time with inflation.  According to more recent Bureau of Labor
Statistics data, the comparable fully loaded wage rate for a renovator
in 2008 was $34.92/hour.

The commenters appear to be claiming costs based on their estimated
revenues per hour.  For example, one commenter (Southwestern Remodeling,
#994) described the cost of certified renovator training as follows:

On average in a 40 hour week one of my carpenters produces $3,000.00
worth of revenue for my company. So if my company lost revenue produced
by each one of my 34 field carpenters for 1 day out of the year I would
lose roughly $20,400.00 worth of generated revenue to training alone.

The $3,000 in revenues for a 40 hour work week mentioned by the
commenter (equivalent to $75/hour) represents more than the loaded
hourly cost of the labor.  In addition to the lost value of employees’
time, a firm must use the revenues a worker brings in to pay for a
variety of other expenses such as materials, supplies, and equipment,
which are significant in this industry.  While workers are not
generating revenue while they are in training, the firm is not incurring
job-related costs for materials, supplies, and equipment either.  The
social cost of the rule is better represented by the loaded wage rates
in the industry (as represented by the BLS data) than by the firms’
hourly revenue.

The difference between the hourly labor costs claimed by the commenters,
the labor costs they incur, and the wages paid to their workers can be
demonstrated using Sutton Siding and Remodeling as an example.  The
comments on the proposed rule by Sutton Siding and Remodeling used a
labor cost of $45 per hour, which significantly exceeds the average BLS
value for loaded wage rates.  Yet a profile in Professional Remodeler
magazine described Sutton’s labor costs as follows:

Labor burden is a key element to job costing. Sutton Siding and
Remodeling has a relatively high labor burden compared with that of a
one- or two-person operation or specialty trade contractor. The company
includes a comprehensive list of costs in labor burden besides the
actual wages paid to employees: federal taxes, workers’ compensation
insurance, health insurance, life and disability insurance, retirement,
profit sharing, vacations and holidays, sick days, and paid days off.

Last year these combined expenses constituted more than half of the
company’s labor costs. During annual reviews with employees, Sutton
management explains labor burden to them. "An employee may be paid $15
an hour, but he’s really getting the equivalent of $26.50," Sutton
says. "You have to offer that kind of compensation to keep good people.
We’re competing with the unions. Our wage rate is about the same, so
we have to offer other benefits." Sutton does not count direct labor,
materials, trade contractors, equipment and fees for permits as part of
the firm’s labor burden.

Although the article notes that Sutton has a relatively high labor
burden compared to the one- or two-person operation or specialty
contractor that is typical of the industry, the $26.50/hour mentioned in
the article is in line with the BLS data on loaded wage rates.

EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to consider the labor costs
claimed by the commenters as an opportunity cost of the rule.  Given
that the labor costs claimed by some of the commenters are as much as
double or triple the loaded wage rates according to BLS, this would
suggest a very high profit rate for these industries.  There is no
indication that such high profit rates exist in this industry.  Given
the low barriers to entry in this industry, such rates would lure
additional firms to enter the industry until profit rates were driven
down to levels comparable with other industries opportunities.
Moreover, given that EPA continues to believe that the incremental time
requirements to comply with the rule will be relatively small for the
typical firm in the industry, the Agency does not believe that following
the rule’s requirements will significantly change the number of jobs
that a typical firm will perform.

Calculating costs based on hourly revenues (as the commenters have done)
overstates the social cost of the rule.  Both EPA’s cost estimates and
the cost claims made by the commenters account for labor costs
separately from costs for materials, equipment, supplies, and fees.  EPA
continues to believe that it is appropriate for the Agency to calculate
the incremental social costs of the rule using BLS data on loaded wage
rates.  Therefore, the Agency has not revised its cost estimates based
on the commenters’ claims about their labor costs.

Comment:  The commenters’ cost estimates for plastic sheeting range
from $10 per job (Home Check Plus) to $400 per job (NCP Design/Build).
For example, Roskelly Group and Jeff Howard both claimed a cost of $20,
Ramtra Management Services  and OneCall Services claimed a cost of $25,
J.J. Schwartz claimed a cost of $45, Bell’s Remodeling and Legal Eagle
Contractors both claimed a cost of $100, Brown Construction and JB
Construction Services both claimed a cost of $200, and Sutton Siding and
Remodeling claimed a cost of $175.

Response:  EPA believes that many of the commenters have overstated the
cost of complying with the rule’s requirements for containment for the
typical RRP job.  EPA believes that some of the commenters’ claims may
be based on an incorrect assumption about the containment required under
the rule, or may not account for baseline work practices in the
industry.

The incremental cost of the plastic sheeting required to comply with the
rule’s requirements depend on several factors:  (1) the cost of the
plastic per square foot; (2) the number of square feet of plastic used;
(3) how the plastic is used; and (4) the renovator’s baseline
containment practices (i.e., the containment practices used without the
rule in place).  These factors are addressed below.

(1) The cost of the plastic per square foot.  None of the commenters
provided any information on the cost they were assuming per square foot
of plastic.  EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 2008 rule used a price of
$0.06 per square foot for 6 millimeter polyethylene sheeting, based on a
2005 web search.  To determine whether prices have increased since then,
EPA checked prices again online in 2010.  EPA found that one national
home improvement chain sold a 2,000 square foot package of 6 mil.
plastic for $94, equivalent to $0.047 per square foot, and another
national home improvement chain sold the same size package for $79,
equivalent to $0.0395 per square foot.  These are 22% to 34% less than
EPA’s 2005 estimate of the cost per square foot, which indicates that
the price of plastic sheeting has not increased since EPA made its
original costs estimates.  Therefore, EPA does not believe that it
underestimated the cost per square foot of plastic.

(2) The number of square feet of plastic used.  The commenters did not
provide information on the square footage of plastic they assumed would
be used, or the size of the work areas to be contained.  However,
EPA’s cost data described above can be used to estimate the size of
the jobs some of the commenters may have used as the basis of their cost
estimate.  For example, given a plastic cost of $0.047 to $0.06 per
square foot, a total plastic cost of $45 (claimed by J.J. Swartz Co.) is
equivalent to 750 to 957 square feet of plastic.  A total plastic cost
of $100 (claimed by Bell’s Remodeling) is equivalent to 1,667 to 2,128
square feet of plastic, and a total cost of $175 (claimed by Sutton
Siding and Remodeling) is equivalent to 2,916 to 3,723 square feet of
plastic.

