*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 1 of 37

1 EO 12866 Review Draft of 02/19/2010 

2 

3 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

5 40 CFR Part 745

6 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–XXXX–X]

7 RIN 2070–AJ55

8 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, 

9 Repair, and Painting Program

10 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

11 ACTION: Final rule. 

12 SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

13 Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule 

14 established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 

15 practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 

16 housing and child-occupied facilities. In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” 

17 provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice 

18 requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he 

19 or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is 

20 not a child-occupied facility. EPA is also requiring renovation firms to provide a copy of the 

21 records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP 

22 rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of 

23 the child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes minor changes to the certification, 

24 accreditation and state authorization requirements. 

25 DATES: This final rule is effective [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal 

26 Register]. 

27 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 

28 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 

29 available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not 

30 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

31 disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 

32 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available 

33 docket materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

34 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 

35 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

36 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

37 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 

38 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 

39 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 2 of 37

40 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 

41 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 

42 the building and returned upon departure. 

43 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

44 

45 For general information contact: Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental 

46 Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

47 Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

48 number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

49 For technical information contact: Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals 

50 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

51 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–0758; e52 mail address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov. 

53 Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through TTY 

54 by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

55 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

56 

57 I. General Information 

58 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

59 You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required 

60 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who must be certified to conduct 

61 renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.89, or if you are an individual who must be 

62 certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. 

63 This final rule applies only in States, Territories, and Indian Tribal areas that do not have 

64 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the 

65 authorization status of States, Territories, and Indian Tribes, contact the National Lead 

66 Information Center (NLIC) at 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech-challenged 

67 individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 

68 1–800–877–8339. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: 

69 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, multi70 family housing construction, residential remodelers. 

71 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 

72 contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 

73 contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 

74 glass and glazing contractors. 

75 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 

76 residential property managers. 

77 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 3 of 37

78 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 

79 kindergarten classrooms. 

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

81 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS code 

82 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 

83 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors engaged in 

84 lead-based paint activities. 

85 This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

86 regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 

87 could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 

88 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 

89 certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you 

90 should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 

91 CFR 745.226. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 

92 entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

93 CONTACT. 

94 II. Background 

95 A. Agency's Authority for Taking this Action 

96 This final rule is being issued under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act 

97 (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 

98 B. Introduction 

99 In the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008, under the authority of sections 

100 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). The final RRP 

101 rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses lead-based paint hazards 

102 created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted surfaces in target 

103 housing and child-occupied facilities. 

104 Shortly after the RRP rule was published, several petitions were filed challenging the 

105 rule. These petitions were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 

106 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and 

107 children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. In this agreement EPA 

108 committed to propose several changes to the RRP rule, including the changes discussed in this 

109 document regarding the opt-out provision and recordkeeping requirements. 

110 The RRP rule establishes requirements for training renovators, other renovation workers, 

111 and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 

112 renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training; 

113 for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian 

114 Tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of 

115 the new renovation requirements. More information on the RRP rule may be found in the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 4 of 37

116 Federal Register document announcing the RRP rule or on EPA's website at 

117 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm. 

118 Many provisions of the RRP rule were derived from the existing lead-based paint 

119 activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). These existing regulations were 

120 promulgated in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), which defines lead-based paint activities in 

121 target housing as inspections, risk assessments, and abatements. The 1996 regulations cover 

122 lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities, along with limited 

123 screening activities called lead hazard screens. These regulations established an accreditation 

124 program for training providers and a certification program for individuals and firms performing 

125 these activities. Training course accreditation and individual certification was made available in 

126 five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abatement supervisor, and abatement 

127 worker. In addition, these lead-based paint activities regulations established work practice 

128 standards and recordkeeping requirements for lead-based paint activities in target housing and 

129 child-occupied facilities. 

130 The RRP rule created two new training disciplines in the field of lead-based paint: 

131 Renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who successfully complete renovator training 

132 from an accredited training provider are certified renovators. Certified renovators are 

133 responsible for ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are performed in compliance 

134 with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 745.85. Persons who successfully 

135 complete dust sampling technician training from an accredited training provider are certified dust 

136 sampling technicians. Certified dust sampling technicians may be called upon to collect dust 

137 samples after renovation activities have been completed. 

138 The RRP rule contains a number of work practice requirements that must be followed for 

139 every covered renovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. These requirements 

140 pertain to warning signs and work area containment, the restriction or prohibition of certain 

141 practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power planing), waste handling, cleaning, 

142 and post-renovation cleaning verification. The firm must ensure compliance with these work 

143 practices. Although the certified renovator is not required to be on-site at all times, while the 

144 renovation project is ongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work 

145 being performed by other workers to ensure that the work practices are being followed. 

146 

147 C. Opt-out Provision 

148 The RRP rule included a provision that exempts a renovation firm from the training and 

149 work practice requirements of the rule when the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a 

150 residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home 

151 and the home is not a child-occupied facility. Unless the target housing meets the definition of a 

152 child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child under age 6 and no 

153 pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will not be 

154 required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA’s RRP rule, the renovation activity 

155 is not subject to the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the rule. 

156 Conversely, if the owner-occupant does not sign the certification and acknowledgement for any 

157 reason (even if no children under age 6 or no pregnant women reside there), the renovation is 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 5 of 37

158 subject to the requirements of the RRP rule. 

159 Even though the Agency included the opt-out provision in the final RRP rule, EPA 

160 recognized that the opt-out presented concerns for exposure to children under age 6. 

161 Nonetheless, EPA explained that it believed it should focus the rule on scenarios with the 

162 greatest exposure to children under age 6, that concerns for new homeowners would be mitigated 

163 to some extent by the requirements of the “Disclosure Rule”, and that older children and adults 

164 did not ingest lead-dust at as high a rate a toddlers and therefore high dust lead levels present a 

165 much greater risk to a young child than they do for an older child or adult. After promulgation, 

166 the rule, and specifically the opt-out provision, was challenged. As part of a settlement 

167 agreement, EPA agreed to propose removing the opt-out provision. 

168 On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to remove the opt-out provision. For the reasons 

169 discussed in this Unit, the Agency has now concluded that it is important to require the RRP 

170 work practices and training and certification requirements in target housing even if there is no 

171 child under age 6 or pregnant woman residing there. By removing the opt-out provision, the rule 

172 will go farther toward protecting children under age 6 and pregnant women, as well as older 

173 children and adult occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman 

174 resides. Therefore, the opt-out provision will no longer be available to owner-occupants 

175 beginning on the effective date of this final rule. 

176 EPA believes the opt-out provision is not sufficiently protective for children under age 6 

177 and pregnant women, the most vulnerable populations identified in the RRP rule. As pointed out 

178 by a number of commenters on the RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not protect families with 

179 young children who may purchase recently renovated target housing. Removal of the opt-out 

180 will result in fewer homes being purchased with lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and 

181 painting activities. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out provision was limited to owner-occupied 

182 target housing and did not extend to vacant rental housing because of the concern that future 

183 tenants could unknowingly move into a rental unit where dust-lead hazards created by the 

184 renovation are present. In the same way, dust-lead hazards created during renovations in an 

185 owner-occupied residence conducted prior to a sale will be present for the next occupants. It is 

186 common for home owners to hire contractors to perform activities that disturb paint before 

187 selling a house, thus increasing the likelihood of lead hazards being present for someone buying 

188 a home, which may include a family with a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman. 

189 In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA explained that it believed the Disclosure Rule, 40 

190 CFR part 745, subpart F (required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based 

191 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–550), would help to address these 

192 concerns. The Disclosure Rule requires sellers of target housing to disclose known lead-based 

193 paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers and provide them with a copy of the 

194 lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 

195 14). EPA explained the receipt of this information could prompt the family to inquire about 

196 potential lead-based paint hazards in the home. In addition, EPA recommended that purchasers 

197 take advantage of their statutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk 

198 assessment done while in the process of purchasing target housing. 

199 

200 In supporting the proposal to remove the opt-out provision, one commenter disagreed that 

201 the Disclosure Rule adequately addresses the risks to subsequent owners of target housing that 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 6 of 37

202 undergo renovations under the opt-out provision. In particular, this commenter pointed out that 

203 there is nothing in the Disclosure Rule to alert homeowners to the fact that RRP work practice 

204 requirements were not followed before they purchased the home. Indeed, the Disclosure Rule only 

205 requires disclosure of known hazards. It would not require disclosure of renovation activities or that 

206 the owner opted out of the RRP rule requirements. The commenter further states that it is 

207 unreasonable to assume that a typical homeowner or someone renting a previously owner-occupied 

208 dwelling would know the detailed exemptions on the RRP rule. 

209 

210 The Agency continues to believe that the Disclosure Rule provides valuable information 

211 to homeowners and that this information may help homeowners become aware of lead hazards. 

212 However, EPA’s study on the Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 

213 and Painting Activities (the “Dust Study”, Ref. 11), demonstrated that renovation, repair, and 

214 painting activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The study 

215 also showed that the RRP work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to dust hazards 

216 that could result from renovation activities. As the commenter pointed out, the Disclosure Rule 

217 will not, in many cases, provide the type of renovation specific lead hazard information or 

218 provide recipients information that can be said to reliably or effectively result in minimizing 

219 exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities. Thus, there is little 

220 evidence to suggest that the provisions of the Disclosure Rule are effective or reliable at 

221 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities in target 

222 housing. In addition, even if the Disclosure Rule reliably disclosed relevant information relating 

223 to earlier renovation activities, EPA does not believe this would be an adequate substitute for the 

224 work practice standards, which EPA has a record basis to conclude actually result in elimination 

225 – rather than simply disclosure -- of the hazards created by renovations. 

226 

227 

228 Perhaps in recognition of this shortcoming, one commenter suggested that EPA should 

229 revise the Disclosure Rule, as opposed to making changes to the RRP rule. That would not, 

230 however, satisfy EPA’s obligation under section 402 to put into place standards that take into 

231 account reliability, effectiveness, and safety to address lead-based paint hazards created by 

232 renovation activities in target housing. Moreover, the Disclosure Rule was jointly promulgated 

233 by EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thus, changes would involve 

234 a joint rulemaking effort and are not wholly within EPA’s control. Furthermore, changes to the 

235 Disclosure Rule would need to be analyzed in the context of the underlying statute—not just 

236 because it might be helpful in the context of actions taken by EPA under a different statutory 

237 provision. In short, while this is a suggestion that may be worth pursuing, it does not address the 

238 present issue; that of reliably and effectively minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

239 created by renovation activities. 

