1



# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lead; Amendment to the Opt
- out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting

Program

Response to Public Comments

April 20102

Opt
- out Provision Comment: Several commenters supported removin g the opt

- out provision. One commenter believes it is important to protect workers and adjacent properties. One commenter believes it is important to eliminate the opt

- out provision in order the protect children six and older. The commenter explains that blood lead levels in 6 y ear olds is more strongl y associated with cognitive and behavioral development than is blood lead measured in early childhood. One commenter stated that they are concerned about the risk of exposure to neighbors, visitors, and c hildren being cared for in housing that undergoes renovations under the opt

- out provision. This commenter is also concerned about how the impacts of lead contamination will affect future occupants including children. Several commenters opposed removing the opt

- out. One believes the increased cost of renovations is not necessary in areas not included in high risk populations. Other commenters claim that professional remodelers improve the condition of a home therefore the RRP requirements are not necess ary. One commenter wants EPA to bolster the current opt

- out by requiring the homeowner to make a certification that the sale of the home is not imminent. This commenter also suggested that homeowners disclose renovations to the next owner of the home. O ne commenter requested that EPA provide data showing that lead dust from renovations persists in homes before it decides whether to eliminate the opt

- out provision. Response : After considering these comments, the Agency has decided to eliminate the Opt

- out provision. One concern with the opt

- out provision is that it does not adequately address the risks of lead

- based paint hazards to children older than five y ears old or adults. One commenter pointed out that blood lead levels in 6 y ear olds is more strongly associated with cognitive and behavioral development than is blood lead measured in earl y childhood. The opt

- out can also result in exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead

- based paint hazards

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

- out is safe, reliable or effective because it would not sufficiently minimize exposure to lead

- based paint hazards. In sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and vis itors are exposed to the lead hazards created by the renovation, and therefore the opt

- out would not protect older children, women of childbearing age, or other adults currentl y residing in the home and can result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women of lead

- based paint hazards.

Comment: One commenter opposed to removing the opt

- out provision stated that removing the opt

- out provision would create more opportunit y for non

- compliance. Response : EPA disagrees that removing the o pt

- out will create more opportunity for non

compliance. To the contrary , having a simpler more generall y applicable rule should make compliance easier. Indeed, EPA believes that a provision such as the opt

- out can cause renovation firms to be confused ab out how to comply with the RRP requirements and therefore believes removal of the opt

- out provision is likely to enhance compliance

.3

Comment: One commenter believes that removing the opt

- out provision will result in impediments to the implementation of other federal programs such at the Department of Energy ’s Weatherization Assistance Program because of the additional costs associated of complying with the rule

. Response : The Agency disagrees with this comment. EPA does not believe that the costs ass ociated with the rule such as certification, equipment and cleaning costs are overl y burdensome. Thus, EPA believes that this rule will not be an impediment to the implementation of federal programs.

Comment: One commenter stated that professional re novators using lead

- safe work practices reduce the dust lead loading levels significantly from a home’s pre

- renovation loading level, making homes safer. Another commenter stated that renovations performed by professional subject to reasonable clean up st andards do not create additional health hazards. This commenter believes that a “no visible dust” standard should be required instead of the RRP work practices. Response : These comments go to issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA explicitly did not reopen issues related to the work practices. EPA therefore considers this comment outside the scope of this rulemaking. Nonetheless, EPA disagrees that a “no visible dust” standard is sufficient nor does EPA believe that renovations done by profe ssionals will ty

pical reduce lead dust below the hazard standard. EPA’s Dust Study indicated that renovation, repair, and paint preparation activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust

- lead hazards. The Dust Study

showed that the larg est decreases in dust levels were observed in the experiments where the rule’s practices of containment, specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification were all used instead of ty pical work practices commonly used by professional renovators . The Dust Study indicated that if the prohibited and restricted practices are avoided, the suite of work practices as a whole are effective at addressing the lead

- paint dust that is generated during renovation activities.

Comment: One commenter stated that do

- it

- yours elf (DIY) renovations contribute to health hazards and that the RRP rule does not cover that type of work. Response : EPA understands that the rule will not prevent dust hazards created by DIY renovation. However, EPA interprets the statutory directive t o regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA § 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors, rather than homeowners. Therefore, the RRP rule does not regulate renovations performed by homeowners in their own homes.

Comment: One commenter contend s that a survey of its members found over 91% of their clients range in age between 41 and 64 ye ars old and therefore it is highl y unlikely that children under age 6 or pregnant women are present in these households. Thus, removing the opt

- out would have little benefit to children under age 6. Considering these factors, the commenter believes it is more cost effective to keep the opt

- out in place.4

Response : The Agency disagrees with this comment. The commenter implies that the rule should limited to o nly protecting children under age 6. As stated in the preamble to the proposed and final rule s , lead has adverse health effects for adults and children 6 and older, and that the purpose of today ’s rule is to protect these age groups as well as people who do not live in the home being renovated such as visitors and neighbors

.

Comment: Several commenters suggested that removing the opt

- out provision would be arbitrary and capricious because EPA did not provide new evidence or sufficient reasons to support a decision to change course and remove the opt

- out provision. In so doing, one commenter relied upon a 2003 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for the proposition that absent new information that was not available to the Agency at the time it made its initial determination, EPA cannot provide a reasoned analy sis to justify its “change in policy .” See Ramaprakash v. Federal Aviation Admin. , 346 F.3d 1121, 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Response : As an initial matter, EPA disagrees th at the Ramaprakash decision stands for the proposition that only

information previously

not available to the Agency can justify

a regulatory change or, for that matter, a change in policy . Furthermore, the Ramaprakash case is readily distinguishable and, therefore, inapposite. In Ramaprakash , the DC Court of Appeals held that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) impermissibly deviated from its precedent without acknowledging or providing reasons for departing from its precedent. Specifically , the court found that the NTSB did not even attempt to explain its departure from precedent when it ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had shown good cause for its delay in sanctioning a pilot for offenses that had occurred more than 6 months prior. According to the court, for more than 20 years the NTSB had explained that a part y seeking dismissal of a stale complaint (over six months old) was not required to show prejudice from the delay. Yet, in the challenged order, the NTSB simply no ted, as a basis for its decision, that no showing of prejudice had been made. Similarly , the NTSB’s decision announced that it was more willing to excuse delay

on the part of the FAA if the alleged violation was serious. In so doing, the court held that the NTSB reversed its long standing precedent (that it should not bend its procedural rules because the alleged violation was serious) without even an “attempt to explain that departure from precedent.” 346 F.3d at 1125. Finally , the court held that alth ough the NTSB said it was troubled by

the length of time between the FAA’s receipt of the evidence and the investigation, the NTSB nonetheless departed from its own precedent involving the “longstanding” requirement of prosecutorial diligence in stale comp laint cases. According to the court, NTSB failed to provide a reasoned explanation for changing the standard. Id. at 1128 (“The [NTSB] cannot undertake such a departure from its precedent without providing a reasoned explanation for its decision, and it provided none here.”). First, this case is distinguishable on its facts. There is a fundamental difference in the importance of precedent to a quasi

- judicial proceeding versus notice and comment rulemaking. In the adjudication context, precedent play s a critical role because it provides the basis for future decisions and the orderl y administration of justice. Reliance on precedent not only creates stability but also provides the framework that affected persons expect will be applied in future cases. One reason for this is that rules governing the regulated community are established5

through precedent and create a reasonable basis for reliance. A departure from precedent has a retroactive effect on past acts and is akin to changing the rules to determi ne the winner after the game has been play ed (according to the previous rules). Thus, the court held that, at the very least, the NTSB must acknowledge that it is deliberatel y departing from it prior decisions and provide a reasoned anal ysis to indicate that its precedent it not being casually ignored. In contrast, EPA has engaged in notice and comment rulemaking to deliberately change a regulatory

provision. Here, after reconsideration, EPA announced and took comment on a deliberate and prospective ch ange to the underl yi ng rule. Indeed, EPA proposed to make a change before the regulatory provision at issue even when into effect. Thus, the reliance interests at issue in the case are not implicated here. Moreover, whereas the NTSB decision “did not ev en attempt” to provide a reasoned explanation, EPA, in both the proposed and final rules, provided extensive discussion of its concerns with the opt

- out provision and the reasons wh y it believes removing the opt

- out is in the best interest of the public. Second, contrary

to the suggestion of the commenter, in a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court explained that there is no heightened standard of review under the Administrative Procedures Act for changes in agency policies or rules that requires a mo re substantial explanation when an agency “reverses course.” See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1810

- 1812 (2009). “We find no basis in the Administrative Procedures Act or in our opinions for a requirement that all agency change b e subjected to more searching review.” Id. at 1810. The Court further explained that the APA makes no distinction between initial agency action and subsequent agency action undoing or reversing that action. To be sure, the requirement that an agency pr ovide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position. An agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 69 6, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L .Ed.2d 1039 (1974)

. And of course the agency must show that there are good reasons for the new policy . But it need not demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course adequately

indicates. This means that the agency need not alway s p rovide a more detailed justification than what would suffice for a new policy

created on a blank slate. Sometimes it must

- when, for example, its new policy rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy ; or when its prior policy

has engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U.S. 735, 742, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L .Ed.2d 25 (1996) . It would be arbitrary or capricious to ignore such matters. In such cases it is not that further justificatio n is demanded b y the mere fact of policy6 change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered b y the prior policy

. Id. at 1811; see also Westar Energy v. F.E.R.C. , 568 F.3d 985, 989 (C. A.D.C. June 12, 2009) (“The fact that FERC changed its approach required no additional or special explanation.”). Here, EPA has consciously proposed to remove the opt

- out provision and concluded that doing so is in the best interest of the public. Clearl y, applying the work practice standards to all target housing is permissible under the statute and supported by the record. Indeed, one of the better reasons for this change is that it clearl y promotes the congressional directive to regulate renovation ac tivities in target housing that create lead

- based paint hazards. Other good reasons include that it is more protective for children under six and, in contrast to the retaining the opt

out, it is protective for children six and older as well as adults. In addition, EPA’s decision is based upon environmental justice considerations and practical implementation issues. Moreover, rather than ignoring contradictory factual findings, EPA believes removing the opt

- out better takes into account EPA’s finding (and the data supporting that finding) that all renovation activities that disturb lead

- based paint in target housing create lead

- based paint hazards, which is the trigger Congress established for requiring EPA to regulate renovation activities. Finally , this change was proposed before the opt

- out provision even became effective. Accordingl y, there can be no serious contention that reliance interests are implicated. Insum, EPA has more than adequatel y explained the basis for the change being made in this ru lemaking.

Comment: One commenter asserted that the proposal was inconsistent with TSCA section 2(c), which directs the Agency to consider the environmental, economic, and social impacts of any action EPA takes or proposes under TSCA. The commenter doe s not believe that EPA adequatel y explained how it did so. The commenter further “believes that the proposed rule imposes substantial burdens on small businesses, home owners and building owners, without an y significant expectation of addressing real lead hazards,” and therefore the proposal violates section 2(c) of TSCA. Response : EPA disagrees that this rulemaking is inconsistent with TSCA section 2(c). To the contrary , EPA has explicitly taken the environmental, economic, and social impacts of this ac tion into account. The environmental and human health impacts of lead are well documented and the Agency has taken particular care to consider the social impacts of today ’s action on low

- income and other high risk populations. In addition, in connection with this rulemaking, EPA prepared both an initial and a final economic impact analy sis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. Thus, there can be no serious contention that EPA failed to consider the economic impact of today ’s rule. To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that Section 2(c) requires EPA to undertake som e particular economic anal ys is ( e.g., to determine that the quantified benefits outweigh the c alculated costs) EPA disagrees. In any event, EPA has concluded that the benefits of today ’s rulemaking outweigh the economic costs.7

Comment: Some commenters asserted that the opt

- out provision violated federal law by impermissibly

creating an exception to the statutory definition of “target housing” and excluding some target housi ng from the rule based upon claims about its occupancy at the time of the regulated RRP work. These commenters further contend that unlike other places in the law, such as the definition of lead

- based paint, Congress did not authorize EPA to change its de finition of target housing. In addition, these commenters assert that the statute is clear on its face that renovations that create lead

- based paint hazards in target housing should be covered and that nothing in the statute limits the mandate to childhoo d exposures. Response : These commenters raised this issue as part of a lawsuit challenging the underlying rule. EPA agreed to settled the case and, as part of the settlement, issue a proposal to eliminate the opt

- out. While it is not necessary in this context to address the commenters’ specific legal positions, EPA believes that amending the RRP rule to remove the opt

- out provision is better supported by

the record and more consistent with the factual findings made by the Agency

in connection with the RRP rule. EPA also agrees that the statute directs EPA to regulate renovation activities in target housing that create lead

- based paint hazards. EPA has found that renovation activities that disturb lead

- based paint in target housing create lead

- based pai nt hazards. Thus, while EPA believes that focusing resources on preventing lead poisoning in children can be sound public policy in certain circumstances, EPA agrees that the statute is not limited to protecting children under six or housing where childre n under six currentl y reside.

Comment: One commenter suggests that EPA is mistaken that removing the opt

- out promotes, to a greater extent, the statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering renovation activities in target housing. To the contrary , the commenter asserts that EPA is only authorized to regulate renovation activities in target housing that create lead

- based paint hazards. The commenter argues that because EPA has not made a “hazard determination associated with the risk of renov ation activities among older children and adults,” EPA is therefore, “not statutoril y authorized to regulate renovation activities in buildings

— such as public or commercial buildings or even residential homes

—that are not frequented by young children.” Response : The commenter is mistaken. EPA has determined that renovation activities that disturb lead

- based paint create lead

- based paint hazards in target housing and child

- occupied facilities. Specificall y, EPA has set hazard standards for paint

- lead hazards, dust

- lead hazards, and soil

- lead hazards. In target housing and child

- occupied facilities, dust that equals or exceeds the mass

- per - area concentration of lead of 40 μg/ft 2 on floors or 250 μg/ft 2 on window sills is a lead

- based paint hazard. There fore, EPA is clearl y authorized to regulate renovation activities in target housing under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA. Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the statute limits EPA’s authority to housing where children under six currently resid e. While EPA continues to believe that Congress was concerned with low level lead poisoning among children, it did not limit its scope to children or where children under six reside. In fact, the legislative history suggests an overall goal of addressing lead in the housing stock of the United States, not just where children currentl y live. Indeed, the stated purpose of the Residential Lead

- Based Paint Hazard Act of 1992 (which added subchapter IV to TSCA) is to “develop a national strategy to build the8

infrastructure necessary

to eliminate lead

- based paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible.” See P.L . 102

- 550, § 1003(1), (October 28, 1992) (emphasis added). Similarly , EPA disagrees that it must make a “hazard determination associated with the risk of renovation activities among older children” before the Agency can regulate renovation activities in target housing where children don’t currentl y reside. Again, EPA has defined lead

based paint hazards in target housing. The promulgated standard is applicable to target housing and child

- occupied facilities generally , not just those frequented by young children. The standard was designed to be protective of the most vulnerable and sensitive population

— children under six. That does not , however, limit the applicability of the standards to housing where children under six currently reside. Itsimpl y means that the standard is presumptively protective of all populations. When considering human health, the Agency regularl y s ets regulatory standards of general applicability at levels that are protective of the most sensitive or most exposed population. Accordingl y, renovation activities in target housing that create dust on floors with lead equal to or in excess of 40 μg/ft2 , by definition, create lead

- based paint hazards, regardless of whether a child under six currently resides there. Finally , removal of the opt

- out results in a rule that is more protective of children under six who spend time in houses where they don’t reside and that are not COFs.

Comment: One commenter is concerned that less sophisticated propert y owners with limited English proficiency

may not fully understand the implications of the opt

- out. Another commenter believes that the opt

- out will cause confusion among c ontractors who must understand various requirements. Response : The Agency agrees that the opt

- out provision would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners. This is one of the reasons wh y th e Agency has decided to eliminate the provision. Inaddition, EPA agrees that limited English proficiency or li teracy

is cause for concern. This is one more reason wh y relying on the disclosure rule is insufficient.

Benefit and Costs Comment: One c ommenter claims that the Criteria Document that EPA cited in the preamble to the proposed rule is not applicable to lead

- based paint exposures. According to the commenter, the Criteria Document looks at lead exposure through contamination in the ambient a ir, not from lead

- based paint. Response : EPA referenced the Criteria Document in the proposed rule to assist commenters in formulating comments the health effects of lead. The commenter is incorrect in his/her characterization of the Air Quality Criteri a Document. While the document is used to support assessments under the Clean Air Act, it is not specific to air exposures. Rather it provides a comprehensive assessment of the toxicity of lead. L ead toxicity

is not exposure pathway specific. In fact, the Criteria Document discusses adverse effects resulting from exposure to lead9

in dust and soil. The information in the preamble to the proposed rule that was cited the Criteria Document provides a summary of the health effects which are applicable to various ty pes of lead exposure including exposure to lead

- based paint.

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should calculate all benefits of the rule instead of focusing on benefits to children under 6. Response : EPA conducted a limited anal ys is of s ome of the benefits of the rule as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule. Benefits ranged from $870 million to $3.2 billion. However, these estimates did not account for every situation where someone would be impacted by lead contamination due t o renovations and thus , these figures onl y partially account for the benefits of the rule

. The se calculations provide a sense of the magnitude of benefits from this rule but should not be interpreted as strict upper or lower bound estimates of total benef its.

Comment: One commenter states that EPA estimate of the benefits of the rule are speculative at best. Response : The Agency disagrees with the commenter. While EPA did not conduct a thorough anal ys is of all the benefits of the rule, the Agency esti mated a portion of the benefits and found that they outweigh the costs associated with the rule.

Comment: Many

commenters believe that the rule’s costs are too high. Several commenters believe the increased cost of renovations due to the RRP rule will lead to many homeowners and propert y managers not doing need renovations or doing the work themselves. As a result, more renovations will be performed without following the RRP work practices. One commenter claims that small businesses do not have the st aff to comply with the regulations and will be forced out of business. One commenter claimed that the increased costs will hurt retired people on fixed incomes. Another commenter conducted a survey which found that 80% of homeowners would not pay

extra to have lead

- safe work practices used. Response : EPA is not generally reopening the RRP rule for consideration or comment. These same comments were addressed in the RRP rulemaking. In summary , EPA disagrees with premise behind thes e comments. The Agency does not believe the rule is overly costly . EPA estimated that the rule’s work practice requirements will add $8 to $167 to the cost of a typical renovation project (with the exception of those using vertical containment). EPA does not believe that this cost increase will lead to man y homeowners to do their own renovations , not do them at all, or put undue financial burden of people who hire renovation firms.