The square footage inferred from the plastic costs claimed by the
commenters indicates that some of them may be referring to relatively
large jobs renovating much or all of the interior or exterior of a
house.  Such large jobs represent a portion of the nation’s RRP jobs,
and they may even be typical job sizes for these commenters.  However,
many jobs will require less area to be contained than jobs this large.
For example, in small jobs the work area may be a small area within a
room, requiring renovators to contain just a portion of the floor area
within a room (covering the floor 6 feet beyond the perimeter of the
surfaces undergoing renovation, and not using any vertical barriers
between the work area and adjacent non-work areas).  EPA does not
believe that the large jobs that some of the commenters may have used
for their cost estimates are representative of the millions of jobs
covered by the rule.  Therefore, EPA believes that the high end claims
by some of the commenters overstate the cost of the rule’s
requirements for plastic sheeting for a typical job covered by the rule.

(3) How the plastic is used.  The rule overview accompanying the
template for commenting on the proposed rule that was circulated to some
remodelers states that renovators must enclose the work area with a dual
layer of heavy plastic sheeting, and then on a daily basis replace the
dusty and/or dirty layer of plastic sheeting.  The rule requires the
work area to be contained, but it does not require renovators to use of
a dual layer of containment, or to replace the outer containment layer
on a daily basis.  Assuming that renovators must use a double layer of
plastic and replace the top layer on a daily basis overstates the amount
of plastic that must be used, and the cost of the plastic.  Commenters
that based their cost claims on these assumptions overstated the cost of
the rule.

(4) How often the renovator follows the rule’s requirements for
containment in the baseline.  EPA’s economic analysis calculated the
incremental increase in the social cost due to the rule’s
requirements.  This represents the additional cost of the job due to the
rule, above and beyond anything that renovators were already doing
before the rule took effect.  EPA estimated the extent to which
different work practices required under the rule were used in the
baseline (without the rule in place) based on a telephone survey of
contractors.  For example, EPA estimated that without the rule,
contractors kept all windows and doors in the work area closed or
covered with plastic sheeting in 76% of jobs; covered the floor within
the work area with taped down plastic sheeting in 77% of jobs; and
disposed of the plastic after each job (instead of reusing it multiple
times) in 37% of jobs.

Due to the baseline work practices, the rule’s incremental cost for
containment is only a fraction of the total material and labor cost for
using plastic sheeting.  For example, the rule generates incremental
costs for both labor and materials for using plastic sheeting on floors
for only the 23% of jobs (100% - 77%) where renovators were not using
any plastic before the rule.  The rule generates incremental materials
costs for using plastic sheeting on floors in the 49% of jobs (77% x
63%) where renovators were using plastic before the rule but were not
reusing it.  And the rule does not create costs for using plastic on
floors for the 28% of jobs (77% x (100%-63%)) where renovators were
already using disposable plastic before the rule.

	There are also indications that the increase in labor required to use
lead-safe work practices is largely offset by resulting reductions in
the time required for cleaning up after the job.  One commenter on the
2006 proposed rule for the RRP program (WDC-0017) disagreed with claims
that the rule would increase the cost of a job by 20 or 30 percent.  The
commenter stated that he had performed  “hundreds and hundreds of jobs
and what I'm doing is exactly what I did before using different tools
and creating a situation where I have much less clean-up at the end
because I'm cleaning up as I go and I'm masking areas that will absorb
dust, so my clean-up costs go down, my safety goes up, and I wind up
costing approximately the same thing but maybe four or five percent
more, maybe four or five percent less, but I guarantee there's no 20 or
30 percent unless you compare maintenance with abatement and we're not
doing that.”

Commenters on both the 2006 proposed rule for the RRP program and this
proposed rule have claimed that professional remodelers improve the
condition of homes and leave job sites cleaner than before the work
started.   EPA believes that renovators must spend significant amounts
on time on containment and cleaning in the baseline, and that relatively
little additional time is typically required to follow the rule’s work
practices.  Yet none of the commenters mention their baseline
containment or cleaning practices, or make any comparison between the
rule’s requirements and their baseline practices.  Therefore, some of
the cost claims made by the commenters (including the containment costs)
may represent the total costs of the rule’s work practices, and not
the additional costs above what renovators were already doing.   To the
extent that the cost claims made by the commenters ignored baseline work
practices, they overstated the incremental cost of complying with the
rule’s requirements.

As described above, various commenters may have:  assumed the use of a
double layer of plastic and daily replacement of the top layer, which is
not required by the rule; assumed a large job size not representative of
the typical job size regulated by the rule; and may not be accounting
for the use of baseline work practices.  EPA believes that the
commenters’ claims overstate the additional costs that renovators will
incur in order to follow the rule’s work practices.  EPA further
believes that its estimates represent reasonable values for the
incremental cost of plastic for typical jobs regulated under the rule.

Comment:  Commenters stated the time and cost per job they claim is
required for containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification.  The
number of labor hours claimed for containment, cleaning, and cleaning
verification varied from 5 to 202.5 hours per job, and the cost varied
from $175 to $6,050.

Response:  EPA believes that many of the commenters have overstated the
incremental time and cost needed to comply with the rule’s
containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practice
requirements.  As described elsewhere in this response to comments
document, some of the commenters appear to have based their cost claims
on an overview of the rule circulated within the industry that did not
accurately characterize the rule’s requirements.   For example, the
rule does not require containment to be replaced on a daily basis, nor
does it require daily cleaning with a HEPA vacuum prior to the
completion of the job.  To the extent that commenters relied upon this
or other inaccurate descriptions of the rule to prepare their comments,
they will have overstated the cost of complying with the rule.  In
addition, EPA believes that the cost claims made by some of the
commenters may represent the total time required for containment and
cleaning, and not the additional time for compliance beyond baseline
work practices.  Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere in this response to
comments document, some of the commenters’ claims appear to be based
on relatively large jobs that are not representative of all jobs covered
by the rule.  Also, many of the commenters have used a labor cost per
hour that is not representative of actual labor costs.  Therefore, the
claims made by the commenters about the labor costs per job for
containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification significantly overstate
the additional cost for a typical job to comply with the rule.

