[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55506-55524]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-28]

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

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:

      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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     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.

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

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

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

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

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, <IP_ADDRESS>, 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

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
<IP_ADDRESS>), sensory effects, such as those related to hearing and vision
(Ref. 13, sections 6.2.7 and <IP_ADDRESS>), 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 <IP_ADDRESS>), 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 <IP_ADDRESS>; 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 <IP_ADDRESS>). 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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.

* * * * *