240 

241 Furthermore, EPA is concerned about the effectiveness of disclosure with respect to 

242 populations with the highest risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Non-Hispanic black 

243 children and children from low-income families have an increased risk of exposure to harmful 

244 lead levels. Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data 

245 show that overall the incidence of elevated blood lead levels have decreased for all groups 

246 assessed. However, the geometric mean blood lead level was significantly higher for non247 Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 7 of 37

248 whites (1.7 μg/dL). For children aged 1-5 years from families with low income, the geometric 

249 mean blood lead level was 2.5 μg/dL. Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 

250 10 ug/dL and greater than or equal to 5ug/dL were higher for non-hispanic blacks (14% and 

251 3.4% respectively) than for Mexican Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic 

252 whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively). (Ref. 3). EPA is concerned that disclosure may be 

253 ineffective with respect to these populations already at higher risk of having elevated blood lead 

254 levels because the effectiveness of disclosure depends on the recipient’s understanding the 

255 significance of the disclosure and having the means and ability to act upon the information. 

256 This also relates to practical issues that have implications for the RRP rule in general, and 

257 for high risk, low-income, minority populations in particular. The opt-out is a relatively 

258 complicated overlay to the applicability provisions of the rule. EPA believes there are practical 

259 benefits to removing the opt-out and simplifying the applicability of the rule—both for 

260 renovators and homeowners. The opt-out provision complicates the outreach and education 

261 about lead hazards and makes the rule more complicated for renovators to apply and consumers 

262 to understand. Furthermore, it not only assumes literacy but also a working knowledge of what 

263 the rule would otherwise require and an ability to provide informed consent. Accordingly, EPA 

264 believes that populations that already have the highest risk factors for lead exposure may be 

265 disproportionately adversely affected by the complexity of a rule that contains the opt-out 

266 provision. More generally, EPA believes that the more uniform the application of the rule work 

267 practices in target housing is, the more effective and reliable they will be at minimizing exposure 

268 to lead-based paint hazards. Contractors who have a single set of work practices that are to be 

269 applied in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities will be more likely to apply them 

270 consistently and correctly. 

271 Renovations performed under the opt-out provision are also likely to result in exposures 

272 for vulnerable populations in other ways. Visiting children who do not spend enough time in the 

273 housing to render it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead from playing 

274 in dust-lead hazards created by renovations. For example, children may spend time in the homes 

275 of grandparents, but those homes may be eligible for the opt-out provision of the RRP rule. A 

276 homeowner who signs an opt-out statement may not realize that she is pregnant. For example, 

277 “A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse” describes 

278 four cases of childhood lead poisoning and two cases of adult lead toxicity resulting from a 

279 renovation. One of the adults was a woman who did not realize she was pregnant until after the 

280 exposure occurred. (Ref. 16) 

281 Eliminating the opt-out provision will also protect families with young children residing 

282 near or adjacent to homes undergoing renovations. Under the RRP rule, an owner occupant can 

283 take advantage of the opt-out provision even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman lives in 

284 an adjacent home. Renovations on the exterior of a residence can spread leaded dust and debris 

285 some distance from the renovation activity, which is why, for regulated renovations, EPA 

286 requires renovation firms to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

287 material a distance of 10 feet from the renovation and take extra precautions when in certain 

288 situations to ensure that dust and debris does not contaminate other buildings or other areas of 

289 the property or migrate to adjacent properties. One commenter cited a study that shows housing 

290 in urban areas, such as Chicago, tend to be only three to five meters apart, highlighting the 

291 likelihood of lead contamination of adjacent prosperities in urban neighborhoods. Similarly, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 8 of 37

292 another commenter stated that in urban communities, many if not most of the homes are side by 

293 side. There are approximately 2 million owner-occupied, single-family attached homes (e.g., 

294 townhomes, semi-detached or duplex homes) built before 1978. Renovations on the exteriors of 

295 these homes are likely to contaminate neighboring yards and porches resulting in exposure 

296 outside the house as well as inside because dust can be tracked into the home. Many more 

297 owner-occupied, single-family detached homes are located in close proximity to each other, and 

298 renovations performed under the opt-out provision present a similar risk for these homes. 

299 Another factor that EPA did not fully consider in promulgating the original RRP rule, but that 

300 weighs heavily against the opt-out provision, is that the risks posed by the opt-out with respect to 

301 exterior work will disproportionally affect children that are already at the highest risk for higher 

302 blood lead levels—low income, non-Hispanic black children living in older housing in urban 

303 areas, which is likely to be comprised of attached, or closely constructed detached, homes. 

304 While the RRP rule focused principally on protecting children under age 6, it is well 

305 known that older children and adults can also suffer adverse effects from lead exposure. Adults 

306 are susceptible to lead effects at lower blood lead levels than previously understood (e.g., Ref 13, 

307 p. 8– 25). Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead 

308 exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood 

309 pressure and incidence of hypertension. A meta-analysis of numerous studies estimates that a 

310 doubling of blood-Lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase 

311 in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. The evidence for an 

312 association of lead with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is limited but supportive. (Ref 

313 13, p E-10). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6 and 8 of EPA’s Air Quality 

314 Criteria Document for Lead (Ref 13), “neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovascular effects 

315 in adults are among those best substantiated as occurring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 

316 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public 

317 health concern’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–60). With regard to blood lead levels in individual children 

318 associated with particular neurological effects, the Criteria Document states “Collectively, the 

319 prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies offer evidence that exposure to lead affects the 

320 intellectual attainment of preschool and school age children at blood lead levels <10 μg/dL (most 

321 clearly in the 5 to 10 μg/dL range, but, less definitively, possibly lower).” (Ref. 13, p. 6–269). 

322 Epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead exposure and 

323 enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and 

324 incidence of hypertension. As one commenter pointed out, the half-life of lead in bone is 

325 approximately 20 years. Thus, women of child-bearing age exposed to lead will retain higher 

326 levels of lead in their bodies throughout their child-bearing years. When pregnancy occurs, lead 

327 can be transferred to the fetus causing an array of adverse effects. EPA now believes the opt-out 

328 provision does not sufficiently account for the importance of the health effects of lead exposure 

329 to adults and children age 6 and older by allowing renovations to be performed without 

330 following the RRP rule requirements in housing that qualified for the opt-out. In supporting the 

331 final RRP rule, EPA stated that older children and adults do not ingest dust at the same high rate 

332 that a toddler does. This is corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis of studies of children’s hand333 to-mouth behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this analysis indicates, this does not mean that hand334 to-mouth behavior is not a potential concern for older children. According to the meta-analysis, 

335 the average indoor hand-to-mouth behavior ranged from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, with the 

336 lowest value corresponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest value corresponding to the 

337 3 to < 6 month olds. Average outdoor hand-to-mouth frequency ranged from 2.9 to 14.5 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 9 of 37

338 contacts/hour, with the lowest value corresponding to the 6 to <11 year olds and the highest 

339 value corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month olds. Although toddlers have a higher incidence of 

340 hand-to-mouth behavior than 6 to < 11 year olds, the latter group still averages more than 6 

341 contacts/hour. Further elevated blood lead levels do occur in children older than 6 and adults 

342 (Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows that when the RRP requirements are not followed, renovation 

343 activities result in dust lead levels that can be orders of magnitude above the hazard standard and 

344 that can be orders of magnitude higher than if the RRP requirements are followed. EPA believes 

345 the information from this meta-analysis provides corroborating support for EPA’s concern for 

346 children 6 and older and its decision to eliminate the opt-out provision. 

347 

348 The Agency believes that it should only allow provisions such as the opt-out for 

349 situations where the information available to EPA indicates that the RRP rule work practices are 

350 not necessary to minimize exposure of occupants to lead paint hazards. Because lead paint dust 

351 exposure can cause adverse health effects for populations other than just children under age 6 

352 and renovations can result in lead dust levels many times higher than the hazard standard, EPA 

353 believes the work practices should be followed in target housing without regard to the age of the 

354 occupants. 

355 

356 Moreover, EPA believes that implementing the regulations without the opt-out provision 

357 promotes, to a greater extent, the statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering 

358 renovation activities in target housing. Among other things, TSCA section 402(c)(3), directs 

359 EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to renovation activities that create lead-based paint 

360 hazards in target housing. Section 401(17) of TSCA defines target housing as “any housing 

361 constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any 

362 child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing for the 

363 elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.” Pursuant to section 403 of 

364 TSCA, EPA has identified dust-lead hazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities as 

surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft2 365 

on floors or 250 μg/ft2 366 on windowsills. In the RRP rule, EPA found that renovation, repair, and 

367 painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. Thus, 

368 renovations in target housing that create lead-based paint hazards should be covered unless there 

369 is a record basis to conclude that coverage is unnecessary. 

370 Shortly after promulgating the RRP rule, the RRP rule, and specifically the opt-out 

371 provision, was challenged. EPA decided to settle the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, EPA 

372 agreed to issue a proposed rule removing the opt-out. In turn, as part of this rulemaking, EPA 

373 requested information or data that would shed any light on the reliability, effectiveness, or safety 

374 of the opt-out or any variation thereof in relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards. EPA did not 

375 receive any information in response to its request. 

376 EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated and EPA found that renovation, repair, and painting 

377 activities produce lead dust above the regulatory hazard standards. In fact many renovation 

378 activities create large quantities of lead dust. The Dust Study shows that renovation activities 

379 result in lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP rule containment 

380 and cleanup procedures are not followed. It also demonstrated that work practices other than 

381 those restricted or prohibited by the RRP rule can leave behind lead dust well above the hazard 

382 standards when the RRP rule requirements are not followed. The Dust Study also showed that 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 10 of 37

383 alternative practices (broom cleaning, not using containment) were not effective or safe in 

384 relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards. Under the opt-out, contractors performing renovations 

385 would have no obligation to minimize or clean up any dust-lead hazards created by the 

386 renovation. Indeed, contractors would not be prevented from using practices that EPA has 

387 determined create hazards that cannot be adequately contained or cleaned up even when 

388 following the RRP rule requirements. The Agency also took these factors into consideration in 

389 its decision to remove the opt-out provision in this final rule. 

