*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 67 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 1 2 EO 12866 Review Draft of 04/22/2010 as compared to that of 02/19/2010 3 4 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY 6 40 CFR Part 745 7 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL– XXXX

– X ] 8823–7] 8 RIN 2070–AJ55 9 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Reco rdkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, 10 Repair, and Painting Program 11 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 12 ACTION: Final rule. 13 SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 14 Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule 15 established accreditation, training, certification, a nd recordkeeping requirements as well as work 16 practice standards on persons performing re novations for compensation in most pre-1978 17 housing and child-occupied faciliti es. In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” 18 provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice 19 requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he 20 or she occupies that no child under age 6 or preg nant women resides in the home and the home is 21 not a child-occupied facility. EPA is also requ iring renovation firms to provide a copy of the 22 records demonstrating compliance with the trai ning and work practice requirements of the RRP 23 rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being reno vated or the operator of 24 the child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes mino r changes to th e certification, 25 accreditation and state authorization requirements. 26

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final rule is effective [ insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal 27*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 67 Register ]. 28 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 29 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049 . All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 30 available at http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not 31 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business In formation (CBI) or other information whose 32 disclosure is restricted by stat ute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 33 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available 34 docket materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only 35 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. Th e OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 36 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 37 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 38 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 39 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 40 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identificati on, pass through a metal detector, 41 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processe d through an X-ray machine and 42 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 43 the building and retu rned upon departure. 44 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 45
46 For general information contact : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental 47 Assistance Division (74 08M), Office of PollutionPrevention and Toxics, Environmental 48 Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460

– 0001; telephone 49 number: (202) 554

– 1404; e

- mail address: TSCA

- Hotline@epa.gov

. 50 For technical information contact : Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals 51 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 52 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–0758; e- 53*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 67 mail address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov

. edmonds.marc@epa.gov

. 54 For general information contact : The TSCA Hotline, ABVI-G oodwill, 422 South Clinton 55 Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA56 Hotline@epa.gov

. 57 Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through 58 TTY by calling the toll-free Fe deral Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. 59 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 60
61 I. General Information 62 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 63 You may be potentially affected by this ac tion if you operate a tr aining program required 64 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who must be certified to conduct 65 renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.89, or if you are an individual who must be 66 certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. 67 This final rule applies only in States, Territo ries, and Indian Tribal areas that do not have 68 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the 69 authorization status of States , Territories, and Indian Trib es, contact the National Lead 70 Information Center (NLIC) at 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing

- or speech

- challenged 71 individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll

- free Federal Relay Service at 72
1

– 800

– 877

– 8339. Potentially affected categories and enti ties may include, but are not limited to: 73

• Building construction (NAICS code 236), e .g., single-family housing construction, multi74 family housing construction, residential remodelers. 75

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 76 contractors, painting and wall c overing contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 77*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 67 contractors, drywall and insulati on contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 78 glass and glazing contractors. 79

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential build ings and dwellings, 80 residential property managers. 81

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

• Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 83 kindergarten classrooms. 84

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

• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection serv ices (NAICS code 86 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 87

• Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors engaged in 88 lead-based paint activities. 89 This listing is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers 90 regarding entities likely to be aff ected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 91 could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 92 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whet her this action might apply to 93 certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be af fected by this action, you 94 should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 95 CFR 745.226. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 96 entity, consult the tech nical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 97 CONTACT

. 98 II. Background 99 A. Agency's Authority for Taking this Action 100 This final rule is being issued under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act 101*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 67 (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 102
B. Introduction 103 In the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008, under th e authority of sections 104 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). The final RRP 105 rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses lead-based paint hazards 106 created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted surfaces in target 107 housing and child-occupied facilities. 108 Shortly after the RRP rule was published, se veral petitions were filed challenging the 109 rule. These petitions were cons olidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 110 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and 111 children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petiti ons. In this agreement EPA 112 committed to propose several changes to the RRP ru le, including the changes discussed in this 113 document regarding the opt-out provis ion and recordkeeping requirements. 114 The RRP rule establishes requirements for tr aining renovators, other renovation workers, 115 and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 116 renovation firms; for accrediting providers of re novation and dust sampling technician training; 117 for renovation work practices; and for recordkeepi ng. Interested States, Territories, and Indian 118 Tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of 119 the new renovation requirements. More inform ation on the RRP rule may be found in the 120 Federal Register document announcing the RRP ru le or on EPA's website at 121 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

. 122 Many provisions of the RRP rule were de rived from the existing lead-based paint 123 activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). Th ese existing regulations were 124 promulgated in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), wh ich defines lead-based paint activities in 125*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 67 target housing as inspections, risk assessments , and abatements. The 1996 regulations cover 126 lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities, along with limited 127 screening activities called lead hazard screens. These regulati ons established an accreditation 128 program for training providers a nd a certification program for i ndividuals and firms performing 129 these activities. Training course accreditation and indivi dual certification was made available in 130 five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abat ement supervisor, and abatement 131 worker. In addition, these lead-b ased paint activitie s regulations estab lished work practice 132 standards and recordkeeping requirements for l ead-based paint activities in target housing and 133 child-occupied facilities. 134 The RRP rule created two new training disc iplines in the field of lead-based paint: 135 Renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who successfully complete renovator training 136 from an accredited training provi der are certified renovators. Certified renovators are 137 responsible for ensuring that renovations to whic h they are assigned are performed in compliance 138 with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 745.85. Persons who successfully 139 complete dust sampling technician training from an accredited training provider are certified dust 140 sampling technicians. Certifie d dust sampling technicians may be called upon to collect dust 141 samples after renovation activit ies have been completed. 142 The RRP rule contains a number of work pr actice requirements that must be followed for 143 every covered renovation in target housing and child-occupied fac ilities. These requirements 144 pertain to warning signs and work area containmen t, the restriction or prohibition of certain 145 practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power plan ing), waste handling, cleaning, 146 and post-renovation cleaning verification. The fi rm must ensure complia nce with these work 147 practices. Although the certified re novator is not required to be on-site at all times, while the 148 renovation project is ongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work 149*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 67 being performed by other workers to ensure th at the work practices are being followed. 150
151 C. Opt-out Provision 152 The RRP rule included a pr ovision that exempts a renovation firm from the training and 153 work practice requirements of the rule when the firm obtains a certificatio n from the owner of a 154 residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home 155 and the home is not a child-occupi ed facility. Unless the target housing meets the definition of a 156 child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant si gned a statement that no child under age 6 and no 157 pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will not be 158 required to use the lead-safe work practices c ontained in EPA’s RRP ru le, the renovation activity 159 is not subject to the traini ng, certification, and work practic e requirements of the rule. 160 Conversely, if the owner-occupant does not sign the certification and acknowledgement for any 161 reason (even if no children under age 6 or no preg nant women reside there), the renovation is 162 subject to the requirements of the RRP rule. 163 Even though the Agency included the opt- out provision in the final RRP rule, EPA 164 recognized that the opt-out presented concer ns for exposure to children under age 6. 165 Nonetheless, EPA explained that it believed it should focus the rule on scenarios with the 166 greatest exposure to children under age 6, that co ncerns for new homeowners would be mitigated 167 to some extent by the requirements of the “Discl osure Rule”, and that ol der children and adults 168 did not ingest lead-dust at as high a rate a toddlers and therefor e high dust lead levels present a 169 much greater risk to a young child than they do fo r an older child or adult. After promulgation, 170 the rule, and specifically the opt-out provision, was challenged. As part of a settlement 171 agreement, EPA agreed to propose removing the opt-out provision. 172 On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to remove the opt-out provision. For the reasons 173*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 67 discussed in this Unit, the Agen cy has now concluded that it is important to require the RRP 174 work practices and training and cer tification requirements in targ et housing even if there is no 175 child under age 6 or pregnant wo man residing there. By removing the opt-out provision, the rule 176 will go farther toward protecting children under age 6 and pregnant women, as well as older 177 children and adult occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman 178 resides. Therefore, the opt-out provision w ill no longer be available to owner-occupants 179 beginning on the effective date of this final rule. 180 EPA believes the opt-out provision is not suffi ciently protective for children under age 6 181 and pregnant women, the most vulnerable populations identified in the RRP rule. As pointed out 182 by a number of commenters on the RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not protect families with 183 young children who may purchase recen tly renovated target housi ng. Removal of the opt-out 184 will result in fewer homes being purchased with lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and 185 painting activities. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out provision was limited to owner-occupied 186 target housing and did not extend to vacant rental housing because of the concern that future 187 tenants could unknowingly move into a rental unit where dust-lead h azards created by the 188 renovation are present. In the same way, dust- lead hazards created during renovations in an 189 owner-occupied residence conducted prio r to a sale will be present fo r the next occupants. It is 190 common for home owners to hire contractors to perform activities that disturb paint before 191 selling a house, thus increasing the likelihood of lead hazards being present for someone buying 192 a home, which may include a family with a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman. There are 193 other benefits to removing the opt-out provision, including protection for family pets, as lead 194 poisonings resulting from renovatio ns have been documented in both cats and dogs (Refs. 17 and 195 18). 196*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 67 In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA explai ned that it believed the Disclosure Rule, 40 197 CFR part 745, subpart F (required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based 198 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–550), would help to address these 199 concerns. The Disclosure Rule requires sellers of target housing to disclose known lead-based 200 paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers and provide them with a copy of the 201 lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 202 14). EPA explained the receipt of this informa tion could prompt the family to inquire about 203 potential lead-based paint haza rds in the home. In addition, EPA recommended that purchasers 204 take advantage of their statutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk 205 assessment done while in the proces s of purchasing target housing. 206
207 In supporting the proposal to remove the opt -out provision, one comm enter disagreed that 208 the Disclosure Rule adequately addresses the risks to subsequentowners of target housing that 209 undergo renovations under the opt- out provision. In particular, this commenter pointed out that 210 there is nothing in the Disclosure Rule to alert homeowners to the fact that RRP work practice 211 requirements were not followed before they purchased the home. Indeed, the Disclosure Rule only 212 requires disclosure of known hazards. It would not require disclosure of renovation activities or that 213 the owner opted out of the RRP rule requirements. The commenter further states that it is 214 unreasonable to assume that a typical homeowner or someone renting a previously owner-occupied 215 dwelling would know the detailed exemptions on the RRP rule. 216 217 The Agency continues to believe that the Disclosure Rule provides valuable information 218 to homeowners and that this information may he lp homeowners become aware of lead hazards. 219 However, EPA’s study on the Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 220 and Painting Activities (the “Dust Study”, Ref. 11), demons trated that renovation, repair, and 221*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 67 painting activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The study 222 also showed that the RRP work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to dust hazards 223 that could result from renovation activities. As the commenter pointed out, the Disclosure Rule 224 will not, in many cases, provide the type of renovation specific lead hazard information or 225 provide recipients information th at can be said to reliably or effectively result in minimizing 226 exposure to lead-based paint ha zards created by renovation activi ties. Thus, there is little 227 evidence to suggest that the prov isions of the Disclosure Rule are effective or reliable at 228 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazar ds created by renovation activities in target 229 housing. In addition, even if the Disclosure Rule reliably disclo sed relevant information relating 230 to earlier renovation activities, EP A does not believe this would be an adequate substitute for the 231 work practice standards, which EPA has a record basis to conclude actually result in elimination 232 – rather than simply disclosure -- of the hazards created by renovations. 233 Perhaps in recognition of this shortcomi ng, one commenter suggested that EPA should 234 revise the Disclosure Rule, as opposed to maki ng changes to the RRP rule. That would not, 235 however, satisfy EPA’s obligation under section 4 02 to put into place standards that take into 236 account reliability, effectiveness, and safety to address lead-based pa int hazards created by 237 renovation activities in target hous ing. Moreover, the Disclosure Rule was jointly promulgated 238 by EPA and the Department of Housing and Urba n Development. Thus, changes would involve 239 a joint rulemaking effort and are not wholly withinEPA’s control. Furthermore, changes to the 240 Disclosure Rule would need to be analyzed in the context of the underlying statute—not just 241 because it might be helpful in the context of actions taken by EPA under a different statutory 242 provision. In short, while this is a suggestion that may be wort h pursuing, it does not address the 243 present issue; that of reliably and effectivel y minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 244 created by renovation activities. 245*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 67 246 Furthermore, EPA is concerned about the eff ectiveness of disclosure with respect to 247 populations with the highest risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Non

