[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 28, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55506-55524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25986]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8795-9]
RIN 2070-AJ55


Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in 
the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing several revisions to the Lead Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal 
Register on April 22, 2008. The rule establishes 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 proposing to eliminate 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 proposing to require 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049, by one of the following methods:

[[Page 55507]]

      Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
      Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA 
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The DCO is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: 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., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically 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 general information contact: Colby 
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division 
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: [email protected].
     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: [email protected].
     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 INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. 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 a professional (individual 
or firm) who must be certified to conduct lead-based paint activities 
in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226.
    This proposed 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]. Hearing- or speech-
challenged individuals may access this number through TTY by calling 
the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. 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.
      Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., 
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall 
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry 
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, 
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
      Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of 
residential buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
      Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
      Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), 
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.
      Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), 
e.g., training providers.
      Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building 
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling 
technicians.
      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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

[[Page 55508]]

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and 
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be 
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked 
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Agency's Authority for Taking this Action

    This proposed 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. Introduction

    In the Federal Register issue 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.
    Shortly after the RRP rule was published, several petitions were 
filed challenging the rule. These petitions were consolidated in the 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On 
August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and 
children's health advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. In 
this agreement EPA committed to propose several changes to the RRP 
rule, including the changes discussed in this document.
    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 the Federal Register document 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 created two new training disciplines in the field of 
lead-based paint: Renovator and dust sampling technician. Persons who 
successfully complete renovator training from an accredited training 
provider are certified renovators. Certified renovators are responsible 
for ensuring that renovations to which they are assigned are performed 
in compliance with the work practice requirements set out in 40 CFR 
745.85. Persons who successfully complete dust sampling technician 
training from an accredited training provider are certified dust 
sampling technicians. Certified dust sampling technicians may be called 
upon to collect dust samples after renovation activities have been 
completed.
    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 Provision

    The RRP rule included a provision that 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. 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 
acknowledgement (even if no children under age 6 or no pregnant women 
reside there), or if the owner-occupant

[[Page 55509]]

chooses not sign the opt-out certification and acknowledgement for 
other reasons, the renovation is subject to the requirements of the RRP 
rule.
    After further consideration of the opt-out provision, the Agency 
believes it is in the best interest of the public to remove the 
provision. EPA has decided it is important to require the RRP work 
practices and training and certification requirements in target housing 
even if there is no child under age 6 or pregnant woman residing there. 
While the RRP rule focused mainly on protecting young children and 
pregnant women from lead hazards, exposure can result in adverse health 
effects for older children and adults as well. By removing the opt-out 
provision the rule will go farther toward protecting older children and 
adults occupants of target housing where no child under age 6 or 
pregnant woman resides.
    In addition, the opt-out provision may not be sufficiently 
protective for children under age 6 and pregnant women, the vulnerable 
populations identified in the RRP rule, given that no known safe level 
of lead exposure has been identified. The potential adverse health 
effects of lead exposure are explained in the preamble to the RRP final 
rule (Ref. 1, p. 21693). As pointed out by a number of commenters on 
the RRP rule, the opt-out provision does not protect families with 
young children who may purchase recently renovated target housing. 
Removal of the opt-out will result in fewer homes being purchased with 
pre-existing lead hazards. Under the RRP rule, the opt-out provision 
was limited to owner-occupied target housing and did not extend to 
vacant rental housing because of the concern that future tenants could 
unknowingly move into a rental unit where dust-lead hazards created by 
the renovation are present. In the same way, dust-lead hazards created 
during renovations in an owner-occupied residence conducted prior to a 
sale will be present for the next occupants. It is common for home 
owners to perform activities that disturb paint before selling a house, 
thus increasing the likelihood of lead hazards being present for 
someone buying a home, which may include a family with a child under 
age 6 or a pregnant woman.
    Renovations performed under the opt-out provision are also likely 
to result in exposures for vulnerable populations in other ways. 
Visiting children who do not spend enough time in the housing to render 
it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead from 
playing in dust-lead hazards created by renovations. For example, 
children may spend time in the homes of grandparents, but those homes 
may be eligible for the opt-out provision of the RRP rule. A homeowner 
who signs an opt-out statement may not realize that she is pregnant. 
Eliminating the opt-out provision will also protect families with young 
children residing near or adjacent to homes undergoing renovations. 
Under the RRP rule, an owner occupant can take advantage of the opt-out 
provision even if a child under age 6 or a pregnant woman lives in an 
adjacent home. Renovations on the exterior of a residence can spread 
leaded dust and debris some distance from the renovation activity, 
which is why, for regulated renovations, EPA requires renovation firms 
to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material 
a distance of 10 feet from the renovation and take extra precautions 
when in certain situations to ensure that dust and debris does not 
contaminate other buildings or other areas of the property or migrate 
to adjacent properties. There are approximately 2 million owner-
occupied, single-family attached homes built before 1978. Renovations 
on the exteriors of these homes are likely to contaminate neighboring 
yards and porches resulting in exposure outside the house as well as 
inside because dust can be tracked into the home. Many more owner-
occupied, single-family detached homes are located in close proximity 
to each other, and renovations performed under the opt-out provision 
present a similar risk for these homes.
    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. 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.'' Among other 
things, TSCA section 403(c)(3), in turn, directs EPA to promulgate 
regulations that apply to renovation activities in target housing.
    Taking these factors into consideration, EPA is proposing to remove 
the opt-out provision. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of 
removing this provision from the RRP rule.

D. Alternative Approaches

    In addition to the approach being proposed, EPA is considering 
other alternative approaches or work practice requirements for owner-
occupied target housing that is not a child-occupied facility and where 
no children younger than 6 or pregnant women reside. EPA is therefore 
requesting comment on other possible approaches that would meet EPA's 
statutory obligation to apply the regulations to target housing and 
that the standards be safe, reliable, and effective. EPA's request is 
expressly limited to approaches that might apply to this subset of 
target housing and EPA is not reopening any issue related to the work 
practices or other requirements of the rule applicable to housing other 
than owner-occupied target housing that is not a child-occupied 
facility and where no children under 6 or pregnant women reside.
    For example, EPA is requesting comment on an option that requires 
the RRP work practices only for exterior renovations. 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 firm will only be required to use the lead-safe 
work practices contained in EPA's RRP rule when renovating exteriors 
then the renovation firm would only be required to follow the RRP work 
practices when doing exterior renovations, but not when doing interior 
renovations. This option would address exposures to lead dust from 
exterior renovations for people living in neighboring homes, 
particularly attached homes or homes in close physical proximity. EPA 
examined both interior and exterior work practices in EPA's study 
entitled ``Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Activities'' (the ``Dust Study,'' Ref. 11). 
According to the Dust Study, exterior work practices were generally 
effective at reducing lead dust levels generated by exterior renovation 
activities, which the Dust Study showed can travel far enough from the 
work site to create lead hazards on or in attached homes or homes in 
close physical proximity. Additionally, while EPA has not conducted an 
exposure assessment for any of the options being considered for this 
proposed rule, individuals residing in homes in close physical 
proximity could be exposed during the entire renovation and post-
renovation phase, and their exposure would not necessarily be 
considered by an owner-occupant in choosing not to require lead-safe 
work practices. The duration of exposure will vary under the different 
scenarios for which EPA is requesting

[[Page 55510]]

comment. For example, individuals visiting the interior of the home, or 
moving in after the completion of renovations, may not generally be 
exposed for the full duration of the renovation and post-renovation 
phase. Limiting the work practice requirements to exterior renovations 
(with the owner-occupant's permission) would address these particular 
exposures to individuals residing in closely neighboring homes, while 
significantly reducing the cost of this proposed rule.
     EPA is requesting comment on an alternative option under which the 
only work practices applicable to housing that is not a child-occupied 
facility and where no children or pregnant women reside would be the 
restriction or prohibition on certain work practice found at 40 CFR 
745.85(a)(3). These include:
    1. Open-flame burning or torching of lead-based paint is 
prohibited.
    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 prohibited unless such machines 
are used with HEPA exhaust control.
    3. Operating a heat gun on lead-based paint is permitted only at 
temperatures below 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit.

