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 2010
2

Opt-out Provision

Comment: Several commenters supported removing 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 year olds is more strongly 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 

children 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 necessary. 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. 

One 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 years old or adults. One commenter 

pointed out that blood lead levels in 6 year olds is more strongly associated with cognitive and 

behavioral development than is blood lead measured in early 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 visitors 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 currently 

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 opportunity for non-compliance. 

Response: EPA disagrees that removing the opt-out will create more opportunity for noncompliance. To the contrary, having a simpler more generally applicable rule should make 

compliance easier. Indeed, EPA believes that a provision such as the opt-out can cause 

renovation firms to be confused about 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 

associated with the rule such as certification, equipment and cleaning costs are overly 

burdensome. Thus, EPA believes that this rule will not be an impediment to the implementation 

of federal programs. 

Comment: One commenter stated that professional renovators 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 standards 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 professionals will typical 

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 largest 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 typical 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-yourself (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 to 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 contends that a survey of its members found over 91% of their 

clients range in age between 41 and 64 years old and therefore it is highly 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 only protecting children under age 6. As stated in the preamble to the proposed

and final rules, 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 analysis 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 that 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 party 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 noted, 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 although 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 complaint 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 plays a critical role because it provides the basis for future 

decisions and the orderly 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 established 
5

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 determine the winner after the 

game has been played (according to the previous rules). Thus, the court held that, at the very

least, the NTSB must acknowledge that it is deliberately departing from it prior decisions and 

provide a reasoned analysis 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 change to the underlying 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 even 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 why 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 more 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 be 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 provide 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, 696, 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 always provide 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 justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy 
6

change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding 

facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by 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. Clearly, 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 clearly promotes the congressional directive to regulate 

renovation activities 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 optout, 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. Accordingly, there 

can be no serious contention that reliance interests are implicated. In sum, EPA has more than 

adequately explained the basis for the change being made in this rulemaking. 

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 does not believe that EPA 

adequately 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 any 

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 action 

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 analysis 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 some particular economic analysis (e.g., to determine that the quantified benefits 

outweigh the calculated 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 housing 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 definition 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 childhood 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 paint 

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 children under six currently 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 renovation activities among older children and adults,” EPA is therefore, “not statutorily 

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. Specifically, 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/ft2on floors or 250 μg/ft2on window sills is a 

lead-based paint hazard. Therefore, EPA is clearly 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 reside. 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 

currently 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 the 
8

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 currently reside. Again, EPA has defined leadbased 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. It simply means that the standard is presumptively protective 

of all populations. When considering human health, the Agency regularly sets regulatory

standards of general applicability at levels that are protective of the most sensitive or most 

exposed population. Accordingly, 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 property 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 contractors 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 why the Agency has decided to eliminate the provision. In addition, EPA agrees 

that limited English proficiency or literacy is cause for concern. This is one more reason why 

relying on the disclosure rule is insufficient. 

Benefit and Costs

Comment: One commenter 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 

air, 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 Criteria 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. Lead toxicity is not exposure pathway

specific. In fact, the Criteria Document discusses adverse effects resulting from exposure to lead 
9

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 types 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 analysis of 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 only 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 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 

analysis of all the benefits of the rule, the Agency estimated 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 

property 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 staff 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 these 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 many 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 together so the public can better assess the cumulative impacts of the rules. The 

commenter states that by separating the actions into three rules, EPA is avoiding the 

accumulation of economic impacts.
10

Response: The Agency disagrees with this comment. There are many 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 not 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 costly without equivalent 

benefit and will stifle recovery in the already struggling remodeling industry. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency does not believe removing the optout is overly costly for firms. 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 such a modest cost increase will stifle economic 

recovery. 

With regard to benefits, EPA has 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 only 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 significantly increase because 

some states are requiring that houses must have an inspection performed before renovations 

begin.

Response: While authorized states may have different 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 says 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 costly testing before 

and after each renovation which will lead to expensive remediation and cleanup. 
11

Response: The RRP rule does not require firms to test 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. Specifically, minor maintenance activities as defined in 40 CFR 745.83 are 

not regulated by 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 by 

§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 days 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 Act (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 complied with the requirements of the RFA. 

The RFA states that agencies “may consider a series of closely 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 closely 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. 

Accordingly, EPA was not required to complete an IRFA or FRFA for this rule. Nonetheless, 

EPA exercised its discretion to complete an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) on 

this proposal, as well as a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) on the final rule. These 

robust analyses 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 has 
12

reconsidered some of same applicability and scope issues. The RRP Panel discussed all major 

aspects of the proposal 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 proposal 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 by 

the RRP Panel. EPA believes that reconvening the RRP Panel would be procedurally duplicative 

and is unnecessary given that the issues here were within the scope of those considered by the 

RRP Panel.

Exposure

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 increase when the RRP work practices are not followed. 

Comment: One commenter stated that he hasn’t seen any effects 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. 

