*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 37 EO 12866 Review Draft of 02/19/2010 1

2

3
ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY 4

40 CFR Part 745 5

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–XXXX–X] 6

RIN 2070–AJ55 7

Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Reco rdkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, 8 Repair, and Painting Program 9

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 10

ACTION: Final rule. 11

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 12 Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule 13 established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 14 practice standards on persons performing re novations for compensation in most pre-1978 15 housing and child-occupied faciliti es. In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” 16 provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice 17 requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he 18 or she occupies that no child under age 6 or preg nant women resides in the home and the home is 19 not a child-occupied facility. EPA is also requ iring renovation firms to provide a copy of the 20 records demonstrating compliance with the trai ning and work practice requirements of the RRP 21 rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being reno vated or the operator of 22 the child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes mino r changes to th e certification, 23 accreditation and state authorization requirements. 24

DATES: This final rule is effective [ insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal 25 Register ]. 26

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 27 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049

. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 28
available at http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not 29 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business In formation (CBI) or other information whose 30 disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 31 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available 32
docket materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only 33 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. Th e OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 34 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA WestBldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 35 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 36 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 37 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 38 Docket visitors are required to show photographic identificati on, pass through a metal detector, 39*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 37 and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processe d through an X-ray machine and 40 subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in 41 the building and retu rned upon departure. 42

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 43

44 For general information contact : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental 45 Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollu tion Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 46 Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 47 number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov

. 48

For technical information contact : Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals 49 Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 50 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–0758; e51
mail address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov

. 52

Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through TTY 53 by calling the toll-free Fede ral Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339. 54

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 55

56
I. General Information 57

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 58

You may be potentially affected by this ac tion if you operate a tr aining program required 59 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who must be certified to conduct 60
renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.89, or if you are an individual who must be 61
certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. 62

This final rule applies only in States, Territo ries, and Indian Tribal areas that do not have 63 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the 64
authorization status of States , Territories, and Indian Trib es, contact the National Lead 65 Information Center (NLIC) at 1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech-challenged 66 individuals may access this number through TTY by cal ling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 67 1–800–877–8339. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: 68

• Building construction (NAICS code 236), e .g., single-family housing construction, multi69 family housing construction, residential remodelers. 70

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning 71 contractors, painting and wall c overing contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 72 contractors, drywall and insulati on contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, 73 glass and glazing contractors. 74

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential build ings and dwellings, 75 residential property managers. 76

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

Page 3 of 37 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 78 kindergarten classrooms. 79

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

• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection serv ices (NAICS code 81 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 82

• Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors engaged in 83 lead-based paint activities. 84

This listing is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers 85 regarding entities likely to be aff ected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 86
could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 87 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 88 certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be af fected by this action, you 89 should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 90 CFR 745.226. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 91 entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 92
CONTACT

. 93

II. Background 94

A. Agency's Authority for Taking this Action 95

This final rule is being issued under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act 96 (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 97

B. Introduction 98

In the Federal Register issue of April 22, 2008, under th e authority of sections 99 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). The final RRP 100 rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses lead-based paint hazards 101 created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted surfaces in target 102 housing and child-occupied facilities. 103

Shortly after the RRP rule was published, se veral petitions were filed challenging the 104 rule. These petitions were cons olidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of 105 Columbia Circuit. On August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and 106 children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petiti ons. In this agreement EPA 107 committed to propose several changes to the RRP ru le, including the changes discussed in this 108 document regarding the opt-out provis ion and recordkeeping requirements. 109

The RRP rule establishes requirements for tr aining renovators, other renovation workers, 110 and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 111 renovation firms; for accrediting providers of re novation and dust sampling technician training; 112 for renovation work practices; and for recordkeepi ng. Interested States, Territories, and Indian 113 Tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of 114 the new renovation requirements. More inform ation on the RRP rule may be found in the 115*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 37 Federal Registerdocument announcing the RRP ru le or on EPA's website at 116 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

. 117

Many provisions of the RRP rule were de rived from the existing lead-based paint 118 activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). Th ese existing regulations were 119 promulgated in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), wh ich defines lead-based paint activities in 120 target housing as inspections, risk assessments , and abatements. The 1996 regulations cover 121 lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities, along with limited 122 screening activities called lead hazard screens. These regulati ons established an accreditation 123 program for training providers and a certification program for i ndividuals and firms performing 124 these activities. Training course accreditation and indivi dual certification was made available in 125 five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abat ement supervisor, and abatement 126 worker. In addition, these lead-b ased paint activitie s regulations estab lished work practice 127 standards and recordkeeping requirements for l ead-based paint activities in target housing and 128 child-occupied facilities. 129

The RRP rule created two new training disc iplines in the field of lead-based paint: 130 Renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who successfully complete renovator training 131 from an accredited training provi der are certified renovators. Certified renovators are 132 responsible for ensuring that renovations to whic h they are assigned are performed in compliance 133 with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 745.85. Persons who successfully 134 complete dust sampling technician training from an accredited training provider are certified dust 135 sampling technicians. Certifie d dust sampling technicians may be called upon to collect dust 136 samples after renovation activit ies have been completed. 137

The RRP rule contains a number of work pr actice requirements that must be followed for 138 every covered renovation in target housing and child-occupied fac ilities. These requirements 139 pertain to warning signs and work area containmen t, the restriction or prohibition of certain 140 practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power plan ing), waste handling, cleaning, 141 and post-renovation cleaning verification. The fi rm must ensure compliance with these work 142 practices. Although the certified re novator is not required to be on-site at all times, while the 143 renovation project is ongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work 144 being performed by other workers to ensure th at the work practices are being followed. 145

146

C. Opt-out Provision 147

The RRP rule included a pr ovision that exempts a renovation firm from the training and 148 work practice requirements of the rule when the firm obtains a certificatio n from the owner of a 149 residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home 150 and the home is not a child-occupi ed facility. Unless the target housing meets the definition of a 151 child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant si gned a statement that no child under age 6 and no 152 pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will not be 153 required to use the lead-safe work practices c ontained in EPA’s RRP ru le, the renovation activity 154 is not subject to the traini ng, certification, and work practic e requirements of the rule. 155 Conversely, if the owner-occupant does not sign the certification and acknowledgement for any 156 reason (even if no children under age 6 or no preg nant women reside there), the renovation is 157*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 37 subject to the requirements of the RRP rule. 158

Even though the Agency included the opt- out provision in the final RRP rule, EPA 159 recognized that the opt-out presented concer ns for exposure to children under age 6. 160 Nonetheless, EPA explained that it believed it should focus the rule on scenarios with the 161 greatest exposure to children under age 6, that co ncerns for new homeowners would be mitigated 162 to some extent by the requirements of the “Discl osure Rule”, and that ol der children and adults 163 did not ingest lead-dust at as high a rate a toddlers and therefor e high dust lead levels present a 164 much greater risk to a young child than they do fo r an older child or adult. After promulgation, 165 the rule, and specifically the opt-out provision, was challenged. As part of a settlement 166 agreement, EPA agreed to propose removing the opt-out provision. 167

On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed to remove the opt-out provision. For the reasons 168 discussed in this Unit, the Agen cy has now concluded that it is important to require the RRP 169 work practices and training and cer tification requirements in targ et housing even if there is no 170 child under age 6 or pregnant wo man residing there. By removing the opt-out provision, the rule 171 will go farther toward protecting children under age 6 and pregnant women, as well as older 172 children and adult occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman 173 resides. Therefore, the opt-out provision w ill no longer be available to owner-occupants 174 beginning on the effective date of this final rule. 175

EPA believes the opt-out provision is not suffi ciently protective for children under age 6 176 and pregnant women, the most vulnerable populations identified in the RRP rule. As pointed out 177 by a number of commenters on the RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not protect families with 178 young children who may purchase recently renovated target housi ng. Removal of the opt-out 179 will result in fewer homes being purchased with lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and 180 painting activities. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out provision was limited to owner-occupied 181 target housing and did not extend to vacant rental housing because of the concern that future 182 tenants could unknowingly move into a rental unit where dust-lead h azards created by the 183 renovation are present. In the same way, dust- lead hazards created during renovations in an 184 owner-occupied residence conducted prio r to a sale will be present fo r the next occupants. It is 185
common for home owners to hire contractors to perform activities that disturb paint before 186 selling a house, thus increasing the likelihood of lead hazards being present for someone buying 187 a home, which may include a family with a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman. 188

In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA explai ned that it believed the Disclosure Rule, 40 189 CFR part 745, subpart F (required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based 190 Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–550), would help to address these 191 concerns. The Disclosure Rule requires sellers of target housing to disclose known lead-based 192 paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers and provide them with a copy of the 193 lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 194 14). EPA explained the receipt of this informa tion could prompt the family to inquire about 195 potential lead-based paint hazards in the home. In addition, EPA recommended that purchasers 196 take advantage of their statutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk 197 assessment done while in the proces s of purchasing target housing. 198

199 In supporting the proposal to remove the opt -out provision, one comm enter disagreed that 200 the Disclosure Rule adequately addresses the risks to subsequentowners of target housing that 201*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 37 undergo renovations under the opt- out provision. In particular, this commenter pointed out that 202 there is nothing in the Disclosure Rule to alert homeowners to the fact that RRP work practice 203 requirements were not followed before they purchased the home. Indeed, the Disclosure Rule only 204 requires disclosure of known hazards. It would not require disclosure of renovation activities or that 205 the owner opted out of the RRP rule requirements. The commenter further states that it is 206 unreasonable to assume that a typical homeowner or someone renting a previously owner-occupied 207 dwelling would know the detailed exemptions on the RRP rule. 208

209 The Agency continues to believe that the Disclosure Rule provides valuable information 210 to homeowners and that this information may he lp homeowners become aware of lead hazards. 211 However, EPA’s study on the Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, 212 and Painting Activities (the “Dust Study”, Ref. 11), demons trated that renovation, repair, and 213 painting activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The study 214 also showed that the RRP work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to dust hazards 215
that could result from renovation activities. As the commenter pointed out, the Disclosure Rule 216 will not, in many cases, provide the type of renovation specific lead hazard information or 217 provide recipients information th at can be said to reliably or effectively result in minimizing 218 exposure to lead-based paint ha zards created by renovation activi ties. Thus, there is little 219 evidence to suggest that the prov isions of the Disclosure Rule are effective or reliable at 220 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazar ds created by renovation activities in target 221 housing. In addition, even if the Disclosure Rule reliably disclo sed relevant information relating 222 to earlier renovation activities, EP A does not believe this would be an adequate substitute for the 223 work practice standards, which EPA has a record basis to conclude actually result in elimination 224 – rather than simply disclosure -- of the hazards created by renovations. 225

226

227 Perhaps in recognition of this shortcomi ng, one commenter suggested that EPA should 228 revise the Disclosure Rule, as opposed to maki ng changes to the RRP rule. That would not, 229 however, satisfy EPA’s obligation under section 4 02 to put into place standards that take into 230 account reliability, effectiveness, and safety to address lead-based pa int hazards created by 231 renovation activities in target hous ing. Moreover, the Disclosure Rule was jointly promulgated 232 by EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Thus, changes would involve 233 a joint rulemaking effort and are not wholly withinEPA’s control. Furthermore, changes to the 234 Disclosure Rule would need to be analyzed inthe context of the underlying statute—not just 235 because it might be helpful in the context of actions taken by EPA under a different statutory 236 provision. In short, while this is a suggestion that may be worth pursuing, it does not address the 237 present issue; that of reliably and effectivel y minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 238 created by renovation activities. 239