 All the other work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85 would not be 
required in target housing that is not a child-occupied facility and 
where no children or pregnant women reside. 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 the specific practices contained in 40 CFR 
745.85(a)(3), then the renovation activity would not be subject to the 
other work practice requirements of 40 CFR 745.85. This option would 
prohibit or restrict the highest dust generating practices, while 
reducing costs by not requiring the full suite of practices under 40 
CFR 745.85.
     EPA is requesting comment on another option under which this 
subset of target housing would not be subject to the RRP work practices 
but would instead be 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 section 1018 of Title X of the 
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Public Law 
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. This 
group could be of particular concern if the move occurred shortly after 
the renovation.
    EPA is requesting comment on other options that could apply to this 
category of houses, including any combination of the alternatives 
described in this unit. Because one goal of adopting an alternative 
approach would be to reduce the cost and burden of compliance, EPA also 
requests comment on whether segregating owner-occupied target housing 
that is not a child-occupied facility and where no children under 6 or 
pregnant women reside in-and-of-itself creates a burdensome complexity 
for renovators and whether it would thus be preferable to require the 
full suite of RRP work practice requirements for all target housing. We 
also request any qualitative or quantitative estimates of what the cost 
savings (if any) would be from any of the options discussed in this 
unit, or any other options that commenters wish to suggest.
    As indicated in the RRP rule, EPA has found that renovation 
projects that disturb lead-based paint create lead-based paint hazards. 
EPA's Dust Study (Ref. 11), demonstrated that renovation, repair, and 
painting activities produce large quantities of dust significantly 
greater than the dust-lead hazard standards. The Dust Study shows that 
renovations on exteriors of homes resulted in lead levels many times 
greater than the hazard standard. It also demonstrated that work 
practices other than those restricted or prohibited by the RRP rule 
left behind lead dust well above the hazard level when the RRP rule 
requirements are not followed. EPA requests comment on whether the 
alternate approaches to this proposed rule in this unit would 
adequately address lead-based paint hazards created by renovation 
activities, including any data that would shed light on the 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety in relation to EPA's lead hazard 
standards of these approaches or any other options that commenters may 
suggest.

E. Effective Date

    EPA is considering a delay in effective date of this rule, either 6 
months or 1 year. Assuming renovators are specialized, such that they 
would only work in homes subject to the opt-out provision, this 
proposed rule could increase the number of renovators that need to be 
certified by 50%. EPA asks for comment on this assumption in Unit IV.A. 
A delay in the effective date would allow time for certification of 
additional renovators and may allow for a smoother transition to the 
expanded coverage proposed in this document. However, EPA is not 
proposing to delay the effective date because of concerns that a delay 
would be confusing for the regulated entities and fail to prevent lead 
exposures due to RRP activities during the transition period.
    Furthermore, EPA is confident that its efforts to establish the 
necessary infrastructure of accredited training providers is sufficient 
to allow adequate personnel to be trained and available. As of October 
9, 2009:
     169 trainers have applied for accreditation.
     74 have been accredited, most will offer training in 
multiple locations.
     The vast majority of the applicants should be approved by 
the end of the year.
    Assuming an average of 85 trainers teaching in 2009 and 165 in 
2010, if each gives 3 classes per week beginning in October with 25 
participants, over 370,000 renovators would be trained by July 1, 2010. 
That does not include mass trainings expected to be given at major 
conferences and other industry gatherings. EPA believes that there is 
already training capacity. In fact, training providers have reported to 
EPA that they have recently cancelled training offerings due to a lack 
of demand.
    To further increase the availability of training, EPA has developed 
a model electronic learning (E-learning) component for the lecture 
portion of the renovator training (http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm). This allows training providers to offer students the 
opportunity to take the lecture portion of the training at times 
convenient to them and then go to a physical location to complete the 
hands-on portion of the training and take the test. Training providers 
expect to begin offering training through this mechanism by the

[[Page 55511]]

end of the year. EPA worked with the National Association of Home 
Builders (NAHB), the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH), and a 
number of other organizations on this E-learning component.
    Over the past year, EPA's activities to encourage accreditation and 
training have included:
     Mass e-mail/mailings to over 1,200 trainers encouraging 
them to become accredited.
     Mass e-mail/mailings to over 1,000 trade organizations, 
trade magazines, unions, and property management associations 
encouraging them to get trained and certified.
     Presented and/or exhibited information at numerous major 
trade conferences, reaching tens of thousands of attendees.
     Conducted a trainer webinar with the Department of Housing 
and Urban. Development on September 15, 2009, as a step-by-step guide 
to becoming accredited.
     Plan to speak at over a dozen more conferences by the end 
of the calendar year.
    In addition, EPA is working with a large marketing firm to produce 
a multi-media advertising campaign to ensure that the regulated 
community knows about the RRP rule and the training opportunities and 
the general public knows about the benefits of hiring certified firms, 
thus building demand for certified firms. Starting in the fall of 2009 
and continuing through the spring, EPA will be working with the 
marketing firm to expand its out reach efforts to the public and the 
regulated community.
    EPA has cooperated with the regulated community in many ways to 
communicate these requirements. Many in the regulated community have 
been doing a great deal to inform their members and clients about the 
RRP rule. A few examples include:
     National Association of Home Builders:
     --Developed a comprehensive web page about the RRP rule at http://www.nahb.org/leadpaint.
     --Sent several memos to their State and Local Executive Officers 
informing them of the RRP rule and letting them know they need to get 
trained and certified.
     --Provides regular updates to local Home Builders Associations 
through website updates and e-mails.
     --Featured panel on the RRP rule at periodic national and regional 
conventions/trade shows.
     National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI):
     --Produced a webinar for members on the RRP rule.
     --Provide information about the RRP rule to membership and 
leadership through regular e-mails and snail mail.
     --Provide information about lead-based paint and the RRP rule in 
all renewal and new member information packages.
     National Association of Realtors (NAR):
     --EPA collaborated with NAR on a comprehensive video series 
explaining the requirements to the real estate community.
     Individual Accredited Training Providers:
     --Distributed glossy advertising materials and other outreach with 
messages such as ``Be lead safe. It's the law.'', ``Certify with the 
best'', etc.
    EPA has been meeting regularly with many stakeholders to share 
information on training and outreach. This group includes: NAHB, NCHH, 
NARI, Alliance for Healthy Homes, Andersen Windows, Custom Electronic 
Design and Installation Association, Window and Door Manufacturers 
Association, Rebuilding Together, Air Conditioning Contractors of 
America, Pella Corporation, and the Oregon Home Builder's Association. 
All of these groups are actively working to make sure their members and 
clients are aware of the requirements of the RRP rule.
    EPA therefore requests comment on the need for a delay in the 
effective date of this rule of either 6 months or 1 year. Given EPA's 
outreach efforts, is there reason to believe that sufficient certified 
or trained personnel would not be available to work on housing 
previously eligible for the opt-out provision as of 60 days after 
publication of this rule as final? Would a delay in effective date for 
work on housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision be 
confusing for the regulated community or the certified personnel?

F. Quantifying Benefits

    In quantifying the benefits for the RRP rulemaking EPA considered 
only the benefits associated with the avoided incidence of IQ loss in 
children under the age of 6 from reduced lead exposure. These estimates 
only partially account for the benefits of the RRP rule. These 
estimates did not include an assessment of at-risk subpopulations or of 
population level effects other than lost income. The benefits 
associated with avoiding the other adverse effects associated with lead 
exposure to both children and adults were excluded from this analysis.
    EPA requests information on how it can more fully quantify the 
benefits associated with these effects for purposes of this proposed 
rule. To facilitate your preparation of comments on this point, the 
following is an excerpt from the preamble of the 2008 final Lead 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (Ref. 3). This discussion 
is based on EPA's ``Air Quality Criteria Document'' (the ``Criteria 
Document,'' Ref. 13). See also the letters dated March 27, 2007 (Ref. 
14) and September 27, 2007 (Ref. 15) from the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee's (CASAC) Lead Review Panel. The major adverse 
effects associated with exposure to lead are also discussed in Chapter 
5 of the Economic Analysis (Ref. 5).
    1. Array of health effects and at-risk subpopulations. Lead has 
been demonstrated to exert ``a broad array of deleterious effects on 
multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action'' (Ref. 
13, p. 8-24 and section 8.4.1). This array of health effects includes 
effects on heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological 
development and function, reproduction and physical development, kidney 
function, cardiovascular function, and immune function. The weight of 
evidence varies across this array of effects and is comprehensively 
described in the Criteria Document. There is also some evidence of lead 
carcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies, together with limited 
human evidence of suggestive associations (Ref. 13, sections 5.6.2, 
6.7, and 8.4.10). [Footnote (FN) 1. Lead has been classified as a 
probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer (inorganic lead compounds), based mainly on sufficient animal 
evidence, and as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the 
U.S. National Toxicology Program (lead and lead compounds) (Ref. 13, 
section 6.7.2). EPA considers lead a probable carcinogen (http:// 
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm (Ref. 13, p. 6-195)).]
    This review is focused on those effects most pertinent to ambient 
exposures, which, given the reductions in ambient lead levels over the 
past 30 years, are generally those associated with individual blood 
lead levels in children and adults in the range of 10 micrograms per 
deciliter ([mu]g/dL) and lower. These key effects include neurological, 
hematological, and immune [FN 2. At mean blood lead levels, in 
children, on the order of 10 [mu]g/dL, and somewhat lower, associations 
have been found with effects to the immune system, including

