596 the expiration of certification resulting from the training, whichever is longer. 

1597 

1598 While EPA agrees that it may be easier for training providers to keep records for the same length 

1599 of time regardless of the discipline, EPA does not believe that it is necessary make this a 

1600 requirement. Training providers who prefer to have one single recordkeeping process can 

1601 always choose to maintain their records for 5 years across the board. Therefore, EPA is 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1602 promulgating the increased recordkeeping requirement for providers of accredited renovator and 

1603 dust sampling technician training as proposed. EPA also agrees with the commenter who 

1604 suggested that there be a longer recordkeeping requirement for renovator training courses offered 

1605 before April 22, 2010. Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirement that records for 

1606 renovator training courses completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015. 

1607 

1608 One commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the recordkeeping requirements 

1609 to accommodate the option of renovators collecting paint chip samples and include information 

1610 specific to paint chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identity of the 

1611 NLLAP entity analyzing the samples, and the sample results. 

1612 

1613 EPA agrees with this commenter. Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) to add a 

1614 new subsection (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint chip sample collection and analysis, 

1615 including a description of the components that were sampled, and the locations sampled, the 

1616 name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the analysis, and the results for 

1617 each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the 

1618 certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected 

1619 from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were submitted for analysis to 

1620 the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results were as specified. 

1621 

1622 Accreditation

1623 

1624 Two commenters supported the idea of combined renovator-worker and renovator-supervisor 

1625 refresher courses and thought they would provide increased flexibility for industry. One thought 

1626 that the certification time periods should be harmonized to 3 years for all disciplines because the 

1627 commenter believed that 5 years was too long to go without a refresher. The other commenter 

1628 did not think that harmonization was necessary, because the abatement worker or supervisor 

1629 would just take the combined refresher every three years to meet the shorter certification periods 

1630 in the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule. 

1631 

1632 EPA agrees with these commenters that combined refresher courses may be beneficial. While 

1633 the current regulations permit training providers to offer refresher courses sequentially, e.g., a 4-

1634 hour renovator course on the afternoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour worker course the next 

1635 day, taking the courses sequentially would result in some duplication of training topics for 

1636 persons certified as both renovators and abatement workers. On the other hand, EPA is not 

1637 certain that appropriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covered in a single 8-hour 

1638 day. EPA plans to evaluate the content of its supervisor, worker, and renovator refresher courses 

1639 to determine what an appropriate combined course length might be. Depending on the results of 

1640 this evaluation, EPA will consider amending these regulations to establish course length 

1641 requirements for combined refresher courses. 

1642 

1643 One commenter stated that EPA should streamline its process for accrediting training providers. 

1644 The commenter claimed that the 180 days that EPA is allowed for processing applications for 

1645 training provider accreditations is too long and that it should be shortened to 45 days if the 

1646 application uses the EPA model course or 90 days if it develops its own course. The commenter 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1647 further claimed that EPA merely ensures the training provider applicants meet a checklist of 

1648 requirements which should not take 180 days to review. 

1649 

1650 EPA disagrees with this comment. While the Agency is has 180 days to approve or deny 

1651 applications for accreditation, it strives to complete this process as quickly as possible. The time 

1652 it takes to accredit an applicant depends on various factors including Agency resources, the 

1653 number of applications EPA is reviewing at any given time, and how quickly the applicant 

1654 responds to Agency questions about the application. In addition, EPA does more than simply 

1655 review a checklist of requirements. Agency staff conduct site visits of training facilities and 

1656 view demonstrations of the trainings. They also review various parts of an application including 

1657 the quality control plan, descriptions of activities and procedures for conducting the hands-on 

1658 skills assessment, lists of equipment that will be used for the lecture and hands-on portions of a 

1659 course, and course test blueprints, among other things. If any of these pieces of the application 

1660 are deficient, the Agency will work with the applicant to address the deficiencies. Based on the 

1661 amount of work that is involved in accrediting a training provider and the variability among 

1662 applicants, EPA does not intend to shorten the 180 time limit at this time. 

1663 

1664 One commenter stated that EPA should be more consistent among its regional offices in 

1665 accrediting training providers. The commenter pointed out that the student to instructor ratios 

1666 and the format of training demonstrations can vary among the different regional offices. 

1667 

1668 The Agency understands that training provider reviews can be slightly different among the ten 

1669 regional offices. To address this, the Agency has developed policies for accrediting training 

1670 providers that the regional offices follow. In addition, EPA holds regular meetings among staff 

1671 from the ten regional offices and headquarters to share information on the accreditation process. 

