*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 1 of 67

1 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

2 

3 EO 12866 Review Draft of 04/22/2010 as compared to that of 02/19/2010 

4 

5 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

7 40 CFR Part 745

8 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–XXXX–X]8823–7]

9 RIN 2070–AJ55

10 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, 

11 Repair, and Painting Program

12 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

13 ACTION: Final rule. 

14 SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

15 Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule 

16 established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 

17 practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 

18 housing and child-occupied facilities. In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” 

19 provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice 

20 requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he 

21 or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is 

22 not a child-occupied facility. EPA is also requiring renovation firms to provide a copy of the 

23 records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP 

24 rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of 

25 the child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes minor changes to the certification, 

26 accreditation and state authorization requirements. 

27 DATES: This final rule is effective [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 2 of 67

28 Register]. 

29 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 

30 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 

31 available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not 

32 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

33 disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 

34 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available 

35 docket materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

36 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 

37 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

38 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

39 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 

40 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 

41 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, 

42 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 

43 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 

44 the building and returned upon departure. 

45 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

46 

47 For general information contact: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental 

48 Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

49 Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

50 number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

51 For technical information contact: Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals 

52 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

53 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–0758; e-
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 3 of 67

54 mail address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov.edmonds.marc@epa.gov.

55 For general information contact: The TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton 

56 Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA57 Hotline@epa.gov.

58 Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through 

59 TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

60 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

61 

62 I. General Information 

63 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

64 You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required 

65 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who must be certified to conduct 

66 renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.89, or if you are an individual who must be 

67 certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. 

68 This final rule applies only in States, Territories, and Indian Tribal areas that do not have 

69 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the 

70 authorization status of States, Territories, and Indian Tribes, contact the National Lead 

71 Information Center (NLIC) at 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech-challenged 

72 individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 

73 1–800–877–8339. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: 

74 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, multi75 family housing construction, residential remodelers. 

76 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 

77 contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 4 of 67

78 contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 

79 glass and glazing contractors. 

80 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 

81 residential property managers. 

82 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 

83 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 

84 kindergarten classrooms. 

85 • Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers. 

86 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS code 

87 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 

88 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors engaged in 

89 lead-based paint activities. 

90 This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

91 regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 

92 could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 

93 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 

94 certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you 

95 should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 

96 CFR 745.226. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 

97 entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

98 CONTACT. 

99 II. Background 

100 A. Agency's Authority for Taking this Action 

101 This final rule is being issued under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 5 of 67

102 (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 

103 B. Introduction 

104 In the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008, under the authority of sections 

105 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). The final RRP 

106 rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses lead-based paint hazards 

107 created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted surfaces in target 

108 housing and child-occupied facilities. 

109 Shortly after the RRP rule was published, several petitions were filed challenging the 

110 rule. These petitions were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 

111 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and 

112 children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. In this agreement EPA 

113 committed to propose several changes to the RRP rule, including the changes discussed in this 

114 document regarding the opt-out provision and recordkeeping requirements. 

115 The RRP rule establishes requirements for training renovators, other renovation workers, 

116 and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 

117 renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training; 

118 for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian 

119 Tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of 

120 the new renovation requirements. More information on the RRP rule may be found in the 

121 Federal Register document announcing the RRP rule or on EPA's website at 

122 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm. 

123 Many provisions of the RRP rule were derived from the existing lead-based paint 

124 activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). These existing regulations were 

125 promulgated in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), which defines lead-based paint activities in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 6 of 67

126 target housing as inspections, risk assessments, and abatements. The 1996 regulations cover 

127 lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities, along with limited 

128 screening activities called lead hazard screens. These regulations established an accreditation 

129 program for training providers and a certification program for individuals and firms performing 

130 these activities. Training course accreditation and individual certification was made available in 

131 five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abatement supervisor, and abatement 

132 worker. In addition, these lead-based paint activities regulations established work practice 

133 standards and recordkeeping requirements for lead-based paint activities in target housing and 

134 child-occupied facilities. 

135 The RRP rule created two new training disciplines in the field of lead-based paint: 

136 Renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who successfully complete renovator training 

137 from an accredited training provider are certified renovators. Certified renovators are 

138 responsible for ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are performed in compliance 

139 with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 745.85. Persons who successfully 

140 complete dust sampling technician training from an accredited training provider are certified dust 

141 sampling technicians. Certified dust sampling technicians may be called upon to collect dust 

142 samples after renovation activities have been completed. 

143 The RRP rule contains a number of work practice requirements that must be followed for 

144 every covered renovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. These requirements 

145 pertain to warning signs and work area containment, the restriction or prohibition of certain 

146 practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power planing), waste handling, cleaning, 

147 and post-renovation cleaning verification. The firm must ensure compliance with these work 

148 practices. Although the certified renovator is not required to be on-site at all times, while the 

149 renovation project is ongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 7 of 67

150 being performed by other workers to ensure that the work practices are being followed. 

151 

152 C. Opt-out Provision 

153 The RRP rule included a provision that exempts a renovation firm from the training and 

154 work practice requirements of the rule when the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a 

155 residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home 

156 and the home is not a child-occupied facility. Unless the target housing meets the definition of a 

157 child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child under age 6 and no 

158 pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will not be 

159 required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA’s RRP rule, the renovation activity 

160 is not subject to the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the rule. 

161 Conversely, if the owner-occupant does not sign the certification and acknowledgement for any 

162 reason (even if no children under age 6 or no pregnant women reside there), the renovation is 

163 subject to the requirements of the RRP rule. 

164 Even though the Agency included the opt-out provision in the final RRP rule, EPA 

165 recognized that the opt-out presented concerns for exposure to children under age 6. 

166 Nonetheless, EPA explained that it believed it should focus the rule on scenarios with the 

167 greatest exposure to children under age 6, that concerns for new homeowners would be mitigated 

168 to some extent by the requirements of the “Disclosure Rule”, and that older children and adults 

169 did not ingest lead-dust at as high a rate a toddlers and therefore high dust lead levels present a 

170 much greater risk to a young child than they do for an older child or adult. After promulgation, 

171 the rule, and specifically the opt-out provision, was challenged. As part of a settlement 

172 agreement, EPA agreed to propose removing the opt-out provision. 

173 On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to remove the opt-out provision. For the reasons 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 8 of 67

174 discussed in this Unit, the Agency has now concluded that it is important to require the RRP 

175 work practices and training and certification requirements in target housing even if there is no 

176 child under age 6 or pregnant woman residing there. By removing the opt-out provision, the rule 

177 will go farther toward protecting children under age 6 and pregnant women, as well as older 

178 children and adult occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman 

179 resides. Therefore, the opt-out provision will no longer be available to owner-occupants 

180 beginning on the effective date of this final rule. 

181 EPA believes the opt-out provision is not sufficiently protective for children under age 6 

182 and pregnant women, the most vulnerable populations identified in the RRP rule. As pointed out 

183 by a number of commenters on the RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not protect families with 

184 young children who may purchase recently renovated target housing. Removal of the opt-out 

185 will result in fewer homes being purchased with lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and 

186 painting activities. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out provision was limited to owner-occupied 

187 target housing and did not extend to vacant rental housing because of the concern that future 

188 tenants could unknowingly move into a rental unit where dust-lead hazards created by the 

189 renovation are present. In the same way, dust-lead hazards created during renovations in an 

190 owner-occupied residence conducted prior to a sale will be present for the next occupants. It is 

191 common for home owners to hire contractors to perform activities that disturb paint before 

192 selling a house, thus increasing the likelihood of lead hazards being present for someone buying 

193 a home, which may include a family with a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman. There are 

194 other benefits to removing the opt-out provision, including protection for family pets, as lead 

195 poisonings resulting from renovations have been documented in both cats and dogs (Refs. 17 and 

196 18).
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 9 of 67

197 In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA explained that it believed the Disclosure Rule, 40 

198 CFR part 745, subpart F (required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based 

199 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–550), would help to address these 

200 concerns. The Disclosure Rule requires sellers of target housing to disclose known lead-based 

201 paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers and provide them with a copy of the 

202 lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 

203 14). EPA explained the receipt of this information could prompt the family to inquire about 

204 potential lead-based paint hazards in the home. In addition, EPA recommended that purchasers 

205 take advantage of their statutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk 

206 assessment done while in the process of purchasing target housing. 

207 

208 In supporting the proposal to remove the opt-out provision, one commenter disagreed that 

209 the Disclosure Rule adequately addresses the risks to subsequent owners of target housing that 

210 undergo renovations under the opt-out provision. In particular, this commenter pointed out that 

211 there is nothing in the Disclosure Rule to alert homeowners to the fact that RRP work practice 

212 requirements were not followed before they purchased the home. Indeed, the Disclosure Rule only 

213 requires disclosure of known hazards. It would not require disclosure of renovation activities or that 

214 the owner opted out of the RRP rule requirements. The commenter further states that it is 

215 unreasonable to assume that a typical homeowner or someone renting a previously owner-occupied 

216 dwelling would know the detailed exemptions on the RRP rule. 

217 

218 The Agency continues to believe that the Disclosure Rule provides valuable information 

219 to homeowners and that this information may help homeowners become aware of lead hazards. 

220 However, EPA’s study on the Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 

221 and Painting Activities (the “Dust Study”, Ref. 11), demonstrated that renovation, repair, and 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 10 of 67

222 painting activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The study 

223 also showed that the RRP work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to dust hazards 

224 that could result from renovation activities. As the commenter pointed out, the Disclosure Rule 

225 will not, in many cases, provide the type of renovation specific lead hazard information or 

226 provide recipients information that can be said to reliably or effectively result in minimizing 

227 exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities. Thus, there is little 

228 evidence to suggest that the provisions of the Disclosure Rule are effective or reliable at 

229 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities in target 

230 housing. In addition, even if the Disclosure Rule reliably disclosed relevant information relating 

231 to earlier renovation activities, EPA does not believe this would be an adequate substitute for the 

232 work practice standards, which EPA has a record basis to conclude actually result in elimination 

233 – rather than simply disclosure -- of the hazards created by renovations. 