Response: 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 renovator may not realize are 

associated with lead exposure, and those effects such as cardiovascular, immune system and 

renal effects and would not likely be “seen” by 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 would target the greatest source of lead. Other commenters 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 year later. These commenters believe that this 

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 confusion 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 areas 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 likely to have been painted with lead-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 interiors 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 testing 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 by an independent party. 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 practice 

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 decided 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 adequately address the risks of lead-based paint hazards to children 
14

older than five years 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 proximity

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 adversely 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-compliance by renovation firms. EPA agrees and 

believes that simplifying the applicability of the work practices will greatly 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 by 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 women of lead-based paint hazards. Although EPA 

specifically requested information or data that would shed any light on the reliability, 

effectiveness, or safety of these options in relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards, the Agency

did not receive any. The 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 should 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 part 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 necessarily be 

subject to the Disclosure Rule. 

Comment: One commenter states that firms should not be responsible for distributing the postrenovation information to parents of children at a child-occupied facility. The commenter 

believes that this should be the responsibility of the property 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 parents of children at child-occupied facilities. Firms will create the records and 

give a copy of them to the owners of the building. Accordingly, EPA will require firms to allow 

interested parents or guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied facility 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 postrenovation recordkeeping should be findable, informative and no less specific than other 

common area notification. 

Response: The rule requires signs to be posted where tenants are likely to see them. The 

information provided must contain the same information that firms are required to keep in their 

records which the Agency believes will be informative to residents and parents of children at 

child-occupied facilities.

Comment: One commenter states that the 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 renovation activities. Accordingly, 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 notice 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 commenter 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 verification 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 referred 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 by 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 days 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 employee 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 payment for the renovation. The commenter 

states that without this change the firm would have to generate a lot of documentation without 

being properly 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 requirement is to ensure that the information is delivered in a timely fashion. The 

burden on firms will be minimal, since the renovator will typically be delivering the checklist 

along with an invoice or other job-relate paperwork. The post-renovation information 

requirement would only 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 average 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 firms 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 copy of the information described above for enforcement purposes. Therefore, the postrenovation information requirement would only 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 minimal, since the renovator will typically 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 

loaded wage rate of $31.64 per hour, for an average cost of $1.58.

Delayed 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 commenters 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 

year 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 days 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, although 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 capacity 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 the 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 renovator certification. This commenter believes that encouraging firms to 

become certified earlier will help prevent a large number of applicants at the last minute, 

overwhelming the Agency.

Response: This issue is outside the scope of the proposal. Nevertheless, 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 course. 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 commenters. 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-hour 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 many 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 year 

to demonstrate that their programs include any 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 program 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 years. The commenter’s suggestion implies that 

States and 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 grossly underestimates the 

cost. Commenters made various claims about the cost of the rule per job, ranging from $296 to 

$10,815. 

Response:

EPA disagrees that it has underestimated the cost of the rule. EPA’s economic analysis 

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 vacuums, 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 plastic 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 sheeting 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; 

 Time 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 work 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 by 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 LRRP 

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 material. 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 probably an overestimate of the time needed for 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 blasting, 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 recommends the 
21

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 by the rule, but does not include the cost of equipment 

such as reciprocating saws and circular saws not required by the rule.

Similarly, EPA’s estimates do not include the cost for personal protective equipment such as 

disposable coveralls, Tyvek suits, respirators and masks (or the cost of getting workers medically

fitted for a respirator or mask), eye 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 by 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 this 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 

having a certified renovator on the job site at all times, because the rule does not require either of 

these. A certified renovator must be physically present at the work certain times (including when 

the signs are posted, while the work area containment is being established, and while the work 

area cleaning is performed); must perform the post-renovation cleaning verification; and must 

regularly direct the work being performed by uncertified persons. But the certified renovator is 

not required to be physically present at the work site at all times. (When a certified renovator is 

not physically present at the work site, the uncertified workers must be able to contact the 

renovator immediately 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, only 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 employee (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 variety of renovation types, sizes, and circumstances. For 

example, to analyze work practice costs in target housing, EPA collapsed dozens of different 

types of renovations into 17 categories of renovation events; estimated the number of renovation 
22

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 types (single family owner, single family rental, 

and multi-family rental); combined these with the different combinations of events types, 

resulting in thousands of combinations of renovation event categories, job sizes, and dwelling 

types; estimated the number of annual renovation events for each type 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 complying with the different components of the rule’s 

requirements, typically in 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 by 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 childoccupied facilities in public or commercial buildings. 

On the basis of this analysis, EPA estimated that the 2008 LRRP rule would affect 11.4 

million jobs per year. This represents the number of renovation jobs in target housing and childoccupied facilities that disturb 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 year, $407 million in the second year, and $404 million 

per year on an annualized basis.