240

Furthermore, EPA is concerned about the e ffectiveness of disclosure with respect to 241 populations with the highest risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Non-Hispanic black 242
children and children from low-income families have an increased risk of exposure to harmful 243 lead levels. Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data 244
show that overall the incidence of elevated blood lead levels have decreased for all groups 245 assessed. However, the geometric mean bl ood lead level was significantly higher for non246 Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic 247*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 37 whites (1.7 μg/dL). For children aged 1-5 years from families with low income, the geometric 248 mean blood lead level was 2.5 μg/dL. Further, th e incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 249 10 ug/dL and greater than or equal to 5ug/dL were higher fo r non-hispanic blacks (14% and 250 3.4% respectively) than for Mexi can Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, re spectively) and non-Hispanic 251 whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively). (Ref. 3). EPA is concerned that disclosure may be 252 ineffective with respect to these populations already at higher ri sk of having elevated blood lead 253 levels because the effectiveness of disclosure depends on the recipient’s understanding the 254 significance of the disclosure and having the mean s and ability to act upon the information. 255

This also relates to practical issues that have implications fo r the RRP rule in general, and 256 for high risk, low-income, minority populations inparticular. The opt-out is a relatively 257 complicated overlay to the applicability provisions of the rule. EPA believes there are practical 258 benefits to removing the opt-out and simplif ying the applicability of the rule—both for 259 renovators and homeowners. The opt-out provi sion complicates the outreach and education 260
about lead hazards and makes the rule more co mplicated for renovators to apply and consumers 261 to understand. Furthermore, it not only assume s literacy but also a working knowledge of what 262 the rule would otherwise require and an ability to provide inform ed consent. Accordingly, EPA 263 believes that populations that already have the highest risk factors for lead exposure may be 264 disproportionately adversely aff ected by the complexity of a ru le that contains the opt-out 265 provision. More generally, EPA beli eves that the more uniform the application of the rule work 266 practices in target housing is, the more effective and reliable they will be at minimizing exposure 267 to lead-based paint hazards. C ontractors who have a single set of work practices that are to be 268 applied in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities will be more likely to apply them 269 consistently and correctly. 270

Renovations performed under the op t-out provision are also like ly to result in exposures 271 for vulnerable populations in other ways. Vis iting children who do not sp end enough time in the 272 housing to render it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead from playing 273 in dust-lead hazards created by renovations. Fo r example, children may spend time in the homes 274 of grandparents, but those homes may be eligible for the opt-out provision of the RRP rule. A 275 homeowner who signs an opt-out st atement may not realize that sh e is pregnant. For example, 276 “A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning duri ng Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse” describes 277 four cases of childhood lead poisoning and two ca ses of adult lead toxi city resulting from a 278
renovation. One of the adults was a woman who di d not realize she was pregnant until after the 279 exposure occurred. (Ref. 16) 280

Eliminating the opt-out provision will also protect families with young children residing 281 near or adjacent to homes undergoing renovations. Under the RRP rule, an owner occupant can 282 take advantage of the opt-out provision even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman lives in 283 an adjacent home. Renovations on the exterior of a residence can spread leaded dust and debris 284 some distance from the renovation activity, wh ich is why, for regulated renovations, EPA 285 requires renovation firms to cover the ground wi th plastic sheeting or other impermeable 286
material a distance of 10 feet from the renovatio n and take extra precautions when in certain 287
situations to ensure that dust and debris does not contaminate other buildings or other areas of 288 the property or migrate to adjacent properties. One commenter cited a study that shows housing 289 in urban areas, such as Chicago, tend to be onl y three to five meters apart, highlighting the 290 likelihood of lead contamination of adjacent pr osperities in urban neighborhoods. Similarly, 291*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 37 another commenter stated that in urban communitie s, many if not most of the homes are side by 292 side. There are approximately 2 million owner- occupied, single-family attached homes (e.g., 293 townhomes, semi-detached or duplex homes) builtbefore 1978. Renovations on the exteriors of 294 these homes are likely to contaminate neighbor ing yards and porches resulting in exposure 295
outside the house as well as inside because dust can be tracked into the home. Many more 296 owner-occupied, single-family detached homes are located in close proximity to each other, and 297 renovations performed under the op t-out provision present a similar risk for these homes. 298 Another factor that EPA did not fully consider in promulgating the original RRP rule, but that 299 weighs heavily against the opt-out provision, is that the risks posedby the opt-out with respect to 300 exterior work will disproportionally affect children that are already at the highest risk for higher 301 blood lead levels—low income, non-Hispanic bl ack children living in older housing in urban 302 areas, which is likely to be compri sed of attached, or closely constr ucted detached, homes. 303

While the RRP rule focused principally on protecting children under age 6, it is well 304
known that older children and adults can also suffer adverse effect s from lead exposure. Adults 305 are susceptible to lead effects at lower bl ood lead levels than pr eviously understood (e.g

. , Ref 13, 306 p. 8– 25). Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead 307 exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood 308 pressure and incidence of hypertension. A meta-ana lysis of numerous studies estimates that a 309 doubling of blood-Lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μ g/dL) is associated with ~1.0 mm Hg increase 310 in systolic blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. The evidence for an 311
association of lead with cardi ovascular morbidity and mortalit y is limited but supportive. (Ref 312 13, p E-10). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6 and 8 of EPA’s Air Quality 313 Criteria Document for Lead (Ref 13), “neurotoxi c effects in children and cardiovascular effects 314 in adults are among those best substantiated as oc curring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 315

to 10 μ g/dL (or possibly lower); and these categorie s are currently clearly of greatest public 316 health concern’’ (Ref. 13, p. 8–60). With regard to blood lead levels in individual children 317 associated with particular neur ological effects, the Criteria Do cument states “Collectively, the 318 prospective cohort and cross-sectio nal studies offer evidence that exposure to lead affects the 319 intellectual attainment of pr eschool and school age childre n at blood lead levels <10 μ g/dL (most 320 clearly in the 5 to 10 μ g/dL range, but, less definitively, possibly lower).” (Ref. 13, p. 6–269). 321 Epidemiological studies have cons istently demonstrated associat ions between lead exposure and 322
enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and 323 incidence of hypertension. As one commenter point ed out, the half-life of lead in bone is 324 approximately 20 years. Thus, women of child-b earing age exposed to le ad will retain higher 325 levels of lead in their bodies throughout their child-bearing years. Whenpregnancy occurs, lead 326 can be transferred to the fetus causing an array of adverse effects. EPA now believes the opt-out 327 provision does not sufficiently account for the importance of the health e ffects of lead exposure 328 to adults and children age 6 and older by al lowing renovations to be performed without 329 following the RRP rule requirements in housing that qualified for the opt-out. In supporting the 330 final RRP rule, EPA stated that older children and adults do not ingest dust at the same high rate 331 that a toddler does. This is corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis of studies of children’s hand332 to-mouth behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this analysis indicates, this does not mean that hand333 to-mouth behavior is not a potenti al concern for older children. According to the meta-analysis, 334 the average indoor hand-to-mouth behavior range d from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, with the 335 lowest value corresponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highestvalue corresponding to the 336

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

Page 9 of 37 contacts/hour, with the lowest value corre sponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest 338 value corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month olds. Although toddlers have a higher incidence of 339
hand-to-mouth behavior than 6 to < 11 year olds, the latter group still averages more than 6 340
contacts/hour. Further elevated blood lead levels do occur in children older than 6 and adults 341 (Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows that when the RRP requirements are not followed, renovation 342
activities result in dust lead levels that can be orders of magnitude above the hazard standard and 343 that can be orders of magnitude higher than if the RRP requirements are followed. EPA believes 344 the information from this meta-analysis prov ides corroborating support for EPA’s concern for 345
children 6 and older and its decision to eliminate the opt-out provision. 346

347 The Agency believes that it should only allow provisions such as the opt-out for 348
situations where the information available to EPA indicates that the RRP rule work practices are 349 not necessary to minimize exposure of occupants to lead paint hazards. Because lead paint dust 350 exposure can cause adverse health effects for popul ations other than justchildren under age 6 351
and renovations can result in lead dust levels many times higher than the hazard standard, EPA 352 believes the work practices should be followed in target housing without regard to the age of the 353
occupants. 354

355 Moreover, EPA believes that implementing th e regulations without the opt-out provision 356
promotes, to a greater extent, the statutory directive to prom ulgate regulations covering 357 renovation activities in target housing. Among other things, TSCAsection 402(c)(3), directs 358 EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to re novation activities that create lead-based paint 359 hazards in target housing. Section 401(17) of TSCA defines target housing as “any housing 360 constructed prior to 1978, except ho using for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any 361 child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing for the 362 elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0- bedroom dwelling.” Pursuant to section 403 of 363 TSCA, EPA has identified dust-lead hazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities as 364 surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentr ation of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft 2 365 on floors or 250 μg/ft 2 on windowsills. In the RRP rule, EPA found that renovation, repair, and 366 painting activities that disturb lead-based pa int create lead-based paint hazards. Thus, 367 renovations in target housing that create lead-bas ed paint hazards should be covered unless there 368
is a record basis to conclude that coverage is unnecessary. 369

Shortly after promulgating the RRP rule, th e RRP rule, and specifically the opt-out 370 provision, was challenged. EPA deci ded to settle the lawsuit. As part of the settlement, EPA 371 agreed to issue a proposed rule removing the opt-ou t. In turn, as part of this rulemaking, EPA 372 requested information or data that would shed any light on the reliab ility, effectiveness, or safety 373 of the opt-out or any variation thereof in relati on to EPA’s lead hazard standards. EPA did not 374 receive any information in response to its request. 375

EPA’s Dust Study demonstrated and EPA f ound that renovation, repair, and painting 376 activities produce lead dust above the regulator y hazard standards. In fact many renovation 377 activities create large quantities of lead dust. The Dust Study shows th at renovation activities 378 result in lead levels many times greater than the hazard standard when the RRP rule containment 379 and cleanup procedures are not follo wed. It also demonstrated that work practices other than 380 those restricted or prohibited by the RRP rule can leave behind lead dust well above the hazard 381 standards when the RRP rule requirements are not followed. The Dust Study also showed that 382*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 37 alternative practices (broom clean ing, not using containment) we re not effective or safe in 383
relation to EPA’s lead hazard standards. Unde r the opt-out, contractors performing renovations 384 would have no obligation to minimize or cleanup any dust-lead hazards created by the 385 renovation. Indeed, contractors would not be prevented from using practices that EPA has 386
determined create hazards that cannot be ad equately contained or cleaned up even when 387 following the RRP rule requirements. The Agency also took these factors into consideration in 388 its decision to remove the opt-outprovision in this final rule. 389

390

In development of the proposed rule, EPA considered and requested comment on certain 391 alternative approaches or work practice require ments for owner-occupied target housing that is 392 not a child-occupied facility and where no childr en younger than 6 or pregnant women reside. 393 EPA also requested comment on possible alternate approaches that would meet EPA’s statutory 394 obligation to apply work practice standards in target housing thattake into account reliability, 395 effectiveness, and safety. 396