234 Perhaps in recognition of this shortcoming, one commenter suggested that EPA should 

235 revise the Disclosure Rule, as opposed to making changes to the RRP rule. That would not, 

236 however, satisfy EPA’s obligation under section 402 to put into place standards that take into 

237 account reliability, effectiveness, and safety to address lead-based paint hazards created by 

238 renovation activities in target housing. Moreover, the Disclosure Rule was jointly promulgated 

239 by EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thus, changes would involve 

240 a joint rulemaking effort and are not wholly within EPA’s control. Furthermore, changes to the 

241 Disclosure Rule would need to be analyzed in the context of the underlying statute—not just 

242 because it might be helpful in the context of actions taken by EPA under a different statutory 

243 provision. In short, while this is a suggestion that may be worth pursuing, it does not address the 

244 present issue; that of reliably and effectively minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

245 created by renovation activities. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 11 of 67

246 

247 Furthermore, EPA is concerned about the effectiveness of disclosure with respect to 

248 populations with the highest risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Non-Hispanic black 

249 children and children from low-incomeChildren in minority populations and children whose

250 families are poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels.level s(Ref. 3, at 

251 e376). Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data 

252 show from 1988 through 2004 shows that overall the incidencethe prevalence of elevated blood 

253 lead levels have equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 1 to 5 years has decreased for 

254 all groups assessed. from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-2004, which is an 84% decline 

255 (Ref. 3, at e377). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic 

256 black children aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead levels equal to or 

257 exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) (Ref. 3). , In 

258 addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the geometric mean blood lead 

259 level was significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican 

260 Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/dL). ) (Ref. 3, at e377). For children 

261 aged 1- to 5 years from families with low income, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2.54

262 μg/dL. (Ref. 3, at e377). Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 ug/dL and 

263 greater than or equal to 5ug/dL were higher for non-hispanic Hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4% 

264 respectively) than for Mexican Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic 

265 whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively). (Ref. 3, at e377). The “analysis indicates that residence in 

266 older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher 

267 lead levels” (Ref. 3, at e376). EPA is concerned that disclosure may be ineffective with respect 

268 to these populations already at higher risk of having elevated blood lead levels because the 

269 effectiveness of disclosure depends on the recipient’s understanding the significance of the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 12 of 67

270 disclosure and having the means and ability to act upon the information. 

271 This also relates to practical issues that have implications for the RRP rule in general, and 

272 for high risk, low-income, minority populations in particular. The opt-out is a relatively 

273 complicated overlay to the applicability provisions of the rule. EPA believes there are practical 

274 benefits to removing the opt-out and simplifying the applicability of the rule—both for 

275 renovators and homeowners. The opt-out provision complicates the outreach and education 

276 about lead hazards and makes the rule more complicated for renovators to apply and consumers 

277 to understand. Furthermore, it not only assumes literacy but also a working knowledge of what 

278 the rule would otherwise require and an ability to provide informed consent. Accordingly, EPA 

279 believes that populations that already have the highest risk factors for lead exposure may be 

280 disproportionately adversely affected by the complexity of a rule that contains the opt-out 

281 provision. More generally, EPA believes that the more uniform the application of the rule work 

282 practices in target housing is, the more effective and reliable they will be at minimizing exposure 

283 to lead-based paint hazards. Contractors who have a single set of work practices that are to be 

284 applied in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities will be more likely to apply them 

285 consistently and correctly. 

286 Renovations performed under the opt-out provision are also likely to result in exposures 

287 for vulnerable populations in other ways. Visiting children who do not spend enough time in the 

288 housing to render it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead from playing 

289 in dust-lead hazards created by renovations. For example, children may spend time in the homes 

290 of grandparents, but those homes may be eligible for the opt-out provision of the RRP rule. A 

291 homeowner who signs an opt-out statement may not realize that she is pregnant. For example, 

292 “A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse” describes 

293 four cases of childhood lead poisoning and two cases of adult lead toxicity resulting from a 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 13 of 67

294 renovation. One of the adults was a woman who did not realize she was pregnant until after the 

295 exposure occurred. (Ref. 16) 

296 Eliminating the opt-out provision will also protect families with young children residing 

297 near or adjacent to homes undergoing renovations. Under the RRP rule, an owner occupant can 

298 take advantage of the opt-out provision even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman lives in 

299 an adjacent home. Renovations on the exterior of a residence can spread leaded dust and debris 

300 some distance from the renovation activity, which is why, for regulated renovations, EPA 

301 requires renovation firms to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

302 material a distance of 10 feet from the renovation and take extra precautions when in certain 

303 situations to ensure that dust and debris does not contaminate other buildings or other areas of 

304 the property or migrate to adjacent properties. One commenter cited a study that shows housing 

305 in urban areas, such as Chicago, tend to be only three to five meters apart, highlighting the 

306 likelihood of lead contamination of adjacent prosperities in urban neighborhoods. Similarly, 

307 another commenter stated that in urban communities, many if not most of the homes are side by 

308 side. There are approximately 2 million owner-occupied, single-family attached homes (e.g., 

309 townhomes, semi-detached or duplex homes) built before 1978. Renovations on the exteriors of 

310 these homes are likely to contaminate neighboring yards and porches resulting in exposure 

311 outside the house as well as inside because dust can be tracked into the home. Many more 

312 owner-occupied, single-family detached homes are located in close proximity to each other, and 

313 renovations performed under the opt-out provision present a similar risk for these homes. 

314 Another factor that EPA did not fully consider in promulgating the original RRP rule, but that 

315 weighs heavily against the opt-out provision, is that the risks posed by the opt-out with respect to 

316 exterior work will disproportionally affect children that are already at the highest risk for higher 

317 blood lead levels—low income, non-Hispanic black children living in older housing in urban 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 14 of 67

318 areas, which is likely to be comprised of attached, or closely constructed detached, homes. 

319 While the RRP rule focused principally on protecting children under age 6, it is well 

320 known that older children and adults can also suffer adverse effects from lead exposure. Adults 

321 are susceptible to lead effects at lower blood lead levels than previously understood (e.g., Ref.

322 13, p. 8– 25). Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead 

323 exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood 

324 pressure and incidence of hypertension. A meta-analysis of numerous studies estimates that a 

325 doubling of blood-Lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase 

326 in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. The evidence for an 

327 association of lead with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is limited but supportive. (Ref.

328 13, p E-10). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6 and 8 of EPA’s Air Quality 

329 Criteria Document for Lead (Ref. 13), “neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovascular effects 

330 in adults are among those best substantiated as occurring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 

331 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public 

332 health concern’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–60). With regard to blood lead levels in individual children 

333 associated with particular neurological effects, the Criteria Document states “Collectively, the 

334 prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies offer evidence that exposure to lead affects the 

335 intellectual attainment of preschool and school age children at blood lead levels <10 μg/dL (most 

336 clearly in the 5 to 10 μg/dL range, but, less definitively, possibly lower).” (Ref. 13, p. 6–269). 

337 Epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead exposure and 

338 enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and 

339 incidence of hypertension. As one commenter pointed out, the half-life of lead in bone is 

340 approximately 20 years. Thus, women of child-bearing age exposed to lead will retain higher 

341 levels of lead in their bodies throughout their child-bearing years. When pregnancy occurs, lead 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 15 of 67

342 can be transferred to the fetus causing an array of adverse effects. EPA now believes the opt-out 

343 provision does not sufficiently account for the importance of the health effects of lead exposure 

344 to adults and children age 6 and older by allowing renovations to be performed without 

345 following the RRP rule requirements in housing that qualified for the opt-out. In supporting the 

346 final RRP rule, EPA stated that older children and adults do not ingest dust at the same high rate 

347 that a toddler does. This is corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis of studies of children’s hand348 to-mouth behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this analysis indicates, this does not mean that hand349 to-mouth behavior is not a potential concern for older children. According to the meta-analysis, 

350 the average indoor hand-to-mouth behavior ranged from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, with the 

351 lowest value corresponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest value corresponding to the 

352 3 to < 6 month olds. Average outdoor hand-to-mouth frequency ranged from 2.9 to 14.5 

353 contacts/hour, with the lowest value corresponding to the 6 to <11 year olds and the highest 

354 value corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month olds. Although toddlers have a higher incidence of 

355 hand-to-mouth behavior than 6 to < 11 year olds, the latter group still averages more than 6 

356 contacts/hour. Further elevated blood lead levels do occur in children older than 6 and adults 

357 (Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows that when the RRP requirements are not followed, renovation 

358 activities result in dust lead levels that can be orders of magnitude above the hazard standard and 

359 that can be orders of magnitude higher than if the RRP requirements are followed. EPA believes 

360 the information from this meta-analysis provides corroborating support for EPA’s concern for 

361 children 6 and older and its decision to eliminate the opt-out provision. 

362 

363 The Agency believes that it should only allow provisions such as the opt-out for 

364 situations where the information available to EPA indicates that the RRP rule work practices are 

365 not necessary to minimize exposure of occupants to lead paint hazards. Because lead paint dust 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 16 of 67

366 exposure can cause adverse health effects for populations other than just children under age 6 

367 and renovations can result in lead dust levels many times higher than the hazard standard, EPA 

368 believes the work practices should be followed in target housing without regard to the age of the 

369 occupants. 

370 

371 Moreover, EPA believes that implementing the regulations without the opt-out 

372 provision promotes, to a greater extent, the statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering 

373 renovation activities in target housing. Among other things, TSCA section 402(c)(3), directs 

374 EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to renovation activities that create lead-based paint 

375 hazards in target housing. Section 401(17) of TSCA defines target housing as “any housing 

376 constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any 

377 child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing for the 

378 elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.” Pursuant to section 403 of 

379 TSCA, EPA has identified dust-lead hazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities as 

surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft2 380 

on floors or 250 μg/ft2 381 on windowsills. In the RRP rule, EPA found that renovation, repair, and 

382 painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. Thus, 

383 renovations in target housing that create lead-based paint hazards should be covered unless there 

384 is a record basis to conclude that coverage is unnecessary. 

385 Shortly after promulgating the RRP rule, the RRP rule, and specifically the opt-out 

386 provision, was challenged. EPA decided to settle the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, EPA 

387 agreed to issue a proposed rule removing the opt-out. In turn, as part of this rulemaking, EPA 

388 requested information or data that would shed any light on the reliability, effectiveness, or safety 

389 of the opt-out or any variation thereof in relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards. EPA did not 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 17 of 67

390 receive any information in response to its request. 

391 EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated and EPA found that renovation, repair, and painting 

392 activities produce lead dust above the regulatory hazard standards. In fact many renovation 

393 activities create large quantities of lead dust. The Dust Study shows that renovation activities 

394 result in lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP rule containment 

395 and cleanup procedures are not followed. It also demonstrated that work practices other than 

396 those restricted or prohibited by the RRP rule can leave behind lead dust well above the hazard 

397 standards when the RRP rule requirements are not followed. The Dust Study also showed that 

398 alternative practices (broom cleaning, not using containment) were not effective or safe in 

399 relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards. Under the opt-out, contractors performing renovations 

400 would have no obligation to minimize or clean up any dust-lead hazards created by the 

401 renovation. Indeed, contractors would not be prevented from using practices that EPA has 

402 determined create hazards that cannot be adequately contained or cleaned up even when 

403 following the RRP rule requirements. The Agency also took these factors into consideration in 

404 its decision to remove the opt-out provision in this final rule. 

