Source: http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-1074
Timestamp: 2016-08-27 10:17:19
Document Index: 23666070

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 745', 'art 745', 'art 745', 'art 745', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 745', 'art 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', 'art 745']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program: Lead This Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SummaryEPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that published in theFederal Registeron April 22, 2008. The RRP rule established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. In this document, EPA is eliminating the “opt-out” provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility. EPA is also requiring renovation firms to provide a copy of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes minor changes to the certification, accreditation and state authorization requirements.
DatesThis final rule is effective July 6, 2010.
AddressesEPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
For Further Information Contact For technical information contact: Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0758; e-mail address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov. For general information contact: The TSCA Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the numbers in this unit through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Supplementary InformationI. General InformationA. Does this action apply to me?You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.89, or if you are an individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90.
This final rule applies only in States, Territories, and Indian Tribal areas that do not have authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the authorization status of States, Territories, and Indian Tribes, contact the National Lead Information Center (NLIC) at 1-800-424-LEAD [5323]. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers.
Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors engaged in lead-based paint activities.This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 CFR 745.226. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.II. BackgroundA. Agency's Authority for Taking This ActionThis final rule is being issued under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687).B. IntroductionIn theFederal Registerissue of April 22, 2008, under the authority of sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of TSCA, EPA issued its final RRP rule (Ref. 1). The final RRP rule, codified in 40 CFR part 745, subparts E, L, and Q, addresses lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb painted surfaces in target housing and child-occupied facilities.
The RRP rule establishes requirements for training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for recordkeeping. Interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for and receive authorization to administer and enforce all of the elements of the new renovation requirements. More information on the RRP rule may be found in theFederal Registerdocument announcing the RRP rule or on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm. Many provisions of the RRP rule were derived from the existing lead-based paint activities regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L (Ref. 2). These existing regulations were promulgated in 1996 under TSCA section 402(a), which defines lead-based paint activities in target housing as inspections, risk assessments, and abatements. The 1996 regulations cover lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities, along with limited screening activities called lead hazard screens. These regulations established an accreditation program for training providers and a certification program for individuals and firms performing these activities. Training course accreditation and individual certification was made available in five disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, project designer, abatement supervisor, and abatement worker. In addition, these lead-based paint activities regulations established work practice standards and recordkeeping requirements for lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities.
The RRP rule contains a number of work practice requirements that must be followed for every covered renovation in target housing and child-occupied facilities. These requirements pertain to warning signs and work area containment, the restriction or prohibition of certain practices (e.g., high heat gun, torch, power sanding, power planing), waste handling, cleaning, and post-renovation cleaning verification. The firm must ensure compliance with these work practices. Although the certified renovator is not required to be on-site at all times, while the renovation project is ongoing, a certified renovator must nonetheless regularly direct the work being performed by other workers to ensure that the work practices are being followed.C. Opt-Out ProvisionThe RRP rule included a provision that exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice requirements of the rule when the firm obtains a certification from the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility. Unless the target housing meets the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child under age 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation firm will not be required to use the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule, the renovation activity is not subject to the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the rule. Conversely, if the owner-occupant does not sign the certification and acknowledg ment for any reason (even if no children under age 6 or no pregnant women reside there), the renovation is subject to the requirements of the RRP rule.
Even though the Agency included the opt-out provision in the final RRP rule, EPA recognized that the opt-out presented concerns for exposure to children under age 6. Nonetheless, EPA explained that it believed it should focus the rule on scenarios with the greatest exposure to children under age 6, that concerns for new homeowners would be mitigated to some extent by the requirements of the “Disclosure Rule”, and that older children and adults did not ingest lead-dust at as high a rate as toddlers and therefore high dust lead levels present a much greater risk to a young child than they do for an older child or adult. After promulgation, the rule, and specifically the opt-out provision, was challenged.As part of a settlement agreement, EPA agreed to propose removing the opt-out provision.
In the preamble to the RRP rule, EPA explained that it believed the Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F (required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550), would help to address these concerns. The Disclosure Rule requires sellers of target housing to disclose known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazard information to purchasers and provide them with a copy of the lead hazard information pamphlet entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (Ref. 14). EPA explained the receipt of this information could prompt the family to inquire about potential lead-based paint hazards in the home. In addition, EPA recommended that purchasers take advantage of their statutory opportunity to have a lead-based paint inspection or risk assessment done while in the process of purchasing target housing.
