Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 1 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 

### Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits Associated with the Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule [RIN 2070 - AJ57] July 1 5 , 2011 On May 6, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule entitled Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Lead, Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program ( 7 5 FR 25038). The proposal included a number of proposed revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule , which estab lished accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre - 1978 housing and child - occupied facilities. Specificall y, EPA proposed require ments for dust wipe testing, clearance, allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analy sis, minor changes to the training program accreditation application process, standards for e - learning in accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for renovators. The benefits of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearan ce provisions were not quantified, but EPA estimated that the annualized cost of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance provisions would be $272 million with a 3% discount rate or $293 million with 7% rate. For the final rule, EPA has decide d not to require dust wipe testing and clearance as proposed , and therefore the estimated costs of these proposed provisions will not be realized . However, EPA is finalizing several of the other proposed revisions to the 2008 rule, including a provision a llowing a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory

for anal ys is, minor changes to the training program accreditation application process, standards for e - learning in accredited training programs, minimum enf orcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior re novation projects, the prohibited or restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high - efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. This document discusses the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the final rule. In most cases , EPA is unable to quantify the incremental costs or benefits that could be expected from each revision. Thus, this document contains a primaril y qualitative assessment of the costs and benefits attributable to the final rule. For the most part, EPA beli eves that the incremental costs attributable to this final rule are minimal. The quantifiable costs attributable to this final rule, those related to the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for training providers, are estimated to be $355 per year. 1. Clearance in lieu of cleaning verification . The final rule retains a provision that allows renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification part of the mandatory cleaning protocol if another Federal, State, or local law or regulation, or the contract between the renovation firm and the propert y owner, requires the renovation firm to use qualified entities to perform dust wipe testing and requires the renovation firm to achieve clearance.Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 2 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 Elimination of this provision could result in some additional cost for renovations that must achieve clearance. EPA’s “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing” showed that cleaning verification should take approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square feet of uncarpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. EPA estimated, as part of the 2008 final RRP rule economic anal ys is, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles are $13.60 apiece . EPA assumed that these handles can be used for approximately 1,000 events. Using the interior event sizes and other calculations used in the 2008 RRP rule economic anal ys is, cleaning verification would cost from approximately $5.15 for a small bathroom remodel involving an uncarpeted work area of 48 square feet, to $30.92 for a large window replacement project in multi - unit target housing (likel y to be the largest project for which clearance would be required b y the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and for which EPA has estimated costs). EPA is unable to estimate how man y renovations covered b y the RRP rule would also have to be cleared under another statute, regulation, or ordinance, or the reno vation contract. It is likel y that completing the entire RRP cleaning protocol will increase the probability that clearance, where required, will be achieved on the first attempt, thus eliminating the burden of additional clearance attempts. 2. Paint chip sampling option . EPA is finalizing the proposed option allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from painted components that will be disturbed by a renovation and submit those samples to an NLLAP - recognized entity for analy si s. This revision is beneficial, in that it provides certified renovators with another option for determining whether painted components contain lead - based paint. This revision adds no costs, because no certified renovators are required to use this option . 3. Additional materials required with training provider application. The final rule requires training providers to submit copies of the qualifications of their training manager and principal instructor along with their applications for accreditation . Training providers are alread y required to obtain and retain these materials, the final rule merel y requires them to be sent to EPA along with the application. EPA estimates that these materials will consist of a 1 - page resume and, possibly, a cop y of a diploma, course completion certificate, or transcript. For a training provider with one training manager and one principal instructor, this will mean an additional 2 - 4 photocopies. In the draft Information Collection Request Supporting Statement accomp an yi ng the proposed rule, EPA estimated that each photocopy costs $0.09, for a total of $0.36 per accreditation or reaccreditation application. An application for reaccreditation must be submitted every

4 y ears in order to maintain accreditation. EPA has estimated that approximately