405 

406 In development of the proposed rule, EPA considered and requested comment on 

407 certain alternative approaches or work practice requirements for owner-occupied target housing 

408 that is not a child-occupied facility and where no children younger than 6 or pregnant women 

409 reside. EPA also requested comment on possible alternate approaches that would meet EPA’s 

410 statutory obligation to apply work practice standards in target housing that take into account 

411 reliability, effectiveness, and safety. 

412 One alternative for which EPA requested comment would have required the RRP work 

413 practices only for exterior renovations. Under this option, unless the target housing meets the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 18 of 67

414 definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child 

415 under 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm 

416 will only be required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule when 

417 renovating exteriors then the renovation firm would only be required to follow the RRP work 

418 practices when doing exterior renovations, but not when doing interior renovations. This option 

419 would have addressed exposures to lead dust from exterior renovations for people living in 

420 neighboring homes, particularly attached homes or homes in close physical proximity. 

421 Individuals residing in homes in close physical proximity could be exposed during the entire 

422 renovation and post-renovation phase, and their exposure would not necessarily be considered by 

423 an owner-occupant in choosing not to require lead-safe work practices. However, this option did 

424 not address lead hazards created during renovations of the interiors of home which could lead to 

425 lead exposure to occupants, and EPA received no comments mitigating this concern or 

426 supporting the protectiveness of this option. 

427 EPA requested comment on an alternative option under which the only work practices 

428 applicable to housing that is not a child-occupied facility and where no children or pregnant 

429 women reside would be the restriction or prohibition on certain work practice found at 40 CFR 

430 745.85(a)(3). These include: 

431 1. Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is prohibited. 

432 2. The use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation such 

433 as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited 

434 unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control. 

435 3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at temperatures below 1,100 

436 degrees Fahrenheit. 

437 All the other work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would not be required in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 19 of 67

438 target housing that is not a child-occupied facility and where no children under age 6 or pregnant 

439 women reside. This option would have prohibited or restricted the highest dust generating 

440 practices but would not have required the other practices under 40 CFR 745.85. While the 

441 prohibited work practices create high amounts of lead dust, the other work practices also create 

442 lead dust above the hazard standard. The Dust Study shows that common work practices result 

443 in lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP rule containment and 

444 cleanup procedures are not followed. 

445 EPA requested comment on a third option under which a subset of target housing would 

446 not be subject to the RRP work practices but instead would have been subject to dust wipe 

447 testing to be performed after the renovation. Under this option, unless the target housing meets 

448 the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child 

449 under 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation activity 

450 is only subject to dust wipe testing after the renovation and providing the results to the owner451 occupant, then the renovation firm would not be required to conduct the training, certification, 

452 and work practice requirements of the rule. The testing results would become part of the record 

453 for that house that must be disclosed under the Disclosure Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart F) 

454 required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 

455 of 1992 (Public Law 102–550). This option would provide information that could protect 

456 potential buyers of a home where renovation was completed prior to the sale, because they would 

457 be notified of the results of the dust wipe tests before purchase and could take appropriate action 

458 (e.g., thorough cleaning and retesting of the home, or selecting a different home) if the lead 

459 results were at a level that raised concerns for them. While this alternative may provide helpful 

460 information to home owners and occupants, as discussed above it would not address lead-based 

461 paint hazards created by renovations because it does not require any of the work practices 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 20 of 67

462 required by the RRP rule. 

463 After considering these alternatives as well as keeping the opt-out provision, the Agency 

464 has decided to eliminate the Opt-out provision and not to adopt any of the alternatives. One 

465 concern with the opt-out provision or the alternatives is that they do not adequately address the 

466 risks of lead-based paint hazards to children older than five years old or adults. The opt-out and 

467 each of these alternatives can also result in exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant 

468 women to lead-based paint hazards. In the same way as for the opt-out provision itself, EPA also 

469 has concerns that populations that are already at a higher risk for elevated blood lead levels may 

470 be disproportionately and adversely affected by the alternatives. 

471 Another concern with the opt-out as well the alternatives is that they can create confusion 

472 among both contractors and consumers. Several commenters stated that the opt-out provision or 

473 the alternatives could cause confusion that could potentially result in non-compliance by 

474 renovation firms. EPA agrees and believes that simplifying the applicability of the work 

475 practices will enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the rule. 

476 Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now 

477 conclude that the opt-out nor that the alternative approaches are safe, reliable or effective 

478 because none of these would sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In 

479 sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors are exposed to the lead 

480 hazards created by the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect older 

481 children, women of childbearing age, or other adults currently residing in the home and can 

482 result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint 

483 hazards. Again, although EPA specifically requested information or data that would shed any 

484 light on the reliability, effectiveness, or safety of these options in relation to EPA’s lead hazard 

485 standards, the Agency did not receive any. The Agency took these factors into consideration in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 21 of 67

486 deciding not to adopt these alternatives. 

487 D. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

488 EPA’s stated purposes in promulgating the recordkeeping requirements were two-fold. 

489 “The first is to allow EPA or an authorized State to review a renovation firm’s compliance with 

490 the substantive requirements of the regulation through reviewing the records maintained for all 

491 of the renovation jobs the firm has done. The second is to remind a renovation firm what it must 

492 do to comply. EPA envisioned that renovation firms would use the recordkeeping requirements 

493 and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done everything that they are required to do 

494 for a particular renovation” (Ref. 1, p. 21745). Several commenters on the RRP rule suggested 

495 that the recordkeeping requirements could also be used to provide valuable information about the 

496 renovation to the owners and occupants of buildings being renovated. EPA responded to these 

497 comments by stating that some of the information identified by these commenters was included 

498 in the “Renovate Right” pamphlet and that the pamphlet was the best way to get that information 

499 to the owners and occupants. With respect to the other items identified by these commenters, 

500 EPA stated its belief that the renovation firms were already providing much of this information 

501 (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 

502 As part of EPA’s preparations to administer the RRP program, EPA has been developing 

503 an education and outreach campaign aimed at consumers. In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA 

504 recognized the importance of education and outreach to consumers, to teach them about lead-safe 

505 work practices and to encourage them to hire certified renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). 

506 EPA’s work on the education and outreach campaign has continued to highlight the importance 

507 of an informed public to the success of the RRP program at minimizing exposures to lead-based 

508 paint hazards that may be created by renovations. As a result, EPA has determined that copies of 

509 the records required to be maintained by renovation firms to document compliance with the work 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 22 of 67

510 practice requirements, if provided to the owners and occupants of the renovated buildings, would 

511 serve to reinforce the information provided by the “Renovate Right” pamphlet on the potential 

512 hazards of renovations and on the RRP rule requirements. While the “Renovate Right” pamphlet 

513 provides valuable information about the requirements of the RRP rule, the records that a firm 

514 would give to owners and occupants would provide useful information regarding rule 

515 compliance that is not found in the pamphlet. In covering the significant training and work 

516 practice provisions of the RRP rule, these records would enable building owners and occupants 

517 to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and how the RRP 

518 rule’s provisions affected their specific renovation. Several commenters stated that educating 

519 homeowners would help them monitor compliance by the renovation firm. One commenter 

520 stated that the checklist would help the public understand the RRP rule and that a better informed 

521 public would choose to have renovation performed by profession remodelers who would provide 

522 safe and quality work. Other commenters believe that the distribution of the checklist is needed 

523 to address a lack of accountability of renovation firms to owners and occupants. EPA agrees that 

524 educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the 

525 EPA in monitoring compliance with the RRP rule and contribute to the effectiveness and 

526 reliability of the rule. 

527 After considering public comments, EPA decided to finalize the rule as proposed. This 

528 final rules requires that, when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered, or within 30 days 

529 of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, the renovation firm provide 

530 information demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the 

531 RRP rule to the owner of the building being renovated and, if different, to the occupants of the 

532 renovated housing or the operator of the child-occupied facility. For renovations in common 

533 areas of target housing, the renovation firm must provide the occupants of the affected housing 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 23 of 67

534 units instructions on how to review or obtain this information from the renovation firm at no 

535 charge to the occupant. These instructions must be included in the notice provided to each 

536 affected unit under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on the signs posted in the common areas under 40 

537 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is finalizing similar requirements for renovations in child-occupied 

538 facilities. Under this final rule, the renovation firm is required to provide interested parents or 

539 guardians of children using the child-occupied facility instructions on how to review or obtain a 

540 copy of these records at no cost to the parents or guardians. This could be accomplished by 

541 mailing or hand delivering these instructions, or by including them on the signs posted under 40 

542 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii). 

543 Under this new requirement, renovation firms must provide training and work practice 

544 information to owners and occupants. The information should be provided in a short, easily read 

545 checklist or other form. EPA’s “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” may be used for 

546 this purpose, but firms may develop their own forms or checklists so long as they include all of 

547 the required information. The specific information that is required to be provided are the training 

548 and work practice compliance information required to be maintained by 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as 

549 well as identifying information on the manufacturer and model of the test kits used, if any, a 

550 description of the components that were tested including their locations, and the test kit results. 

551 The checklist or form must include documentation that a certified renovator was assigned to the 

552 project, that the certified renovator provided on-the-job training for workers used on the project, 

553 that the certified renovator performed or directed workers who performed the tasks required by 

554 the RRP rule, and that the certified renovator performed the post-renovation cleaning 

555 verification. This documentation must include a certification by the certified renovator that the 

556 work practices were followed, with narration as applicable. However, EPA is not requiring that 

557 the renovation firm automatically provide a copy of the certified renovator’s training certificate, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 24 of 67

558 which must be maintained in the firm’s records pursuant to 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as an 

559 attachment to the checklist or other form. 

560 One commenter believes that the text of the form should be included in the regulations. EPA 

561 disagrees with this comment. The Agency wants to give renovation firms flexibility with regard 

562 to the format of the information given to owners and occupants. Renovation firms must list the 

563 information specified in the regulations and they can use EPA’s sample checklist if they choose. 

564 However, the final rule allows firms to use their own version of the checklist as long as it 

565 includes the required information. 