- Hispanic black 248

c hildren and children from low

- income Children in minority populati ons and children whose 249 families are poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. level s(Ref. 3, at 250 e376). Analysis of the National Health and Nu trition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data 251 show from 1988 through 2004 shows that overal l the incidence the prevalence of elevated blood 252 lead levels have equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 1 to 5 years has decreased for 253 all groups assessed. from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in1999-2004, which is an 84% decline 254 (Ref. 3, at e377). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic 255 black children aged 1 to 5 years had higher pe rcentages of blood lead levels equal to or 256 exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) (Ref. 3). , In 257 addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the geometric mean blood lead 258 level was significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican 259 Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/dL ). ) (Ref. 3, at e377). For children 260 aged 1

- to 5 years from families with low income, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2. 5 4 261 μg/dL

. (Ref. 3, at e377). Further, the incidences of blood-le ad levels greater than 10 ug/dL and 262 greater than or equal to 5ug/dL were higher for non- hispanic Hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4% 263 respectively) than for Mexican Americans ( 4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic 264 whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively)

. (Ref. 3 , at e377). The “analysis in dicates that residence in 265 older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher 266 lead levels” (Ref. 3, at e376 ). EPA is concerned that disclosure may be ineffective with respect 267 to these populations already at higher risk of having elevated blood lead levels because the 268 effectiveness of disclosure depends on the recipient’s understanding the significance of the 269*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 67 disclosure and having the means and ab ility to act upon th e information. 270 This also relates to practical issues that have implications fo r the RRP rule in general, and 271 for high risk, low-income, minority populations in particular. The opt-out is a relatively 272 complicated overlay to the applicability provisions of the rule. EPA believes there are practical 273 benefits to removing the opt-out and simplif ying the applicability of the rule—both for 274 renovators and homeowners. The opt-out provi sion complicates the outreach and education 275 about lead hazards and makes the rule more co mplicated for renovators to apply and consumers 276 to understand. Furthermore, it not only assume s literacy but also a working knowledge of what 277 the rule would otherwise require and an ability to provide inform ed consent. Accordingly, EPA 278 believes that populations that already have the highest risk factors for lead exposure may be 279 disproportionately adversely aff ected by the complexity of a ru le that contains the opt-out 280 provision. More generally, EPA beli eves that the more uniform the application of the rule work 281 practices in target housing is, the more effective and reliable they will be at minimizing exposure 282 to lead-based paint hazards. C ontractors who have a single set of work practices that are to be 283 applied in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities will be more likely to apply them 284 consistently and correctly. 285 Renovations performed under the op t-out provision are also like ly to result in exposures 286 for vulnerable populations in other ways. Vis iting children who do not sp end enough time in the 287 housing to render it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead from playing 288 in dust-lead hazards created by renovations. Fo r example, children may spend time in the homes 289 of grandparents, but those homes may be eligible for the opt-out provision of the RRP rule. A 290 homeowner who signs an opt-out st atement may not realize that sh e is pregnant. For example, 291 “A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning duri ng Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse” describes 292 four cases of childhood lead poisoning and two ca ses of adult lead toxi city resulting from a 293*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 67 renovation. One of the adults was a woman who di d not realize she was pregnant until after the 294 exposure occurred. (Ref. 16) 295 Eliminating the opt-out provision will also protect families with young children residing 296 near or adjacent to homes undergoing renovations. Under the RRP rule, an owner occupant can 297 take advantage of the opt-out provision even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman lives in 298 an adjacent home. Renovations on the exterior of a residence can spread leaded dust and debris 299 some distance from the renovation activity, wh ich is why, for regulated renovations, EPA 300 requires renovation firms to cover the ground wi th plastic sheeting or other impermeable 301 material a distance of 10 feet from the renovatio n and take extra precautions when in certain 302 situations to ensure that dust and debris does not contaminate ot her buildings or other areas of 303 the property or migrate to adjacent properties. One commenter cited a study that shows housing 304 in urban areas, such as Chicago, tend to be onl y three to five meters apart, highlighting the 305 likelihood of lead contamination of adjacent pr osperities in urban neighborhoods. Similarly, 306 another commenter stated that in urban communitie s, many if not most of the homes are side by 307 side. There are approximately 2 million owner- occupied, single-family attached homes (e.g., 308 townhomes, semi-detached or duplex homes) built before 1978. Renovations on the exteriors of 309 these homes are likely to contaminate neighbor ing yards and porches resulting in exposure 310 outside the house as well as inside because dust can be tracked into the home. Many more 311 owner-occupied, single-family detached homes are located in close proximity to each other, and 312 renovations performed under the op t-out provision present a similar risk for these homes. 313 Another factor that EPA did not fully consider in promulgating the original RRP rule, but that 314 weighs heavily against the opt-out provision, is that the risks posedby the opt-out with respect to 315 exterior work will disproportionally affect children that are already at the highest risk for higher 316 blood lead levels—low income, non-Hispanic bl ack children living in older housing in urban 317*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 67 areas, which is likely to be compri sed of attached, or closely constr ucted detached, homes. 318 While the RRP rule focused principally on protecting children under age 6, it is well 319 known that older children and adults can also suffer adverse effect s from lead exposure. Adults 320 are susceptible to lead effects at lower bl ood lead levels than pr eviously understood (e.g

. , Ref

. 321 13, p. 8– 25). Epidemiologic studies have consiste ntly demonstrated associations between lead 322 exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood 323 pressure and incidence of hypertension. A meta-ana lysis of numerous studies estimates that a 324 doubling of blood-Lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μ g/dL) is associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase 325 in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. The evidence for an 326 association of lead with cardi ovascular morbidity and mortalit y is limited but supportive. (Ref

. 327 13, p E-10). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6 and 8 of EPA’s Air Quality 328 Criteria Document for Lead (Ref