390 

391 In development of the proposed rule, EPA considered and requested comment on certain 

392 alternative approaches or work practice requirements for owner-occupied target housing that is 

393 not a child-occupied facility and where no children younger than 6 or pregnant women reside. 

394 EPA also requested comment on possible alternate approaches that would meet EPA’s statutory 

395 obligation to apply work practice standards in target housing that take into account reliability, 

396 effectiveness, and safety. 

397 One alternative for which EPA requested comment would have required the RRP work 

398 practices only for exterior renovations. Under this option, unless the target housing meets the 

399 definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child 

400 under 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm 

401 will only be required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule when 

402 renovating exteriors then the renovation firm would only be required to follow the RRP work 

403 practices when doing exterior renovations, but not when doing interior renovations. This option 

404 would have addressed exposures to lead dust from exterior renovations for people living in 

405 neighboring homes, particularly attached homes or homes in close physical proximity. 

406 Individuals residing in homes in close physical proximity could be exposed during the entire 

407 renovation and post-renovation phase, and their exposure would not necessarily be considered by 

408 an owner-occupant in choosing not to require lead-safe work practices. However, this option did 

409 not address lead hazards created during renovations of the interiors of home which could lead to 

410 lead exposure to occupants, and EPA received no comments mitigating this concern or 

411 supporting the protectiveness of this option. 

412 EPA requested comment on an alternative option under which the only work practices 

413 applicable to housing that is not a child-occupied facility and where no children or pregnant 

414 women reside would be the restriction or prohibition on certain work practice found at 40 CFR 

415 745.85(a)(3). These include: 

416 1. Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is prohibited. 

417 2. The use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation such 

418 as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited 

419 unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control. 

420 3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at temperatures below 1,100 

421 degrees Fahrenheit. 

422 All the other work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would not be required in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 11 of 37

423 target housing that is not a child-occupied facility and where no children under age 6 or pregnant 

424 women reside. This option would have prohibited or restricted the highest dust generating 

425 practices but would not have required the other practices under 40 CFR 745.85. While the 

426 prohibited work practices create high amounts of lead dust, the other work practices also create 

427 lead dust above the hazard standard. The Dust Study shows that common work practices result 

428 in lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP rule containment and 

429 cleanup procedures are not followed. 

430 EPA requested comment on a third option under which a subset of target housing would 

431 not be subject to the RRP work practices but instead would have been subject to dust wipe 

432 testing to be performed after the renovation. Under this option, unless the target housing meets 

433 the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child 

434 under 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation activity 

435 is only subject to dust wipe testing after the renovation and providing the results to the owner436 occupant, then the renovation firm would not be required to conduct the training, certification, 

437 and work practice requirements of the rule. The testing results would become part of the record 

438 for that house that must be disclosed under the Disclosure Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart F) 

439 required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 

440 of 1992 (Public Law 102–550). This option would provide information that could protect 

441 potential buyers of a home where renovation was completed prior to the sale, because they would 

442 be notified of the results of the dust wipe tests before purchase and could take appropriate action 

443 (e.g., thorough cleaning and retesting of the home, or selecting a different home) if the lead 

444 results were at a level that raised concerns for them. While this alternative may provide helpful 

445 information to home owners and occupants, as discussed above it would not address lead-based 

446 paint hazards created by renovations because it does not require any of the work practices 

447 required by the RRP rule. 

448 After considering these alternatives as well as keeping the opt-out provision, the Agency 

449 has decided to eliminate the Opt-out provision and not to adopt any of the alternatives. One 

450 concern with the opt-out provision or the alternatives is that they do not adequately address the 

451 risks of lead-based paint hazards to children older than five years old or adults. The opt-out and 

452 each of these alternatives can also result in exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant 

453 women to lead-based paint hazards. In the same way as for the opt-out provision itself, EPA also 

454 has concerns that populations that are already at a higher risk for elevated blood lead levels may 

455 be disproportionately and adversely affected by the alternatives. 

456 Another concern with the opt-out as well the alternatives is that they can create confusion 

457 among both contractors and consumers. Several commenters stated that the opt-out provision or 

458 the alternatives could cause confusion that could potentially result in non-compliance by 

459 renovation firms. EPA agrees and believes that simplifying the applicability of the work 

460 practices will enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the rule. 

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

462 conclude that the opt-out nor that the alternative approaches are safe, reliable or effective 

463 because none of these would sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In 

464 sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors are exposed to the lead 

465 hazards created by the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect older 

466 children, women of childbearing age, or other adults currently residing in the home and can 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 12 of 37

467 result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint 

468 hazards. Again, although EPA specifically requested information or data that would shed any 

469 light on the reliability, effectiveness, or safety of these options in relation to EPA’s lead hazard 

470 standards, the Agency did not receive any. The Agency took these factors into consideration in 

471 deciding not to adopt these alternatives. 

472 D. Recordkeeping and Reporting

473 EPA’s stated purposes in promulgating the recordkeeping requirements were two-fold. 

474 “The first is to allow EPA or an authorized State to review a renovation firm’s compliance with 

475 the substantive requirements of the regulation through reviewing the records maintained for all 

476 of the renovation jobs the firm has done. The second is to remind a renovation firm what it must 

477 do to comply. EPA envisioned that renovation firms would use the recordkeeping requirements 

478 and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done everything that they are required to do 

479 for a particular renovation” (Ref.1, p. 21745). Several commenters on the RRP rule suggested 

480 that the recordkeeping requirements could also be used to provide valuable information about the 

481 renovation to the owners and occupants of buildings being renovated. EPA responded to these 

482 comments by stating that some of the information identified by these commenters was included 

483 in the “Renovate Right” pamphlet and that the pamphlet was the best way to get that information 

484 to the owners and occupants. With respect to the other items identified by these commenters, 

485 EPA stated its belief that the renovation firms were already providing much of this information 

486 (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 

487 As part of EPA’s preparations to administer the RRP program, EPA has been developing 

488 an education and outreach campaign aimed at consumers. In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA 

489 recognized the importance of education and outreach to consumers, to teach them about lead-safe 

490 work practices and to encourage them to hire certified renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). 

491 EPA’s work on the education and outreach campaign has continued to highlight the importance 

492 of an informed public to the success of the RRP program at minimizing exposures to lead-based 

493 paint hazards that may be created by renovations. As a result, EPA has determined that copies of 

494 the records required to be maintained by renovation firms to document compliance with the work 

495 practice requirements, if provided to the owners and occupants of the renovated buildings, would 

496 serve to reinforce the information provided by the “Renovate Right” pamphlet on the potential 

497 hazards of renovations and on the RRP rule requirements. While the “Renovate Right” pamphlet 

498 provides valuable information about the requirements of the RRP rule, the records that a firm 

499 would give to owners and occupants would provide useful information regarding rule 

500 compliance that is not found in the pamphlet. In covering the significant training and work 

501 practice provisions of the RRP rule, these records would enable building owners and occupants 

502 to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and how the RRP 

503 rule’s provisions affected their specific renovation. Several commenters stated that educating 

504 homeowners would help them monitor compliance by the renovation firm. One commenter 

505 stated that the checklist would help the public understand the RRP rule and that a better informed 

506 public would choose to have renovation performed by profession remodelers who would provide 

507 safe and quality work. Other commenters believe that the distribution of the checklist is needed 

508 to address a lack of accountability of renovation firms to owners and occupants. EPA agrees that 

509 educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the 

510 EPA in monitoring compliance with the RRP rule and contribute to the effectiveness and 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 13 of 37

511 reliability of the rule. 

512 After considering public comments, EPA decided to finalize the rule as proposed. This 

513 final rules requires that, when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered, or within 30 days 

514 of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, the renovation firm provide 

515 information demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the 

516 RRP rule to the owner of the building being renovated and, if different, to the occupants of the 

517 renovated housing or the operator of the child-occupied facility. For renovations in common 

518 areas of target housing, the renovation firm must provide the occupants of the affected housing 

519 units instructions on how to review or obtain this information from the renovation firm at no 

520 charge to the occupant. These instructions must be included in the notice provided to each 

521 affected unit under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on the signs posted in the common areas under 40 

522 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is finalizing similar requirements for renovations in child-occupied 

523 facilities. Under this final rule, the renovation firm is required to provide interested parents or 

524 guardians of children using the child-occupied facility instructions on how to review or obtain a 

525 copy of these records at no cost to the parents or guardians. This could be accomplished by 

526 mailing or hand delivering these instructions, or by including them on the signs posted under 40 

527 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii). 

528 Under this new requirement, renovation firms must provide training and work practice 

529 information to owners and occupants. The information should be provided in a short, easily read 

530 checklist or other form. EPA’s “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” may be used for 

531 this purpose, but firms may develop their own forms or checklists so long as they include all of 

532 the required information. The specific information that is required to be provided are the training 

533 and work practice compliance information required to be maintained by 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as 

534 well as identifying information on the manufacturer and model of the test kits used, if any, a 

535 description of the components that were tested including their locations, and the test kit results. 

536 The checklist or form must include documentation that a certified renovator was assigned to the 

537 project, that the certified renovator provided on-the-job training for workers used on the project, 

538 that the certified renovator performed or directed workers who performed the tasks required by 

539 the RRP rule, and that the certified renovator performed the post-renovation cleaning 

540 verification. This documentation must include a certification by the certified renovator that the 

541 work practices were followed, with narration as applicable. However, EPA is not requiring that 

542 the renovation firm automatically provide a copy of the certified renovator’s training certificate, 

543 which must be maintained in the firm’s records pursuant to 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as an 

544 attachment to the checklist or other form. 

545 One commenter believes that the text of the form should be included in the regulations. 

546 EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency wants to give renovation firms flexibility with 

547 regard to the format of the information given to owners and occupants. Renovation firms must 

548 list the information specified in the regulations and they can use EPA’s sample checklist if they 

549 choose. However, the final rule allows firms to use their own version of the checklist as long as 

550 it includes the required information. 