Furthermore, EPA is concerned about the effectiveness of disclosure with respect to populations with the highest risk of exposure to harmful lead levels. Children in minority populations and children whose families are poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels (Ref. 3, at e376). Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data from 1988 through 2004 shows that the prevalence of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL in children aged 1 to 5 years has decreased from 8.6% in 1988-1991 to 1.4% in 1999-2004, which is an 84% decline (Ref. 3, at e377). However, the NHANES data from 1999-2004 indicates that non-Hispanic black children aged 1 to 5 years had higher percentages of blood lead levels equal to or exceeding 10 μg/dL (3.4%) than white children in the same age group (1.2%) (Ref. 3). In addition, among children aged 1 to 5 years over the same period, the geometric mean blood lead level was significantly higher for non-Hispanic blacks (2.8 μg/dL), compared with Mexican Americans (1.9 μg/dL) and non-Hispanic whites (1.7 μg/dL) (Ref. 3, at e377). For children aged 1 to 5 years from families with lowincome, the geometric mean blood lead level was 2.4 μg/dL (Ref. 3, at e377). Further, the incidences of blood-lead levels greater than 10 μg/dL and greater than or equal to 5 μg/dL were higher for non-Hispanic blacks (14% and 3.4% respectively) than for Mexican Americans (4.7% and 1.2%, respectively) and non-Hispanic whites (4.4% and 1.2%, respectively) (Ref. 3, at e377). The “analysis indicates that residence in older housing, poverty, age, and being non-Hispanic black are still major risk factors for higher lead levels” (Ref. 3, at e376). EPA is concerned that disclosure may be ineffective with respect to these populations already at higher risk of having elevated blood lead levels because the effectiveness of disclosure depends on the recipient's understanding the significance of the disclosure and having the means and ability to act upon the information.
While the RRP rule focused principally on protecting children under age 6, it is well known that older children and adults can also suffer adverse effects from lead exposure. Adults are susceptible to lead effects at lower blood lead levels than previously understood (e.g., Ref. 13, p. 8-25). Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension. A meta-analysis of numerous studies estimates that a doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 μg/dL) is associated with ∼1.0 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and ∼0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure. The evidence for an association of lead with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is limited but supportive. (Ref. 13, p E-10). As evident from the discussions in chapters 5, 6 and 8 of EPA's Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (Ref. 13), “neurotoxic effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults are among those best substantiated as occurring at blood lead concentrations as low as 5 to 10 μg/dL (or possibly lower); and these categories are currently clearly of greatest public health concern” (Ref. 13, p. 8-60). With regard to blood lead levels in individual children associated with particular neurological effects, the Criteria Document states “Collectively, the prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies offer evidence that exposure to lead affects the intellectual attainment of preschool and school age children at blood lead levels <10 μg/dL (most clearly in the 5 to 10 μg/dL range, but, less definitively, possibly lower).” (Ref. 13, p. 6-269). Epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated associations between lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension. As one commenter pointed out, the half-life of lead in bone is approximately 20 years. Thus, women of child-bearing age exposed to lead will retain higher levels of lead in their bodies throughout their child-bearing years. When pregnancy occurs, lead can be transferred to the fetus causing an array of adverse effects. EPA now believes the opt-out provision does not sufficiently account for the importance of the health effects of lead exposure to adults and children age 6 and older byallowing renovations to be performed without following the RRP rule requirements in housing that qualified for the opt-out. In supporting the final RRP rule, EPA stated that older children and adults do not ingest dust at the same high rate that a toddler does. This is corroborated by a 2007 meta-analysis of studies of children's hand-to-mouth behavior. (Ref. 4). However, as this analysis indicates, this does not mean that hand-to-mouth behavior is not a potential concern for older children. According to the meta-analysis, the average indoor hand-to-mouth behavior ranged from 6.7 to 28.0 contacts/hour, with the lowest value corresponding to the 6 to < 11 year olds and the highest value corresponding to the 3 to < 6 month olds. Average outdoor hand-to-mouth frequency ranged from 2.9 to 14.5 contacts/hour, with the lowest value corresponding to the 6 to <11 year olds and the highest value corresponding to the 6 to < 12 month olds. Although toddlers have a higher incidence of hand-to-mouth behavior than 6 to < 11 year olds, the latter group still averages more than 6 contacts/hour. Further elevated blood lead levels do occur in children older than 6 and adults (Ref. 15). The Dust Study shows that when the RRP requirements are not followed, renovation activities result in dust lead levels that can be orders of magnitude above the hazard standard and that can be orders of magnitude higher than if the RRP requirements are followed. EPA believes the information from this meta-analysis provides corroborating support for EPA's concern for children 6 and older and its decision to eliminate the opt-out provision.