[[Page 55512]]

altered macrophage activation, increased immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels 
and associated increased risk for autoimmunity and asthma (Ref. 13, 
sections 5.9, 6.8, and 8.4.6).] effects for children, and 
hematological, cardiovascular, and renal effects for adults (Ref. 13, 
Tables 8-5 and 8-6, pp. 8-60 to 8-62). As evident from the discussions 
in chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the Criteria Document, ``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 [mu]g/dL (or possibly lower); and these categories are currently 
clearly of greatest public health concern'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-60). [FN 3. 
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 [mu]g/dL (most clearly in the 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL range, but, less 
definitively, possibly lower).'' (Ref. 13, p. 6-269). FN 4. 
Epidemiological 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 [mu]g/dL) is 
associated with ~1.0 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) increase in systolic 
blood pressure and ~0.6 mm Hg increase in diastolic pressure (Ref. 13, 
p. E-10).]
    The toxicological and epidemiological information available since 
the time of the last review ``includes assessment of new evidence 
substantiating risks of deleterious effects on certain health endpoints 
being induced by distinctly lower than previously demonstrated lead 
exposures indexed by blood lead levels extending well below 10 [mu]g/dL 
in children and/or adults'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-25). Some health effects 
associated with individual blood lead levels extend below 5 [mu]g/dL, 
and some studies have observed these effects at the lowest blood levels 
considered. With regard to population mean levels, the Criteria 
Document points to studies reporting ``lead effects on the intellectual 
attainment of preschool and school age children at population mean 
concurrent blood-lead levels [BLLs] ranging down to as low as 2 to 8 
[mu]g/dL'' (Ref. 13, p. E-9).
    We note that many studies over the past decade, in investigating 
effects at lower blood lead levels, have utilized the Centers for 
Disease Control (CDC) advisory level or level of concern for individual 
children (10 [mu]g/dL) [FN 5. This level has variously been called an 
advisory level or level of concern (http:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/lead/pb_standards2.html). In addressing children's blood lead levels, 
CDC has stated, ``Specific strategies that target screening to high-
risk children are essential to identify children with BLLs >= 10 [mu]g/
dL.'' (Ref. 4, p.1)] as a benchmark for assessment, and this is 
reflected in the numerous references in the Criteria Document to 10 
[mu]g/dL. Individual study conclusions stated with regard to effects 
observed below 10 [mu]g/dL are usually referring to individual blood 
lead levels. In fact, many such study groups have been restricted to 
individual blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL or below levels lower 
than 10 [mu]g/dL. We note that the mean blood lead level for these 
groups will necessarily be lower than the blood lead level they are 
restricted below.
    Threshold levels, in terms of blood lead levels in individual 
children, for neurological effects cannot be discerned from the 
currently available studies (Ref. 13, pp. 8-60 to 8-63). The Criteria 
Document states, ``There is no level of lead exposure that can yet be 
identified, with confidence, as clearly not being associated with some 
risk of deleterious health effects'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-63). As discussed 
in the Criteria Document, ``a threshold for lead neurotoxic effects may 
exist at levels distinctly lower than the lowest exposures examined in 
these epidemiologic studies'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-67). [FN 6. In 
consideration of the evidence from experimental animal studies with 
regard to the issue of threshold for neurotoxic effects, the Criteria 
Document notes that there is little evidence that allows for clear 
delineation of a threshold, and that ``blood-lead levels associated 
with neurobehavioral effects appear to be reasonably parallel between 
humans and animals at reasonably comparable blood-lead concentrations; 
and such effects appear likely to occur in humans ranging down at least 
to 5-10 [mu]g/dL, or possibly lower (although the possibility of a 
threshold for such neurotoxic effects cannot be ruled out at lower 
blood-lead concentrations)'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-38).]
     [P]hysiological, behavioral and demographic factors contribute to 
increased risk of lead-related health effects. Potentially at-risk 
subpopulations, also referred to as sensitive subpopulations, include 
those with increased susceptibility (i.e., physiological factors 
contributing to a greater response for the same exposure), as well as 
those with greater vulnerability (i.e., those with increased exposure 
such as through exposure to higher media concentrations or resulting 
from behavior leading to increased contact with contaminated media), or 
those affected by socioeconomic factors, such as reduced access to 
health care or low socioeconomic status.
    While adults are susceptible to lead effects at lower blood lead 
levels than previously understood (e.g., Ref. 13, p. 8-25), the greater 
influence of past exposures on their current blood lead levels leads us 
to give greater prominence to children as the sensitive subpopulation 
in this review. Children are at increased risk of lead-related health 
effects due to various factors that enhance their exposures (e.g., via 
the hand-to-mouth activity that is prevalent in very young children, 
Ref. 13, section 4.4.3) and susceptibility. While children are 
considered to be at a period of maximum exposure around 18-27 months, 
the current evidence has found even stronger associations between blood 
lead at school age and IQ at school age. The evidence ``supports the 
idea that lead exposure continues to be toxic to children as they reach 
school age, and [does] not lend support to the interpretation that all 
the damage is done by the time the child reaches 2 to 3 years of age'' 
(Ref. 13, section 6.2.12). The following physiological and demographic 
factors can further affect risk of lead-related effects in some 
children.
     Children with particular genetic polymorphisms (e.g., 
presence of the d-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase-2 [ALAD-2] allele) 
have increased sensitivity to lead toxicity, which may be due to 
increased susceptibility to the same internal dose and/or to increased 
internal dose associated with same exposure (Ref. 13, p. 8-71, sections 
6.3.5, 6.4.7.3, and 6.3.6).
     Some children may have blood lead levels higher than those 
otherwise associated with a given lead exposure (Ref. 13, section 
8.5.3) as a result of nutritional status (e.g., iron deficiency, 
calcium intake), as well as genetic and other factors (Ref. 13, chapter 
4 and sections 3.4, 5.3.7, and 8.5.3).
     Situations of elevated exposure, such as residing near 
sources of ambient lead, as well as socioeconomic factors, such as 
reduced access to health care or low socioeconomic status (SES) can 
also contribute to increased blood lead levels and increased risk of 
associated health effects from air-related lead.
     [C]hildren in poverty and black, non-Hispanic children 
have notably higher blood lead levels than do