Comment: One commenter believes that EPA should consider three of its upcoming rulemakings to gether so the public can better assess the cumulative impacts of the rules. The commenter states that b y separating the actions into three rules, EPA is avoiding the accumulation of economic impacts.10

Response : The Agency disagrees with this comment. The re are man y different factors that impact the timing of the rulemaking process . For example, EPA has agreed to undertake a number of related rulemakings over the next few years. Developing the record for some will take longer than for others . That is no t a reason , however, to delay action on this rule. Moreover, the public had or will have the opportunity to comment on all of EPA’s rules regarding renovations that the commenter mentions. The Agency is planning to develop an economic assessment of each rule that will help commenters understand the impacts of the rules. Therefore, EPA believes that commenters will be able to understand the cumulative impact of these rules.

Comment: One commenter believes removing the opt

- out is very costl y without equivalent benefit and will stifle recovery in the alread y struggling remodeling industry. Response : EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency does not believe removing the op t

out is overly

costl y for firms. EPA estimated that the rule’s work practic e requirements will add $8 to $167 to the cost of a ty pical renovation project (with the exception of those using vertical containment). EPA does not believe that such a modest cost increase will stifle economic recovery
. With regard to benefits, EPA h as estimated some of the benefits of the rule as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule. Benefits ranged from $870 million to $3.2 billion. However, these estimates did not account for every situation where someone would be impacted by lead contamination due to renovations and thus, these figures onl y partially account for the benefits of the rule. These calculations provide a sense of the magnitude of benefits from this rule but should not be interpreted as strict upper or lower bound estimates of total benefits.

Comment: One commenter stated that costs of renovations will significantl y increase because some states are requiring that houses must have an inspection performed before renovations begin. Response : While authorized states may have d ifferent requirements than EPA, the RRP rule does not require testing by a certified inspector or risk assessor. Lead

- based paint is assumed to be present unless a report by a certified inspector or risk assessor say s that the components undergoing renovation are free of lead

- based paint. If it chooses, the firm may have a certified renovator test the components using an EPA recognized text kit. However, renovation firms are not required to test painted surfaces before work begins or hire an inspector or risk assessor to do so.

Comment: One commenter is opposed to the rule because it will require costl y testing before and after each renovation which will lead to expensive remediation and cleanup.11

Response : The RRP rule does not require firms to tes t for lead contamination before or after renovations. Instead, firms are required to perform cleaning verification after renovations. The cleaning verification procedure do not include dust sampling.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the rule will be overly expensive for small jobs such as installing a switch for a ceiling fan. Response : EPA would like to clarify that some small jobs are not considered renovations under the RRP rule. Specificall y, minor maintenance activities as defined in 40 CFR 745.83 are not regulated b y the rule. Minor repair and maintenance activities are activities, including minor heating, ventilation or air conditioning work, electrical work, and plumbing, that disrupt 6 square feet or less of painted surface per room for interior activities or 20 square feet or less of painted surface for exterior activities where none of the work practices prohibited or restricted b y §745.85(a)(3) are used and where the work does not involve window replacement or demolition of painted surface areas. When removing painted components, or portions of painted components, the entire surface area removed is the amount of painted surface disturbed. Jobs, other than emergency

renovations, performed in the same room within the same 30 day s must be considered the same job for the purpose of determining whether the job is a minor repair and maintenance activity

.

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Comment: Several commenters assert that EPA has failed to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility

Ac t (RFA). They

assert that EPA did not conduct a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel prior to issuing this proposed rulemaking. Response : EPA disagrees with these comments. Contrary to the assertions of these commenters, the Agency

has fully comp lied with the requirements of the RFA. The RFA states that agencies “ may consider a series of closel y related rules as one rule for the purposes of [an IRFA]” in order to avoid “duplicative action.” 5 U.S.C. § 605(c) (emphasis added). This rule is close ly related to the 2008 RRP rule. Indeed, this rule addresses some of the very

provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations finalized in the 2008 RRP rule. Accordingl y, EPA was not required to complete an IRFA or FRFA for this rule. Nonetheless, EPA exer cised its discretion to complete an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analy sis (IRFA) on this proposal, as well as a Final Regulatory Flexibility

Anal ys is (FRFA) on the final rule. These robust anal ys es contained in the IRFA and FRFA consider the potential impacts of the rule on affected small entities. Moreover, EPA did convene and conduct a SBAR panel (RRP Panel) in connection with the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities in target housing. EPA relied upon the RRP Panel to inform its decisions on the 2008 RRP rule. The RRP Panel is equally applicable to this closely

related amendment to the RRP rule, pursuant to which EPA has12

reconsidered some of same applicability and scope issues. The RRP Panel discussed all major aspects of the pr oposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, including issues related to the applicability

of the rule. As a part of the panel process, EPA “collect[ed] advice and recommendations” from several Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on the proposa l to regulate renovation and remodeling activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). In response to the comments from the SERs, EPA issued a report. See Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead

- base Painting; Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000). The RRP Panel report expressly addressed applicability

of the rule. Thus, the primary issue considered in this rulemaking is wholly within the scope of the issues EPA considered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were within the scope of the issues considered b y the RRP Panel. EPA believes that reconvening the RRP Panel would be procedurall y duplicative and is unnecessary

given that the issues here were within the scope of those considered b y the RRP Panel.

E xposure Comment: One commenter claims that worker exposure and stormwater runoff of lead would increase if the work practices are not used. Response : The Agency agrees that worker exposure to lead and quantities of lead in stormwater runoff would increas e when the RRP work practices are not followed.

Comment: One commenter stated that he hasn’t seen an y e ffects of lead poisoning in the homes he worked in. The commenter states that single family homes do not seem to be where the problem exits. Resp onse : EPA would like to point out that renovators would not recognize the effects of lead exposure on the people living in the homes they work on. These health effects include those that may manifest externally

such as neurobehavioral effects that the ren ovator may not realize are associated with lead exposure, and those effects such as cardiovascular, immune sy stem and renal effects and would not likely be “seen” b y the renovator.

Alternatives to the Opt
- out Provision Comment: One commenter suggested an alternative approach to the opt

- out provision that would allow an opt

- out for homes built between 1940 and 1978 or 1960 and 1978. This commenter believes that the amount of lead in housing built after 1940 is low and that focusing on pre - 1940 homes wo uld target the greatest source of lead. Other commenter s stated that EPA should not implement a staged approach that would remove the opt

- out in pre

- 1960 housing then remove the opt

- out in pre

- 1978 housing one ye ar later. The se commenter s believe that thi s approach would cause confusion among consumers and would lead to ongoing exposure.13

Response : The Agency agrees that a staged implementation is not appropriate . This option would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might lead to confusi on by renovators and homeowners. These options would also lead to increased exposures during the delay period. In addition, based upon the record before it, EPA cannot now find that an opt

- out in a segment of target housing would be effective, reliable, or safe.

Comment: EPA received several comments on the alternative to the opt

- out provision discussed in the preamble that would require the RRP work practices on exterior renovations but not interior. One commenter supports and alternative where the opt

- out applies to exteriors when neighboring homes are not in close proximity to the renovation. This commenter believes that EPA should develop a proximity threshold for work done on exteriors. Another commenter states that exterior renovations in rural ar eas or homes on large lots do not have the potential to contaminate neighboring properties , although they believe this alternative is of limited value because most renovations involve both interiors and exteriors. One commenter who opposed the alternative stated that this option could expose visiting children and the families of future purchasers and renters to dangerous levels of leaded dust. A second commenter opposed to this alternative states that exteriors are more likel y to have been painted with le ad

- based paint. This commenter also claims that contractors are not as careful during exterior renovations resulting in a greater chance of dust migration and leaving paint chips behind. Another commenter believes that preserving the opt

- out for interior s is of limited value because most renovations involve both interior and exterior work. Several commenters stated that they do not support the alternative of requiring dust sampling for renovations where the owner

- occupant opts out of the work practice requirements. One commenter disagrees with this alternative approach because the renovation firm would be responsible for preexisting conditions. One commenter stated that contractors should have to pass clearance testing if this alternative were allowed , not simply provide the results to the next owner under the 1018 Disclosure Rule. One commenter asserts that this alternative could address a number of concerns if certain protections are required. The commenter states that the rule must require that te sting is done by party independent of the owner and renovation firm; that dust hazards found as a result of the testing be eliminated, and that the test results are given to the owner of the property. Other commenters agreed that , if this alternative were implemented, testing must be done b y an independent part y. One commenter stated that if dust testing is required, then the results must be given to the home owner and occupant. Several commenters support the alternative that would restrict the work pr actice prohibited under RRP in homes that take advantage of the opt

- out provision. One commenter does not condone the use of the prohibited practices as a matter of policy . One commenter states that this alternative approach that is not consistent with the law and that all the RRP work practices must be followed. The commenter asserts that this alternative would not protect occupants of neighboring properties, visitors or future occupants. Response : After considering these alternatives, the Agency has d ecided not to adopt any of the alternatives. One concern with the alternatives described in the proposed and those suggested by comments is that they

do not adequatel y address the risks of lead

- based paint hazards to children14

older than five ye ars old or adults. Each of these alternatives can also result in exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead

- based paint hazards. For example, an alternative that allows the opt

- out provision on exteriors of houses that are not in close prox imity to neighboring homes will still result in lead paint hazards which could harm the occupants or visitors. EPA also has concerns that populations that are already at a higher risk for elevated blood lead levels may

be disproportionately

and adversel y affected by the alternatives. Another concern with the alternatives is that they can create confusion among both contractors and consumers. Several commenters stated that the alternatives could cause confusion that could potentially result in non

- compl iance b y renovation firms. EPA agrees and believes that simplifying the applicability of the work practices will greatl y enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the rule. Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now conclude that the alternative approaches are safe, reliable or effective because none of these would sufficiently

minimize exposure to lead

- based paint hazards. In sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors are exposed to the lead hazards created b y the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect older children, women of childbearing age, or other adults currently residing in the home and can result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant wom en of lead

- based paint hazards. A lthough EPA specificall y requested information or data that would shed an y light on the reliability, effectiveness, or safet y of these options in relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards, the Agency did not receive an y. Th e Agency took these factors into consideration in deciding not to adopt these alternatives.

Post
- Renovation Recordkeeping and Notification Comment: One commenter states that the post

- renovation information should be given to residents at the same time they receive information on test kits used for that renovation. The commenter further states that the post

- renovation information is not a record or report subject to the Disclosure Rule. Another commenter claims that the post

- renovation information sho uld be subject to the Disclosure Rule. Response : The Agency agrees that post

- renovation information must include the test kit information. EPA would like to point out that the rule requires information pertaining to test kits used for the renovation be p art of the post

- renovation notification. The results of the test kits would also be subject to disclosure under the Disclosure Rule. However, the Agency also agrees that , as a general matter, other information provided on the checklist will not necessari ly be subject to the Disclosure Rule.

Comment: One commenter states that firms should not be responsible for distributing the post

renovation information to parent s of children at a child

- occupied facility . The commenter believes that this should be the responsibility of the propert y manager or owner.15

Response : EPA disagrees with this comment. Similar to the pre

- renovation information distribution, EPA believes it is appropriate to require firms to distribute the post

- renovation information to par ents of children at child

- occupied facilities. Firms will create the records and give a cop y of them to the owners of the building. Accordingl y, EPA will require firms to allow interested parents or guardians of children frequenting the child

- occupied fac ility to review a copy of the records obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the parents or guardians.

Comment: One commenter asserts that the informational signs required as part of the post

renovation recordkeeping should be findable, info rmative and no less specific than other common area notification. Response : The rule requires signs to be posted where tenants are likel y to see them. The information provided must contain the same information that firms are required to keep in their r ecords which the Agency believes will be informative to residents and parents of children at child

- occupied facilities.

Comment: One commenter states that th e information signs containing post

- renovation information should specify the general nature and locations of the renovation and the completion date. Response : EPA would like to point out that pre

- renovation education requirements already require the firm to post information in common area explaining the general nature and locations of the planned re novation activities. Accordingl y, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to require this information in the post

- renovation information distribution because it would be duplicative.

Comment: One commenter states that a lack of post

- renovation not ice violates section 407 of TSCA that requires certain recordkeeping and reporting. Because there is no realistic threat of surprise inspections of renovations, the post

- renovation notification requirements are essential to comply with section 407. The c ommenter further states that current requirements are insufficient to verify that the work practices were followed. Response : EPA disagrees with this comment. While it is not feasible for EPA to inspect every renovation, the Agency

may conduct on

- site inspections of a portion of them or it may conduct audits of firm records. EPA believes this can be an effective way to enforce the requirements. EPA also believes that the current recordkeeping requirement is sufficient to verify that the work practices were followed. Renovation firms are required to keep records of the renovation including spot test kit use, a description of the work area, information about how the work area was contained, information on waste removal, and results of cleaning verificat ion or dust clearance testing

.16

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should clarify what it means by

“reports” and “records” under 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1). Response : The reports or records that EPA refer red to in 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) are reports prepared by

a certified inspector or certified risk assessor (certified pursuant to either Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an EPA

- authorized State or Tribal certification program) and records prepared b y a certified renovator after using EPA

- recognized test kits.

Comment: One commenter states that EPA should clarify that a dust testing report must be written and what information should be in the report. Response : EPA developed model training materials for the dust sampling technician course. The course includes instruction on report preparation.

Comment: One commenter states that there is no requirement for the dust sampling technician, inspector or risk assessor to provide a dust sampling report to the renovation firm within a specified time frame. The commenter asks how the renovation firm can comply with the requirement to deliver the dust sampling report to the owner or occupant within 30 day s of the renovation when the dust sampling firm does not know when the project is considered complete. Response : EPA believes that renovation firm will be able to deliver the dust sampling report in a timely manner by

either having its own employ ee conduct the dust sampling or making the timeframe clear in its agreement with the firm that performs the dust sampling.

Comment: One commenter suggests that the post

- renovation information be distributed when the firm delivers the final invoice and receives final pay ment for the renovation. The commenter states that without this change the firm would have to generate a lot of documentation without being properl y compensated. Response : EPA disagrees with this comment . The regulations require that the post

- renovation information be delivered to the owner or occupant when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier. The purpose of this r equirement is to ensure that the information is delivered in a timely fashion. The burden on firms will be minimal, since the renovator will ty picall y be delivering the checklist along with an invoice or other job

- relate paperwork. The post

- renovation inf ormation requirement would onl y result in renovation firms incurring the incremental labor costs of photocopying and distributing the checklist to the owners and/or occupants. EPA assumed that photocopying and distributing the checklist would take an aver age of three minutes of a renovator’s time at a loaded wage rate of $31.64 per hour, for an average cost of $1.58.17

Burden Comment: One commenter stated that the post renovation notification will not be a significant burden to renovation firms because it is similar to the documents the contractor will have to complete to comply

with the recordkeeping requirements. Another commenter believes EPA underestimated the burden for firms to distribute the post

- renovation records. This commenter claims that fi rms must post signs, make copies, enter names and addresses in databases of affected parties, and deliver the records. Response : Under the requirements of the RRP rule, renovation firms must complete and retain a cop y of the information described above for enforcement purposes. Therefore, the post

renovation information requirement would onl y result in renovation firms incurring the incremental labor costs of photocopying and distributing the checklist to the owners and/or occupants. The burden will be m inimal, since the renovator will ty pically be delivering the checklist along with an invoice or other job

- relate paperwork. EPA assumed that photocopying and distributing the checklist would take an average of three minutes of a renovator’s time at a loade d wage rate of $31.64 per hour, for an average cost of $1.58. Delay ed Effective Date Comment: One commenter claims that a delay in the effective date will add complexity to the rule and the more complex the rule the lower the chance that it will properly implemented. Several commenter s believe EPA should delay the effective date of the rule until new test kits are developed. This would allow renovation firms to avoid the high costs of the rule in the first ye ar after the effective date. Response : The Agency decided not to delay

the effective date of this final rule. EPA agrees that delaying the effective date will add complexity to the rule and that adding complexities increases the chance that it will not be properly implemented. As such, the rule will become effective 60 day s after publication in the Federal Register. EPA believes that it is important to eliminate the opt

- out exemption without delay in order to avoid further lead exposures in housing previously

eligible for the opt

- out. Further, a lthough improved test kits would reduce costs of the rule, the Agency

believes that the benefits of the rule outweigh the costs which take into account the currently

available test kits

. Training Capacity Comment: One commenter disagrees with EPA’s assertion that there is enough training capacity to train all of the renovators that EPA has estimated must take the training. The commenter claims that the 6:1 student to teacher ration for the hands

- on portion of the training results in a lower training capa city than EPA estimates. Response : EPA disagrees with this commenter. Based on the number of training providers accredited to date, the Agency believes that there is sufficient training capacity available to train any addition renovators that would need to get certification because of this rule. While EPA understands that training providers should use a 6:1 ratio for the hands

- on portion of the training,18

these additional instructor can be guest instructors (See 40 CFR 745.225) which don’t need to meet th e same prerequisites as the principal instructors thus allowing more people to be eligible to become guest instructors.

Renovator Certifications Comment: One commenter asserts that renovation firm certifications should be extended similarly to the renov ator certification. This commenter believes that encouraging firms to become certified earlier will help prevent a large number o f applicants at the last minute , overwhelming the Agency

. Response : This issue is outside the scope of the proposal. Neverth eless, the Agency disagrees with the commenter. Processing a firm application takes much less time than taking the renovator training course. EPA believes it will be able to process a large number of firm applications that may

be submitted close to the April 22, 2010, effective date. Thus, the Agency has not extended the certification date for firm certifications.
Principal Instructor Requirement Comment: One commenter claims that EPA should require Principal Instructors take a train the trainer cours e. This would help ensure that instructors are competent in teaching the required course work. One commenter stated that Principal Instructors should be required to pass a test before being able to teach lead paint trainings to ensure that the person is qualified. Response : EPA disagrees with these commenter s . Principal Instructors must meet multiple education and work experience requirements in order to teach lead

- based paint training courses. EPA believes these requirements are sufficient and is not requiring instructors to take an additional train the trainer course or pass a test.

Comment: One commenter states that the 16

- hour lead

- based paint training requirement for Principal Instructors should not be reduced to 8 hours because someone who takes an 8

- hour course will not gain the knowledge of local laws and requirements regarding renovations

. Response : EPA encourages training providers to include local requirements in the 8

- hour renovator training as well as the 16

- hour . The Agency expects 8

- ho ur courses to include these requirements similar to the 16

- hour courses.
Enforcement Comment: Once commenter believes EPA should conduct targeted enforcement after the rule become effective. Several commenters stated that the rule will be detrimental to business because man y competitors will not follow the rule requirements and therefore undercut the costs of firms that comply

with the rule.19

Response : EPA believes enforcement is an important part of implementing the RRP rule and plans to conduct and enforcement program for those who do not comply

.