The cost of $35 per job does not appear anywhere in EPA’s 512 page economic analysis 

of the 2008 lead rule. The $35 figure was generated after the economic analysis was completed, 

in order to communicate a simplified 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) by the 

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

$404 million cost per year by the 11.4 million jobs per year yields 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 what renovators are already 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 costs of the rule. EPA estimated that the 

social cost of the rule will be $758 million in the first year (when the largest number of 

renovators become trained and certified), nearly twice as much as the long run social cost of 

$404 million per year. Thus, even 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 only on those jobs that test 

positive for lead-based paint (sometimes referred to in industry 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 year covered by 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 analysis (and thus the $35 figure that was derived from it) estimates the 

average incremental social cost per job of compliance with the rule (work practices, training, and 

certification) for all jobs above the minor maintenance size threshold. It includes jobs with leadbased paint (LBP) and those without LBP (where the paint is tested for the presence of lead, but 

other work 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 typical 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 anything 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 by 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 by renovators, above and beyond what they were already 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 from 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 only 38% used a 

HEPA vacuum). 

Therefore, EPA estimated that the rule only creates incremental 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 plastic 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 renovators 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 in 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, EPA 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 only appropriate to assign the incremental 

costs beyond the baseline. Based on the data and analysis in the economic analysis for the 2008 

LRRP rule, EPA believes that its cost estimates appropriately 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 millions of jobs 

affected by the LRRP program, the firms likely 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 unlikely to write in to state 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, and 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 to 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. Many of them are also discussed in more 

detail elsewhere in this response to comments document.

(a) The rule overview accompanying the template incorrectly states that firm certification costs 

$300 and is valid for 3 years. However, the $300 firm certification is valid for 5 years, not 3 

years. Assuming that firms must become certified every 3 years overstates the cost of the 

rule.

(b) The rule overview accompanying the template advises that all workers should become 

certified renovators, which is not required by the rule. In reality, the rule requires that every 

project must have a certified renovator, and that certain activities must be performed by the 

certified renovator. The rule does not require all employees to become trained as certified 
25

renovators. Assuming that all workers must become certified renovators overstates the cost 

of the rule’s requirements.

(c) The rule overview accompanying 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 tools 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 accompanying 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 accompanying the template states 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. 

Furthermore, 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 this. Assuming that workers must wear disposable respirators, gloves, and 

coveralls overstates the cost of the rule’s requirements.

(g) The rule overview accompanying the template states that renovators should use wet sanders 

and misters to keep down the dust 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 accompanying the template states that renovators must enclose the work 

area with a dual layer of heavy plastic sheeting, and then replace the dusty and/or dirty layer 

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 dual 
26

layer of containment, or to replace the outer containment layer 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 renovators 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 home, and that their clothing 

should be washed separately from the rest of the family’s laundry. While EPA recommends 

the use of these hygiene practices to protect workers and their families, these practices are 

not required by 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 accompanying the template states that when the job is complete, the 

renovator should vacuum all surfaces, including 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 reclean as previously described if there is remaining dust or debris. For interior renovations, 

the RRP rule requires cleaning 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 overstates 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 rule 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 material 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., 

employee 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 commenters (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 assumptions about what equipment is needed to comply 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 by the commenters are discussed in more detail below.

Comment: Commenters made various claims about the cost per person for 8 hour training to 

become a certified renovator. Many 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. Some 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 claims ranging from $525 per employee to $890 per employee. 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 both 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 employee reimbursement for lunch, a 

beverage break, and personal mileage. 

Response: EPA believes 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 $150 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 analysis estimated 

that the average tuition cost for certified renovator training would be $186 per person for initial 

training, which is at the lower end of the tuition cost range claimed by the commenters. 

However, EPA used a total training cost for initial training averaging $562 per person (in 2005 

dollars) which represents 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 by 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; Living 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 claimed 
28

a cost of $3,000; J.J. Swartz Co, claimed a total cost of $9,000; Menold Construction, Thompson 

Building, 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 

employee training would not be a one-time cost, as they would have to get additional employees 

trained due to staff turnover.

Response: EPA believes that the total cost per firm for certified renovator training claimed by 

many of the commenters overstates the actual costs, and that these claims are not representative 

of the costs that typical 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 employees assumed to be trained. EPA 

believes that the costs claimed by some of the commenters overstate the average 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 copy of the 

initial and/or refresher training certificates onsite; using EPA-recognized test kits to identify

lead-based paint (if the remodeler does not assume that lead-based paint is present without 

testing); being physically present while posting signs, containing work areas, and cleaning work 

areas; being available by 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 analysis assumed that on average, there would be at least one certified 

renovator for every three workers receiving on-the-job training. (Because many firms have 

fewer than three employees, 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 many of the commenters did calculate total training costs by assuming that all of their 

employees 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 by the certified renovator, but it does not require all employees 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 requirements of the rule regarding certified renovator training, or whether 

they are voluntarily choosing to have all of their employees trained. But EPA does not think that 

it is appropriate for its economic analysis to assume that all employees of a firm receive certified 

renovator training. Furthermore, some of the commenters have many more employees than the 

average firm affected by the rule, so it is not surprising that such firms might have higher total 

costs than a typical firm in the industry. 
29

The number of employees 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 employee, 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 Magazine1, Bells’ Remodeling has two employees: 

