*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 1 

EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_Cost-BenefitsDiscussion_2011-04-08.docx

EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_Cost-BenefitsDiscussion_Redlined-v04-08_2011-07-15.docx

Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits Associated with the Clearance and Clearance 

Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule 

[RIN 2070-AJ57] 

July 15, 2011

 On May 6, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule entitled Lead; Clearance and 

Clearance Testing Requirements for the Lead, Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

(75 FR 25038). The proposal included a number of proposed revisions to the 2008 Lead 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule, which established accreditation, training, 

certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons 

performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. 

Specifically, EPA proposed requirements for dust wipe testing, clearance, allowing a certified 

renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis, minor 

changes to the training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in 

accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal 

renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for 

renovators. The benefits of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance provisions were not 

quantified, but EPA estimated that the annualized cost of the proposed dust wipe testing and 

clearance provisions would be $272 million with a 3% discount rate or $293 million with 7% 

rate. 

For the final rule, EPA has decided not to require dust wipe testing and clearance as 

proposed, and therefore the estimated costs of these proposed provisions will not be realized. 

However, EPA is finalizing several of the other proposed revisions to the 2008 rule, including a 

provision allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized 

laboratory for analysis, minor changes to the training program accreditation application process, 

standards for e-learning in accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for 

authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and 

certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also promulgating clarifications to the 

requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation projects, the prohibited or restricted 

work practice provisions, and the requirements for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 

vacuums. 

 This document discusses the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the final rule. 

In most cases, EPA is unable to quantify the incremental costs or benefits that could be expected 

from each revision. Thus, this document contains a primarily qualitative assessment of the costs 

and benefits attributable to the final rule. For the most part, EPA believes that the incremental 

costs attributable to this final rule are minimal. The quantifiable costs attributable to this final 

rule, those related to the recordkeeping and reporting provisions for training providers, are 

estimated to be $355 per year. 

 1. Clearance in lieu of cleaning verification. The final rule eliminatesretains a provision 

that allows renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification part of the mandatory cleaning 

protocol if another Federal, State, or local law or regulation, or the contract between the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 2 

renovation firm and the property owner, requires the renovation firm to use qualified entities to 

perform dust wipe testing and requires the renovation firm to achieve clearance. 

 Elimination of this provision could result in some minimal additional cost for renovations 

that must achieve clearance. EPA’s “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in 

Residential Housing” showed that cleaning verification should take approximately 5 minutes per 

cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square feet of uncarpeted floor, 

countertop, or windowsill space. EPA estimated, as part of the 2008 final RRP rule economic 

analysis, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles are $13.60 

apiece. EPA assumed that these handles can be used for approximately 1,000 events. Breaking 

down these costs on a square foot basis, EPA estimated that cleaning verification would cost 

$0.06 per square foot, using a mean loaded wage rate of $20.62. Thus, usingUsing the interior 

event sizes and other calculations used in the 2008 RRP rule economic analysis, cleaning 

verification would cost from $2.88approximately $5.15 for a small bathroom remodel involving 

an uncarpeted work area of 48 square feet of uncarpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space, 

to $19.2030.92 for a large window replacement project in multi-unit target housing (likely to be 

the largest project for which clearance would be required by the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) and for which EPA has estimated costs). EPA is unable to estimate 

how many renovations covered by the RRP rule would also have to be cleared under another 

statute, regulation, or ordinance, or the renovation contract. 

 While elimination of this provision would add some costs to the renovations that could 

have qualified for this provision, EPA’s “Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After 

Renovation, Repair, And Painting Activities” demonstrates that the wet disposable cleaning cloth 

method is very effective at cleaning up dust. It is likely that completing the entire RRP cleaning 

protocol, including cleaning verification, will increase the probability that clearance, where 

required, will be achieved on the first attempt, thus eliminating the burden of additional 

clearance attempts. 

 2. Paint chip sampling option. EPA is finalizing the proposed option allowing certified 

renovators to collect paint chip samples from painted components that will be disturbed by a 

renovation and submit those samples to an NLLAP-recognized entity for analysis. This revision 

is beneficial, in that it provides certified renovators with another option for determining whether 

painted components contain lead-based paint. This revision adds no costs, because no certified 

renovators are required to use this option. 