EPA’s cost model is a simplified representation of the universe of
remodeling jobs.  The model cannot capture all of the variations in the
millions of renovation, repair, and painting jobs that are conducted
each year, which range from simple drywall repair to window replacement
to complete kitchen and bath renovations to building additions and
everything in between.  EPA’s methodology was not meant to estimate
the cost for a particular individual job or a particular renovator, so
it is not appropriate to overemphasize the model’s prediction for any
individual job.  Still, the labor hours predicted by EPA’s model can
be compared to the claims made by a sample of the commenters using the
industry template for their comments, in order to contrast the rough
magnitude of the results.

These commenters did not provide details about the square footage size
or other characteristics of the jobs they assumed when developing their
cost claims.  However, as described elsewhere in this response to
comments, it is possible to infer a job size based on the cost they
claim for plastic sheeting and the actual cost per square foot of
plastic sheeting ($0.047 to $0.06 per square foot for 6 mil.
polyethylene).  The inferred job size can be combined with EPA’s
estimate of the labor hours per square foot for containment, cleaning,
and cleaning verification for that size of job.  The results are shown
in the following table and are compared to these commenters’ claims.

As can be seen from this table, EPA’s unadjusted estimates of the time
required for cleaning, containment, and cleaning verification are
comparable to those provided by many of these commenters.  In a number
of cases, the labor hours claimed by the commenter falls within the
range estimated by EPA for this size of job.  The remaining comments are
split between cases where EPA’s estimates exceed the labor hours
claimed by commenter, and cases where the labor hours claimed by these
commenter exceed EPA’s estimate.  With the exception of two outliers,
the differences between EPA’s estimate and the commenter’s claim are
not substantial.  The two outliers are in the comments from Rollins
Contracting, and from Alan Hanbury of the House of Hanbury.

Rollins Contracting claimed that containment would require 45 hours per
job, cleaning would require 45 hours per job, and cleaning verification
would require 2 hours per job, for a total of 92 hours, compared to
EPA’s estimate of 23.3 to 29.5 hours for a job of this inferred size
(1,583 to 2,021 square feet).  While this inferred job size is fairly
large, the labor hours Rollins Contracting claims are much larger than
the claims made by the other commenters in the table with similar
inferred job sizes, such as Bell’s Remodeling, Living Improvements,
and DreamMaker Bath and Kitchen, and Sutton Siding and Remodeling (which
vary from 10 to 31 hours).  Given that the claims by Rollins Contracting
significantly exceed not only EPA’s estimate but the claims made by
these other apparently similar commenters, EPA does not find the
commenter’s claim to be a credible estimate of the total time needed
to comply with the rule’s work practices for a typical job.

The other outlier is in the comments from Alan Hanbury, who claims that
the time required for cleaning will vary from 3.5 to 200 hours per job,
resulting in a claim of 6 to 202.5 hours for containment, cleaning, and
cleaning verification.  By comparison, EPA’s estimate is that the
rule’s containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practices
will take 6.3 to 8 hours for a job of this inferred size (417 to 532
square feet).  EPA believes that the high end of the commenter’s range
(which is two order of magnitude greater than the low end) represents an
unlikely scenario.  The top end of the range is much higher than the
claims made by the other commenters in the table with similar inferred
job sizes, such as J.J. Swartz, Menold Construction, Thompson Building,
RebuildEx, and Earl Williams (which vary from 8 to 14 hours).  Given
that the top end of the range claimed by Alan Hanbury significantly
exceed not only EPA’s estimate but the claims made by other apparently
similar commenters, EPA does not find the commenter’s claim to be a
credible estimate of the time needed for a typical job to comply with
the rule’s work practice requirements.

There are several issues to consider when comparing the figures in the
table (both the commenters’ claims and EPA’s inferred values) to
EPA’s estimates of the costs of the rule in its Economic Analysis
document:

Labor Hours Commenters Claimed and EPA’s Estimate, based on inferred
job size

Commenter	Square footage inferred from commenter’s plastic costs 1
Labor hours per job commenters claimed for containment, cleaning, and
cleaning verification	EPA’s estimate of labor hours (based on inferred
square footage) prior to adjustment for baseline practices

Bell’s Remodeling  	1,667 to 2,128	10 to 18 hours	24.5 to 31 hours

J.J. Swartz Co.	750 to 957	8 hours	11.3 to 14.3 hours

Living Improvements	1,250 to 1,596	18 hours	18.5 to 23.5 hours

Sutton Siding & Remodeling	2,917 to 3,723	31 hours	42.2 to 53.5 hours

House of Hanbury - Alan Hanbury	417 to 532	6 to 202.5 hours	6.3 to 8
hours

Menold Construction	633 to 809	14 hours	9.5 to 12.1 hours

Thompson Building	633 to 809	14 hours	9.5 to 12.1 hours

RebuildEx	633 to 809	14 hours	9.5 to 12.1 hours

Kessler Construction	950 to 1,213	16 hours	14.2 to 18 hours

DreamMaker Bath & Kitchen 	1,250 to 1,596	12 hours	18.5 to 23.5 hours

Earl Williams	333 to 426	9 hours	5 to 6.4 hours

Rollins Contracting	1,583 to 2,021	92 hours	23.3 to 29.5 hours

Gandolfi & Associates	833 to 1,064	29 hours	12.5 to 15.8 hours

Home Check Plus	167 to 213	8 hours	2.5 to 3.3 hours

1 Square footage inferred by dividing the total cost that commenter
claimed for plastic sheeting by the cost of plastic sheeting ($0.047 to
$0.06 per square foot).

 (1) Some of the commenters claims may be based on an incorrect
understanding of the rule’s work practice requirements.  For example,
some of the commenters appear to have based their cost claims for
cleaning on the assumption that the rule requires them to replace the
containment on a daily basis and vacuum the work area with a HEPA vacuum
frequently during the day and at the end of each day.  The rule’s
requirements at 40 CFR 745.85(a) requires the work area to be contained
before beginning the renovation, and maintained until after the
renovation has been completed.  The rule does not require the
containment to be replaced during the renovation.  And while EPA
encourages frequent cleaning of the work area as a general good
housekeeping measure, the rule’s requirements at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5)
only require the work area to be cleaned after the renovation has been
completed.  Similarly, some of the commenters may be assuming that the
rule requires containment for an entire room (or an entire house).
These commenters may not understand that in some cases the work area can
be a portion of a room, and that this is the only area where they are
required to use the rule’s containment, cleaning, and cleaning
verification work practices.