State Authorization Comment: Under the proposal, the Agency proposed to give States and Indian Tribes one ye ar to demonstrate that their programs include an y new requirements the EPA may promulgate, such as the requirements in this final rule. One commenter stated that EPA should have required State and Tribal programs to demonstrate that “actions have been taken” to meet new requirements of the RRP rule instead of requiring them to demonstrate that the p rogram meets the new requirements. Response : EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency believes that States and Indian Tribes must demonstrate that they meet the new requirements instead of indicating that they have only begun the process of updating their program. The purpose of this requirement is so EPA can ensure that States and Indian Tribes meet new RRP program requirements within a specified time frame which, under this final rule, is two y ears . The commenter’s suggestion implies that States an d Indian Tribes only have to begin the process of changing their programs by a specified date. This would allow states to take much longer than the time specified in the regulations.

Cost Estimates
Comment: Commenters claim that EPA underestimated the cost of the rule. Commenters state that EPA’s estimated that the rule will cost $35 per job and that this grossl y underestimates the cost. Commenters made various claims about the cost of the rule per job, ranging from $296 to $10,815. Response: EPA d isagrees that it has underestimated the cost of the rule. EPA’s economic anal ys is estimated the costs for activities and equipment that are required to comply with the rule, including:

 Firm certification;

 Certified renovator training, include the cost of tuition, the value of time spent in the training class (i.e., lost wages), mileage cost for travel to and from the training, and the purchase of meals while attending training;

 Renovator and worker time spent in on

- the

- job training;

 Purchasing HEPA v acuums, HEPA shrouded power tools, and HEPA filters;20

 Additional labor required to use low temperature heat guns instead of high temperature heat guns or torching of paint;

 Time and materials costs for: o Installing signs; o Covering floors and walls with pl astic sheeting for interior jobs; o Covering the ground with plastic for exterior jobs (including erecting scaffolding for some jobs); o Covering doors with plastic; o Installing tack pads and wearing disposable shoe covers; o Removing and bagging plastic sheetin g after the job; o HEPA vacuuming the work area and workers’ clothes; o Mopping floors and wiping other areas with a wet cloth; o Performing cleaning verification; and o Recleaning areas that fail cleaning verification, and repeating cleaning verification;

 Tim e spent becoming familiar with the requirements of the rule;

 Time spent filling out the firm certification form;

 Time spent for paperwork and keeping records related to compliance with the rule; and

 Time and materials providing the lead pamphlet for wor k in public or commercial building COFs EPA used a commercial data source (the Means CostWorks Repair & Remodeling Cost Data by R.S. Means) to estimate the labor requirements for the rule’s work practice requirements. Means CostWorks is designed to help contractors estimate the cost of projects by providing the unit labor and material costs of different renovation activities. EPA estimated the labor requirements b y adjusting R.S. Means data for an asbestos abatement project. The containment and cleaning requirements for asbestos abatement are more stringent than those in the L RRP rule. For example, the containment in an asbestos abatement project must maintain negative air pressure in the work area and contain water used to mist or wet the asbestos mate rial. As a result, EPA assumed that installing containment for an LRRP project would take 75% of the time than R.S. Means indicated is needed to install containment for an asbestos abatement project (which is probabl y an overestimate of the time needed fo r RRP compliance). EPA’s estimates do not include costs for activities and equipment that are not required to comply with the rule. For example, EPA’s estimates do not include the cost of HEPA shrouded equipment for all power tools that renovators use, because the rule does not require this. The rule (at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)) requires the use of HEPA exhaust controls for machines that remove lead

- based paint through high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blas ting, or sandblasting. The rule does not require HEPA exhaust controls for power tools such as reciprocating saws, circular saws, drills, and other similar tools if they are not being used for the purpose of removing lead

- based paint. While EPA recommend s the21

use of HEPA attachments whenever power tools are used on lead

- based paint, this is only a general recommendation and is not part of the rule. EPA’s cost estimates include the cost of HEPA compatible equipment required b y the rule, but does not inclu de the cost of equipment such as reciprocating saws and circular saws not required b y the rule. Similarly , EPA’s estimates do not include the cost for personal protective equipment such as disposable coveralls, Ty

vek suits, respirators and masks (or the c ost of getting workers medically fitted for a respirator or mask), ey e wear, painters’ hats, and gloves because they are not required by the rule. While EPA recommends the use of personal protective equipment when working with lead

- based paint, it is not required b y EPA under the lead RRP rule. Thus, personnel protective equipment is not a cost of the rule. EPA’s estimates do not include the cost of providing EPA’s lead pamphlet to homeowners. The pre

- renovation lead information rule (published on June 1, 1998) required renovators to distribute a lead hazard information pamphlet to housing owners and occupants before conducting renovations in pre

- 1978 housing. Therefore, providing a pamphlet to owners and occupants in target housing is not a cost of th is rule. (The 2008 rule does require renovators to provide the pamphlet to child

- occupied facilities, so that cost was accounted for in EPA’s estimates.) Nor do EPA’s estimates include the cost of certified renovator training for all workers, or of havin g a certified renovator on the job site at all times, because the rule does not require either of these. A certified renovator must be phy sicall y present at the work certain times (including when the signs are posted, while the work area containment is be ing established, and while the work area cleaning is performed); must perform the post

- renovation cleaning verification; and must regularl y direct the work being performed b y uncertified persons. But the certified renovator is not required to be ph ys icall y present at the work site at all times. ( When a certified renovator is not phy sicall y present at the work site, the uncertified workers must be able to contact the renovator immediatel y by telephone or other mechanism.) Because the rule does not require a certified renovator to perform all renovation activities, EPA assumes that in firms with multiple workers, onl y some of them will become certified renovators. EPA does not assume that all workers will become certified renovators. EPA’s estimates for on - the

- job training (OJT) do not assume extensive training for every worker for every

job. OJT is only

required for workers who are not certified renovators. The OJT must cover the work practices required by the rule that the worker will be responsible for performing. These practices are easily taught, and workers who have received OJT on an element of the rule’s requirements do not need to be retrained on those same requirements for every job. Extensive training for every employ ee (including certified renovators) at every job site is not a cost of the rule. Contrary to what the commenter’s seem to assume, EPA did not estimate the cost of the rule by multiplying the number of jobs covered by the rule by $35 per job. Instead, EPA created a methodology to account for a wide variet y of renovation ty pes, sizes, and circumstances. For example, to analyze work practice costs in target housing, EPA collapsed dozens of different ty pes of renovations into 17 categories of renovation events; estimated the numbe r of renovation22

events falling into one or more combinations of the 17 renovation categories; estimated the size (in terms of square footage) for up to 3 sizes (small, medium, and large) for each of these renovation events in up to 3 different dwelling t yp es (single famil y owner, single family rental, and multi

- family

rental); combined these with the different combinations of events ty pes, resulting in thousands of combinations of renovation event categories, job sizes, and dwelling ty pes; estimated the number of annual renovation events for each t ype and size; estimated the probability

of lead

- based paint for 4 different building vintages for each of these 17 categories of renovation events; estimated the cost of compl yi ng with the different components of the rule’s requirements, t ypicall y i n terms of the cost per square foot or the cost per event; used survey data on renovators’ baseline practices to determine the incremental cost of the rule’s work practices required b y the rule, and combined them into a total cost estimate for the work practices in residences. EPA separately estimated to costs for training and certification, and the costs for the information provision requirements in the rule. EPA then repeated this exercise for child

occupied facilitie s in public or commercial buildings. On the basis of this anal ysis, EPA estimated that the 2008 LRRP rule would affect 11.4 million jobs per y ear. This represents the number of renovation jobs in target housing and child

occupied facilities that distur b a painted surface but do not qualify for the minor maintenance exception, whether or not the paint is lead

- based paint. EPA also estimated that the social cost of the rule will be $758 million in the first y ear, $407 million in the second y ear, and $404 million per year on an annualized basis. The cost of $35 per job does not appear an ywh ere in EPA’s 512 page economic anal ys is of the 2008 lead rule. The $35 figure was generated after the economic analy sis was completed, in order to communicate a simpli fied version of the results. To derive the total average cost per job, EPA divided the total cost of the rule (including the cost to test for lead

- based paint) b y the number of renovation jobs (including jobs that test negative for lead

- based paint). Div iding the $404 million cost per y ear by the 11.4 million jobs per y ear yi elds an average of $35 per job. The average of $35 per job does not represent the entire cost of the rule’s work practices. Instead, it is the additional cost of the rule, beyond wh at renovators are alread y doing. Most renovators were doing some containment and cleaning before the rule, and EPA’s estimates reflect only

the extra labor and materials needed to comply with the rule. The $35 does not represent the initial start

- up cost s of the rule. EPA estimated that the social cost of the rule will be $758 million in the first y ear (when the largest number of renovators become trained and certified), nearl y twice as much as the long run social cost of $404 million per y ear. Thus, ev en as an average incremental social cost, the $35 figure represents the long run cost and not the start

- up cost. Nor does the $35 does not represent the cost of working onl y on those jobs that test positive for lead

- based paint (sometimes referred to in i ndustry terms as being “hot”). The $35 represents the average cost for all regulated jobs in target housing and child

- occupied facilities

– whether or not lead

- based paint is disturbed

– because all of these jobs incur costs to test for lead

- based paint. Of the 11.4 million jobs per y ear covered b y the 2008 LRRP rule, 7 million are estimated to test negative for lead

- based paint (and thus only incur the cost for testing the paint).23

The average cost per job for the “hot” jobs that disturb lead

- based paint would be higher than $35, because the $35 figure includes jobs where the only cost is testing for lead

- based paint. EPA’s economic analy sis (and thus the $35 figure that was derived from it) estimates the average incremental social cost per job of comp liance with the rule (work practices, training, and certification) for all jobs above the minor maintenance size threshold. It includes jobs with lead

based paint (LBP) and those without LBP (where the paint is tested for the presence of lead, but other w ork practice costs are not incurred). EPA’s estimate of the incremental cost of complying with the rule containment, cleaning and cleaning verification requirements (i.e., the additional cost compared to t ypical baseline cleaning and containment practices ) ranges from $8 to $167 per job, not including the additional costs for training and certification, test kits, and vertical containment (where necessary). EPA estimates that a renovator who didn’t do any cleaning or containment in the baseline might have costs of $35 to $400 for containment, cleaning, and verification, plus the costs for training, certification, and test kits (and vertical containment, if necessary). The incremental cost is the increase in costs attributable to compliance with the rule, above and beyond an ything that renovators were already doing before the rule took effect. In developing the cost estimate, EPA used information from a telephone survey of renovators to estimate the extent to which each of the work practices required b y the rule was used in the baseline (i.e., without the rule in place). The incremental cost of the rule is the additional cost borne b y renovators, above and beyond what they were alread y doing. For example, based on the survey

EPA calculated that without the rule, contractors kept all windows and doors in the work area closed or covered with plastic sheeting in 76% of jobs, and covered the floor within the work area with taped down plastic sheeting in 77% of jobs (although 63% of them reused the plastic fr om job to job). Similarly , EPA calculated that contractors vacuumed floors in the work area and wiped all smooth surfaces with a damp cloth in 81% of jobs (although onl y 38% used a HEPA vacuum). Therefore, EPA estimated that the rule only creates incre mental costs for both labor and materials for using plastic sheeting on floors for the 23% of jobs (100%

- 77%) where renovators reported they

were not using plastic before the rule. EPA estimated that the rule creates incremental materials costs for plas tic sheeting on floors in 49% of jobs (77% x 63%) where renovators reported they

were using plastic before the rule but were not reusing it. And EPA estimated that the rule does not create costs for using plastic on floors for the 28% of jobs (77% x (100%

- 63%)) where renovators reported they were already

using disposable plastic before the rule. Similarly , EPA estimated that the rule creates incremental labor, equipment, and materials costs for HEPA vacuuming floors only for the 19% of jobs where reno vators reported they did not vacuum without the rule in place. EPA estimated that the rule creates equipment and materials costs (for HEPA vacuums and filters) for the 50% of jobs (81% x (100%

- 38%) where renovators reported they vacuumed floors without a HEPA vacuum in the baseline. And EPA estimated that the rule does not create costs for the 31% of jobs (81% x 38%) where renovators reported that they used a HEPA vacuum on floors in the baseline.24

A renovator who didn’t do any containment or cleaning i n the baseline might incur work practice costs of up to several hundred dollars for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification for a large job (with lower costs for a small job), plus the costs for training, certification, and test kits. However, EP A believes that many contractors did some containment and cleaning before the rule was in place. Indeed, EPA received comments from the renovation industry on the original LRRP proposed rule claiming that customers demanded containment and cleaning, and that in some cases renovators left a job site cleaner than they found it. The only way they could do so was by

using some containment and cleaning, although this baseline activity may have been insufficient to remove all lead hazards. It is inappropriate to claim that all of the containment and cleaning costs that a renovator incurs on a job are due to the rule’s requirements. It is onl y appropriate to assign the incremental costs beyond the baseline. Based on the data and analy sis in the economic analy s is for the 2008 LRRP rule, EPA believes that its cost estimates appropriatel y reflects the average incremental costs of the rule, when considering all jobs subject to the rule. Given the variation in costs across the hundreds of thousands of firms and mil lions of jobs affected b y the LRRP program, the firms likel y to submit public comments are those who feel that their costs will exceed what they think are EPA’s estimates. Firms who feel that EPA’s estimates are reasonable are unlikel y to write in to stat e this. Thus, the public comments are unlikely to represent an unbiased selection of firms. Many of the commenters used a template that was circulated in the remodeling industry to develop the cost claims in their comments. This template was accompanied by what purports to be a summary

of EPA’s rule on remodeling and renovation. However, as described below, many of the statements in the document are inaccurate, or fail to differentiate between work practices that are required under EPA’s RRP program, an d work practices that EPA recommends but does not require. EPA recommends that renovators voluntarily adopt some of these work practices in order to further limit exposure to lead dust generated during renovation activities, but EPA leaves this decision t o the discretion of the certified renovator. While the work practices outlined in the industry

summary document would cost more than EPA has estimated, these costs are not attributable to EPA’s RRP rule, since renovators are not required to adopt them. The differences between the rule overview that was circulated in the industry and the actual requirements of EPA’s rule are summarized below. Man y of them are also discussed in more detail elsewhere in this response to comments document. (a) The rule ov erview accompanying the template incorrectly states that firm certification costs $300 and is valid for 3 ye ars. However, the $300 firm certification is valid for 5 y ears, not 3 ye ars. Assuming that firms must become certified every 3 y ears overstates th e cost of the rule. (b) The rule overview accompan yi ng the template advises that all workers should become certified renovators, which is not required b y the rule. In reality, the rule requires that every project must have a certified renovator, and that certain activities must be performed b y the certified renovator. The rule does not require all employ ees to become trained as certified25

renovators. Assuming that all workers must become certified renovators overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements

. (c) The rule overview accompan yi ng the template states that the rule prohibits the use of tools, vacuums, sanders, grinders, etc., without HEPA filters. This is an inaccurate description of the rule. EPA recommends the use of HEPA filters when power t ools are used to disturb lead

- based paint, but the rule only requires the use of HEPA filters in certain situations. The rule requires the use of HEPA exhaust controls for machines that remove lead

- based paint from a substrate through high speed operation

. The rule does not require the use of HEPA filters for tools such as saws and drills that are used to cut or shape a substrate. Assuming that all power tools must have HEPA filters overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (d) The rule overview a ccompanying the template states that renovators should score paint with a utility knife before separating components, and pry and pull apart components instead of pounding and hammering. EPA recommends using these work practices to minimize the generation of lead dust, but they are not required by

the rule. Therefore, to the extent that following these work practices increases the cost of renovations, this is not a cost that is attributable to the rule. (e) The rule overview accompan yi ng the template s tates that firms should educate and train workers and then repeat in order to prepare workers for the renovation. Commenters seem to have interpreted this to mean that the rule requires workers to be trained in the full scope of lead

- safe work practices, and that this education and training must be repeated for every renovation job. This is an inaccurate description of the rule’s requirements for on

- the

- job training. The rule requires firms to train workers to perform their jobs in a lead

- safe manner. F urthermore, a worker who has been trained does not need to have the training repeated at every job. Assuming that all workers must receive extensive training for every job overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (f) The rule overview accompanying the template states that workers should wear disposable respirators (N100), disposable gloves, and disposable coveralls. EPA recommends having workers wear this protective clothing to minimize their exposure to lead dust, but the rule does not require th is. Assuming that workers must wear disposable respirators, gloves, and coveralls overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (g) The rule overview accompan yi ng the template states that renovators should use wet sanders and misters to keep down the d ust created during sanding, drilling, and cutting. EPA recommends using wet methods to minimize the generation of lead dust, but these work practices are not required by the rule. Therefore, to the extent that following these work practices increases the cost of a renovation, assuming that renovators must use wet methods overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (h) The rule overview accompan yi ng the template states that renovators must enclose the work area with a dual lay er of heavy plastic sheet ing, and then replace the dust y and/or dirty lay er of plastic sheeting on a daily basis. This is an inaccurate description of the rule. The rule requires the work area to be contained, but it does not require renovators to use of a dual26

lay er of containm ent, or to replace the outer containment lay er on a daily basis. Assuming that renovators must replace the containment on a daily basis overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (i) The rule overview accompanying the template states that renovato rs should vacuum the work area with a HEPA vacuum cleaner frequently during the day , and at the end of the day

. While EPA recommends frequent cleaning, the rule only requires cleaning after the renovation has been completed. Assuming that renovators must clean on a daily basis, or multiple times a day , overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (j) The rule overview accompanying the template states that workers should wash up each time they take a break, especially

before eating and before going hom e, and that their clothing should be washed separately from the rest of the family ’s laundry . While EPA recommends the use of these h ygiene practices to protect workers and their families, these practices are not required b y the rule. To the extent that following these work practices increases the cost of renovations, this is not a cost that is attributable to the rule. (k) The rule overview accompan yi ng the template states that when the job is complete, the renovator should vacuum all surfaces, includ ing walls, with a HEPA vacuum cleaner; clean the work area with a wet rag or mop; vacuum all surfaces again once they are dry ; and re

clean as previously

described if there is remaining dust or debris. For interior renovations, the RRP rule requires clean ing with a HEPA vacuum and a damp cloth and mop. However, the RRP rule does not require the work area to be vacuumed a second time prior to cleaning verification. Assuming that renovators must vacuum twice prior to conducting cleaning verification overst ates the cost of the rule’s requirements. (l) The rule overview accompanying the template states that renovators must keep all information on file for 3 years, including the white cloths from the cleaning verification and pictures of the work area. The r ule does not require renovators to keep the cleaning verification cloths or pictures of the work area on file. To the extent that keeping these materials on file increases the cost of a renovation, assuming that the rule requires renovators to keep this m aterial on file overstates the costs of the rule’s requirements. Some of the commenters appear to have collaborated in developing the cost claims in their comments. For example, the template includes spaces to report 16 different cost factors (e.g., empl oy ee training costs per person, firm certification costs, specialized tool costs, the number of labor hours for each compliance activity , labor costs per hour, plastic sheeting costs, HEPA vacuum filter costs, and other materials costs). Three of the comm enters (Menold Construction, Thompson Building, and RebuildEx) used identical values for 15 of these cost factors. Their cost claims differed only

in the number of employees assumed to be trained. It seems unlikely that these commenters reported the same values for so many cost factors purely

by chance. Instead it appears that they circulated some or all of the information in their comments internally before submitting them to EPA. Therefore, it is possible that some of the commenters shared erroneous a ssumptions about what equipment is needed to compl y with the rule even if they didn’t rely

on the erroneous descriptions of the rule in the overview accompanying the comment template.27

The specific cost claims made b y the commenters are discussed in mor e detail below.