One alternative for which EPA requested co mment would have required the RRP work 397 practices only for exterior renovations. Under this option, unless the target housing meets the 398 definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child 399 under 6 and no pregnant woman re side there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm 400 will only be required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule when 401 renovating exteriors then the renovation firm wo uld only be required to follow the RRP work 402 practices when doing exterior re novations, but not when doing inte rior renovations. This option 403 would have addressed exposures to lead dust from exterior renovations for people living in 404 neighboring homes, particularly attached hom es or homes in close physical proximity. 405 Individuals residing in homes inclose physical proximity could be exposed during the entire 406 renovation and post-renovation phase , and their exposure would not necessarily be considered by 407 an owner-occupant in choosing not to require lead-safe work practices. However, this option did 408
not address lead hazards created during renovations of the inte riors of home which could lead to 409 lead exposure to occupants, and EPA receiv ed no comments mitigating this concern or 410 supporting the protectiveness of this option. 411

EPA requested comment on an alternative option under which the only work practices 412 applicable to housing that is not a child-occupied f acility and where no ch ildren or pregnant 413 women reside would be the restriction or pr ohibition on certain work practice found at 40 CFR 414 745.85(a)(3). These include: 415

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

2. The use of machines that remove lead -based paint through high speed operation such 417 as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited 418
unless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control. 419

3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at temperatures below 1,100 420 degrees Fahrenheit. 421

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

Page 11 of 37 target housing that is not a child-occupied faci lity and where no children under age 6 or pregnant 423 women reside. This option would have prohibi ted or restricted the highest dust generating 424 practices but would not have required the other practices under 40 CFR 745.85. While the 425 prohibited work practices create high amounts of lead dus t, the other work pr actices also create 426
lead dust above the hazard standard. The Dust Study shows that common work practices result 427 in lead levels many times greater than the haza rd standard when the RRP rule containment and 428 cleanup procedures ar e not followed. 429

EPA requested comment on a third option under which a subset of target housing would 430 not be subject to the RRP work practices but instead would have been subject to dust wipe 431 testing to be performed after the renovation. Under this optio n, unless the target housing meets 432 the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant si gned a statement that no child 433 under 6 and no pregnant woman re side there and an acknowledgment that the renovation activity 434 is only subject to dust wipe testing after the renovation and providing th e results to the owner435 occupant, then the renovation firm would not be required to conduct the training, certification, 436 and work practice requirements of the rule. The testing results w ould become part of the record 437
for that house that must be disclosed under the Disclosure Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart F) 438 required by section 1018 of Title X of the Resi dential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 439 of 1992 (Public Law 102–550). This option woul d provide information that could protect 440 potential buyers of a home wher e renovation was completed prior to the sale, because they would 441 be notified of the results of the dust wipe tests before purchase and could take appropriate action 442 (e.g., thorough cleaning and retestin g of the home, or selecting a different home) if the lead 443
results were at a level that raised concerns for them. While this alternative may provide helpful 444 information to home owners and occupants, as discussed above it would not address lead-based 445 paint hazards created by renovations because it do es not require any of the work practices 446 required by the RRP rule. 447

After considering these alternatives as well as keeping the opt-out provision, the Agency 448 has decided to eliminate the Op t-out provision and not to adopt any of the alternatives. One 449 concern with the opt-out provision or the alternativ es is that they do not adequately address the 450 risks of lead-based paint hazards to children older than five years old or adults. The opt-out and 451
each of these alternatives can al so result in exposures to childre n under the age of 6 and pregnant 452 women to lead-based paint hazards. In the same way as for the opt-out provision itself, EPA also 453 has concerns that populations that are already at a higher risk for elevated blood lead levels may 454 be disproportionately and adversel y affected by the alternatives. 455

Another concern with the opt-out as well the al ternatives is that they can create confusion 456 among both contractors and consumers. Several co mmenters stated that th e opt-out provision or 457
the alternatives could cause confusion that could potentially result in non-compliance by 458 renovation firms. EPA agrees and believes thatsimplifying the applicability of the work 459 practices will enhance the effectiven ess and reliability of the rule. 460

Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now 461 conclude that the opt-out nor th at the alternative approaches ar e safe, reliable or effective 462 because none of these would sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In 463 sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors ar e exposed to the lead 464 hazards created by the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect older 465 children, women of childbearing ag e, or other adults currently residing in the home and can 466*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 37 result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint 467 hazards. Again, although EPA specifically requestedinformation or data that would shed any 468 light on the reliability, effectivene ss, or safety of these options inrelation to EPA’s lead hazard 469 standards, the Agency did not receive any. The Agency took these factors into consideration in 470 deciding not to adopt th ese alternatives. 471

D. Recordkeeping and Reporting 472

EPA’s stated purposes in promulgating the recordkeeping requirements were two-fold. 473
“The first is to allow EPA or an authorized St ate to review a renovation firm’s compliance with 474 the substantive requirements of the regulation th rough reviewing the records maintained for all 475 of the renovation jobs the firm has done. The se cond is to remind a renovation firm what it must 476 do to comply. EPA envisioned that renovation firm s would use the recordkeeping requirements 477 and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done everything that they are required to do 478 for a particular renovation” (Ref.1, p. 21745). Se veral commenters on the RRP rule suggested 479 that the recordkeeping requirement s could also be used to provide valuable information about the 480 renovation to the owners and occupants of build ings being renovated. EPA responded to these 481 comments by stating that some of the information identified by these commenters was included 482 in the “Renovate Right” pamphlet and that the pamphlet was the be st way to get that information 483 to the owners and occupants. With respect to the other items identified by these commenters, 484
EPA stated its belief that the renovation firms were already providing much of this information 485 (Ref. 1, p. 21718). 486

As part of EPA’s preparations to admini ster the RRP program, EPA has been developing 487 an education and outreach campaign aimed at c onsumers. In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA 488 recognized the importance of education and outreach to consumers, to teach them about lead-safe 489 work practices and to encourage them to hi re certified renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). 490 EPA’s work on the education and outreach campa ign has continued to highlight the importance 491 of an informed public to the success of the RRP program at minimizing exposures to lead-based 492 paint hazards that may be created by renovations. As a result, EPA has determined that copies of 493 the records required to be maintained by renovati on firms to document compliance with the work 494 practice requirements, if provided to the owners and occupants of the re novated buildings, would 495 serve to reinforce the information provided by the “Renovate Right” pam phlet on the potential 496 hazards of renovations and on the RRP rule requirements. While the “Renovate Right” pamphlet 497 provides valuable information about the requireme nts of the RRP rule, the records that a firm 498 would give to owners and occupants would provide useful information regarding rule 499 compliance that is not found in the pamphlet. In covering the signifi cant training and work 500 practice provisions of the RRP rule, these reco rds would enable buildi ng owners and occupants 501
to better understand what the renovation firm di d to comply with the RRP rule and how the RRP 502 rule’s provisions affected their specific renovati on. Several commenters stated that educating 503 homeowners would help them monitor compliance by the renovation firm. One commenter 504 stated that the checklist would help the public un derstand the RRP rule and that a better informed 505 public would choose to have renovation performe d by profession remodelers who would provide 506 safe and quality work. Other commenters believe th at the distribution of the checklist is needed 507 to address a lack of accountability of renovation firm s to owners and occupants. EPA agrees that 508 educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the 509 EPA in monitoring compliance with the RRP ru le and contribute to the effectiveness and 510*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 37 reliability of the rule. 511

After considering public comments, EPA decide d to finalize the rule as proposed. This 512 final rules requires that, when th e final invoice for the renovation is delivered, or within 30 days 513 of the completion of the renovation, whicheve r is earlier, the renovation firm provide 514 information demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the 515 RRP rule to the owner of the building being renov ated and, if different, to the occupants of the 516 renovated housing or the operator of the child-oc cupied facility. For renovations in common 517 areas of target housing, the renovation firm must provide the occ upants of the affected housing 518
units instructions on how to re view or obtain this informati on from the renovation firm at no 519 charge to the occupant. These instructions mu st be included in th e notice provided to each 520 affected unit under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) or on th e signs posted in the common areas under 40 521 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is finalizing similar re quirements for renovations in child-occupied 522
facilities. Under this final rule , the renovation firm is required to provide interested parents or 523 guardians of children using the child-occupied fac ility instructions on how to review or obtain a 524 copy of these records at no cost to the parent s or guardians. This could be accomplished by 525 mailing or hand delivering these instructions, or by including them on the signs posted under 40 526 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii). 527

Under this new requirement, renovation firm s must provide traini ng and work practice 528 information to owners and occupants. The information should be provided in a short, easily read 529 checklist or other form. EPA’s “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” may be used for 530 this purpose, but firms may develop their own form s or checklists so long as they include all of 531 the required information. The specific information that is required to be provided are the training 532 and work practice compliance info rmation required to be maintain ed by 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as 533 well as identifying information on the manufacturer and model of the test kits used, if any, a 534 description of the components that were tested including their locati ons, and the test kit results. 535
The checklist or form must include documentation that a certified renovator was assigned to the 536 project, that the certified renova tor provided on-the-job training fo r workers used on the project, 537 that the certified renovator performed or direct ed workers who performe d the tasks required by 538 the RRP rule, and that the certified renovator performed the post-renovation cleaning 539
verification. This documentation must include a certification by the certif ied renovator that the 540 work practices were followed, with narration as applicable. However, EPA is not requiring that 541 the renovation firm automatically provide a copy of the certified renovator’s training certificate, 542
which must be maintained in the firm’s r ecords pursuant to 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as an 543
attachment to the checklist or other form. 544

One commenter believes that the text of the form should be included in the regulations. 545 EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency wants to give renovation firms flexibility with 546 regard to the format of the information given to owners and occupants. Renovation firms must 547 list the information specified in the regulations and they can use EPA’s sample checklist if they 548 choose. However, the final rule allows firms to use their own version of the checklist as long as 549 it includes the required information. 550

551

With respect to the option for dust clearance in lieu of cleaning verification under 40 552 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule require s the renovation firm to provide the associated results from 553 dust wipe sampling to the person who contracted for the renovation. This requirement was 554*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 37 promulgated in response to public comments on the applicability of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 555 CFR part 745, subpart F, to dust lead testing reports. These commenters stated that a 556 requirement for the information to be provided to the owner of the property was necessary in 557
order to make sure that the information would be available to be disclose d in the future (Ref. 1, 558 p. 21718). However, in agreeing with these commenters and acknowledging the importance of 559 having the dust sampling reports available to di sclose to future purch asers and tenants, EPA 560 neglected to consider the importance of maki ng dust sampling information available to the 561 current occupants of renovated rental target hous ing or child-occupied facilities. While 40 CFR 562 745.107 would require renovation -related dust sampling reports to be disclosed to target housing 563
tenants at the next lease rene wal, this may be months or years after the renovation was 564 completed. In addition, the Lead Disclosure Rule does not apply to child -occupied facilities in 565 public or commercial buildings, so those tenants may never receive this information. 566