551 

552 With respect to the option for dust clearance in lieu of cleaning verification under 40 

553 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule requires the renovation firm to provide the associated results from 

554 dust wipe sampling to the person who contracted for the renovation. This requirement was 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 14 of 37

555 promulgated in response to public comments on the applicability of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 

556 CFR part 745, subpart F, to dust lead testing reports. These commenters stated that a 

557 requirement for the information to be provided to the owner of the property was necessary in 

558 order to make sure that the information would be available to be disclosed in the future (Ref. 1, 

559 p. 21718). However, in agreeing with these commenters and acknowledging the importance of 

560 having the dust sampling reports available to disclose to future purchasers and tenants, EPA 

561 neglected to consider the importance of making dust sampling information available to the 

562 current occupants of renovated rental target housing or child-occupied facilities. While 40 CFR 

563 745.107 would require renovation-related dust sampling reports to be disclosed to target housing 

564 tenants at the next lease renewal, this may be months or years after the renovation was 

565 completed. In addition, the Lead Disclosure Rule does not apply to child-occupied facilities in 

566 public or commercial buildings, so those tenants may never receive this information. 

567 Therefore, this final rule requires that, if dust clearance is performed in lieu of cleaning 

568 verification, the renovation firm provide a copy of the dust wipe sampling report(s) to the owner 

569 of the building that was renovated as well as to the occupants, if different. With respect to 

570 renovations in common areas of target housing or in child-occupied facilities, EPA is also 

571 requiring that these records be made available to the tenants of the affected housing units or the 

572 parents and guardians of children under age 6 using the child-occupied facilities. Dust sampling 

573 reports may be made available to these groups in the same way as training and work practice 

574 records, by providing information on how to review or obtain copies in individual notifications 

575 or on posted signs. 

576 

577 

578 E. Effective Date 

579 During the development of the proposed rule, EPA considered a delay in the effective 

580 date of this final rule. EPA estimated that eliminating the opt-out provision could increase the 

581 number of renovators that need to be certified by 50%. A delayed effective date would have 

582 allowed more time for additional renovators to get their certification. The Agency asked for 

583 comment on whether a 6-month or 1-year delay in the effective date is appropriate. In addition, 

584 EPA asked for comment on whether a delay in effective date of this rule would be confusing for 

585 the regulated community or the certified personnel. 

586 Comments regarding the delay were mixed. Several commenters opposing the delay 

587 believe that EPA has enough training capacity to train additional renovators that may need 

588 certification because of this rule. Several commenters pointed out that delaying the effective 

589 date would result in more people being exposed to lead hazards that could be avoided if the RRP 

590 rule work practices were in place for renovations previously eligible for the opt-out. Another 

591 commenter believes that phasing in the work practice requirements by delaying the effective of 

592 this rule would lead to confusion for the public and renovation firms. 

593 Some commenters were in favor of delaying the effective date. Several commenters said 

594 that many contractors were not aware of the requirements and there is not sufficient time for 

595 them to understand and comply with the regulations without a delayed effective date. Other 

596 commenters stated that EPA should delay the effective date to allow enough time for additional 

597 renovators to take the training. One commenter asserts that EPA should delay the effective date 

598 rather than create a shortfall of renovators. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 15 of 37

599 Another factor EPA considered with regard to extending the effective date is whether 

600 firms specialize in housing that is eligible for the opt-out. The cost estimates for the rule assume 

601 that renovation firms are somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work in housing where 

602 the RRP rule is applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt603 out housing will already have become certified, and their staff been trained, because they also 

604 work in regulated facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. If firms are less specialized than 

605 the analysis assumed, there may be little to no incremental training and certification costs due to 

606 the proposed rule. Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have 

607 declined to opt out, the work practice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than 

608 estimated. EPA requested comment in the proposal on the degree to which the same firms and 

609 renovators are likely to work both in opt-out housing and in child-occupied facilities and target 

610 housing that are ineligible for the opt-out provision. 

611 

612 Several commenters stated that they do not believe firms specialize in housing based on 

613 occupancy. One commenter reviewed advertisements and the market place, and did not find 

614 renovators that work only in owner-occupied housing without children or pregnant women. 

615 According to the commenter, because firms do not appear to specialize in this manner, the 

616 additional costs of eliminating the opt-out are only the costs associated with the materials and 

617 time for a particular job as contractors would be required to get certification regardless of 

618 whether the opt-out provision is removed. EPA agrees with these comments. While the Agency 

619 has not done analysis to determine how many firms may specialize based on occupancy, EPA 

620 believes it is likely that most firms will not specialize in owner-occupied housing without 

621 children or pregnant women. Commenters did not provide information indicating that firms 

622 specialize in this way. If that is the case then many of the approximately 110,000 firms and 

623 renovators estimated to seek certification because of this rule would need certification regardless 

624 of whether the opt-out provision is removed. If the majority of the 110,000 firms and renovators 

625 have already been required to get certification then there is less of an argument to extend the 

626 effective date of this rule because many fewer firms and renovators will need certification 

627 between publication of the rule and the effective date. 

628 

629 Accordingly, the Agency decided not to delay the effective date of this final rule. As 

630 such, the rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA 

631 believes that it is important to eliminate the opt-out exemption without delay in order to avoid 

632 further lead exposures in housing previously eligible for the opt-out. Further, based on the 

633 number of training provides accredited to date, the Agency believes that there is sufficient 

634 training capacity available to train any additional renovators that would need to get certification 

635 because of this rule. 

636 F. State Authorization 

637 As part of the authorization process, States and Indian Tribes must demonstrate to EPA 

638 that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. A State or Indian Tribe would have to indicate 

639 that it meets the requirements of the renovation program in its application for approval or the 

640 first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency proposed to give States and Indian 

641 Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that their programs include any new requirements the EPA may 

642 promulgate, such as the requirements in this final rule. EPA received one comment from the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 16 of 37

643 Iowa Department of Public Health regarding this requirement. The commenter explained that 

644 Iowa’s legislature only meets once a year for 4 months. Depending on the when EPA publishes 

645 amendments to the RRP, it could be very difficult for states in similar situations to meet this 

646 requirement. The commenter requested that EPA give States and Indian Tribes two years instead 

647 of one to demonstrate compliance. EPA believes that the concern raised by the commenter has 

648 merit, and not just for Iowa. Therefore, the Agency decided to allow States and Indian Tribes up 

649 to two years to demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule in its 

650 application for approval or the first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). 

651 G. Renovator Certification Requirements 

652 EPA was made aware by stakeholders that some renovators want to take the training 

653 course closer to April 2010 in order to maximize their 5–year certification which is not required 

654 until the RRP rule becomes effective on April 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 5–year 

655 certification begins when the renovator completes the training. The Agency is concerned that if 

656 enough renovators wait until April 2010 to take the training it may cause training courses to fill 

657 up resulting in a lack of available courses near the effective date. In order to give renovators 

658 incentive to take the course well in advance of the April 2010 effective date, the Agency 

659 considered a change to the requirements that would allow renovator certifications issued on or 

660 before the effective date of the RRP rule to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency requested 

661 comment on whether it should extend the certification for renovators that get their certification 

662 by April 22, 2010. 

663 EPA received several comments in favor of extending the renovator certification to July 

664 1, 2015. Several commenters believe this would give renovators incentive to take the training 

665 early. One commenter supported the extension so those who took the training in advance of the 

666 April 22, 2010 implementation date would not be penalized. Another commenter stated that an 

667 extension of the certification would prevent logistical problems like waiting lists for trainings 

668 during the final days before the effective date. 

669 The Agency decided to finalize an extension of the 5-year certification for renovators 

670 who take the training before April 22, 2010. EPA agrees that renovators who take the training 

671 early should not be penalized and therefore will extend those certifications until July 1, 2015. 

672 H. Principle Instructor Requirements 

673 As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered modifying the 

674 requirements for training providers. Under the original requirements for the accreditation of 

675 training providers, Principle Instructors were required to take a 16–hour lead-paint course taught 

676 by EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. EPA became aware that 16–hours courses 

677 are not available in every state, making it difficult for some instructors to get the required 

678 training. To address this problem, EPA considered reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. 

679 EPA received several comments on the Principal Instructor requirement, mostly in support of 

680 reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. One commenter stated that there is no significant 

681 benefit to requiring 16 hours instead of 8 hours and that the 8-hour requirement will fit more 

682 closely to available training courses. Similarly, another commenter stated that the 16-hour 

683 training shares little content with what the Principal Instructors are going to teach in the 

684 renovator course. The commenter also explained that there is no 16-hour lead training course in 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 17 of 37

685 Mississippi which led to difficulties with a local organization’s ability to offer the renovator 

686 course. One commenter opposed to reducing the hourly requirement stated that 8 hours of lead 

687 training is not sufficient for an instructor to know enough about lead paint, lead hazards and 

688 federal regulations. Another commenter stated that there is enough training capacity negating 

689 the need to reduce the hourly requirement. 

690 EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator course, instead of a longer abatement course, is 

691 more closely related to what Principal Instructors must know in order to teach the renovator 

692 training. In addition to the training requirement, Principal Instructors must meet education and 

693 work experience requirements in order to teach lead-based paint training courses. The Agency 

694 believes that taking this course would be sufficient training for future instructors of the renovator 

695 course and therefore has reduced the requirement from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing the required 

696 hours, future instructors can take the 8–hour renovator or dust sampling technician trainings 

697 instead of a 16–hour or longer abatement course. 

698 

699 III. References 

700 1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register

701 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). Available on-line at: 

702 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

703 2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 

704 Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL–

705 5389–9). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

706 3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 

707 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 

708 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 

709 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009. 

710 4. Xue J, Zartarian V, Moya J, Freeman N, Beamer P, Black K, Tulve N, Shalat S: A 

711 meta-analysis of children’s hand-to-mouth frequency data for estimating nondietary ingestion 

712 exposure. Risk Anal. 2007 Apr.; 27(2): 411-20. 

713 5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis for the 

714 TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule 

715 for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. April 2010. 

716 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 1.1.9. Implicit 

717 Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. August 17, 2009. 

718 7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping Proposed Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking 

719 entitled Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovation, 

720 Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. August 2009. 

721 8. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Elimination of the Opt-Out 

722 Provision and Other Amendments to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 18 of 37

723 Proposed Rule. April 2010. 

724 9. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 

725 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. March 3, 2000. 

726 10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

727 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL–7755–5). Available on-line at: 

728 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

729 11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

730 Activities. November 13, 2007. 

731 12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement; Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out 

732 Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. 