Comment: Commenters made various claims about the cost per person for 8 hour training to become a certified renovator. Man y commenters stated that the average tuition cost per person is $150 to $300 per person, and then used $300 as the basis for their total cost claims. Some commenters used a lower tuition cost. For example, McKean Building & Remodeling claimed a cost of $150, Great River Construction claimed a cost of $190, and Jud Construction claimed a cost of $225 per person. Som e commenters used higher training costs that included more than tuition costs. For example, several commenters (such as RebuildEx, Thompson Building, Menold Construction, and Alan Hanbury) included lost revenues for a day of training, resulting in cost cl aims ranging from $525 per employ ee to $890 per employ ee. One commenter (Degnan Design Builders) claimed a cost of $600 per employee for tuition, wages, and travel expenses, and another commenter (J.J. Swartz Co.) claimed a cost of $600 to account for bot h training and travel. Another commenter (Robert Hanbury) claimed a cost of $1,095 per person, including tuition, lost wages (including travel time), and $95 in employ ee reimbursement for lunch, a beverage break, and personal mileage. Response : EPA be lieves that the commenters may be overestimating the average tuition cost per person, and that some of the commenters are overestimating the total training cost per person. While many

of the commenters stated that the average tuition cost per person is $1 50 to $300 per person, the commenters reporting this range generally appear to have used the top end of the range ($300) in making their total cost claims. By contrast, EPA’s economic anal ys is estimated that the average tuition cost for certified renovato r training would be $186 per person for initial training, which is at the lower end of the tuition cost range claimed b y the commenters. However, EPA used a total training cost for initial training averaging $562 per person (in 2005 dollars) which represe nts tuition ($186), the value of time for both the 8 hours the renovator is in class ($253) and 1 hour of travel each way to and from class ($63), mileage costs to and from the training ($49), and meals while at the training ($9). (Since EPA’s cost estimate was in 2005 dollars, the equivalent cost would be slightly higher in 2010 dollars to account for inflation.) EPA believes that the hourly labor rates used by

commenters who included lost revenues in their cost claims overstate economic costs because they do not reflect the value of time for the staff being trained. (This issue is described in detail elsewhere in this response to comments document.) EPA notes that many of the cost claims range from $300 to $600 per person, which are in line with EPA’ s estimate of $562 per person. EPA believes that the highest cost claims made b y the commenters (such as $1,095) are not representative of the average cost per person that most firms will incur.

Comment: Commenters made various claims about the total cost to the firm for 8 hour certified renovator training, ranging from $150 to $20,400. For example, Gandolfi & Associates claimed a total cost of $300; Rollins Contracting claimed a total cost of $500; Bell’s Remodeling claimed a total cost of $900; L iv ing Improvements claimed a total cost of $1,000; Sutton Siding and Remodeling claimed a cost of $2,625; NCP Design/Build and Martineau & Morris both claimed28

a cost of $3,000; J.J. Swartz Co, claimed a total cost of $9,000; Menold Construction, Thompson Bui lding, and ReBuildEx all claimed a total cost of $19,950; and Southwestern Remodeling claimed a total cost of $20,400 in lost revenues alone. Some commenters stated that this employ ee training would not be a one

- time cost, as they would have to get additi onal employ ees trained due to staff turnover. Response : EPA believes that the total cost per firm for certified renovator training claimed b y many of the commenters overstates the actual costs, and that these claims are not representative of the costs th at ty

pical firms will incur to comply with the rule. The total cost per firm depends on both the training cost per person and the number of emplo ye es assumed to be trained. EPA believes that the costs claimed by some of the commenters overstate the avera ge cost per person; that issue is addressed elsewhere in this response to comments document. Many of the commenters calculated training costs assuming that all of their workers will be trained as certified renovators; that issue is addressed below. Note that some of the comments appear to reflect a misunderstanding of the requirements and purpose of formal 8 hour certified renovator training in relation to on

- the

- job training; that issue is also addressed elsewhere in this response to comments document. Under the rule, a certified renovator is responsible for performing and directing lead

- safe work practices; providing on

- the

- job training to non

- certified workers; keeping a cop y of the initial and/or refresher training certificates onsite; using EPA

- rec ognized test kits to identify lead

- based paint (if the remodeler does not assume that lead

- based paint is present without testing); being ph ys icall y present while posting signs, containing work areas, and cleaning work areas; being available b y telephone when off

- site; maintaining the containment to keep dust and debris within the work area; implementing the cleaning verification procedure; and preparing and maintaining required records. EPA’s economic analy sis assumed that on average, there would be at le ast one certified renovator for every

three workers receiving on

- the

- job training. (Because many firms have fewer than three emplo ye es, the overall ratio of workers with on

- the

- job training to certified renovators was estimated as approximately 1.4 to 1). The rule overview accompanying the template for commenting on the proposed rule that was circulated to some remodelers advises that all workers should become certified renovators, and man y of the commenters did calculate total training costs b y assum ing that all of their employ ees receive formal 8 hour certified renovator training. This is not required by the rule. The rule requires that every project must have a certified renovator, and that certain activities must be performed b y the certified ren ovator, but it does not require all employ ees to become trained as certified renovators. Assuming that all workers must become certified renovators overstates the cost of the rule. EPA does not know whether these commenters have misunderstood the require ments of the rule regarding certified renovator training, or whether they are voluntarily

choosing to have all of their employ ees trained. But EPA does not think that it is appropriate for its economic anal ys is to assume that all employ ees of a firm recei ve certified renovator training. Furthermore, some of the commenters have man y more employees than the average firm affected b y the rule, so it is not surprising that such firms might have higher total costs than a ty

pical firm in the industry

.29

The number of employ ees assumed to receive certified renovator training differs from commenter to commenter. For example, Bell’s Remodeling stated that this training would cost an average of $150 to $300 per emplo yee, for a total cost of $900. This means the commenter assumed that at least three people will receive certified renovator training. According to an article in Remodeling Magazine 1 , Bells’ Remodeling has two employ ees: Bob Bell, of Bell's Remodeling, in Duluth, Minn., has just two employ ees. “We d o every thing except electrical and plumbing,” he say s. And Bell's does one job at a time, so the crew is alway s bus y. He hasn't laid off an yone in 11 years. For Bell, scheduling jobs is part of a conscious effort to maintain a small company that's tight wi th its clients. “Once I start a job, clients know I'll be there every day until we're done,” says Bell, who runs about 50 jobs a year ranging from installing a storm door to building a $200,000 addition. “Some of our jobs are small, and you couldn't get a sub to do that. I have fewer scheduling problems and more control.” The rule onl y requires a certified renovator to be on site to perform certain activities. Some firms may

choose to have more than one staff member trained in order to increase scheduling flexibility

and reduce travel costs. (Indeed, EPA’s economic analy sis assumes that some larger firms have multiple employ ees trained as certified renovators.) However, EPA would not assume that a typical firm the size of Bell’s Remodeling would have all 3 people trained as certified renovators. And given that the Remodeling Magazine article say s that Bell’s Remodeling onl y does one job at a time and the firm is oat the site every day until the job is done, it is unclear whether this firm would benefit fr om having the owner and both staff members all trained as certified renovators. It may be that Bell’s Remodeling was confused about the requirements of the rule when it submitted its comments. In any event, the rule does not require that all employ ees be come certified renovators, so EPA does not believe it is appropriate to estimate costs on this basis. Like Bell’s Remodeling, various other commenters also appear to have based their training cost claims on the assumption that all of their employ ees are trained as certified renovators. For example, the $3,000 employ ee training cost for NCP Design/Build was based on 10 employ ees receiving the formal 8 hour certified renovator training. According to the compan y’s web site, it has 11 full

- time workers. 2 Assuming the compan y has an office staff of at least one person, it appears that the $3,000 cost claimed for employ ee training is based on the cost of having all field employ ees trained. Similarly , the $9,000 employ ee training cost claimed by J.J. Swartz Co. of Bloomington

Normal was based on 15 employ ees receiving the formal 8 hour certified renovator training. According to a magazine profile from 2002, J.J. Swartz Co. in Bloomington had 12 employees, including two salespeople. 3 While the firm may have hired additional staff since then, it appears

1 “Subs or Employees? Both business models offer routes to success,”, by Stacey Freed, Remodeling Magazine, Marc h 2007. http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/subs

- or - em p loy ees.aspx 2 http://www.ncpalaska.com/ 3 “Second Look: Evelyn Yowell”, Remodeling magazine, September 2002, http://www.remodeling.hw.net/remodeling/second

- look

- evelyn

- yo well.aspx30

that the $9,000 cost claimed for emplo ye e training is based on the cost of having all field employ ees receive 8 hour certified renovator training. Likewise, Southwestern Remodeling derived its $20,400 cost claim on the revenue it say s would be lost in order for all of the 34 field carpenters it employ s to receive a day of training. And Thompson Building and Menold Construction both claimed a total cost of $19,950 for employ ee training, based on a cost of $5 25 per employ ee (including wages), which means each compan y assumed it would train 38 employees. The web site for Thompson Building 4 states that it has a field crew of over 30 skilled carpenters and an office support staff of nearl y 20. An article in Rem odeling magazine states that Menold Construction has 45 employ ees (some of whom are presumabl y office support staff). 5 Both companies appear to have derived their cost claims assuming that all of their field staff will receive certified renovator training . Not onl y is this not required by

the rule, it seems unlikely that it would be beneficial to the firms in terms of increased staffing flexibility

. Thompson Building and Menold Construction both claimed that on

- the

- job training would require 16 labor h ours per job. On

- the

- job training is onl y required for workers who are not certified renovators. Certified renovator training takes 8 hours and is valid for 5 y ears. A firm would have to spend less money for on

- the

-

job training than for certified renovator training or it would be less expensive to have all staff trained as certified renovators. Accepting that on

the

- job training takes some fraction of the 8 hours for certified renovator training, the 16 hours per job of on

- the

-

job training claimed b y th e commenters obviously represents the time to train a crew of workers on a job site. But if there is a crew of workers at every job site, and the rule only requires one certified renovator for a job, it is unclear wh y the firm would think it benefits from having every

crew member trained as a certified renovator. It is more sensible to assume that the firm would choose to train certain staff (such as owners, managers, supervisors, or foremen) trained as certified renovators, and that the rest of the worke rs would receive on

- the

job training. The rule does not require all staff to become certified renovators, and EPA believes that many firms will avail themselves of the option to use on

- the

- job training in lieu of formal certified renovator training. EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel (the R&R Panel) in connection with the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities. As a part of the panel process, EPA collected advice and recommendations from several Small Entity

Re presentatives (SERs). Several of the SERs supported training for supervisors only , in order to limit the cost of the training requirements. One SER stated that since risk management decisions are usually centralized, only

the supervisor needs to be train ed and certified, and that training several workers in addition to the owner or manager would be cost

- prohibitive for small painting firms. Another SER stated that supervisors are responsible for directing workers and, because they are present throughout the project an yw ay , there would be no additional cost in requiring a trained supervisor to be present on the job site. And another

4 www.thompsonbuilding.com 5 “Stop Wasting Time” by Jim Cory. Remodeling magazine, December 2003. http://www.remodeling.hw.net/associations/stop

- wasting

- time.aspx31

SER thought that a trained supervisor can instruct his or her emplo yees on lead

- safe practices. 6 EPA relied upon the R&R P anel to inform its decisions on the 2008 RRP rule, and thus the rule does not require all workers to receive 8 hour certified renovator training. EPA believes that many firms will take advantage of this provision of the rule, and will provide OJT for work ers (while supervisors will receive formal 8 hour training to become a certified renovator). While some commenters on this proposed rule based their cost claims on the assumption that all of their employ ees will be trained as certified renovators, other s clearly intend to have only a fraction of their employ ees trained as certified renovators. For example, Sutton Siding and Remodeling’s comments claim that total employ ee training costs will be $2,625. The comments do not indicate how man y emplo ye es the y assumed would be trained or the cost per person they

assumed. But assuming they used a cost of $525 per employ ee (which is a cost per employ ee that several other commenters claimed, and is close to EPA’s estimate of $562 per employ ee) and back

- calculati ng means that they would have assumed that 5 employ ees will be trained as certified renovators. According to a profile in Professional Remodeler magazine, Sutton Siding and Remodeling has 70 employ ees. 7 This yields a much higher ration of workers with OJ T to certified renovators than EPA’s estimate that the maximum ratio is 3 workers with OJT to 1 certified renovator per firm. Even assuming that onl y some of a firm’s employees become trained as certified renovators, total training costs depend on the number of emplo ye es at the firm. Sutton Siding and Remodeling, which has 70 employ ees and performs 3,500 jobs a y ear, is not the only commenter that is larger than the ty pical renovation firm subject to the rule. For example, Southwestern Remodeling emplo ys 34 field carpenters (and describes itself as the largest remodeling firm in its immediate area), Menold Construction has 45 employees, Thompson Building has 50 employ ees, and J.J. Swartz Co. has at least 15 employ ees. By contrast, the majority of the ren ovation firms subject to the RRP rule are non

- employ ers, where by definition only one person will become a certified renovator. Even among employ er establishments, the average firm in the construction industry has 6.5 employ ees and the average residential remodeler has 2.5 employ ees. Given how many employ ees some of the commenters have, it is not surprising that they

might have higher total training costs than the t ypi cal firm subject to the rule. EPA agrees with the commenters who stated that there are additional costs due to staff turnover. Due to staff turnover, firms can incur costs for certified renovator training more often than every

5 y ears (the period the certification is valid for). EPA accounted for turnover in making its cost estimates. Using data from the lead abatement program, EPA estimated that after the first y ear, 17 percent of the renovators trained each y ear will be seeking their initial certification. This is equivalent to a staff turnover of 17 percent a ye ar. (Similarly , EPA estimated that 18 percent of firms will be seeking their initial certification.) EPA continues to believe that these are valid estimates.

6 See Report of the Small Business Advocacy Revie w Panel on The Lead

- base Painting; Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements, March 3, 2000

. 7 Professional Remodeler: “Blueprint for Success, Chapter 5: Job Costing”, 6/1/2001, http://www.housingzone.com/topics/pr/management/pr01ga019.asp32

In summary , man y of the commenters have based their training cost claims on the assumption that every

employ ee will receive formal 8

- hour training from an accredited institution to become a certified renovator. The rule does not require this. Instead, workers can receive on

- the

-

job (OTJ) training from the certified renovator. Based on statements by the SERs on the S BAR Panel, EPA believes that man y firms will avail themselves to provide on

- the

- job training for workers, as a lesser cost alternative to providing formal certified renovator training for all emplo yees. Thus, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to base cost estimates on the assumption that every

employ ee will receive formal 8 hour certified renovator training. Also, some of the commenters are much larger than the ty pical firm covered by

the LRRP rule, so their training costs are obviously not reflectiv e of the average firm. Therefore, EPA believes that many of the commenters’ claims overstate the total cost for a t ypical firm to comply with the rule’s requirements for certified renovator training. EPA believes that the estimates for training costs it used in its economic anal ys is are reasonable.