Therefore, this final rule re quires that, if dust clearance is performed in lieu of cleaning 567 verification, the renovation firm provide a copy of the dust wipe sampling report(s) to the owner 568 of the building that was renovated as well as to the o ccupants, if different . With respect to 569
renovations in common areas of target housing or in child-occupi ed facilities, EPA is also 570 requiring that these records be ma de available to the tenants of the affected housing units or the 571 parents and guardians of children under age 6 using the child-occupi ed facilities. Dust sampling 572 reports may be made available to these groups inthe same way as training and work practice 573 records, by providing information on how to reviewor obtain copies in individual notifications 574 or on posted signs. 575

576

577 E. Effective Date 578

During the development of the proposed rule , EPA considered a delay in the effective 579
date of this final rule. EPA estimated that e liminating the opt-out prov ision could increase the 580
number of renovators that needto be certified by 50%. A delayed effective date would have 581
allowed more time for additional renovators to get their certification. The Agency asked for 582 comment on whether a 6-month or 1-year delay in the effective date is ap propriate. In addition, 583 EPA asked for comment on whether a delay in effec tive date of this rule would be confusing for 584 the regulated community or the certified personnel. 585

Comments regarding the delay were mixe d. Several commenters opposing the delay 586 believe that EPA has enough training capacity to train additional renovators that may need 587
certification because of this rule. Several comm enters pointed out that delaying the effective 588 date would result in more people being exposed to lead hazards that could be avoided if the RRP 589 rule work practices were in place for renovations previously eligible fo r the opt-out. Another 590 commenter believes that phasing inthe work practice requirements by delaying the effective of 591
this rule would lead to confusion for the public and renovation firms. 592

Some commenters were in favor of delaying the effective da te. Several commenters said 593 that many contractors were not aware of the requ irements and there is not sufficient time for 594 them to understand and comply with the regulati ons without a delayed e ffective date. Other 595
commenters stated that EPA shoul d delay the effective date to allow enough time for additional 596 renovators to take the training. One commenter a sserts that EPA should delay the effective date 597
rather than create a shor tfall of renovators. 598*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 37 Another factor EPA considered with regard to extending the effective date is whether 599 firms specialize in housing that is eligible for th e opt-out. The cost estimates for the rule assume 600 that renovation firms are somewhat specialized interms of whether they work in housing where 601 the RRP rule is applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt602 out housing will already have beco me certified, and their staff beentrained, because they also 603 work in regulated facilities ineligible for the opt -out provision. If firms are less specialized than 604 the analysis assumed, there may be little to no in cremental training and certification costs due to 605 the proposed rule. Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have 606 declined to opt out, the work pr actice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than 607 estimated. EPA requested comment in the proposal on the degree to which the same firms and 608 renovators are likely to work bot h in opt-out housing and in child -occupied facilities and target 609 housing that are ineligible fo r the opt-out provision. 610

611 Several commenters stated that they do not believe firms specialize in housing based on 612 occupancy. One commenter review ed advertisements and the market place, and did not find 613 renovators that work only in owner-occupied housing without children or pregnant women. 614 According to the commenter, because firms do not appear to specialize in this manner, the 615 additional costs of eliminating th e opt-out are only the costs asso ciated with the materials and 616 time for a particular job as contractors would be required to get certi fication regardless of 617 whether the opt-out provision is removed. EPA agrees with these comments. While the Agency 618 has not done analysis to determine how many firms may specialize based on occupancy, EPA 619 believes it is likely that most firms will not specialize in owner-occupied housing without 620 children or pregnant women. Co mmenters did not provide info rmation indicating that firms 621 specialize in this way. If that is the case then many of the approximately 110,000 firms and 622
renovators estimated to seek certification because of this rule would needcertification regardless 623 of whether the opt-out provision is removed. If the majority of the 110,000 firms and renovators 624 have already been required to get certification then there is less of an argument to extend the 625 effective date of this rule because many fewe r firms and renovators will need certification 626 between publication of the rule and the effective date. 627

628

Accordingly, the Agency decided not to delay the effective date of this final rule. As 629 such, the rule will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA 630 believes that it is important to eliminate the op t-out exemption without de lay in order to avoid 631 further lead exposures in housing previously eligible for the opt-out. Further, based on the 632 number of training provides accredited to date, the Agency believes that there is sufficient 633 training capacity available to trai n any additional renovators that w ould need to get certification 634
because of this rule. 635

F. State Authorization 636

As part of the authorization process, Stat es and Indian Tribes must demonstrate to EPA 637 that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. A State or Indian Tribe would have to indicate 638 that it meets the requirements of the renovation program in its application for approval or the 639 first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency proposed to give States and Indian 640 Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that their pr ograms include any new requirements the EPA may 641 promulgate, such as the requirements in this final rule. EPA received one comment from the 642*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 37 Iowa Department of Public Hea lth regarding this requirement. The commenter explained that 643 Iowa’s legislature only meets once a year for 4 months. Depending on the when EPA publishes 644 amendments to the RRP, it could be very difficult for states in similar situations to meet this 645 requirement. The commenter requested that EPA gi ve States and Indian Tr ibes two years instead 646 of one to demonstrate complian ce. EPA believes that the con cern raised by the commenter has 647 merit, and not just for Iowa. Therefore, the Agen cy decided to allow States and Indian Tribes up 648 to two years to demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule in its 649 application for approval or the first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). 650

G. Renovator Certification Requirements 651

EPA was made aware by stakeholders thatsome renovators want to take the training 652 course closer to April 2010 in order to maximi ze their 5–year certificati on which is not required 653 until the RRP rule becomes effective on Apr il 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 5–year 654 certification begins when the renov ator completes the training. The Agency is concerned that if 655 enough renovators wait until April 2010 to take the training it may cause training courses to fill 656 up resulting in a lack of availabl e courses near the effective date. In order to give renovators 657
incentive to take the course well in advance of the April 2010 effec tive date, the Agency 658 considered a change to the requirements that wo uld allow renovator certifications issued on or 659
before the effective date of the RRP rule to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency requested 660
comment on whether it should extend the certification for renovators that get their certification 661 by April 22, 2010. 662

EPA received several comments in favor of ex tending the renovator certification to July 663 1, 2015. Several commenters believe this would gi ve renovators incentive to take the training 664 early. One commenter supported th e extension so those who took th e training in advance of the 665 April 22, 2010 implementation date would not be pe nalized. Another comment er stated that an 666 extension of the certification would prevent logistical problems like waiting lists for trainings 667 during the final days before the effective date. 668

The Agency decided to finalize an extensi on of the 5-year certification for renovators 669 who take the training before April 22, 2010. EPA agrees that renovators who take the training 670 early should not be penalized and therefore wi ll extend those certifications until July 1, 2015. 671

H. Principle Instructor Requirements 672

As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered modifying the 673 requirements for training providers. Under the original requirements fo r the accreditation of 674 training providers, Principle Inst ructors were required to take a 16–hour lead-paint course taught 675 by EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. EPA became aware that 16–hours courses 676 are not available in every state, making it diffi cult for some instructors to get the required 677 training. To address this problem, EPA consider ed reducing the hourly re quirement to 8 hours. 678 EPA received several comments on the Principal In structor requirement, mostly in support of 679 reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. One commenter stated that there is no significant 680 benefit to requiring 16 hours inst ead of 8 hours and that the 8- hour requirement will fit more 681 closely to available training c ourses. Similarly, another comme nter stated that the 16-hour 682 training shares little content with what the Pr incipal Instructors are going to teach in the 683 renovator course. The commenter also explained th at there is no 16-hour leadtraining course in 684*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 37 Mississippi which led to difficulties with a local organization’s ability to offer the renovator 685 course. One commenter opposed to reducing the hour ly requirement stated that 8 hours of lead 686 training is not sufficient for an instructor to know enough about lead paint, lead hazards and 687 federal regulations. Another commenter stated that there is enough training capacity negating 688 the need to reduce the hourly requirement. 689

EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator course, instead of a longer abatement course, is 690 more closely related to what Pr incipal Instructors must know inorder to teach the renovator 691 training. In addition to the trai ning requirement, Principal Instru ctors must meet education and 692 work experience requirements in order to teach lead-based paint training courses. The Agency 693 believes that taking this course would be sufficient training for future instructors of the renovator 694
course and therefore has reduced th e requirement from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing the required 695 hours, future instructors can take the 8–hour reno vator or dust sampling technician trainings 696 instead of a 16–hour or longer abatement course. 697

698

III. References 699

1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 700 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). Available on-line at: 701 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr

. 702

2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and 703 Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register(61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL– 704 5389–9). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr

. 705

3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pame la A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. 706 Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brow n. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead 707 Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the 708 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009. 709

4. Xue J, Zartarian V, Moya J, Freeman N, Beamer P, Black K, Tulve N, Shalat S: A 710 meta-analysis of children’s hand-to-mouth fre quency data for estimating nondietary ingestion 711 exposure. Risk Anal. 2007 Apr.; 27(2): 411-20. 712

5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis for the 713 TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Prog ram Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule 714 for Target Housing and Child-O ccupied Facilities. April 2010. 715

6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bur eau of Economic Analysis. Table 1.1.9. Implicit 716
Price Deflators for Gross Do mestic Product. August 17, 2009. 717

7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping Propos ed Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking 718 entitled Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out Pr ovision and Other Amendments to the Renovation, 719 Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. August 2009. 720

8. EPA. Final Regulatory Flexibility An alysis for the Elimination of the Opt-Out 721
Provision and Other Amendments to the L ead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 722*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 37 Proposed Rule. April 2010. 723

9. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 724 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. March 3, 2000. 725

10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 726 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (F RL–7755–5). Available on-line at: 727 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr

. 728

11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 729 Activities. November 13, 2007. 730

12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act St atement; Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out 731
Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovati on, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. 732 April 2010. 733

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

14. EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commi ssion (CPSC), U.S. Department of Housing 735 and Urban Development (HUD). Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K736 99-001, June 2003). 737

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

2005 740

16. Marino, Phyllis E. et al “A Case Re port of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation 741
of a Victorian Farmhouse.” American Journal of Public Health , 80 (10) pp. 1183 -1185. 742
October 1990. 743

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 744

A. Executive Order 12866 745

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 746 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this rule is a “significa nt regulatory action” 747 under section 3(f)(1) of the Executiv e Order because EPA estimates th at it is likely to have an 748 annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to 749 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) fo r review under Executive Order 12866 and any 750 changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for 751 this rulemaking as required by sectio n 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order. 752

In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated 753 with this rulemaking. This analys is is contained in the Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead 754 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target 755 Housing and Child-Occupied Facili ties (Economic Analysis, Ref. 5), which is available in the 756 docket for this action and is briefly summarized here. 757

1. Number of faciliti es and renovations . This rule applies to 78 million target housing 758 units and child-occupied facilities in pre-1978 facilities. There are ap proximately 40 million 759*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 37 target housing units potentially affected by the removal of the opt-out provision (i.e., owner 760 occupied housing units where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides and that do not 761 meet the definition of a child-occupied facility ). There are an additional 38 million facilities 762 potentially affected by the requirement that renov ators provide owners and occupants with copies 763 of the records required to be maintained by the renovator to document compliance with the 764 training and work practice requirements. Appr oximately 100,000 of these facilities are child765 occupied facilities located in public or commerci al buildings, and the re mainder are located in 766 target housing (either in rental housing, owne r-occupied housing where a child under age 6 or 767 pregnant woman resides, or owner-occupied housing that meets the definition of a child768 occupied facility). 769