1672 

1673 Grandfathering

1674 

1675 One commenter argued that the grandfathering provision should only apply to certified 

1676 abatement workers or supervisors, not workers or supervisors who have only taken the course 

1677 but are not currently certified. This commenter asserts that certified individuals will receive 

1678 updated information by taken the required refresher course every three years. The commenter 

1679 believes that those who do not receive the updated information because their certification has 

1680 lapsed should have to take the 8-hour initial renovator course. 

1681 

1682 Even if individuals do not take the refresher abatement work or supervisor courses, these 

1683 individuals have still received significant training in the required RRP work practices such as 

1684 establishing containment and cleaning the area after the job is finished. Thus, the Agency 

1685 believes that someone who has not taken the refresher abatement worker or supervisor course 

1686 should still qualify for the refresher training. 

1687 

1688 One commenter states that EPA should continue grandfathering individuals who completed and 

1689 EPA-accredited abatement worker or supervisor course until it can offer a combined course in 

1690 abatement and renovations. 

1691 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 38 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1692 The Agency disagrees with this comment. A combined refresher course would allow individuals 

1693 to more readily be able to keep up their dual certifications. EPA does not believe that the 

1694 availability of a combined abatement worker or supervisor refresher course is relevant to whether 

1695 someone should be eligible for the refresher renovator course. 

1696 

1697 One commenter pointed out that the grandfathering date in the preamble to the proposed rule did 

1698 not match the date in the proposed regulations and that the two date should be consistent. 

1699 

1700 The Agency agrees that the dates should have been consistent and will change the grandfathering 

1701 date in the regulations to the effective date of the final rule. 

1702 

1703 Other Proposed Amendments and Related Comments

1704 

1705 One commenter thought that, before starting the course, the training provider should be required 

1706 to supply a paper copy of the specific training manual to each student. 

1707 

1708 The commenter did not supply a reason for imposing such a requirement and EPA believes that 

1709 training providers generally do this as a matter of course. 

1710 

1711 One commenter thought EPA should update the abatement courses because the commenter 

1712 believes that they are very out of date. 

1713 

1714 While EPA does not necessarily agree that the abatement courses are very out of date, in the 

1715 future EPA will nonetheless consider whether the abatement course should be updated. 

1716 

1717 One commenter thought that EPA should require the OSHA regulations to be taught in the 

1718 course. A certified firm was fined by OSHA for not knowing whether the HEPA respirators 

1719 being worn were appropriate. 

1720 

1721 EPA does not believe that this is an appropriate requirement for EPA to impose, and OSHA 

1722 already requires employees to be trained in its standards. 

1723 

1724 One commenter noted 40 CFR 745.89(c) conflicts with the proposed change to 745.92(b)(3) 

1725 regarding fees for certification amendments. 

1726 

1727 EPA agrees with this commenter and will modify 40 CFR 745.89(c) to make it clear that no fee 

1728 is required for a firm certification amendment. 

1729 

1730 One commenter stated that EPA should require certified inspectors and risk assessors to received 

1731 training specific to the RRP rule. Such items would include dust sampling, clearance testing, 

1732 paint testing, documentation, reporting and recordkeeping. 

1733 

1734 The Agency disagrees that inspectors and risk assessors need additional training specific to the 

1735 RRP rule in the areas of dust sampling, clearance testing, paint testing, documentation, reporting 

1736 and recordkeeping. Inspectors and risk assessors currently receive training in dust sampling, 

1737 clearance testing, and paint testing. These skills can be used when doing the clearance testing 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 39 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1738 that is optional under the RRP rule. Furthermore, the RRP rule does not change the requirements 

1739 for work performed by inspectors and risk assessors. Consequently, EPA does not intend on 

1740 changing the requirements for inspectors and risk assessor training courses. 

1741 

1742 One commenter stated that EPA should keep the RRP rule consistent with other lead laws being 

1743 implemented throughout the country. The commenter pointed out that the many different laws 

1744 with different standards create confusion resulting in less compliance, which will lead to more 

1745 unsafe conditions. The commenter specifically requested that EPA use a de minimis standard of 

1746 2 square feet or 10% when determining what work qualifies as minor repair and maintenance. 

1747 

1748 While EPA agrees that consistency with other programs is an important consideration in 

1749 promulgating regulations, consistency is not always the best approach. For example, as 

1750 discussed previously in this document, HUD’s Lead-safe Housing Rule and EPA’s RRP rule 

1751 have very different purposes. As such, consistency in all provisions is not necessarily desirable 

1752 or appropriate. 