Comment : Commenters made various claims about the number of labor hours required per job for on

- the

-

job training. The number of hours claimed per job varied from 1 hour per job to 40 hours per job. For example, Bell’s Remodeling claimed it would require 12 hours per job; Menold Construction, Thompson Building, and ReBuildEx all claimed it would require 16 hours per job, and AWS Remodeling & Design claimed it would require 40 hours per job. Response: EPA d isagrees with the commenters’ claims about the amount of time required per job for on

- the

-

job training (OJT). In addition, EPA believes that the commenters’ claims appear to reflect a lack of understanding about the rule’s requirements for on

- the

- job trai ning. OJT is only required for workers who have not received formal 8

- hour training from an accredited training provider to become a certified renovator. And workers who have received OJT on an element of the rule’s requirements do not need to be retrain ed on those requirements for every job. Yet many

of the commenters appear to be assuming that all of their employ ees both (a) become certified renovators and (b) receive a significant amount of OJT on every job

. EPA believes that man y of the commenters misunderstand the rule’s on

- the

- job training requirements. For example, as described elsewhere in this response to comments document, the rule overview accompanyingthe template for commenting on the proposed rule that was circulated to some remodelers a dvises that all workers should become certified renovators, and that firms should educate and train workers and then repeat in order to prepare workers for the renovation. Commenters seem to have interpreted this to mean that they must have all of their f ield staff trained as certified renovators, that they must provide extensive OJT (covering the full scope of lead

- safe work practices), and that they must repeat this extensive OJT for every job. This is an inaccurate description of the rule’s requirement s for on

- the

- job training. Workers who become certified renovators by completing the formal 8 hour training do not need to receive OJT. OJT is only required for workers who are not certified renovators. While the rule does not require all workers to b e trained as certified renovators, if firms choose to do this, they

would not need to provide OJT for these workers. The commenters’ apparent assumption that all staff must receive both certified renovator training and OJT results in a33

significant overest imate of costs. As described below, EPA disagrees with the claims made by the commenters about the time required to provide OJT. But if the commenters believe that OJT takes this much time, it would be cost

- effective for them to have all their workers trained as certified renovators instead of providing them with OJT, especially given that certified renovator training is valid for 5 ye ars. For example, Bells’ Remodeling has 2 employ ees in addition to the owner, and claims that OJT will require 12 hours per job. The comments from Bell’s Remodeling appear to assume that all employ ees are formally

trained at a total cost to the firm of $900. But the comments also assumed that on

- the

-

job training will cost $600 per job . Not only does EPA disagrees that OJ T will be this expensive or need to be repeated at every job, but the commenter is double

- counting training costs. If a firm voluntarily chooses to have all of the workers become certified renovators, they

would not need to receive OJT. And if the worker s receive OJT they do not all need to become certified renovators (since the firm only needs a certified renovator to perform certain activities, as described at 40 CFR 745.90(b)). EPA disagrees with Bell’s Remodeling’s claim that OJT will require 12 la bor hours per job. But assuming for the sake of an example that Bell Remodeling’s cost claims are accurate, it would be less expensive to choose certified renovator training for all staff than to provide OJT in this case. Because according to Bell’s Remo deling, certified renovator training (which takes 8 hours and is valid for 5 years) costs $150 to $300 per person, and OJT costs $600 per job. Thus, it would not make sense to engage in OJT. Presented another way , the 12 hours of OJT claimed by Bell’s Re modeling is equivalent to 4 hours per person OJT per job (4 hours for the owner to provide the training and 4 hours for each of the two employ ees to receive the training). EPA believes that the claim of 4 hour OJT per person is a significant overestimate. But if Bell’s Remodeling believed that was an accurate figure, it would be less expensive in the long run to provide certified renovator training for the employ ees than OJT, since the certified renovator training is valid for 5 ye ars. Even assuming comp lete annual emplo ye e turnover (i.e., all employ ees left the firm every y ear), then the firm would only need to perform two regulated renovations a ye ar (out of the 50 total renovations it performs each ye ar) in order to break even between having the two employ ees trained as certified renovators and the 4 hours per person per job OJT implied by

its comment. 8 (In both scenarios, each employ ee would receive 8 hours of training, although in one case it would be formal training and in the other it would be info rmal training.) Even if there was 100% annual staff turnover, if the firm did three regulated renovations a ye ar, it appears to be cheaper to have both employ ees trained as certified renovators rather than incurring the OJT costs that Bell’s Remodeling ha s claimed. If the workers stay ed with the firm for more than one y ear, then the cost of certified renovator training is less than the OJT cost claimed b y Bell’s Remodeling if the firm does only one regulated renovation per ye ar. But in that case, Bell’s Remodeling should not be claiming any costs for OJT (especially

since it is claiming costs under the assumption that all employ ees become certified renovators). As another example, Menold Construction and Thompson Building both appear to assume that each of their field staff will receive 8 hour certified renovator training. But they also

8 EPA does not believe there will be complete employee turnover each year at a typical firm. This scenario is presented as an extreme example, to demonstrate the situation under a worst

- case scenario.34

assume 16 hours per job of OJT. Again, while the rule does not require firms to train all their staff as certified renovators, if firms do so, the field staff will not n eed an y OJT. And while EPA does not believe that OJT will take 16 hours a job, if the firms thought that it did, it would make sense to provide certified renovator training for all employ ees rather than OJT. Yet these firms appear to have based their cos t claims on the assumption that all field staff become certified renovators and receive OJT at every job. In addition to the double

- counting of time for certified renovator training and OJT, EPA disagrees with man y of the commenters’ claims about the number of hours per job required for OJT, as well as the assumption that OJT must be provided repeatedl y for every job. The OJT must cover the work practices required b y the rule that the worker will be responsible for performing. The work practices in the rule are simple to understand and easy to use. They include the posting signs, erecting barriers, installing plastic sheeting, refraining from the use of certain practices, and thoroughl y cl eaning up the jobsite. These practices are easil y taught, and to ensure they

are properly

implemented, certified renovators are required to be on

- site when the signs are posted, the plastic installed, and when cleaning occurs. (At all other times the certified renovator regularl y directs the work on

- site and if off

- si te must be available by phone or other mechanism.) When a certified renovator is providing OJT to a worker, the rule onl y requires the renovator to discuss elements directl y related to the work preformed b y that worker. For example, if the worker will not be establishing containment, there is no need to train the worker in how to establish containment, although the certified renovator will need to provide instruction on maintaining the integrity of the containment. If the worker in question is installi ng a window as part of a larger job, then there may be no need to provide any training to this worker other than making sure he knows not to disturb the plastic on the floor and that he, his tools, and other equipment must be free of dust and debris before they leave the work area. EPA stated in the preamble to the 2008 RRP rule (73 FR 21701, April 22, 2008) that “... EPA is not interested in teaching persons how to be painters, plumbers, or carpenters. Rather, EPA’s objective is to ensure that persons who already know how to perform renovations perform their ty pical work in a lead

- safe manner.” EPA believes that the commenters’ claims about OJT overstate the time needed to ensure that persons who already know how to perform renovations perform their work i n a lead

- safe manner. Furthermore, a worker does not need to receive the same OJT over and over again at every job. Some workers might need additional OJT on a job if their previous OJT did not cover all work practices, and their job responsibilities changed. (For example, if a worker was not trained on establishing containment on one job, and then had to establish containment on a second job, he would have to be trained in that task for the second job. But if the same worker was establishing containment on every job, he would not have to be retrained on that task for every job.) But the large number of hours per job claimed by the commenters suggests that they are assuming that workers will receive extensive OJT, not limited to compliance tasks. EPA b elieves that workers will be able to remember the information from job to job, and will not need to be retrained at every

job site. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the assumption that OJT must be repeated at every

job for the same workers. As a result, EPA believes that the commenters’35

claims about the time required for OJT significantly overstate the time needed to comply with the rule’s requirements. As another example of a comment that overstates the time needed to comply with the rule, AWS Remodelin g and Design made its cost claims based on a job profile of a one man, one week job, and it claimed that 40 hours of labor per job would be required for OJT. Given the job profile, this is 40 hours of OJT per person per job. For the reasons described abo ve, EPA disagrees that OJT will require 40 hours per worker per job. But if the commenter believes OJT will take 40 hours a job, they should have concluded that it would be less expensive to have workers receive 8 hour certified renovator training rather then receiving OJT. Since certified renovator training is valid for 5 years, if a worker performed one covered job per year, over 5 ye ars time the commenter’s OJT claim would be equivalent to a total of 200 hours, compared to 8 hours for certified renovat or training. If the worker performed 10 covered jobs per y ear, the comparison would be a total of 2,000 hours claimed for OJT over 5 ye ars versus 8 hours for certified renovator training. If the worker performed 20 covered renovations per year, the comparison would be a total of 4,000 hours for the claimed OJT, compared to 8 hours for certified renovator training. And worker turnover does not seem to be an issue for this commenter, since its web site states that its newest employ ee has been with the comp an y for 10 ye ars, and that some employ ees have been with the company for 20 y ears. 9 EPA believes this commenter has clearl y overstated the cost of OJT. EPA believes that commenters have overstated the time required to provide OJT to a worker, have incor

rectly assumed that the same OJT must be repeated for every job, and have double

- counted training costs by assuming that all workers receive both certified renovator training and OJT. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenters’ claims about the time and cost required to compl y with the rule’s training requirements.

Comment: Commenters made various claims about the cost of firm certification. Most commenters stated that there will be an initial compliance cost of $300 for firm certification. One comm enter (Kessler Construction) claimed a cost of $360, with the additional $60 representing wages to research requirements, prepare and mail application, make copies, etc. Several commenters (Menold Construction, Thompson Building, and RebuildEx) claimed an initial compliance cost of $500 for firm certification and Clifton View Homes claimed a cost of $600, but these commenters provided no explanation of how they derived these figures. One commenter (Cornerstone Home Improvements) claimed a cost of $1,050 f or firm certification and head installer certification. Response: EPA agrees that the fee for certifying a non

- tribal renovation firm for 5 y ears is $300. (The cost for certifying a tribal firm is $20.) EPA believes its cost estimates are in line with those of the commenter (Kessler Construction) who claimed an additional cost of $60 associated with firm certification. EPA agrees that there would be additional costs associated with firm certification beyond the $300 fee. EPA estimated that a typical f irm would spend 3 hours becoming familiar with the LRRP rule’s requirements and half an hour filling out and mailing the one

- page application for certification, and would also incur minor costs to make a

9 http://www.allweathersystems.com/36

photocopy

and for an envelope and postage. EPA esti mated that these activities would cost a ty pical firm a total of $111.30 in 2005 dollars. Combined with the $300 certification fee, this would bring the total to $411.30. (The cost would be slightly higher in 2010 dollars due to inflation). Menold Construction, Thompson Building, and RebuildEx provided no explanation of how they

derived the $500 cost they claimed, so EPA is not able to respond in detail to these claims. However, the $500 cost claimed b y these commenters is relativel y close to EPA’s esti mate, especiall y after the $411 estimate is updated to 2010 dollars. Because the cost claim from Cornerstone Home Improvements appears to believe there is an additional cost for the head installer to become a certified renovator (aside from the costs asso ciated with the 8 hour training course), it is not possible to determine from the comment how much the commenter believes that firm certification costs.

Comment: The commenters listed additional insurance as a line item under initial compliance costs. Some commenters left the field blank (i.e., did not enter a dollar value) and others entered a question mark (i.e., did not attempt to make a cost claim). Of those who made a numerical cost claim, the dollar values ranged from $100 per ye ar (Ramtra Manage ment Services) to $60,000 per year (Wadlington Remodeling). Some commenters claimed that additional insurance may be difficult or impossible to purchase. Wadlington Remodeling stated that its claim of $60,000 (in 1994 dollars) would be the cost if insurance is available at all, indicating that “I have tried to get coverage from 4 agents to no avail. I have had to inform them there even was this law as they knew nothing about it. Excerpt from GAO report RCED

- 94

- 231 ‘In cases in which some coverage is pro vided, several insurance firms cited ty pical premiums ranging from $60,000 to $70,000 for the minimum insurance offered (t ypi cally $1million)+.’” Response : EPA’s economic anal ys is does not include insurance as a compliance cost. Insurance is a method t o transfer risk from the insured to the insurer, who is in a position to spread this risk over a large pool of insured parties. Insurance provides a method to restore the insured back to approximately the same position after a loss. The rule does not requi re firms to purchase additional insurance. The firms can decide for themselves whether insurance premiums are higher or lower than their expected losses based on the probability and magnitude of adverse judgment. Based on this assessment, they may decide to remain self

- insured (i.e., assume all risk of loss themselves) or to purchase insurance. EPA’s economic analy sis estimates the incremental social cost of complying with the rule, and the rule does not require firms to bu y insurance. Furthermore, EPA d oes not believe that insurance should be counted as a social cost of the rule. Insurance premiums are largel y a transfer of money

between different parties and not a social cost. Insurance shifts the distribution of resources needed to pay for the damage s caused by exposure to lead dust. It spreads a smaller share of the expense over a larger pool of people. Renovators disturbed lead

based paint without the RRP rule in place and thus alread y had a potential liability . By contrast, renovators who adhere to the work practices required by the rule will decrease the lead exposures created b y their work, creating real social benefits. To the extent that this regulation establishes a “standard of care” for the industry , contractors who follow the requirement s of the regulation will have evidence that they have not been negligent with respect to how they handled lead

-37

based paint. As a result, EPA believes that this regulation may lessen the potential liability of renovation contractors. This conclusion is bolstered b y a comment b y the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services that “Some [affected entities] have indicated they also see following established work practices as supportive to their potential liability concerns of doing ‘lead work’ and that they

may possibly turn down work if the owner insisted on the opt

- out.” Regarding the claim that insurance will be difficult or impossible to purchase, the comment from Wadlington Remodeling cites GAO report RCED

- 94

- 231. This was a 1994 report b y GAO titled “Lead

- Based Paint Hazards: Abatement Standards Are Needed to Ensure Availability

of Insurance.” The report addresses lead abatement not renovation, repair, and painting, and it primaril y addresses public housing and owners of rental properti es. The report was written in 1994, before EPA had published hazard standards for lead or abatement regulations, and it concludes that the lack of abatement standards was one of the primary reasons that limited the availability of insurance. But the repo rt does also mention that abatement contractors had difficult y obtaining insurance, and again indicates that this was due to the lack of abatement standards. The GAO report states that “Without such standards, the propert y owners who hire the contractors have no assurance that hazards in their units are properly abated.” The report goes on to state that: Liability coverage is generall y not available for small, inexperienced lead abatement contractors. However, the availability of coverage for lead hazar ds could grow, as did asbestos abatement coverage, because the two hazards are similar. Insurance for asbestos abatement contractors was scarce during the mid

- 1980s, but standards for asbestos removal that were developed by EPA helped to increase the avai lability of insurance... During the 1980s, insurance for asbestos contractors was generall y unavailable, but it became more obtainable after federal abatement standards were developed. The regulations issued under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response A ct of 1986 established requirements for training and accrediting contractors and for the monitoring methods they

used. These regulations increased the availability of asbestos liability insurance for abatement contractors. We believe that the recent incr ease in the availability

of insurance for asbestos removal contractors may be a harbinger of similar developments in the lead removal business if similar standards are developed. Just as GAO concluded that lead abatement insurance would be easier to obtai n and less expensive once EPA published standards for lead abatement, it is reasonable to assume that insurance for renovations disturbing lead

- based paint will also become more readil y available and less expensive once EPA’s RRP rule becomes effective and the renovation and insurance industries gain experience with it.

Comment: The commenters claims for the initial compliance cost for specialized tools (HEPA vacuum, shrouded tools, etc.) ranged from $150 (Roskelly Group) to $15,000 (J.J. Swartz Co.). For instance, Jonson Construction Services and Elite Sy stem Solutions both claimed a cost of38

$275; Home Check Plus claimed a cost of $400; Bell’s Remodeling claimed a cost of $2,500; Sutton Siding and Remodeling claimed a cost of $12,500; Robert Hanbury c laimed a cost of $1,660, including $775 for a HEPA vacuum, $275 for a Sawzall that can be connected to a HEPA vacuum, $195 for a sander that can be connected to a HEPA vacuum, and $225 for a Skillsaw [sic] that can be connected to a HEPA vacuum; and Menold Construction, Thompson Building, and RebuildEx all claimed a cost of $4,100. Response: The commenters’ equipment cost claims depend on several factors, including the ty pes of equipment assumed to be purchased, whether the claim assumes multiple pieces o f the same equipment are purchased, and the cost assumed for each piece of equipment. Most of the commenters do not provide specifics on how they derived their cost claims. However, the available information suggests that at least some of the commenters have overstated costs by including equipment that is not required to comply with the rule. The rule overview accompanying the template for commenting on the proposed rule that was circulated to some remodelers states that the rule prohibits the use of t ools, vacuums, sanders, grinders, etc., without HEPA filters. This is an inaccurate description of the rule. The rule (at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)) requires the use of HEPA exhaust controls (i.e., shrouded tools) for machines that remove lead

- based paint thro ugh high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting. Contrary to what the commenters appear to assume, the rule does not require HEPA exhaust controls for power tools such as drills, saws, etc. that are not being used for the purpose of removing lead

- based paint. (Such tools are commonly used to cut or shape a painted substrate, and not to remove paint from a substrate.) While EPA recommends the use of HEPA attachments whenever power tools ar e used on lead

- based paint, this is only a general recommendation and is not a requirement of the rule. EPA believes that the commenters misunderstand the requirements for HEPA shrouded tools. For example, EPA believes it is more likely that Robert Hanbury has misunderstood the requirements of the rule than that he plans on using a reciprocating saw and a circular saw (i.e., a Sawzall and a Skil saw) to remove paint in a manner covered b y 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii). EPA believes that other commenters have also based their cost estimates on the assumption that all power tools are required to have a HEPA shroud, rather than just the equipment covered b y 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii). Assuming that all tools must have HEPA filters overstates the cost of the rule. In addition to the purchase price, Robert Hanbury ’s comments also stated there would be additional costs for depreciation, maintenance, and repairs for HEPA vacuums and shrouded tools. However, EPA is not aware of an y evidence that the equipment needed to comply with the rule needs maintenance, repairs, or replacement more frequentl y than equipment that does not comply with the rule. Therefore, these expenses for compliant equipment would presumabl y be offset b y the savings for avoided maintenance, repair s, and replacement of non

- compliant equipment. The rule requires a HEPA vacuum to be used for the additional cleaning for interior renovations described at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5)(ii). Based on an online search in 2005, EPA39

estimated that the average cost of a HEPA vacuum was $626 and the average cost of a power sander that is compatible with a HEPA vacuum was $209. (EPA’s cost estimates would be slightly higher in 2010 to reflect inflation.) EPA’s estimates of the cost of a HEPA vacuum and a HEPA shroude d sander are similar to the costs claimed by Robert Hanbury

for this equipment, particularl y if EPA’s estimates are adjusted for inflation. EPA’s cost estimates do not include estimates for shrouded tools such as Sawzalls and Skil saws, because EPA does n ot believe that renovators will ty

picall y use such tools in a manner covered b y 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii), and the Agency ’s estimates are limited to the costs to comply with the rule’s requirements. Most commenters did not break out their cost claims for each piece of equipment separately the way Robert Hanbury

did, so EPA is not able to evaluate all the specific assumptions that they

used in generating their claims about equipment cost. But EPA believes that many other commenters also may have included c osts for equipment (such as shrouded Sawzalls and shrouded Skil saws) that is not needed in order to compl y with the rule. These commenters would have thus overstated the cost of compliance with the rule. The total equipment cost per firm to compl y with the rule will vary from firm to firm depending on factors such as the number of employees, the number of regulated jobs, the ty pe of jobs, and how they

are carried out (i.e., whether they use machines that remove paint through high speed operations subje ct to the work practice restrictions at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii), or whether they

use alternative methods such as chemical paint stripping or low temperature heat guns) . Obviousl y, a firm such as Sutton Siding and Remodeling (with 70 employees) may require more pieces of equipment than a firm such as Bells’ Remodeling (with an owner and two employ ees). Because most of the comments do not provide details on how the cost claims were derived, EPA cannot respond to the individual claims. For example, Bell’s Remodeling claimed a cost of $2,500 for specialized tools, but does not spell out which tools or how many tools it thinks it would need to purchase, or the assumed cost per tool. Because Bell’s Remodeling does one job at a time (and has two employ ees in addition to the owner), it does not seem likely that it would need multiple pieces of equipment, such as multiple HEPA vacuums and multiple shrouded sanders. EPA believes that Bell’s Remodeling (and other commenters) may have overstated the equipment cost s needed to compl y with the rule in the same way that Robert Hanbury did (b y including the costs for HEPA compatible equipment that is not required b y the rule). And given the large number of firms in the industry with few or no employ ees, EPA does not be lieve that the ty

pical firm will need to purchase multiple pieces of equipment to comply with the rule. EPA believes that its assumptions about the cost for a HEPA vacuum and HEPA shrouded equipment to comply with the rule are reasonable, and that man y of the commenters have overstated the cost of the rule b y making incorrect assumptions about the equipment required to compl y with the rule.