566 

567 With respect to the option for dust clearance in lieu of cleaning verification under 

568 40 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule requires the renovation firm to provide the associated results 

569 from dust wipe sampling to the person who contracted for the renovation. This requirement was 

570 promulgated in response to public comments on the applicability of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 

571 CFR part 745, subpart F, to dust lead testing reports. These commenters stated that a 

572 requirement for the information to be provided to the owner of the property was necessary in 

573 order to make sure that the information would be available to be disclosed in the future (Ref. 1, 

574 p. 21718). However, in agreeing with these commenters and acknowledging the importance of 

575 having the dust sampling reports available to disclose to future purchasers and tenants, EPA 

576 neglected to consider the importance of making dust sampling information available to the 

577 current occupants of renovated rental target housing or child-occupied facilities. While 40 CFR 

578 745.107 would require renovation-related dust sampling reports to be disclosed to target housing 

579 tenants at the next lease renewal, this may be months or years after the renovation was 

580 completed. In addition, the Lead Disclosure Rule does not apply to child-occupied facilities in 

581 public or commercial buildings, so those tenants may never receive this information. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 25 of 67

582 Therefore, this final rule requires that, if dust clearance is performed in lieu of cleaning 

583 verification, the renovation firm provide a copy of the dust wipe sampling report(s) to the owner 

584 of the building that was renovated as well as to the occupants, if different. With respect to 

585 renovations in common areas of target housing or in child-occupied facilities, EPA is also 

586 requiring that these records be made available to the tenants of the affected housing units or the 

587 parents and guardians of children under age 6 using the child-occupied facilities. Dust sampling 

588 reports may be made available to these groups in the same way as training and work practice 

589 records, by providing information on how to review or obtain copies in individual notifications 

590 or on posted signs. 

591 E. Effective Date 

592 During the development of the proposed rule, EPA considered a delay in the effective 

593 date of this final rule. EPA estimated that eliminating the opt-out provision could increase the 

594 number of renovators that need to be certified by 50%. A delayed effective date would have 

595 allowed more time for additional renovators to get their certification. The Agency asked for 

596 comment on whether a 6-month or 1-year delay in the effective date is appropriate. In addition, 

597 EPA asked for comment on whether a delay in effective date of this rule would be confusing for 

598 the regulated community or the certified personnel. 

599 Comments regarding the delay were mixed. Several commenters opposing the delay 

600 believe that EPA has enough training capacity to train additional renovators that may need 

601 certification because of this rule. Several commenters pointed out that delaying the effective 

602 date would result in more people being exposed to lead hazards that could be avoided if the RRP 

603 rule work practices were in place for renovations previously eligible for the opt-out. Another 

604 commenter believes that phasing in the work practice requirements by delaying the effective of 

605 this rule would lead to confusion for the public and renovation firms. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 26 of 67

606 Some commenters were in favor of delaying the effective date. Several commenters said 

607 that many contractors were not aware of the requirements and there is not sufficient time for 

608 them to understand and comply with the regulations without a delayed effective date. Other 

609 commenters stated that EPA should delay the effective date to allow enough time for additional 

610 renovators to take the training. One commenter asserts that EPA should delay the effective date 

611 rather than create a shortfall of renovators. 

612 Another factor EPA considered with regard to extending the effective date is whether 

613 firms specialize in housing that is eligible for the opt-out. The cost estimates for the rule assume 

614 that renovation firms are somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work in housing where 

615 the RRP rule is applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt616 out housing will already have become certified, and their staff been trained, because they also 

617 work in regulated facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. If firms are less specialized than 

618 the analysis assumed, there may be little to no incremental training and certification costs due to 

619 the proposed rule. Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have 

620 declined to opt out, the work practice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than 

621 estimated. EPA requested comment in the proposal on the degree to which the same firms and 

622 renovators are likely to work both in opt-out housing and in child-occupied facilities and target 

623 housing that are ineligible for the opt-out provision. 

624 

625 Several commenters stated that they do not believe firms specialize in housing based on 

626 occupancy. One commenter reviewed advertisements and the market place, and did not find 

627 renovators that work only in owner-occupied housing without children or pregnant women. 

628 According to the commenter, because firms do not appear to specialize in this manner, the 

629 additional costs of eliminating the opt-out are only the costs associated with the materials and 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 27 of 67

630 time for a particular job as contractors would be required to get certification regardless of 

631 whether the opt-out provision is removed. EPA agrees with these comments. While the Agency 

632 has not done analysis to determine how many firms may specialize based on occupancy, EPA 

633 believes it is likely that most firms will not specialize in owner-occupied housing without 

634 children or pregnant women. Commenters did not provide information indicating that firms 

635 specialize in this way. If that is the case then many of the approximately 110,000 firms and 

636 renovators estimated to seek certification because of this rule would need certification regardless 

637 of whether the opt-out provision is removed. If the majority of the 110,000 firms and renovators 

638 have already been required to get certification then there is less of an argument to extend the 

639 effective date of this rule because many fewer firms and renovators will need certification 

640 between publication of the rule and the effective date. 

641 

642 Accordingly, the Agency decided not to delay the effective date of this final rule. As 

643 such, the rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA 

644 believes that it is important to eliminate the opt-out exemption without delay in order to avoid 

645 further lead exposures in housing previously eligible for the opt-out. Further, based on the 

646 number of training provides accredited to date, the Agency believes that there is sufficient 

647 training capacity available to train any additional renovators that would need to get certification 

648 because of this rule. 

649 F. State Authorization 

650 As part of the authorization process, States and Indian Tribes must demonstrate to EPA 

651 that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. A State or Indian Tribe would have to indicate 

652 that it meets the requirements of the renovation program in its application for approval or the 

653 first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency proposed to give States and Indian 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 28 of 67

654 Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that their programs include any new requirements the EPA may 

655 promulgate, such as the requirements in this final rule. EPA received onetwo comments

656 regarding this requirement. One comment, from the Iowa Department of Public Health

657 regarding this requirement. The commenter, explained that Iowa’s legislature only meets once a 

658 year for 4 months. Depending on the when EPA publishes amendments to the RRP, it could be 

659 very difficult for states in similar situations to meet this requirement. The commenter requested 

660 that EPA give States and Indian Tribes two years instead of one to demonstrate compliance. 

661 EPA believes that the concern raised by the commenter has merit, and not just for Iowa. 

662 Therefore, the Agency decided to allow States and Indian Tribes up to two years to demonstrate 

663 to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule in its application for approval or the first 

664 report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). 

665 G. Renovator Certification Requirements 

666 EPA was made aware by stakeholders that some renovators want to take the training 

667 course closer to April 2010 in order to maximize their 5–year certification which is not required 

668 until the RRP rule becomes effective on April 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 5–year 

669 certification begins when the renovator completes the training. The Agency is concerned that if 

670 enough renovators wait until April 2010 to take the training it may cause training courses to fill 

671 up resulting in a lack of available courses near the effective date. In order to give renovators 

672 incentive to take the course well in advance of the April 2010 effective date, the Agency 

673 considered a change to the requirements that would allow renovator certifications issued on or 

674 before the effective date of the RRP rule to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency requested 

675 comment on whether it should extend the certification for renovators that get their certification 

676 by April 22, 2010. 

677 EPA received several comments in favor of extending the renovator certification to July 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 29 of 67

678 1, 2015. Several commenters believe this would give renovators incentive to take the training 

679 early. One commenter supported the extension so those who took the training in advance of the 

680 April 22, 2010 implementation date would not be penalized. Another commenter stated that an 

681 extension of the certification would prevent logistical problems like waiting lists for trainings 

682 during the final days before the effective date. 

683 The Agency decided to finalize an extension of the 5-year certification for renovators 

684 who take the training before April 22, 2010. EPA agrees that renovators who take the training 

685 early should not be penalized and therefore will extend those certifications until July 1, 2015. 

686 H. Principle Instructor Requirements 

687 As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered modifying the 

688 requirements for training providers. Under the original requirements for the accreditation of 

689 training providers, Principle Instructors were required to take a 16–hour lead-paint course taught 

690 by EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. EPA became aware that 16–hours courses 

691 are not available in every state, making it difficult for some instructors to get the required 

692 training. To address this problem, EPA considered reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. 

693 EPA received several comments on the Principal Instructor requirement, mostly in support of 

694 reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. One commenter stated that there is no significant 

695 benefit to requiring 16 hours instead of 8 hours and that the 8-hour requirement will fit more 

696 closely to available training courses. Similarly, another commenter stated that the 16-hour 

697 training shares little content with what the Principal Instructors are going to teach in the 

698 renovator course. The commenter also explained that there is no 16-hour lead training course in 

699 Mississippi which led to difficulties with a local organization’s ability to offer the renovator 

700 course. One commenter opposed to reducing the hourly requirement stated that 8 hours of lead 

701 training is not sufficient for an instructor to know enough about lead paint, lead hazards and 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 30 of 67

702 federal regulations. Another commenter stated that there is enough training capacity negating 

703 the need to reduce the hourly requirement. 

704 EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator course, instead of a longer abatement course, is 

705 more closely related to what Principal Instructors must know in order to teach the renovator 

706 training. In addition to the training requirement, Principal Instructors must meet education and 

707 work experience requirements in order to teach lead-based paint training courses. The Agency 

708 believes that taking this course would be sufficient training for future instructors of the renovator 

709 course and therefore has reduced the requirement from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing the required 

710 hours, future instructors can take the 8–hour renovator or dust sampling technician trainings 

711 instead of a 16–hour or longer abatement course. 

712 

713 III. References 

714 1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register

715 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). Available on-line at: 

716 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

717 2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 

718 Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL–

719 5389–9). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

720 3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 

721 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 

722 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 

723 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009. 

724 4. Xue J, Zartarian V, Moya J, Freeman N, Beamer P, Black K, Tulve N, Shalat S: A 

725 meta-analysis of children’s hand-to-mouth frequency data for estimating nondietary ingestion 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 31 of 67

726 exposure. Risk Anal. 2007 Apr.; 27(2): 411-20. 

727 5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis for the 

728 TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule 

729 for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. April 2010. 

730 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 1.1.9. Implicit 

731 Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. August 17, 2009. 

732 7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping ProposedFinal Rule ICR Addendum for the 

733 rulemaking entitled Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the 

734 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. August 2009.April 2010.

735 8. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Elimination of the Opt-Out 

736 Provision and Other Amendments to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 

737 Proposed Rule. April 2010. 

738 9. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 

739 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. March 3, 2000. 

740 10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

741 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL–7755–5). Available on-line at: 

742 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

743 11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

744 Activities. November 13, 2007. 

745 12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement; Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out 

746 Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. 

747 April 2010. 

748 13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. October 2006. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 32 of 67

749 14. EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 

750 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K751 99-001, June 2003). 

752 15. CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. vol 54, no. 20, pp 513-516, May 27, 

753 2005 

754 16. Marino, Phyllis E. et al “A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation 

755 of a Victorian Farmhouse.” American Journal of Public Health, 80 (10) pp. 1183 -1185. 

756 October 1990. 

757 17. Kowalczyk DF. “Lead poisoning in dogs at the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary 

758 Hospital.” Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. 1976 Mar 1;168(5):428-32.

759 18. Knight TE, Kumar MS. “Lead toxicosis in cats-a review.” Journal of Feline 

760 Medicine and Surgery. 2003 Oct;5(5):249-55. 

761 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

762 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 

763 rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, 

764 Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and 

765 Child-Occupied Facilities (Economic Analysis, Ref. 5), which is available in the docket for this 

766 action and is briefly summarized here, and in more detail later in this Unit.