Bob Bell, of Bell's Remodeling, in Duluth, Minn., has just two employees. “We do 

everything except electrical and plumbing,” he says. And Bell's does one job at a time, so 

the crew is always busy. He hasn't laid off anyone in 11 years. For Bell, scheduling jobs 

is part of a conscious effort to maintain a small company that's tight with 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 only 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 analysis assumes that 

some larger firms have multiple employees 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 says that Bell’s 

Remodeling only 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 from 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 employees become 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 employees are trained as certified 

renovators. For example, the $3,000 employee training cost for NCP Design/Build was based on 

10 employees receiving the formal 8 hour certified renovator training. According to the 

company’s web site, it has 11 full-time workers.2 Assuming the company has an office staff of 

at least one person, it appears that the $3,000 cost claimed for employee training is based on the 

cost of having all field employees trained.

Similarly, the $9,000 employee training cost claimed by J.J. Swartz Co. of BloomingtonNormal was based on 15 employees 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, 

March 2007. http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/subs-or-employees.aspx

2

http://www.ncpalaska.com/

3

“Second Look: Evelyn Yowell”, Remodeling magazine, September 2002, 

http://www.remodeling.hw.net/remodeling/second-look-evelyn-yowell.aspx
30

that the $9,000 cost claimed for employee training is based on the cost of having all field 

employees receive 8 hour certified renovator training. 

Likewise, Southwestern Remodeling derived its $20,400 cost claim on the revenue it says 

would be lost in order for all of the 34 field carpenters it employs to receive a day of training. 

And Thompson Building and Menold Construction both claimed a total cost of $19,950 for 

employee training, based on a cost of $525 per employee (including wages), which means each 

company assumed it would train 38 employees. The web site for Thompson Building4states that 

it has a field crew of over 30 skilled carpenters and an office support staff of nearly 20. An 

article in Remodeling magazine states that Menold Construction has 45 employees (some of 

whom are presumably 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 only 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 hours per job. On-the-job training is only required for workers who are 

not certified renovators. Certified renovator training takes 8 hours and is valid for 5 years. 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 onthe-job training takes some fraction of the 8 hours for certified renovator training, the 16 hours 

per job of on-the-job training claimed by the 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 why 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 workers would receive on-thejob 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 Representatives (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 trained 

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 anyway, 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.aspx
31

SER thought that a trained supervisor can instruct his or her employees on lead-safe practices.6 

EPA relied upon the R&R Panel 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 workers 

(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 employees will be trained as certified renovators, others clearly intend to have 

only a fraction of their employees trained as certified renovators. For example, Sutton Siding 

and Remodeling’s comments claim that total employee training costs will be $2,625. The 

comments do not indicate how many employees they assumed would be trained or the cost per 

person they assumed. But assuming they used a cost of $525 per employee (which is a cost per 

employee that several other commenters claimed, and is close to EPA’s estimate of $562 per 

employee) and back-calculating means that they would have assumed that 5 employees will be 

trained as certified renovators. According to a profile in Professional Remodeler magazine, 

Sutton Siding and Remodeling has 70 employees.7 This yields a much higher ration of workers 

with OJT 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 only some of a firm’s employees become trained as certified 

renovators, total training costs depend on the number of employees at the firm. Sutton Siding 

and Remodeling, which has 70 employees and performs 3,500 jobs a year, is not the only

commenter that is larger than the typical renovation firm subject to the rule. For example, 

Southwestern Remodeling employs 34 field carpenters (and describes itself as the largest 

remodeling firm in its immediate area), Menold Construction has 45 employees, Thompson 

Building has 50 employees, and J.J. Swartz Co. has at least 15 employees. By contrast, the 

majority of the renovation firms subject to the RRP rule are non-employers, where by definition 

only one person will become a certified renovator. Even among employer establishments, the 

average firm in the construction industry has 6.5 employees and the average residential

remodeler has 2.5 employees. Given how many employees some of the commenters have, it is 

not surprising that they might have higher total training costs than the typical 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 years (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 year, 17 percent of the renovators trained each year will be seeking their initial 

certification. This is equivalent to a staff turnover of 17 percent a year. (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 Review 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.asp
32

In summary, many of the commenters have based their training cost claims on the 

assumption that every employee 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 SBAR Panel, EPA believes that many 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 employees. Thus, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to base cost estimates on the 

assumption that every employee will receive formal 8 hour certified renovator training. Also, 

some of the commenters are much larger than the typical firm covered by the LRRP rule, so their 

training costs are obviously not reflective of the average firm. Therefore, EPA believes that 

many of the commenters’ claims overstate the total cost for a typical 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 analysis 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 disagrees 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 training. 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 retrained on those requirements for every

job. Yet many of the commenters appear to be assuming that all of their employees both (a) 

become certified renovators and (b) receive a significant amount of OJT on every job. 