 3. Additional materials required with training provider application. The final rule 

requires training providers to submit copies of the qualifications of their training manager and 

principal instructor along with their applications for accreditation. Training providers are 

already required to obtain and retain these materials, the final rule merely requires them to be 

sent to EPA along with the application. EPA estimates that these materials will consist of a 1-

page resume and, possibly, a copy of a diploma, course completion certificate, or transcript. For 

a training provider with one training manager and one principal instructor, this will mean an 

additional 2-4 photocopies. In the draft Information Collection Request Supporting Statement 

accompanying the proposed rule, EPA estimated that each photocopy costs $0.09, for a total of 

$0.36 per accreditation or reaccreditation application. An application for reaccreditation must be 

submitted every 4 years in order to maintain accreditation. EPA has estimated that 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 3 

approximately 170 training providers would become accredited to offer renovation training. 

Thus, the annualized cost of this requirement is approximately $15. 

 This amendment is beneficial because, when EPA reviews applications for accreditation, 

it is common for the Agency to request this documentation from training providers in order to 

verify that the training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the proper 

qualifications. Requesting this information takes time and can delay the review of an 

application. Having training providers submit this information upfront with the application will 

avoid such delays. 

 The final rule also requires training providers who use course materials approved by an 

authorized State or Tribal RRP program to submit them to EPA along with their application. 

Previously, training providers who used EPA, State or Tribal course materials could merely 

certify that they were using such materials, and not submit them for review. However, given the 

diversity of the State and Tribal programs that EPA expects to authorize in the coming years, it 

could be very difficult for EPA to determine, without reviewing the actual materials, whether the 

proposed course would be suitable for the Federal RRP program. 

 Submitting State or Tribal course materials could involve a significant number of 

photocopies and additional mailing costs. Using the example of the EPA model course 

materials, the instructor and student manuals for the renovator course consist of 434 and 312 

pages respectively. Using EPA’s estimated cost per photocopy of $0.09, it would cost $67.14 to 

photocopy these two manuals. However, EPA does not know how many training providers 

would want to use State or Tribal course materials rather than EPA’s model course materials. 

EPA has not received any applications for accreditation from renovation training providers who 

wish to use course materials from any of the 10 currently-authorized States. EPA believes that 

the most likely scenario would be a training provider who is accredited in an authorized State 

who would like to provide training in an adjacent non-authorized State. 

 4. Role of principal instructor. The final rule contains regulatory text intended to clarify 

the role of the principal instructor in providing training. The regulation, at 40 CFR 

745.227(c)(3), previously stated that principal instructors are responsible for the organization of 

their courses and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The regulations also define 

“principal instructor” as “the individual who has the primary responsibility for organizing and 

teaching a particular course.” Nonetheless, the rule also allows training program managers to 

designate experts in a particular field (e.g., doctors or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as 

needed basis, to teach discrete portions of the course. EPA interprets these provisions to require 

a principal instructor to be present and primarily responsible for teaching the course, although 

guest instructors may be used to teach some portion(s) of the course. Principal instructors are 

also responsible for the quality of the instruction delivered by the guest instructors. To ensure 

that the regulation is clear on this point, EPA is amending the regulation to state that principal 

instructors are primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and must be present to 

provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the course taught by guest instructors) for the 

courses for which they have been designated the principal instructor. No costs are associated 

with this amendment, because it is merely a clarification of an existing EPA regulatory 

interpretation. The amendment is beneficial because it should reduce confusion about the role of 

the principal instructor. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 4 

 5. Amendments to accreditation applications. EPA has interpreted the training provider 

accreditation regulations to require accredited training providers to submit amended applications 

whenever there is a change to the information provided in the training provider’s most recent 

application for accreditation or re-accreditation, including information regarding the training 

manager and any principal instructor(s) teaching courses offered by the training provider. 

However, the regulations have not previously specified a time limit for submitting such 

amendments. The final rule requires providers to submit amendments within 90 days of the date 

a change occurs to information in each provider’s most recent application. If a training provider 

does not do so, it must stop providing training until the accreditation application is amended. 

This amendment is unlikely to add additional costs, because EPA believes that training providers 

have generally been updating their information in a timely manner. EPA is also revising the 

regulation to specifically state that no fee will be charged for accreditation application 

amendments. 

 The final rule also gives EPA a 30-day period to approve or disapprove amendments 

involving a new training manager, any new or additional principal instructors, or any new 

permanent training location. A training provider may not offer training under a new training 

manager or a new principal instructor, or training at a new permanent training location until 30 

days after the date that EPA receives an amended accreditation application. This 30-day time 

period will give EPA sufficient time to check the qualifications of the training manager(s) or 

principal instructor(s) before the training manager begins managing or the principal instructor 

begins teaching a course. This 30-day time period also gives EPA sufficient time to verify the 

suitability of a new permanent training location by visiting the location. While this specific 

revision may add some burden for training providers, EPA believes that most training providers 

plan far enough ahead so that the 30-day period will not delay training course delivery. 