Category Description 

Benefits $866 million - $3,061 million annualized (3% discount rate) 

$920 million - $3,258 million annualized (7% discount rate) 

Due to avoided IQ loss in children under age 6 and cardiovascular effects in 

adults. EPA does not have sufficient information to fully quantify benefits due 

to avoided health effects to individuals not present in target housing and childoccupied facilities subject to this rule or benefits due to avoided health effects 

other than IQ loss and cardiovascular effects. 

Costs $295 million annualized (3% discount rate) 

$320 million annualized (7% discount rate) 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 33 of 67

767 

768 A. Executive Order 12866 

769 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 

770 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” 

771 under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order because EPA estimates that it is likely to have an 

772 annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to 

773 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any 

774 changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for 

775 this rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 

776 The following is a summary In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential 

777 costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic 

778 Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and 

779 Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities (Economic 

780 Analysis, (Ref. 5), which is available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized 

781 here..

782 1. Number of facilities and renovations. This rule applies to 78 million target housing 

783 units and child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 facilities. There are approximately 40 million 

784 target housing units potentially affected by the removal of the opt-out provision (i.e., owner 

785 occupied housing units where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides and that do not 

786 meet the definition of a child-occupied facility). There are an additional 38 million facilities 

787 potentially affected by the requirement that renovators provide owners and occupants with copies 

788 of the records required to be maintained by the renovator to document compliance with the 

789 training and work practice requirements. Approximately 100,000 of these facilities are child790 occupied facilities located in public or commercial buildings, and the remainder are located in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 34 of 67

791 target housing (either in rental housing, owner-occupied housing where a child under age 6 or 

792 pregnant woman resides, or owner-occupied housing that meets the definition of a child793 occupied facility). 

794 The removal of the opt-out provision will affect approximately 7.2 million renovation 

795 events per year in the 40 million housing units previously eligible to use the opt-out provision. In 

796 the first year, there will be an estimated 5.4 million renovation, repair, and painting events in 

797 these housing units where the rule will cause lead-safe work practices to be used. (In the 

798 remaining 1.8 million renovation events, test kits for determining whether a surface contains 

799 lead-based paint will indicate that lead-based paint is not present.) EPA expects test kits that 

800 more accurately determine whether a painted surface qualifies as lead-based paint will become 

801 available in late 2010. Once the improved test kits are available, the number of renovation, 

802 repair, and painting events using lead-safe work practices due to the rule in housing previously 

803 eligible for the opt-out provision is expected to drop to 3.0 million events per year. 

804 The requirement for renovators to provide owners and occupants with records 

805 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements will affect all of the 

806 7.2 million renovation events per year in housing units previously eligible for the opt-out 

807 provision. This new recordkeeping requirement will also affect an additional 11.4 million 

808 renovation events per year in the 38 million facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. 

809 EPA’s estimates are based on the assumption that owners of housing eligible for the opt810 out provision would always choose to exercise that provision. To the extent that some eligible 

811 homeowners would decline to opt out, the number of renovation events affected by the removal 

812 of the opt-out would be lower than EPA has estimated, as would the costs of this action and the 

813 estimated number of people protected by this action, since they would choose to be protected by 

814 the requirements of the RRP rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 35 of 67

815 2. Options evaluated. EPA considered a variety of options for addressing the risks created 

816 by renovation, repair, and painting activities disturbing lead-based paint in housing previously 

817 eligible for the opt-out provision. The Economic Analysis analyzed several options, including 

818 different options for the effective date of the final rule when published; an option phasing out the 

819 opt-out provision depending on when the facility was built (pre-1960 or pre-1978); and different 

820 options for the work practices (such as containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification) required 

821 in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 

822 All options evaluated in the Economic Analysis would also require renovation firms to 

823 provide owners and occupants of the buildings with a copy of the records demonstrating 

824 compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. This additional 

825 recordkeeping requirement would apply to renovation, repair, and painting activities in all 78 

826 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities. 

827 3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health effects 

828 attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These health effects 

829 include impaired cognitive function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such 

830 as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood pressure, increased 

831 incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney 

832 function. 

833 Removing the opt-out provision will protect children under the age of 6 who visit a 

834 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 

835 opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when their family purchases it after such 

836 a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to 

837 housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. Removing 

838 the opt-out provision will also protect individuals age 6 and older who live in houses that would 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 36 of 67

839 have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and who live in 

840 adjacent properties. 

841 EPA has estimated some of the benefits of the rule by performing calculations based on 

842 estimates of the number of individuals in each of these situations and the average benefit per 

843 individual in similar situations from previous RRP rule analyses with some simple adjustments. 

844 The resulting calculations provide a sense of the magnitude of benefits from this action but 

845 should not be interpreted as strict upper or lower bound estimates of total benefits. Based on two 

846 scenarios for each of the situations described in the previous paragraph, annualized benefits for 

847 the rule may range from approximately $870 million to $3.2 billion assuming a discount rate of 

848 3%, and $920 million to $3.3 billion assuming a discount rate of 7%. Within these scenarios, 

849 10% of these benefits are attributable to avoided losses in expected earnings due to IQ drop in 

850 children under 6, and 90% to avoided medical costs (or other proxies for willingness to pay) for 

851 hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, and the resulting incidence of deaths in older 

852 individuals. For children under 6, the largest proportion of these benefits derive from moving 

853 into recently renovated housing; for older individuals, the largest proportion derives from on854 going residence in houses that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision. 

855 EPA did not estimate benefits for those who live near a house renovated under the opt856 out provision unless in a contiguous attached home; those who spend time in a friend’s or 

857 relative’s house renovated under the opt-out provision; and for health effects other than IQ loss 

858 in children under 6 and blood pressure effects in older individuals. 

859 To the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to opt out, the benefits 

860 of this action will be lower than estimated, since exposed persons will already be protected by 

861 the requirements of the RRP program. 

862 4. Costs. Removing the opt-out provision will require firms performing renovation, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 37 of 67

863 repair, and painting work for compensation in housing previously eligible for the opt-out 

864 provision to follow the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. 

865 This may result in additional costs for these firms. Furthermore, the additional recordkeeping 

866 requirements in this rule will increase costs of renovations in all target housing and child867 occupied facilities. Costs may be incurred by contractors that work in these buildings, landlords 

868 that use their own staff to work in buildings they lease out; and child-occupied facilities that use 

869 their own staff to work in buildings they occupy. 

870 The rule is estimated to cost approximately $500 million in the first year. The cost is 

871 estimated to drop to approximately $300 million per year starting with the second year, when 

872 improved test kits for detecting the presence of lead-based paint are assumed to become 

873 available. Over $200 million per year of the cost in subsequent years is due to the work practice 

874 requirements in housing previously covered by the opt-out provision. Training for renovators and 

875 workers and certification for firms working in housing previously covered by the opt-out 

876 provision is estimated to add approximately $50 million per year to the cost. Requiring 

877 renovators to provide owners and occupants with copies of the recordkeeping required to 

878 document compliance with the RRP rule training and work practice requirements costs 

879 approximately $30 million per year, with about two thirds of this incurred in housing that was 

880 previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 

881 Note that the costs of this rule as estimated in the Economic Analysis are expressed in 

882 2005 dollars. To express values in terms of current dollars, the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 

883 Domestic Product as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis can be consulted for an 

884 indication of how nominal prices for goods and services produced in the economy have changed 

885 over time. From 2005 to the second quarter of 2009, the implicit price deflator increased from 

886 100 to 109.753, a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 6). 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 38 of 67

887 The cost estimates for training and certification assume that renovation firms are 

888 somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work in facilities where the RRP rule is 

889 applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt-out housing will 

890 already have become certified, and their staff been trained, because they also work in regulated 

891 facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. If firms are less specialized than the analysis 

892 assumed, there may be little to no incremental training and certification costs due to the rule. 

893 Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to opt out, the 

894 work practice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than estimated. 

895 The options EPA analyzed with a phase in or a delayed effective date for removing the 

896 opt-out provision have a lower cost in the first 2 years but have identical costs to the final rule 

897 beginning in the third year. Options with different work practice requirements for the housing 

898 previously eligible for the opt-out provision would cost 1% to 17% less than the final rule. This 

899 difference would all be due to lower work practice costs, as the training, certification, and 

900 recordkeeping costs would be the same for these options as for this rule. 

901 B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

902 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 

903 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

904 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 

905 document to amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR document, referred to as the Opt-out and 

906 Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR Addendum and identified under EPA ICR No. 1715.1312 and 

907 OMB Control Number 2070–0155, has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 7). The 

908 information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. 

909 Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 

910 persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 39 of 67

911 This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

912 technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 

913 processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 

914 existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train 

915 personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and 

916 review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

917 The information collection activities contained in this rule are designed to assist the 

918 Agency in meeting the core objectives of TSCA section 402. EPA has carefully tailored the 

919 recordkeeping requirements so they will permit the Agency to achieve statutory objectives 

920 without imposing an undue burden on those firms that choose to be involved in renovation, 

921 repair, and painting activities. 

922 The information collection requirements under this rule may affect training providers as 

923 well as firms that perform renovation, repair, or painting for compensation. Removing the opt924 out provision may cause additional renovators to become trained and firms to become certified, 

925 and there are paperwork requirements for both of these activities. Removing the opt-out 

926 provision will also create paperwork due to the requirement to maintain records documenting 

927 compliance with the training and work practice requirements. This rule also requires renovation 

928 firms to provide owners and occupants with these records. Although firms have the option of 

929 choosing to engage in the covered activities, once a firm chooses to do so, the information 

930 collection activities become mandatory for that firm. 

931 The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated paperwork burden 

932 and costs resulting from this rule. The burden to training providers and firms engaged in 

933 renovation, repair, and painting activities is summarized in this unit. 

934 Because this analysis assumes that renovation firms are somewhat specialized in terms of 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 40 of 67

935 whether they work in facilities where the RRP rule requirements are applicable, removing the 

936 opt-out provision is estimated to result in additional renovators becoming trained and additional 

937 renovation firms becoming certified. Training additional renovators will increase the paperwork 

938 burden for training providers, since they must submit records to EPA (or an authorizing State, 

939 Tribe, or Territory) pertaining to each student attending a training course. Approximately 170 

940 training providers are estimated to incur an average burden of about 40 hours each for additional 

941 notifications, resulting in an increase in training provider burden averaging 7,000 hours per year 

942 as a result of the removal of the opt-out provision. 