733 April 2010. 

734 13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. October 2006. 

735 14. EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 

736 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K737 99-001, June 2003). 

738 

739 15. CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. vol 54, no. 20, pp 513-516, May 27, 

740 2005 

741 16. Marino, Phyllis E. et al “A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation 

742 of a Victorian Farmhouse.” American Journal of Public Health, 80 (10) pp. 1183 -1185. 

743 October 1990. 

744 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

745 A. Executive Order 12866 

746 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 

747 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” 

748 under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order because EPA estimates that it is likely to have an 

749 annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to 

750 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any 

751 changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for 

752 this rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 

753 In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated 

754 with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead 

755 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target 

756 Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities (Economic Analysis, Ref. 5), which is available in the 

757 docket for this action and is briefly summarized here. 

758 1. Number of facilities and renovations. This rule applies to 78 million target housing 

759 units and child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 facilities. There are approximately 40 million 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 19 of 37

760 target housing units potentially affected by the removal of the opt-out provision (i.e., owner 

761 occupied housing units where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides and that do not 

762 meet the definition of a child-occupied facility). There are an additional 38 million facilities 

763 potentially affected by the requirement that renovators provide owners and occupants with copies 

764 of the records required to be maintained by the renovator to document compliance with the 

765 training and work practice requirements. Approximately 100,000 of these facilities are child766 occupied facilities located in public or commercial buildings, and the remainder are located in 

767 target housing (either in rental housing, owner-occupied housing where a child under age 6 or 

768 pregnant woman resides, or owner-occupied housing that meets the definition of a child769 occupied facility). 

770 The removal of the opt-out provision will affect approximately 7.2 million renovation 

771 events per year in the 40 million housing units previously eligible to use the opt-out provision. In 

772 the first year, there will be an estimated 5.4 million renovation, repair, and painting events in 

773 these housing units where the rule will cause lead-safe work practices to be used. (In the 

774 remaining 1.8 million renovation events, test kits for determining whether a surface contains 

775 lead-based paint will indicate that lead-based paint is not present.) EPA expects test kits that 

776 more accurately determine whether a painted surface qualifies as lead-based paint will become 

777 available in late 2010. Once the improved test kits are available, the number of renovation, 

778 repair, and painting events using lead-safe work practices due to the rule in housing previously 

779 eligible for the opt-out provision is expected to drop to 3.0 million events per year. 

780 The requirement for renovators to provide owners and occupants with records 

781 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements will affect all of the 

782 7.2 million renovation events per year in housing units previously eligible for the opt-out 

783 provision. This new recordkeeping requirement will also affect an additional 11.4 million 

784 renovation events per year in the 38 million facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. 

785 EPA’s estimates are based on the assumption that owners of housing eligible for the opt786 out provision would always choose to exercise that provision. To the extent that some eligible 

787 homeowners would decline to opt out, the number of renovation events affected by the removal 

788 of the opt-out would be lower than EPA has estimated, as would the costs of this action and the 

789 estimated number of people protected by this action, since they would choose to be protected by 

790 the requirements of the RRP rule. 

791 2. Options evaluated. EPA considered a variety of options for addressing the risks created 

792 by renovation, repair, and painting activities disturbing lead-based paint in housing previously 

793 eligible for the opt-out provision. The Economic Analysis analyzed several options, including 

794 different options for the effective date of the final rule when published; an option phasing out the 

795 opt-out provision depending on when the facility was built (pre-1960 or pre-1978); and different 

796 options for the work practices (such as containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification) required 

797 in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 

798 All options evaluated in the Economic Analysis would also require renovation firms to 

799 provide owners and occupants of the buildings with a copy of the records demonstrating 

800 compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. This additional 

801 recordkeeping requirement would apply to renovation, repair, and painting activities in all 78 

802 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 20 of 37

803 3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health effects 

804 attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These health effects 

805 include impaired cognitive function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such 

806 as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood pressure, increased 

807 incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney 

808 function. 

809 Removing the opt-out provision will protect children under the age of 6 who visit a 

810 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 

811 opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when their family purchases it after such 

812 a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to 

813 housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. Removing 

814 the opt-out provision will also protect individuals age 6 and older who live in houses that would 

815 have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and who live in 

816 adjacent properties. 

817 EPA has estimated some of the benefits of the rule by performing calculations based on 

818 estimates of the number of individuals in each of these situations and the average benefit per 

819 individual in similar situations from previous RRP rule analyses with some simple adjustments. 

820 The resulting calculations provide a sense of the magnitude of benefits from this action but 

821 should not be interpreted as strict upper or lower bound estimates of total benefits. Based on two 

822 scenarios for each of the situations described in the previous paragraph, annualized benefits for 

823 the rule may range from approximately $870 million to $3.2 billion assuming a discount rate of 

824 3%, and $920 million to $3.3 billion assuming a discount rate of 7%. Within these scenarios, 

825 10% of these benefits are attributable to avoided losses in expected earnings due to IQ drop in 

826 children under 6, and 90% to avoided medical costs (or other proxies for willingness to pay) for 

827 hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, and the resulting incidence of deaths in older 

828 individuals. For children under 6, the largest proportion of these benefits derive from moving 

829 into recently renovated housing; for older individuals, the largest proportion derives from on830 going residence in houses that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision. 

831 EPA did not estimate benefits for those who live near a house renovated under the opt832 out provision unless in a contiguous attached home; those who spend time in a friend’s or 

833 relative’s house renovated under the opt-out provision; and for health effects other than IQ loss 

834 in children under 6 and blood pressure effects in older individuals. 

835 To the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to opt out, the benefits 

836 of this action will be lower than estimated, since exposed persons will already be protected by 

837 the requirements of the RRP program. 

838 4. Costs. Removing the opt-out provision will require firms performing renovation, 

839 repair, and painting work for compensation in housing previously eligible for the opt-out 

840 provision to follow the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. 

841 This may result in additional costs for these firms. Furthermore, the additional recordkeeping 

842 requirements in this rule will increase costs of renovations in all target housing and child843 occupied facilities. Costs may be incurred by contractors that work in these buildings, landlords 

844 that use their own staff to work in buildings they lease out; and child-occupied facilities that use 

845 their own staff to work in buildings they occupy. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 21 of 37

846 The rule is estimated to cost approximately $500 million in the first year. The cost is 

847 estimated to drop to approximately $300 million per year starting with the second year, when 

848 improved test kits for detecting the presence of lead-based paint are assumed to become 

849 available. Over $200 million per year of the cost in subsequent years is due to the work practice 

850 requirements in housing previously covered by the opt-out provision. Training for renovators and 

851 workers and certification for firms working in housing previously covered by the opt-out 

852 provision is estimated to add approximately $50 million per year to the cost. Requiring 

853 renovators to provide owners and occupants with copies of the recordkeeping required to 

854 document compliance with the RRP rule training and work practice requirements costs 

855 approximately $30 million per year, with about two thirds of this incurred in housing that was 

856 previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 

857 Note that the costs of this rule as estimated in the Economic Analysis are expressed in 

858 2005 dollars. To express values in terms of current dollars, the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 

859 Domestic Product as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis can be consulted for an 

860 indication of how nominal prices for goods and services produced in the economy have changed 

861 over time. From 2005 to the second quarter of 2009, the implicit price deflator increased from 

862 100 to 109.753, a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 6). 

863 The cost estimates for training and certification assume that renovation firms are 

864 somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work in facilities where the RRP rule is 

865 applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt-out housing will 

866 already have become certified, and their staff been trained, because they also work in regulated 

867 facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. If firms are less specialized than the analysis 

868 assumed, there may be little to no incremental training and certification costs due to the rule. 

869 Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to opt out, the 

870 work practice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than estimated. 

871 The options EPA analyzed with a phase in or a delayed effective date for removing the 

872 opt-out provision have a lower cost in the first 2 years but have identical costs to the final rule 

873 beginning in the third year. Options with different work practice requirements for the housing 

874 previously eligible for the opt-out provision would cost 1% to 17% less than the final rule. This 

875 difference would all be due to lower work practice costs, as the training, certification, and 

876 recordkeeping costs would be the same for these options as for this rule. 

877 B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

878 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 

879 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

880 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 

881 document to amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR document, referred to as the Opt-out and 

882 Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR Addendum and identified under EPA ICR No. 1715.13 and OMB 

883 Control Number 2070–0155, has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 7). The information 

884 collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. 

885 Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 

886 persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 

887 This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 22 of 37

888 technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 

889 processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 

890 existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train 

891 personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and 

892 review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

893 The information collection activities contained in this rule are designed to assist the 

894 Agency in meeting the core objectives of TSCA section 402. EPA has carefully tailored the 

895 recordkeeping requirements so they will permit the Agency to achieve statutory objectives 

896 without imposing an undue burden on those firms that choose to be involved in renovation, 

897 repair, and painting activities. 

898 The information collection requirements under this rule may affect training providers as 

899 well as firms that perform renovation, repair, or painting for compensation. Removing the opt900 out provision may cause additional renovators to become trained and firms to become certified, 

901 and there are paperwork requirements for both of these activities. Removing the opt-out 

902 provision will also create paperwork due to the requirement to maintain records documenting 

903 compliance with the training and work practice requirements. This rule also requires renovation 

904 firms to provide owners and occupants with these records. Although firms have the option of 

905 choosing to engage in the covered activities, once a firm chooses to do so, the information 

906 collection activities become mandatory for that firm. 

907 The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated paperwork burden 

908 and costs resulting from this rule. The burden to training providers and firms engaged in 

909 renovation, repair, and painting activities is summarized in this unit. 

910 Because this analysis assumes that renovation firms are somewhat specialized in terms of 

911 whether they work in facilities where the RRP rule requirements are applicable, removing the 

912 opt-out provision is estimated to result in additional renovators becoming trained and additional 

913 renovation firms becoming certified. Training additional renovators will increase the paperwork 

914 burden for training providers, since they must submit records to EPA (or an authorizing State, 

915 Tribe, or Territory) pertaining to each student attending a training course. Approximately 170 

916 training providers are estimated to incur an average burden of about 40 hours each for additional 

917 notifications, resulting in an increase in training provider burden averaging 7,000 hours per year 

918 as a result of the removal of the opt-out provision. 