The removal of the opt-out provision w ill affect approximately 7.2 million renovation 770 events per year in the 40 million housing units prev iously eligible to use the opt-out provision. In 771 the first year, there will be an estimated 5.4 m illion renovation, repair, and painting events in 772 these housing units where the rule will cause lead-safe work pr actices to be used. (In the 773 remaining 1.8 million renovation events, test kits for determining whether a surface contains 774 lead-based paint will indicate that lead-based paint is not present.) EPA expects test kits that 775 more accurately determine whether a painted surf ace qualifies as lead-based paint will become 776 available in late 2010. Once the improved test kits are available, the number of renovation, 777 repair, and painting events using lead-safe work practices due to the rule in housing previously 778 eligible for the opt-out provision is expect ed to drop to 3.0 million events per year. 779

The requirement for renovators to provi de owners and occupants with records 780 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements will affect all of the 781 7.2 million renovation events per year in housing units previously eligible for the opt-out 782 provision. This new recordkeeping requirementwill also affect an additional 11.4 million 783 renovation events per year in the 38 million faci lities ineligible for the opt-out provision. 784

EPA’s estimates are based on the assumption that owners of housing eligible for the opt785 out provision would always choose to exercise that provision. To the extent that some eligible 786 homeowners would decline to opt out, the numbe r of renovation events affected by the removal 787 of the opt-out would be lower than EPA has esti mated, as would the costs of this action and the 788 estimated number of people protected by this ac tion, since they would choose to be protected by 789 the requirements of the RRP rule. 790

2. Options evaluated . EPA considered a variety of opti ons for addressing the risks created 791 by renovation, repair, and painting activities dist urbing lead-based paint in housing previously 792 eligible for the opt-out provision. The Economic Analysis analyzed several options, including 793 different options for the effective date of the fi nal rule when published; an option phasing out the 794 opt-out provision depending on when the facil ity was built (pre-1960 or pre-1978); and different 795 options for the work practices (such as containm ent, cleaning, and cleanin g verification) required 796 in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 797

All options evaluated in the Economic Anal ysis would also require renovation firms to 798 provide owners and occupants of the buildings with a copy of the records demonstrating 799 compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. This additional 800 recordkeeping requirement would apply to reno vation, repair, and painti ng activities in all 78 801 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities. 802*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 37 3. Benefits . The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse health effects 803 attributable to lead exposur e from renovations in pre-1978 bu ildings. These health effects 804 include impaired cognitive function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such 805
as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood pressure, increased 806 incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular mo rbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney 807
function. 808

Removing the opt-out provision will protec t children under the age of 6 who visit a 809 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 810 opt-out provision; childrenwho move into such housing when th eir family purchases it after such 811 a renovation would have been performed; and ch ildren who live in a property adjacent to 812 housing where renovation would have been pe rformed under the opt-out provision. Removing 813 the opt-out provision will also pr otect individuals age 6 and olde r who live in houses that would 814 have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and who live in 815 adjacent properties. 816

EPA has estimated some of the benefits of the rule by performing calculations based on 817
estimates of the number of individuals in each of these situations and the average benefit per 818 individual in similar situations from previous RRP rule analyses with some simple adjustments. 819 The resulting calculations provide a sense of th e magnitude of benefits from this action but 820 should not be interpreted as strict upper or lo wer bound estimates of tota l benefits. Based on two 821
scenarios for each of the situations described inthe previous paragraph, annualized benefits for 822 the rule may range from approximately $870 million to $3.2 billion assuming a discount rate of 823 3%, and $920 million to $3.3 billion assuming a disc ount rate of 7%. Within these scenarios, 824
10% of these benefits are attributable to avoide d losses in expected earnings due to IQ drop in 825 children under 6, and 90% to avoided medical cost s (or other proxies for willingness to pay) for 826 hypertension, coronary heart dise ase, stroke, and the resulting incidence of deaths in older 827 individuals. For children under 6, the largest prop ortion of these benefits derive from moving 828 into recently renovated housing; for older indi viduals, the largest proportion derives from on829 going residence in houses that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision. 830

EPA did not estimate benefits for thos e who live near a house renovated under the opt831 out provision unless in a conti guous attached home; those who spend time in a friend’s or 832
relative’s house renovated under the opt-out provision; and for heal th effects other than IQ loss 833 in children under 6 and blood pressu re effects in older individuals. 834

To the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to opt out, the benefits 835
of this action will be lower th an estimated, since exposed persons will already be protected by 836 the requirements of the RRP program. 837

4. Costs . Removing the opt-out pr ovision will require firms performing renovation, 838 repair, and painting work for compensation in housing previously elig ible for the opt-out 839 provision to follow the training, ce rtification, and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. 840 This may result in additional costs for these fi rms. Furthermore, the additional recordkeeping 841 requirements in this rule will increase costs of renovations in all target housing and child842 occupied facilities. Costs may be incurred by cont ractors that work in th ese buildings, landlords 843 that use their own staff to work in buildings theylease out; and child-occupied facilities that use 844 their own staff to work in buildings they occupy. 845*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 37 The rule is estimated to cost approximat ely $500 million in the first year. The cost is 846 estimated to drop to approximately $300 million pe r year starting with the second year, when 847 improved test kits for detecting the presence of lead-based paint are assumed to become 848 available. Over $200 million per year of the cost insubsequent years is due to the work practice 849 requirements in housing previously covered by th e opt-out provision. Training for renovators and 850 workers and certification for firms working in housing previously covered by the opt-out 851 provision is estimated to add approximately$50 million per year to the cost. Requiring 852 renovators to provide owners and occupants withcopies of the recor dkeeping required to 853 document compliance with the RRP rule trai ning and work practice requirements costs 854 approximately $30 million per year, with about two thirds of this incurred in housing that was 855 previously eligible fo r the opt-out provision. 856

Note that the costs of this rule as estim ated in the Economic Analysis are expressed in 857 2005 dollars. To express values interms of current dol lars, the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 858 Domestic Product as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis can be consulted for an 859 indication of how nominal prices for goods and se rvices produced in the economy have changed 860 over time. From 2005 to the second quarter of 2009, the implicit price defl ator increased from 861 100 to 109.753, a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 6). 862

The cost estimates for training and certification assume that renovation firms are 863 somewhat specialized in terms of whether theywork in facilities where the RRP rule is 864 applicable. However, there may be many instances where firms working in opt-out housing will 865 already have become certified, and their staff beentrained, because they also work in regulated 866 facilities ineligible fo r the opt-out provision. If firms are less specialized than the analysis 867 assumed, there may be little to no incremental trai ning and certification costs due to the rule. 868 Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would have de clined to opt out, the 869 work practice costs for removing the opt-out provision will be less than estimated. 870

The options EPA analyzed with a phase in or a delayed effective date for removing the 871 opt-out provision have a lower cost in the first 2 years but have id entical costs to the final rule 872 beginning in the third year. Opti ons with different work prac tice requirements for the housing 873 previously eligible for the opt-o ut provision would cost 1% to 17% less than the final rule. This 874 difference would all be due to lower work pract ice costs, as the trai ning, certification, and 875 recordkeeping costs would be the same for these options as for this rule. 876

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 877

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 878 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 879 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . EPA has prepared an Inform ation Collection Request (ICR) 880 document to amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR document, referred to as the Opt-out and 881 Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR Addendum and identified under EPA ICR No. 1715.13 and OMB 882 Control Number 2070–0155, has been placed in the docke t for this rule (Ref. 7). The information 883 collection requirements are not enfo rceable until OMB approves them. 884

Burden under the PRA means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 885 persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. 886
This includes the time needed to review instru ctions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 887*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 37 technology and systems for the purposes of colle cting, validating, and verifying information, 888 processing and maintaining information, and disc losing and providing information; adjust the 889 existing ways to comply with any previously ap plicable instructions and requirements; train 890 personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; s earch data sources; complete and 891 review the collection of information; and tran smit or otherwise disc lose the information. 892

The information collection activities containe d in this rule are de signed to assist the 893 Agency in meeting the core objectives of TS CA section 402. EPA has carefully tailored the 894 recordkeeping requirements so they will permit the Agency to achieve statutory objectives 895 without imposing an undue burden on those firm s that choose to be involved in renovation, 896 repair, and painting activities. 897

The information collection requirements under this rule may affect training providers as 898 well as firms that perform renovation, repair, or painting for compensation. Removing the opt899 out provision may cause additiona l renovators to become trained and firms to become certified, 900 and there are paperwork requirements for both of these activities. Removing the opt-out 901 provision will also create paperwork due to the requirement to maintain records documenting 902 compliance with the training and work practice re quirements. This rule also requires renovation 903 firms to provide owners and occupants with th ese records. Although firms have the option of 904 choosing to engage in the cove red activities, once a firm chooses to do so, the information 905 collection activities become mandatory for that firm. 906

The ICR document provides a detailed pres entation of the estimated paperwork burden 907 and costs resulting from this rule. The burden to training providers and firms engaged in 908 renovation, repair, and painting activities is summarized in this unit. 909

Because this analysis assumes that renovati on firms are somewhat specialized in terms of 910 whether they work in facilities where the RRP rule requirements are applicable, removing the 911 opt-out provision is estimated to result in addi tional renovators becomi ng trained and additional 912 renovation firms becoming certifie d. Training additional renovators will increase the paperwork 913 burden for training providers, since they must s ubmit records to EPA (or an authorizing State, 914 Tribe, or Territory) pertaini ng to each student attending a tr aining course. Approximately 170 915 training providers are estimated to incur an aver age burden of about 40 hours each for additional 916 notifications, resulting in an increase in training provider burden averaging 7,000 hours per year 917
as a result of the removal of the opt-out provision. 918

Removing the opt-out provision is estimat ed to result in up to 110,000 additional firms 919 becoming certified to engage inrenovation, repair, or painting activities. The average 920
certification burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is initially certified, 921 and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified (which occurs ev ery 5 years). Firms must keep 922 records of the work they perform; this recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 5 923 hours per year per firm. And under this rule, fi rms must also provide a copy of the records 924 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements of the RRP rule to 925 the owners and occupants of buildings bei ng renovated. This additional recordkeeping 926 requirement is estimated to average approximate ly 3.3 hours per year per firm. The total annual 927 burden for these 110,000 firms is estimated to average 1,072,000 hours, of which 362,000 hours 928 is due to the recordkeeping requirement to provi de owners and occupant s with documentation of 929 the training and work practices used. 930*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 37 To the extent that firms working in housi ng eligible for the opt-out provision will already 931 have incurred the training and certification burdens because they also work in regulated facilities 932 ineligible for the opt-out provision, the training and certification burden fo r this action will be 933
lower than estimated. 934