Comment: The commenters made various claims about compliance costs for activities requiring labor. The range of l abor costs claimed b y the commenters varied from as little as $10/hour40

(AWS Remodeling and Design, and Singer Kitchens) to as much as $135/hour (Design Construction Concepts). For example, Roskelly Group and J L Exteriors both claimed labor costs of $20/ho ur, and OneCall Services and Interior Trends claimed labor costs of $25/hour. Ramtra Management Services claimed a labor cost of $35/hour, as did Nautilus Homes. Sutton Siding and Remodeling claimed labor costs of $45/hour, NCP Design/Build claimed a lab or cost of $50/hour, Tourand Construction and Brown Construction both claimed labor costs of $60/hour, and Southwestern Remodeling based its cost claims on a rate equivalent to $75 per hour. Legal Eagles Contractors claimed labor costs of $120 per hour, a nd Fulton Construction claimed costs of $125/hour. Response : The hourly

labor costs claimed by

the commenters at the high end significantl y exceed the average wages and benefits for the industry according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BL S). Many of the commenters appear to have calculated labor costs in a manner that overstates the hourl y cost of labor. This affects the costs claimed b y the commenters for man y different cost categories, including certified renovator training, on

- the

- job training , containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification. EPA’s economic analy sis estimated the cost of the 2008 RRP rule based wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employ ment Statistics Series. The wages were fully

loaded to account for fringe benefits, with an average fringe rate for the construction industry of 23.5 percent. Certified renovators’ fully loaded wages ($31.64/hour) were estimated from the wages earned by First

- Line Supervisors/ Managers of Construction Trades and Ex traction Workers (Occupation 47

- 1011) working in the residential building construction industry . Workers’ loaded wages ($16.94/hour) were estimated from the wages of Construction Laborers working in the residential building construction industry (Occupati on 47

- 2061). These wage rates were calculated using wage data for 2005, and wage rates have increased over time with inflation. According to more recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the comparable full y loaded wage rate for a renovator in 2008 was $3 4.92/hour. The commenters appear to be claiming costs based on their estimated revenues per hour. For example, one commenter (Southwestern Remodeling, #994) described the cost of certified renovator training as follows: On average in a 40 hour week on e of m y carpenters produces $3,000.00 worth of revenue for m y compan y. So if my compan y lost revenue produced b y each one of my 34 field carpenters for 1 day out of the ye ar I would lose roughl y $20,400.00 worth of generated revenue to training alone. 10
Th e $3,000 in revenues for a 40 hour work week mentioned by the commenter (equivalent to $75/hour) represents more than the loaded hourly cost of the labor. In addition to the lost value of employ ees’ time, a firm must use the revenues a worker brings in to pay for a variet y of other

10 Note that the 8 hour certified renovator training is actually required for one day out of 5 years, not one day out of one year, and that the rule does not require all of the firm’s 34 field carpenters to become trained as certified renovators.41

expenses such as materials, supplies, and equipment, which are significant in this industry

. 11 While workers are not generating revenue while they are in training, the firm is not incurring job

- related costs for materials, suppl ies, and equipment either. The social cost of the rule is better represented b y the loaded wage rates in the industry (as represented by the BLS data) than by the firms’ hourl y revenue. The difference between the hourly labor costs claimed by

the comment ers, the labor costs they incur, and the wages paid to their workers can be demonstrated using Sutton Siding and Remodeling as an example. The comments on the proposed rule b y Sutton Siding and Remodeling used a labor cost of $45 per hour, which significantly exceeds the average BLS value for loaded wage rates. Yet a profile in Professional Remodeler magazine 12 described Sutton’s labor costs as follows: Labor burden is a key

element to job costing. Sutton Siding and Remodeling has a relativel y high labor burden compared with that of a one

- or two

- person operation or specialt y trade contractor. The compan y includes a comprehensive list of costs in labor burden besides the actual wages paid to employ ees: federal taxes, workers’ compensation insurance, health insurance, life and disability insurance, retirement, profit sharing, vacations and holiday s, sick day s, and paid day s off.
Last ye ar these combined expenses constituted more than half of the company ’s labor costs. During annual reviews with emplo ye es, S utton management explains labor burden to them. "An employ ee may be paid $15 an hour, but he’s really getting the equivalent of $26.50," Sutton say s. "You have to offer that kind of compensation to keep good people. We’re competing with the unions. Our wag e rate is about the same, so we have to offer other benefits." Sutton does not count direct labor, materials, trade contractors, equipment and fees for permits as part of the firm’s labor burden. Although the article notes that Sutton has a relatively high labor burden compared to the one

- or two

- person operation or specialty contractor that is ty

pical of the industry , the $26.50/hour mentioned in the article is in line with the BL S data on loaded wage rates. EPA does not believe that it is appropriate t o consider the labor costs claimed by the commenters as an opportunity cost of the rule. Given that the labor costs claimed by some of the commenters are as much as double or triple the loaded wage rates according to BL S, this would suggest a very

high pr ofit rate for these industries. There is no indication that such high profit rates exist in this industry . Given the low barriers to entry in this industry , such rates would lure additional firms to enter the industry until profit rates were driven down to levels comparable with other industries opportunities. Moreover, given that EPA continues to believe that the

11 For example, for resident ial remodelers (NAICS code 236118), the cost of materials, components, supplies and fuels is 40% of the net value of construction work ($12.5 billion out of $30.6 billion). 2002 Economic Census, Construction, Subject Series EC02

- 23SG

- 1, U.S. Census Bureau , October 2005, http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0223sg1.pdf 12 Professional Remodeler: “Blueprint for Success, Chapter 5: Job Costing”, 6/1/2001, http://www.housingzone.com/topics/pr/management/pr01ga019.asp42

incremental time requirements to comply with the rule will be relativel y s mall for the ty pical firm in the industry , the Agency does not belie ve that following the rule’s requirements will significantl y change the number of jobs that a t yp ical firm will perform. Calculating costs based on hourly revenues (as the commenters have done) overstates the social cost of the rule. Both EPA’s cost es timates and the cost claims made by the commenters account for labor costs separatel y from costs for materials, equipment, supplies, and fees. EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate for the Agency to calculate the incremental social costs of the rule using BLS data on loaded wage rates. Therefore, the Agency has not revised its cost estimates based on the commenters’ claims about their labor costs.

Comment: The commenters’ cost estimates for plastic sheeting range from $10 per job (Home Check Plus) to $400 per job (NCP Design/Build). For example, Roskelly Group and Jeff Howard both claimed a cost of $20, Ramtra Management Services and OneCall Services claimed a cost of $25, J.J. Schwartz claimed a cost of $45, Bell’s Remodeling and Legal Eagl e Contractors both claimed a cost of $100, Brown Construction and JB Construction Services both claimed a cost of $200, and Sutton Siding and Remodeling claimed a cost of $175. Response : EPA believes that many of the commenters have overstated the cost of complying with the rule’s requirements for containment for the ty pical RRP job. EPA believes that some of the commenters’ claims may be based on an incorrect assumption about the containment required under the rule, or may not account for baseline wor k practices in the industry

. The incremental cost of the plastic sheeting required to comply with the rule’s requirements depend on several factors: (1) the cost of the plastic per square foot; (2) the number of square feet of plastic used; (3) how the p lastic is used; and (4) the renovator’s baseline containment practices (i.e., the containment practices used without the rule in place). These factors are addressed below. (1) The cost of the plastic per square foot . None of the commenters provided an y information on the cost they

were assuming per square foot of plastic. EPA’s Economic Analy sis for the 2008 rule used a price of $0.06 per square foot for 6 millimeter poly eth yl ene sheeting, based on a 2005 web search. To determine whether prices have increased since then, EPA checked prices again online in 2010. EPA found that one national home improvement chain sold a 2,000 square foot package of 6 mil. plastic for $94, equivalent to $0.047 per square foot, and another national home improvement chain sold the same size package for $79, equivalent to $0.0395 per square foot. These are 22% to 34% less than EPA’s 2005 estimate of the cost per square foot, which indicates that the price of plastic sheeting has not increased since EPA made its original co sts estimates. Therefore, EPA does not believe that it underestimated the cost per square foot of plastic. (2) The number of square feet of plastic used . The commenters did not provide information on the square footage of plastic they assumed would be u sed, or the size of the work areas to be contained. However, EPA’s cost data described above can be used to estimate the size of the jobs some of the commenters may have used as the basis of their cost estimate. For example,43

given a plastic cost of $0.04 7 to $0.06 per square foot, a total plastic cost of $45 (claimed b y J .J. Swartz Co.) is equivalent to 750 to 957 square feet of plastic. A total plastic cost of $100 (claimed b y Bell’s Remodeling) is equivalent to 1,667 to 2,128 square feet of plastic, an d a total cost of $175 (claimed b y Sutton Siding and Remodeling) is equivalent to 2,916 to 3,723 square feet of plastic. The square footage inferred from the plastic costs claimed b y the commenters indicates that some of them may

be referring to relativ el y large jobs renovating much or all of the interior or exterior of a house. Such large jobs represent a portion of the nation’s RRP jobs, and they may even be t ypical job sizes for these commenters. 13 However, man y jobs will require less area to be cont ained than jobs this large. For example, in small jobs the work area may be a small area within a room, requiring renovators to contain just a portion of the floor area within a room (covering the floor 6 feet beyond the perimeter of the surfaces undergoi ng renovation, and not using an y vertical barriers between the work area and adjacent non

- work areas). EPA does not believe that the large jobs that some of the commenters may have used for their cost estimates are representative of the millions of jobs c overed by the rule. Therefore, EPA believes that the high end claims by

some of the commenters overstate the cost of the rule’s requirements for plastic sheeting for a t ypi cal job covered b y the rule. 14 (3) How the plastic is used . The rule overview ac companying the template for commenting on the proposed rule that was circulated to some remodelers states that renovators must enclose the work area with a dual layer of heav y plastic sheeting, and then on a dail y basis replace the dust y and/or dirty

lay er of plastic sheeting. The rule requires the work area to be contained, but it does not require renovators to use of a dual lay er of containment, or to replace the outer containment lay er on a daily

basis. Assuming that renovators must use a double lay er of plastic and replace the top lay er on a daily

basis overstates the amount of plastic that must be used, and the cost of the plastic. Commenters that based their cost claims on these assumptions overstated the cost of the rule. (4) How often the renovator follows the rule’s requirements for containment in the baseline

. EPA’s economic analy sis calculated the incremental increase in the social cost due to the rule’s requirements. This represents the additional cost of the job due to the rule, above and beyond any thing that renovators were already doing before the rule took effect. EPA estimated the extent to which different work practices required under the rule were used in the baseline (without the rule in place) based on a telephone survey of contra ctors. For example, EPA estimated that without the rule, contractors kept all windows and doors in the work area closed or covered with plastic sheeting in 76% of jobs; covered the floor within the work area with taped down plastic sheeting in 77% of jobs ; and disposed of the plastic after each job (instead of reusing it multiple times) in 37% of jobs.

13 As an example, Ventana Construction based its cost claim of $1,760 on w hat it terms a mid

- size project costing $100 to $150k, with 5 days of demolition. Ventana’s web site (http://www.ventanabuild.com) states that it specializes in major residential remodels, additions and custom home constructio n.

14 T o the extent that commenters based their cost estimates on very large job sizes, this also le d to an upw ard bias in their cost estimates for other materials (such as HEPA vacuum filters and tape), and for labor costs (containment, cleaning, and post

- cleaning verification). This issue is addressed in more detail in the responses to the comments on those cost elements.44

Due to the baseline work practices, the rule’s incremental cost for containment is only a fraction of the total material and labor cost for using plastic sheeting. For example, the rule generates incremental costs for both labor and materials for using plastic sheeting on floors for only the 23% of jobs (100%

- 77%) where renovators were not using any plastic before the rule. The rule generates incrementa l materials costs for using plastic sheeting on floors in the 49% of jobs (77% x 63%) where renovators were using plastic before the rule but were not reusing it. And the rule does not create costs for using plastic on floors for the 28% of jobs (77% x (1 00%

- 63%)) where renovators were alread y using disposable plastic before the rule. There are also indications that the increase in labor required to use lead

- safe work practices is largel y offset by resulting reductions in the time required for cleaning up after the job. One commenter on the 2006 proposed rule for the RRP program (WDC

- 0017) disagreed with claims that the rule would increase the cost of a job by 20 or 30 percent. The commenter stated that he had performed “hundreds and hundreds of jobs and what I'm doing is exactly what I did before using different tools and creating a situation where I have much less clean

- up at the end because I'm cleaning up as I go and I'm masking areas that will absorb dust, so my clean

- up costs go down, m y safet y goes up, and I wind up costing approximately the same thing but may be four or five percent more, may be four or five percent less, but I guarantee there's no 20 or 30 percent unless you compare maintenance with abatement and we're not doing that.”
Commente rs on both the 2006 proposed rule for the RRP program and this proposed rule have claimed that professional remodelers improve the condition of homes and leave job sites cleaner than before the work started. 15 EPA believes that renovators must spend signi ficant amounts on time on containment and cleaning in the baseline, and that relatively little additional time is ty pically required to follow the rule’s work practices. Yet none of the commenters mention their baseline containment or cleaning practices, or make an y comparison between the rule’s requirements and their baseline practices. 16 Therefore, some of the cost claims made by the commenters (including the containment costs) may represent the total costs of the rule’s work practices, and not the addit ional costs above what renovators were already doing. 17 To the

15 Even if remodelers using baseline work practices leave job sites cleaner than they were before the renovation, that does not mean th at the lead dust levels are below EPA’s hazard standard, or that the baseline work practices are safe, reliable, and effective, as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act. 16 Not only do the commenters not discuss their baseline practices, but they f ail to mention any of the savings they wo uld accrue by replacing their baseline work practices with those required by the rule. For example, Robert Hanbury’s comments claim costs not only for the purchase of a HEPA vacuum and shrouded tools, but also for depreciation, maintenance, and repairs for this equipment. But the cost claims ignore the savings in avoided depreciation, maintenance, and repair for the non

- HEPA vacuum and un

- shrouded tools

– costs that would otherwise be incurred in the baseline. Sim ilarly, his comments his comments claim costs for purchasing buckets, sponges, and mo ps, and for replacing these items as they wear out or break. Yet he does not account for any savings due to avoided costs to replace brooms and dustpans, or whatever othe r cleaning equipment he was using in the baseline. His comments also claim costs for multiple rounds of cleaning, but he does not mention how much cleaning he did in the baseline. And none of the cost claims made by the commenters mentioned that removin g the opt

- out provision would save the paperw ork and recordkeeping burden involved with having the opt

- out form signed by the customer. Although these paperw ork savings are small compared to the cost of complying with the LRRP work practice requirements, som e commenters did include other paperwork costs in their claims. This highlights that they are not considering the countervailing factors when making their cost claims. 17 If these particular contractors never used plastic before the rule, then they are not representative of baseline work practices, and the incremental changes to their work practices are not representative of the industry. I f the ir45

extent that the cost claims made b y the commenters ignored baseline work practices, they overstated the incremental cost of compl yi ng with the rule’s requirements. As described above, various commenters may have: assumed the use of a double lay er of plastic and daily

replacement of the top lay er, which is not required by the rule; assumed a large job size not representative of the t ypical job size regulated b y the rule; and may not be account ing for the use of baseline work practices. EPA believes that the commenters’ claims overstate the additional costs that renovators will incur in order to follow the rule’s work practices. EPA further believes that its estimates represent reasonable valu es for the incremental cost of plastic for t ypical jobs regulated under the rule.