943 Removing the opt-out provision is estimated to result in up to 110,000 additional firms 

944 becoming certified to engage in renovation, repair, or painting activities. The average 

945 certification burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is initially certified, 

946 and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified (which occurs every 5 years). Firms must keep 

947 records of the work they perform; this recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 5 

948 hours per year per firm. And under this rule, firms must also provide a copy of the records 

949 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule to 

950 the owners and occupants of buildings being renovated. This additional recordkeeping 

951 requirement is estimated to average approximately 3.3 hours per year per firm. The total annual 

952 burden for these 110,000 firms is estimated to average 1,072,000 hours, of which 362,000 hours 

953 is due to the recordkeeping requirement to provide owners and occupants with documentation of 

954 the training and work practices used. 

955 To the extent that firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out provision will already 

956 have incurred the training and certification burdens because they also work in regulated facilities 

957 ineligible for the opt-out provision, the training and certification burden for this action will be 

958 lower than estimated. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 41 of 67

959 The requirement that firms provide owners and occupants with a copy of the records 

960 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule also 

961 applies to firms working in buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out provision. Under an 

962 assumption that firms work in either buildings that are eligible for the opt-out provision or 

963 buildings that are ineligible (but not in both types of buildings), EPA estimated that 211,000 

964 firms work in buildings that are not eligible for the opt-out provision. EPA estimated that these 

965 211,000 firms will incur an average annual burden of approximately 2.7 hours per firm due to the 

966 new recordkeeping requirements, resulting in a total burden of 568,000 hours per year for these 

967 firms. To the extent that firms work in both types of buildings, the number of firms and the total 

968 burden in this category would be higher than estimated. But this would be offset by a 

969 corresponding decrease in the 110,000 firms and 362,000 burden hours estimated for the firms 

970 that were assumed to work only in buildings previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 

971 Total respondent burden for training providers and certified firms from removing the opt972 out provision and requiring additional recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 

973 1,647,000 hours per year during the 3 year period covered by the ICR. 

974 The rule may also result in additional government costs to administer the program (to 

975 process the additional training provider notifications and to administer and enforce the program 

976 for firms working in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision). States, Tribes, and 

977 Territories are allowed, but are under no obligation, to apply for and receive authorization to 

978 administer these requirements. EPA will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, and 

979 Territories that do not become authorized. Because the number of States, Tribes, and Territories 

980 that will become authorized is not known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA 

981 will administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government entities become 

982 authorized, EPA’s administrative costs will be lower. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 42 of 67

983 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

984 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

985 control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in chapter I of title 40 of the CFR, after 

986 appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by 

987 publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related 

988 collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency 

989 will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the 

990 OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final 

991 rule. 

992 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

993 burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

994 established a docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under docket ID number EPA–HQ–

995 OPPT–2005–0049. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 

996 ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th 997 St., NW., 

998 Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 

999 decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [insert date of publication in the

1000 Federal Register], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 

1001 it by [insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 

1002 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1003 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

1004 regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

1005 requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

1006 certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 43 of 67

1007 small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

1008 governmental jurisdictions. 

1009 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined 

1010 in accordance with section 601 of RFA as: 

1011 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

1012 at 13 CFR 121.201. 

1013 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

1014 district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

1015 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 

1016 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

1017 As required by section 604 of RFA, EPA has prepared a final regulatory flexibility 

1018 analysis (FRFA) for this rule. The FRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized 

1019 in this unit (Ref. 8). 

1020 1. Reasons why action by the Agency is being taken. After further consideration of the 

1021 opt-out provision, the Agency believes it is in the best interest of the public to remove the 

1022 provision. EPA believes that the opt-out provision is not sufficiently protective for children 

1023 under age 6 and pregnant women, because it does not provide protection from improperly 

1024 performed renovations for visiting children and pregnant women; for children and pregnant 

1025 women who move into a newly purchased house that was recently renovated under the opt-out 

1026 provision; and for children and pregnant women who live adjacent to a home where the exterior 

1027 is being renovated under the opt-out provision. In addition, while the RRP rule focused mainly 

1028 on protecting young children and pregnant women from lead hazards, exposure can result in 

1029 adverse health effects for older children and adults as well. Removing the opt-out provision will 

1030 protect older children and adult occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 44 of 67

1031 pregnant woman resides, as well as residents of adjacent properties. Finally, EPA believes that 

1032 implementing the regulations without the opt-out provision promotes, to a greater extent, the 

1033 statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering renovation activities in target housing. 

1034 EPA has determined that providing owners and occupants of renovated buildings with 

1035 copies of the records documenting the renovation firm’s compliance with the RRP rule’s training 

1036 and work practice requirements will serve to reinforce information on both the potential hazards 

1037 of renovations and on the RRP rule’s requirements. It will also enable building owners and 

1038 occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and 

1039 how the rule’s provisions affected their specific renovation. Educating the owners and occupants 

1040 in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with the 

1041 RRP rule. These improvements in education and monitoring will improve compliance with the 

1042 RRP rule, which will ultimately protect children and adults from exposure to lead hazards due to 

1043 renovation activities. 

1044 2. Legal basis and objectives for this rule. TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study 

1045 the extent to which persons engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities are exposed to 

1046 lead or create lead-based paint hazards regularly or occasionally. After concluding this study, 

1047 TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise its lead-based paint activities regulations 

1048 under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based 

1049 paint hazards. Because EPA’s study found that activities commonly performed during renovation 

1050 and remodeling create lead-based paint hazards, EPA issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In 

1051 issuing the RRP rule, EPA revised the TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to 

1052 individuals and firms engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities. In this rule, EPA is 

1053 revising the TSCA section 402(c)(3) rule to cover renovations in all target housing and child1054 occupied facilities. In so doing, EPA has also taken into consideration the environmental, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 45 of 67

1055 economic, and social impact of this rule as provided in TSCA section 2(c). A central objective of 

1056 this rule is to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, 

1057 and painting activities in all target housing and other buildings frequented by children under age 

1058 6. 

1059 3. Potentially affected small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 

1060 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The small entities that are potentially 

1061 directly regulated by this rule include: Small businesses (including contractors and property 

1062 owners and managers); small nonprofits (certain childcare centers and private schools); and 

1063 small governments (school districts which operate pre-schools, kindergartens and certain child 

1064 care centers). 

1065 In determining the number of small businesses affected by the rule, the Agency applied 

1066 U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA’s definition of small business. However, applying the 

1067 U.S. Economic Census data requires either under or overestimating the number of small 

1068 businesses affected by the rule. For example, for many construction establishments, the SBA 

1069 defines small businesses as having revenues of less than $14 million. With respect to those 

1070 establishments, the U.S. Economic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10 

1071 million or more into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data for the entire industry 

1072 would overestimate the number of small businesses affected by the rule and would defeat the 

1073 purpose of estimating impacts on small business. It would also underestimate the rule’s impact 

1074 on small businesses because the impacts would be calculated using the revenues of large 

1075 businesses in addition to small businesses. On the other hand, applying the closest, albeit lower, 

1076 revenue bracket would underestimate the number of small businesses affected by the rule while 

1077 at the same time overestimating the impacts. Similar issues arose in estimating the fraction of 

1078 property owners and managers that are small businesses. EPA has concluded that a substantial 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 46 of 67

1079 number of small businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen to be 

1080 more conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, 

1081 revenue bracket for which U.S. Economic Census data is available. For other sectors (nonprofits 

1082 operating childcare centers or private schools), EPA assumed that all affected firms are small, 

1083 which may overestimate the number of small entities affected by the rule. 

1084 The vast majority of entities in the industries affected by this rule are small. Using EPA’s 

1085 estimates, the revisions to the renovation, repair, and painting program will affect approximately 

1086 289,000 small entities. 

1087 4. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA evaluated two factors in its analysis 

1088 of the rule’s requirements on small entities, the number of firms that would experience the 

1089 impact, and the size of the impact. Average annual compliance costs as a percentage of average 

1090 annual revenues were used to assess the potential average impacts of the rule on small businesses 

1091 and small governments. This ratio is a good measure of entities’ ability to afford the costs 

1092 attributable to a regulatory requirement, because comparing compliance costs to revenues 

1093 provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a 

1094 commonly available measure of economic activity. Where regulatory costs represent a small 

1095 fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on such entities 

1096 may be considered as not significant. For non-profit organizations, impacts were measured by 

1097 comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, 

1098 however, revenue information was used as a proxy for expenditures. It is appropriate to calculate 

1099 the impact ratios using annualized costs, because these costs are more representative of the 

1100 continuing costs entities face to comply with the rule. 

1101 Of the approximately 289,000 small entities estimated to incur costs due to the rule, an 

1102 estimated 101,000 small residential contractors are assumed to seek certification as a result of the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 47 of 67

1103 removal of the opt-out provision; therefore, they would incur training, certification, work 

1104 practice, and recordkeeping costs. The remaining estimated 189,000 small entities (working in 

1105 buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out) are only expected to incur costs due to the 

1106 additional recordkeeping provisions in the rule. 

1107 The average cost to a typical small renovation contractor of removing the opt-out 

1108 provision ranges from about $1,100 to about $6,400, depending on the industry sector. This 

1109 represents 0.8% to 1.7% of revenues depending on the industry sector. Overall, an estimated 

1110 101,000 small businesses could be affected by the removal of the opt-out provision, with average 

1111 impacts of 1.10% of revenues. 

1112 This rule’s new recordkeeping requirement has an average cost of $1 to $280 for entities 

1113 not affected by removal of the opt-out provision. This results in incremental cost impacts ranging 

1114 from 0.0001% to 0.08% of revenues. An estimated 189,000 small entities could be affected 

1115 solely by the additional recordkeeping requirement, including 165,000 small businesses with 

1116 average impacts of 0.03% of revenues, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts of 

1117 0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 

1118 Combining the removal of the opt-out provision with the new recordkeeping requirement, 

1119 a total of 289,000 small entities could be affected by the rule, including 266,000 small businesses 

1120 with average impacts of 0.4%, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts of 0.0005%, and 

1121 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 

1122 To the extent that renovators and firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out 

1123 provision will already have become trained and certified because they also work in regulated 

1124 facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to the extent that eligible homeowners would 

1125 decline to opt out, the average impacts of this action will be lower than estimated. 

1126 Some of the small entities subject to the rule have employees while others are non-
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 48 of 67

1127 employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer jobs than firms with employees, and 

1128 thus have lower work practice compliance costs. However, they also have lower average 

1129 revenues than entities with employees, so their impacts (measured as costs divided by revenues) 

1130 can be higher. Impact estimates for non-employers should be interpreted with caution, as some 

1131 non-employers may have significant issues related to understatement of income, which would 

1132 tend to exaggerate the average impact ratio for this class of small entities. 

1133 There are an estimated 75,000 non-employer renovation contractors that could be 

1134 affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. The average cost to such contractors is 

1135 estimated to be $1,193 apiece. This represents 1.3% to 4.7% of reported revenues, depending on 

1136 the industry sector. The rule's new recordkeeping requirement is estimated to affect 

1137 approximately 96,000 additional non-employer renovation contractors not affected by removal of 

1138 the opt-out provision. The costs to such contractors are estimated to be $42 apiece. This 

1139 represents 0.05% to 0.17% of revenues, depending on the industry sector. 