The requirement that firms provide owners and occupants with a copy of the records 935 demonstrating compliance with the training and wo rk practice requirements of the RRP rule also 936 applies to firms working in buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out provision. Under an 937 assumption that firms work in either buildings that are eligible for th e opt-out provision or 938 buildings that are ine ligible (but not in both types of buildings), EPA estimated that 211,000 939 firms work in buildings that are not eligible for the opt-out provision. EPA estimated that these 940 211,000 firms will incur an average annual burden of approximately 2.7 hours per firm due to the 941 new recordkeeping requirements, resulting in a total burden of 568,000 hour s per year for these 942 firms. To the extent that firms work in both ty pes of buildings, the number of firms and the total 943 burden in this category would be higher thanestimated. But this would be offset by a 944 corresponding decrease in th e 110,000 firms and 362,000 burden hours estimated for the firms 945 that were assumed to work only in buildings pr eviously eligible for the opt-out provision. 946

947

Total respondent burden for training providers and certifiedfirms from removing the opt948 out provision and requiring additional recordkeep ing is estimated to average approximately 949 1,647,000 hours per year during the 3 year period covered by the ICR. 950

The rule may also result in additional gove rnment costs to administer the program (to 951 process the additional training pr ovider notifications and to admi nister and enforce the program 952 for firms working in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision). States, Tribes, and 953 Territories are allowed, but are under no obligation, to apply for and receive authorization to 954 administer these requirements. EPA will directlyadminister programs for States, Tribes, and 955
Territories that do not become authorized. Becaus e the number of States, Tribes, and Territories 956
that will become authorized is not known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA 957 will administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government entities become 958 authorized, EPA’s administrati ve costs will be lower. 959

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 960 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 961 control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in chapter I of title 40 of the CFR, after 962 appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by 963 publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate mean s, such as on the related 964 collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency 965 will publish a technical amendmen t to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Registerto display the 966 OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final 967
rule. 968

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 969 burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 970 established a docket for this rule, which include s this ICR, under docke t ID number EPA–HQ– 971 OPPT–2005–0049. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 972
ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 973*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 37 Information and Regulatory Affairs, Of fice of Management and Budget, 725 17 thSt., NW., 974 Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office fo r EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 975 decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ insert date of publication in the 976 Federal Register ], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 977 it by [ insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register ]. 978

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 979

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ge nerally requires an agency to prepare a 980 regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 981 requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 982 certifies that the rule will not have a signifi cant economic impact on a substantial number of 983
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 984 governmental jurisdictions. 985

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined 986
in accordance with section 601 of RFA as: 987

1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 988

at 13 CFR 121.201. 989

2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 990 district, or special district witha population of less than 50,000. 991

3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 992 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 993

As required by section 604 of RFA, EPA has prepared a final regulatory flexibility 994 analysis (FRFA) for this rule. The FRFA is avai lable for review in the docket and is summarized 995 in this unit (Ref. 8). 996

1. Reasons why action by the Agency is being taken . After further consideration of the 997 opt-out provision, the Agency beli eves it is in the best interestof the public to remove the 998 provision. EPA believes that the opt -out provision is not suffici ently protective for children 999 under age 6 and pregnant women, because it does not provide prot ection from improperly 1000 performed renovations for visiting children and pregnant women; for children and pregnant 1001 women who move into a newly purchased house that was recently renovated under the opt-out 1002 provision; and for children and pregnant women who live adjacent to a home where the exterior 1003 is being renovated under the opt- out provision. In addition, while the RRP rule focused mainly 1004 on protecting young children and pregnant women from lead hazards, exposure can result in 1005
adverse health effects for older children and adults as well. Rem oving the opt-out provision will 1006 protect older children and adu lt occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or 1007 pregnant woman resides, as well as residents of adjacent properties. Finally, EPA believes that 1008 implementing the regulations without the opt-out provision promotes, to a greater extent, the 1009 statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering renovation activities in ta rget housing. 1010

EPA has determined that providing owners and occupants of renovated buildings with 1011 copies of the records documenting the renovation firm’s compliance with the RRP rule’s training 1012*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 37 and work practice requirements will serve to rein force information on both the potential hazards 1013 of renovations and on the RRP rule’s requirements. It will also enable building owners and 1014 occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and 1015 how the rule’s provisions affect ed their specific renovation. Edu cating the owners and occupants 1016 in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with the 1017 RRP rule. These improvements in education and monitoring will improve compliance with the 1018 RRP rule, which will ultimately pr otect children and adults from exposure to lead hazards due to 1019
renovation activities. 1020

2. Legal basis and objectives for this rule . TSCA section 402(c)(2) directs EPA to study 1021 the extent to which persons engaged in renovation , repair, and painting activities are exposed to 1022 lead or create lead-based paint hazards regul arly or occasionally. Af ter concluding this study, 1023 TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to revi se its lead-based pain t activities regulations 1024 under TSCA section 402(a) to appl y to renovation or remodeling activ ities that create lead-based 1025 paint hazards. Because EPA’s study found that activities commonly performed during renovation 1026 and remodeling create lead-based paint hazards, EPA issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In 1027 issuing the RRP rule, EPA revised the TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to apply to 1028 individuals and firms engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activ ities. In this rule, EPA is 1029 revising the TSCA section 402(c)(3) rule to c over renovations in all target housing and child1030 occupied facilities. In so doing, EPA has also taken into consideration the environmental, 1031 economic, and social impact of this rule as prov ided in TSCA section 2(c). A central objective of 1032 this rule is to minimize exposur e to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, 1033 and painting activities in all target housing and other build ings frequented by children under age 1034

6. 1035

3. Potentially affected small entities . Small entities include small businesses, small 1036 organizations, and small governmental jurisdiction s. The small entities that are potentially 1037 directly regulated by this rule include: Sma ll businesses (including contractors and property 1038 owners and managers); small nonprofits (certainchildcare centers and private schools); and 1039 small governments (school district s which operate pre-schools, ki ndergartens and certain child 1040 care centers). 1041

In determining the number of small busine sses affected by the rule , the Agency applied 1042
U.S. Economic Census data to the SBA’s defini tion of small business. However, applying the 1043 U.S. Economic Census data requires either under or overestimating the number of small 1044 businesses affected by the rule. For example, for many construction establishments, the SBA 1045 defines small businesses as having revenues of less than $14 million. W ith respect to those 1046 establishments, the U.S. Economic Census data groups all establishments with revenues of $10 1047
million or more into one revenue bracket. On the one hand, using data for the entire industry 1048
would overestimate the number of small businesse s affected by the rule and would defeat the 1049 purpose of estimating impacts on small business. It would also underestimate the rule’s impact 1050 on small businesses because the impacts would be calculated using th e revenues of large 1051
businesses in addition to small businesses. On th e other hand, applying the closest, albeit lower, 1052
revenue bracket would underestimate the number of small businesses affected by the rule while 1053 at the same time overestimating the impacts. Sim ilar issues arose in estimating the fraction of 1054 property owners and managers that are small bus inesses. EPA has concluded that a substantial 1055 number of small businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen to be 1056*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 37 more conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by using the closest, albeit lower, 1057
revenue bracket for which U.S. Economic Census data is available. For other sectors (nonprofits 1058 operating childcare centers or pr ivate schools), EPA assumed that all affected firms are small, 1059 which may overestimate the number of small entities affected by the rule. 1060

The vast majority of entities in the industrie s affected by this rule are small. Using EPA’s 1061 estimates, the revisions to the renovation, repair, and painting program will affect approximately 1062 289,000 small entities. 1063

4. Potential economic impac ts on small entities . EPA evaluated two factors in its analysis 1064 of the rule’s requirements on small entities, th e number of firms that would experience the 1065 impact, and the size of the impact. Average annual compliance costs as a percentage of average 1066 annual revenues were used to assess the potential average impacts of the rule on small businesses 1067 and small governments. This ratio is a good measur e of entities’ ability to afford the costs 1068 attributable to a regulatory requirement, becau se comparing compliance costs to revenues 1069 provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regu latory burden relative to a 1070 commonly available measure of economic activit y. Where regulatory costs represent a small 1071 fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on such entities 1072 may be considered as not significant. For non- profit organizations, impacts were measured by 1073 comparing rule costs to annual expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, 1074 however, revenue information was used as a proxy fo r expenditures. It is appropriate to calculate 1075 the impact ratios using annualized costs, because these costs are more representative of the 1076 continuing costs entities face to comply with the rule. 1077

Of the approximately 289,000 small entities estim ated to incur costs due to the rule, an 1078 estimated 101,000 small residential contractors are a ssumed to seek certification as a result of the 1079 removal of the opt-out provision; therefore, they would incur traini ng, certification, work 1080 practice, and recordkeeping costs. The remain ing estimated 189,000 sma ll entities (working in 1081 buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out ) are only expected to incur costs due to the 1082 additional recordkeeping provisions in the rule. 1083

The average cost to a typical small re novation contractor of removing the opt-out 1084 provision ranges from about $1,100 to about $6, 400, depending on the industry sector. This 1085 represents 0.8% to 1.7% of re venues depending on the industry s ector. Overall, an estimated 1086 101,000 small businesses could be affected by the re moval of the opt-out provision, with average 1087 impacts of 1.10%of revenues. 1088

This rule’s new recordkeeping requirement has an average cost of $1 to $280 for entities 1089 not affected by removal of the opt -out provision. This results in incremental cost impacts ranging 1090
from 0.0001% to 0.08% of revenues. An estimat ed 189,000 small entities could be affected 1091 solely by the additional reco rdkeeping requirement, includi ng 165,000 small businesses with 1092 average impacts of 0.03% of revenues, 17,000 sm all non-profits with average impacts of 1093 0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 1094

Combining the removal of the opt-out provi sion with the new recordkeeping requirement, 1095 a total of 289,000 small entities c ould be affected by the rule, including 266,000 small businesses 1096 with average impacts of 0.4%, 17,000 small non-pr ofits with average impacts of 0.0005%, and 1097 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%. 1098*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 37 To the extent that renovators and firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out 1099 provision will already have become trained and certified because they also work in regulated 1100 facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to the ex tent that eligible homeowners would 1101 decline to opt out, the average impacts of this action will be lower than estimated. 1102

Some of the small entitie s subject to the rule have employees while others are non1103 employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer jobs than firms with employees, and 1104 thus have lower work practice compliance costs. However, they also have lower average 1105 revenues than entities with employees, so their impacts (measured as costs divided by revenues) 1106 can be higher. Impact estimates for non-employe rs should be interpreted with caution, as some 1107 non-employers may have significant issues related to understatement of income, which would 1108 tend to exaggerate the average impact ratio for this class of small entities. 1109

There are an estimated 75,000 non-employe r renovation contractors that could be 1110 affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. The average cost to such contractors is 1111 estimated to be $1,193 apiece. This represents 1.3% to 4.7% of reported revenues, depending on 1112 the industry sector. The rule 's new recordkeeping requirement is estimated to affect 1113 approximately 96,000 additional non-employer renovati on contractors not affected by removal of 1114 the opt-out provision. The costs to such contract ors are estimated to be $42 apiece. This 1115 represents 0.05% to 0.17% of revenues, depending on the industry sector. 1116

5. Relevant Federal rules . The requirements in this rule will fit within an existing 1117 framework of other Federal regulations that address lead-based paint. Notably, the Pre1118 Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovators to distribute a lead hazard 1119 information pamphlet to owners and occupants before conducting a reno vation in target housing 1120 and child-occupied facilities. Th is rule’s requirement that re novators provide owners and 1121 occupants with records documenting compliance with the program’s training and work practice 1122 requirements complements the existing pr e-renovation education requirements. 1123