Comment: Commenters stated the time and cost per job they claim is required for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification. The number of labor hours claimed for c ontainment, cleaning, and cleaning verification varied from 5 to 202.5 hours per job, and the cost varied from $175 to $6,050. Response: EPA believes that many of the commenters have overstated the incremental time and cost needed to compl y with the ru le’s containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practice requirements. As described elsewhere in this response to comments document, some of the commenters appear to have based their cost claims on an overview of the rule circulated within the industry

that did not accurately

characterize the rule’s requirements. For example, the rule does not require containment to be replaced on a dail y basis, nor does it require dail y cleaning with a HEPA vacuum prior to the completion of the job. 18 To the extent that commenters relied upon this or other inaccurate descriptions of the rule to prepare their comments, they

will have overstated the cost of complying with the rule. In addition, EPA believes that the cost claims made by some of the commenters ma y represent the total time required for containment and cleaning, and not the additional time for compliance beyond baseline work practices. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere in this response to comments document, some of the commenters’ claims appear t o be based on relatively large jobs that are not representative of all jobs covered b y the rule. Also, many of the commenters have used a labor cost per hour that is not representative of actual labor costs. Therefore, the claims made b y the commenters a

bout the labor costs per job for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification significantl y overstate the additional cost for a t yp ical job to comply with the rule. EPA’s cost model is a simplified representation of the universe of remodeling jobs. The model cannot capture all of the variations in the millions of renovation, repair, and painting jobs that are conducted each year, which range from simple drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to building addition s and every thing in between. EPA’s
estimates are meant to represent the increment over typical baseline practices, then the effective square footage of the job sizes they are using for cost purposes is even larger than calculated above and elsewhere in this response to comments document. This would mean that their jobs are that much larger than the typical renovation job, also yielding a signi ficant overestimate of costs

. 18 For example, Jud Construction claimed a labor and materials cost of $296.27 per day per job, yet the activities that we nt into its cost claim (such as containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification) are not required by the rule on a daily basis. Similarly, Creative Construction Co. estimated a daily cleanup cost for 5 days, but the rule does not require daily cleanup.46

methodology

was not meant to estimate the cost for a particular individual job or a particular renovator, so it is not appropriate to overemphasize the model’s prediction for an y individual job. Still, the labor hours p redicted by EPA’s model can be compared to the claims made by a sample of the commenters using the industry template for their comments, in order to contrast the rough magnitude of the results. These commenters did not provide details about the square f ootage size or other characteristics of the jobs they assumed when developing their cost claims. However, as described elsewhere in this response to comments, it is possible to infer a job size based on the cost they claim for plastic sheeting and the actual cost per square foot of plastic sheeting ($0.047 to $0.06 per square foot for 6 mil. poly eth yl ene). The inferred job size can be combined with EPA’s estimate of the labor hours per square foot for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification for that size of job. The results are shown in the following table and are compared to these commenters’ claims. As can be seen from this table, EPA’s unadjusted estimates of the time required for cleaning, containment, and cleaning verification are compara ble to those provided by

man y of these commenters. In a number of cases, the labor hours claimed b y the commenter falls within the range estimated b y EPA for this size of job. The remaining comments are split between cases where EPA’s estimates exceed th e labor hours claimed by commenter, and cases where the labor hours claimed b y these commenter exceed EPA’s estimate. With the exception of two outliers, the differences between EPA’s estimate and the commenter’s claim are not substantial. The two outlie rs are in the comments from Rollins Contracting, and from Alan Hanbury of the House of Hanbury

. Rollins Contracting claimed that containment would require 45 hours per job, cleaning would require 45 hours per job, and cleaning verification would require 2 hours per job, for a total of 92 hours, compared to EPA’s estimate of 23.3 to 29.5 hours for a job of this inferred size (1,583 to 2,021 square feet). While this inferred job size is fairly large, the labor hours Rollins Contracting claims are much large r than the claims made b y the other commenters in the table with similar inferred job sizes, such as Bell’s Remodeling, Living Improvements, and DreamMaker Bath and Kitchen, and Sutton Siding and Remodeling (which vary from 10 to 31 hours). Given that the claims by Rollins Contracting significantl y exceed not only EPA’s estimate but the claims made b y these other apparently similar commenters, EPA does not find the commenter’s claim to be a credible estimate of the total time needed to comply with the rule ’s work practices for a ty pical job. The other outlier is in the comments from Alan Hanbury , who claims that the time required for cleaning will vary from 3.5 to 200 hours per job, resulting in a claim of 6 to 202.5 hours for containment, cleaning, and cl eaning verification. By comparison, EPA’s estimate is that the rule’s containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practices will take 6.3 to 8 hours for a job of this inferred size (417 to 532 square feet). EPA believes that the high end of the commenter’s range (which is two order of magnitude greater than the low end) represents an unlikely scenario. The top end of the range is much higher than the claims made by the other commenters in the table with similar inferred job sizes, such as J.J. Swartz, Menold Construction, Thompson Building, RebuildEx, and Earl Williams (which vary from 8 to 1447

hours). Given that the top end of the range claimed by Alan Hanbury

significantly

exceed not only EPA’s estimate but the claims made by other apparentl y similar commenters, EPA does not find the commenter’s claim to be a credible estimate of the time needed for a ty pical job to comply with the rule’s work practice requirements. There are several issues to consider when comparing the figures in the table (both the commenters’ claims and EPA’s inferred values) to EPA’s estimates of the costs of the rule in its Economic Anal ys is document:48

Labor Hours Commenters Claimed and EPA’s Estimate, based on inferred job size Commenter Square footage

inferred from commenter’s plastic costs 1 Labor hours per job

commenters claimed for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification EPA’s estimate of labor

hours (based on inferred square footage) prior to adjustment for baseline practices Bell’s Remodeling 1,667 t o 2,128 10 to 18 hours 24.5 to 31 hours
J. J. Swartz Co. 750 to 957 8 hours 11.3 to 14.3 hours Living Improvements 1,250 to 1,596 18 hours 18.5 to 23.5 hours Sutton Siding & Remodeling 2,917 to 3,723 31 hours 42.2 to 53.5 hours
House of Hanbury

- Alan H anbury 417 to 532 6 to 202.5 hours 6.3 to 8 hours

Menold Construction 633 to 809 14 hours 9.5 to 12.1 hours Thompson Building 633 to 809 14 hours 9.5 to 12.1 hours
RebuildEx 633 to 809 14 hours 9.5 to 12.1 hours Kessler Construction 950 to 1,213 16 hours 14.2 to 18 hours
DreamMaker Bath & Kitchen 1,250 to 1,596 12 hours 18.5 to 23.5 hours Earl Williams 333 to 426 9 hours 5 to 6.4 hours Rollins Contracting 1,583 to 2,021 92 hours 23.3 to 29.5 hours Gandolfi & Associates 833 to 1,064 29 hours 12.5 to 15.8 hours Home Check Plus 167 to 213 8 hours 2.5 to 3.3 hours

1 Square footage inferred by dividing the total cost that commenter claimed for plastic sheeting by the cost of plastic sheeting ($0.047 to $0.06 per square foot).
(1) Some of the comme nters claims may be based on an incorrect understanding of the rule’s work practice requirements. For example, some of the commenters appear to have based their cost claims for cleaning on the assumption that the rule requires them to replace the containm ent on a daily basis and vacuum the work area with a HEPA vacuum frequently during the day

and at the end of each day . The rule’s requirements at 40 CFR 745.85(a) requires the work area to be contained before beginning the renovation, and maintained until after the renovation has been completed. The rule does not require the containment to be replaced during the renovation. And while EPA encourages frequent cleaning of the work area as a general good housekeeping measure, the rule’s requirements at 40 CF R 745.85(a)(5) only require the work area to be49

cleaned after the renovation has been completed. Similarly , some of the commenters may be assuming that the rule requires containment for an entire room (or an entire house). These commenters may

not unders tand that in some cases the work area can be a portion of a room, and that this is the only

area where they

are required to use the rule’s containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practices. (2) Some of the commenters’ cost claims may repre sent the total time they think will be spent on the various activities, and not the incremental labor requirements due to the rule. Based on its survey of renovators and various comments from industry , EPA believes that most renovators were doing some containment and cleaning in the baseline. For example, most renovators report that they did some cleaning in the baseline, such as using a vacuum without a HEPA filter. The rule requires the use of a HEPA vacuum, but EPA does not believe that using a vacuum with a HEPA filter to clean the work area takes significantly longer than using a vacuum without a HEPA filter. Yet man y commenters claimed cleaning times of 8 hours or more per job. Some of the commenters’ claims may address the total time they believe will be associated with rule cleaning, and not the additional time to follow the rule’s work practices, such as substituting a HEPA vacuum for a regular shop vacuum. Similarly , EPA’s survey indicated that most renovators use containment in the baseline. Even setting aside the outlier who claimed that containment required 45 hours of time, commenters claimed that containment requires up to 12 hours. The labor hours claimed by some of the commenters may represent the total time associated with using the r ule’s containment work practices, and not the additional time required under the rule (such as taping or sealing all edges or seams of the containment plastic). Adjusting for baseline practices means that, overall, the incremental cost of the rule’s conta inment and cleaning work practice requirements is only a fraction of the total cost of these activities. (3) The labor rates used by man y of the commenters are not representative of actual hourl y wage costs. As described elsewhere in this response to comments document, ty pical wage rates in the industry are significantl y lower than the hourl y costs reported b y man y commenters, who appear to have reported the revenues per hour generated by their employ ees, and not labor costs. (4) Based on the inferred square footage, some of the commenters claiming high costs may be deriving their cost estimates on relativel y large jobs. Many of the jobs covered b y the rule can be much smaller than the job sizes these commenters may have used to develop their cost clai ms. (5) The comments do not appear to reflect an y of the methods that can be used to reduce the time and cost need to compl y with the rule’s work practices. For example, pre

- engineered containment sy stems (purchased or home

- made) are very helpful in cutt ing time spent on the job erecting containment and are easier to install than hanging plastic with tape. One company making such a pre

- engineered containment s ys tem claims that a three

- sided plastic dust barrier can be installed b y one person in less than five minutes. While there is an equipment cost for such products, the labor savings could make this a worthwhile investment for some renovators. But the commenters do not appear to have sought any way s to minimize the time and cost of following the rule ’s work practices.50

(6) The commenters may not be appropriately accounting for the different work practice requirements in the rule for interior and exterior jobs. Some of the commenters make separate claims of the total cost of labor and materials per jo b for interior and exterior jobs. For example Bells’ Remodeling states that the total cost of compliance per job for labor and materials will be $1485 to $1885 per job for interior work, and $1950 to $3000 for exterior work, depending on the size of the j ob. Thus, it is claiming that the ty pical exterior job will cost $465 to $1,115 per job more than the ty

pical interior job. Bell’s Remodeling claimed that the total labor costs per job will be $1200 to $1600, and the total materials costs per job will be $285, which adds up to the $1,485 to $1,885 claimed for interior jobs. But it does not provide any explanation for why the ty pical exterior job would cost more than this. Other commenters provided a total cost claim in their comments that did not diff erentiate between interior and exterior jobs, despite the fact that they appear to perform both ty pes of work. For example, the web sites for Sutton Siding & Remodeling and Kessler Construction indicates that they

perform both interior and exterior renovations, but the cost claims in their comments do not differentiate between the two types of jobs, even though the rule’s work practices do differ. The rule’s work practice standards for interior renovations contain a number of additional requirements that do not apply to exterior renovations. For example, 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5)(ii) specifies additional cleaning for interior renovations (including use of a HEPA vacuum, wiping with a damp cloth, and mopping with a 2

- bucket mopping method or wet mopping s ys tem) that do not apply

to exterior renovations. And 40 CFR 745.85(b) requires cleaning verification for interior renovations but not for exterior renovations. Although some exterior jobs may involve vertical containment that would not be needed on interior jobs, EPA believes that relativel y few exterior jobs will use such vertical containment. (Although EPA’s economic anal ys is did include costs for vertical containment for some exterior jobs.) The commenters using the template for comments on the proposed rule that was circulated in the industry

did not state that they

were including vertical containment costs for exterior jobs, or provide other indications of why they think costs differ for interior and exterior jobs. So it is not clear what they

assumed in their cost claims for exterior jobs. The commenters using the industry template make cost claims for HEPA vacuums and cleaning verification that apply to interior jobs but not exterior ones. And they have not provided an y indication of what other f actors would increase costs for exterior renovations over interior ones. It is possible that these commenters have included costs for HEPA vacuuming and cleaning verification in their exterior cost estimates, where such practices are not required. This i ssue affects the commenters’ claims about material and equipment costs (HEPA filters, cleaning verification pads, etc), as well as labor costs. It is difficult to determine how these commenters generated their claims of the total compliance cost per job f rom the labor and materials costs per job they claim, particularl y since some of the claims do not add up. For example, J.J. Swartz Co. claims that the total labor costs per job will be $430, and the total materials costs per job will be $345, which add t o $775. But it also stated that the total cost of compliance for labor and materials will be $1,205 per job, which51

is $430 more than $775. Living Improvements claimed that the total labor costs per job will be $1220, and the total materials costs per job will be $475, which add to $1,695. But it also stated that the total cost of compliance for labor and materials will be $2288.25 pre job, which is $593.25 more than $1,695. And Sutton Siding and Remodeling claimed that the total labor costs per job will be $1,755, and the total materials costs per job will be $950, which add to $2,705. But it also stated that the total cost of compliance for labor and materials will be $2,605 per job, which is $100 less than $2,705. Given these disparities, it is dif ficult for EPA to assess the validity of all of the commenters’ cost claims. However, some of the commenters may have assumed that activities such as using a HEPA vacuum and performing cleaning verification are part of the work practices for exterior jobs , which is not the case. For the above reasons, EPA believes that the commenters’ claims overstate the additional costs that renovators will incur to follow the rule’s work practices. EPA believes that its estimates represent reasonable values for the incremental time and cost required for the containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practices required by the rule.

Comment: Commenters claimed that HEPA vacuum filters will cost between $6 and $3,000 per job. Response : Most of the comm enters did not provide information on the size and nature of their jobs, how many

filters they

assumed would be used per job (or if less than one per job, how many jobs they assume a filter would be used for), or what they think the cost per filter would b e, so it is difficult for EPA to evaluate these claims. EPA estimated the cost of HEPA vacuum filters assuming that renovators would use re

- useable HEPA filters. To the extent that renovators use disposable HEPA filters, their costs would be higher than EPA estimated. However, some renovators extend the life of a HEPA filter b y using two filters in tandem, first a non

- HEPA filter to catch large particles, and a HEPA filter to catch the smaller particles that pass through the first filter. Because the no n - HEPA filters are much less expensive, they can be changed frequently , while the HEPA filter can be changed less frequently , thus reducing overall costs for filters. Also, as described elsewhere in this response to comments document, some of the commente rs appear to have based on their cost claims on very large jobs, which are not representative of the size (and thus the cost) of a typical job covered b y the rule.

Comment: Commenters claimed that other materials will cost between $19 and $950 per job

. Many commenters mentioned tape, disposable coveralls or Ty vek suits, and respirators or masks as examples materials that would be needed. Some commenters also stated there would be costs for getting workers medically fitted for a respirator or mask, an d for purchasing ey e wear, painters’ hats, and gloves. Commenters also mentioned other items such as garbage bags, tack pads, foot booties, bab y wipes, and mist bottles. Response : Firms do not need to incur all of these expenses in order to comply with the rule. The commenters’ cost claims combine items and activities required b y the LRRP rule with those52

that EPA recommends but does not require under the rule. EPA recommends the use of personal protective equipment when working with lead

- based paint. But EPA’s LRRP rule does not require the use of such equipment. EPA’s cost estimates reflect onl y those items and activities that are required to comply with the LRRP rule. Therefore, EPA’s cost estimates do not include the cost for personal protective e quipment not required by the LRRP rule, such as disposable coveralls, Ty

vek suits, respirators and masks (including getting workers medicall y fitted for a respirator or mask), ey e wear, painters’ hats, and gloves. EPA’s estimates do include costs for mat erials required to comply with the rule, including tape for the plastic sheeting; warning signs to warn occupants and other persons not involved in the renovation to remain outside of the work area; a tack pad; disposable shoes covers; plastic bags for was te disposal; and disposable cleaning cloths for the cleaning verification process. The cost per job for these materials will differ from job to job, depending on factors including the size of the job, the characteristics of the job, and the ty pe of work b eing done. The evidence that EPA reviewed indicates that the costs for such materials are modest. Therefore, EPA disagrees that the $19 to $950 costs claimed by the commenters for other materials are reasonable estimates of the cost of compliance with th e rule.

Comment: Some commenters stated that customers would be charged for the firm’s mark

- up and/or sales tax on top of compliance costs. One commenter (Robert Hanbury) mentioned a 50 percent mark

- up, and another (Clifton View Homes) mentioned a 63 p ercent mark

- up. Response : The mark

- up and any sales tax are not part of EPA’s cost anal ys is because EPA estimated the cost of the rule to societ y, not the price that contractors charge their customers. In addition, in the context of a benefit

- cost ana ly sis, taxes represent a transfer and not a social cost.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that exterior work will require additional costs to set up staging to hold sheeting in place. According to the commenter, staging rental/set

up/take d own for window replacement will cost $250 per project. The commenter claims that entire house repainting or re

- siding over painted exteriors would add at least $1000/project for staging and plastic set up and take down, and that exterior painters will nee d to cover additional $1000 job costs for each paint job necessitating additional costs to property owners of over $1500 due to industry

standard minimum 50% markup of direct job costs. Response: The rule does not require firms to use the elaborate conta inment referred to by the commenter for all exterior renovations. The work practice standards at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2)(ii) require firms to use the following containment work practices for exterior renovations: (1) close all doors and windows within 20 fee t of the renovation; (2) ensure that doors within the work area that will be used while the job is being performed are covered in a manner that allows workers to pass through while confining dust and debris to the work area; (3) cover the ground with sheet ing extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to collect falling debris, whichever is greater, unless the propert y line prevents 10 feet of such covering; and (4) in certain situations, the renovation firm must take extra53

precautions in containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate other buildings or other areas of the propert y or migrate to adjacent properties. The commenter is assuming that firms wi ll need to adopt the extra precautions mentioned in step 4 for all exterior renovations, and that is not the case. In man y situations, renovators will only need to follow steps 1 through 3. Step 3 involves simple practices such as stapling or taping the protective sheeting to the wall of the building, or using a 2x4 wrapped in protective sheeting to hold the material next to the wall, and using heavy objects (e.g. rocks) to weight the other edges of the protective sheeting to the ground so that it won’t b low in the wind. These practices are simple and inexpensive. Even in situations where vertical containment is needed to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate other buildings or other areas of the property or migrate to adj acent properties (e.g., work areas in close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a property

line, and windy

conditions), such vertical containment could take a number of forms. This could range from attaching plastic sheeting to a fence or o ther support at the propert y line, to attaching the plastic to a building or a frame attached to the building, to attaching the plastic to scaffolding erected next to the building. In contrast to the commenter (who is assuming that such vertical containm ent is used in 100% of exterior renovations), EPA’s economic analysis assumed that vertical containment is used for 2% of exterior painting events. Furthermore, EPA assumed that for those jobs using vertical containment, 50% of the events in residential units will not need scaffolding because they will use plastic at the fence line or attached to the building, and that 50% of those events that do need scaffolding for vertical containment are already using it for other reasons, and onl y incur incremental co sts related to plastic sheeting. This means that only 25% of the residential units that undertake vertical containment were predicted to incur incremental costs for scaffolding. To the extent that vertical containment is needed in a larger share of jobs t han EPA estimated, then the costs of the rule would be higher than EPA estimated but so would the benefits (because there would be more incidents in the baseline where lead dust is migrating to other buildings or adjacent properties). EPA estimated that the cost of vertical containment using scaffolding would vary from $760 for one wall in a single

- famil y unit to just under $6,250 for all four walls in multi

- family housing. (The cost for child

- occupied facilities in public or commercial buildings was est imated to range from $330 to $1,470 because jobs requiring vertical containment on these buildings were assumed to use scaffolding in the baseline, so that there were onl y incremental costs for the plastic sheeting.) Thus, EPA’s cost estimates for jobs involving scaffolding exceed the commenter’s claim that such practices will cost $250 to $1,000 per job. The difference is that EPA’s estimate recognizes that the fourth step under 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2)(ii) only applies in certain situations, whereas the comm enter is assuming this applies to all exterior renovations. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s claim that there will be an additional cost of $250 to $1,000 for a t ypical exterior renovation.54