. 13), “neurotoxic effects in ch ildren and cardiovascular effects 329 in adults are among those best substantiated as oc curring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 330
to 10 μ g/dL (or possibly lower); and these categorie s are currently clearly of greatest public 331 health concern’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–60). With regard to blood lead levels in individual children 332 associated with particular neur ological effects, the Criteria Do cument states “Collectively, the 333 prospective cohort and cross-sectio nal studies offer evidence that exposure to lead affects the 334 intellectual attainment of pr eschool and school age childre n at blood lead levels <10 μ g/dL (most 335 clearly in the 5 to 10 μ g/dL range, but, less definitively, possibly lower).” (Ref. 13, p. 6–269). 336 Epidemiological studies have cons istently demonstrated associat ions between lead exposure and 337 enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and 338 incidence of hypertension. As one commenter point ed out, the half-life of lead in bone is 339 approximately 20 years. Thus, women of child-b earing age exposed to le ad will retain higher 340 levels of lead in their bodies throughout their child-bearing years. Whenpregnancy occurs, lead 341*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 67 can be transferred to the fetus causing an array of adverse effects. EPA now believes the opt-out 342 provision does not sufficiently account for the importance of the health e ffects of lead exposure 343 to adults and children age 6 and older by al lowing renovations to be performed without 344 following the RRP rule requirements in housing that qualified for the opt-out. In supporting the 345 final RRP rule, EPA stated that older children and adults do not ingest dust at the same high rate 346 that a toddler does. This is corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis of studies of children’s hand347 to-mouth behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this analysis indicates, this does not mean that hand348 to-mouth behavior is not a potenti al concern for older children. According to the meta-analysis, 349 the average indoor hand-to-mouth behavior range d from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, with the 350 lowest value corresponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest value corresponding to the 351
3 to < 6 month olds. Average outdoor hand-to -mouth frequency ranged from 2.9 to 14.5 352 contacts/hour, with the lowest value corre sponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest 353 value corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month olds. Although toddlers have a higher incidence of 354 hand-to-mouth behavior than 6 to < 11 year olds, the latter group still averages more than 6 355 contacts/hour. Further elevated blood lead levels do occur in children older than 6 and adults 356 (Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows that when the RRP requirements are not followed, renovation 357 activities result in dust lead levels that can be orders of magnitude above the hazard standard and 358 that can be orders of magnitude higher than if the RRP requirements are followed. EPA believes 359 the information from this meta-analysis prov ides corroborating support for EPA’s concern for 360 children 6 and older and its decision to eliminate the opt-out provision. 361
362 The Agency believes that it should only allow provisions such as the opt-out for 363 situations where the information available to EPA indicates that the RRP rule work practices are 364 not necessary to minimize exposure of occupants to lead paint hazards. Because lead paint dust 365*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 67 exposure can cause adverse health effects for popul ations other than just children under age 6 366 and renovations can result in lead dust levels many times higher than the hazard standard, EPA 367 believes the work practices should be followed in target housing without regard to the age of the 368 occupants. 369
370 Moreover, EPA believes that implementi ng the regulations wi thout the opt-out 371 provision promotes, to a greater ex tent, the statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering 372 renovation activities in target housing. Among other things, TSCA section 402(c)(3), directs 373 EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to re novation activities that create lead-based paint 374 hazards in target housing. Section 401(17) of TSCA defines target housing as “any housing 375 constructed prior to 1978, except ho using for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any 376 child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing for the 377 elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0- bedroom dwelling.” Pursuant to section 403 of 378 TSCA, EPA has identified dust-lead hazards in target housing a nd child-occupied facilities as 379 surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentr ation of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft 2 380 on floors or 250 μg/ft 2 on windowsills. In the RRP rule, EPA found that renovation, repair, and 381 painting activities that disturb lead-based pa int create lead-based paint hazards. Thus, 382 renovations in target housing that create lead-bas ed paint hazards should be covered unless there 383 is a record basis to conclude that coverage is unnecessary. 384 Shortly after promulgating the RRP rule, th e RRP rule, and specifically the opt-out 385 provision, was challenged. EPA deci ded to settle the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, EPA 386 agreed to issue a proposed rule removing the opt-ou t. In turn, as part of this rulemaking, EPA 387 requested information or data that would shed any light on the reliab ility, effectiveness, or safety 388 of the opt-out or any variation thereof in relati on to EPA’s lead hazard standards. EPA did not 389*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 67 receive any information in response to its request. 390 EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated and EPA f ound that renovation, repair, and painting 391 activities produce lead dust above the regulator y hazard standards. In fact many renovation 392 activities create large quantities of lead dust. The Dust Study shows th at renovation activities 393 result in lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP rule containment 394 and cleanup procedures are not follo wed. It also demonstrated that work practices other than 395 those restricted or prohibited by the RRP rule can leave behind lead dust well above the hazard 396 standards when the RRP rule requirements are not followed. The Dust Study also showed that 397 alternative practices (broom clean ing, not using containment) we re not effective or safe in 398 relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards. Unde r the opt-out, contractors performing renovations 399 would have no obligation to minimize or cleanup any dust-lead hazards created by the 400 renovation. Indeed, contractors would not be prevented from using practices that EPA has 401 determined create hazards that cannot be ad equately contained or cleaned up even when 402 following the RRP rule requirements. The Agency also took these factors into consideration in 403 its decision to remove the opt-out provision in this final rule. 404
405 In development of the proposed rule, EPA considered and requested comment on 406 certain alternative approaches or work practice requirements fo r owner-occupied target housing 407 that is not a child-occupied f acility and where no children younge r than 6 or pregnant women 408 reside. EPA also requested comment on possible alternate approaches that would meet EPA’s 409 statutory obligation to apply work practice standards in target housing that take into account 410 reliability, effectiveness, and safety. 411 One alternative for which EPA requested co mment would have required the RRP work 412 practices only for exterior renovations. Under this option, unless the target housing meets the 413*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 67 definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child 414 under 6 and no pregnant woman re side there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm 415 will only be required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule when 416 renovating exteriors then the renovation firm wo uld only be required to follow the RRP work 417 practices when doing exterior re novations, but not when doing inte rior renovations. This option 418 would have addressed exposures to lead dust from exterior renovations for people living in 419 neighboring homes, particularly attached hom es or homes in close physical proximity. 420 Individuals residing in homes inclose physical proximity could be exposed during the entire 421 renovation and post-renovation phase , and their exposure would not necessarily be considered by 422 an owner-occupant in choosing not to require lead-safe work practices. However, this option did 423 not address lead hazards created during renovations of the inte riors of home which could lead to 424 lead exposure to occupants, and EPA receiv ed no comments mitigating this concern or 425 supporting the protectiveness of this option. 426 EPA requested comment on an alternative option under which the only work practices 427 applicable to housing that is not a child-occupied f acility and where no ch ildren or pregnant 428 women reside would be the restriction or pr ohibition on certain work practice found at 40 CFR 429 745.85(a)(3). These include: 430 1. Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is prohibited. 431 2. The use of machines that remove lead -based paint through high speed operation such 432 as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited 433 unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control. 434 3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at temperatures below 1,100 435 degrees Fahrenheit. 436 All the other work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would not be required in 437*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 67 target housing that is not a child-occupied faci lity and where no children under age 6 or pregnant 438 women reside. This option would have prohibi ted or restricted the highest dust generating 439 practices but would not have required the other practices under 40 CFR 745.85. While the 440 prohibited work practices create high amounts of lead dus t, the other work pr actices also create 441 lead dust above the hazard standard. The Dust Study shows that common work practices result 442 in lead levels many times greater than the haza rd standard when the RRP rule containment and 443 cleanup procedures ar e not followed. 444 EPA requested comment on a third option under which a subset of target housing would 445 not be subject to the RRP work practices but instead would have been subject to dust wipe 446 testing to be performed after the renovation. Under this optio n, unless the target housing meets 447 the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant si gned a statement that no child 448 under 6 and no pregnant woman re side there and an acknowledgment that the renovation activity 449 is only subject to dust wipe testing after the renovation and providing th e results to the owner450 occupant, then the renovation firm would not be required to conduct the training, certification, 451 and work practice requirements of the rule. The testing results w ould become part of the record 452 for that house that must be disclosed under the Disclosure Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart F) 453 required by section 1018 of Title X of the Resi dential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 454 of 1992 (Public Law 102–550). This option woul d provide information that could protect 455 potential buyers of a home wher e renovation was completed prior to the sale, because they would 456 be notified of the results of the dust wipe tests before purchase and could take appropriate action 457 (e.g., thorough cleaning and retestin g of the home, or selecting a different home) if the lead 458 results were at a level that raised concerns for them. While this alternative may provide helpful 459 information to home owners and occupants, as discussed above it would not address lead-based 460 paint hazards created by renovations because it do es not require any of the work practices 461*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 67 required by the RRP rule. 462 After considering these alternatives as well as keeping the opt-out provision, the Agency 463 has decided to eliminate the Op t-out provision and not to adopt any of the alternatives. One 464 concern with the opt-out provision or the alternativ es is that they do not adequately address the 465 risks of lead-based paint hazards to children older than five years old or adults. The opt-out and 466 each of these alternatives can al so result in exposures to childre n under the age of 6 and pregnant 467 women to lead-based paint hazards. In the same way as for the opt-out provision itself, EPA also 468 has concerns that populations that are already at a higher risk for elevated blood lead levels may 469 be disproportionately and adversel y affected by the alternatives. 470 Another concern with the opt-out as well the al ternatives is that they can create confusion 471 among both contractors and consumers. Several co mmenters stated that th e opt-out provision or 472 the alternatives could cause confusion that could potentially result in non-compliance by 473 renovation firms. EPA agrees and believes thatsimplifying the applicability of the work 474 practices will enhance the effectiven ess and reliability of the rule. 475 Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now 476 conclude that the opt-out nor th at the alternative approaches ar e safe, reliable or effective 477 because none of these would sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In 478 sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors ar e exposed to the lead 479 hazards created by the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect older 480 children, women of childbearing ag e, or other adults currently residing in the home and can 481 result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint 482 hazards. Again, although EPA specifically requestedinformation or data that would shed any 483 light on the reliability, effectivene ss, or safety of these options inrelation to EPA’s lead hazard 484 standards, the Agency did not receive any. The Agency took these factors into consideration in 485*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 67 deciding not to adopt these alternatives. 486 D. Recordkeeping and Reporting 487 EPA’s stated purposes in promulgating the recordkeeping requirements were two-fold. 488 “The first is to allow EPA or an authorized St ate to review a renovation firm’s compliance with 489 the substantive requirements of the regulation th rough reviewing the records maintained for all 490 of the renovation jobs the firm has done. The se cond is to remind a renovation firm what it must 491 do to comply. EPA envisioned that renovation firm s would use the recordkeeping requirements 492 and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done everything that they are required to do 493 for a particular renovation” (Ref. 1, p. 21745). Several commenters on the RRP rule suggested 494 that the recordkeeping requirement s could also be used to provide valuable information about the 495 renovation to the owners and occupants of build ings being renovated. EPA responded to these 496 comments by stating that some of the informa tion identified by these commenters was included 497 in the “Renovate Right” pamphlet and that the pamphlet was the be st way to get that information 498 to the owners and occupants. With respect to the other items identified by these commenters, 499 EPA stated its belief that the renovation firms were already providing much of this information 500 (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 501 As part of EPA’s preparations to admini ster the RRP program, EPA has been developing 502 an education and outreach campaign aimed at c onsumers. In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA 503 recognized the importance of education and outreach to consumers, to teach them about lead-safe 504 work practices and to encourage them to hi re certified renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). 