6. Skills needed for compliance . Under the lead renovation, re pair, and painting program 1124 requirements, renovators and dust sampling technicians working in target housing and child1125 occupied facilities have to take a course to learn the proper techniques for accomplishing the 1126 containment, cleaning, cleaning verification, and dust sampling tasks they will perform during 1127 renovations. These courses are intended to provide them with the information they would need to 1128 comply with the rule based on th e skills they already have. Re novators then provide on-the-job 1129 training in work practices to any other re novation workers used on a particular renovation. 1130 Entities are required to apply for certification to perform renovations; this process does not 1131 require any special skills other th an the ability to complete the application. They also need to 1132 document their training and the work practices used during renovations, which does not require 1133 any special skills. 1134

7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel . EPA has been concerned with potential small 1135 entity impacts since the earlies t stages of planning for the RRP program under section 402(c)(3) 1136
of TSCA. EPA conducted outreach to small en tities and, pursuant to section 609 of RFA, 1137 convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Pane l (the Panel) in 1999 to obtain advice and 1138 recommendations of representatives of the regulat ed small entities. Pursuant to the RFA, EPA 1139 used the report of the Panel convened for the closely related RRP rule promulgated in April 1140 2008. EPA identified eight key elements of a pot ential renovation and remodeling regulation for 1141*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 37 the Panel’s consideration. These elements we re: Applicability and sc ope, firm certification, 1142 individual training and certificat ion, accreditation of training cour ses, work practice standards, 1143 prohibited practices, ex terior clearance, and interior clearance. 1144

Details on the Panel and its recommendations are provided in the Panel Report (Ref. 9). 1145 Information on how EPA implemented the Panel’s recommendations in the development of the 1146 RRP program is available in Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10) and 1147 in Unit V.C. of the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). This rule is closely related to the RRP rule 1148 and the conclusions made in 2008 regarding the Panel’s recommendations are applicable to this 1149 final rule. Although this final rule expands the number of renovation firms that must comply with 1150 the RRP requirements, it does not change the elemen ts identified by the Panel. For example, this 1151 rule does not change the work practice or certification require ments of the RRP rule. EPA 1152 believes that reconvening the Panel would be pr ocedurally duplicative and is unnecessary given 1153
that the issues here were within the sc ope of those considered by the Panel. 1154

8. Alternatives considered . EPA considered several significant alternatives to this rule 1155 that could affect the economic impacts of the rule on small entities. Th ese alternatives would 1156 have applied to both small and large entities, but given the number of small entities in the 1157 affected industries, these alternatives would pr imarily affect small entities. For the reasons 1158 described in this unit, EPA believes these alternat ives are not consistent with the objectives of 1159
the rule. 1160

i. Delayed effective date . EPA considered an option that would delay the removal of the 1161 opt-out provision by 6 months, and another option that would delay the date by 12 months. These 1162 options would make the RRP program more comple x to implement and might lead to confusion 1163 by renovators and homeowners. These options would also lead to increased exposures during the 1164 delay period, including exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. Therefore, 1165 EPA believes that these options are not consistent with the st ated objectives of the rule. 1166

ii. Staged approach . EPA considered a staged approachthat would initially remove the 1167 opt-out provision in pre-1960 housing, and then remove it in housing built between 1960 and 1168 1978 a year later. This would make the RRP pr ogram more complex to implement and might 1169 lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners . It would also increase exposures during the 1170 first year of the rule from renovations in houses built between 1960 and 1978, including 1171 exposures to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA does not believe that the 1172 reduced burden of a staged approach outweighs the implementation complexity and additional 1173 exposures that it would create. Th erefore, EPA believes that this op tion is not consis tent with the 1174 stated objectives of the rule. 1175

iii. Alternate work practices . EPA also considered different options for the work practice 1176 requirements in housing that was previously elig ible for the opt-out provision. Specifically, EPA 1177 considered options: With the containment re quirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 1178 any cleaning or cleaning verification work practices; with the cl eaning and cleaning verification 1179 requirements specified in 40 CF R 745.85, but without any containm ent work practices; with the 1180 cleaning requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment or cleaning 1181 verification work practices; and with the containment, clean ing, and cleaning verification 1182 requirements specified in 40 CF R 745.85, but without the prohibiti ons or restrictions on paint 1183 removal practices specified in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame burning or torching, the use 1184*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 37 of machines that remove paint through high-sp eed operation without HEPA exhaust control, and 1185 heat guns operating in excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). 1186

EPA’s Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated thatrenovation, repair, a nd paint preparation 1187 activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The Dust Study 1188 showed that the largest decrease s in dust levels were observed in the experiments where the 1189 rule’s practices of containment, specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification were all used. The 1190 Dust Study indicated that if the prohibited and restricted practices are avoi ded, the suite of work 1191 practices as a whole are effective at addressi ng the lead-paint dust th at is generated during 1192
renovation activities. This is discussed in more detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 21696–21697). 1193

As required by section 212 of Small Bu siness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1194 (SBREFA), EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide (the Guide) in December 2008 to help 1195 small entities comply with the RRP rule. The Guide is available at: 1196 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National Lead Information 1197 Center by calling 1–800–424–LEAD [ 5323]. Hearing- or speech-c hallenged individuals may 1198 access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877– 1199 8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessary, to reflect this rulemaking activity. 1200

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1201

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Re form Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 1202 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of th eir regulatory actions on 1203 State, local, and Tribal governments and the pr ivate sector. Under sec tion 202 of UMRA, EPA 1204 generally must prepare a written statement, in cluding a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and 1205 final rules with “Federal mandates” that may resu lt in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 1206 governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 1207 Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of 1208 UMRA generally requires EPA to identify a nd consider a reasonable number of regulatory 1209 alternatives and adopt th e least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 1210 achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisi ons of section 205 do not apply when they are 1211 inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EP A to adopt an alternative other 1212 than the least costly, most cost -effective or least burdensome a lternative if the Administrator 1213 publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 1214 establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 1215 governments, including Tribal gov ernments, it must have devel oped under section 203 of UMRA 1216 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 1217 governments, enabling officials of affected sm all governments to have meaningful and timely 1218 input in the development of EPA proposed rule s with significant Fede ral intergovernmental 1219 mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 1220 regulatory requirements. 1221

Under UMRA Title II, EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that 1222 may result in expenditures that exceed the infl ation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million 1223 by the private sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by State, local, and 1224 Tribal governments in the aggr egate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement under 1225
section 202 of UMRA which has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 12) and is 1226
summarized here. 1227*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 37 1. Authorizing legislation . This rule is issued under th e authority of TSCA sections 1228 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687). 1229

2. Cost-benefit analysis . EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs and benefits 1230 associated with this rule, a copy of which is available in the dock et for this rule (Ref. 5). The 1231 Economic Analysis presents the costs of this ru le as well as various regulatory options and is 1232
summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA has estimated the total costs of th is rule at approximately $500 1233 million in the first year and $300 million per year thereafter. 1234

The benefits of the rule result from the prev ention of adverse health effects attributable to 1235 lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildi ngs. These health effects include impaired 1236 cognitive function in children and several illnes ses in children and adults, such as increased 1237 adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including incr eased blood pressure, increased incidence of 1238 hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney function. 1239

3. State, local, and Tribal government input . EPA has sought input fr om State, local, and 1240 Tribal government representativ es throughout the development of the renovation, repair, and 1241 painting program. EPA’s experience in administ ering the existing lead-based paint activities 1242 program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that th ese governments will play a critical role in 1243 the successful implementation of a national prog ram to reduce exposures to lead-based paint 1244 hazards associated with renovation, repair, and pa inting activities. Consequently, as discussed in 1245 Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), the Agency has met with State, 1246 local, and Tribal government officials on numer ous occasions to discuss renovation issues. 1247

4. Least burdensome option . EPA has considered a wide variety of options for addressing 1248 the risks presented by renovation activities where l ead-based paint is pres ent. As part of the 1249 development of the renovation, repair, and painting program, EPA considered different options 1250 for the scope of the rule, various combinations of training and certifi cation requirements for 1251 individuals who perform renovations , various combinations of wo rk practice requirements, and 1252 various methods for ensuring that no lead-bas ed paint hazards are left behind by persons 1253 performing renovations. The Economic Analysis for th is rule analyzed seve ral additional options 1254 for the phasing, effective date, and work practi ces required for the additional owner-occupied 1255 housing affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. As described in Unit IV.C., EPA has 1256 concluded that the options for delaying or pha sing the effective date would make the RRP 1257 program more complex to implement, might l ead to confusion by renovators and homeowners, 1258 and would lead to increased expos ures. EPA believes that the se lected approach is the least 1259 burdensome option available that achieves a central objective of this rule, which is to minimize 1260 exposure to lead-based paint ha zards created during renovation, re pair, and painting activities in 1261 all target housing and other buildings frequented by ch ildren under age 6. 1262

This rule does not contain a significant Fe deral intergovernmental mandate as described 1263 by section 203 of UMRA. Based on the definitio n of “small government jurisdiction” in RFA 1264 section 601, no State governments can be consid ered small. Small Territorial or Tribal 1265 governments may apply for authorization to admi nister and enforce this program, which would 1266 entail costs, but these small jurisd ictions are under no obligation to do so. 1267

EPA has determined that this rule cont ains no regulatory requirements that might 1268 significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments. Small governments operate public housing, 1269*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 37 and schools that are child-occupi ed facilities. If these governme nts perform renovations in these 1270 facilities, they may incur very small additional co sts to provide residents, parents or guardians 1271 with copies of the records documenting comp liance with the training and work practice 1272 requirements. EPA generally measures a signific ant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, 1273 in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small gove rnment revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 1274 Unit IV.C.4., the rule is expected to result in small government impacts well under 1% of 1275
revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small governments. 1276 Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governme nts, as the rule is not targeted at small 1277 governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different 1278 burden on small governments than on other entities that operate child-occupied facilities. 1279

E. Executive Order 13132 1280

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, enti tled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1281 1999), EPA has determined that this rule does not ha ve “federalism implications,” because it will 1282
not have substantial direct effects on the St ates, on the relationship between the national 1283 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 1284 levels of government, as specified in Ex ecutive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 1285 not apply to this rule. States are able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer the lead 1286 renovation, repair, and painting pr ogram requirements, but are unde r no obligation to do so. In 1287
the absence of a State authorizat ion, EPA will administer the requi rements. Nevertheless, in the 1288 spirit of the objectives of this Executive Orde r, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 1289 communications between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA consulted with 1290 representatives of State and loca l governments in developing the renovation, repair, and painting 1291 program. These consultations were described inthe preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 1292 10). 1293

F. Executive Order 13175 1294

As required by Executive Order 13175, enti tled “Consultation and Coordination with 1295 Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, Novemb er 6, 2000), EPA has determined that this 1296 rule does not have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 1297 governments, on the relationship between the Fede ral government and the Indian Tribes, or on 1298 the distribution of power and re sponsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, 1299 as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to ap ply for and receive authoriz ation to administer the 1300 lead renovation, repair, and painting program on Tribal lands, butTribes are under no obligation 1301
to do so. In the absence of a Tribal authorizat ion, EPA will administer these requirements. While 1302 Tribes may operate public housing or child-occupi ed facilities covered by the rule such as 1303 kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, and daycare facilities, EPA has dete rmined that this rule would 1304
not have substantial direct effects on the Trib al governments that ope rate these facilities. 1305