EPA believes that many 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 accompanying the template for commenting on the proposed rule that was 

circulated to some remodelers advises 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 

field 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 requirements 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 be 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 a 
33

significant overestimate 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 years. 

For example, Bells’ Remodeling has 2 employees 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 

employees 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 OJT 

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 workers 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 labor 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 Remodeling, 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 Remodeling 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 employees 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 employees than OJT, since the certified renovator 

training is valid for 5 years. Even assuming complete annual employee turnover (i.e., all 

employees left the firm every year), then the firm would only need to perform two regulated 

renovations a year (out of the 50 total renovations it performs each year) in order to break even 

between having the two employees trained as certified renovators and the 4 hours per person per 

job OJT implied by its comment.8 (In both scenarios, each employee would receive 8 hours of 

training, although in one case it would be formal training and in the other it would be informal 

training.) Even if there was 100% annual staff turnover, if the firm did three regulated 

renovations a year, it appears to be cheaper to have both employees trained as certified 

renovators rather than incurring the OJT costs that Bell’s Remodeling has claimed. If the 

workers stayed with the firm for more than one year, then the cost of certified renovator training 

is less than the OJT cost claimed by Bell’s Remodeling if the firm does only one regulated 

renovation per year. 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 employees 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 need any 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 employees rather than OJT. Yet these firms 

appear to have based their cost 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 many of the commenters’ claims about the number of hours per job required for 

OJT, as well as the assumption that OJT must be provided repeatedly for every job. The OJT 

must cover the work practices required by 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 thoroughly cleaning up the jobsite. These practices are easily 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 regularly directs the work on-site and if off-site must be available by phone or other 

mechanism.) 

When a certified renovator is providing OJT to a worker, the rule only requires the 

renovator to discuss elements directly related to the work preformed by 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 installing 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 typical 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 in 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 

believes 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 Remodeling 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 above, 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 

years time the commenter’s OJT claim would be equivalent to a total of 200 hours, compared to 

8 hours for certified renovator training. If the worker performed 10 covered jobs per year, the 

comparison would be a total of 2,000 hours claimed for OJT over 5 years 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 employee has been with the company for 10 

years, and that some employees have been with the company for 20 years.9 EPA believes this 

commenter has clearly overstated the cost of OJT.

EPA believes that commenters have overstated the time required to provide OJT to a 

worker, have incorrectly 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 comply 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 commenter (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 for firm certification 

and head installer certification.

Response: EPA agrees that the fee for certifying a non-tribal renovation firm for 5 years 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 firm 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 estimated that these activities would cost a 

typical 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 by these commenters is relatively close to EPA’s 

estimate, especially 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 associated 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 year (Ramtra Management 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 provided, several insurance firms cited typical premiums ranging from $60,000 to 

$70,000 for the minimum insurance offered (typically $1million)+.’” 

Response: EPA’s economic analysis does not include insurance as a compliance cost. 

Insurance is a method to 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 require 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 analysis estimates the incremental social cost of complying with the 

rule, and the rule does not require firms to buy insurance. Furthermore, EPA does not believe 

that insurance should be counted as a social cost of the rule. Insurance premiums are largely a 

transfer of money between different parties and not a social cost. Insurance shifts the 

distribution of resources needed to pay for the damages caused by exposure to lead dust. It 

spreads a smaller share of the expense over a larger pool of people. Renovators disturbed leadbased paint without the RRP rule in place and thus already had a potential liability. By contrast, 

renovators who adhere to the work practices required by the rule will decrease the lead exposures 

created by their work, creating real social benefits. To the extent that this regulation establishes 

a “standard of care” for the industry, contractors who follow the requirements 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 by a comment by 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 by 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 primarily addresses public housing and owners of rental properties. 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 report does also mention that abatement 

contractors had difficulty obtaining insurance, and again indicates that this was due to the lack of 

abatement standards. The GAO report states that “Without such standards, the property 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 generally not available for small, inexperienced lead abatement 

contractors. However, the availability of coverage for lead hazards 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 availability of insurance... 

During the 1980s, insurance for asbestos contractors was generally unavailable, but it 

became more obtainable after federal abatement standards were developed. The 

regulations issued under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 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 increase 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 obtain 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 readily 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 System Solutions both claimed a cost of 
38

$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 claimed 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 

types of equipment assumed to be purchased, whether the claim assumes multiple pieces of 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 tools, 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 through 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 are 

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 by 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 by 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 any evidence that the equipment needed to comply with the 

rule needs maintenance, repairs, or replacement more frequently than equipment that does not 

comply with the rule. Therefore, these expenses for compliant equipment would presumably be 

offset by the savings for avoided maintenance, repairs, 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, EPA 
39

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 shrouded sander are similar to the costs claimed by Robert Hanbury for this equipment, 

particularly 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 not believe that 

renovators will typically use such tools in a manner covered by 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 costs for equipment (such as shrouded 

Sawzalls and shrouded Skil saws) that is not needed in order to comply with the rule. These 

commenters would have thus overstated the cost of compliance with the rule. 