[[Page 55513]]

economically well-off children and white children, in general.
    2. Neurological effects in children. Among the wide variety of 
health endpoints associated with lead exposures, there is general 
consensus that the developing nervous system in children is among the, 
if not the, most sensitive. While blood lead levels in U.S. children 
have decreased notably since the late 1970s, newer studies have 
investigated and reported associations of effects on the 
neurodevelopment of children with these more recent blood lead levels 
(Ref. 13, chapter 6). Functional manifestations of lead neurotoxicity 
during childhood include sensory, motor, cognitive, and behavioral 
impacts. Numerous epidemiological studies have reported neurocognitive, 
neurobehavioral, sensory, and motor function effects in children with 
blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL (Ref. 13, sections 6.2 and 8.4). 
[FN 7. Further, neurological effects in general include behavioral 
effects, such as delinquent behavior (Ref. 13, sections 6.2.6 and 
8.4.2.2), sensory effects, such as those related to hearing and vision 
(Ref. 13, sections 6.2.7 and 8.4.2.3), and deficits in neuromotor 
function (Ref. 13, p. 8-36).] As discussed in the Criteria Document, 
``extensive experimental laboratory animal evidence has been generated 
that (a) substantiates well the plausibility of the epidemiologic 
findings observed in human children and adults and (b) expands our 
understanding of likely mechanisms underlying the neurotoxic effects'' 
(Ref. 13, p. 8-25; section 5.3).
    Cognitive effects associated with lead exposures that have been 
observed in epidemiological studies have included decrements in 
intelligence test results, such as the widely used IQ score, and in 
academic achievement as assessed by various standardized tests as well 
as by class ranking and graduation rates (Ref. 13, section 6.2.16 and 
pp. 8-29 to 8-30). As noted in the Criteria Document with regard to the 
latter, ``Associations between lead exposure and academic achievement 
observed in the above-noted studies were significant even after 
adjusting for IQ, suggesting that lead-sensitive neuropsychological 
processing and learning factors not reflected by global intelligence 
indices might contribute to reduced performance on academic tasks'' 
(Ref. 13, pp. 8-29 to 8-30).
    With regard to potential implications of lead effects on IQ, the 
Criteria Document recognizes the ``critical'' distinction between 
population and individual risk, identifying issues regarding declines 
in IQ for an individual and for the population. The Criteria Document 
further states that a ``point estimate indicating a modest mean change 
on a health index at the individual level can have substantial 
implications at the population level'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-77). [FN 8. As an 
example, the Criteria Document states, ``although an increase of a few 
mm Hg in blood pressure might not be of concern for an individual's 
well-being, the same increase in the population mean might be 
associated with substantial increases in the percentages of individuals 
with values that are sufficiently extreme that they exceed the criteria 
used to diagnose hypertension'' (Ref. 13, p. 8-77).] A downward shift 
in the mean IQ value is associated with both substantial decreases in 
percentages achieving very high scores and substantial increases in the 
percentage of individuals achieving very low scores (Ref. 13, p. 8-81). 
[FN 9. For example, for a population mean IQ of 100 (and standard 
deviation of 15), 2.3% of the population would score above 130, but a 
shift of the population to a mean of 95 results in only 0.99% of the 
population scoring above 130 (Ref. 13, pp. 8-81 to 8-82).] For an 
individual functioning in the low IQ range due to the influence of 
developmental risk factors other than lead, a lead-associated IQ 
decline of several points might be sufficient to drop that individual 
into the range associated with increased risk of educational, 
vocational, and social failure (Ref. 13, p. 8-77).
    Other cognitive effects observed in studies of children have 
included effects on attention, executive functions, language, memory, 
learning, and visuospatial processing (Ref. 13, sections 5.3.5, 6.2.5, 
and 8.4.2.1), with attention and executive function effects associated 
with lead exposures indexed by blood lead levels below 10 [mu]g/dL 
(Ref. 13, section 6.2.5 and pp. 8-30 to 8-31). The evidence for the 
role of lead in this suite of effects includes experimental animal 
findings (Ref. 13, section 8.4.2.1; p. 8-31), which provide strong 
biological plausibility of lead effects on learning ability, memory and 
attention (Ref. 13, section 5.3.5), as well as associated mechanistic 
findings.
    The persistence of such lead-induced effects is described in the 
proposal and the Criteria Document (e.g., Ref. 13, sections 5.3.5, 
6.2.11, and 8.5.2). The persistence or irreversibility of such effects 
can be the result of damage occurring without adequate repair offsets 
or of the persistence of lead in the body (Ref. 13, section 8.5.2). It 
is additionally important to note that there may be long-term 
consequences of such deficits over a lifetime. Poor academic skills and 
achievement can have ``enduring and important effects on objective 
parameters of success in real life,'' as well as increased risk of 
antisocial and delinquent behavior (Ref. 13, section 6.2.16).
    Multiple epidemiologic studies of lead and child development have 
demonstrated inverse associations between blood lead concentrations and 
children's IQ and other cognitive-related outcomes at successively 
lower lead exposure levels over the past 30 years (Ref. 13, section 
6.2.13). For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, 
described in the Criteria Document, provides clear substantiation of 
neurocognitive decrements being associated in children with mean blood 
lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 [mu]g/dL, and some analyses 
indicate lead effects on intellectual attainment of children for which 
population mean blood lead levels in the analysis ranged from 2 to 8 
[mu]g/dL (Ref. 13, sections 6.2, 8.4.2, and 8.4.2.6). Thus, while blood 
lead levels in U.S. children have decreased notably since the late 
1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported associations of 
effects on the neurodevelopment of children with blood lead levels 
similar to the more recent, lower blood lead levels (Ref. 13, chapter 
6).

G. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    EPA has also determined that public policy would be better served 
by using the renovation firm recordkeeping requirements to increase 
awareness of the RRP rule requirements among owners and occupants of 
renovated target housing or child-occupied facilities. EPA'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 
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

[[Page 55514]]

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. 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.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to require that, when the final invoice 
for the renovation is delivered, or within 30 days of the completion of 
the renovation, whichever is earlier, the renovation firm provide 
information demonstrating compliance with the training and work 
practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner of the building 
being renovated and, if different, to the occupants of the renovated 
housing or the operator of the child-occupied facility. For renovations 
in common areas of target housing, the renovation firm would have to 
provide the occupants of the affected housing units instructions on how 
to review or obtain this information from the renovation firm at no 
charge to the occupant. These instructions would have to be included in 
the notice provided to each affected unit under 40 CFR 745.84(b)(2)(i) 
or on the signs posted in the common areas under 40 CFR 
745.84(b)(2)(ii). EPA is proposing similar requirements for renovations 
in child-occupied facilities. Under this proposed rule, the renovation 
firm would be required to provide interested parents or guardians 
instructions on how to review or obtain a copy of these records at no 
cost to the parents or guardians. This could be accomplished by mailing 
or hand delivering these instructions, or by including them on the 
signs posted under 40 CFR 745.84(c)(2)(ii).
    Renovation firms would have to provide training and work practice 
information to owners and occupants in a short, easily read checklist 
or other form. EPA's ``Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist'' may 
be used for this purpose, but firms may develop their own forms or 
checklists so long as they include all of the required information in a 
similar format. The specific information that would be required to be 
provided are the training and work practice compliance information 
required to be maintained by 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as well as 
identifying information on the manufacturer and model of the test kits 
used, if any, a description of the components that were tested 
including their locations, and the test kit results. The checklist or 
form must include documentation that a certified renovator was assigned 
to the project, that the certified renovator provided on-the-job 
training for workers used on the project, that the certified renovator 
performed or directed workers who performed the tasks required by the 
RRP rule, and that the certified renovator performed the post-
renovation cleaning verification. This documentation must include a 
certification by the certified renovator that the work practices were 
followed, with narration as applicable. However, EPA is not proposing 
to require that the renovation firm automatically provide a copy of the 
certified renovator's training certificate, which must be maintained in 
the firm's records pursuant to 40 CFR 745.86(b)(7), as an attachment to 
the checklist or other form.
    With respect to the option for dust clearance in lieu of cleaning 
verification under 40 CFR 745.85(c), the RRP rule requires the 
renovation firm to provide the associated results from dust wipe 
sampling to the person who contracted for the renovation. This 
requirement was promulgated in response to public comments on the 
applicability of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart F, 
to dust lead testing reports. These commenters stated that a 
requirement for the information to be provided to the owner of the 
property was necessary in order to make sure that the information would 
be available to be disclosed in the future (Ref. 1, p. 21718). However, 
in agreeing with these commenters and acknowledging the importance of 
having the dust sampling reports available to disclose to future 
purchasers and tenants, EPA neglected to consider the importance of 
making dust sampling information available to the current occupants of 
renovated rental target housing or child-occupied facilities. While 40 
CFR 745.107 would require renovation-related dust sampling reports to 
be disclosed to target housing tenants at the next lease renewal, this 
may be months or years after the renovation was completed. In addition, 
the Lead Disclosure Rule does not apply to child-occupied facilities in 
public or commercial buildings, so those tenants may never receive this 
information.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to require 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 proposing to require 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.