Finally , the commenter’s claim that there is an in dustry standard markup of 50% over direct costs is not relevant to EPA’s cost analy sis. EPA estimated the cost of the rule to societ y, not the price that contractors charge their customers.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that the rule wil l result in additional disposal costs of $150 per project. According to the commenter, these disposal costs include covered and lockable dumpsters, a 48 hour empty cycle whether the dumpster is full or contains one piece of debris, and a commitment from the waste hauler to not allow any dust or debris to escape during transportation. According to the commenter, this is not the industry standard service today

and will result in unknown higher fees. The commenter states that the rule will result in a minimum additional cost of $150 per dumpster if a remodeler can even find a hauler who will assure the remodeler that no dust will escape during transportation. The commenter claims that this is probably an impossible demand, and that waste haulers won’t take on new liability without a big cost increase. According to the commenter, remodelers would need to pay for a few more disposal trips for larger jobs due to 48 hour time constraints, but that smaller projects have shorter durations so the 48 hour rule won’ t have an impact. Response : The commenter does not understand the requirements of the rule. First, the rule does not require the use of a covered, locked dumpster. The rule requires that at the conclusion of each work day

and at the conclusion of the renovation, waste that has been collected from renovation activities must be stored under containment, in an enclosure, or behind a barrier that prevents release of dust and debris out of the work area and prevents access to dust and debris. Covering the dumpster is one way to prevent release of dust and debris. It is not necessary to cover the dumpster if the waste inside the dumpster is contained in a way that prevents release of dust and debris, for example, in closed trash bags. L ocking the dumpster and placing it behind a locked barrier are good examples of way s to prevent access to the dust and debris, but these are not requirements of the rule. The commenter’s statement that the rule requires waste to be removed from the job site every 48 hours is also incorrect. The rule does not have an y requirements about how often a waste must be removed from the work site. The commenter’s statement that the rule requires renovators to receive a commitment from waste haulers not to allow an y dust or debris to escape during transportation is incorrect. The rule states at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(4)(iii) that when the firm transports waste from renovation activities, the firm must contain the waste to prevent release of dust and debris. However, the firm referred t o in the rule is the renovation firm, not a third part y firm such as a waste hauler. For instance, the rule would prohibit a renovator from placing uncontained dust and debris in the open bed of his own pick

- up truck and transporting it to a landfill. Ho wever, the renovator can transport the waste to a landfill himself if it is contained, for example in a garbage bag. But the rule alread y requires the waste to be contained before it is removed from the work area, and EPA has alread y accounted for the mat erials and labor cost for placing the waste in plastic bags, so EPA sees no need to make further adjustments in its cost estimates. And while the requirements at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(4)(iii) do not apply to third party

waste hauling firms, placing the dust an d55

debris into plastic bags before putting it into a dumpster or truck owned by a third party waste hauler can also contain the waste during transportation. The waste disposal activities described b y the commenter are not requirements of the rule. Therefo re, the additional waste disposal costs claimed by the commenter are not costs of compliance with the rule.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) states that the cost of testing for lead

- based paint will vary depending on how many surfaces/rooms are “d isturbed” and must be tested. The commenter assumes that 10 tests will be needed per job. According to the commenter, each lead check stick costs $9.75 and can be used for two tests, resulting in a cost of $48.75 per project. The commenter estimates that the labor to test each surface, record the results carefull y, and note the manufacturer and expiration date for these 10 tests will take a total of 20 minutes, and at a labor rate of $75/hour, the labor cost for lead paint testing will be $25 per project

. Response: EPA agrees that the cost of testing will vary depending on how many rooms and surfaces are disturbed. EPA believes that the commenter’s claim that 10 tests are needed per job may reflect the ty

pes of jobs he performs, but it does not represe nt the t ypical job covered b y the RRP rule. For example, there are man y smaller repair jobs that may onl y i nvolve removing a section of dry

wall or plaster, where a single test will need to be performed. EPA assumed that an average of 4 tests would be per formed per job. EPA believes that this is a reasonable estimate for a t ypical job, given the range of jobs covered by the RRP rule. EPA disagrees that the materials for the test kits will cost $4.87 per test (i.e., $9.75 for two tests). EPA’s 2008 econo mic anal ys is estimated that the test kits would cost $0.50 each, based on the tests currently on the market at that time. EPA has currently recognized two lead test kits, the L eadCheck ® kit (manufactured by Hy brivet Sy stems) and the State of Massachusett s kit (which is only available to certified Massachusetts state lead inspectors and risk assessors). The LeadCheck ® kit recognized by EPA is available in bulk at www.LeadCheck.com for a cost of $1.65 to $2 each, depending on the quantity ordered. EPA be lieves that prices may

decline in the future as more test kits are recognized. However, the commenter’s claim that a job requiring 10 test will cost $48.75 is an overstatement. EPA assumed that a renovator would take 15 minutes to use 4 test kits on a j ob. This is not significantl y different from the commenter’s claim of 20 minutes to use 10 test kits. EPA’s assumption would yield more time than the commenter claimed if the number of test kits was identical. Finall y, EPA has explained elsewhere in thi s response to comments document why the labor rate claimed b y the commenter overstates hourly costs.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that cleaning verification will cost $25 per project to obtain, utilize, label, and store the materials, calculated as 20 minutes per job at $75 per hour (and assuming 17 pads will be used for a small room, using one pad for 40 square feet). The commenter also claims that recordkeeping for cleaning verification will require 0.33 hours.56

Response : EPA’s 2008 e conomic analy sis assumed that the cleaning verification step would take 5 minutes of labor for the 40 square foot area that one cloth can be used on. Thus, EPA would estimate that a job requiring 17 cloths would take 85 minutes of labor, which is more tha n the commenter has claimed. EPA has explained elsewhere in this response to comments document wh y the labor rate claimed b y the commenter overstates hourl y costs. The rule does not require the renovator to labor and store the cleaning verification cloth s. EPA disagrees that recordkeeping for the rule’s cleaning verification requirements will ty pically require 0.33 hours per job. Finall y, the recordkeeping costs for cleaning verification are already accounted for in the checklist costs, and it would dou ble

- count costs to claim them separately as well.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that the materials for post

- renovation cleaning (wipes, swiffers, and cleaning supplies) will cost $22 per project. Response : Based on a review of online prices, EPA found that the hardware for the electrostatic cloth sweeper (which is reusable) costs $13.60, and that the cleaning cloths cost $0.46 each. Given that the commenter is assuming a job sizes that requires 17 cloths, EPA estimates that the materi als cost for this job would be less than $8. Although the total cost will increase if the work area needs to be cleaned more than once because it fails cleaning verification, only the particular areas that fail cleaning verification need to be re

- cleaned. Thus, the commenter appears to have overstated the materials cost for cleaning a t ypical work area of this size.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that firms will need to purchase a $175 fire safe for records needed when sued or audited for the 24 jobs per year that he performs. Response : EPA believes that the commenter misunderstands the recordkeeping requirements of the rule. For example, as explained elsewhere in this response to comments, the commenter appears to incorrectly

assume th at he must store all of the cleaning verification cloths. EPA believes that the recordkeeping requirements for the commenter’s 24 jobs per year will be modest, and can readil y be maintained along with other records that the firm is already keeping. There fore, EPA has not included the cost of a fire safe in its cost estimates.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that creating a compliance form in consultation with an attorney will cost $450, representing $200 of the firm owner’s time and $250 o f an attorney ’s time. Response : The rule allows firms to create their own form, but EPA has provided a checklist that they can use. EPA has not estimated a cost to develop a form, because if a firm decides to develop their own form it is a voluntary dec ision on their part and not a requirement of the rule. Therefore, the additional time the commenter refers to is not a cost of the rule.57

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) states that the proposed opt

- out rule will result in a cost for the firm’s owner to train the certified renovator how to complete the post

- renovation disclosure form. According to the commenter, this training will take one hour of time. Response : The certified renovator training course has a module on recordkeeping, which includ es the sample renovation recordkeeping checklist that fulfills the recordkeeping requirement. The firm’s owner does not need to re

- train the certified renovator on this task. If the firm develops it own form and has to train the certified renovator in ho w to use it, that is a voluntary decision on their part and not a requirement of the rule. Therefore, the additional time the commenter refers to is not a cost of the rule.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) states that completing the check list for m will take .66 hours per job. The commenter also states that completing the post renovation notice form will require 1.25 hours per job, plus 0.25 hours for the owner to review the form, and 0.1 hours to file the form. Response : EPA disagrees that comp leting its check list will ty pically require 40 minutes per job. EPA has estimated that completing the 1 page form will take an average of 5 minutes per job. And the commenter’s statement about the post renovation notice form appears to be a reference to the requirement in the proposed opt

- out rule that the renovation firm provide a cop y of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work

- practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner and/or occupant of the building. But that does not require a separate form. If the renovation firm is using the checklist for recordkeeping, it can provide a cop y of the same form to the owner and occupant. The onl y additional cost the firm would need to incur would be for cop yi ng and delivery

.

Comme nt: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) stated that copying the post renovation notification form would take 2 minutes of labor per client, and addressing an envelope and stuffing it would require 5 minutes of labor. Response : The opt

- out rule proposes that the firm provide the information when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered, or within 30 day s of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier. EPA believes that the burden for delivering the information to the client will be minimal, since the renovator will ty pically be delivering the checklist along with an invoice or other job

- related paperwork. EPA estimated that photocopying and distributing one copy of the checklist will take an average of 3 minutes of the renovator’s time.

C omment: A commenter (Kessler Construction) states that professional clearance examination/testing by

an independent testing agency may need to be performed and could cost $200 to $400 in additional fees, plus wages for recordkeeping and documentation.
R esponse : Neither the 2008 final rule or the proposed opt

- out rule require clearance testing. Therefore, clearance testing is not a cost of this rulemaking.58

Comment: A commenter (Kessler Construction) states that hazardous waste disposal costs may al so be needed on larger sized jobs, which could cost $200 to $1,000. Response : This rule does not require that dust and debris from covered renovations be treated as hazardous waste. To the extent that existing Federal, state and local regulations allowe d this waste to be treated as normal household waste prior to the RRP rule or the opt

- out rule, it can continue to be treated in this manner. The RRP program does not change how this waste can be disposed. Therefore, the rule does not result in additiona l costs for waste disposal.

Comment: A commenter (Beatch Construction) states that “To compl y with the current rule is enough. Most of m y clients opt out. The cost my company would have to charge for us to test, clean up, and do the work per the rules would be in excess of $1000 per job.” Response : The commenter may misunderstand the existing rule and the opt

- out provision. It is not possible that most of the commenter’s clients opt out, since the comment was submitted in November 2009. This was five months before the work practice requirements of the rule went into effect in April 2010. It was not possible for any clients to opt out of the work practice requirements before those requirements went into effect. EPA believes that the commenter may also be misinformed about the requirements of the rule and the cost of complying. For reasons spelled out in more detail elsewhere in this response to comments document, EPA does not believe that the incremental cost for a t ypical firm to comply with the rule will be $1000 per job. The commenter has not provided sufficient detail for EPA to respond to the claim that the rule will cost in excess of $1000 per job. But given the lack of detail in the comment and the apparent misunderstanding of the LRRP pr ogram, EPA is skeptical of the commenter’s claim that the rule will cost in excess of $1000 per job.

Comment : A commenter (#985) asserted that the rule would be undul y burdensome renovation firms and homeowners. According to the commenter, “In this op t

- out rulemaking alone, EPA finds that the 75,000 non

- employ er impacts (mostly single employ ee firms) would face economic impacts of 1.3 percent to 4.7 percent of revenues, which is extremely high.” The commenter goes on to state that “EPA’s plans to promulgate a series of additional requirements to supplement the already costl y LRRP rule will impose substantial burdens on small firms, homeowners and building owners, with questionable benefit ... EPA’s proposal would instead impede low

- income residents from improving their residences b y imposing unnecessarily costly requirements.” Response : The commenter cites the small business impacts in EPA’s economic anal ys is but failed to note that these impacts were calculated assuming that the firms did not pass any costs on to their customers (i.e., that they absorbed all of the cost increases themselves). But if the firms do not pass an y costs on to their customers, there cannot be an y burden on homeowners, including low

- income residents. Conversely , if firms were to pass some or all of the costs on to customers, it would reduce the economic impact on the firms. It is illogical for the commenter to59

make statements based on an assumption that firms do not pass on costs to their customers, while simultaneously

claim ing that the customers will have an increase in costs, since that requires firms to pass on costs. In any event, EPA disagrees that the rule will be unduly burdensome on renovators, building owners, or homeowners.

Comment: A commenter (#985) states that “Despite the Executive Order 12866’s requirement to include a benefits analy sis, EPA’s original OMB submission contained no benefits estimates. The agency

frankly acknowledges that its attempt at estimating benefits was ‘crude’. The estimates are, th erefore, extremely speculative, at best.” Response : The commenter’s reference to the draft Economic Anal ys is that EPA submitted to OMB is curious, given that the proposal is supported by the final version of that document referenced in the preamble, an d not an earlier draft. But the commenter’s implication that Executive Order 12866 requires benefits to be quantified is incorrect. Both Executive Order 12866 and OMB’s Circular A

- 4 (which provides guidance to implement Executive Order 12866) acknowledge the importance of qualitative measures where it is difficult to quantify benefits. Both EPA’s original OMB submission and the published version of the Economic Analysis did so. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12866, and indeed with all applicable statutory requirements and Executive Orders.

Comment : Commenters claim that homeowners will avoid compliance costs by hiring unlicensed contractors who can offer a lower price by not complying with the rule. Response : Unlicensed contractors may offe r a lower price by

ignoring the requirements of EPA’s lead rule. Such unlicensed operators can also lower their costs b y ignoring other requirements that have costs such as a building license, insurance, bonding, building permits, worker’s compensation, and withholding taxes. However, that is not a valid argument for doing away with all of those other requirements. Responsible renovators recognize that complying with those requirements is a cost of doing business for a legitimate firm, even if some compe titors ignore them. In the same way , responsible renovators need to recognize that complying with EPA’s lead rule is a cost of doing business, the same as a building license, insurance, or a building permit. EPA disagrees that imperfect compliance is a rationale for retaining the opt

- out provision.

M iscellaneous Comment: Two commenter s stated that EPA should provide financial support to renovators and firms seeking certification due to the large size of the regulated community and the current economic climate. One commenter stated that a large portion of the cost for renovators is from lost income and travel expenses while taking the training.60

Response : EPA appreciates the commenter’s concerns about ensuring that renovators firms get certified. Howev er, EPA can not provide financial assistance to firms or individuals. EPA is required b y TSCA to collect fees to recover the costs of implementing the renovation program. Further, EPA does not currentl y have funding to subsidize renovator training course s.

Comment: O ne commenter believes that EPA should make small fixes to the RRP regulations to make them less confusing and ambiguous. The comment attached examples of changes to the regulations that would achieve this result

. Response : The Agency wou ld like to thank the commenter for the suggestions. While EPA did not ask for comment on how it could make the regulations less confusion, the Agency will may consider these suggestions in future rulemaking s
.

Comment: One commenter stated that the RRP r ule will cause a decrease in home prices. The commenter predicts that as people become aware of the RRP rule, lead paint will become part of the negotiations of a home sale. Response : EPA is not reopening the RRP rule beyond the changes proposed. Nevertheless, the Agency disagrees with this comment. EPA does not believe the rule is overly costl y. EPA estimated that the rule’s work practice requirements will add $8 to $167 to the cost of a typical renovation project (with the exception of those using ve rtical containment). Even if renovations of lead

- based paint are part of negotiations of home prices, EPA does not believe that such a modest cost for these renovations will result in decreased home prices

.

Comment: One commenter states that professio nal remodeling does not create lead

- based paint hazards and that studies that Agency used to prove this link are flawed. Response : Again, EPA is not reopening the RRP rule bey ond the changes proposed. The issue of whether renovation activities create lea d

- based paint hazards is therefore not open for consideration in this rulemaking. Nevertheless, the agency disagrees with this comment. EPA’s Dust Study

indicated that renovation, repair, and paint preparation activities produce large quantities of lead d

ust that create dust

- lead hazards.

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should increase its efforts to make contractors and propert y owners aware of the rule. Another commenter asserts that EPA’s efforts to raise public awareness have been inadequat e and that the success of the RRP rule depends on consumer demand for certified renovators. The commenter claims that EPA’s partnership with the Ad Council will be limited in its effectiveness because of the limited broadcast opportunities. Anther commenter states that EPA should increase its outreach through multi

- media advertising in order to spur demand for certified renovators.61

Response : EPA has a wide

- ranging educational campaign to ensure that both the regulated community

and the general public k

now about this regulatory program. The Agency

has a very accessible Web site at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm with much information about lead in general, instructions on how contractors can get certified, where to find accredited training c ourses, and other useful information about the RRP rule. Furthermore, EPA is conducting extensive outreach to the renovation community and will continue to do so. The Agency has completed mass mailings to over 1,000 trade organizations, trade magazines, unions, propert y management associations, and others, encouraging them to get trained and certified. EPA has presented and/or exhibited information on the rule’s requirements at numerous major trade conferences, reaching tens of thousands of attendees. E PA is working closel y with major industry stakeholders to help them inform their members and clients about the RRP rule. These organizations have in turn contracted with accredited trainers to present training during major conferences, allowing for on

- the

- spot certification of large numbers of renovators. In addition, the Agency

has begun an even larger campaign to ensure that contractors know about the regulation and are equipped to comply , this includes multi

- media advertising. At the same time, the Ag ency is working on additional marketing efforts, including with the Ad Council, to build demand for certified contractors among the general public.

Comment: One commenter believes that the RRP requirements are not needed when replacing windows. Another commenter claims that installers of hearth appliances should be exempted because do not create a reasonable risk that would justify the RRP work practice requirements. Response : EPA is not reopening the RRP rule beyond the changes proposed. Nevertheles s, the Agency disagrees with these comments. EPA has determined that renovation activities that disturb lead

- based paint create lead

- based paint hazards in target housing and child

- occupied facilities. The Dust Study showed that window replacement result ed in lead

- dust levels above the hazard standard. While the Dust Study did not include installing hearth appliances, EPA has determined that activities that disturb surfaces with lead

- based paint

— regardless of the purpose, create lead

- based paint hazards. The commenter did not supply information showing that this activity does not disturb painted surfaces or would not result lead

- based paint hazards.

Comment: One commenter stated that the RRP rule will be bad for the environment because of all the dispo sable plastic material that will end up in landfills. Response : The Agency believes that the rule will result in substantial benefits due to reduced risk from lead

- based paint hazards and that these benefits will outweigh any drawbacks of disposing of pla stic materials.

Comment: One comment er states that EPA should require renovation firms to provide documentation of training and firm certification to owners and occupants before renovation begins. The commenter did not give a reason why.62

Response : The Agency requires that certified renovators have a copy of their course completion certificate at the work site. Thus, occupants will able to verify that renovators are certified. Those who hire renovation firms can alway s ask to see the firm’s certificate or they can verify the firm’s certification by looking on EPA’s lead program home page or by calling the National Lead Information Center.