The total equipment cost per firm to comply with the rule will vary from firm to firm 

depending on factors such as the number of employees, the number of regulated jobs, the type of 

jobs, and how they are carried out (i.e., whether they use machines that remove paint through 

high speed operations subject 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). Obviously, 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 

employees). 

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 employees 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 costs needed to comply with the rule in the same way that Robert 

Hanbury did (by including the costs for HEPA compatible equipment that is not required by the 

rule). And given the large number of firms in the industry with few or no employees, EPA does 

not believe that the typical 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 many of the commenters 

have overstated the cost of the rule by making incorrect assumptions about the equipment 

required to comply with the rule.

Comment: The commenters made various claims about compliance costs for activities requiring 

labor. The range of labor costs claimed by the commenters varied from as little as $10/hour 
40

(AWS Remodeling and Design, and Singer Kitchens) to as much as $135/hour (Design 

Construction Concepts). For example, Roskelly Group and JL Exteriors both claimed labor costs 

of $20/hour, 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 labor 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, and Fulton Construction claimed costs 

of $125/hour. 

Response: The hourly labor costs claimed by the commenters at the high end significantly 

exceed the average wages and benefits for the industry according to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS). Many of the commenters appear to have calculated labor costs in a manner that 

overstates the hourly cost of labor. This affects the costs claimed by the commenters for many 

different cost categories, including certified renovator training, on-the-job training, containment, 

cleaning, and cleaning verification.

EPA’s economic analysis estimated the cost of the 2008 RRP rule based wage data from 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment 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 

Extraction 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 (Occupation 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 fully 

loaded wage rate for a renovator in 2008 was $34.92/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 one of my carpenters produces $3,000.00 worth of 

revenue for my company. So if my company lost revenue produced by each one 

of my 34 field carpenters for 1 day out of the year I would lose roughly 

$20,400.00 worth of generated revenue to training alone.10

The $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 employees’ time, a firm must use the revenues a worker brings in to pay for a variety 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, supplies, and equipment either. The social cost of the rule is 

better represented by the loaded wage rates in the industry (as represented by the BLS data) than 

by the firms’ hourly revenue.

The difference between the hourly labor costs claimed by the commenters, 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 by 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 magazine12 described 

Sutton’s labor costs as follows:

Labor burden is a key element to job costing. Sutton Siding and Remodeling has a 

relatively high labor burden compared with that of a one- or two-person operation 

or specialty trade contractor. The company includes a comprehensive list of costs 

in labor burden besides the actual wages paid to employees: federal taxes, 

workers’ compensation insurance, health insurance, life and disability insurance, 

retirement, profit sharing, vacations and holidays, sick days, and paid days off.

Last year these combined expenses constituted more than half of the company’s 

labor costs. During annual reviews with employees, Sutton management explains 

labor burden to them. "An employee may be paid $15 an hour, but he’s really

getting the equivalent of $26.50," Sutton says. "You have to offer that kind of 

compensation to keep good people. We’re competing with the unions. Our wage 

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 typical of the industry, the $26.50/hour 

mentioned in the article is in line with the BLS data on loaded wage rates. 

EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to 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 BLS, this would 

suggest a very high profit 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 residential 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.asp
42

incremental time requirements to comply with the rule will be relatively small for the typical 

firm in the industry, the Agency does not believe that following the rule’s requirements will 

significantly change the number of jobs that a typical 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 estimates and the cost claims made by the commenters 

account for labor costs separately 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 Eagle 

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 typical 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 work 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 plastic 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 any information on 

the cost they were assuming per square foot of plastic. EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 2008 

rule used a price of $0.06 per square foot for 6 millimeter polyethylene 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 costs 

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 used, 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 $0.047 to $0.06 per square foot, a total plastic cost of $45 (claimed by J.J. 

Swartz Co.) is equivalent to 750 to 957 square feet of plastic. A total plastic cost of $100 

(claimed by Bell’s Remodeling) is equivalent to 1,667 to 2,128 square feet of plastic, and a total 

cost of $175 (claimed by 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 by the commenters indicates 

that some of them may be referring to relatively 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 typical job sizes for these commenters.13 However, many jobs will require less area 

to be contained 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 undergoing renovation, and not 

using any 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 covered 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 typical job covered by the rule.14 

(3) How the plastic is used. The rule overview accompanying 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 heavy plastic sheeting, and then on a daily basis replace the dusty 

and/or dirty layer of plastic sheeting. The rule requires the work area to be contained, but it does 

not require renovators to use of a dual layer of containment, or to replace the outer containment 

layer on a daily basis. Assuming that renovators must use a double layer of plastic and replace 

the top layer 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 analysis 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 

anything 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 contractors. 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 what 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 construction.