505 EPA’s work on the education and outreach campa ign has continued to highlight the importance 506 of an informed public to the success of the RRP program at minimizing exposures to lead-based 507 paint hazards that may be created by renovations. As a result, EPA has determined that copies of 508 the records required to be maintained by renovati on firms to document compliance with the work 509*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 67 practice requirements, if provided to the owners and occupants of the re novated buildings, would 510 serve to reinforce the information provided by the “Renovate Right” pam phlet on the potential 511 hazards of renovations and on the RRP rule requirements. While the “Renovate Right” pamphlet 512 provides valuable information about the requireme nts of the RRP rule, the records that a firm 513 would give to owners and occupants would provide useful information regarding rule 514 compliance that is not found in the pamphlet. In covering the signifi cant training and work 515 practice provisions of the RRP rule, these reco rds would enable buildi ng owners and occupants 516 to better understand what the renovation firm di d to comply with the RRP rule and how the RRP 517 rule’s provisions affected their specific renovati on. Several commenters stated that educating 518 homeowners would help them monitor complia nce by the renovation firm. One commenter 519 stated that the checklist would help the public un derstand the RRP rule and that a better informed 520 public would choose to have renovation performe d by profession remodelers who would provide 521 safe and quality work. Other commenters believe th at the distribution of the checklist is needed 522 to address a lack of accountability of renovation firm s to owners and occupants. EPA agrees that 523 educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the 524 EPA in monitoring compliance with the RRP ru le and contribute to the effectiveness and 525 reliability of the rule. 526 After considering public comments, EPA decide d to finalize the rule as proposed. This 527 final rules requires that, when th e final invoice for the renovation is delivered, or within 30 days 528 of the completion of the renovation, whicheve r is earlier, the renovation firm provide 529 information demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the 530 RRP rule to the owner of the building being renov ated and, if different, to the occupants of the 531 renovated housing or the operator of the child-oc cupied facility. For renovations in common 532 areas of target housing, the renova tion firm must provide the occ upants of the affected housing 533*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 67 units instructions on how to re view or obtain this informati on from the renovation firm at no 534 charge to the occupant. These instructions mu st be included in th e notice provided to each 535 affected unit under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on th e signs posted in the common areas under 40 536 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is finalizing similar re quirements for renovations in child-occupied 537 facilities. Under this final rule , the renovation firm is required to provide interested parents or 538 guardians of children using the child-occupied fac ility instructions on how to review or obtain a 539 copy of these records at no cost to the parent s or guardians. This could be accomplished by 540 mailing or hand delivering these instructions, or by including them on the signs posted under 40 541 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii). 542 Under this new requirement, renovation firm s must provide traini ng and work practice 543 information to owners and occupants. The informa tion should be provided in a short, easily read 544 checklist or other form. EPA’s “Sample Renova tion Recordkeeping Checklist” may be used for 545 this purpose, but firms may develop their own form s or checklists so long as they include all of 546 the required information. The specific information that is required to be provided are the training 547 and work practice compliance info rmation required to be maintain ed by 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as 548 well as identifying information on the manufacturer and model of the test kits used, if any, a 549 description of the components that were tested including their locati ons, and the test kit results. 550 The checklist or form must include documenta tion that a certified renova tor was assigned to the 551 project, that the certified renova tor provided on-the-job training fo r workers used on the project, 552 that the certified renovator performed or direct ed workers who performe d the tasks required by 553 the RRP rule, and that the certified renovator performed the post-renovation cleaning 554 verification. This documentation must include a certification by the certif ied renovator that the 555 work practices were followed, with narration as applicable. However, EPA is not requiring that 556 the renovation firm automatically provide a copy of the certified renovator’s training certificate, 557*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 67 which must be maintained in the firm’s r ecords pursuant to 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as an 558 attachment to the checklist or other form. 559 One commenter believes that the text of the fo rm should be included in the regulations. EPA 560 disagrees with this comment. The Agency wants to give renovation firms flexibility with regard 561 to the format of the information given to owners and occupants. Renovati on firms must list the 562 information specified in the regulations and they can use EPA’s sample checklist if they choose. 563 However, the final rule allows firms to use their own version of th e checklist as long as it 564 includes the required information. 565
566 With respect to the option for dust clearance in lieu of cleaning verification under 567 40 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule requ ires the renovation firm to pr ovide the associated results 568 from dust wipe sampling to the person who contracted for the renovation. This requirement was 569 promulgated in response to public comments on the applicability of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 570 CFR part 745, subpart F, to dust lead testing reports. These commenters stated that a 571 requirement for the information to be provided to the owner of the property was necessary in 572 order to make sure that the information would be available to be disclose d in the future (Ref. 1, 573 p. 21718). However, in agreeing with these commenters and acknowledging the importance of 574 having the dust sampling reports available to di sclose to future purch asers and tenants, EPA 575 neglected to consider the importance of maki ng dust sampling information available to the 576 current occupants of renovated rental target hous ing or child-occupied facilities. While 40 CFR 577 745.107 would require renovation -related dust sampling reports to be disclosed to target housing 578 tenants at the next lease rene wal, this may be months or years after the renovation was 579 completed. In addition, the Lead Disclosure Rule does not apply to child -occupied facilities in 580 public or commercial buildings, so those tena nts may never receive this information. 581*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 67 Therefore, this final rule re quires that, if dust clearance is performed in lieu of cleaning 582 verification, the renovation firm provide a copy of the dust wipe sampling report(s) to the owner 583 of the building that was renovated as well as to the o ccupants, if different . With respect to 584 renovations in common areas of ta rget housing or in child-occupi ed facilities, EPA is also 585 requiring that these records be ma de available to the tenants of the affected housing units or the 586 parents and guardians of children under age 6 using the child-occupi ed facilities. Dust sampling 587 reports may be made available to these groups in the same way as training and work practice 588 records, by providing information on how to review or obtain copies in individual notifications 589 or on posted signs. 590 E. Effective Date 591 During the development of the proposed rule , EPA considered a delay in the effective 592 date of this final rule. EPA estimated that e liminating the opt-out prov ision could increase the 593 number of renovators that needto be certified by 50%. A dela yed effective date would have 594 allowed more time for additional renovators to get their certification. The Agency asked for 595 comment on whether a 6-month or 1-year delay in the effective date is ap propriate. In addition, 596 EPA asked for comment on whether a delay in effec tive date of this rule would be confusing for 597 the regulated community or the certified personnel. 598 Comments regarding the delay were mixe d. Several commenters opposing the delay 599 believe that EPA has enough training capacity to train additional renovators that may need 600 certification because of this rule. Several comm enters pointed out that delaying the effective 601 date would result in more people being exposed to lead hazards that could be avoided if the RRP 602 rule work practices were in place for renovations previously eligible fo r the opt-out. Another 603 commenter believes that phasing inthe work practice requirements by delaying the effective of 604 this rule would lead to confusion for the public and renovation firms. 605*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 67 Some commenters were in favor of delaying the effective da te. Several commenters said 606 that many contractors were not aware of the requ irements and there is not sufficient time for 607 them to understand and comply with the regulati ons without a delayed e ffective date. Other 608 commenters stated that EPA shoul d delay the effective date to allow enough time for additional 609 renovators to take the training. One commenter a sserts that EPA should delay the effective date 610 rather than create a shor tfall of renovators. 611 Another factor EPA considered with regard to extending the effective date is whether 612 firms specialize in housing that is eligible for th e opt-out. The cost estimates for the rule assume 613 that renovation firms are somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work in housing where 614 the RRP rule is applicable. However, there ma y be many instances where firms working in opt615 out housing will already have beco me certified, and their staff beentrained, because they also 616 work in regulated facilities ineligible for the opt -out provision. If firms are less specialized than 617 the analysis assumed, there may be little to no in cremental training and certification costs due to 618 the proposed rule. Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have 619 declined to opt out, the work pr actice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than 620 estimated. EPA requested comment in the proposal on the degree to which the same firms and 621 renovators are likely to work bot h in opt-out housing and in child -occupied facilities and target 622 housing that are ineligible fo r the opt-out provision. 623
624 Several commenters stated that they do not believe firms specialize in housing based on 625 occupancy. One commenter review ed advertisements and the market place, and did not find 626 renovators that work only in owner-occupied housing without children or pregnant women. 627 According to the commenter, because firms do not appear to specialize in this manner, the 628 additional costs of eliminating th e opt-out are only the costs asso ciated with the materials and 629*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 67 time for a particular job as contractors would be required to get cert ification regardless of 630 whether the opt-out provision is removed. EPA agrees with these comments. While the Agency 631 has not done analysis to determine how many firms may specialize based on occupancy, EPA 632 believes it is likely that most firms will not specialize in owner-occupied housing without 633 children or pregnant women. Co mmenters did not provide info rmation indicating that firms 634 specialize in this way. If that is the case then many of the approximately 110,000 firms and 635 renovators estimated to seek certification because of this rule would needcertification regardless 636 of whether the opt-out provision is removed. If the majority of the 110,000 firms and renovators 637 have already been required to get certification then there is less of an argument to extend the 638 effective date of this rule because many fewe r firms and renovators will need certification 639 between publication of the rule and the effective date. 640
641 Accordingly, the Agency decided not to delay the effective date of this final rule. As 642 such, the rule will become effectiv e 60 days after publication in the Federal Register . EPA 643 believes that it is important to eliminate the op t-out exemption without de lay in order to avoid 644 further lead exposures in housing previously eligible for the opt-out. Further, based on the 645 number of training provides accredited to date, the Agency believes that there is sufficient 646 training capacity available to trai n any additional renovators that w ould need to get certification 647 because of this rule. 648 F. State Authorization 649 As part of the authorization process, Stat es and Indian Tribes must demonstrate to EPA 650 that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. A State or Indian Tribe would have to indicate 651 that it meets the requirements of the renovation program in its application for approval or the 652 first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency proposed to give States and Indian 653*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 67 Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that their pr ograms include any new requirements the EPA may 654 promulgate, such as the requirements in this final rule. EPA received one two comments 655 regarding this requirement. One comment , from the Iowa Department of Public Health 656 regarding this requirement. The commenter , explained that Iowa’s le gislature only meets once a 657 year for 4 months. Depending on the when EPA publishes amendments to the RRP, it could be 658 very difficult for states in sim ilar situations to meet this requirement. The commenter requested 659 that EPA give States and Indian Tribes two y ears instead of one to demonstrate compliance. 660 EPA believes that the concern raised by the co mmenter has merit, and not just for Iowa. 661 Therefore, the Agency decided to allow States an d Indian Tribes up to two years to demonstrate 662 to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule in its application for approval or the first 663 report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). 664 G. Renovator Certification Requirements 665 EPA was made aware by stakeholders that some renovators want to take the training 666 course closer to April 2010 in order to maximi ze their 5–year certificati on which is not required 667 until the RRP rule becomes effective on Apr il 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 5–year 668 certification begins when the renov ator completes the training. The Agency is concerned that if 669 enough renovators wait until April 2010 to take the training it may cause training courses to fill 670 up resulting in a lack of availabl e courses near the effective date. In order to give renovators 671 incentive to take the course well in advance of the April 2010 effec tive date, the Agency 672 considered a change to the requirements that wo uld allow renovator certifications issued on or 673 before the effective date of the RRP rule to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency requested 674 comment on whether it should extend the certifica tion for renovators that get their certification 675 by April 22, 2010. 676 EPA received several comments in favor of ex tending the renovator certification to July 677*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 67 1, 2015. Several commenters believe this would gi ve renovators incentive to take the training 678 early. One commenter supported th e extension so those who took th e training in advance of the 679 April 22, 2010 implementation date would not be pe nalized. Another comment er stated that an 680 extension of the certification would prevent logistical problems like waiting lists for trainings 681 during the final days before the effective date. 682 The Agency decided to finalize an extensi on of the 5-year certification for renovators 683 who take the training before April 22, 2010. EPA agrees that renovators who take the training 684 early should not be penalized and therefore wi ll extend those certifications until July 1, 2015. 685 H. Principle Instructor Requirements 686 As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered modifying the 687 requirements for training providers. Under the original requirements for the accreditation of 688 training providers, Principle Inst ructors were required to take a 16–hour lead-paint course taught 689 by EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. EPA became aware that 16–hours courses 690 are not available in every state, making it diffi cult for some instructors to get the required 691 training. To address this problem, EPA consider ed reducing the hourly re quirement to 8 hours. 692 EPA received several comments on the Principal In structor requirement, mostly in support of 693 reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. One commenter stated that there is no significant 694 benefit to requiring 16 hours inst ead of 8 hours and that the 8- hour requirement will fit more 695 closely to available training c ourses. Similarly, another comme nter stated that the 16-hour 696 training shares little content with what the Pr incipal Instructors are going to teach in the 697 renovator course. The commenter also explained th at there is no 16-hour lead training course in 698 Mississippi which led to difficulties with a local organization’s ability to offer the renovator 699 course. One commenter opposed to reducing the hour ly requirement stated that 8 hours of lead 700 training is not sufficient for an instructor to know enough about lead paint, lead hazards and 701*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 67 federal regulations. Another commenter stated that there is enough training capacity negating 702 the need to reduce the hourly requirement. 703 EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator course, instead of a longer abatement course, is 704 more closely related to what Principal Instruct ors must know in order to teach the renovator 705 training. In addition to the trai ning requirement, Principal Instru ctors must meet education and 706 work experience requirements in order to teach lead-based paint training courses. The Agency 707 believes that taking this course would be sufficient training for future instructors of the renovator 708 course and therefore has reduced the requirement from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing the required 709 hours, future instructors can take the 8–hour reno vator or dust sampling technician trainings 710 instead of a 16–hour or longer abatement course. 711
712 III. References 713 1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 714 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). Available on-line at: 715 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr

. 716 2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 717 Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL– 718 5389–9). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr

. 719 3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pame la A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 720 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brow n. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 721 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 722 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009. 723 4. Xue J, Zartarian V, Moya J, Freeman N, Beamer P, Black K, Tulve N, Shalat S: A 724 meta-analysis of children’s hand-to-mouth fre quency data for estimating nondietary ingestion 725*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 67 exposure. Risk Anal. 2007 Apr.; 27(2): 411-20. 726 5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis for the 727 TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Prog ram Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule 728 for Target Housing and Child-O ccupied Facilities. April 2010. 729 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bur eau of Economic Analysis. Table 1.1.9. Implicit 730 Price Deflators for Gross Do mestic Product. August 17, 2009. 731 7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping Proposed Final Rule ICR Addendum for the 732 rulemaking entitled Lead: Elimination of the Op t-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the 733 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. August 2009. April 2010. 734 8. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility An alysis for the Elimination of the Opt-Out 735 Provision and Other Amendments to the L ead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 736 Proposed Rule. April 2010. 737 9. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 738 Certification and Training; Renovation a nd Remodeling Requirements. March 3, 2000. 739 10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 740 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (F RL–7755–5). Available on-line at: 741 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr

. 742 11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 743 Activities. November 13, 2007. 744 12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act St atement; Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out 745 Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovati on, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. 746 April 2010. 747 13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. October 2006. 748*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 67 14. EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commi ssion (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 749 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Fa mily From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K750 99-001, June 2003). 751 15. CDC. Morbidity and Mortality W eekly Report. vol 54, no. 20, pp 513-516, May 27, 752
2005 753 16. Marino, Phyllis E. et al “A Case Re port of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation 754 of a Victorian Farmhouse.” American Journal of Public Health , 80 (10) pp. 1183 -1185. 755 October 1990. 756 17. Kowalczyk DF. “Lead poisoning in dogs at th e University of Pennsylvania Veterinary 757 Hospital.” Journal of American VeterinaryMedical Associati on. 1976 Mar 1;168(5):428-32. 758 18. Knight TE, Kumar MS. “Lead toxicosis incats-a review.” Journal of Feline 759 Medicine and Surgery. 2003 Oct;5(5):249-55. 760 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 761 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 762 rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, 763 Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recor dkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and 764 Child-Occupied Facilities (Economic Analysis, Ref. 5), which is available in the docket for this 765 action and is briefly summarized here, a nd in more detail later in this Unit. 766 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 dueto 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 A. Executive Order 12866 768 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 769 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this rule is a “significa nt regulatory action” 770 under section 3(f)(1) of the Executiv e Order because EPA estimates th at it is likely to have an 771 annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to 772 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) fo r review under Executive Order 12866 and any 773 changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for 774 this rulemaking as required by sectio n 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 775 The following is a summary In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential 776 costs and benefits associated with this ru lemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic 777 Analysis for the TSCA Le ad Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt

- out and 778 Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child

- Occupied Facilities (Economic 779 Analysis, ( Ref. 5), which is available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized 780 here.