In further reviewing this proposed provision, EPA has decided that additional flexibility 

would be beneficial for training providers. If the training provider wishes to use a training 

manager or principal instructor who has already been reviewed by EPA as part of a successful 

application for training provider accreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, whether for that training 

provider or another, the training provider may do so on an interim basis without delay. EPA will 

also allow training providers to use new permanent training locations on an interim basis for 30 

days. If, during that 30 days, EPA determines that the location is not adequate, the training 

provider must stop using that location upon written notice from EPA. 

 6. Hands-on training topics. 40 CFR 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that 

training programs must follow to become accredited in order to provide instruction in lead-based 

paint courses. Minimum requirements for training curricula are found in this section, which lists 

course topics that must be included in the different training courses with an indication of the 

topics that require hands-on instruction. However, EPA inadvertently omitted indicating which 

course topics required hands-on training for the renovator and dust sampling technician 

disciplines. Accordingly, the final rule identifies the topics for which hands-on training is 

required in renovator and dust sampling technician courses. EPA believes that this amendment 

adds no costs, because the EPA model courses include hands-on training in these topics and most 

training providers are using the EPA model courses to deliver training. However, EPA has 

received some questions on this issue, so this revision should reduce potential confusion about 

which topics must be covered in the hands-on training. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 5 

 The final rule also adds a sentence to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) stating that refresher courses 

for all disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on component. This does not add 

any costs, because it is a restatement of EPA policy. 

 7. Minimum e-learning course requirements and recordkeeping. The final rule adds 

minimum requirements for e-learning courses and associated recordkeeping. These requirements 

include: 

 A unique identifier for each student 

 Tracking each student’s course log-ins, launches, progress, and completion, and 

maintaining these records 

 At least 16 periodic knowledge checks per course, which must be successfully 

completed before the student can continue through the course. 

 A test of at least 20 questions at the end of the electronic learning portion of the 

course, of which 80% must be answered correctly by the student for successful 

completion of the electronic learning portion of the course. 

 An electronic learning course completion certificate which can be saved or printed by 

the student, but which cannot be immediately and easily edited by the student. 

 While the final rule imposes additional substantive requirements and recordkeeping on 

training providers who wish to provide e-learning courses, e-learning is optional and not required 

for any training provider. In addition, EPA believes that the recordkeeping requirements for elearning courses are comparable to, and no more burdensome than, the ordinary recordkeeping 

already required for courses provided in traditional formats. This revision is beneficial because 

it enumerates the important elements of e-learning that EPA is already using as it evaluates 

applications for e-learning course accreditation. 

 8. Recordkeeping periods for renovation training providers. The final rule requires 

providers of renovator and dust sampling technician courses to keep student training records for 

5 years. Previously, training providers were required to keep training records for 3 years and 6 

months. This length of time was chosen because of the length of individual certification periods 

for lead-based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 years and 6 months including interim 

certification. However, the renovator and dust sampling technician certification periods are 5 

years, with no interim certification. In order to ensure that the training records from the previous 

training course are available for certified renovators and dust sampling technicians taking 

refresher courses, EPA is increasing the general recordkeeping period applicable to these 

disciplines to 5 years. In addition, because EPA has already extended the certification period for 

any certified renovator who was trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 2015, EPA is requiring 

training records from those courses to be kept until July 1, 2015 as well. This revision is 

beneficial, in that it ensures that training records from the previous course would always be 

available for renovators and dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses. 

 EPA can estimate the increased cost attributable to this revision. EPA’s economic 

analysis for the 2008 RRP rule estimated that a total of 170 training providers would become 

accredited for renovator training, and 56 renovator courses per training provider would be 

needed to train the renovators required for the first year that the RRP rule was effective. EPA’s 

economic analysis for the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Final Rule estimated that no new training 

providers would become accredited, and a total of 30 additional renovator courses per existing 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 6 

training provider would be needed to train the additional renovators required during the first year 

after the Opt-Out Rule took effect. According to these analyses, a total of 20 renovator courses 

would be needed per training provider during subsequent years. These analyses also estimated 

that 1 page of records would be kept for each notification provided, including pre-course 

notifications, re-notifications, and post-course notifications. Each course would require a prenotification before the course began, giving general information on the training provider and the 

time and place for the course, and a post-notification after the course, which would include 

general information on the provider and information on successful trainees and their 

photographs. EPA estimated that 12 percent of courses would also require a re-notification due 

to changes in date, time, or location. Thus, during the first year, 86 courses would have been 

provided by each training provider, resulting in 182 notifications that would have to be kept for 

an additional 2 years, approximately, depending upon when the course was actually given. 