14 To the extent that commenters based their cost estimates on very large job sizes, this also led to an upward 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 incremental 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 (100%-

63%)) where renovators were already using disposable plastic before the rule. 

There are also indications that the increase in labor required to use lead-safe work 

practices is largely 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, my safety goes up, and I wind up costing approximately the same thing but 

maybe four or five percent more, maybe 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.”

Commenters 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 significant 

amounts on time on containment and cleaning in the baseline, and that relatively little additional 

time is typically required to follow the rule’s work practices. Yet none of the commenters 

mention their baseline containment or cleaning practices, or make any 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 additional 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 that 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 fail to mention any of the savings they 

would 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. Similarly, his comments his comments claim costs for purchasing buckets, sponges, and 

mops, 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 other 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 removing the opt-out 

provision would save the paperwork and recordkeeping burden involved with having the opt-out form signed by the 

customer. Although these paperwork savings are small compared to the cost of complying with the LRRP work 

practice requirements, some 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. If their 
45

extent that the cost claims made by the commenters ignored baseline work practices, they 

overstated the incremental cost of complying with the rule’s requirements.

As described above, various commenters may have: assumed the use of a double layer of 

plastic and daily replacement of the top layer, which is not required by the rule; assumed a large 

job size not representative of the typical job size regulated by the rule; and may not be 

accounting 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 values for the incremental 

cost of plastic for typical 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 containment, 

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 comply with the rule’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 daily basis, nor does it require daily 

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 may 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 to be based on relatively large jobs that are 

not representative of all jobs covered by 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 by 

the commenters about the labor costs per job for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification 

significantly overstate the additional cost for a typical 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 additions and everything 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 significant 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 

went 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 any individual job. 

Still, the labor hours predicted 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 footage 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. polyethylene). 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 comparable to those provided by many of 

these commenters. In a number of cases, the labor hours claimed by the commenter falls within 

the range estimated by EPA for this size of job. The remaining comments are split between 

cases where EPA’s estimates exceed the labor hours claimed by commenter, and cases where the 

labor hours claimed by 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 outliers 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 larger than the claims made by 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 significantly exceed not only EPA’s 

estimate but the claims made by 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 typical 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 cleaning 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 14 
47

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 apparently similar commenters, EPA does not 

find the commenter’s claim to be a credible estimate of the time needed for a typical 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 Analysis 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 to 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 

Hanbury

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 commenters 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 containment 

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 CFR 745.85(a)(5) only require the work area to be 
49

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 understand 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 represent 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 many 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 rule’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 

containment and cleaning work practice requirements is only a fraction of the total cost of these 

activities.

(3) The labor rates used by many of the commenters are not representative of actual hourly wage 

costs. As described elsewhere in this response to comments document, typical wage rates in the 

industry are significantly lower than the hourly costs reported by many commenters, who appear 

to have reported the revenues per hour generated by their employees, 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 relatively large jobs. Many of the jobs covered by the rule can 

be much smaller than the job sizes these commenters may have used to develop their cost claims.

(5) The comments do not appear to reflect any of the methods that can be used to reduce the time 

and cost need to comply with the rule’s work practices. For example, pre-engineered 

containment systems (purchased or home-made) are very helpful in cutting 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 system claims that a three-sided plastic dust barrier 

can be installed by 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 ways 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 job 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 job. Thus, it is claiming that the typical exterior job will cost $465 to $1,115 per 

job more than the typical 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 typical exterior job would cost more than this. 

Other commenters provided a total cost claim in their comments that did not differentiate 

between interior and exterior jobs, despite the fact that they appear to perform both types 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 system) 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 relatively few exterior jobs will use such vertical containment. 

(Although EPA’s economic analysis 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 any indication of what other factors 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 

issue 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 from the labor and materials costs per job they claim, particularly 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 to $775. But it 

also stated that the total cost of compliance for labor and materials will be $1,205 per job, which 
51

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 difficult 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 commenters 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 

be, 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 by 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 non-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 commenters 

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 by the rule. 

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

Many commenters mentioned tape, disposable coveralls or Tyvek 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, and for purchasing eye wear, 

painters’ hats, and gloves. Commenters also mentioned other items such as garbage bags, tack 

pads, foot booties, baby 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 by the LRRP rule with those 
52

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 only 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 equipment not required by the LRRP rule, such as disposable 

coveralls, Tyvek suits, respirators and masks (including getting workers medically fitted for a 

respirator or mask), eye wear, painters’ hats, and gloves. 

EPA’s estimates do include costs for materials 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 waste 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 type of work being 

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 the 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 percent mark-up. 