. 781
1. Number of faciliti es and renovations . This rule applies to 78 million target housing 782 units and child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 facilities. There are ap proximately 40 million 783 target housing units potentially affected by the removal of the opt-out provision (i.e., owner 784 occupied housing units where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides and that do not 785 meet the definition of a child-occupied facility ). There are an additional 38 million facilities 786 potentially affected by the requirement that renov ators provide owners and occupants with copies 787 of the records required to be maintained by the renovator to document compliance with the 788 training and work practice requirements. Appr oximately 100,000 of these facilities are child789 occupied facilities located in public or commerci al buildings, and the re mainder are located in 790*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 67 target housing (either in rental housing, owne r-occupied housing where a child under age 6 or 791 pregnant woman resides, or owner-occupied housing that meets the definition of a child792 occupied facility). 793 The removal of the opt-out provision w ill affect approximately 7.2 million renovation 794 events per year in the 40 million housing units prev iously eligible to use the opt-out provision. In 795 the first year, there will be an estimated 5.4 m illion renovation, repair, and painting events in 796 these housing units where the rule will cause lead-safe work pr actices to be used. (In the 797 remaining 1.8 million renovation events, test kits for determining whether a surface contains 798 lead-based paint will indicate that lead-based paint is not present.) EPA expects test kits that 799 more accurately determine whether a painted surf ace qualifies as lead-based paint will become 800 available in late 2010. Once the improved test kits are available, the number of renovation, 801 repair, and painting events using lead-safe work practices due to the rule in housing previously 802 eligible for the opt-out provision is expect ed to drop to 3.0 million events per year. 803 The requirement for renovators to provi de owners and occupants with records 804 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements will affect all of the 805 7.2 million renovation events per year in housing units previously eligible for the opt-out 806 provision. This new recordkeeping requirementwill also affect an additional 11.4 million 807 renovation events per year in the 38 million faci lities ineligible for the opt-out provision. 808 EPA’s estimates are based on the assumption that owners of housing eligible for the opt809 out provision would always choose to exercise that provision. To the extent that some eligible 810 homeowners would decline to opt out, the numbe r of renovation events affected by the removal 811 of the opt-out would be lower than EPA has esti mated, as would the costs of this action and the 812 estimated number of people protected by this ac tion, since they would choose to be protected by 813 the requirements of the RRP rule. 814*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 67 2. Options evaluated . EPA considered a variety of opti ons for addressing the risks created 815 by renovation, repair, and painting activities dist urbing lead-based paint in housing previously 816 eligible for the opt-out provision. The Economic Analysis analyzed several options, including 817 different options for the effective date of the fi nal rule when published; an option phasing out the 818 opt-out provision depending on when the facil ity was built (pre-1960 or pre-1978); and different 819 options for the work practices (such as containm ent, cleaning, and cleanin g verification) required 820 in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 821 All options evaluated in the Economic Anal ysis would also require renovation firms to 822 provide owners and occupants of the buildings with a copy of the records demonstrating 823 compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. This additional 824 recordkeeping requirement would apply to reno vation, repair, and painti ng activities in all 78 825 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities. 826
3. Benefits . The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health effects 827 attributable to lead exposur e from renovations in pre-1978 bu ildings. These health effects 828 include impaired cognitive function in children a nd several illnesses in children and adults, such 829 as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood pressure, increased 830 incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular mo rbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney 831 function. 832 Removing the opt-out provision will protec t children under the age of 6 who visit a 833 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 834 opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when th eir family purchases it after such 835 a renovation would have been performed; and ch ildren who live in a property adjacent to 836 housing where renovation would have been pe rformed under the opt-out provision. Removing 837 the opt-out provision will also pr otect individuals age 6 and olde r who live in houses that would 838*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 67 have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and who live in 839 adjacent properties. 840 EPA has estimated some of the benefits of the rule by performing calculations based on 841 estimates of the number of individuals in each of these situations and the average benefit per 842 individual in similar situations from previous RRP rule analyses with some simple adjustments. 843 The resulting calculations provide a sense of th e magnitude of benefits from this action but 844 should not be interpreted as strict upper or lo wer bound estimates of tota l benefits. Based on two 845 scenarios for each of the situations described in the previous paragraph, annualized benefits for 846 the rule may range from approximately $870 million to $3.2 billion assuming a discount rate of 847 3%, and $920 million to $3.3 billion assuming a disc ount rate of 7%. Within these scenarios, 848 10% of these benefits are attributable to avoide d losses in expected earnings due to IQ drop in 849 children under 6, and 90% to avoided medical cost s (or other proxies for willingness to pay) for 850 hypertension, coronary heart dise ase, stroke, and the resulting incidence of deaths in older 851 individuals. For children under 6, the largest prop ortion of these benefits derive from moving 852 into recently renovated housing; for older indi viduals, the largest proportion derives from on853 going residence in houses that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision. 854 EPA did not estimate benefits for thos e who live near a house renovated under the opt855 out provision unless in a conti guous attached home; those who spend time in a friend’s or 856 relative’s house renovated under the opt-out provision; and for heal th effects other than IQ loss 857 in children under 6 and blood pressu re effects in older individuals. 858 To the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to opt out, the benefits 859 of this action will be lower th an estimated, since exposed persons will already be protected by 860 the requirements of the RRP program. 861
4. Costs . Removing the opt-out pr ovision will require firms performing renovation, 862*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 67 repair, and painting work for compensation in housing previously elig ible for the opt-out 863 provision to follow the training, ce rtification, and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. 864 This may result in additional costs for these fi rms. Furthermore, the additional recordkeeping 865 requirements in this rule will increase costs of renovations in all target housing and child866 occupied facilities. Costs may be incurred by cont ractors that work in th ese buildings, landlords 867 that use their own staff to work in buildings they lease out; and child-occupied facilities that use 868 their own staff to work in buildings they occupy. 869 The rule is estimated to cost approximat ely $500 million in the first year. The cost is 870 estimated to drop to approximately $300 million pe r year starting with the second year, when 871 improved test kits for detecting the presence of lead-based paint are assumed to become 872 available. Over $200 million per year of the cost in subsequent years is due to the work practice 873 requirements in housing previously covered by th e opt-out provision. Training for renovators and 874 workers and certification for firms working in housing previously covered by the opt-out 875 provision is estimated to add approximately $50 million per year to the cost. Requiring 876 renovators to provide owners and occupants with copies of the recor dkeeping required to 877 document compliance with the RRP rule trai ning and work practice requirements costs 878 approximately $30 million per year, with about two thirds of this incurred in housing that was 879 previously eligible fo r the opt-out provision. 880 Note that the costs of this rule as estim ated in the Economic Analysis are expressed in 881 2005 dollars. To express values in terms of current dol lars, the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 882 Domestic Product as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis can be consulted for an 883 indication of how nominal prices for goods and se rvices produced in the economy have changed 884 over time. From 2005 to the second quarter of 2009, the implicit price defl ator increased from 885 100 to 109.753, a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 6). 886*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 38 of 67 The cost estimates for training and cer tification assume that renovation firms are 887 somewhat specialized in terms of whether theywork in facilities where the RRP rule is 888 applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt-out housing will 889 already have become certified, and their staff beentrained, because they also work in regulated 890 facilities ineligible fo r the opt-out provision. If firms are less specialized than the analysis 891 assumed, there may be little to no incremental trai ning and certification costs due to the rule. 892 Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have de clined to opt out, the 893 work practice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than estimated. 894 The options EPA analyzed with a phase in or a delayed effective date for removing the 895 opt-out provision have a lower cost in the first 2 years but have id entical costs to the final rule 896 beginning in the third year. Opti ons with different work prac tice requirements for the housing 897 previously eligible for the opt-o ut provision would cost 1% to 17% less than the final rule. This 898 difference would all be due to lower work pract ice costs, as the trai ning, certification, and 899 recordkeeping costs would be the same for these options as for this rule. 900 B. Paperwork Reduction Act 901 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 902 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 903 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . EPA has prepared an Inform ation Collection Request (ICR) 904 document to amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR document, referred to as the Opt-out and 905 Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR Addendu m and identified under EPA ICR No. 1715. 1 3 12 and 906 OMB Control Number 2070–0155, has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 7). The 907 information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. 908 Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 909 persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 910*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 39 of 67 This includes the time needed to review instru ctions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 911 technology and systems for the purposes of colle cting, validating, and verifying information, 912 processing and maintaining information, and disc losing and providing information; adjust the 913 existing ways to comply with any previously ap plicable instructions and requirements; train 914 personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; sear ch data sources; complete and 915 review the collection of information; and tran smit or otherwise disc lose the information. 916 The information collection activities containe d in this rule are de signed to assist the 917 Agency in meeting the core objectives of TS CA section 402. EPA has carefully tailored the 918 recordkeeping requirements so they will permit the Agency to achieve statutory objectives 919 without imposing an undue burden on those firm s that choose to be i nvolved in renovation, 920 repair, and painting activities. 921 The information collection requirements under this rule may affect training providers as 922 well as firms that perform renovation, repair, or painting for compensation. Removing the opt923 out provision may cause additiona l renovators to become trained and firms to become certified, 924 and there are paperwork requirements for both of these activities. Removing the opt-out 925 provision will also create paperwork due to the requirement to maintain records documenting 926 compliance with the training and work practice re quirements. This rule also requires renovation 927 firms to provide owners and occupants with th ese records. Although firms have the option of 928 choosing to engage in the cove red activities, once a firm chooses to do so, the information 929 collection activities become mandatory for that firm. 930 The ICR document provides a detailed pres entation of the estimated paperwork burden 931 and costs resulting from this rule. The burden to training providers and firms engaged in 932 renovation, repair, and painting activities is summarized in this unit. 933 Because this analysis assumes that renovati on firms are somewhat specialized in terms of 934*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 40 of 67 whether they work in facilities where the RRP rule requirements are applicable, removing the 935 opt-out provision is estimated to result in addi tional renovators becomi ng trained and additional 936 renovation firms becoming certifie d. Training additional renovators will increase the paperwork 937 burden for training providers, since they must s ubmit records to EPA (or an authorizing State, 938 Tribe, or Territory) pertaini ng to each student attending a tr aining course. Approximately 170 939 training providers are estimated to incur an aver age burden of about 40 hours each for additional 940 notifications, resulting in an increase in training provider burden averaging 7,000 hours per year 941 as a result of the removal of the opt-out provision. 942 Removing the opt-out provision is estimat ed to result in up to 110,000 additional firms 943 becoming certified to engage inrenovation, repair, or pain ting activities. The average 944 certification burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is initially certified, 945 and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified (which occurs ev ery 5 years). Firms must keep 946 records of the work they perform; this record keeping is estimated to average approximately 5 947 hours per year per firm. And under this rule, fi rms must also provide a copy of the records 948 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements of the RRP rule to 949 the owners and occupants of buildings bei ng renovated. This additional recordkeeping 950 requirement is estimated to average approximate ly 3.3 hours per year per firm. The total annual 951 burden for these 110,000 firms is estimated to average 1,072,000 hours, of which 362,000 hours 952 is due to the recordkeeping requirement to provi de owners and occupant s with documentation of 953 the training and work practices used. 954 To the extent that firms working in housi ng eligible for the opt-out provision will already 955 have incurred the training and certification burdens because they also work in regulated facilities 956 ineligible for the opt-out provision, the training and certification burden fo r this action will be 957 lower than estimated. 958*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 41 of 67 The requirement that firms provide owners and occupants with a copy of the records 959 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements of the RRP rule also 960 applies to firms working in buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out provision. Under an 961 assumption that firms work in either buildings that are eligible for th e opt-out provision or 962 buildings that are ine ligible (but not in both types of buildings), EPA estimated that 211,000 963 firms work in buildings that are not eligible for the opt-out provision. EPA estimated that these 964 211,000 firms will incur an average annual burden of approximately 2.7 hours per firm due to the 965 new recordkeeping requirements, resulting in a total burden of 568,000 hour s per year for these 966 firms. To the extent that firms work in both ty pes of buildings, the number of firms and the total 967 burden in this category would be higher than estimated. But this would be offset by a 968 corresponding decrease in th e 110,000 firms and 362,000 burden hours estimated for the firms 969 that were assumed to work only in buildings pr eviously eligible for the opt-out provision. 970 Total respondent burden for training providers and certifiedfirms from removing the opt971 out provision and requiring additional recordkeep ing is estimated to average approximately 972 1,647,000 hours per year during the 3 year period covered by the ICR. 973 The rule may also result in additional gove rnment costs to administer the program (to 974 process the additional training pr ovider notifications and to admi nister and enforce the program 975 for firms working in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision). States, Tribes, and 976 Territories are allowed, but are under no obligation, to apply for and receive authorization to 977 administer these requirements. EPA will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, and 978 Territories that do not become authorized. Becaus e the number of States, Tribes, and Territories 979 that will become authorized is not known, administra tive costs are estimated assuming that EPA 980 will administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government entities become 981 authorized, EPA’s administrati ve costs will be lower. 982*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 42 of 67 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 983 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 984 control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in chapter I of title 40 of the CFR, after 985 appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by 986 publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate mean s, such as on the related 987 collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency 988 will publish a technical amendmen t to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the 989 OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final 990 rule. 991 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 992 burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 993 established a docket for this rule, which include s this ICR, under docke t ID number EPA–HQ– 994 OPPT–2005–0049. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 995 ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 996 Information and Regulatory Affairs, Of fice of Management and Budget, 725 17 th St., NW., 997 Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office fo r EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 998 decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ insert date of publication in the 999 Federal Register ], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 1000 it by [ insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register ]. 1001 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1002 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ge nerally requires an agency to prepare a 1003 regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 1004 requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 1005 certifies that the rule will not have a signifi cant economic impact on a substantial number of 1006*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 43 of 67 small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 1007 governmental jurisdictions. 1008 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined 1009 in accordance with section 601 of RFA as: 1010 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 1011
at 13 CFR 121.201. 1012 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a cit y, county, town, school 1013 district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 1014 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 1015 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 1016 As required by section 604 of RFA, EPA has prepared a final regulatory flexibility 1017 analysis (FRFA) for this rule. The FRFA is avai lable for review in the docket and is summarized 1018 in this unit (Ref. 8). 1019
1. Reasons why action by the Agency is being taken . After further consideration of the 1020 opt-out provision, the Agency beli eves it is in the best interestof the public to remove the 1021 provision. EPA believes that the opt -out provision is not suffici ently protective for children 1022 under age 6 and pregnant women, because it does not provide prot ection from improperly 1023 performed renovations for visiting children and pregnant women; for children and pregnant 1024 women who move into a newly purchased house that was recently renovated under the opt-out 1025 provision; and for children and pregnant women who live adjacent to a home where the exterior 1026 is being renovated under the opt- out provision. In addition, while the RRP rule focused mainly 1027 on protecting young children and pregnant women from lead hazards, exposure can result in 1028 adverse health effects for older children and adults as well. Rem oving the opt-out provision will 1029 protect older children and adu lt occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or 1030*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 44 of 67 pregnant woman resides, as well as residents of adjacent properties. Finally, EPA believes that 1031 implementing the regulations without the opt-out provision promotes, to a greater extent, the 1032 statutory directive to promulga te regulations covering renovation activities in ta rget housing. 1033 EPA has determined that providing owners and occupants of renovated buildings with 1034 copies of the records documenting the renovation firm’s compliance with the RRP rule’s training 1035 and work practice requirements will serve to rein force information on both the potential hazards 1036 of renovations and on the RRP rule’s requirements. It will also enable building owners and 1037 occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and 1038 how the rule’s provisions affect ed their specific renovation. Edu cating the owners and occupants 1039 in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with the 1040 RRP rule. These improvements in education a nd monitoring will improve compliance with the 1041 RRP rule, which will ultimately pr otect children and adults from exposure to lead hazards due to 1042 renovation activities. 1043
2. Legal basis and objectives for this rule . TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study 1044 the extent to which persons engaged in renovation , repair, and painting activities are exposed to 1045 lead or create lead-based paint hazards regul arly or occasionally. Af ter concluding this study, 1046 TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revi se its lead-based pain t activities regulations 1047 under TSCA section 402(a) to appl y to renovation or remodeling activ ities that create lead-based 1048 paint hazards. Because EPA’s study found that activities commonly performed during renovation 1049 and remodeling create lead-based paint hazards, EPA issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In 1050 issuing the RRP rule, EPA revised the TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to 1051 individuals and firms engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activ ities. In this rule, EPA is 1052 revising the TSCA section 402(c)(3) rule to c over renovations in all target housing and child1053 occupied facilities. In so doing, EPA has also taken into consideration the environmental, 1054*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 45 of 67 economic, and social impact of this rule as prov ided in TSCA section 2(c). A central objective of 1055 this rule is to minimize exposur e to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, 1056 and painting activities in all target housing and other build ings frequented by children under age 1057
6. 1058
3. Potentially affected small entities . Small entities include small businesses, small 1059 organizations, and small governmental jurisdiction s. The small entities that are potentially 1060 directly regulated by this rule include: Sma ll businesses (including contractors and property 1061 owners and managers); small nonprofits (certain childcare centers and private schools); and 1062 small governments (school district s which operate pre-schools, ki ndergartens and certain child 1063 care centers). 1064 In determining the number of small busine sses affected by the rule , the Agency applied 1065 U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA’s defini tion of small business. However, applying the 1066 U.S. Economic Census data requires either under or overestimating the number of small 1067 businesses affected by the rule. For example, for many construction establishments, the SBA 1068 defines small businesses as having revenues of less than $14 million. W ith respect to those 1069 establishments, the U.S. Economic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10 1070 million or more into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data for the entire industry 1071 would overestimate the number of small businesse s affected by the rule and would defeat the 1072 purpose of estimating impacts on small business. It would also underestimate the rule’s impact 1073 on small businesses because the impacts would be calculated using th e revenues of large 1074 businesses in addition to small businesses. On th e other hand, applying the closest, albeit lower, 1075 revenue bracket would underestimate the number of small businesses affected by the rule while 1076 at the same time overestimating the impacts. Sim ilar issues arose in estimating the fraction of 1077 property owners and managers that are small bus inesses. EPA has concluded that a substantial 1078*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 46 of 67 number of small businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen to be 1079 more conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, 1080 revenue bracket for which U.S. Economic Census da ta is available. For other sectors (nonprofits 1081 operating childcare centers or pr ivate schools), EPA assumed that all affected firms are small, 1082 which may overestimate the number of small entities affected by the rule. 1083 The vast majority of entities in the industrie s affected by this rule are small. Using EPA’s 1084 estimates, the revisions to the renovation, repair, and painting program will affect approximately 1085 289,000 small entities. 1086
4. Potential economic impac ts on small entities . EPA evaluated two factors in its analysis 1087 of the rule’s requirements on small entities, th e number of firms that would experience the 1088 impact, and the size of the impact. Average annual compliance costs as a percentage of average 1089 annual revenues were used to assess the potential average impacts of the rule on small businesses 1090 and small governments. This ratio is a good measur e of entities’ ability to afford the costs 1091 attributable to a regulatory requirement, becau se comparing compliance costs to revenues 1092 provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regu latory burden relative to a 1093 commonly available measure of economic activit y. Where regulatory costs represent a small 1094 fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, the fina ncial impacts of the regulation on such entities 1095 may be considered as not significant. For non- profit organizations, impacts were measured by 1096 comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, 1097 however, revenue information was used as a proxy fo r expenditures. It is appropriate to calculate 1098 the impact ratios using annualized costs, because these costs are more representative of the 1099 continuing costs entities face to comply with the rule. 1100 Of the approximately 289,000 small entities estim ated to incur costs due to the rule, an 1101 estimated 101,000 small residential contractors are a ssumed to seek certification as a result of the 1102*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 47 of 67 removal of the opt-out provision; therefore, they would incur traini ng, certification, work 1103 practice, and recordkeeping costs. The remain ing estimated 189,000 sma ll entities (working in 1104 buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out ) are only expected to incur costs due to the 1105 additional recordkeeping provisions in the rule. 1106 The average cost to a typical small re novation contractor of removing the opt-out 1107 provision ranges from about $1,100 to about $6, 400, depending on the industry sector. This 1108 represents 0.8% to 1.7% of re venues depending on the industry s ector. Overall, an estimated 1109 101,000 small businesses could be affected by the re moval of the opt-out provision, with average 1110 impacts of 1.10% of revenues. 1111 This rule’s new recordkeeping requirement has an average cost of $1 to $280 for entities 1112 not affected by removal of the opt -out provision. This results in incremental cost impacts ranging 1113 from 0.0001% to 0.08% of revenues. An estimat ed 189,000 small entities could be affected 1114 solely by the additional reco rdkeeping requirement, includi ng 165,000 small businesses with 1115 average impacts of 0.03% of revenues, 17,000 sm all non-profits with average impacts of 1116 0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 1117 Combining the removal of the opt-out provi sion with the new recordkeeping requirement, 1118 a total of 289,000 small entities c ould be affected by the rule, including 266,000 small businesses 1119 with average impacts of 0.4%, 17,000 small non-pr ofits with average impacts of 0.0005%, and 1120 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 1121 To the extent that renovators and firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out 1122 provision will already have become trained and certified because they also work in regulated 1123 facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to the ex tent that eligible homeowners would 1124 decline to opt out, the average impacts of this action will be lower than estimated. 1125 Some of the small entitie s subject to the rule have employees while others are non- 1126*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 48 of 67 employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer jobs than firms with employees, and 1127 thus have lower work practice compliance costs. However, they also have lower average 1128 revenues than entities with employees, so their impacts (measured as costs divided by revenues) 1129 can be higher. Impact estimates for non-employe rs should be interpreted with caution, as some 1130 non-employers may have significant issues rela ted to understatement of income, which would 1131 tend to exaggerate the average impact ratio for this class of small entities. 1132 There are an estimated 75,000 non-employe r renovation contractors that could be 1133 affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. The average cost to such contractors is 1134 estimated to be $1,193 apiece. This represents 1.3% to 4.7% of reported revenues, depending on 1135 the industry sector. The rule 's new recordkeeping requirement is estimated to affect 1136 approximately 96,000 additional non-employer renovati on contractors not affected by removal of 1137 the opt-out provision. The costs to such contract ors are estimated to be $42 apiece. This 1138 represents 0.05% to 0.17% of revenues, depending on the industry sector. 1139
5. Relevant Federal federalrules . The requirements in this rule will fit within an existing 1140 framework of other Federal regulations that address lead-based paint. Notably, the Pre1141 Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovators to distribute a lead hazard 1142 information pamphlet to owners and occupants before conducting a reno vation in target housing 1143 and child-occupied facilities. Th is rule’s requirement that re novators provide owners and 1144 occupants with records documenting compliance with the program’s training and work practice 1145 requirements complements the existing pr e-renovation education requirements. 1146
6. Skills needed for compliance . Under the lead renovation, re pair, and painting program 1147 requirements, renovators and dust sampling technicians working in target housing and child1148 occupied facilities have to take a course to learn the proper techniques for accomplishing the 1149 containment, cleaning, cleaning verification, a nd dust sampling tasks they will perform during 1150*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 49 of 67 renovations. These courses are intended to provide them with the information they would need to 1151 comply with the rule based on th e skills they already have. Re novators then provide on-the-job 1152 training in work practices to any other re novation workers used on a particular renovation. 1153 Entities are required to apply for certification to perform renovations; this process does not 1154 require any special skills other th an the ability to complete the application. They also need to 1155 document their training and the work practices used during renovations, which does not require 1156 any special skills. 1157
7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