1753 

1754 With respect to the minor maintenance standard EPA adopted for renovations in the 2008 RRP 

1755 rule, EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

1756 

1757 Renovator course trainers should have to have at least the abatement worker class and attend a 

1758 renovator course. Persons taking the dust sampling tech course and attending the renovator 

1759 course are not qualified to teach the renovator course. 

1760 

1761 In the final Opt-Out Rule, EPA reduced the prerequisite lead-based paint training requirement for 

1762 principal instructors from 16 hours to 8 hours for several reasons, including available training 

1763 capacity and subject matter relevance. EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

1764 

1765 Several commenters supported lowering the dust-lead hazard standards and modifying the 

1766 definition of lead-based paint. One specifically noted that it is confusing for trainees to 

1767 distinguish between EPA/HUD hazard levels and the OSHA threshold of “any detectable 

1768 concentration of lead in paint.” 

1769 

1770 While not part of this rulemaking, in October 2009, EPA granted a petition requesting a re1771 evaluation of EPA’s dust-lead hazard standards and the regulatory definition of lead-based paint. 

1772 

1773 Miscellaneous Comments

1774 

1775 Some contractors argued that EPA does not have the authority to promulgate work practice 

1776 standards for RRP activities. According to these commenters, in enacting Section 402(c) of 

1777 TSCA, Congress was very careful to distinguish between lead-based paint activities and RRP 

1778 activities, and the subsection does not explicitly authorize EPA to promulgate regulations 

1779 affecting the work practice standards for RRP activities, e.g., requiring clearance testing. The 

1780 commenters mention TSCA Section 402(c)(1), which authorizes EPA to “promulgate guidelines 

1781 for the conduct of such renovation and remodeling activities which may create a risk of exposure 

1782 to dangerous levels of lead.” The commenters further note that Section 402(c)(3) requires EPA 

1783 to revise the regulations developed for abatement and other lead-based paint activities to apply to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 40 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1784 renovation and remodeling activities. However, the commenters argue that Congress intended 

1785 that EPA would apply appropriate certification requirements developed in connection with lead1786 based paint activities to RRP contractors but that work practice standards – including clearance 

1787 testing requirements – would remain the subject of guidelines, not regulations. 

1788 

1789 EPa is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. Nonetheless, EPA disagrees with these 

1790 commenters. EPA’s interpretation of TSCA Section 402(c)(3) is that Congress intended EPA to 

1791 revise the entire set of lead-based paint activities regulations to apply to renovation and 

1792 remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Indeed, one possible interpretation is 

1793 that Congress directed EPA to simply revise the lead based paint regulations by expanding them 

1794 to apply to renovation and remodeling activities. Nonetheless, EPA has interpreted the directive 

1795 to “revise” the lead-base paint activities regulations as allowing EPA to make common sense 

1796 changes to the lead-based paint activities regulations to address a the differences between 

1797 renovators and abatement contractors. In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenters’ 

1798 interpretation that 403(c)(1) somehow precludes EPA from regulating renovation activities and 

1799 establishing lead safe work practices. Indeed, EPA believes that the commenters’ interpretation 

1800 of section 402(c) makes little sense. Under section 402(a), Congress first directed EPA to 

1801 promulgate, within 18 months, regulations concerning lead-based paint activities, i.e., activities 

1802 designed to remove known lead-based paint hazards. At the same time, under section 402(c), 

1803 Congress expressed a concern about renovation activities generally and directed EPA to first 

1804 issue guidelines (also within 18 months) for renovation activities that “may” create a risk of 

1805 exposure to dangerous levels of lead. In the context of section 402(c), these guidelines are best 

1806 understood as an interim step because Congress then gave EPA more time (a total of 30 months) 

1807 to study renovation activities to determine, among other things, the extent to which renovation 

1808 activities create a lead-based paint hazard. As a final step, Congress directed EPA to regulate 

1809 renovation activities that EPA (after the studying the issue) has determined create lead-based 

1810 paint hazards. No reasonable reading of 402(c) suggests that Congress merely intended EPA to 

1811 issue guidelines and thereafter to study the extent to which renovation activities create lead1812 based paint hazards but then to revise the TSCA § 402(a) regulations to address activities that 

1813 create lead-based paint hazards without regard to work practice standards governing those 

1814 activities. 

1815 

1816 Several commenters argued that EPA has not established that the activities regulated under the 

1817 RRP rule create lead-based paint hazards. 

1818 

1819 EPA addressed this issue in the underlying RRP rule and is not reopening or reconsidering this 

1820 issue. 