Response: The mark-up and any sales tax are not part of EPA’s cost analysis because EPA 

estimated the cost of the rule to society, not the price that contractors charge their customers. In 

addition, in the context of a benefit-cost analysis, 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/setup/take down 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 need 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 containment 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 feet 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 sheeting extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a 

sufficient distance to collect falling debris, whichever is greater, unless the property line prevents 

10 feet of such covering; and (4) in certain situations, the renovation firm must take extra 
53

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 property or migrate to adjacent properties.

The commenter is assuming that firms will need to adopt the extra precautions mentioned 

in step 4 for all exterior renovations, and that is not the case. In many 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 blow 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 adjacent 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 other support at the 

property 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 containment 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 only 

incur incremental costs 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 than 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-family 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 estimated 

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 only 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 commenter 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 typical exterior renovation. 
54

Finally, the commenter’s claim that there is an industry standard markup of 50% over 

direct costs is not relevant to EPA’s cost analysis. EPA estimated the cost of the rule to society, 

not the price that contractors charge their customers.

Comment: A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that the rule will 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. Locking the dumpster and placing it behind a 

locked barrier are good examples of ways 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 any 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 any 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 to in the rule is the renovation firm, not a third party 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. However, the renovator can 

transport the waste to a landfill himself if it is contained, for example in a garbage bag. But the 

rule already requires the waste to be contained before it is removed from the work area, and EPA 

has already accounted for the materials 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 and 
55

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 by the commenter are not requirements of the 

rule. Therefore, 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 “disturbed” 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 carefully, 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 types of jobs he performs, but it does not represent the typical job covered by the 

RRP rule. For example, there are many smaller repair jobs that may only involve removing a 

section of drywall or plaster, where a single test will need to be performed. EPA assumed that an 

average of 4 tests would be performed per job. EPA believes that this is a reasonable estimate 

for a typical 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 economic analysis 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 LeadCheck ® kit (manufactured by Hybrivet Systems) and the State of 

Massachusetts 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 

believes 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 job. This is 

not significantly 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. Finally, EPA has explained elsewhere in this response to comments document why the 

labor rate claimed by 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 economic analysis 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 than 

the commenter has claimed. EPA has explained elsewhere in this response to comments 

document why the labor rate claimed by the commenter overstates hourly costs. The rule does 

not require the renovator to labor and store the cleaning verification cloths. EPA disagrees that 

recordkeeping for the rule’s cleaning verification requirements will typically require 0.33 hours 

per job. Finally, the recordkeeping costs for cleaning verification are already accounted for in 

the checklist costs, and it would double-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 

materials 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 typical 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 that 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 readily be maintained along with other records that the firm is already keeping. 

Therefore, 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 of 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 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.
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 

includes 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 how 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 form 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 completing its check list will typically 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 copy 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 copy of the same 

form to the owner and occupant. The only additional cost the firm would need to incur would be 

for copying and delivery. 

Comment: 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 days 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 typically 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.

Comment: 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.

Response: 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

also 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 allowed 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 additional costs for waste disposal.

Comment: A commenter (Beatch Construction) states that “To comply with the current rule is 

enough. Most of my 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 typical 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 program, 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 unduly burdensome renovation 

firms and homeowners. According to the commenter, “In this opt-out rulemaking alone, EPA 

finds that the 75,000 non-employer impacts (mostly single employee 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 costly 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 by imposing unnecessarily costly 

requirements.”

Response: The commenter cites the small business impacts in EPA’s economic analysis 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 any costs on to their customers, there cannot be any 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 to 
59

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

simultaneously claiming 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 analysis, EPA’s original OMB submission contained no benefits estimates. 

The agency frankly acknowledges that its attempt at estimating benefits was ‘crude’. The 

estimates are, therefore, extremely speculative, at best.” 

Response: The commenter’s reference to the draft Economic Analysis that EPA submitted to 

OMB is curious, given that the proposal is supported by the final version of that document 

referenced in the preamble, and 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 offer a lower price by ignoring the requirements of 

EPA’s lead rule. Such unlicensed operators can also lower their costs by 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 

competitors 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.

Miscellaneous

Comment: Two commenters 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. However, EPA can not provide financial assistance to firms or individuals. EPA is 

required by TSCA to collect fees to recover the costs of implementing the renovation program. 

Further, EPA does not currently have funding to subsidize renovator training courses.

Comment: One 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 would 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 rulemakings.

Comment: One commenter stated that the RRP rule 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 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). 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 professional 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 beyond the changes proposed. The issue 

of whether renovation activities create lead-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 dust that create dust-lead hazards. 

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should increase its efforts to make contractors and 

property owners aware of the rule. Another commenter asserts that EPA’s efforts to raise public 

awareness have been inadequate 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 know 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 courses, 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, 

property 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. EPA is working closely 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 Agency 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. Nevertheless, 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 resulted 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 disposable 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 plastic materials.

Comment: One commenter 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 always 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.