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not appl y to this rule. Although Executive Order 1306 13175 does not apply, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by discussing potential 1307 renovation regulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painti ng program at several national 1308 lead program meetings hosted by EPA a nd other interested Federal agencies. 1309

G. Executive Order 13045 1310*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 37 Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health 1311 Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to this rule because it is an 1312 “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because 1313 the environmental health or safety risk addres sed by this action may have a disproportionate 1314
effect on children. 1315

A central purpose of this rule is to mini mize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created 1316 during renovation, repair, and painting activities in al l housing and other buildings frequented by 1317 children under age 6. In the absen ce of this regulation, adequate wo rk practices are not likely to 1318 be employed during renovation, repa ir, and painting activit ies in housing eligible for the opt-out 1319 provision. 1320

Removing the opt-out provision will prot ect children under the age of 6 who visit a 1321 friend, relative, or caregiver’s house where a renovation would have been performed under the 1322 opt-out provision; childrenwho move into such housing when th eir family purchases it after such 1323 a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to owner1324 occupied housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. 1325 Removing the opt-out provision will also protec t children age 6 and olde r who live in houses 1326 that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and 1327 who live in adjacent properties. 1328

H. Executive Order 13211 1329

This rule is not a “significant energyaction” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 1330 entitled “Actions concerning Regul ations that Significantly Aff ect Energy Supply, Distribution, 1331 or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is notlikely to have any adverse effect on the 1332 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 1333

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 1334

Section 12(d) of the National Techno logy Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 1335 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 1336 consensus standards in its regul atory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 1337 applicable law or otherwise impractical. Volunt ary consensus standards are technical standards 1338 (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, samp ling procedures, and busi ness practices) that are 1339 developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 1340 provide Congress, through OMB, explanations whenthe Agency decides not to use available and 1341 applicable voluntary consensus standards. 1342

This rulemaking does not involve technical st andards. Therefore, EPA is not considering 1343 the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 1344

J. Executive Order 12898 1345

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled “F ederal Actions to Address Environmental 1346 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Inco me Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), 1347 EPA has assessed the potential impact of this rule on minority and low-income populations. The 1348 results of this assessment are presented in the Economic Analysis, which is available in the 1349*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 37 public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, the Agency has 1350 determined that this rule will not have dispr oportionately high and adverse human health or 1351 environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of 1352 environmental protection for all affected populat ions without having any disproportionately high 1353
and adverse human health or environmental e ffects on any population, including any minority or 1354 low-income population. 1355

1356 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 1357

1358 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead -based paint, Renovation, Reporting and 1359 recordkeeping requirements. 1360

1361 Date: ________ 1362

1363

________________ 1364

1365
Administrator

. 1366

1367 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 1368

1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 1369

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 1370

2. Section 745.81 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 1371

§ 745.81 Effective dates. 1372

(a) * * * 1373

(4) Work practices . (i) On or after April 22, 2010 and before [ insert date 60 days after 1374 date of publication in the Federal Register ], all renovations must be performed in accordance 1375 with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in § 1376 745.86 (b)(6) in target housing or child-occupied facili ties, unless the renovation qualifies for 1377 one of the exceptions identified in § 745.82(a). This does not apply to renovations in target 1378 housing for which the firm performing the renov ation has obtained a statement signed by the 1379
owner that the renovation will occur in the owner’s residence, no child under age 6 resides there, 1380 the housing is not a child-occupi ed facility, and the owner acknow ledges that the work practices 1381 to be used during the renovation will not necessar ily include all of the lead-safe work practices 1382 contained in EPA’s renovation, repa ir, and painting rule. For the pur poses of this section, a child 1383 resides in the primary residence of his or her custodial parent s, legal guardians, and foster 1384 parents. A child also resides in the primary reside nce of an informal caretaker if the child lives 1385 and sleeps most of the time at the caretaker’s residence. 1386

(ii) On or after [ insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register ], all 1387 renovations must be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in § 745.85 and 1388 the associated recordkeeping requirements in § 745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target housing or 1389 child-occupied facilities, unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in § 1390*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 37 745.82(a) 1391

1392

* * * * * 1393

1394 § 745.82 [Amended] 1395

3. Section 745.82 is amended by removing paragraph (c). 1396

4. Section 745.84 is amended by revising para graphs (b)(2), (c)(2) introductory text, and 1397 (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 1398

§ 745.84 Information distribution requirements. 1399

* * * * * 1400

1401 (b) * * * 1402

(2) Comply with one of the following . (i) Notify in writing, or ensure written notification 1403 of, each affected unit and make the pamphlet available upon request prior to the start of 1404 renovation. Such notification shall be accomplis hed by distributing written notice to each 1405 affected unit. The notice shall describe the gene ral nature and locations of the planned renovation 1406 activities; the expected starting and ending dates; and a statement of how the occupant can obtain 1407 the pamphlet and a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d), at no cost to the 1408
occupants, or 1409

(ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post in formational signs describing the general 1410
nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be 1411 posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. The 1412 signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or information on how interested 1413 occupants can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost 1414 to occupants. The signs must also include info rmation on how interested occupants can review a 1415 copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at 1416 no cost to the occupants. 1417

* * * * * 1418

1419 (c) * * * 1420

(2) Provide the parents and guardians of ch ildren using the child-occupied facility with 1421 the pamphlet, information describing the genera l nature and locations of the renovation and the 1422 anticipated completion date, and information on howinterested parents or guardians of children 1423 frequenting the child-occupied facility can re view a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) 1424 and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the occupants by complying with 1425 one of the following: 1426

* * * * * 1427

1428*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 37 (ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post in formational signs describing the general 1429
nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be 1430 posted in areas where they can be seen by the pare nts or guardians of the children frequenting the 1431 child-occupied facility. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or 1432 information on how interested parents or guardia ns of children frequenting the child-occupied 1433 facility can review a copy of the pamphlet or obt ain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to 1434 the parents or guardians. The si gns must also include informati on on how interested parents or 1435 guardians of children frequenting the child-occupi ed facility can reviewa copy of the records 1436 required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the 1437 parents or guardians. 1438

* * * * * 1439

1440 5. Section 745.86 is amended by removing paragra ph (b)(6) and redesignating paragraph (b)(7) 1441 as paragraph (b)(6) and by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows: 1442

1443 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 1444

* * * * * 1445

1446 (b) * * * 1447

(1) Records or reports certifying th at a determination had been made that lead-based paint was 1448 not present on the components affected by the renovation, as described in § 745.82(a). These 1449 records or reports include: 1450

(i) Reports prepared by a certified inspector or certified risk asse ssor (certified pursuant 1451 to either Federal regulations at § 745.226 or an EPA-authorized St ate or Tribal certification 1452 program). 1453

(ii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after using EPA-recognized test kits, 1454 including an identification of the manufacturer an d model of any test kits used, a description of 1455 the components that were tested including their lo cations, and the result of each test kit used. 1456

* * * * * 1457

1458 (c)(1) When the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or within 30 days of the 1459 completion of the renovation, whic hever is earlier, the renovation fi rm must provide information 1460 pertaining to compliance with this subpart to the following persons: 1461

(i) The owner of the building; and, if different, 1462

(ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place within a 1463 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied faci lity, if the renovation 1464 took place within a chil d-occupied facility. 1465

(2) When performing renovations in co mmon areas of multi-unit target housing, 1466 renovation firms must post the information requi red by this subpart or instructions on how 1467*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 37 interested occupants can obtain a copy of this information. This information must be posted in 1468 areas where it is likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected units. 1469

(3) The information required to be provi ded by paragraph (c) of this section may be 1470 provided by completing the sample form titled “Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist” 1471 or a similar form containing the test kit in formation required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and the 1472 training and work practice compliance information required by § 745.86(b)(6). 1473

(d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning veri fication as permitted 1474 by § 745.85(c), the renovation firm must provide, when the final invoice for the renovation is 1475 delivered or within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is earlier, a copy of 1476 the dust sampling report to: 1477

(1) The owner of the building; and, if different, 1478

(2) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the renovation took place within a 1479 residential dwelling, or an adult representative of the child-occupied faci lity, if the renovation 1480 took place within a chil d-occupied facility. 1481

(3) When performing renovations in co mmon areas of multi-unit target housing, 1482 renovation firms must post these dust sampling reports or information on how interested 1483 occupants of the housing being renovated can obtaina copy of the report. This information must 1484 be posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupant s of all of the affected units. 1485

6. Section 745.90 is amended by revising paragra phs (a)(4) and (b)(8) to read as follows: 1486

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 1487

* * * * * 1488

1489 (a) * * * 1490

(4) To maintain renovator certific ation or dust sampling technici an certification, an individual 1491 must complete a renovator or dust sampling techni cian refresher course accredited by EPA under 1492 §745.225 or by a State or Tribal program that is aut horized under subpart Q of this part within 5 1493 years of the date the individual completed the init ial course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 1494
section. If the individual does not complete a refresher course w ithin this time, the individual 1495
must re-take the initial course to become certif ied again. Individuals who complete a renovator 1496 course accredited by EPA before April 22, 2010, must complete an EPA-accredited renovator 1497 refresher course before July 1, 2015, to maintain renovator certification. 1498

1499

* * * * * 1500

1501 (b) * * * 1502

(8) Must prepare the records required by § 745.86(b)(1) and (6). 1503

* * * * * 1504

1505*** EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 37 7. Section 745.225 is amended by revising para graph (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 1506

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: targ et housing and child-occupied facilities. 1507

1508

* * * * * 1509

1510 (c) * * * 1511

(2) * * * 1512

(iii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized State or 1513 Tribal-accredited lead-specific training for instruct ors of lead-based paint activities courses or 8 1514 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized Stat e or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training 1515
for instructors of renovator or dust sampling technician courses; and 1516

1517

* * * * * 1518

1519 8. Section 745.326 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 1520

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tr ibal program requirements. 1521

* * * * * 1522

1523 (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements . When EPA publishes in the Federal 1524 Register revisions to the renovation pr ogram requirements contained in subparts E and L of this 1525
part: 1526

(1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the effective date of the 1527 revisions to the renovation program requirement s in subparts E and L of this part must 1528 demonstrate that it meets the requirements of th is section no later than the first report that it 1529 submits pursuant to § 745.324(h) but no later than 2 years after the effective date of the 1530
revisions. 1531

(2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a renovation program submitted 1532 but not approved before the effective date of the revisions to the renovation program 1533 requirements in subparts E and L of this part mu st demonstrate that it meets the requirements of 1534 this section either by amending its application or in the first report that it submits pursuant to § 1535 745.324(h) of this part but no late r than 2 years after the eff ective date of the revisions. 1536

(3) A State or Tribe submitting its applica tion for approval of a renovation program on or 1537
after the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application that it meets the 1538 requirements of the new renovation program requi rements in subparts E and L of this part. 1539

1540 [FR Doc. 09–????? Filed ??–??–09; 8:45 am] 1541
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 1542

1543