(2) Some of the commenters’ cost claims may represent the total time
they think will be spent on the various activities, and not the
incremental labor requirements due to the rule.  Based on its survey of
renovators and various comments from industry, EPA believes that most
renovators were doing some containment and cleaning in the baseline.
For example, most renovators report that they did some cleaning in the
baseline, such as using a vacuum without a HEPA filter.  The rule
requires the use of a HEPA vacuum, but EPA does not believe that using a
vacuum with a HEPA filter to clean the work area takes significantly
longer than using a vacuum without a HEPA filter.  Yet many commenters
claimed cleaning times of 8 hours or more per job.  Some of the
commenters’ claims may address the total time they believe will be
associated with rule cleaning, and not the additional time to follow the
rule’s work practices, such as substituting a HEPA vacuum for a
regular shop vacuum.  Similarly, EPA’s survey indicated that most
renovators use containment in the baseline.  Even setting aside the
outlier who claimed that containment required 45 hours of time,
commenters claimed that containment requires up to 12 hours.  The labor
hours claimed by some of the commenters may represent the total time
associated with using the rule’s containment work practices, and not
the additional time required under the rule (such as taping or sealing
all edges or seams of the containment plastic).  Adjusting for baseline
practices means that, overall, the incremental cost of the rule’s
containment and cleaning work practice requirements is only a fraction
of the total cost of these activities.

(3) The labor rates used by many of the commenters are not
representative of actual hourly wage costs.  As described elsewhere in
this response to comments document, typical wage rates in the industry
are significantly lower than the hourly costs reported by many
commenters, who appear to have reported the revenues per hour generated
by their employees, and not labor costs.

(4) Based on the inferred square footage, some of the commenters
claiming high costs may be deriving their cost estimates on relatively
large jobs.  Many of the jobs covered by the rule can be much smaller
than the job sizes these commenters may have used to develop their cost
claims.

(5) The comments do not appear to reflect any of the methods that can be
used to reduce the time and cost need to comply with the rule’s work
practices.  For example, pre-engineered containment systems (purchased
or home-made) are very helpful in cutting time spent on the job erecting
containment and are easier to install than hanging plastic with tape.
One company making such a pre-engineered containment system claims that
a three-sided plastic dust barrier can be installed by one person in
less than five minutes.  While there is an equipment cost for such
products, the labor savings could make this a worthwhile investment for
some renovators.  But the commenters do not appear to have sought any
ways to minimize the time and cost of following the rule’s work
practices.

(6) The commenters may not be appropriately accounting for the different
work practice requirements in the rule for interior and exterior jobs.
Some of the commenters make separate claims of the total cost of labor
and materials per job for interior and exterior jobs.  For example
Bells’ Remodeling states that the total cost of compliance per job for
labor and materials will be $1485 to $1885 per job for interior work,
and $1950 to $3000 for exterior work, depending on the size of the job.
Thus, it is claiming that the typical exterior job will cost $465 to
$1,115 per job more than the typical interior job.  Bell’s Remodeling
claimed that the total labor costs per job will be $1200 to $1600, and
the total materials costs per job will be $285, which adds up to the
$1,485 to $1,885 claimed for interior jobs.  But it does not provide any
explanation for why the typical exterior job would cost more than this.

Other commenters provided a total cost claim in their comments that did
not differentiate between interior and exterior jobs, despite the fact
that they appear to perform both types of work.  For example, the web
sites for Sutton Siding & Remodeling and Kessler Construction indicates
that they perform both interior and exterior renovations, but the cost
claims in their comments do not differentiate between the two types of
jobs, even though the rule’s work practices do differ.

The rule’s work practice standards for interior renovations contain a
number of additional requirements that do not apply to exterior
renovations.  For example, 40 CFR 745.85(a)(5)(ii) specifies additional
cleaning for interior renovations (including use of a HEPA vacuum,
wiping with a damp cloth, and mopping with a 2-bucket mopping method or
wet mopping system) that do not apply to exterior renovations.  And 40
CFR 745.85(b) requires cleaning verification for interior renovations
but not for exterior renovations.

Although some exterior jobs may involve vertical containment that would
not be needed on interior jobs, EPA believes that relatively few
exterior jobs will use such vertical containment.  (Although EPA’s
economic analysis did include costs for vertical containment for some
exterior jobs.)  The commenters using the template for comments on the
proposed rule that was circulated in the industry did not state that
they were including vertical containment costs for exterior jobs, or
provide other indications of why they think costs differ for interior
and exterior jobs.  So it is not clear what they assumed in their cost
claims for exterior jobs.

The commenters using the industry template make cost claims for HEPA
vacuums and cleaning verification that apply to interior jobs but not
exterior ones.  And they have not provided any indication of what other
factors would increase costs for exterior renovations over interior
ones.  It is possible that these commenters have included costs for HEPA
vacuuming and cleaning verification in their exterior cost estimates,
where such practices are not required.  This issue affects the
commenters’ claims about material and equipment costs (HEPA filters,
cleaning verification pads, etc), as well as labor costs.

It is difficult to determine how these commenters generated their claims
of the total compliance cost per job from the labor and materials costs
per job they claim, particularly since some of the claims do not add up.
 For example, J.J. Swartz Co. claims that the total labor costs per job
will be $430, and the total materials costs per job will be $345, which
add to $775.  But it also stated that the total cost of compliance for
labor and materials will be $1,205 per job, which is $430 more than
$775.  Living Improvements claimed that the total labor costs per job
will be $1220, and the total materials costs per job will be $475, which
add to $1,695.  But it also stated that the total cost of compliance for
labor and materials will be $2288.25 pre job, which is $593.25 more than
$1,695.  And Sutton Siding and Remodeling claimed that the total labor
costs per job will be $1,755, and the total materials costs per job will
be $950, which add to $2,705.  But it also stated that the total cost of
compliance for labor and materials will be $2,605 per job, which is $100
less than $2,705.

Given these disparities, it is difficult for EPA to assess the validity
of all of the commenters’ cost claims.  However, some of the
commenters may have assumed that activities such as using a HEPA vacuum
and performing cleaning verification are part of the work practices for
exterior jobs, which is not the case.