170 training providers would become accredited to offer renovation training. Thus, the annualized cost of this requirement is approximately $15. This amendment is beneficial because, when EPA reviews applications for ac creditation, it is common for the Agency to request this documentation from training providers in order to verify that the training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the proper qualifications. Requesting this information takes time and can delay the review of an application. Having training providers submit this information upfront with the application will avoid such delay s.Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 3 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 The final rule also requires training providers who use course materials approved b y an authorized State or Tribal RRP program to submit them to EPA along with their application. Previously , training providers who used EPA, State or Tribal course materials could merel y certify that they were using such materials, and not submit them for review. However, given th e diversity of the State and Tribal programs that EPA expects to authorize in the coming y ears, it could be very

difficult for EPA to determine, without reviewing the actual materials, whether the proposed course would be suitable for the Federal RRP progr am. Submitting State or Tribal course materials could involve a significant number of photocopies and additional mailing costs. Using the example of the EPA model course materials, the instructor and student manuals for the renovator course consist of 434 and 312 pages respectivel y. Using EPA’s estimated cost per photocop y of $0.09, it would cost $67.14 to photocopy

these two manuals. However, EPA does not know how many training providers would want to use State or Tribal course materials rather than EPA’s model course materials. EPA has not received any applications for accreditation from renovation training providers who wish to use course materials from an y of the 10 currentl y - authorized States. EPA believes that the most likely

scenario would be a training provider who is accredited in an authorized State who would like to provide training in an adjacent non - authorized State. 4. Role of principal instructor. The final rule contains regulatory text intended to clarify the role of the principal instructor in providing training. The regulation, at 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3), previously stated that principal instructors are responsible for the organization of their c ourses and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The regulations also define “principal instructor” as “the individual who has the primary responsibility

for organizing and teaching a particular course.” Nonetheless, the rule also allows trai ning program managers to designate experts in a particular field ( e.g. , doctors or lawy ers) as guest instructors, on an as needed basis, to teach discrete portions of the course. EPA interprets these provisions to require a principal instructor to be pres ent and primaril y responsible for teaching the course, although guest instructors may

be used to teach some portion(s) of the course. Principal instructors are also responsible for the quality of the instruction delivered b y the guest instructors. To ens ure that the regulation is clear on this point, EPA is amending the regulation to state that principal instructor s are primarily

responsible for teaching the course materials and must be present to provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the cours e taught by guest instructors) for the course s for which they

have been designated the principal instructor. No costs are associated with this amendment, because it is merel y a clarification of an existing EPA regulatory interpretation. The amendment is beneficial because it should reduce confusion about the role of the principal instructor. 5. Amendments to accreditation applications. EPA has interpreted the training provider accreditation regulations to require accredited training providers to submit amended applications whenever there is a change to the information provided in the training provider’s most recent application for accreditation or re - accreditation, including information regarding the training manager and an y principal instructor(s) teac hing courses offered b y the training provider. However, the regulations have not previousl y specified a time limit for submitting such amendments. The final rule requires providers to submit amendments within 90 day s of the date a change occurs to inform ation in each provider’s most recent application. If a training provider does not do so, it must stop providing training until the accreditation application is amended. This amendment is unlikely to add additional costs, because EPA believes that traini ng providersDocket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 4 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 have generall y been updating their information in a timely manner. EPA is also revising the regulation to specifically

state that no fee will be charged for accreditation application amendments. The final rule also gives EPA a 30 - day peri od to approve or disapprove amendments involving a new training manager, an y new or additional principal instructors, or an y new permanent training location . A training provider may not offer training under a new training manager or a new principal instru ctor, or training at a new permanent training location until 30 day s after the date that EPA receives an amended accreditation application. This 30 - day time period will give EPA sufficient time to check the qualifications of the training manager(s) or pri ncipal instructor(s) before the training manager begins managing or the principal instructor begins teaching a course. This 30 - day time period also gives EPA sufficient time to verify the suitability of a new permanent training location by visiting the lo cation. While this specific revision may

add some burden for training providers, EPA believes that most training providers plan far enough ahead so that the 30 - day period will not delay