H. Accreditation and Certification Requirements

    EPA was made aware by stakeholders that some renovators want to 
take the training course closer to April 2010 because they want 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.

[[Page 55515]]

In order to give renovators incentive to take the course well in 
advance of the April 2010 effective date, the Agency is considering 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 requests comment on whether it should extend 
the certification for renovators that get their certification by April 
22, 2010.
    Another modification EPA is considering involves the requirements 
for training providers. Under the current requirements for the 
accreditation of training providers, Principle Instructors must take a 
16-hour lead-paint course taught by EPA or an authorized State, Tribe, 
or Territory. EPA is aware that 16-hours courses are not available in 
every State, making it difficult for some instructors to get the 
required training. To address this problem, EPA is considering reducing 
the hourly requirement to 8 hours. This would allow future instructors 
to take the 8-hour renovator or dust sampling technician trainings 
instead of a 16-hour or longer abatement course. The Agency believes 
that the renovator or dust sampling technician courses would be 
appropriate training for instructors that want to teach these courses. 
The Agency requests comment on whether the 16-hour training requirement 
for Principle Instructors should be reduced to 8 hours.

I. State Authorization

    As part of the authorization process, States and Indian Tribes must 
demonstrate to EPA that they meet the requirements of the RRP rule. The 
Agency is proposing 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 proposed 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).

III. References

    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. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead; Final 
Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008) (FRL-8732-9). 
Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.
    4. CDC. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A Statement by 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. August 
2005.
    5. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Economic 
Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 
Opt-out and Recordkeeping Proposed Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities. October 2009.
    6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. August 17, 
2009.
    7. EPA. Opt-out and Recordkeeping Proposed Rule ICR Addendum for 
the rulemaking entitled Lead: Elimination of the Opt-Out Provision and 
Other Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; 
Proposed Rule. August 2009.
    8. EPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Elimination 
of the Opt-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the Lead Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. August 2009.
    9. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the 
Lead-based Paint Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling 
Requirements. March 3, 2000.
    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.
    12. EPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement; Lead: Elimination 
of the Opt-Out Provision and Other Amendments to the Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. August 2009.
    13. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. October 2006.
    14. CASAC. ``Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) 
Review of the 1st Draft Lead Staff Paper and Draft Lead Exposure and 
Risk Assessments. March 27, 2007. Available on-line at: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/989B57DCD436111B852572AC0079DA8A/
$File/casac-07-003.pdf.
    15. CASAC. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) Review 
of the 2\nd\ Draft Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments 
Document. September 27, 2007. Available on-line at: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/2DCD6EF49CDD37B285257364005F93E4/
$File/casac-07-007.pdf.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that 
this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f)(1) of the Executive Order because EPA estimates that it will have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, 
this action was submitted to the Office of 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.
    In addition, EPA 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 Proposed 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.
    1. Number of facilities and renovations. This proposed rule applies 
to 78 million target housing units and child-occupied facilities in 
pre-1978 facilities. There are approximately 40 million target housing 
units potentially affected by the removal of the opt-out provision 
(i.e., owner occupied housing units where no child under age 6 or 
pregnant woman resides and that do not meet the definition of a child-
occupied facility). There are an additional 38 million facilities 
potentially affected by the requirement that renovators provide owners 
and occupants with copies of the records required to be maintained by 
the renovator to document compliance with the training and work 
practice requirements. Approximately 100,000 of these facilities are 
child-occupied facilities located in public or commercial buildings, 
and the remainder are located in target housing (either in rental 
housing, owner-occupied housing where a child under age 6 or pregnant 
woman resides, or

[[Page 55516]]

owner-occupied housing that meets the definition of a child-occupied 
facility).
    The removal of the opt-out provision will affect approximately 7.2 
million renovation events per year in the 40 million housing units 
previously eligible to use the opt-out provision. In the first year, 
there will be an estimated 5.4 million renovation, repair, and painting 
events in these housing units where the rule will cause lead-safe work 
practices to be used. (In the remaining 1.8 million renovation events, 
test kits for determining whether a surface contains lead-based paint 
will indicate that lead-based paint is not present.) EPA expects test 
kits that more accurately determine whether a painted surface qualifies 
as lead-based paint will become available in late 2010. Once the 
improved test kits are available, the number of renovation, repair, and 
painting events using lead-safe work practices due to the rule in 
housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision is expected to 
drop to 3.0 million events per year.
    The requirement for renovators to provide owners and occupants with 
records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice 
requirements will affect all of the 7.2 million renovation events per 
year in housing units previously eligible for the opt-out provision. 
This new recordkeeping requirement will also affect an additional 11.4 
million renovation events per year in the 38 million facilities 
ineligible for the opt-out provision.
    EPA's estimates are based on the assumption that owners of housing 
eligible for the opt-out provision would always choose to exercise that 
provision. To the extent that some eligible homeowners would decline to 
opt out, the number of renovation events affected by the removal of the 
opt-out would be lower than EPA has estimated, as would the costs of 
this action and the estimated number of people protected by this 
action, since they will choose to be protected by the requirements of 
the RRP rule.
    2. Options evaluated. EPA considered a variety of options for 
addressing the risks created by renovation, repair, and painting 
activities disturbing lead-based paint in housing previously eligible 
for the opt-out provision. The Economic Analysis analyzed several 
options, including different options for the effective date of the 
final rule when published; an option phasing out the opt-out provision 
depending on when the facility was built (pre-1960 or pre-1978); and 
different options for the work practices (such as containment, 
cleaning, and cleaning verification) required in housing previously 
eligible for the opt-out provision.
    All options evaluated in the Economic Analysis would also require 
renovation firms to provide owners and occupants of the buildings with 
a copy of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and 
work practice requirements of the RRP rule. This additional 
recordkeeping requirement would apply to renovation, repair, and 
painting activities in all 78 million target housing units and child-
occupied facilities.
    3. Benefits. The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of 
adverse health effects attributable to lead exposure from renovations 
in pre-1978 buildings. These health effects include impaired cognitive 
function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such 
as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood 
pressure, increased incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular 
morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney function.
    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 housing where renovation would have been 
performed under the opt-out provision. Removing the opt-out provision 
will also protect individuals 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.
    EPA has estimated some of the benefits of the rule by performing 
calculations based on estimates of the number of individuals in each of 
these situations and the average benefit per individual in similar 
situations from previous RRP rule analyses with some simple 
adjustments. The resulting calculations provide a sense of the 
magnitude of benefits from this action but should not be interpreted as 
strict upper or lower bound estimates of total benefits. Based on two 
scenarios for each of the situations described in the previous 
paragraph, annualized benefits for the proposed rule may range from 
approximately $870 million to $3.2 billion assuming a discount rate of 
3%, and $920 million to $3.3 billion assuming a discount rate of 7%. 
Within these scenarios, 10% of these benefits are attributable to 
avoided losses in expected earnings due to IQ drop in children under 6, 
and 90% to avoided medical costs (or other proxies for willingness to 
pay) for hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, and the 
resulting incidence of deaths in older individuals. For children under 
6, the largest proportion of these benefits derive from moving into 
recently renovated housing; for older individuals, the largest 
proportion derives from on-going residence in houses that would have 
been renovated under the opt-out provision.
    EPA did not estimate benefits for those who live near a house 
renovated under the opt-out provision unless in a contiguous attached 
home; those who spend time in a friend's or relative's house renovated 
under the opt-out provision; and for health effects other than IQ loss 
in children under 6 and blood pressure effects in older individuals.
    To the extent that some eligible homeowners would have declined to 
opt out, the benefits of this action will be lower than estimated, 
since exposed persons will already be protected by the requirements of 
the RRP program.
    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 to follow 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 proposed 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 proposed rule is estimated to cost approximately $500 million 
in the first year. The cost is estimated to drop to approximately $300 
million per year starting with the second year, when improved test kits 
for detecting the presence of lead-based paint are assumed to become 
available. Over $200 million per year of the cost in subsequent years 
is due to the work practice requirements in housing previously covered 
by the opt-out provision. Training for renovators and workers and 
certification for firms working in housing previously covered by the 
opt-out provision is estimated to add approximately $50 million per 
year to the cost. Requiring renovators to provide owners and occupants 
with copies of the recordkeeping required to document compliance with 
the RRP rule training and work practice requirements