Moreover, EPA believes that implementing the regulations without the opt-out provision promotes, to a greater extent, the statutory directive to promulgate regulations covering renovation activities in target housing. Among other things, TSCA section 402(c)(3), directs EPA to promulgate regulations that apply to renovation activities that create lead-based paint hazards in target housing. Section 401(17) of TSCA defines target housing as “any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.” Pursuant to section 403 of TSCA, EPA has identified dust-lead hazards in target housing and child-occupied facilities as surface dust that contains a mass-per-area concentration of lead equal to or exceeding 40 μg/ft 2 on floors or 250 μg/ft 2 on windowsills. In the RRP rule, EPA found that renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. Thus, renovations in target housing that create lead-based paint hazards should be covered unless there is a record basis to conclude that coverage is unnecessary.
2. The use of machines that remove lead-based paint through high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibitedunless such machines are used with HEPA exhaust control.
EPA requested comment on a third option under which a subset of target housing would not be subject to the RRP work practices but instead would have been subject to dust wipe testing to be performed after the renovation. Under this option, unless the target housing meets the definition of a child-occupied facility, if an owner-occupant signed a statement that no child under 6 and no pregnant woman reside there and an acknowledgment that the renovation activity is only subject to dust wipe testing after the renovation and providing the results to the owner-occupant, then the renovation firm would not be required to conduct the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the rule. The testing results would become part of the record for that house that must be disclosed under the Disclosure Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart F) required by section 1018 of Title X of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550). This option would provide information that could protect potential buyers of a home where renovation was completed prior to the sale, because they would be notified of the results of the dust wipe tests before purchase and could take appropriate action (e.g., thorough cleaning and retesting of the home, or selecting a different home) if the lead results were at a level that raised concerns for them. While this alternative may provide helpful information to home owners and occupants, as discussed above it would not address lead-based paint hazards created by renovations because it does not require any of the work practices required by the RRP rule.
Based on the data available to EPA (e.g., the Dust Study), the Agency cannot now conclude that the opt-out nor that the alternative approaches are safe, reliable or effective because none of these would sufficiently minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards. In sum, when the RRP work practices are not used, residents and visitors are exposed to the lead hazards created by the renovation, and therefore these approaches would not protect older children, women of childbearing age, or other adults currently residing in the home and can result in exposure to children under the age of 6 and pregnant women to lead-based paint hazards. Again, although EPA specifically requested information or data that would shed any light on the reliability, effectiveness, or safety of these options in relation to EPA's lead hazard standards, the Agency did not receive any. The Agency took these factors into consideration in deciding not to adopt these alternatives.D. Recordkeeping and ReportingEPA's stated purposes in promulgating the recordkeeping requirements were two-fold. “The first is to allow EPA or an authorized State to review a renovation firm's compliance with the substantive requirements of the regulation through reviewing the records maintained for all of the renovation jobs the firm has done. The second is to remind a renovation firm what it must do to comply. EPA envisioned that renovation firms would use the recordkeeping requirements and checklist as an aid to make sure that they have done everything that they are required to do for a particular renovation” (Ref. 1, p. 21745). Several commenters on the RRP rule suggested that the recordkeeping requirements could also be used to provide valuable information about the renovation to the owners and occupants of buildings being renovated. EPA responded to these comments by stating that some of the information identified by these commenters was included in the “Renovate Right” pamphlet and that the pamphlet was the best way to get that information to the owners and occupants. With respect to the other items identified by these commenters, EPA stated its belief that the renovation firms were already providing much of this information (Ref. 1, p. 21718).