1821 

1822 Several commenters argue that EPA cannot regulate renovation, repair, and painting activities 

1823 because the studies performed to determine whether such activities create lead-based paint 

1824 hazards are flawed and do not establish a direct connection between renovation, repair, and 

1825 painting activities and increased childhood or worker blood lead levels. 

1826 

1827 EPA has already addressed this argument in the preamble to the 2008 final RRP rule and is not 

1828 reopening or reconsidering the issue here. 

1829 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 41 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1830 One commenter suggested that EPA focus its regulatory efforts on heavy metals in fish. 

1831 

1832 EPA agrees that there are many potential sources of lead that may contribute to the problem of 

1833 childhood lead poisoning. However, this regulation is being issued pursuant to TSCA § 

1834 402(c)(3), and therefore only applies to renovation and remodeling activities. EPA notes, 

1835 however that this regulation is only one piece of the Federal, State, and local efforts to reduce 

1836 exposures to lead and eliminate childhood lead poisoning. 

1837 

1838 One commenter asked EPA to limit the amount that states can charge contractors for 

1839 certification. 

1840 

1841 EPA does not have the authority to regulate state certification fees. 

1842 

1843 One commenter suggested that EPA allow building supply retailers to sell the Cleaning 

1844 Verification Cards. 

1845 

1846 While EPA will take this commenter’s suggestion under consideration, EPA produces and 

1847 distributes the cleaning verification cards through accredited training providers and the National 

1848 Lead Information Center because EPA believes that exercising sufficient quality control during 

1849 card production is critical to the success of the RRP cleaning protocol after renovations. 

1850 

1851 One commenter requested that EPA clarify its interpretation of the test kit provisions, i.e., that 

1852 EPA could approve kits before September 1, 2010 and allow their use until an improved kit is 

1853 recognized. 

1854 

1855 The currently recognized test kits did not automatically lose their recognition on September 1, 

1856 2010. As discussed in the 2008 RRP rule, prior to September 1, 2010, manufacturers seeking 

1857 recognition of their test kit must meet only false negative response criterion, and that recognition 

1858 of kits meeting this criterion will last until EPA publicizes its recognition of a kit that passes both 

1859 the false negative and the false positive criteria. 

1860 

1861 One commenter argued that the model renovator training course spends too much time on the 

1862 specifics of the rule and not enough on health effects, which would motivate workers to follow 

1863 the lead-safe work practices. 

1864 

1865 EPA appreciates this commenter’s concern. EPA continues to monitor and evaluate the content 

1866 of the course. Given the skills and tasks required by the rule that must be covered in the course, 

1867 EPA believes that the appropriate weight is being given to the health effects of lead. 

1868 

1869 One commenter thought training requirements should include more hands-on time, for example, 

1870 the commenter noted that the Washington weatherization program requires 6 hours of hands-on 

1871 training. 

1872 

1873 EPA disagrees with this commenter. While hands-on training is beneficial, EPA believes that 

1874 the hands-on skills required to be presented in the renovator course can adequately be covered in 

1875 two hours. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 42 of 42 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 03/2107/15/2011 

1876 

1877 One commenter contended that regulatory policy shouldn’t address pets. 

1878 

1879 Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is charged with protecting human health and the 

1880 environment. Unfortunately, the effects of lead-based paint hazards are not limited to children or 

1881 even just humans. Lead poisoning from renovations has been documented in both cats and dogs. 

1882 This is often the first indicator that families have of human exposure as well. Moreover, in our 

1883 society pets can be highly valued. Thus, in assessing the impacts of the rule, EPA has chosen not 

1884 to ignore the concern over lead poisoning in pets from renovation activities. 

1885 

1886 Several commenters thought EPA should require homeowners to use contractors who follow 

1887 RRP rules. 

1888 

1889 As discussed, EPA interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation 

1890 activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category 

1891 of persons, such as homeowners. Thus, the RRP rule does not include provisions directly 

1892 applicable to homeowners, with the exception of homeowners who renovate rental property. 

1893 

1894 Replacement components for which documentation is available should be exempt from the rule. 

1895 

1896 The RRP rule provides a mechanism for this, by allowing certified inspectors and risk assessors 

1897 to make determinations based on property records. See 40 CFR 745.227(b)(2). EPA believes 

1898 that it would be difficult to establish criteria for documentation of replacement components that 

1899 could be applied by certified renovators. Renovators do not have training in identifying painting 

1900 histories and making other judgments of what to test.