919 Removing the opt-out provision is estimated to result in up to 110,000 additional firms 

920 becoming certified to engage in renovation, repair, or painting activities. The average 

921 certification burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is initially certified, 

922 and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified (which occurs every 5 years). Firms must keep 

923 records of the work they perform; this recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 5 

924 hours per year per firm. And under this rule, firms must also provide a copy of the records 

925 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule to 

926 the owners and occupants of buildings being renovated. This additional recordkeeping 

927 requirement is estimated to average approximately 3.3 hours per year per firm. The total annual 

928 burden for these 110,000 firms is estimated to average 1,072,000 hours, of which 362,000 hours 

929 is due to the recordkeeping requirement to provide owners and occupants with documentation of 

930 the training and work practices used. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 23 of 37

931 To the extent that firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out provision will already 

932 have incurred the training and certification burdens because they also work in regulated facilities 

933 ineligible for the opt-out provision, the training and certification burden for this action will be 

934 lower than estimated. 

935 The requirement that firms provide owners and occupants with a copy of the records 

936 demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule also 

937 applies to firms working in buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out provision. Under an 

938 assumption that firms work in either buildings that are eligible for the opt-out provision or 

939 buildings that are ineligible (but not in both types of buildings), EPA estimated that 211,000 

940 firms work in buildings that are not eligible for the opt-out provision. EPA estimated that these 

941 211,000 firms will incur an average annual burden of approximately 2.7 hours per firm due to the 

942 new recordkeeping requirements, resulting in a total burden of 568,000 hours per year for these 

943 firms. To the extent that firms work in both types of buildings, the number of firms and the total 

944 burden in this category would be higher than estimated. But this would be offset by a 

945 corresponding decrease in the 110,000 firms and 362,000 burden hours estimated for the firms 

946 that were assumed to work only in buildings previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 

947 

948 Total respondent burden for training providers and certified firms from removing the opt949 out provision and requiring additional recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 

950 1,647,000 hours per year during the 3 year period covered by the ICR. 

951 The rule may also result in additional government costs to administer the program (to 

952 process the additional training provider notifications and to administer and enforce the program 

953 for firms working in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision). States, Tribes, and 

954 Territories are allowed, but are under no obligation, to apply for and receive authorization to 

955 administer these requirements. EPA will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, and 

956 Territories that do not become authorized. Because the number of States, Tribes, and Territories 

957 that will become authorized is not known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA 

958 will administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government entities become 

959 authorized, EPA’s administrative costs will be lower. 

960 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

961 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

962 control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in chapter I of title 40 of the CFR, after 

963 appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by 

964 publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related 

965 collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency 

966 will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the 

967 OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final 

968 rule. 

969 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

970 burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

971 established a docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under docket ID number EPA–HQ–

972 OPPT–2005–0049. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 

973 ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 24 of 37

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th 974 St., NW., 

975 Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 

976 decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [insert date of publication in the

977 Federal Register], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 

978 it by [insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 

979 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

980 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

981 regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

982 requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

983 certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

984 small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

985 governmental jurisdictions. 

986 For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined 

987 in accordance with section 601 of RFA as: 

988 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

989 at 13 CFR 121.201. 

990 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

991 district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

992 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 

993 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

994 As required by section 604 of RFA, EPA has prepared a final regulatory flexibility 

995 analysis (FRFA) for this rule. The FRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized 

996 in this unit (Ref. 8). 

997 1. Reasons why action by the Agency is being taken. After further consideration of the 

998 opt-out provision, the Agency believes it is in the best interest of the public to remove the 

999 provision. EPA believes that the opt-out provision is not sufficiently protective for children 

1000 under age 6 and pregnant women, because it does not provide protection from improperly 

1001 performed renovations for visiting children and pregnant women; for children and pregnant 

1002 women who move into a newly purchased house that was recently renovated under the opt-out 

1003 provision; and for children and pregnant women who live adjacent to a home where the exterior 

1004 is being renovated under the opt-out provision. In addition, while the RRP rule focused mainly 

1005 on protecting young children and pregnant women from lead hazards, exposure can result in 

1006 adverse health effects for older children and adults as well. Removing the opt-out provision will 

1007 protect older children and adult occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or 

1008 pregnant woman resides, as well as residents of adjacent properties. Finally, EPA believes that 

1009 implementing the regulations without the opt-out provision promotes, to a greater extent, the 

1010 statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering renovation activities in target housing. 

1011 EPA has determined that providing owners and occupants of renovated buildings with 

1012 copies of the records documenting the renovation firm’s compliance with the RRP rule’s training 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 25 of 37

1013 and work practice requirements will serve to reinforce information on both the potential hazards 

1014 of renovations and on the RRP rule’s requirements. It will also enable building owners and 

1015 occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and 

1016 how the rule’s provisions affected their specific renovation. Educating the owners and occupants 

1017 in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with the 

1018 RRP rule. These improvements in education and monitoring will improve compliance with the 

1019 RRP rule, which will ultimately protect children and adults from exposure to lead hazards due to 

1020 renovation activities. 

1021 2. Legal basis and objectives for this rule. TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study 

1022 the extent to which persons engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities are exposed to 

1023 lead or create lead-based paint hazards regularly or occasionally. After concluding this study, 

1024 TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revise its lead-based paint activities regulations 

1025 under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based 

1026 paint hazards. Because EPA’s study found that activities commonly performed during renovation 

1027 and remodeling create lead-based paint hazards, EPA issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In 

1028 issuing the RRP rule, EPA revised the TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to 

1029 individuals and firms engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities. In this rule, EPA is 

1030 revising the TSCA section 402(c)(3) rule to cover renovations in all target housing and child1031 occupied facilities. In so doing, EPA has also taken into consideration the environmental, 

1032 economic, and social impact of this rule as provided in TSCA section 2(c). A central objective of 

1033 this rule is to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, 

1034 and painting activities in all target housing and other buildings frequented by children under age 

1035 6. 

1036 3. Potentially affected small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 

1037 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The small entities that are potentially 

1038 directly regulated by this rule include: Small businesses (including contractors and property 

1039 owners and managers); small nonprofits (certain childcare centers and private schools); and 

1040 small governments (school districts which operate pre-schools, kindergartens and certain child 

1041 care centers). 

1042 In determining the number of small businesses affected by the rule, the Agency applied 

1043 U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA’s definition of small business. However, applying the 

1044 U.S. Economic Census data requires either under or overestimating the number of small 

1045 businesses affected by the rule. For example, for many construction establishments, the SBA 

1046 defines small businesses as having revenues of less than $14 million. With respect to those 

1047 establishments, the U.S. Economic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10 

1048 million or more into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data for the entire industry 

1049 would overestimate the number of small businesses affected by the rule and would defeat the 

1050 purpose of estimating impacts on small business. It would also underestimate the rule’s impact 

1051 on small businesses because the impacts would be calculated using the revenues of large 

1052 businesses in addition to small businesses. On the other hand, applying the closest, albeit lower, 

1053 revenue bracket would underestimate the number of small businesses affected by the rule while 

1054 at the same time overestimating the impacts. Similar issues arose in estimating the fraction of 

1055 property owners and managers that are small businesses. EPA has concluded that a substantial 

1056 number of small businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen to be 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 26 of 37

1057 more conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, 

1058 revenue bracket for which U.S. Economic Census data is available. For other sectors (nonprofits 

1059 operating childcare centers or private schools), EPA assumed that all affected firms are small, 

1060 which may overestimate the number of small entities affected by the rule. 

1061 The vast majority of entities in the industries affected by this rule are small. Using EPA’s 

1062 estimates, the revisions to the renovation, repair, and painting program will affect approximately 

1063 289,000 small entities. 

1064 4. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA evaluated two factors in its analysis 

1065 of the rule’s requirements on small entities, the number of firms that would experience the 

1066 impact, and the size of the impact. Average annual compliance costs as a percentage of average 

1067 annual revenues were used to assess the potential average impacts of the rule on small businesses 

1068 and small governments. This ratio is a good measure of entities’ ability to afford the costs 

1069 attributable to a regulatory requirement, because comparing compliance costs to revenues 

1070 provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a 

1071 commonly available measure of economic activity. Where regulatory costs represent a small 

1072 fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on such entities 

1073 may be considered as not significant. For non-profit organizations, impacts were measured by 

1074 comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, 

1075 however, revenue information was used as a proxy for expenditures. It is appropriate to calculate 

1076 the impact ratios using annualized costs, because these costs are more representative of the 

1077 continuing costs entities face to comply with the rule. 

1078 Of the approximately 289,000 small entities estimated to incur costs due to the rule, an 

1079 estimated 101,000 small residential contractors are assumed to seek certification as a result of the 

1080 removal of the opt-out provision; therefore, they would incur training, certification, work 

1081 practice, and recordkeeping costs. The remaining estimated 189,000 small entities (working in 

1082 buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out) are only expected to incur costs due to the 

1083 additional recordkeeping provisions in the rule. 

1084 The average cost to a typical small renovation contractor of removing the opt-out 

1085 provision ranges from about $1,100 to about $6,400, depending on the industry sector. This 

1086 represents 0.8% to 1.7% of revenues depending on the industry sector. Overall, an estimated 

1087 101,000 small businesses could be affected by the removal of the opt-out provision, with average 

1088 impacts of 1.10%of revenues. 

1089 This rule’s new recordkeeping requirement has an average cost of $1 to $280 for entities 

1090 not affected by removal of the opt-out provision. This results in incremental cost impacts ranging 

1091 from 0.0001% to 0.08% of revenues. An estimated 189,000 small entities could be affected 

1092 solely by the additional recordkeeping requirement, including 165,000 small businesses with 

1093 average impacts of 0.03% of revenues, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts of 

1094 0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 

1095 Combining the removal of the opt-out provision with the new recordkeeping requirement, 

1096 a total of 289,000 small entities could be affected by the rule, including 266,000 small businesses 

1097 with average impacts of 0.4%, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts of 0.0005%, and 

1098 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 27 of 37

1099 To the extent that renovators and firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out 

1100 provision will already have become trained and certified because they also work in regulated 

1101 facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to the extent that eligible homeowners would 

1102 decline to opt out, the average impacts of this action will be lower than estimated. 