1140 5. Relevant Federalfederal rules. The requirements in this rule will fit within an existing 

1141 framework of other Federal regulations that address lead-based paint. Notably, the Pre1142 Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovators to distribute a lead hazard 

1143 information pamphlet to owners and occupants before conducting a renovation in target housing 

1144 and child-occupied facilities. This rule’s requirement that renovators provide owners and 

1145 occupants with records documenting compliance with the program’s training and work practice 

1146 requirements complements the existing pre-renovation education requirements. 

1147 6. Skills needed for compliance. Under the lead renovation, repair, and painting program 

1148 requirements, renovators and dust sampling technicians working in target housing and child1149 occupied facilities have to take a course to learn the proper techniques for accomplishing the 

1150 containment, cleaning, cleaning verification, and dust sampling tasks they will perform during 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 49 of 67

1151 renovations. These courses are intended to provide them with the information they would need to 

1152 comply with the rule based on the skills they already have. Renovators then provide on-the-job 

1153 training in work practices to any other renovation workers used on a particular renovation. 

1154 Entities are required to apply for certification to perform renovations; this process does not 

1155 require any special skills other than the ability to complete the application. They also need to 

1156 document their training and the work practices used during renovations, which does not require 

1157 any special skills. 

1158 7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel.Small business advocacy review panel. EPA 

1159 has been concerned with potential small entity impacts since the earliest stages of planning for 

1160 the RRP program under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA. EPA conducted outreach to small entities 

1161 and, pursuant to section 609 of RFA, convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (the 

1162 Panel) in 1999 to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the regulated small 

1163 entities. Pursuant to the RFA, EPA used the report of the Panel convened for the closely related 

1164 RRP rule promulgated in April 2008. EPA identified eight key elements of a potential renovation 

1165 and remodeling regulation for the Panel’s consideration. These elements were: Applicability and 

1166 scope, firm certification, individual training and certification, accreditation of training courses, 

1167 work practice standards, prohibited practices, exterior clearance, and interior clearance. 

1168 Details on the Panel and its recommendations are provided in the Panel Report (Ref. 9). 

1169 Information on how EPA implemented the Panel’s recommendations in the development of the 

1170 RRP program is available in Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10) and 

1171 in Unit V.C. of the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). This rule is closely related to the RRP rule 

1172 and the conclusions made in 2008 regarding the Panel’s recommendations are applicable to this 

1173 final rule. Although this final rule expands the number of renovation firms that must comply with 

1174 the RRP requirements, it does not change the elements identified by the Panel. For example, this 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 50 of 67

1175 rule does not change the work practice or certification requirements of the RRP rule. EPA 

1176 believes that reconvening the Panel would be procedurally duplicative and is unnecessary given 

1177 that the issues here were within the scope of those considered by the Panel. 

1178 8. Alternatives considered. EPA considered several significant alternatives to this rule 

1179 that could affect the economic impacts of the rule on small entities. These alternatives would 

1180 have applied to both small and large entities, but given the number of small entities in the 

1181 affected industries, these alternatives would primarily affect small entities. For the reasons 

1182 described in this unit, EPA believes these alternatives are not consistent with the objectives of 

1183 the rule. 

1184 i. Delayed effective date. EPA considered an option that would delay the removal of the 

1185 opt-out provision by 6 months, and another option that would delay the date by 12 months. These 

1186 options would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might lead to confusion 

1187 by renovators and homeowners. These options would also lead to increased exposures during the 

1188 delay period, including exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. Therefore, 

1189 EPA believes that these options are not consistent with the stated objectives of the rule. 

1190 ii. Staged approach. EPA considered a staged approach that would initially remove the 

1191 opt-out provision in pre-1960 housing, and then remove it in housing built between 1960 and 

1192 1978 a year later. This would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might 

1193 lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners. It would also increase exposures during the 

1194 first year of the rule from renovations in houses built between 1960 and 1978, including 

1195 exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA does not believe that the 

1196 reduced burden of a staged approach outweighs the implementation complexity and additional 

1197 exposures that it would create. Therefore, EPA believes that this option is not consistent with the 

1198 stated objectives of the rule. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 51 of 67

1199 iii. Alternate work practices. EPA also considered different options for the work practice 

1200 requirements in housing that was previously eligible for the opt-out provision. Specifically, EPA 

1201 considered options: With the containment requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 

1202 any cleaning or cleaning verification work practices; with the cleaning and cleaning verification 

1203 requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment work practices; with the 

1204 cleaning requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment or cleaning 

1205 verification work practices; and with the containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification 

1206 requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without the prohibitions or restrictions on paint 

1207 removal practices specified in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame burning or torching, the use 

1208 of machines that remove paint through high-speed operation without HEPA exhaust control, and 

1209 heat guns operating in excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). 

1210 EPA’s Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated that renovation, repair, and paint 

1211 preparation activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The Dust 

1212 Study showed that the largest decreases in dust levels were observed in the experiments where 

1213 the rule’s practices of containment, specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification were all used. 

1214 The Dust Study indicated that if the prohibited and restricted practices are avoided, the suite of 

1215 work practices as a whole are effective at addressing the lead-paint dust that is generated during 

1216 renovation activities. This is discussed in more detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 21696–21697). 

1217 iv. Conclusion. EPA is concerned that these alternatives to the rule can create confusion 

1218 among both contractors and consumers and could potentially result in non-compliance by 

1219 renovation firms. EPA believes that simplifying the applicability of the work practices will 

1220 enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the rule. 

1221 EPA is concerned that the alternatives with a delayed or staged effective date would lead 

1222 to increased exposures during the delay period, including exposures to children under the age of 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 52 of 67

1223 6 and pregnant women.

1224 Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now 

1225 conclude that the alternatives to the rule with alternate work practices are safe, reliable or 

1226 effective because none of these would sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint 

1227 hazards. In sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors are exposed to 

1228 the lead hazards created by the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect 

1229 older children, women of childbearing age, or other adults currently residing in the home and can 

1230 result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint 

1231 hazards. 

1232 9. Summary of significant issues raised by public comments. There were no public 

1233 comments specifically on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. However, there were 

1234 public comments that addressed the Agency’s compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or 

1235 which addressed issues that indirectly affect the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The 

1236 Agency’s assessment of these issues is summarized in the FRFA. EPA did not make any 

1237 changes to the proposed rule as a result of these comments.

1238 10. Small entity compliance guide. As required by section 212 of Small Business 

1239 Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide 

1240 (the Guide) in December 2008 to help small entities comply with the RRP rule. The Guide is 

1241 available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National Lead 

1242 Information Center by calling 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech-challenged 

1243 individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 

1244 1–800–877–8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessary, to reflect this rulemaking activity. 

1245 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1246 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 53 of 67

1247 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 

1248 State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA 

1249 generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and 

1250 final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 

1251 governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 

1252 Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of 

1253 UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 

1254 alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 

1255 achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 

1256 inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

1257 than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 

1258 publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

1259 establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 

1260 governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA 

1261 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 

1262 governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 

1263 input in the development of EPA proposed rules with significant Federal intergovernmental 

1264 mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 

1265 regulatory requirements. 

1266 Under UMRA Title II, EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that 

1267 may result in expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million 

1268 by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by State, local, and 

1269 Tribal governments in the aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement under 

1270 section 202 of UMRA which has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 12) and is 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 54 of 67

1271 summarized here. 

1272 1. Authorizing legislation. This rule is issued under the authority of TSCA sections 

1273 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 

1274 2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits 

1275 associated with this rule, a copy of which is available in the docket for this rule (Ref. 5). The 

1276 Economic Analysis presents the costs of this rule as well as various regulatory options and is 

1277 summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA has estimated the total costs of this rule at approximately $500 

1278 million in the first year and $300 million per year thereafter. 

1279 The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health effects attributable to 

1280 lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These health effects include impaired 

1281 cognitive function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such as increased 

1282 adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood pressure, increased incidence of 

1283 hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 

1284 3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input from State, local, and 

1285 Tribal government representatives throughout the development of the renovation, repair, and 

1286 painting program. EPA’s experience in administering the existing lead-based paint activities 

1287 program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that these governments will play a critical role in 

1288 the successful implementation of a national program to reduce exposures to lead-based paint 

1289 hazards associated with renovation, repair, and painting activities. Consequently, as discussed in 

1290 Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), the Agency has met with State, 

1291 local, and Tribal government officials on numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 

1292 4. Least burdensome option. EPA has considered a wide variety of options for addressing 

1293 the risks presented by renovation activities where lead-based paint is present. As part of the 

1294 development of the renovation, repair, and painting program, EPA considered different options 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 55 of 67

1295 for the scope of the rule, various combinations of training and certification requirements for 

1296 individuals who perform renovations, various combinations of work practice requirements, and 

1297 various methods for ensuring that no lead-based paint hazards are left behind by persons 

1298 performing renovations. The Economic Analysis for this rule analyzed several additional options 

1299 for the phasing, effective date, and work practices required for the additional owner-occupied 

1300 housing affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. As described in Unit IV.C., EPA has 

1301 concluded that the options for delaying or phasing the effective date would make the RRP 

1302 program more complex to implement, might lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners, 

1303 and would lead to increased exposures. EPA believes that the selected approach is the least 

1304 burdensome option available that achieves a central objective of this rule, which is to minimize 

1305 exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting activities in 

1306 all target housing and other buildings frequented by children under age 6. 

1307 This rule does not contain a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate as described 

1308 by section 203 of UMRA. Based on the definition of “small government jurisdiction” in RFA 

1309 section 601, no State governments can be considered small. Small Territorial or Tribal 

1310 governments may apply for authorization to administer and enforce this program, which would 

1311 entail costs, but these small jurisdictions are under no obligation to do so. 

1312 EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 

1313 significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments operate public housing, 

1314 and schools that are child-occupied facilities. If these governments perform renovations in these 

1315 facilities, they may incur very small additional costs to provide residents, parents or guardians 

1316 with copies of the records documenting compliance with the training and work practice 

1317 requirements. EPA generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, 

1318 in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small government revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 56 of 67

1319 Unit IV.C.4., the rule is expected to result in small government impacts well under 1% of 

1320 revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small governments. 

1321 Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governments, as the rule is not targeted at small 

1322 governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different 

1323 burden on small governments than on other entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 

1324 E. Executive Order 13132 

1325 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1326 1999), EPA has determined that this rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it will 

1327 not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 

1328 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

1329 levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

1330 not apply to this rule. States are able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer the lead 

1331 renovation, repair, and painting program requirements, but are under no obligation to do so. In 

1332 the absence of a State authorization, EPA will administer the requirements. Nevertheless, in the 

1333 spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

1334 communications between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA consulted with 

1335 representatives of State and local governments in developing the renovation, repair, and painting 

1336 program. These consultations were described in the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 

1337 10). 