Additional years would add 20 courses per year per training provider, resulting in 42 

notifications that would have to be kept for an additional 18 months. In its economic analysis for 

the Opt-Out Rule, EPA estimated the recordkeeping costs per notification would total $0.24. 

Pro-rating this amount for 5 years results in an estimated recordkeeping cost of $0.34 per 

notification. Thus, recordkeeping costs for the 86 courses given per training provider in the first 

year would total $61.88 instead of $43.68. The recordkeeping costs for the 20 courses given per 

training provider in subsequent years would total $6.80 instead of $4.80. These estimates cover 

the entire 5 year period during which the records would have to be kept. Therefore, the costs of

this provision are estimated to be $340 per year. 

 9. Trainee photographs. The final rule also includes certain minimum standards for the 

trainee photographs that must appear on renovator and dust sampling technician course 

completion certificates. Accredited training programs are required to issue a course completion 

certificate for each person who passes a training course. A variety of information is required to 

be on the certificate including the name of the course, the name and address of the student, and 

contact information for the training program. Course certificates for renovators or dust sampling 

technicians must include a photograph of the student, but the regulation does not include size 

requirements or other specifications for the photograph. Since publishing the RRP rule, the 

Agency has been asked if there is a minimum size for the photograph. EPA believes that it 

would be beneficial to have minimum standards for the photograph in order to ensure that the 

person in the photograph is recognizable. Therefore, the final rule requires the photographs on 

course completion certificates to be an accurate and recognizable image of the trainee and at 

least one square inch in size. This revision is not likely to add any costs, because EPA believes 

that training providers are already complying with these standards. The revision is beneficial 

because it should reduce potential confusion over the standards for trainee photographs. 

 10. State and Tribal programs. The final rule establishes certain minimum standards for 

authorized State and Tribal lead-based paint enforcement programs. These standards include a 

minimum penalty authority of $5,000 per violation per day, a requirement that the State or Tribe 

be able to sue to obtain penalties, and a requirement that the burden of proof and degree of 

knowledge or intent of the respondent be no greater than it is for EPA under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The final rule also includes several clarifications on required 

elements of authorized State and Tribal renovation programs, such as requirements for dust 

sampling technician training and on-the-job training. These revisions are beneficial because they 

ensure that State and Tribal programs have adequate enforcement mechanisms and reduce 

potential confusion about what such programs must include. These revisions impose no costs, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 7 

because States and Tribes are not required to develop renovation and other lead-based paint 

programs, nor are they required to obtain EPA authorization for these programs. EPA will 

continue to implement the lead-based paint programs, including renovation programs, in 

unauthorized States and Tribal areas. 

 

 11. Vertical containment. The final rule includes several provisions designed to clarify 

when vertical containment must be used and ensure that renovation firms consider all of the 

appropriate factors when designing containment systems for exterior projects. Specifically, the 

final rule requires vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work 

area to be used whenever a renovation project is being performed within 10 feet of the property 

line. This requirement will help to ensure that neighboring properties are not contaminated by 

exterior renovations. The final rule also amends the regulatory text to remind renovation firms to 

consider the possibility for windy conditions when designing exterior containment. Finally, the 

rule adds a definition of “containment” that provides additional guidance on what vertical 

containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area consists of and what 

should generally be considered when designing containment systems. 

 In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those situations 

where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and debris, 

including work areas in close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a property line, 

and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is sometimes 

necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris from 

contaminating the ground or any object beyond the work area. To account for these situations, 

EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior containment, and the 

incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending 

on the size of the job. Adding together the costs for 2% of the exterior jobs covered by the 2008 

RRP rule and 2% of the exterior jobs covered by the 2010 Opt-out rule results in an annualized 

cost of approximately $118 million for vertical containment that EPA has already accounted for. 

Thus, EPA has already accounted for the additional costs incurred for using vertical containment 

systems on renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line. 

 In addition, at the request of several members of the regulated community, EPA is 

revising the interior and exterior containment provisions to permit renovation firms to establish 

vertical containment closer than the mandatory minimum floor or ground containment distance. 