1103 Some of the small entities subject to the rule have employees while others are non1104 employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer jobs than firms with employees, and 

1105 thus have lower work practice compliance costs. However, they also have lower average 

1106 revenues than entities with employees, so their impacts (measured as costs divided by revenues) 

1107 can be higher. Impact estimates for non-employers should be interpreted with caution, as some 

1108 non-employers may have significant issues related to understatement of income, which would 

1109 tend to exaggerate the average impact ratio for this class of small entities. 

1110 There are an estimated 75,000 non-employer renovation contractors that could be 

1111 affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. The average cost to such contractors is 

1112 estimated to be $1,193 apiece. This represents 1.3% to 4.7% of reported revenues, depending on 

1113 the industry sector. The rule's new recordkeeping requirement is estimated to affect 

1114 approximately 96,000 additional non-employer renovation contractors not affected by removal of 

1115 the opt-out provision. The costs to such contractors are estimated to be $42 apiece. This 

1116 represents 0.05% to 0.17% of revenues, depending on the industry sector. 

1117 5. Relevant Federal rules. The requirements in this rule will fit within an existing 

1118 framework of other Federal regulations that address lead-based paint. Notably, the Pre1119 Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovators to distribute a lead hazard 

1120 information pamphlet to owners and occupants before conducting a renovation in target housing 

1121 and child-occupied facilities. This rule’s requirement that renovators provide owners and 

1122 occupants with records documenting compliance with the program’s training and work practice 

1123 requirements complements the existing pre-renovation education requirements. 

1124 6. Skills needed for compliance. Under the lead renovation, repair, and painting program 

1125 requirements, renovators and dust sampling technicians working in target housing and child1126 occupied facilities have to take a course to learn the proper techniques for accomplishing the 

1127 containment, cleaning, cleaning verification, and dust sampling tasks they will perform during 

1128 renovations. These courses are intended to provide them with the information they would need to 

1129 comply with the rule based on the skills they already have. Renovators then provide on-the-job 

1130 training in work practices to any other renovation workers used on a particular renovation. 

1131 Entities are required to apply for certification to perform renovations; this process does not 

1132 require any special skills other than the ability to complete the application. They also need to 

1133 document their training and the work practices used during renovations, which does not require 

1134 any special skills. 

1135 7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. EPA has been concerned with potential small 

1136 entity impacts since the earliest stages of planning for the RRP program under section 402(c)(3) 

1137 of TSCA. EPA conducted outreach to small entities and, pursuant to section 609 of RFA, 

1138 convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (the Panel) in 1999 to obtain advice and 

1139 recommendations of representatives of the regulated small entities. Pursuant to the RFA, EPA 

1140 used the report of the Panel convened for the closely related RRP rule promulgated in April 

1141 2008. EPA identified eight key elements of a potential renovation and remodeling regulation for 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 28 of 37

1142 the Panel’s consideration. These elements were: Applicability and scope, firm certification, 

1143 individual training and certification, accreditation of training courses, work practice standards, 

1144 prohibited practices, exterior clearance, and interior clearance. 

1145 Details on the Panel and its recommendations are provided in the Panel Report (Ref. 9). 

1146 Information on how EPA implemented the Panel’s recommendations in the development of the 

1147 RRP program is available in Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10) and 

1148 in Unit V.C. of the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). This rule is closely related to the RRP rule 

1149 and the conclusions made in 2008 regarding the Panel’s recommendations are applicable to this 

1150 final rule. Although this final rule expands the number of renovation firms that must comply with 

1151 the RRP requirements, it does not change the elements identified by the Panel. For example, this 

1152 rule does not change the work practice or certification requirements of the RRP rule. EPA 

1153 believes that reconvening the Panel would be procedurally duplicative and is unnecessary given 

1154 that the issues here were within the scope of those considered by the Panel. 

1155 8. Alternatives considered. EPA considered several significant alternatives to this rule 

1156 that could affect the economic impacts of the rule on small entities. These alternatives would 

1157 have applied to both small and large entities, but given the number of small entities in the 

1158 affected industries, these alternatives would primarily affect small entities. For the reasons 

1159 described in this unit, EPA believes these alternatives are not consistent with the objectives of 

1160 the rule. 

1161 i. Delayed effective date. EPA considered an option that would delay the removal of the 

1162 opt-out provision by 6 months, and another option that would delay the date by 12 months. These 

1163 options would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might lead to confusion 

1164 by renovators and homeowners. These options would also lead to increased exposures during the 

1165 delay period, including exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. Therefore, 

1166 EPA believes that these options are not consistent with the stated objectives of the rule. 

1167 ii. Staged approach. EPA considered a staged approach that would initially remove the 

1168 opt-out provision in pre-1960 housing, and then remove it in housing built between 1960 and 

1169 1978 a year later. This would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might 

1170 lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners. It would also increase exposures during the 

1171 first year of the rule from renovations in houses built between 1960 and 1978, including 

1172 exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA does not believe that the 

1173 reduced burden of a staged approach outweighs the implementation complexity and additional 

1174 exposures that it would create. Therefore, EPA believes that this option is not consistent with the 

1175 stated objectives of the rule. 

1176 iii. Alternate work practices. EPA also considered different options for the work practice 

1177 requirements in housing that was previously eligible for the opt-out provision. Specifically, EPA 

1178 considered options: With the containment requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 

1179 any cleaning or cleaning verification work practices; with the cleaning and cleaning verification 

1180 requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment work practices; with the 

1181 cleaning requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment or cleaning 

1182 verification work practices; and with the containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification 

1183 requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without the prohibitions or restrictions on paint 

1184 removal practices specified in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame burning or torching, the use 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 29 of 37

1185 of machines that remove paint through high-speed operation without HEPA exhaust control, and 

1186 heat guns operating in excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). 

1187 EPA’s Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated that renovation, repair, and paint preparation 

1188 activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The Dust Study 

1189 showed that the largest decreases in dust levels were observed in the experiments where the 

1190 rule’s practices of containment, specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification were all used. The 

1191 Dust Study indicated that if the prohibited and restricted practices are avoided, the suite of work 

1192 practices as a whole are effective at addressing the lead-paint dust that is generated during 

1193 renovation activities. This is discussed in more detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 21696–21697). 

1194 As required by section 212 of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

1195 (SBREFA), EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide (the Guide) in December 2008 to help 

1196 small entities comply with the RRP rule. The Guide is available at: 

1197 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National Lead Information 

1198 Center by calling 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may 

1199 access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–

1200 8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessary, to reflect this rulemaking activity. 

1201 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1202 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 

1203 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 

1204 State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA 

1205 generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and 

1206 final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 

1207 governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 

1208 Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of 

1209 UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 

1210 alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 

1211 achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 

1212 inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

1213 than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 

1214 publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

1215 establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 

1216 governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA 

1217 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 

1218 governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 

1219 input in the development of EPA proposed rules with significant Federal intergovernmental 

1220 mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 

1221 regulatory requirements. 

1222 Under UMRA Title II, EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that 

1223 may result in expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million 

1224 by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by State, local, and 

1225 Tribal governments in the aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement under 

1226 section 202 of UMRA which has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 12) and is 

1227 summarized here. 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 30 of 37

1228 1. Authorizing legislation. This rule is issued under the authority of TSCA sections 

1229 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 

1230 2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits 

1231 associated with this rule, a copy of which is available in the docket for this rule (Ref. 5). The 

1232 Economic Analysis presents the costs of this rule as well as various regulatory options and is 

1233 summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA has estimated the total costs of this rule at approximately $500 

1234 million in the first year and $300 million per year thereafter. 

1235 The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health effects attributable to 

1236 lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. These health effects include impaired 

1237 cognitive function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such as increased 

1238 adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood pressure, increased incidence of 

1239 hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 

1240 3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input from State, local, and 

1241 Tribal government representatives throughout the development of the renovation, repair, and 

1242 painting program. EPA’s experience in administering the existing lead-based paint activities 

1243 program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that these governments will play a critical role in 

1244 the successful implementation of a national program to reduce exposures to lead-based paint 

1245 hazards associated with renovation, repair, and painting activities. Consequently, as discussed in 

1246 Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), the Agency has met with State, 

1247 local, and Tribal government officials on numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 

1248 4. Least burdensome option. EPA has considered a wide variety of options for addressing 

1249 the risks presented by renovation activities where lead-based paint is present. As part of the 

1250 development of the renovation, repair, and painting program, EPA considered different options 

1251 for the scope of the rule, various combinations of training and certification requirements for 

1252 individuals who perform renovations, various combinations of work practice requirements, and 

1253 various methods for ensuring that no lead-based paint hazards are left behind by persons 

1254 performing renovations. The Economic Analysis for this rule analyzed several additional options 

1255 for the phasing, effective date, and work practices required for the additional owner-occupied 

1256 housing affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. As described in Unit IV.C., EPA has 

1257 concluded that the options for delaying or phasing the effective date would make the RRP 

1258 program more complex to implement, might lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners, 

1259 and would lead to increased exposures. EPA believes that the selected approach is the least 

1260 burdensome option available that achieves a central objective of this rule, which is to minimize 

1261 exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting activities in 

1262 all target housing and other buildings frequented by children under age 6. 

1263 This rule does not contain a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate as described 

1264 by section 203 of UMRA. Based on the definition of “small government jurisdiction” in RFA 

1265 section 601, no State governments can be considered small. Small Territorial or Tribal 

1266 governments may apply for authorization to administer and enforce this program, which would 

1267 entail costs, but these small jurisdictions are under no obligation to do so. 

1268 EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 

1269 significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments operate public housing, 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 31 of 37

1270 and schools that are child-occupied facilities. If these governments perform renovations in these 

1271 facilities, they may incur very small additional costs to provide residents, parents or guardians 

1272 with copies of the records documenting compliance with the training and work practice 

1273 requirements. EPA generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, 

1274 in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small government revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 

1275 Unit IV.C.4., the rule is expected to result in small government impacts well under 1% of 

1276 revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small governments. 