1338 F. Executive Order 13175 

1339 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with 

1340 Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

1341 rule does not have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 

1342 governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 57 of 67

1343 the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, 

1344 as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to apply for and receive authorization to administer the 

1345 lead renovation, repair, and painting program on Tribal lands, but Tribes are under no obligation 

1346 to do so. In the absence of a Tribal authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. While 

1347 Tribes may operate public housing or child-occupied facilities covered by the rule such as 

1348 kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, and daycare facilities, EPA has determined that this rule would 

1349 not have substantial direct effects on the Tribal governments that operate these facilities. 

1350 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 

1351 13175 does not apply, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by discussing potential 

1352 renovation regulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painting program at several national 

1353 lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested Federal agencies. 

1354 G. Executive Order 13045 

1355 Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

1356 Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to this rule because it is an 

1357 “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because 

1358 the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate 

1359 effect on children. 

1360 A central purpose of this rule is to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created 

1361 during renovation, repair, and painting activities in all housing and other buildings frequented by 

1362 children under age 6. In the absence of this regulation, adequate work practices are not likely to 

1363 be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activities in housing eligible for the opt-out 

1364 provision. 

1365 Removing the opt-out provision will protect children under the age of 6 who visit a 

1366 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 58 of 67

1367 opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when their family purchases it after such 

1368 a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to owner1369 occupied housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. 

1370 Removing the opt-out provision will also protect children age 6 and older who live in houses 

1371 that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and 

1372 who live in adjacent properties. 

1373 H. Executive Order 13211 

1374 This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 

1375 entitled “Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

1376 or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the 

1377 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

1378 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

1379 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

1380 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 

1381 consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

1382 applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

1383 (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

1384 developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

1385 provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

1386 applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

1387 This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering 

1388 the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

1389 J. Executive Order 12898 

1390 Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 59 of 67

1391 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), 

1392 EPA has assessed the potential impact of this rule on minority and low-income populations. The 

1393 results of this assessment are presented in the Economic Analysis, which is available in the 

1394 public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, the Agency has 

1395 determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

1396 environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of 

1397 environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high 

1398 and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or 

1399 low-income population. 

1400 V. Congressional Review Act

1401 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule 

1402 may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the 

1403 Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing 

1404 this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 

1405 and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 

1406 Register. This rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

1407 

1408 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

1409 

1410 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and 

1411 recordkeeping requirements. 

1412 

1413 Date: ________ 

1414 

1415 ________________ 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 60 of 67

1416 

1417 Administrator.

1418 

1419 

1420 

1421 

1422 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 

1423 Part 745 – [Amended]

1424 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 

1425 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

1426 

1427 2. SectionIn § 745.81 is amended by revising, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

1428 § 745.81 Effective dates.

1429 (a) * * * 

1430 (4) Work practices. (i) On or after April 22, 2010 and before [insert date 60 days after 

1431 date of publication in the Federal Register], all renovations must be performed in accordance 

1432 with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in §

1433 745.86 (b)(6) in target housing or child-occupied facilities, unless the renovation qualifies for 

1434 one of the exceptions identified in § 745.82(a). This does not apply to renovations in target 

1435 housing for which the firm performing the renovation has obtained a statement signed by the 

1436 owner that the renovation will occur in the owner’s residence, no child under age 6 resides there, 

1437 the housing is not a child-occupied facility, and the owner acknowledges that the work practices 

1438 to be used during the renovation will not necessarily include all of the lead-safe work practices 

1439 contained in EPA’s renovation, repair, and painting rule. For the purposes of this section, a child 

1440 resides in the primary residence of his or her custodial parents, legal guardians, and foster 

1441 parents. A child also resides in the primary residence of an informal caretaker if the child lives 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 61 of 67

1442 and sleeps most of the time at the caretaker’s residence. 

1443 (ii) On or after [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], all 

1444 renovations must be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and 

1445 the associated recordkeeping requirements in § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target housing or 

1446 child-occupied facilities, unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in § 

1447 745.82(a) 

1448 * * * * *

1449 * * * * *

1450 

1451 

1452 

1453 § 745.82 [Amended]

1454 3. SectionIn § 745.82 is amended by removing, remove paragraph (c). 

1455 

1456 4. SectionIn § 745.84 is amended by revising paragraphs, revise paragraph (b)(2), 

1457 (c)(2)the introductory text of (c)(2), and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

1458 § 745.84 Information distribution requirements.

1459 * * * * * 

1460 

1461 (b) * * * 

1462 (2) Comply with one of the following. (i) Notify in writing, or ensure written notification 

1463 of, each affected unit and make the pamphlet available upon request prior to the start of 

1464 renovation. Such notification shall be accomplished by distributing written notice to each 

1465 affected unit. The notice shall describe the general nature and locations of the planned renovation 

1466 activities; the expected starting and ending dates; and a statement of how the occupant can obtain 

1467 the pamphlet and a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d), at no cost to the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 62 of 67

1468 occupants, or 

1469 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs describing the general 

1470 nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be 

1471 posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. The 

1472 signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or information on how interested 

1473 occupants can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost 

1474 to occupants. The signs must also include information on how interested occupants can review a 

1475 copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at 

1476 no cost to the occupants. 

1477 * * * * * 

1478 

1479 (c) * * * 

1480 (2) Provide the parents and guardians of children using the child-occupied facility with 

1481 the pamphlet, information describing the general nature and locations of the renovation and the 

1482 anticipated completion date, and information on how interested parents or guardians of children 

1483 frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) 

1484 and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the occupants by complying with 

1485 one of the following: 

1486 * * * * * 

1487 

1488 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs describing the general 

1489 nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be 

1490 posted in areas where they can be seen by the parents or guardians of the children frequenting the 

1491 child-occupied facility. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 63 of 67

1492 information on how interested parents or guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied 

1493 facility can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to 

1494 the parents or guardians. The signs must also include information on how interested parents or 

1495 guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of the records 

1496 required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the 

1497 parents or guardians. 

1498 * * * * *

1499 

1500 

1501 

1502 

1503 5. SectionIn § 745.86 is amended by removing, remove paragraph (b)(6) and 

1504 redesignatingredesignate paragraph (b)(7) as paragraph (b)(6) and by revisingrevise paragraphs 

1505 (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows: 

1506 

1507 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

1508 * * * * * 

1509 

1510 (b) * * * 

1511 (1) Records or reports certifying that a determination had been made that lead-based paint 

1512 was not present on the components affected by the renovation, as described in § 745.82(a). 

1513 These records or reports include: 

1514 (i) Reports prepared by a certified inspector or certified risk assessor (certified pursuant 

1515 to either Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an EPA-authorized State or Tribal certification 

1516 program). 

1517 (ii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after using EPA-recognized test kits, 

1518 including an identification of the manufacturer and model of any test kits used, a description of 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 64 of 67

1519 the components that were tested including their locations, and the result of each test kit used. 

1520 * * * * * 

1521 

1522 (c)(1) When the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or within 30 days of the 

1523 completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, the renovation firm must provide information 

1524 pertaining to compliance with this subpart to the following persons: 

1525 (i) The owner of the building; and, if different, 

1526 (ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place within a 

1527 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation 

1528 took place within a child-occupied facility. 

1529 (2) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit target housing, 

1530 renovation firms must post the information required by this subpart or instructions on how 

1531 interested occupants can obtain a copy of this information. This information must be posted in 

1532 areas where it is likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. 

1533 (3) The information required to be provided by paragraph (c) of this section may be 

1534 provided by completing the sample form titled “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” 

1535 or a similar form containing the test kit information required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and the 

1536 training and work practice compliance information required by § 745.86(b)(6). 

1537 (d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning verification as permitted 

1538 by § 745.85(c), the renovation firm must provide, when the final invoice for the renovation is 

1539 delivered or within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, a copy of 

1540 the dust sampling report to: 

1541 (1) The owner of the building; and, if different, 

1542 (2) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place within a 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 65 of 67

1543 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation 

1544 took place within a child-occupied facility. 

1545 (3) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit target housing, 

1546 renovation firms must post these dust sampling reports or information on how interested 

1547 occupants of the housing being renovated can obtain a copy of the report. This information must 

1548 be posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. 

1549 6. SectionIn § 745.90 is amended by revising, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(8) to read as 

1550 follows: 

1551 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification.

1552 * * * * *

1553 

1554 (a) * * * 

1555 (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician certification, an 

1556 individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling technician refresher course accredited by 

1557 EPA under §745.225 or by a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this 

1558 part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial course described in paragraph 

1559 (a)(1) of this section. If the individual does not complete a refresher course within this time, the 

1560 individual must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals who complete a 

1561 renovator course accredited by EPA before April 22, 2010, must complete an EPA-accredited 

1562 renovator refresher course before July 1, 2015, to maintain renovator certification. 

1563 

1564 * * * * *

1565 

1566 (b) * * * 

1567 (8) Must prepare the records required by § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6). 

1568 * * * * * 

1569 

1570 7. SectionIn § 745.225 is amended by revising, revise paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 66 of 67

1571 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied facilities.

1572 

1573 * * * * * 

1574 

1575 (c) * * * 

1576 (2) * * * 

1577 ((iii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized 

1578 State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training for instructors of lead-based paint activities 

1579 courses or 8 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized State or Tribal-accredited lead1580 specific training for instructors of renovator or dust sampling technician courses; and 

1581 

1582 * * * * * 

1583 

1584 

1585 8. SectionIn § 745.326 is amended by adding, add paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

1586 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements.

1587 * * * * * 

1588 

1589 (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. When EPA publishes in the Federal 

1590 Register revisions to the renovation program requirements contained in subparts E and L of this 

1591 part: 

1592 (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the effective date of the 

1593 revisions to the renovation program requirements in subparts E and L of this part must 

1594 demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section no later than the first report that it 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 67 of 67

1595 submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the 

1596 revisions. 

1597 (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a renovation program submitted 

1598 but not approved before the effective date of the revisions to the renovation program 

1599 requirements in subparts E and L of this part must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of 

1600 this section either by amending its application or in the first report that it submits pursuant to §

1601 745.324(h) of this part but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the revisions. 

1602 (3) A State or Tribe submitting its application for approval of a renovation program on or 

1603 after the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application that it meets the 

1604 requirements of the new renovation program requirements in subparts E and L of this part.

1605 

1606 [FR Doc. 09??–????? Filed ??–??–0910; 8:45 am] 

1607 BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

1608