[[Page 55517]]

costs approximately $30 million per year, with about two thirds of this 
incurred in housing that was previously eligible for the opt-out 
provision.
    Note that the costs of this proposed rule as estimated in the 
Economic Analysis are expressed in 2005 dollars. To express values in 
terms of current dollars, the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 
Domestic Product as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis can 
be consulted for an indication of how nominal prices for goods and 
services produced in the economy have changed over time. From 2005 to 
the second quarter of 2009, the implicit price deflator increased from 
100 to 109.753, a difference of approximately 10% (Ref. 6).
    The cost estimates for training and certification assume that 
renovation firms are somewhat specialized in terms of whether they work 
in facilities where the RRP rule is applicable. However, there may be 
many instances where firms working in opt-out housing will already have 
become certified, and their staff been trained, because they also work 
in regulated facilities ineligible for the opt-out provision. If firms 
are less specialized than the analysis assumed, there may be little to 
no incremental training and certification costs due to the proposed 
rule. Furthermore, to the extent that some eligible homeowners would 
have declined to opt out, the work practice costs for removing the opt-
out provision will be less than estimated. EPA requests comment on the 
degree to which the same firms and renovators are likely to work both 
in opt-out housing and in child-occupied facilities and target housing 
that are ineligible for the opt-out provision.
    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 proposed rule beginning in the 
third year. Costs of the options with different work practice 
requirements for the housing previously eligible for the opt-out 
provision would be 1% to 17% lower than the proposed 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 proposed rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this proposed 
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 Proposed Rule ICR Addendum and identified 
under EPA ICR No. 1715.11 and OMB Control Number 2070-0155, has been 
placed in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 7). The information 
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    Burden under PRA means the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, 
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the 
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The information collection activities contained in this proposed 
rule are designed to assist the Agency in meeting the core objectives 
of TSCA section 402. EPA has carefully tailored the recordkeeping 
requirements so they will permit the Agency to achieve statutory 
objectives without imposing an undue burden on those firms that choose 
to be involved in renovation, repair, and painting activities.
    The information collection requirements under this proposed rule 
may affect training providers as well as firms that perform renovation, 
repair, or painting for compensation. Removing the opt-out provision 
may cause additional renovators to become trained and firms to become 
certified, and there are paperwork requirements for both of these 
activities. Removing the opt-out provision will also create paperwork 
due to the requirement to maintain records documenting compliance with 
the training and work practice requirements. This proposed rule also 
requires renovation firms to provide owners and occupants with these 
records. Although firms have the option of choosing to engage in the 
covered activities, once a firm chooses to do so, the information 
collection activities become mandatory for that firm.
    The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated 
paperwork burden and costs resulting from this proposed rule. The 
burden to training providers and firms engaged in renovation, repair, 
and painting activities is summarized in this unit.
    Because this analysis assumes that renovation firms are somewhat 
specialized in terms of whether they work in facilities where the RRP 
rule requirements are applicable, removing the opt-out provision is 
estimated to result in additional renovators becoming trained and 
additional renovation firms becoming certified. Training additional 
renovators will increase the paperwork burden for training providers, 
since they must submit records to EPA (or an authorizing State, Tribe, 
or Territory) pertaining to each student attending a training course. 
Approximately 170 training providers are estimated to incur an average 
burden of about 40 hours each for additional notifications, resulting 
in an increase in training provider burden averaging 7,000 hours per 
year as a result of the removal of the opt-out provision.
    Removing the opt-out provision is estimated to result in up to 
111,000 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 proposed rule, firms must also provide a copy 
of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work 
practice requirements 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 111,000 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.
    To the extent that firms working in housing eligible for the opt-
out provision will already have incurred the training and certification 
burdens because they also work in regulated facilities ineligible for 
the opt-out provision, the training and certification burden for this 
action will be lower than estimated.
    The requirement that firms provide owners and occupants with a copy 
of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work 
practice requirements of the RRP rule also applies to firms working in 
buildings that were not eligible for the opt-out

[[Page 55518]]

provision. There are an estimated 211,000 such firms with an average 
annual burden of approximately 2.7 hours per firm, resulting in a total 
burden of 568,000 hours per year for these firms.
    Total respondent burden for training providers and certified firms 
from removing the opt-out provision and requiring additional 
recordkeeping is estimated to average approximately 1,647,000 hours per 
year during the 3 year period covered by the ICR.
    The proposed rule may also result in additional government costs to 
administer the program (to process the additional training provider 
notifications and to administer and enforce the program for firms 
working in housing previously eligible for the opt-out provision). 
States, Tribes, and Territories are allowed, but are under no 
obligation, to apply for and receive authorization to administer these 
requirements. EPA will directly administer programs for States, Tribes, 
and Territories that do not become authorized. Because the number of 
States, Tribes, and Territories that will become authorized is not 
known, administrative costs are estimated assuming that EPA will 
administer the program everywhere. To the extent that other government 
entities become authorized, EPA's administrative costs will be lower.
    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 the Federal Register or 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 the Federal 
Register to 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 
proposed 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. 
See ADDRESSES for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB 
at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17\th\ 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 October 28, 
2009, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by November 27, 2009. The final rule will respond to any 
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements 
contained in this proposed rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The 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.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined in accordance with section 601 
of RFA as:
    1. A small business as defined by the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
    2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 
city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000.
    3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which 
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    As required by section 603 of RFA, EPA has prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule. The IRFA 
is available for review in the docket and is summarized in this unit 
(Ref. 8).
    1. Reasons why action by the Agency is being considered. After 
further consideration of the opt-out provision, the Agency believes it 
is in the best interest of the public to remove the provision. EPA 
believes that the opt-out provision is not sufficiently protective for 
children under age 6 and pregnant women, because it does not provide 
protection from improperly performed renovations for visiting children 
and pregnant women; for children and pregnant women who move into a 
newly purchased house that was recently renovated under the opt-out 
provision; and for children and pregnant women who live adjacent to a 
home where the exterior is being renovated under the opt-out provision. 
In addition, while the RRP rule focused mainly on protecting young 
children and pregnant women from lead hazards, exposure can result in 
adverse health effects for older children and adults as well. Removing 
the opt-out provision will protect older children and adult occupants 
of target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides, 
as well as residents of adjacent properties. Finally, 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.
    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 provisions 
affected 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.
    2. Legal basis and objectives for this proposed rule. TSCA section 
402(c)(2) directs EPA to study the extent to which persons engaged in 
renovation, repair, and painting activities are exposed to lead or 
create lead-based paint hazards regularly or occasionally. After 
concluding this study, TSCA section 402(c)(3) further directs EPA to 
revise its lead-based paint activities regulations under TSCA section 
402(a) to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create 
lead-based paint hazards. Because EPA's study found that activities 
commonly performed during renovation and remodeling create lead-based 
paint hazards, EPA issued the RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1). In issuing the 
RRP rule, EPA revised the TSCA section 402(a) regulatory scheme to 
apply to individuals and firms engaged in renovation, repair, and 
painting activities. In this proposed rule, EPA is revising the TSCA 
section 402(c)(3) rule to cover renovations in all target housing and 
child-occupied facilities. In so doing, EPA has also taken into 
consideration the environmental, economic, and social impact of this 
proposed rule as provided in TSCA section 2(c). A central objective