As part of EPA's preparations to administer the RRP program, EPA has been developing an education and outreach campaign aimed at consumers. In promulgating the RRP rule, EPA recognized the importance of education and outreach to consumers, to teach them about lead-safe work practices and to encourage them to hire certified renovation firms (Ref. 1, p. 21702). EPA's work on the education and outreach campaign has continued to highlight the importance of an informed public to the success of the RRP program at minimizing exposures to lead-based paint hazards that may be created by renovations. As a result, EPA has determined that copies of the records required to be maintained by renovation firms to document compliance with the work practice requirements, if provided to the owners and occupants of the renovated buildings, would serve to reinforce the information provided by the “Renovate Right” pamphlet on the potential hazards of renovations and on the RRP rule requirements. While the “Renovate Right” pamphlet provides valuable information about the requirements of the RRP rule, the records that a firm would give to owners and occupants would provide useful information regarding rule compliance that is not found in the pamphlet. In covering the significant training and work practice provisions of the RRP rule, these records would enable building owners and occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and how the RRP rule's provisions affected their specific renovation. Several commenters stated that educating homeowners would help them monitor compliance by therenovation firm. One commenter stated that the checklist would help the public understand the RRP rule and that a better informed public would choose to have renovation performed by professional remodelers who would provide safe and quality work. Other commenters believe that the distribution of the checklist is needed to address a lack of accountability of renovation firms to owners and occupants. EPA agrees that educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with the RRP rule and contribute to the effectiveness and reliability of the rule.
Therefore, this final rule requires that, if dust clearance is performed in lieu of cleaning verification, the renovation firm provide a copy of the dust wipe sampling report(s) to the owner of the building that was renovated as well as to the occupants, if different. With respect to renovations in common areas of target housing or in child-occupied facilities, EPA is also requiring that these records be made available to the tenants of the affected housing units or the parents and guardians of children under age 6 using the child-occupied facilities. Dust sampling reports may be made available to these groups in the same way as training and work practice records, by providing information on how to review or obtain copies in individual notifications or on posted signs.E. Effective DateDuring the development of the proposed rule, EPA considered a delay in the effective date of this final rule. EPA estimated that eliminating the opt-out provision could increase the number of renovators that need to be certified by 50%. A delayed effective date would have allowed more time for additional renovators to get their certification. The Agency asked for comment on whether a 6-month or 1-year delay in the effective date is appropriate. In addition, EPA asked for comment on whether a delay in the effective date of this rule would be confusing for the regulated community or the certified personnel.
Accordingly, the Agency decided not to delay the effective date of this final rule. As such, the rule will become effective 60 days after publication in theFederal Register. EPA believes that it is important to eliminate the opt-out exemption without delay in order to avoid further lead exposures in housing previously eligible for the opt-out. Further, based on the number of training courses accredited to date, the Agency believes that there is sufficient training capacity available to train any additional renovators that would need to get certification because of this rule.F. State AuthorizationAs part of the authorization process, States and Indian Tribes must demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. A State or Indian Tribe would have to indicate that it meets the requirements of the renovation program in its application for approval or the first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h). The Agency proposed to give States and Indian Tribes 1 year to demonstrate that their programs include any new requirements the EPA may promulgate, such as the requirements in this final rule. EPA received two comments regarding this requirement. One comment, from the Iowa Department of Public Health, explained that Iowa's legislature only meets once a year for 4 months. Depending on when the EPA publishes amendments to the RRP, it could be very difficult for states in similar situations to meet this requirement. The commenter requested that EPA give States and Indian Tribes two years instead of one to demonstrate compliance. EPA believes that the concern raised by the commenter has merit, and not just for Iowa. Therefore, the Agency decided to allow States and Indian Tribes up to two years to demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule in its application for approval or the first report it submits under 40 CFR 745.324(h).G. Renovator Certification RequirementsEPA was made aware by stakeholders that some renovators want to take the training course closer to April 2010 in order to maximize their 5-year certification which is not required until the RRP rule becomes effective on April 22, 2010. Under the RRP rule, the 5-year certification begins when the renovator completes the training. The Agency is concerned that if enough renovators wait until April 2010 to take the training it may cause training courses to fill up resulting in a lack of available courses near the effective date. In order to give renovators incentive to take the course well in advance of the April 2010 effective date, the Agency considered a change to the requirements that would allow renovator certifications issued on or before the effective date of the RRP rule to last until July 1, 2015. The Agency requested comment on whether it should extend the certification for renovators that get their certification by April 22, 2010.