	For the above reasons, EPA believes that the commenters’ claims
overstate the additional costs that renovators will incur to follow the
rule’s work practices.  EPA believes that its estimates represent
reasonable values for the incremental time and cost required for the
containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification work practices required
by the rule.

Comment:  Commenters claimed that HEPA vacuum filters will cost between
$6 and $3,000 per job.

Response:  Most of the commenters did not provide information on the
size and nature of their jobs, how many filters they assumed would be
used per job (or if less than one per job, how many jobs they assume a
filter would be used for), or what they think the cost per filter would
be, so it is difficult for EPA to evaluate these claims.  EPA estimated
the cost of HEPA vacuum filters assuming that renovators would use
re-useable HEPA filters.  To the extent that renovators use disposable
HEPA filters, their costs would be higher than EPA estimated.  However,
some renovators extend the life of a HEPA filter by using two filters in
tandem, first a non-HEPA filter to catch large particles, and a HEPA
filter to catch the smaller particles that pass through the first
filter.  Because the non-HEPA filters are much less expensive, they can
be changed frequently, while the HEPA filter can be changed less
frequently, thus reducing overall costs for filters.  Also, as described
elsewhere in this response to comments document, some of the commenters
appear to have based on their cost claims on very large jobs, which are
not representative of the size (and thus the cost) of a typical job
covered by the rule.

Comment:  Commenters claimed that other materials will cost between $19
and $950 per job.  Many commenters mentioned tape, disposable coveralls
or Tyvek suits, and respirators or masks as examples materials that
would be needed.  Some commenters also stated there would be costs for
getting workers medically fitted for a respirator or mask, and for
purchasing eye wear, painters’ hats, and gloves.  Commenters also
mentioned other items such as garbage bags, tack pads, foot booties,
baby wipes, and mist bottles.

Response:  Firms do not need to incur all of these expenses in order to
comply with the rule.  The commenters’ cost claims combine items and
activities required by the LRRP rule with those that EPA recommends but
does not require under the rule.  EPA recommends the use of personal
protective equipment when working with lead-based paint.  But EPA’s
LRRP rule does not require the use of such equipment.  EPA’s cost
estimates reflect only those items and activities that are required to
comply with the LRRP rule.  Therefore, EPA’s cost estimates do not
include the cost for personal protective equipment not required by the
LRRP rule, such as disposable coveralls, Tyvek suits, respirators and
masks (including getting workers medically fitted for a respirator or
mask), eye wear, painters’ hats, and gloves.

EPA’s estimates do include costs for materials required to comply with
the rule, including tape for the plastic sheeting; warning signs to warn
occupants and other persons not involved in the renovation to remain
outside of the work area; a tack pad; disposable shoes covers; plastic
bags for waste disposal; and disposable cleaning cloths for the cleaning
verification process.  The cost per job for these materials will differ
from job to job, depending on factors including the size of the job, the
characteristics of the job, and the type of work being done.  The
evidence that EPA reviewed indicates that the costs for such materials
are modest.  Therefore, EPA disagrees that the $19 to $950 costs claimed
by the commenters for other materials are reasonable estimates of the
cost of compliance with the rule.

Comment:  Some commenters stated that customers would be charged for the
firm’s mark-up and/or sales tax on top of compliance costs.  One
commenter (Robert Hanbury) mentioned a 50 percent mark-up, and another
(Clifton View Homes) mentioned a 63 percent mark-up.

Response:  The mark-up and any sales tax are not part of EPA’s cost
analysis because EPA estimated the cost of the rule to society, not the
price that contractors charge their customers.  In addition, in the
context of a benefit-cost analysis, taxes represent a transfer and not a
social cost.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that exterior work will
require additional costs to set up staging to hold sheeting in place.
According to the commenter, staging rental/set-up/take down for window
replacement will cost $250 per project.  The commenter claims that
entire house repainting or re-siding over painted exteriors would add at
least $1000/project for staging and plastic set up and take down, and
that exterior painters will need to cover additional $1000 job costs for
each paint job necessitating additional costs to property owners of over
$1500 due to industry standard minimum 50% markup of direct job costs.

Response:  The rule does not require firms to use the elaborate
containment referred to by the commenter for all exterior renovations.
The work practice standards at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2)(ii) require firms to
use the following containment work practices for exterior renovations:
(1) close all doors and windows within 20 feet of the renovation; (2)
ensure that doors within the work area that will be used while the job
is being performed are covered in a manner that allows workers to pass
through while confining dust and debris to the work area; (3) cover the
ground with sheeting extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces
undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to collect falling
debris, whichever is greater, unless the property line prevents 10 feet
of such covering; and (4) in certain situations, the renovation firm
must take extra precautions in containing the work area to ensure that
dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate other buildings
or other areas of the property or migrate to adjacent properties.

The commenter is assuming that firms will need to adopt the extra
precautions mentioned in step 4 for all exterior renovations, and that
is not the case.  In many situations, renovators will only need to
follow steps 1 through 3.  Step 3 involves simple practices such as
stapling or taping the protective sheeting to the wall of the building,
or using a 2x4 wrapped in protective sheeting to hold the material next
to the wall, and using heavy objects (e.g. rocks) to weight the other
edges of the protective sheeting to the ground so that it won’t blow
in the wind.  These practices are simple and inexpensive.

	Even in situations where vertical containment is needed to ensure that
dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate other buildings
or other areas of the property or migrate to adjacent properties (e.g.,
work areas in close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a
property line, and windy conditions), such vertical containment could
take a number of forms.  This could range from attaching plastic
sheeting to a fence or other support at the property line, to attaching
the plastic to a building or a frame attached to the building, to
attaching the plastic to scaffolding erected next to the building.

In contrast to the commenter (who is assuming that such vertical
containment is used in 100% of exterior renovations), EPA’s economic
analysis assumed that vertical containment is used for 2% of exterior
painting events.  Furthermore, EPA assumed that for those jobs using
vertical containment, 50% of the events in residential units will not
need scaffolding because they will use plastic at the fence line or
attached to the building, and that 50% of those events that do need
scaffolding for vertical containment are already using it for other
reasons, and only incur incremental costs related to plastic sheeting.
This means that only 25% of the residential units that undertake
vertical containment were predicted to incur incremental costs for
scaffolding.  To the extent that vertical containment is needed in a
larger share of jobs than EPA estimated, then the costs of the rule
would be higher than EPA estimated but so would the benefits (because
there would be more incidents in the baseline where lead dust is
migrating to other buildings or adjacent properties).