training course delivery . In further reviewing this proposed provi sion, EPA has decided that additional flexibility would be beneficial for training providers. If the training provider wishes to use a training manager or principal instructor who has already been reviewed b y EPA as part of a successful application for tr aining provider accreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, whether for that training provider or another, the training provider may do so on an interim basis without delay . EPA will also allow training providers to use new permanent training locations on an inte rim basis for 30 day s. If, during that 30 day s, EPA determines that the location is not adequate, the training provider must stop using that location upon written notice from EPA. 6. Hands - on training topics. 40 CFR 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that training programs must follow to become accredited in order to provide instruction in lead - based paint courses. Minimum requirements for training curricula are found in this section, which list s course topics that must be included in the different training courses with an indication of the topics that require hands - on instruction. However, EPA inadvertentl y omitted indicating which course topics required hands - on training for the renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. Accord ingl y, the final rule identifies the topics for which hands - on training is required in renovator and dust sampling technician courses . EPA believes that this amendment adds no costs, because the EPA model courses include hands - on training in these topics and most training providers are using the EPA model courses to deliver training. However, EPA has received some questions on this issue, so this revision should reduce potential confusion about which topics must be covered in the hands - on training. Th e final rule also adds a sentence to 40 CFR 745.22 5 (e)(2) stating that refresher courses for all disciplines except project designer must include a hands - on component. This does not add any costs, because it is a restatement of EPA policy . 7. Minimum e - learning course requirements and recordkeeping. The final rule adds minimum requirements for e - learning courses and associated recordkeeping. These requirements include:  A unique identifier for each student  Tracking each student’s course log - ins, launc hes, progress, and completion, and maintain ing these recordsDocket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 5 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11  At least 16 periodic knowledge checks per course, which must be successfully completed before the student can continue through the course.  A test of at least 20 questions at the end of the elec tronic learning portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctl y by the student for successful completion of the electronic learning portion of the course.  An electronic learning course completion certificate which can be saved or printed by the student, but which cannot be immediately and easily

edited by the student. While the final rule imposes additional substantive requirements and recordkeeping on training providers who wish to provide e - learning courses, e - learning is optional and n ot required for an y training provider. Inaddition, EPA believes that the recordkeeping requirements for e learning courses are comparable to, and no more burdensome than, the ordinary recordkeeping alread y required for courses provided in traditional formats. This revision is beneficial because it enumerates the important elements of e - learning that EPA is already using as it evaluates applications for e - learning course accreditation. 8. Recordkeeping periods for renovation training providers. The final rule requires providers of renovator and dust sampling technician courses to keep student training records for 5 y ears. Previousl y, training providers were required to keep training records for 3 years and 6 months. This length of time was ch osen because of the length of individual certification periods for lead - based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 y ears and 6 months including interim certification. However, the renovator and dust sampling technician certification periods are 5 y ears, with no interim certification. In order to ensure that the training records from the previous training course are available for certified renovators and dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses, EPA is increasing the general recordkeeping period applicable to these disciplines to 5 y ears. Inaddition, because EPA has alread y extended the certification period for any certified renovator who was trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 2015, EPA is requiring training records from those cours es to be kept until July 1, 2015 as well. This revision is beneficial, in that it ensures that training records from the previous course would alway s be available for renovators and dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses. EPA can estimat e the increased cost attributable to this revision. EPA’s economic anal ys is for the 2008 RRP rule estimated that a total of 170 training providers would become accredited for renovator training, and 56 renovator courses per training provider would be need ed to train the renovators required for the first y ear that the RRP rule was effective. EPA’s economic analy sis for the Opt - Out and Recordkeeping Final Rule e stimated that no new training providers would become accredited, and a total of 30 additional ren ovator courses per existing training provider would be needed to train the additional renovators required during the first ye ar after the Opt - Out Rule took effect. According to these anal ys es, a total of 20 renovator courses would be needed per training p rovider during subsequent y ears. These analy ses also estimated that 1 page of records would be kept for each notification provided, including pre - course notifications, re - notifications, and post - course notifications. Each course would require a pre notif ication before the course began, giving general information on the training provider and the time and place for the course, and a post - notification after the course, which would include general information on the provider and information on successful trai nees and their photographs. EPA estimated that 12 percent of courses would also require a re - notification due to changes in date, time, or location. Thus, during the first y ear, 86 courses would have been provided b y each training provider, resulting in 182 notifications that would have to be kept forDocket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 6 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 an additional 2 y ears, approximately , depending upon when the course was actually given. Additional y ears would add 20 courses per y ear per training provider, resulting in 42 notifications that would have t o be kept for an additional 18 months. In its economic anal ys is for the Opt - Out Rule, EPA estimated the recordkeeping costs per notification would total $0.24. Pro - rating this amount for 5 y ears results in an estimated recordkeeping cost of $0.34 per not ification. Thus, recordkeeping costs for the 86 courses given per training provider in the first ye ar would total $61.88 instead of $43.68. The recordkeeping costs for the 20 courses given per training provider in subsequent years would total $6.80 inste ad of $4.80. These estimates cover the entire 5 ye ar period during which the records would have to be kept. Therefore, the costs of this provision are estimated to be $340 per ye ar. 9. Trainee photographs. The final rule also includes certain m inimum standards for the trainee photographs that must appear on renovator and dust sampling technician course completion certificates. Accredited training programs are required to issue a course completion certificate for each person who passes a trainin g course. A variet y of information is required to be on the certificate including the name of the course, the name and address of the student, and contact information for the training program. Course certificates for renovators or dust sampling technicians must include a photograph of the student , but the regulation does not include size requirements or other specifications for the photograph . Since publishing the RRP rule, the Agency has been asked if there is a minimum size for the photograph. EPA bel ieves that it would be beneficial to have minimum standards for the photograph in order to ensure that the person in the photograph is recognizable. Therefore, the final rule requires the photographs on course completion certificates to be an accurate and recognizable image of the trainee and at least one square inch in size. This revision is not likely to add any