1277 Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governments, as the rule is not targeted at small 

1278 governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different 

1279 burden on small governments than on other entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 

1280 E. Executive Order 13132 

1281 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1282 1999), EPA has determined that this rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it will 

1283 not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 

1284 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

1285 levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

1286 not apply to this rule. States are able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer the lead 

1287 renovation, repair, and painting program requirements, but are under no obligation to do so. In 

1288 the absence of a State authorization, EPA will administer the requirements. Nevertheless, in the 

1289 spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

1290 communications between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA consulted with 

1291 representatives of State and local governments in developing the renovation, repair, and painting 

1292 program. These consultations were described in the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 

1293 10). 

1294 F. Executive Order 13175 

1295 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with 

1296 Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

1297 rule does not have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 

1298 governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on 

1299 the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, 

1300 as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to apply for and receive authorization to administer the 

1301 lead renovation, repair, and painting program on Tribal lands, but Tribes are under no obligation 

1302 to do so. In the absence of a Tribal authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. While 

1303 Tribes may operate public housing or child-occupied facilities covered by the rule such as 

1304 kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, and daycare facilities, EPA has determined that this rule would 

1305 not have substantial direct effects on the Tribal governments that operate these facilities. 

1306 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 

1307 13175 does not apply, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by discussing potential 

1308 renovation regulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painting program at several national 

1309 lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested Federal agencies. 

1310 G. Executive Order 13045 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 32 of 37

1311 Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

1312 Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to this rule because it is an 

1313 “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because 

1314 the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate 

1315 effect on children. 

1316 A central purpose of this rule is to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created 

1317 during renovation, repair, and painting activities in all housing and other buildings frequented by 

1318 children under age 6. In the absence of this regulation, adequate work practices are not likely to 

1319 be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activities in housing eligible for the opt-out 

1320 provision. 

1321 Removing the opt-out provision will protect children under the age of 6 who visit a 

1322 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 

1323 opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when their family purchases it after such 

1324 a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to owner1325 occupied housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. 

1326 Removing the opt-out provision will also protect children age 6 and older who live in houses 

1327 that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and 

1328 who live in adjacent properties. 

1329 H. Executive Order 13211 

1330 This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 

1331 entitled “Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

1332 or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the 

1333 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

1334 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

1335 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

1336 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 

1337 consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

1338 applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

1339 (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

1340 developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

1341 provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

1342 applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

1343 This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering 

1344 the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

1345 J. Executive Order 12898 

1346 Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

1347 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), 

1348 EPA has assessed the potential impact of this rule on minority and low-income populations. The 

1349 results of this assessment are presented in the Economic Analysis, which is available in the 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 33 of 37

1350 public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, the Agency has 

1351 determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

1352 environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of 

1353 environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high 

1354 and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or 

1355 low-income population. 

1356 

1357 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

1358 

1359 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and 

1360 recordkeeping requirements. 

1361 

1362 Date: ________ 

1363 

1364 ________________ 

1365 

1366 Administrator. 

1367 

1368 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 

1369 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 

1370 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

1371 2. Section 745.81 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

1372 § 745.81 Effective dates.

1373 (a) * * * 

1374 (4) Work practices. (i) On or after April 22, 2010 and before [insert date 60 days after 

1375 date of publication in the Federal Register], all renovations must be performed in accordance 

1376 with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in §

1377 745.86 (b)(6) in target housing or child-occupied facilities, unless the renovation qualifies for 

1378 one of the exceptions identified in § 745.82(a). This does not apply to renovations in target 

1379 housing for which the firm performing the renovation has obtained a statement signed by the 

1380 owner that the renovation will occur in the owner’s residence, no child under age 6 resides there, 

1381 the housing is not a child-occupied facility, and the owner acknowledges that the work practices 

1382 to be used during the renovation will not necessarily include all of the lead-safe work practices 

1383 contained in EPA’s renovation, repair, and painting rule. For the purposes of this section, a child 

1384 resides in the primary residence of his or her custodial parents, legal guardians, and foster 

1385 parents. A child also resides in the primary residence of an informal caretaker if the child lives 

1386 and sleeps most of the time at the caretaker’s residence. 

1387 (ii) On or after [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], all 

1388 renovations must be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and 

1389 the associated recordkeeping requirements in § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target housing or 

1390 child-occupied facilities, unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in § 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 34 of 37

1391 745.82(a) 

1392 

1393 * * * * * 

1394 

1395 § 745.82 [Amended]

1396 3. Section 745.82 is amended by removing paragraph (c). 

1397 4. Section 745.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2) introductory text, and 

1398 (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

1399 § 745.84 Information distribution requirements. 

1400 * * * * * 

1401 

1402 (b) * * * 

1403 (2) Comply with one of the following. (i) Notify in writing, or ensure written notification 

1404 of, each affected unit and make the pamphlet available upon request prior to the start of 

1405 renovation. Such notification shall be accomplished by distributing written notice to each 

1406 affected unit. The notice shall describe the general nature and locations of the planned renovation 

1407 activities; the expected starting and ending dates; and a statement of how the occupant can obtain 

1408 the pamphlet and a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d), at no cost to the 

1409 occupants, or 

1410 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs describing the general 

1411 nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be 

1412 posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. The 

1413 signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or information on how interested 

1414 occupants can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost 

1415 to occupants. The signs must also include information on how interested occupants can review a 

1416 copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at 

1417 no cost to the occupants. 

1418 * * * * * 

1419 

1420 (c) * * * 

1421 (2) Provide the parents and guardians of children using the child-occupied facility with 

1422 the pamphlet, information describing the general nature and locations of the renovation and the 

1423 anticipated completion date, and information on how interested parents or guardians of children 

1424 frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) 

1425 and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the occupants by complying with 

1426 one of the following: 

1427 * * * * * 

1428 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 35 of 37

1429 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs describing the general 

1430 nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be 

1431 posted in areas where they can be seen by the parents or guardians of the children frequenting the 

1432 child-occupied facility. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or 

1433 information on how interested parents or guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied 

1434 facility can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to 

1435 the parents or guardians. The signs must also include information on how interested parents or 

1436 guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of the records 

1437 required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the 

1438 parents or guardians. 

1439 * * * * * 

1440 

1441 5. Section 745.86 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(6) and redesignating paragraph (b)(7) 

1442 as paragraph (b)(6) and by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows: 

1443 

1444 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

1445 * * * * * 

1446 

1447 (b) * * * 

1448 (1) Records or reports certifying that a determination had been made that lead-based paint was 

1449 not present on the components affected by the renovation, as described in § 745.82(a). These 

1450 records or reports include: 

1451 (i) Reports prepared by a certified inspector or certified risk assessor (certified pursuant 

1452 to either Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an EPA-authorized State or Tribal certification 

1453 program). 

1454 (ii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after using EPA-recognized test kits, 

1455 including an identification of the manufacturer and model of any test kits used, a description of 

1456 the components that were tested including their locations, and the result of each test kit used. 

1457 * * * * * 

1458 

1459 (c)(1) When the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or within 30 days of the 

1460 completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, the renovation firm must provide information 

1461 pertaining to compliance with this subpart to the following persons: 

1462 (i) The owner of the building; and, if different, 

1463 (ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place within a 

1464 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation 

1465 took place within a child-occupied facility. 

1466 (2) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit target housing, 

1467 renovation firms must post the information required by this subpart or instructions on how 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 36 of 37

1468 interested occupants can obtain a copy of this information. This information must be posted in 

1469 areas where it is likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. 

1470 (3) The information required to be provided by paragraph (c) of this section may be 

1471 provided by completing the sample form titled “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” 

1472 or a similar form containing the test kit information required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and the 

1473 training and work practice compliance information required by § 745.86(b)(6). 

1474 (d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning verification as permitted 

1475 by § 745.85(c), the renovation firm must provide, when the final invoice for the renovation is 

1476 delivered or within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, a copy of 

1477 the dust sampling report to: 

1478 (1) The owner of the building; and, if different, 

1479 (2) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place within a 

1480 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation 

1481 took place within a child-occupied facility. 

1482 (3) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit target housing, 

1483 renovation firms must post these dust sampling reports or information on how interested 

1484 occupants of the housing being renovated can obtain a copy of the report. This information must 

1485 be posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. 

1486 6. Section 745.90 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(8) to read as follows: 

1487 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification.

1488 * * * * * 

1489 

1490 (a) * * * 

1491 (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician certification, an individual 

1492 must complete a renovator or dust sampling technician refresher course accredited by EPA under 

1493 §745.225 or by a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this part within 5 

1494 years of the date the individual completed the initial course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

1495 section. If the individual does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual 

1496 must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals who complete a renovator 

1497 course accredited by EPA before April 22, 2010, must complete an EPA-accredited renovator 

1498 refresher course before July 1, 2015, to maintain renovator certification. 

1499 

1500 * * * * * 

1501 

1502 (b) * * * 

1503 (8) Must prepare the records required by § 745.86(b)(1) and (6). 

1504 * * * * * 

1505 
*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review *** 

Page 37 of 37

1506 7. Section 745.225 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

1507 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied facilities.

1508 

1509 * * * * * 

1510 

1511 (c) * * * 

1512 (2) * * * 

1513 (iii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized State or 

1514 Tribal-accredited lead-specific training for instructors of lead-based paint activities courses or 8 

1515 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training 

1516 for instructors of renovator or dust sampling technician courses; and 

1517 

1518 * * * * * 

1519 

1520 8. Section 745.326 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

1521 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements.

1522 * * * * * 

1523 

1524 (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. When EPA publishes in the Federal 

1525 Register revisions to the renovation program requirements contained in subparts E and L of this 

1526 part: 

1527 (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the effective date of the 

1528 revisions to the renovation program requirements in subparts E and L of this part must 

1529 demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section no later than the first report that it 

1530 submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the 

1531 revisions. 

1532 (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a renovation program submitted 

1533 but not approved before the effective date of the revisions to the renovation program 

1534 requirements in subparts E and L of this part must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of 

1535 this section either by amending its application or in the first report that it submits pursuant to §

1536 745.324(h) of this part but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the revisions. 

1537 (3) A State or Tribe submitting its application for approval of a renovation program on or 

1538 after the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application that it meets the 

1539 requirements of the new renovation program requirements in subparts E and L of this part.

1540 

1541 [FR Doc. 09–????? Filed ??–??–09; 8:45 am] 

1542 BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

1543