EPA estimated that the cost of vertical containment using scaffolding
would vary from $760 for one wall in a single-family unit to just under
$6,250 for all four walls in multi-family housing.   (The cost for
child-occupied facilities in public or commercial buildings was
estimated to range from $330 to $1,470 because jobs requiring vertical
containment on these buildings were assumed to use scaffolding in the
baseline, so that there were only incremental costs for the plastic
sheeting.)  Thus, EPA’s cost estimates for jobs involving scaffolding
exceed the commenter’s claim that such practices will cost $250 to
$1,000 per job.  The difference is that EPA’s estimate recognizes that
the fourth step under 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2)(ii) only applies in certain
situations, whereas the commenter is assuming this applies to all
exterior renovations.  Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
claim that there will be an additional cost of $250 to $1,000 for a
typical exterior renovation.

Finally, the commenter’s claim that there is an industry standard
markup of 50% over direct costs is not relevant to EPA’s cost
analysis.  EPA estimated the cost of the rule to society, not the price
that contractors charge their customers.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that the rule will result
in additional disposal costs of $150 per project.  According to the
commenter, these disposal costs include covered and lockable dumpsters,
a 48 hour empty cycle whether the dumpster is full or contains one piece
of debris, and a commitment from the waste hauler to not allow any dust
or debris to escape during transportation.  According to the commenter,
this is not the industry standard service today and will result in
unknown higher fees.  The commenter states that the rule will result in
a minimum additional cost of $150 per dumpster if a remodeler can even
find a hauler who will assure the remodeler that no dust will escape
during transportation.  The commenter claims that this is probably an
impossible demand, and that waste haulers won’t take on new liability
without a big cost increase.  According to the commenter, remodelers
would need to pay for a few more disposal trips for larger jobs due to
48 hour time constraints, but that smaller projects have shorter
durations so the 48 hour rule won’t have an impact.

Response:  The commenter does not understand the requirements of the
rule.  First, the rule does not require the use of a covered, locked
dumpster.  The rule requires that at the conclusion of each work day and
at the conclusion of the renovation, waste that has been collected from
renovation activities must be stored under containment, in an enclosure,
or behind a barrier that prevents release of dust and debris out of the
work area and prevents access to dust and debris.  Covering the dumpster
is one way to prevent release of dust and debris.  It is not necessary
to cover the dumpster if the waste inside the dumpster is contained in a
way that prevents release of dust and debris, for example, in closed
trash bags.  Locking the dumpster and placing it behind a locked barrier
are good examples of ways to prevent access to the dust and debris, but
these are not requirements of the rule.

The commenter’s statement that the rule requires waste to be removed
from the job site every 48 hours is also incorrect.  The rule does not
have any requirements about how often a waste must be removed from the
work site.

The commenter’s statement that the rule requires renovators to receive
a commitment from waste haulers not to allow any dust or debris to
escape during transportation is incorrect.  The rule states at 40 CFR
745.85(a)(4)(iii) that when the firm transports waste from renovation
activities, the firm must contain the waste to prevent release of dust
and debris.  However, the firm referred to in the rule is the renovation
firm, not a third party firm such as a waste hauler.  For instance, the
rule would prohibit a renovator from placing uncontained dust and debris
in the open bed of his own pick-up truck and transporting it to a
landfill.  However, the renovator can transport the waste to a landfill
himself if it is contained, for example in a garbage bag.  But the rule
already requires the waste to be contained before it is removed from the
work area, and EPA has already accounted for the materials and labor
cost for placing the waste in plastic bags, so EPA sees no need to make
further adjustments in its cost estimates.  And while the requirements
at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(4)(iii) do not apply to third party waste hauling
firms, placing the dust and debris into plastic bags before putting it
into a dumpster or truck owned by a third party waste hauler can also
contain the waste during transportation.

The waste disposal activities described by the commenter are not
requirements of the rule.  Therefore, the additional waste disposal
costs claimed by the commenter are not costs of compliance with the
rule.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) states that the cost of testing
for lead-based paint will vary depending on how many surfaces/rooms are
“disturbed” and must be tested.  The commenter assumes that 10 tests
will be needed per job.  According to the commenter, each lead check
stick costs $9.75 and can be used for two tests, resulting in a cost of
$48.75 per project.  The commenter estimates that the labor to test each
surface, record the results carefully, and note the manufacturer and
expiration date for these 10 tests will take a total of 20 minutes, and
at a labor rate of $75/hour, the labor cost for lead paint testing will
be $25 per project.

Response:  EPA agrees that the cost of testing will vary depending on
how many rooms and surfaces are disturbed.  EPA believes that the
commenter’s claim that 10 tests are needed per job may reflect the
types of jobs he performs, but it does not represent the typical job
covered by the RRP rule.  For example, there are many smaller repair
jobs that may only involve removing a section of drywall or plaster,
where a single test will need to be performed.  EPA assumed that an
average of 4 tests would be performed per job.  EPA believes that this
is a reasonable estimate for a typical job, given the range of jobs
covered by the RRP rule.

EPA disagrees that the materials for the test kits will cost $4.87 per
test (i.e., $9.75 for two tests).  EPA’s 2008 economic analysis
estimated that the test kits would cost $0.50 each, based on the tests
currently on the market at that time.  EPA has currently recognized two
lead test kits, the LeadCheck ® kit (manufactured by Hybrivet Systems)
and the State of Massachusetts kit (which is only available to certified
Massachusetts state lead inspectors and risk assessors).  The LeadCheck
® kit recognized by EPA is available in bulk at www.LeadCheck.com for a
cost of $1.65 to $2 each, depending on the quantity ordered.  EPA
believes that prices may decline in the future as more test kits are
recognized.  However, the commenter’s claim that a job requiring 10
test will cost $48.75 is an overstatement.

EPA assumed that a renovator would take 15 minutes to use 4 test kits on
a job.  This is not significantly different from the commenter’s claim
of 20 minutes to use 10 test kits.  EPA’s assumption would yield more
time than the commenter claimed if the number of test kits was
identical.  Finally, EPA has explained elsewhere in this response to
comments document why the labor rate claimed by the commenter overstates
hourly costs.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that cleaning verification
will cost $25 per project to obtain, utilize, label, and store the
materials, calculated as 20 minutes per job at $75 per hour (and
assuming 17 pads will be used for a small room, using one pad for 40
square feet).  The commenter also claims that recordkeeping for cleaning
verification will require 0.33 hours.