costs, because EPA believes that training providers are alread y compl yi ng with these standards. The revision is beneficial because it should r educe potential confusion over the standards for trainee photographs. 10. State and Tribal programs. The final rule establishes certain minimum standards for authorized State and Tribal lead - based paint enforcement programs. These standards include a minimum penalty

authority of $5,000 per violation per day , a requirement that the State or Tribe be abl e to sue to obtain penalties, and a requirement that the burden of proof and degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent be no greater than it is for EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA ) . The final rule also includes several clarification s on required elements of authorized State and Tribal renovation programs, such as requirements for dust sampling technician training and on - the - job training. These revisions are beneficial because they ensure that State and Tribal programs have adequate enforcement mechanisms and reduce potential confusion about what such programs must include. These revisions impose no costs, because States and Tribes are not required to develop renovation and other lead - based paint programs, nor are they

required to ob tain EPA authorization for these programs. EPA will continue to implement the lead - based paint programs, including renovation programs, in unauthorized States and Tribal areas. 11. Vertical containment. The final rule includes several provisi ons designed to clarify when vertical containment must be used and ensure that renovation firms consider all of the appropriate factors when designing containment s ystems for exterior projects. Specificall y, the final rule requires vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area to be used whenever a renovation project is being performed within 10 feet of the propert y line. This requirement will help to ensure that neighboring properties are not contaminated b yDocket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 7 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 exterior renovations. The final rule also adds a definition of “containment” that provides additional guidance on what vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area consists of and what should generally be considered whe n designing containment sy stems. In EPA’s economic analy sis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to effectivel y contain dust and debris, including work areas in close proximity to o ther buildings, work areas that abut a property line, and windy c onditions. The 2008 economic anal ys is specificall y notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a s ys tem of vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any object bey ond the work area. To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, dep ending on the size of the job. Adding together the costs for 2% of the exterior jobs covered b y the 2008 RRP rule and 2% of the exterior jobs covered b y the 2010 Opt - out rule results in an annualized cost of approximately

$118 million for vertical containment that EPA has alread y accounted for. Thus, EPA has alread y accounted for the additional costs incurred for using vertical containment sy stems on renovations performed within 10 feet of the propert y line. In addition, at the request of several members of the regulated community , EPA is revising the interior and exterior containment provisions to permit renovation firms to establish vertical containment closer than the mandatory minimum floor or ground containment distance. If a firm chooses this o ption, the firm need not extend the floor or ground containment beyond the vertical containment unless it is necessary to contain dust and debris. This additional flexibility , particularly

in situations where obstacles make it difficult to cover the floor or ground for the necessary