[[Page 55519]]

of this proposed rule 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.
    3. Potentially affected small entities. Small entities include 
small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. The small entities that are potentially directly 
regulated by this proposed rule include: Small businesses (including 
contractors and property owners and managers); small nonprofits 
(certain childcare centers and private schools); and small governments 
(school districts which operate pre-schools, kindergartens and certain 
child care centers).
    In determining the number of small businesses affected by the 
proposed rule, the Agency applied U.S. Economic Census data to the 
SBA's definition of small business. However, applying the U.S. Economic 
Census data requires either under or overestimating the number of small 
businesses affected by the proposed rule. For example, for many 
construction establishments, the SBA defines small businesses as having 
revenues of less than $14 million. With respect to those 
establishments, the U.S. Economic Census data groups all establishments 
with revenues of $10 million or more into one revenue bracket. On the 
one hand, using data for the entire industry would overestimate the 
number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule and would 
defeat the purpose of estimating impacts on small business. It would 
also underestimate the proposed rule's impact on small businesses 
because the impacts would be calculated using the revenues of large 
businesses in addition to small businesses. On the other hand, applying 
the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket would underestimate the 
number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule while at the 
same time overestimating the impacts. Similar issues arose in 
estimating the fraction of property owners and managers that are small 
businesses. EPA has concluded that a substantial number of small 
businesses will be affected by the rule. Consequently, EPA has chosen 
to be more conservative in estimating the cost impacts of the rule by 
using the closest, albeit lower, revenue bracket for which U.S. 
Economic Census data is available. For other sectors (nonprofits 
operating childcare centers or private schools), EPA assumed that all 
affected firms are small, which may overestimate the number of small 
entities affected by the proposed rule.
    The vast majority of entities in the industries affected by this 
proposed rule are small. Using EPA's estimates, the revisions to the 
renovation, repair, and painting program will affect approximately 
289,000 small entities.
    4. Potential economic impacts on small entities. EPA evaluated two 
factors in its analysis of the proposed rule's requirements on small 
entities, the number of firms that would experience the impact, and the 
size of the impact. Average annual compliance costs as a percentage of 
average annual revenues were used to assess the potential average 
impacts of the rule on small businesses and small governments. This 
ratio is a good measure of entities' ability to afford the costs 
attributable to a regulatory requirement, because comparing compliance 
costs to revenues provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of 
the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available measure of 
economic activity. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of 
a typical entity's revenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on 
such entities may be considered as not significant. For non-profit 
organizations, impacts were measured by comparing rule costs to annual 
expenditures. When expenditure data were not available, however, 
revenue information was used as a proxy for expenditures. It is 
appropriate to calculate the impact ratios using annualized costs, 
because these costs are more representative of the continuing costs 
entities face to comply with the proposed rule.
    Of the approximately 289,000 small entities estimated to incur 
costs due to the proposed rule, an estimated 101,000 small residential 
contractors are assumed to seek certification as a result of the 
removal of the opt-out provision; therefore, they would incur training, 
certification, work practice, and recordkeeping costs. The remaining 
estimated 189,000 small entities (working in buildings that were not 
eligible for the opt-out) are only expected to incur costs due to the 
additional recordkeeping provisions in the proposed rule.
    The average cost to a typical small renovation contractor of 
removing the opt-out provision ranges from about $1,100 to about 
$6,400, depending on the industry sector. This represents 0.8% to 1.7% 
of revenues depending on the industry sector. Overall, an estimated 
101,000 small businesses would be affected by the removal of the opt-
out provision, with average impacts of 1.10%of revenues.
    This proposed rule's new recordkeeping requirement has an average 
cost of $1 to $280 for entities not affected by removal of the opt-out 
provision. This results in incremental cost impacts ranging from 
0.0001% to 0.08% of revenues. An estimated 189,000 small entities would 
be affected solely by the additional recordkeeping requirement, 
including 165,000 small businesses with average impacts of 0.03% of 
revenues, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts of 0.0005%, and 
6,000 small governments with average impacts of 0.0001%.
    Combining the removal of the opt-out provision with the new 
recordkeeping requirement, a total of 289,000 small entities would be 
affected by the proposed rule, including 266,000 small businesses with 
average impacts of 0.4%, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts 
of 0.0005%, and 6,000 small governments with average impacts of 
0.0001%.
    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 average impacts of this action will be lower 
than estimated.
    Some of the small entities subject to the rule have employees while 
others are non-employers. The non-employers typically perform fewer 
jobs than firms with employees, and thus have lower work practice 
compliance costs. However, they also have lower average revenues than 
entities with employees, so their impacts (measured as costs divided by 
revenues) can be higher. Impact estimates for non-employers should be 
interpreted with caution, as some non-employers may have significant 
issues related to understatement of income, which would tend to 
exaggerate the average impact ratio for this class of small entities.
    There are 75,000 non-employer renovation contractors estimated to 
be affected by the removal of the opt-out provision. The average cost 
to these contractors is estimated to be $1,193 apiece. This represents 
1.3% to 4.7% of reported revenues, depending on the industry sector. 
This proposed rule's new recordkeeping requirement is estimated to 
affect an additional 96,000 non-employer renovation contractors not 
affected by removal of the opt-out provision. The costs to these 
contractors are estimated to be $42 apiece. This represents 0.05% to 
0.17% of revenues, depending on the industry sector.
    5. Relevant Federal rules. The requirements in this proposed rule 
will fit within an existing framework of other Federal regulations that 
address lead-based paint. Notably, the Pre-

[[Page 55520]]

Renovation Education Rule, 40 CFR 745.85, requires renovators to 
distribute a lead hazard information pamphlet to owners and occupants 
before conducting a renovation in target housing and child-occupied 
facilities. This proposed rule's requirement that renovators provide 
owners and occupants with records documenting compliance with the 
program's training and work practice requirements complements the 
existing pre-renovation education requirements.
    6. Skills needed for compliance. Under the lead renovation, repair, 
and painting program requirements, renovators and dust sampling 
technicians working in target housing and child-occupied facilities 
have to take a course to learn the proper techniques for accomplishing 
the tasks they will perform during renovations. These courses are 
intended to provide them with the information they would need to comply 
with the rule based on the skills they already have. Renovators then 
provide on-the-job training in work practices to any other renovation 
workers used on a particular renovation. Entities are required to apply 
for certification to perform renovations; this process does not require 
any special skills other than the ability to complete the application. 
They also need to document their training and the work practices used 
during renovations. This does not require any special skills.
    7. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. EPA has been concerned 
with potential small entity impacts since the earliest stages of 
planning for the RRP program under section 402(c)(3) of TSCA. EPA 
conducted outreach to small entities and, pursuant to section 609 of 
RFA, convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (the Panel) in 
1999 to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the 
regulated small entities. EPA identified eight key elements of a 
potential renovation and remodeling regulation for the Panel's 
consideration. These elements were: Applicability and scope, firm 
certification, individual training and certification, accreditation of 
training courses, work practice standards, prohibited practices, 
exterior clearance, and interior clearance.
    Details on the Panel and its recommendations are provided in the 
Panel Report (Ref. 9). Information on how EPA implemented the Panel's 
recommendations in the development of the RRP program is available in 
Unit VIII.C. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10) and in 
Unit V.C. of the preamble to the RRP rule (Ref. 1). EPA believes that 
the conclusions it made in 2008 regarding these recommendations are 
applicable to this proposal, particularly with respect to the removal 
of the opt-out provision.
    8. Alternatives considered. EPA considered several significant 
alternatives to this proposed rule that could affect the economic 
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. These alternatives 
would have applied to both small and large entities, but given the 
number of small entities in the affected industries, these alternatives 
would primarily affect small entities. For the reasons described in 
this unit, EPA believes these alternatives are not consistent with the 
objectives of the rule.
    i. Delayed effective date. EPA considered an option that would 
delay the removal of the opt-out provision by 6 months, and another 
option that would delay the date by 12 months. These options would make 
the RRP program more complex to implement and might lead to confusion 
by renovators and homeowners. These options would also lead to 
increased exposures during the delay period, including exposures to 
children under the age of 6 and pregnant women. Therefore, EPA believes 
that these options are not consistent with the stated objectives of the 
proposed rule.
    ii. Staged approach. EPA considered a staged approach that would 
initially remove the opt-out provision in pre-1960 housing, and then 
remove it in housing built between 1960 and 1978 a year later. This 
would make the RRP program more complex to implement and might lead to 
confusion by renovators and homeowners. It would also increase 
exposures during the first year of the rule from renovations in houses 
built between 1960 and 1978, including exposures to children under the 
age of 6 and pregnant women. EPA does not believe that the reduced 
burden of a staged approach outweighs the implementation complexity and 
additional exposures that it would create. Therefore, EPA believes that 
this option is not consistent with the stated objectives of the rule.
    iii. Alternate work practices. EPA also considered different 
options for the work practice requirements in housing that was 
previously eligible for the opt-out provision. Specifically, EPA 
considered options: With the containment requirements specified in 40 
CFR 745.85, but without any cleaning or cleaning verification work 
practices; with the cleaning and cleaning verification requirements 
specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without any containment work practices; 
with the cleaning requirements specified in 40 CFR 745.85, but without 
any containment or cleaning verification work practices; and with the 
containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification requirements specified 
in 40 CFR 745.85, but without the prohibitions or restrictions on paint 
removal practices specified in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) (i.e., open-flame 
burning or torching, the use of machines that remove paint through 
high-speed operation without HEPA exhaust control, and heat guns 
operating in excess of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit).
    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).
    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]. Hearing- or speech-challenged 
individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free 
Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. EPA will revise the Guide, as 
necessary, to reflect this rulemaking activity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title 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