Response:  EPA’s 2008 economic analysis assumed that the cleaning
verification step would take 5 minutes of labor for the 40 square foot
area that one cloth can be used on.  Thus, EPA would estimate that a job
requiring 17 cloths would take 85 minutes of labor, which is more than
the commenter has claimed.  EPA has explained elsewhere in this response
to comments document why the labor rate claimed by the commenter
overstates hourly costs.  The rule does not require the renovator to
labor and store the cleaning verification cloths.  EPA disagrees that
recordkeeping for the rule’s cleaning verification requirements will
typically require 0.33 hours per job.  Finally, the recordkeeping costs
for cleaning verification are already accounted for in the checklist
costs, and it would double-count costs to claim them separately as well.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that the materials for
post-renovation cleaning (wipes, swiffers, and cleaning supplies) will
cost $22 per project.

Response:  Based on a review of online prices, EPA found that the
hardware for the electrostatic cloth sweeper (which is reusable) costs
$13.60, and that the cleaning cloths cost $0.46 each.  Given that the
commenter is assuming a job sizes that requires 17 cloths, EPA estimates
that the materials cost for this job would be less than $8.  Although
the total cost will increase if the work area needs to be cleaned more
than once because it fails cleaning verification, only the particular
areas that fail cleaning verification need to be re-cleaned.  Thus, the
commenter appears to have overstated the materials cost for cleaning a
typical work area of this size.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that firms will need to
purchase a $175 fire safe for records needed when sued or audited for
the 24 jobs per year that he performs.

Response:  EPA believes that the commenter misunderstands the
recordkeeping requirements of the rule.  For example, as explained
elsewhere in this response to comments, the commenter appears to
incorrectly assume that he must store all of the cleaning verification
cloths.  EPA believes that the recordkeeping requirements for the
commenter’s 24 jobs per year will be modest, and can readily be
maintained along with other records that the firm is already keeping.
Therefore, EPA has not included the cost of a fire safe in its cost
estimates.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) claims that creating a compliance
form in consultation with an attorney will cost $450, representing $200
of the firm owner’s time and $250 of an attorney’s time.

Response:  The rule allows firms to create their own form, but EPA has
provided a checklist that they can use.  EPA has not estimated a cost to
develop a form, because if a firm decides to develop their own form it
is a voluntary decision on their part and not a requirement of the rule.
 Therefore, the additional time the commenter refers to is not a cost of
the rule.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) states that the proposed opt-out
rule will result in a cost for the firm’s owner to train the certified
renovator how to complete the post-renovation disclosure form.
According to the commenter, this training will take one hour of time.

Response:  The certified renovator training course has a module on
recordkeeping, which includes the sample renovation recordkeeping
checklist that fulfills the recordkeeping requirement.  The firm’s
owner does not need to re-train the certified renovator on this task.
If the firm develops it own form and has to train the certified
renovator in how to use it, that is a voluntary decision on their part
and not a requirement of the rule.  Therefore, the additional time the
commenter refers to is not a cost of the rule.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) states that completing the check
list form will take .66 hours per job.  The commenter also states that
completing the post renovation notice form will require 1.25 hours per
job, plus 0.25 hours for the owner to review the form, and 0.1 hours to
file the form.

Response:  EPA disagrees that completing its check list will typically
require 40 minutes per job.  EPA has estimated that completing the 1
page form will take an average of 5 minutes per job.  And the
commenter’s statement about the post renovation notice form appears to
be a reference to the requirement in the proposed opt-out rule that the
renovation firm provide a copy of the records demonstrating compliance
with the training and work-practice requirements of the RRP rule to the
owner and/or occupant of the building.  But that does not require a
separate form.  If the renovation firm is using the checklist for
recordkeeping, it can provide a copy of the same form to the owner and
occupant.  The only additional cost the firm would need to incur would
be for copying and delivery.

Comment:  A commenter (Robert Hanbury) stated that copying the post
renovation notification form would take 2 minutes of labor per client,
and addressing an envelope and stuffing it would require 5 minutes of
labor.

Response:  The opt-out rule proposes that the firm provide the
information when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered, or
within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is
earlier.  EPA believes that the burden for delivering the information to
the client will be minimal, since the renovator will typically be
delivering the checklist along with an invoice or other job-related
paperwork.  EPA estimated that photocopying and distributing one copy of
the checklist will take an average of 3 minutes of the renovator’s
time.

Comment:   A commenter (Kessler Construction) states that professional
clearance examination/testing by an independent testing agency may need
to be performed and could cost $200 to $400 in additional fees, plus
wages for recordkeeping and documentation.

Response:  Neither the 2008 final rule or the proposed opt-out rule
require clearance testing.  Therefore, clearance testing is not a cost
of this rulemaking.

Comment:   A commenter (Kessler Construction) states that hazardous
waste disposal costs may also be needed on larger sized jobs, which
could cost $200 to $1,000.

Response:  This rule does not require that dust and debris from covered
renovations be treated as hazardous waste.  To the extent that existing
Federal, state and local regulations allowed this waste to be treated as
normal household waste prior to the RRP rule or the opt-out rule, it can
continue to be treated in this manner.  The RRP program does not change
how this waste can be disposed.  Therefore, the rule does not result in
additional costs for waste disposal.

Comment:  A commenter (Beatch Construction) states that “To comply
with the current rule is enough.  Most of my clients opt out.  The cost
my company would have to charge for us to test, clean up, and do the
work per the rules would be in excess of $1000 per job.”

Response:  The commenter may misunderstand the existing rule and the
opt-out provision.  It is not possible that most of the commenter’s
clients opt out, since the comment was submitted in November 2009.  This
was five months before the work practice requirements of the rule went
into effect in April 2010.  It was not possible for any clients to opt
out of the work practice requirements before those requirements went
into effect.  EPA believes that the commenter may also be misinformed
about the requirements of the rule and the cost of complying.  For
reasons spelled out in more detail elsewhere in this response to
comments document, EPA does not believe that the incremental cost for a
typical firm to comply with the rule will be $1000 per job.  The
commenter has not provided sufficient detail for EPA to respond to the
claim that the rule will cost in excess of $1000 per job.  But given the
lack of detail in the comment and the apparent misunderstanding of the
LRRP program, EPA is skeptical of the commenter’s claim that the rule
will cost in excess of $1000 per job.