distance, is likely

to make it easier for renovation firms to comply with the rule. 12. Prohibited and restricted practice clarifications. The final rule contains a number of minor revisions to the language on prohibited an d restricted renovation practices, and adds a definition of “painted surfaces” to further clarify when practices are prohibited or restricted. Specificall y, the final rule clarifies that the prohibitions and restrictions on renovation practices, such as the prohibition on open flame burning or torching, appl y to all painted surfaces, not just surfaces where the presence of lead - based paint has been confirmed. The definition of “painted surface” additionall y clarifies that term means component surfaces that contain paint or other surface coatings. The final rule also clarifies that the restriction on the use of machines that remove paint through high speed operation applies any where painted surfaces are being disturbed by

such machines, the restriction is not limited to situations where all of the paint is removed b y such machines. Lastly , the final rule clarifies what EPA meant by HEPA exhaust control. These revisions clarify existing requirements and reflect established EPA interpretations. Therefore, these revisions do not impose additional costs. 13. HEPA vacuum operation and maintenance. The final rule adds a requirement that high - efficiency

particulate air (HEPA) vacuums be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommend ations, including filter change intervals. HEPA vacuums are alread y mandatory

for the specialized cleaning protocol required by the RRP rule. While this revision may

add some additional costs in the form of more frequent filter changes, EPA believes that most renovation firms are alread y operating and maintaining their HEPA vacuums in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. EPA is unable to estimate how manyDocket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 8 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 renovation firms are not doing so, and might thereby incur additional costs to comply wi th this new requirement. 14. On - the -

job training . The final rule clarifies that the certified renovator assigned to the renovation must only

provide on - the -

job training to other renovation workers (who have not had certified renovator training) in the RRP - required work practices that the renovation workers will be performing. This is a stakeholder - requested clarification of the existing RRP rule requirements and does not add an y costs. 15. Grandfathering cut- off date. The effective date of the fi nal rule will be the last date that individuals may

take advantage of the “grandfathering” provisions of the RRP rule. Under the 2008 RRP rule, individuals who successfull y complete an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, and individuals who successfully complete the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model renovation training courses may take an accredited refresher renovation training course in lieu of the initial renovation training to become a certified renovator. In addition, individuals who have successfull y completed an accredited lead - based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currentl y certified in the discipline, may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to become a c ertified dust sampling technician. While this restriction is likely to impose some burdens on individuals wishing to become certified renovators or dust sampling technicians, EPA is unable to estimate the extent of these burdens. EPA does not have inf ormation on the availability of pre - RRP lead - safe work practices courses , nor can EPA estimate how man y previously - trained individuals would choose to become renovators after the effective date of the rule.Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OPPT

– 2005 - 0049

Page 9 of 9 [RIN 2070 - AJ57] 0 7 / 15 /20 11 Provision Proposed Cost Estimates (Annualized) Final Cost Estimates (Annualized) Dust Wipe Testing & Clearance $272,000,000 (3%) 1 293,000,000 (7%) 1 $0 Provision Excluded From Final Rule Elimination of Clearance in lieu of Cleaning Verification Not Estimated Not Estimated Paint Chip Sampling Option Not Estimated $0 Additional Application Materials Not Estimated $15 2,3 Role of Principal Instructor Not Estimated $0 Application Amendments Not Estimated Not Estimated Hands - on Training Not Estimated $0 E - learning Not Estimated Not Estimated Recordkeeping Not Estimated $340 2,3 Photographs Not Estimated Not Estimated State and Tribal Enforcement Not Estimated Not Estimated Vertical Containment Not Estimated Not Estimated Prohibited/Restricted Practices Not Estimated $0 HEPA vacuums Not Estimated Not Estimated On - the - job Training Not Estimated $0 Grandfathering Not Estimated Not Estimated TOTAL: $272,000,000 (3%) 1 293,000,000 (7%) 1 $355 2,3

1 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 , April 2010. (http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail;D=EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2005 - 0049 - 1110 ) 2 Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child - Occupied Facilities , April 2008. ( http://www.regulations.gov/#! documentDetail;D=EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2005 - 0049 - 0916 ) 3 Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt - out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child - Occupied Facilities , April 2010. (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2005 - 0049 - 1135 )