The Agency decided to finalize an extension of the 5-year certification for renovators who take the training before April 22, 2010. EPA agrees that renovators who take the training early should not be penalized and therefore will extend those certifications until July 1, 2015.H. Principle Instructor RequirementsAs discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered modifying the requirements for training providers. Under the original requirements for the accreditation of training providers, Principle Instructors were required to take a 16-hour lead-paint course taught by EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, or Territory. EPA became aware that 16-hour courses are not available in every state, making it difficult for some instructors to get the required training. To address this problem, EPA considered reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. EPA received several comments on the Principal Instructor requirement, mostlyin support of reducing the hourly requirement to 8 hours. One commenter stated that there is no significant benefit to requiring 16 hours instead of 8 hours and that the 8-hour requirement will fit more closely to available training courses. Similarly, another commenter stated that the 16-hour training shares little content with what the Principal Instructors are going to teach in the renovator course. The commenter also explained that there is no 16-hour lead training course in Mississippi which led to difficulties with a local organization's ability to offer the renovator course. One commenter opposed to reducing the hourly requirement stated that 8 hours of lead training is not sufficient for an instructor to know enough about lead paint, lead hazards and federal regulations. Another commenter stated that there is enough training capacity negating the need to reduce the hourly requirement.
EPA agrees that the 8-hour renovator course, instead of a longer abatement course, is more closely related to what Principal Instructors must know in order to teach the renovator training. In addition to the training requirement, Principal Instructors must meet education and work experience requirements in order to teach lead-based paint training courses. The Agency believes that taking this course would be sufficient training for future instructors of the renovator course and therefore has reduced the requirement from 16 to 8 hours. By reducing the required hours, future instructors can take the 8-hour renovator or dust sampling technician trainings instead of a 16-hour or longer abatement course.III. ReferencesAs indicated underADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical contact listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.Federal Register(73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 2. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule.Federal Register(61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 3. Jones, Robert L., David M. Homa, Pamela A. Meyer, Debra J. Brody, Kathleen L. Caldwell, James L. Pirkle, and Mary Jean Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among U.S. Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. e376-385, March 2009.
10. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule.Federal Register(71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-7755-5). Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 11. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities. November 13, 2007.
18. Knight TE, Kumar MS. “Lead toxicosis in cats—a review.”Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. 2003 Oct;5 (5): 249-55.IV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsEPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities (Economic Analysis, Ref. 5), which is available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here, and in more detail later in this Unit.
Benefits$866 million—$3,061 million annualized (3% discount rate).
Costs$295 million annualized (3% discount rate).
A. Executive Order 12866Under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order because EPA estimates that it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, this action was submitted to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made based on OMB recommendations have been documented in the public docket for this rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.
4. Costs. Removing the opt-out provision will require firms performing renovation, repair, and painting work for compensation in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision tofollow the training, certification, and work practice requirements of the RRP rule. This may result in additional costs for these firms. Furthermore, the additional recordkeeping requirements in this rule will increase costs of renovations in all target housing and child-occupied facilities. Costs may be incurred by contractors that work in these buildings, landlords that use their own staff to work in buildings they lease out; and child-occupied facilities that use their own staff to work in buildings they occupy.