If a firm chooses this option, the firm need not extend the floor or ground containment beyond 

the vertical containment unless it is necessary to contain dust and debris. This additional 

flexibility, particularly in situations where obstacles make it difficult to cover the floor or ground 

for the necessary distance, is likely to make it easier for renovation firms to comply with the rule. 

 12. Prohibited and restricted practice clarifications. The final rule contains a number of 

minor revisions to the language on prohibited and restricted renovation practices, and adds a 

definition of “painted surfaces” to further clarify when practices are prohibited or restricted. 

Specifically, the final rule clarifies that the prohibitions and restrictions on renovation practices, 

such as the prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painted surfaces, not just 

surfaces where the presence of lead-based paint has been confirmed. The definition of “painted 

surface” additionally clarifies that term means component surfaces that contain paint or other 

surface coatings. The final rule also clarifies that the restriction on the use of machines that 

remove paint through high speed operation applies anywhere painted surfaces are being 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 8 

disturbed by such machines, the restriction is not limited to situations where all of the paint is 

removed by such machines. Lastly, the final rule clarifies what EPA meant by HEPA exhaust 

control. These revisions clarify existing requirements and reflect established EPA 

interpretations. Therefore, these revisions do not impose additional costs. 

 13. HEPA vacuum operation and maintenance. The final rule adds a requirement that 

high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums be operated and maintained in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s recommendations, including filter change intervals. HEPA vacuums are 

already mandatory for the specialized cleaning protocol required by the RRP rule. While this 

revision may add some additional costs in the form of more frequent filter changes, EPA believes 

that most renovation firms are already operating and maintaining their HEPA vacuums in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. EPA is unable to estimate how many 

renovation firms are not doing so, and might thereby incur additional costs to comply with this 

new requirement. 

 14. On-the-job training. The final rule clarifies that the certified renovator assigned to 

the renovation must only provide on-the-job training to other renovation workers (who have not 

had certified renovator training) in the RRP-required work practices that the renovation workers 

will be performing. This is a stakeholder-requested clarification of the existing RRP rule 

requirements and does not add any costs. 

 15. Grandfathering cut-off date. The effective date of the final rule will be the last date 

that individuals may take advantage of the “grandfathering” provisions of the RRP rule. Under 

the 2008 RRP rule, individuals who successfully complete an accredited abatement worker or 

supervisor course, and individuals who successfully complete the HUD, EPA, or the joint 

EPA/HUD model renovation training courses may take an accredited refresher renovation 

training course in lieu of the initial renovation training to become a certified renovator. In 

addition, individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector 

or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, may take an accredited 

refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust 

sampling technician. 

 While this restriction is likely to impose some burdens on individuals wishing to become 

certified renovators or dust sampling technicians, EPA is unable to estimate the extent of these 

burdens. EPA does not have information on the availability of pre-RRP lead-safe work practices 

courses, nor can EPA estimate how many previously-trained individuals would choose to 

become renovators after the effective date of the rule. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

March 8, 2011 July 15, 2011 (RIN 2070-AJ57) 9 

Provision Proposed Cost Estimates

(Annualized)

Final Cost Estimates

(Annualized)

Dust Wipe Testing & Clearance $272,000,000 (3%)1

 293,000,000 (7%)1 

$0

Provision Excluded

From Final Rule

Elimination of Clearance in lieu of 

Cleaning Verification 

Not Estimated Not Estimated

Paint Chip Sampling Option Not Estimated $0

Additional Application Materials Not Estimated $152,3

Role of Principal Instructor Not Estimated $0

Application Amendments Not Estimated Not Estimated

Hands-on Training Not Estimated $0

E-learning Not Estimated Not Estimated

Recordkeeping Not Estimated $3402,3

Photographs Not Estimated Not Estimated

State and Tribal Enforcement Not Estimated Not Estimated

Vertical Containment Not Estimated Not Estimated

Prohibited/Restricted Practices Not Estimated $0

HEPA vacuums Not Estimated Not Estimated

On-the-job Training Not Estimated $0

Grandfathering Not Estimated Not Estimated

TOTAL: $272,000,000 (3%)1

 293,000,000 (7%)1

$3552,3

1

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Dust Testing and Clearance Amendments to the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for 

Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities, April 2010. (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-1110) 2

Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities, 

April 2008. (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0916) 3

Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing 

and Child-Occupied Facilities, April 2010. (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-1135)