[[Page 55521]]

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 proposal rules 
with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    Under UMRA Title II, EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed 
the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by the private 
sector in any 1 year, but it will not result in such expenditures by 
State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate. Accordingly, EPA 
has prepared a written statement under section 202 of UMRA which has 
been placed in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 12) and is 
summarized here.
    1. Authorizing legislation. This proposed rule is issued under the 
authority of TSCA sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 (15 U.S.C. 
2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687).
    2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs 
and benefits associated with this proposed rule, a copy of which is 
available in the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 5). The Economic 
Analysis presents the costs of this proposed rule as well as various 
regulatory options and is summarized in Unit IV.A. EPA has estimated 
the total costs of this proposed rule at $500 million in the first year 
and $300 million per year thereafter.
    The benefits of the proposed rule result from the prevention of 
adverse health effects attributable to lead exposure from renovations 
in pre-1978 buildings. These health effects include impaired cognitive 
function in children and several illnesses in children and adults, such 
as increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including increased blood 
pressure, increased incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular 
morbidity, and mortality) and decreased kidney function.
    3. State, local, and Tribal government input. EPA has sought input 
from State, local, and Tribal government representatives throughout the 
development of the renovation, repair, and painting program. EPA's 
experience in administering the existing lead-based paint activities 
program under TSCA section 402(a) suggests that these governments will 
play a critical role in the successful implementation of a national 
program to reduce exposures to lead-based paint hazards associated with 
renovation, repair, and painting activities. Consequently, as discussed 
in Unit III.C.2. of the preamble to the proposed RRP rule (Ref. 10), 
the Agency has met with State, local, and Tribal government officials 
on numerous occasions to discuss renovation issues.
    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 proposed 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 paint hazards are left 
behind by persons performing renovations. The Economic Analysis for 
this proposed 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 preliminarily 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. 
Currently EPA believes that the preferred option is the least 
burdensome option available that achieves a central objective of this 
proposed 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.
    This proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA. Based on 
the definition of ``small government jurisdiction'' in RFA section 601, 
no State governments can be considered small. Small Territorial or 
Tribal governments may apply for authorization to administer and 
enforce this program, which would entail costs, but these small 
jurisdictions are under no obligation to do so.
    EPA has determined that this proposed 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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 13132

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999), EPA has determined that this proposed 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 proposed 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

[[Page 55522]]

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 13175

    As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 
2000), EPA has determined that this proposed 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 proposed 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 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to this proposed 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.
    A central purpose of this proposed rule is to minimize exposure to 
lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and 
painting activities in all housing and other buildings frequented by 
children under age 6. In the absence of this regulation, adequate work 
practices are not likely to be employed during renovation, repair, and 
painting activities in housing eligible for the opt-out provision.
    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 13211

    This proposed 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 1995

    Section 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 inconsistent with 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 proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant 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 
proposed 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

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


    Dated: October 20, 2009.
 Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as 
follows:

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

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


Sec.  745.81  Effective dates.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Work practices. On or after April 22, 2010, all renovations 
must be performed in accordance with the work practice standards in 
Sec.  745.85 and the associated recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  
745.86(b)(1) and (b)(6) in target housing or child-occupied facilities, 
unless the renovation qualifies for one of the exceptions identified in 
Sec.  745.82(a).
* * * * *


Sec.  745.82  [Amended]

    3. Section 745.82 is amended by removing paragraph (c).
    4. Section 745.84 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2) 
introductory text, and (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.84  Information distribution requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Comply with one of the following. (i) Notify in writing, or 
ensure written notification of, each affected unit and make the 
pamphlet available upon request prior to the start of renovation. Such 
notification shall be accomplished by distributing written notice to 
each affected unit. The notice shall describe

[[Page 55523]]

the general nature and locations of the planned renovation activities; 
the expected starting and ending dates; and a statement of how the 
occupant can obtain the pamphlet and a copy of the records required by 
Sec.  745.86(c) and (d), at no cost to the occupants, or
    (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 are likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected 
units. The signs must be accompanied by a posted copy of the pamphlet 
or information on how interested occupants can review a copy of the 
pamphlet or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to 
occupants. The signs must also include information on how interested 
occupants can review a copy of the records required by Sec.  745.86(c) 
and (d) or obtain a copy from the renovation firm at no cost to the 
occupants.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Provide the parents and guardians of children using the child-
occupied facility with the pamphlet, information describing the general 
nature and locations of the renovation and the anticipated completion 
date, and information on how interested parents or guardians of 
children frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of 
the records required by Sec.  745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from 
the renovation firm at no cost to the occupants by complying with one 
of the following:
* * * * *
    (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 must 
also include information on how interested parents or guardians of 
children frequenting the child-occupied facility can review a copy of 
the records required by Sec.  745.86(c) and (d) or obtain a copy from 
the renovation firm at no cost to the parents or guardians.
* * * * *
    5. Section 745.86 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(6) and 
redesignating paragraph (b)(7) as paragraph (b)(6) and by revising 
paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  745.86  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Records or reports certifying that a determination had been 
made that lead-based paint was not present on the components affected 
by the renovation, as described in Sec.  745.82(a). These records or 
reports include:
    (i) Reports prepared by a certified inspector or certified risk 
assessor (certified pursuant to either Federal regulations at Sec.  
745.226 or an EPA-authorized State or Tribal certification program).
    (ii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after using EPA-
recognized test kits, including an identification of the manufacturer 
and model of any test kits used, a description of the components that 
were tested including their locations, and the result of each test kit 
used.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) When the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or 
within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is 
earlier, the renovation firm must provide information pertaining to 
compliance with this subpart to the following persons:
    (i) The owner of the building; and, if different,
    (ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the 
renovation took place within a residential dwelling, or an adult 
representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation took 
place within a child-occupied facility.
    (2) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit 
target housing, renovation firms must post the information required by 
this subpart or instructions on how interested occupants can obtain a 
copy of this information. This information must be posted in areas 
where it is likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected 
units.
    (3) The information required to be provided by paragraph (c) of 
this section may be provided by completing the sample form titled 
``Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist'' or a similar form 
containing the test kit information required by Sec.  745.86(b)(1)(ii) 
and the training and work practice compliance information required by 
Sec.  745.86(b)(6).
    (d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning 
verification as permitted by Sec.  745.85(c), the renovation firm must 
provide, when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or 
within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is 
earlier, a copy of the dust sampling report to:
    (1) The owner of the building; and, if different,
    (2) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the 
renovation took place within a residential dwelling, or an adult 
representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation took 
place within a child-occupied facility.
    (3) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit 
target housing, renovation firms must post these dust sampling reports 
or information on how interested occupants of the housing being 
renovated can obtain a copy of the report. This information must be 
posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of 
all of the affected units.
    6. Section 745.90 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  745.90  Renovator certification and dust sampling technician 
certification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Must prepare the records required by Sec.  745.86(b)(1) and 
(6).
* * * * *
    7. Section 745.326 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  745.326  Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. When EPA 
publishes in the Federal Register revisions to the renovation program 
requirements contained in subparts E and L of this part:
    (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the 
effective date of the revisions to the renovation program requirements 
in subparts E and L of this part must demonstrate that it meets the 
requirements of this section no later than the first report that it 
submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h) but no later than 1 year after the 
effective date of the revisions.
    (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a 
renovation program submitted but not approved before the effective date 
of the revisions to the renovation program requirements in subparts E 
and L of this part must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of 
this section either by amending its application or in the first report 
that it submits pursuant to

[[Page 55524]]

Sec.  745.324(h) of this part but no later than 1 year after the 
effective date of the revisions.
    (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. E9-25986 Filed 10-23-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S