The options EPA analyzed with a phase in or a delayed effective date for removing the opt-out provision have a lower cost in the first 2 years but have identical costs to the final rule beginning in the third year. Options with different work practice requirements for the housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision would cost 1% to 17% less than the final rule. This difference would all be due to lower work practice costs, as the training, certification, and recordkeeping costs would be the same for these options as for this rule.B. Paperwork Reduction ActThe information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document to amend an existing approved ICR. The ICR document, referred to as the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule ICR Addendum and identified under EPA ICR No. 1715.12 and OMB Control Number 2070-0155, has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 7). The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
Removing the opt-out provision is estimated to result in up to 110,000 additional firms becoming certified to engage in renovation, repair, or painting activities. The average certification burden is estimated to be 3.5 hours per firm in the year a firm is initially certified, and 0.5 hours in years that it is re-certified (which occurs every 5 years). Firms must keep records of the work they perform; this recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 5 hours per year per firm. And under this rule, firms must also provide a copy of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practicerequirements of the RRP rule to the owners and occupants of buildings being renovated. This additional recordkeeping requirement is estimated to average approximately 3.3 hours per year per firm. The total annual burden for these 110,000 firms is estimated to average 1,072,000 hours, of which 362,000 hours is due to the recordkeeping requirement to provide owners and occupants with documentation of the training and work practices used.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations codified in chapter I of title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in theFederal Registeror by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. When the ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in theFederal Registerto display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final rule.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. SeeADDRESSESfor where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 6, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 7, 2010.C. Regulatory Flexibility ActThe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
EPA has determined that providing owners and occupants of renovated buildings with copies of the records documenting the renovation firm's compliance with the RRP rule's training and work practice requirements will serve to reinforce information on both the potential hazards of renovations and on the RRP rule's requirements. It will also enable building owners and occupants to better understand what the renovation firm did to comply with the RRP rule and how the rule's provisionsaffected their specific renovation. Educating the owners and occupants in this way is likely to improve their ability to assist the EPA in monitoring compliance with the RRP rule. These improvements in education and monitoring will improve compliance with the RRP rule, which will ultimately protect children and adults from exposure to lead hazards due to renovation activities.
To the extent that renovators and firms working in housing eligible for the opt-out provision will already have become trained and certified because they also work in regulated facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision, or to the extent that eligible homeowners would decline to opt out, the averageimpacts of this action will be lower than estimated.
EPA's Dust Study (Ref. 11) indicated that renovation, repair, and paint preparation activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create dust-lead hazards. The Dust Study showed that the largest decreases in dust levels were observed in the experiments where the rule's practices of containment, specialized cleaning, and cleaning verification were all used. The Dust Study indicated that if the prohibited and restricted practices are avoided, the suite of work practices as a whole are effective at addressing the lead-paint dust that is generated during renovation activities. This is discussed in more detail in the RRP rule (Ref. 1, pp. 21696-21697).
10. Small entity compliance guide. As required by section 212 of Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA issued a Small Entity Compliance Guide (the Guide) in December 2008 to help small entities comply with the RRP rule. The Guide is available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/sbcomplianceguide.pdf or from the National Lead Information Center by calling 1-800-424-LEAD [5323]. EPA will revise the Guide, as necessary, to reflect this rulemaking activity.D. Unfunded Mandates Reform ActTitle II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA proposed rules with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
4. Least burdensome option. EPA has considered a wide variety of options for addressing the risks presented by renovation activities where lead-based paint is present. As part of the development of the renovation, repair, and painting program, EPA considered different options for the scope of the rule, various combinations of training and certification requirements for individuals who perform renovations, various combinations of work practice requirements, and various methods for ensuring that no lead-based painthazards are left behind by persons performing renovations. The Economic Analysis for this rule analyzed several additional options for the phasing, effective date, and work practices required for the additional owner-occupied housing affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. As described in Unit IV.C., EPA has concluded that the options for delaying or phasing the effective date would make the RRP program more complex to implement, might lead to confusion by renovators and homeowners, and would lead to increased exposures. EPA believes that the selected approach is the least burdensome option available that achieves a central objective of this rule, which is to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting activities in all target housing and other buildings frequented by children under age 6.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments operate public housing, and schools that are child-occupied facilities. If these governments perform renovations in these facilities, they may incur very small additional costs to provide residents, parents or guardians with copies of the records documenting compliance with the training and work practice requirements. EPA generally measures a significant impact under UMRA as being expenditures, in the aggregate, of more than 1% of small government revenues in any 1 year. As explained in Unit IV.C.4., the rule is expected to result in small government impacts well under 1% of revenues. So EPA has determined that the rule does not significantly affect small governments. Nor does the rule uniquely affect small governments, as the rule is not targeted at small governments, does not primarily affect small governments, and does not impose a different burden on small governments than on other entities that operate child-occupied facilities.E. Executive Order 13132Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. States are able to apply for, and receive authorization to administer the lead renovation, repair, and painting program requirements, but are under no obligation to do so. In the absence of a State authorization, EPA will administer the requirements. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and State and local governments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local governments in developing the renovation, repair, and painting program. These consultations were described in the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10).F. Executive Order 13175As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), EPA has determined that this rule does not have Tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in the Order. Tribes are able to apply for and receive authorization to administer the lead renovation, repair, and painting program on Tribal lands, but Tribes are under no obligation to do so. In the absence of a Tribal authorization, EPA will administer these requirements. While Tribes may operate public housing or child-occupied facilities covered by the rule such as kindergartens, pre-kindergartens, and daycare facilities, EPA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct effects on the Tribal governments that operate these facilities.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply, EPA consulted with Tribal officials and others by discussing potential renovation regulatory options for the renovation, repair, and painting program at several national lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested Federal agencies.G. Executive Order 13045Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to this rule because it is an “economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children.