. Small business advocacy review panel

. EPA 1158 has been concerned with potential small entity imp acts since the earliest stages of planning for 1159 the RRP program under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA . EPA conducted outreach to small entities 1160 and, pursuant to section 609 of RFA, convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (the 1161 Panel) in 1999 to obtain advice and recommendations of represen tatives of the regulated small 1162 entities. Pursuant to the RFA, EPA used the repo rt of the Panel convened for the closely related 1163 RRP rule promulgated in April 2008. EPA identifi ed eight key elements of a potential renovation 1164 and remodeling regulation for the Panel’s consid eration. These elements were: Applicability and 1165 scope, firm certification, individu al training and certification, accr editation of training courses, 1166 work practice standards, prohibi ted practices, exterior cleara nce, and interior clearance. 1167 Details on the Panel and its recommendations are provided in the Panel Report (Ref. 9). 1168 Information on how EPA implemented the Panel’s recommendations in the development of the 1169 RRP program is available in Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10) and 1170 in Unit V.C. of the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). This rule is closely related to the RRP rule 1171 and the conclusions made in 2008 regarding the Pa nel’s recommendations are applicable to this 1172 final rule. Although this final rule expands the nu mber of renovation firms that must comply with 1173 the RRP requirements, it does not change the elemen ts identified by the Panel. For example, this 1174*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 50 of 67 rule does not change the work practice or certification require ments of the RRP rule. EPA 1175 believes that reconvening the Panel would be pr ocedurally duplicative and is unnecessary given 1176 that the issues here were within the sc ope of those considered by the Panel. 1177
8. Alternatives considered . EPA considered several significant alternatives to this rule 1178 that could affect the economic impacts of the rule on small entities. Th ese alternatives would 1179 have applied to both small and large entities, but given the number of small entities in the 1180 affected industries, these alternatives would pr imarily affect small entities. For the reasons 1181 described in this unit, EPA believes these alternat ives are not consistent with the objectives of 1182 the rule. 1183 i. Delayed effective date . EPA considered an option that would delay the removal of the 1184 opt-out provision by 6 months, and another option that would delay the date by 12 months. These 1185 options would make the RRP program more comple x to implement and might lead to confusion 1186 by renovators and homeowners. These options would also lead to increased exposures during the 1187 delay period, including exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. Therefore, 1188 EPA believes that these options are not consistent with the st ated objectives of the rule. 1189 ii. Staged approach . EPA considered a staged approach that would initially remove the 1190 opt-out provision in pre-1960 housing, and then remove it in housing built between 1960 and 1191 1978 a year later. This would make the RRP pr ogram more complex to implement and might 1192 lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners . It would also increase exposures during the 1193 first year of the rule from renovations in houses built between 1960 and 1978, including 1194 exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA does not believe that the 1195 reduced burden of a staged approach outweighs the implementation complexity and additional 1196 exposures that it would create. Th erefore, EPA believes that this op tion is not consis tent with the 1197 stated objectives of the rule. 1198*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 51 of 67 iii. Alternate work practices . EPA also considered differentoptions for th e work practice 1199 requirements in housing that was previously elig ible for the opt-out provision. Specifically, EPA 1200 considered options: With the containment re quirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 1201 any cleaning or cleaning verifica tion work practices; with the cl eaning and cleaning verification 1202 requirements specified in 40 CF R 745.85, but without any containm ent work practices; with the 1203 cleaning requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment or cleaning 1204 verification work practices; a nd with the containment, clean ing, and cleaning verification 1205 requirements specified in 40 CF R 745.85, but without the prohibiti ons or restrictions on paint 1206 removal practices specified in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame burning or torching, the use 1207 of machines that remove paint through high-sp eed operation without HEPA exhaust control, and 1208 heat guns operating in excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). 1209 EPA’s Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated that renovation, repair, and paint 1210 preparation activities produ ce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The Dust 1211 Study showed that the largest d ecreases in dust levels were obs erved in the experiments where 1212 the rule’s practices of containm ent, specialized cleaning, and clea ning verification were all used. 1213 The Dust Study indicated that if the prohibited and restricted pract ices are avoided, the suite of 1214 work practices as a whole are effective at addres sing the lead-paint dust th at is generated during 1215 renovation activities. This is discussed in mo re detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 21696–21697). 1216
iv. Conclusion. EPA is concerned that these alternativ es to the rule can create confusion 1217 among both contractors and consumers and coul d potentially result in non-compliance by 1218 renovation firms. EPA believes that simplifying the applicability of the work practices will 1219 enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the rule. 1220 EPA is concerned that the alternatives with a delayed or staged eff ective date would lead 1221 to increased exposures during the delay period, in cluding exposures to children under the age of 1222*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 52 of 67 6 and pregnant women. 1223 Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now 1224 conclude that the alternatives to the rule withalternate work practices are safe, reliable or 1225 effective because none of these would suffici ently minimize exposure to lead-based paint 1226 hazards. In sum, when the RRP work practices ar e not used, residents and visitors are exposed to 1227 the lead hazards created by the renovation, and theref ore these approaches would not protect 1228 older children, women of ch ildbearing age, or other adults curr ently residing in the home and can 1229 result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint 1230 hazards. 1231
9. Summary of significant issues raised by public comments . There were no public 1232 comments specifically on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. However, there were 1233 public comments that addressed the Agency’s complia nce with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or 1234 which addressed issues that indirectly affect the Initial Regulatory Flex ibility Analysis. The 1235 Agency’s assessment of these issues is summ arized in the FRFA. EPA did not make any 1236 changes to the proposed rule as a result of these comments. 1237
10. Small entity compliance guide

. As required by section 212 of Small Business 1238 Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide 1239 (the Guide) in December 2008 to help small entities comply with the RRP rule. The Guide is 1240 available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National Lead 1241 Information Center by calling 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing

- or speech

- challenged 1242 individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll

- free Federal Relay Service at 1243
1

– 800

– 877

– 8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessa ry, to reflect this rulemaking activity. 1244 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1245 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Re form Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 1246*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 53 of 67 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of th eir regulatory actions on 1247 State, local, and Tribal governments and the pr ivate sector. Under sec tion 202 of UMRA, EPA 1248 generally must prepare a written statement, in cluding a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and 1249 final rules with “Federal mandates” that may resu lt in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 1250 governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 1251 Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of 1252 UMRA generally requires EPA to identify a nd consider a reasonable number of regulatory 1253 alternatives and adopt th e least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 1254 achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisi ons of section 205 do not apply when they are 1255 inconsistent with applicable la w. Moreover, section 205 allows EP A to adopt an alternative other 1256 than the least costly, most cost -effective or least burdensome a lternative if the Administrator 1257 publishes with the final rule an explanation w hy that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 1258 establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 1259 governments, including Tribal gov ernments, it must have devel oped under section 203 of UMRA 1260 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 1261 governments, enabling officials of affected sm all governments to have meaningful and timely 1262 input in the development of EPA proposed rule s with significant Fede ral intergovernmental 1263 mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 1264 regulatory requirements. 1265 Under UMRA Title II, EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that 1266 may result in expenditures that exceed the infl ation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million 1267 by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by State, local, and 1268 Tribal governments in the aggr egate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement under 1269 section 202 of UMRA which has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 12) and is 1270*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 54 of 67 summarized here. 1271
1. Authorizing legislation . This rule is issued under th e authority of TSCA sections 1272 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 1273
2. Cost-benefit analysis . EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits 1274 associated with this rule, a copy of which is available in the dock et for this rule (Ref. 5). The 1275 Economic Analysis presents the costs of this ru le as well as various regulatory options and is 1276 summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA has estimated the total costs of th is rule at approximately $500 1277 million in the first year and $300 million per year thereafter. 1278 The benefits of the rule result from the prev ention of adverse health effects attributable to 1279 lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildi ngs. These health effects include impaired 1280 cognitive function in children and several illnes ses in children and adults, such as increased 1281 adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including incr eased blood pressure, increased incidence of 1282 hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 1283
3. State, local, and Tribal government input . EPA has sought input fr om State, local, and 1284 Tribal government representativ es throughout the development of the renovation, repair, and 1285 painting program. EPA’s experience in administ ering the existing lead-based paint activities 1286 program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that th ese governments will play a critical role in 1287 the successful implementation of a national prog ram to reduce exposures to lead-based paint 1288 hazards associated with renovation, repair, and pa inting activities. Consequently, as discussed in 1289 Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), the Agency has met with State, 1290 local, and Tribal government officials on numer ous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 1291
4. Least burdensome option . EPA has considered a wide variety of options for addressing 1292 the risks presented by renovation activities where l ead-based paint is pres ent. As part of the 1293 development of the renovation, repair, and painting program, EPA considered different options 1294*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 55 of 67 for the scope of the rule, various combinations of training and certifi cation requirements for 1295 individuals who perform renovations , various combinations of wo rk practice requirements, and 1296 various methods for ensuring that no lead-bas ed paint hazards are left behind by persons 1297 performing renovations. The Economic Analysis for th is rule analyzed seve ral additional options 1298 for the phasing, effective date, and work practi ces required for the additional owner-occupied 1299 housing affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. As described in Unit IV.C., EPA has 1300 concluded that the options for delaying or pha sing the effective date would make the RRP 1301 program more complex to implement, might l ead to confusion by renovators and homeowners, 1302 and would lead to increased expos ures. EPA believes that the se lected approach is the least 1303 burdensome option available that achieves a central objective of this rule, which is to minimize 1304 exposure to lead-based paint ha zards created during renovation, re pair, and painting activities in 1305 all target housing and other buildings frequented by ch ildren under age 6. 1306 This rule does not contain a significant Fe deral intergovernmental mandate as described 1307 by section 203 of UMRA. Based on the definitio n of “small government jurisdiction” in RFA 1308 section 601, no State governments can be consid ered small. Small Territorial or Tribal 1309 governments may apply for authorization to admi nister and enforce this program, which would 1310 entail costs, but these small jurisd ictions are under no obligation to do so. 1311 EPA has determined that this rule cont ains no regulatory requirements that might 1312 significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments operate public housing, 1313 and schools that are child-occupi ed facilities. If these governme nts perform renovations in these 1314 facilities, they may incur very small additional co sts to provide residents, parents or guardians 1315 with copies of the records documenting comp liance with the training and work practice 1316 requirements. EPA generally measures a signific ant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, 1317 in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small gove rnment revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 1318*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 56 of 67 Unit IV.C.4., the rule is expected to result in small government impacts well under 1% of 1319 revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small governments. 1320 Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governme nts, as the rule is not targeted at small 1321 governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different 1322 burden on small governments than on other entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 1323
E. Executive Order 13132 1324 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, enti tled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1325 1999), EPA has determined that this rule does not ha ve “federalism implications,” because it will 1326 not have substantial direct effects on the St ates, on the relationship between the national 1327 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 1328 levels of government, as specified in Ex ecutive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 1329 not apply to this rule. States are able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer the lead 1330 renovation, repair, and painting pr ogram requirements, but are unde r no obligation to do so. In 1331 the absence of a State authorizat ion, EPA will administer the requi rements. Nevertheless, in the 1332 spirit of the objectives of this Executive Orde r, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 1333 communications between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA consulted with 1334 representatives of State and loca l governments in developing the renovation, repair, and painting 1335 program. These consultations were described inthe preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 1336 10). 1337
F. Executive Order 13175 1338 As required by Executive Order 13175, enti tled “Consultation and Coordination with 1339 Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, Novemb er 6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 1340 rule does not have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 1341 governments, on the relationship between the Fede ral government and the Indian Tribes, or on 1342*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 57 of 67 the distribution of power and re sponsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, 1343 as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to ap ply for and receive authoriz ation to administer the 1344 lead renovation, repair, and pain ting program on Tribal lands, but Tribes are under no obligation 1345 to do so. In the absence of a Tribal authorizat ion, EPA will administer these requirements. While 1346 Tribes may operate public housing or child-occupi ed facilities covered by the rule such as 1347 kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, a nd daycare facilities, EPA has dete rmined that this rule would 1348 not have substantial direct effects on the Trib al governments that ope rate these facilities. 1349 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not appl y to this rule. Although Executive Order 1350 13175 does not apply, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by discussing potential 1351 renovation regulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painti ng program at several national 1352 lead program meetings hosted by EPA a nd other interested Federal agencies. 1353
G. Executive Order 13045 1354 Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health 1355 Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to this rule because it is an 1356 “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because 1357 the environmental health or safety risk addres sed by this action may have a disproportionate 1358 effect on children. 1359 A central purpose of this rule is to mini mize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created 1360 during renovation, repair, and pain ting activities in al l housing and other buildings frequented by 1361 children under age 6. In the absen ce of this regulation, adequate wo rk practices are not likely to 1362 be employed during renovation, repa ir, and painting activit ies in housing eligible for the opt-out 1363 provision. 1364 Removing the opt-out provision will prot ect children under the age of 6 who visit a 1365 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 1366*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 58 of 67 opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when th eir family purchases it after such 1367 a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to owner1368 occupied housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. 1369 Removing the opt-out provision will also protec t children age 6 and olde r who live in houses 1370 that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and 1371 who live in adjacent properties. 1372
H. Executive Order 13211 1373 This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 1374 entitled “Actions concerning Regul ations that Significantly Aff ect Energy Supply, Distribution, 1375 or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is notlikely to have any adverse effect on the 1376 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 1377 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 1378 Section 12(d) of the National Techno logy Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 1379 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 1380 consensus standards in its regul atory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 1381 applicable law or otherwise impractical. Volunt ary consensus standards are technical standards 1382 (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, samp ling procedures, and busi ness practices) that are 1383 developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 1384 provide Congress, through OMB, explanations whenthe Agency decides not to use available and 1385 applicable voluntary consensus standards. 1386 This rulemaking does not involve technical st andards. Therefore, EPA is not considering 1387 the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 1388
J. Executive Order 12898 1389 Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled “F ederal Actions to Address Environmental 1390*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 59 of 67 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Inco me Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), 1391 EPA has assessed the potential impact of this rule on minority and low-income populations. The 1392 results of this assessment are presented in the Economic Analysis, which is available in the 1393 public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, the Agency has 1394 determined that this rule will not have dispr oportionately high and adverse human health or 1395 environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of 1396 environmental protection for all affected populat ions without having any disproportionately high 1397 and adverse human health or environmental e ffects on any population, including any minority or 1398 low-income population. 1399 V. Congressional Review Act 1400 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., generally provides that before a rule 1401 may take effect, the agency prom ulgating the rule must submit a ru le report to each House of the 1402 Congress and the Comptroller General of the Unit ed States. EPA will submit a report containing 1403 this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 1404 and the Comptroller General of the United Stat es prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 1405 Register . This rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1406
1407 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 1408 1409 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead -based paint, Renovation, Reporting and 1410 recordkeeping requirements. 1411
1412 Date: ________ 1413
1414

