*** Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During EO 12866 Review *** 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement

Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Proposed Rule

[Docket ID No.: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049] 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

January 2010 

 Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (“UMRA”), EPA has 

determined that the rule being promulgated, “Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule,” contains a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more by the private sector in any one year, but is not expected to 

result in expenditures of this magnitude by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate. EPA 

has prepared this statement in accordance with section 202(a) of UMRA. 

(1) Authorizing Legislation. These training, certification and accreditation requirements, State, 

Territorial and Tribal authorization provisions, and work practice standards are being promulgated under 

the authority of TSCA §§ 402(c)(3), 404, and 407, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687, as amended 

by Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (also known 

as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992). 

(2) Benefit-Cost Analysis. EPA has prepared an economic analysis to evaluate, among other 

things, the benefits and costs of this rule as well as various regulatory options. See “Economic Analysis 

of the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities.” This document is available in the 

public docket for this rule. 

The costs of the rule include training, work practice, and recordkeeping costs. EPA has estimated 

the total annualized costs of this proposed rule are $272 million per year using a 3% discount rate and 

$293 million per year using a 7% discount rate. Thus, the cost of the rule to the private sector and State, 

local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate exceeds the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 

million in any one year. 

Governments may incur costs as a result of the rule if they operate schools, daycare centers, or 

other child-occupied facilities. If these governments perform renovations in these facilities, they may 

incur additional costs to perform dust wipe testing or achieve clearance, and to provide residents, parents 

or guardians with copies of the report documenting the dust wipe testing results. EPA generally measures 

a significant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small 

government revenues in any 1 year. The proposed rule is expected to result in small government impacts 

well under 1% of revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small 

governments. Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governments, as the proposed rule is not targeted at 

small governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different burden 

on small governments than on other entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 

 The rule’s benefits include the prevention of the numerous adverse health effects attributable to 

lead exposure. Exposure to lead impairs a child’s neuropsychological development (most commonly 

measured as reduced IQ), and has been associated with other neurotoxic and renal effects in children. 

Health effects in adults include cardiovascular effects such as hypertension, coronary heart disease, and 

stroke, as well as neurotoxic, renal, reproductive, developmental, genotoxic, carcinogenic, and immune 

Page 1 of 3 
*** Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During EO 12866 Review *** 

system effects, and effects on other organ systems. 

(A) Federal Financial Assistance. EPA has not identified any sources of federal 

financial assistance (e.g., grants or loans) that are available from either EPA or other federal 

agencies to defray State, local, or Tribal expenditures under this rule. 

(B) Federal Resources. EPA has not identified any federal resources available to carry 

out the intergovernmental mandate contained in this rule. 

(3) Costs and Budgetary Impacts.

(A) Future Compliance Costs. Total compliance costs for the rule are estimated to be 

$272 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $293 million per year using a 7% discount 

rate. 

(B) Disproportionate Budgetary Effects. While costs may vary somewhat between 

sectors subject to the rule, the distribution of costs follows the distribution of regulated 

renovation, repair, and painting events. It can be expected that costs will vary from state to state, 

depending on the number of affected buildings, regulated renovation events, and certified 

renovation, repair and painting firms. EPA believes that the most relevant measure of the 

budgetary effect of this rule is the cost of performing a renovation, repair, or painting event 

following the work practices required by the rule. EPA expects that cost to vary somewhat from 

event to event, but does not expect any particular industry to face exceptionally high costs on a 

per-event basis. EPA has no evidence to suggest that the rule will have disproportionate 

budgetary impacts on any particular regions, governments, types of communities, or segments of 

the private industry sectors affected by the rule. 

(4) Effect on National Economy. Guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget 

indicates that the economic impact of a regulation on the national economy becomes measurable only if 

the economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP). See Memorandum from Sally Katzen, “Guidance for Implementing Title II of [UMRA],” March 

31, 1995. Given the current GDP, this is equivalent to a cost of $34 billion to $67 billion. Therefore, 

EPA has concluded that this rule is highly unlikely to have any measurable effect on the national 

economy. 

(5) Prior consultation with affected State, local, and Tribal governments. Under section 204 

of UMRA, EPA must provide a process for prior consultation with State, local, and Tribal governments 

affected by significant Federal intergovernmental mandates. 

 There is not a requirement for States or Tribes to administer the program. States and Tribes will 

be able to apply for and receive authorization to administer these requirements, but will be under no 

obligation to do so. In the absence of a State or Tribal authorization, EPA will administer these 

requirements. 

 Nonetheless, EPA has sought input from State, local and Tribal government representatives 

throughout the development of this rulemaking. EPA’s experience in administering the existing leadbased paint activities program under TSCA § 402(a) suggests that these governments will play a critical 

role in the successful implementation of a national program to reduce exposures to lead-based paint 

hazards associated with renovation activities. Consequently, the Agency has met with State, local, and 

Tribal government officials on numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 

Page 2 of 3 
*** Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During EO 12866 Review *** 

 EPA began the consultation process required by TSCA section 402(c)(3) with two public 

meetings on December 7, 1998 and on March 8, 1999. Participants included representatives from States. 

Topics discussed included applicability, accreditation of training providers, certification of individuals, 

and work practice standards (setup, occupant protection, clean-up, clearance, and restricted practices). 

 EPA also held a two day meeting with its State partners to discuss lead-based paint program 

issues. Most of the time on the agenda for this meeting, held in September 2000, was devoted to 

discussing how the existing abatement regulations might be modified to apply to renovation and 

remodeling projects. 

 In May 2003, EPA hosted a series of conference calls to discuss additional issues related to 

renovation and remodeling. Two calls were held with State and local government agency representatives 

as well as a State legislator. 

 EPA has co-sponsored several national lead conferences, at which the Agency met with 

representatives of State and Tribal governments to discuss renovation issues, among other issues. 

Examples include: 

 • June 2000 EPA 4th National Lead Conference - Washington, DC. 

 • December 2000 National Lead Grantee Conference (HUD/CDC/EPA) - Atlanta, GA. 

 • May 2001 EPA 5th National Lead Conference - New Orleans, LA. 

 • June 2003 EPA 6th National Lead Conference - San Antonio, TX. 

 • June 2004 National Lead and Healthy Homes Grantee Conference (HUD/CDC/EPA) - Orlando, 

FL. 

(6) Small Government Agency Plan. This rule does not contain a significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA. EPA has also determined that this 

rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

Based on the definition of “small government jurisdiction” in RFA section 601, no State governments can 

be considered small. Small Territorial or Tribal governments could apply for authorization to administer 

and enforce this program, which would entail costs, but these small jurisdictions are under no obligation 

to do so. 

 EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. EPA generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as being 

expenditures, in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small government revenues in any one year. For 

governments that operate child-occupied facilities such as schools and daycare centers, the rule is 

expected to result in typical small government impacts under 0.04% of revenues 

Thus, EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small governments. Nor 

does the rule uniquely affect small governments, as the rule is not targeted at small governments, does not 

primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different burden on small governments than on 

other entities that operate target housing or child-occupied facilities. 

Page 3 of 3