Removing the opt-out provision will protect children under the age of 6 who visit a friend, relative, or caregiver's house where a renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision; children who move into such housing when their family purchases it after such a renovation would have been performed; and children who live in a property adjacent to owner-occupied housing where renovation would have been performed under the opt-out provision. Removing the opt-out provision will also protect children age 6 and older who live in houses that would have been renovated under the opt-out provision; who move into such housing; and who live in adjacent properties.H. Executive Order 13211This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistentwith applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.J. Executive Order 12898Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA has assessed the potential impact of this rule on minority and low-income populations. The results of this assessment are presented in the Economic Analysis, which is available in the public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 5). As a result of this assessment, the Agency has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population.V. Congressional Review ActThe Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register.This rule is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Regulatory TextPart 745 Amended
2. In § 745.81, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
3. In § 745.82, remove paragraph (c).
4. In § 745.84, revise paragraph (b)(2), the introductory text of paragraph (c)(2), and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
(ii) While the renovation is ongoing, post informational signs describing the general nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion date. These signs must be posted in areas where they can be seen by the parents or guardians of the children frequenting the child-occupied facility. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet or information on how interested parents or guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of the pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the parents or guardians. The signs mustalso include information on how interested parents or guardians of children frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of the records required by § 745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the parents or guardians.
5. In § 745.86, remove paragraph (b)(6) and redesignate paragraph (b)(7) as paragraph (b)(6) and revise paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
6. In § 745.90, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(8) to read as follows:
7. In § 745.225, revise paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
8. In § 745.326, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. When EPA publishes in theFederal Registerrevisions to the renovation program requirements contained in subparts E and L of this part:
(3) A State or Tribe submitting its application for approval of a renovation program on or after the effective date of the revisions must demonstrate in its application that it meets the requirements of the new renovation program requirements in subparts E and L of this part.[FR Doc. 2010-10100 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Attachments View All (0) View document: No documents available. Attachments View All (0) Comment Now! Comments Not Accepted ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-1074 Tracking Number: View original printed format: Document Information Date Posted: May 6, 2010RIN: Not AssignedCFR: 40 CFR Part 745Federal Register Number: 2010-10100 Show More Details Submitter Information Comments0 Comments Received* Docket Information This document is contained in EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049 Related Dockets: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0780Related RINs: NoneRelated Documents: Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program; Lead Test Kit...Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the...Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the... Related Comments: View all * This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency’s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document. Document text and images courtesy of the Federal Register Home Search Advanced Search Browse By Category Learn About Us eRulemaking Program Media Toolkit Agencies Awards & Recognition Enhancements & Fixes Resources Site Data Regulatory Agenda Agency Reports Required by Statute API Overview Developers Help How to use Regulations.gov FAQs Glossary Connect With Contact Us Privacy and Security Notice User Notice Accessibility Statement Partner Sites We the People Federal Register Reginfo Congress.gov USA.gov E-Gov Opengov Participate Today!