________________ 1415*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 60 of 67 1416
Administrator

. 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 1422 Part 745 – [Amended] 1423 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 1424 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 1425 1426 2. Section In § 745.81 is amended by revising , revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 1427 § 745.81 Effective dates. 1428 (a) * * * 1429 (4) Work practices . (i) On or after April 22, 2010 and before [ insert date 60 days after 1430 date of publication in the Federal Register ], all renovations must be performed in accordance 1431 with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in § 1432 745.86 (b)(6) in target housing or child-occupied facili ties, unless the renovation qualifies for 1433 one of the exceptions identified in § 745.82(a). This does not apply to renovations in target 1434 housing for which the firm performing the renov ation has obtained a statement signed by the 1435 owner that the renovation will occur in the owner’s residence, no child under age 6 resides there, 1436 the housing is not a child-occupi ed facility, and the owner acknow ledges that the work practices 1437 to be used during the renovation will not necessar ily include all of the lead-safe work practices 1438 contained in EPA’s renovation, repa ir, and painting rule. For the pur poses of this section, a child 1439 resides in the primary residence of his or her custodial parent s, legal guardians, and foster 1440 parents. A child also resides in the primary reside nce of an informal caretaker if the child lives 1441*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 61 of 67 and sleeps most of the time at the caretaker’s residence. 1442 (ii) On or after [ insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register ], all 1443 renovations must be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and 1444 the associated recordkeeping requirements in § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target housing or 1445 child-occupied facilities, unle ss the renovation qualifies for one of the exception s identified in § 1446 745.82(a) 1447
* * * * * 1448 * * * * * 1449 1450 1451 1452 § 745.82 [Amended] 1453
3. Section In § 745.82 is amended by removing , remove paragraph (c). 1454
1455
4. Section In § 745.84 is amended by revising paragraphs , revise paragraph (b)(2), 1456 (c)(2) the introductory text of (c)(2) , and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 1457 § 745.84 Information distribution requirements. 1458
* * * * * 1459
1460 (b) * * * 1461 (2) Comply with one of the following . (i) Notify in writing, or ensure written notification 1462 of, each affected unit and make the pamphlet available upon request prior to the start of 1463 renovation. Such notification shall be accomplis hed by distributing written notice to each 1464 affected unit. The notice shall describe the gene ral nature and locations of the planned renovation 1465 activities; the expected starting and ending dates; and a statement of how the occupant can obtain 1466 the pamphlet and a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d), at no cost to the 1467*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 62 of 67 occupants, or 1468 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post in formational signs describing the general 1469 nature and locations of the renovation and the an ticipated completion date. These signs must be 1470 posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. The 1471 signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or information on how interested 1472 occupants can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost 1473 to occupants. The signs must also include info rmation on how interested occupants can review a 1474 copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at 1475 no cost to the occupants. 1476
* * * * * 1477
1478 (c) * * * 1479 (2) Provide the parents and guardians of ch ildren using the child-occupied facility with 1480 the pamphlet, information describing the genera l nature and locations of the renovation and the 1481 anticipated completion date, and information on howinterested parents or guardians of children 1482 frequenting the child-occupied facility can re view a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) 1483 and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the occupants by complying with 1484 one of the following: 1485
* * * * * 1486
1487 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post in formational signs describing the general 1488 nature and locations of the renovation and the an ticipated completion date. These signs must be 1489 posted in areas where they can be seen by the pare nts or guardians of the children frequenting the 1490 child-occupied facility. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or 1491*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 63 of 67 information on how interested parents or guardia ns of children frequenting the child-occupied 1492 facility can review a copy of the pamphlet or obt ain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to 1493 the parents or guardians. The si gns must also include informati on on how interested parents or 1494 guardians of children frequenting the child-occupi ed facility can review a copy of the records 1495 required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the 1496 parents or guardians. 1497
* * * * * 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502
5. Sect ion In § 745.86 is amended by removing , remove paragraph (b)(6) and 1503 redesignating redesignate paragraph (b)(7) as paragraph (b)(6) and by revising revise paragraphs 1504 (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows: 1505
1506 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 1507
* * * * * 1508
1509 (b) * * * 1510 (1) Records or reports certifying that a determination had been made that lead-based paint 1511 was not present on the components affected by the renovation, as described in § 745.82(a). 1512 These records or reports include: 1513 (i) Reports prepared by a certified inspector or certified risk asse ssor (certified pursuant 1514 to either Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an EPA-authorized St ate or Tribal certification 1515 program). 1516 (ii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after using EPA-recognized test kits, 1517 including an identification of the manufacturer an d model of any test kits used, a description of 1518*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 64 of 67 the components that were tested including their lo cations, and the result of each test kit used. 1519
* * * * * 1520
1521 (c)(1) When the final invoice for the renova tion is delivered or within 30 days of the 1522 completion of the renovation, whic hever is earlier, the renovation fi rm must provide information 1523 pertaining to compliance with this subpart to the following persons: 1524 (i) The owner of the building; and, if different, 1525 (ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renova tion took place within a 1526 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied faci lity, if the renovation 1527 took place within a chil d-occupied facility. 1528 (2) When performing renovations in co mmon areas of multi-unit target housing, 1529 renovation firms must post the information requi red by this subpart or instructions on how 1530 interested occupants can obtain a copy of this information. This information must be posted in 1531 areas where it is likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. 1532 (3) The information required to be provi ded by paragraph (c) of this section may be 1533 provided by completing the sample form titled “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” 1534 or a similar form containing the test kit in formation required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and the 1535 training and work practice compliance information required by § 745.86(b)(6). 1536 (d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning veri fication as permitted 1537 by § 745.85(c), the renovation firm must provide, when the final invoice for the renovation is 1538 delivered or within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, a copy of 1539 the dust sampling report to: 1540 (1) The owner of the building; and, if different, 1541 (2) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renova tion took place within a 1542*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 65 of 67 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied faci lity, if the renovation 1543 took place within a chil d-occupied facility. 1544 (3) When performing renovations in co mmon areas of multi-unit target housing, 1545 renovation firms must post these dust sampling reports or information on how interested 1546 occupants of the housing being renovated can obtain a copy of the report. This information must 1547 be posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupant s of all of the affected units. 1548 6. Section In § 745.90 is amended by revising , revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(8) to read as 1549 follows: 1550 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 1551
* * * * * 1552 1553 (a) * * * 1554 (4) To maintain renovator certif ication or dust sampling t echnician certification, an 1555 individual must complete a re novator or dust sampling technician refresher course accredited by 1556 EPA under §745.225 or by a State or Tribal program th at is authorized under subpart Q of this 1557 part within 5 years of the date the individual co mpleted the initial course described in paragraph 1558 (a)(1) of this section. If the indi vidual does not complete a refreshe r course within this time, the 1559 individual must re-take the ini tial course to become certified ag ain. Individuals who complete a 1560 renovator course accred ited by EPA before April 22, 2010, must complete an EPA-accredited 1561 renovator refresher course before July 1, 2015, to maintain renovator certification. 1562
1563
* * * * * 1564 1565 (b) * * * 1566 (8) Must prepare the records required by § 745.86(b)(1) and ( b)( 6). 1567
* * * * * 1568 1569 7. Section In § 745.225 is amen ded by revising , revise paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 1570*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 66 of 67 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: targ et housing and child-occupied facilities. 1571
1572
* * * * * 1573
1574 (c) * * * 1575 (2) * * * 1576 ( (i ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized 1577 State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training for instructors of lead-based paint activities 1578 courses or 8 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA- authorized State or Tribal-accredited lead1579 specific training for instructors of renovator or dust sampling technician courses; and 1580
1581
* * * * * 1582
1583
1584
8. Section In § 745.326 is amended by adding , add paragraph (f) to read as follows: 1585 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tr ibal program requirements. 1586
* * * * * 1587
1588 (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements . When EPA publishes in the Federal 1589 Register revisions to the renovation pr ogram requirements contained in subparts E and L of this 1590 part: 1591 (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the effective date of the 1592 revisions to the renovation program requirement s in subparts E and L of this part must 1593 demonstrate that it meets the requirements of th is section no later than the first report that it 1594*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 67 of 67 submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the 1595 revisions. 1596 (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a renovation program submitted 1597 but not approved before the effective date of the revisions to the renovation program 1598 requirements in subparts E and L of this part mu st demonstrate that it meets the requirements of 1599 this section either by amending its application or in the first report that it submits pursuant to § 1600 745.324(h) of this part but no late r than 2 years after the eff ective date of the revisions. 1601 (3) A State or Tribe submitting its applica tion for approval of a renovation program on or 1602 after the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application that it meets the 1603 requirements of the new renovation program requi rements in subparts E and L of this part. 1604 1605 [FR Doc. 09 ?? –????? Filed ??–??– 09 10 ; 8:45 am] 1606 BILLING CODE 6560

– 50

– S 1607 1608