Comment:  A commenter (#985) asserted that the rule would be unduly
burdensome renovation firms and homeowners.  According to the commenter,
“In this opt-out rulemaking alone, EPA finds that the 75,000
non-employer impacts (mostly single employee firms) would face economic
impacts of 1.3 percent to 4.7 percent of revenues, which is extremely
high.”  The commenter goes on to state that “EPA’s plans to
promulgate a series of additional requirements to supplement the already
costly LRRP rule will impose substantial burdens on small firms,
homeowners and building owners, with questionable benefit … EPA’s
proposal would instead impede low-income residents from improving their
residences by imposing unnecessarily costly requirements.”

Response:  The commenter cites the small business impacts in EPA’s
economic analysis but failed to note that these impacts were calculated
assuming that the firms did not pass any costs on to their customers
(i.e., that they absorbed all of the cost increases themselves).  But if
the firms do not pass any costs on to their customers, there cannot be
any burden on homeowners, including low-income residents.  Conversely,
if firms were to pass some or all of the costs on to customers, it would
reduce the economic impact on the firms.  It is illogical for the
commenter to make statements based on an assumption that firms do not
pass on costs to their customers, while simultaneously claiming that the
customers will have an increase in costs, since that requires firms to
pass on costs.  In any event, EPA disagrees that the rule will be unduly
burdensome on renovators, building owners, or homeowners.

Comment:  A commenter (#985) states that “Despite the Executive Order
12866’s requirement to include a benefits analysis, EPA’s original
OMB submission contained no benefits estimates.  The agency frankly
acknowledges that its attempt at estimating benefits was ‘crude’.
The estimates are, therefore, extremely speculative, at best.”

Response:  The commenter’s reference to the draft Economic Analysis
that EPA submitted to OMB is curious, given that the proposal is
supported by the final version of that document referenced in the
preamble, and not an earlier draft.  But the commenter’s implication
that Executive Order 12866 requires benefits to be quantified is
incorrect.  Both Executive Order 12866 and OMB’s Circular A-4 (which
provides guidance to implement Executive Order 12866) acknowledge the
importance of qualitative measures where it is difficult to quantify
benefits.  Both EPA’s original OMB submission and the published
version of the Economic Analysis did so.  EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12866, and indeed with all applicable statutory
requirements and Executive Orders.

Comment:  Commenters claim that homeowners will avoid compliance costs
by hiring unlicensed contractors who can offer a lower price by not
complying with the rule.

Response:  Unlicensed contractors may offer a lower price by ignoring
the requirements of EPA’s lead rule.  Such unlicensed operators can
also lower their costs by ignoring other requirements that have costs
such as a building license, insurance, bonding, building permits,
worker’s compensation, and withholding taxes.  However, that is not a
valid argument for doing away with all of those other requirements.
Responsible renovators recognize that complying with those requirements
is a cost of doing business for a legitimate firm, even if some
competitors ignore them.  In the same way, responsible renovators need
to recognize that complying with EPA’s lead rule is a cost of doing
business, the same as a building license, insurance, or a building
permit.  EPA disagrees that imperfect compliance is a rationale for
retaining the opt-out provision.

Miscellaneous

Comment:	Two commenters stated that EPA should provide financial support
to renovators and firms seeking certification due to the large size of
the regulated community and the current economic climate.  One commenter
stated that a large portion of the cost for renovators is from lost
income and travel expenses while taking the training.

Response:	EPA appreciates the commenter’s concerns about ensuring that
renovators firms get certified. However, EPA can not provide financial
assistance to firms or individuals.  EPA is required by TSCA to collect
fees to recover the costs of implementing the renovation program.
Further, EPA does not currently have funding to subsidize renovator
training courses.

Comment:	One commenter believes that EPA should make small fixes to the
RRP regulations to make them less confusing and ambiguous.  The comment
attached examples of changes to the regulations that would achieve this
result.

Response:	The Agency would like to thank the commenter for the
suggestions.  While EPA did not ask for comment on how it could make the
regulations less confusion, the Agency will may consider these
suggestions in future rulemakings.

Comment:	One commenter stated that the RRP rule will cause a decrease in
home prices.  The commenter predicts that as people become aware of the
RRP rule, lead paint will become part of the negotiations of a home
sale.

Response:	EPA is not reopening the RRP rule beyond the changes proposed.
 Nevertheless, the Agency disagrees with this comment.  EPA does not
believe the rule is overly costly.  EPA estimated that the rule’s work
practice requirements will add $8 to $167 to the cost of a typical
renovation project (with the exception of those using vertical
containment).  Even if renovations of lead-based paint are part of
negotiations of home prices, EPA does not believe that such a modest
cost for these renovations will result in decreased home prices.

Comment:	One commenter states that professional remodeling does not
create lead-based paint hazards and that studies that Agency used to
prove this link are flawed.

Response:	Again, EPA is not reopening the RRP rule beyond the changes
proposed.  The issue of whether renovation activities create lead-based
paint hazards is therefore not open for consideration in this
rulemaking.  Nevertheless, the agency disagrees with this comment.
EPA’s Dust Study indicated that renovation, repair, and paint
preparation activities produce large quantities of lead dust that create
dust-lead hazards.

Comment:	One commenter stated that EPA should increase its efforts to
make contractors and property owners aware of the rule.  Another
commenter asserts that EPA’s efforts to raise public awareness have
been inadequate and that the success of the RRP rule depends on consumer
demand for certified renovators.  The commenter claims that EPA’s
partnership with the Ad Council will be limited in its effectiveness
because of the limited broadcast opportunities.  Anther commenter states
that EPA should increase its outreach through multi-media advertising in
order to spur demand for certified renovators.

Response:	EPA has a wide-ranging educational campaign to ensure that
both the regulated community and the general public know about this
regulatory program.  The Agency has a very accessible Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm with much information about
lead in general, instructions on how contractors can get certified,
where to find accredited training courses, and other useful information
about the RRP rule.  Furthermore, EPA is conducting extensive outreach
to the renovation community and will continue to do so.  The Agency has
completed mass mailings to over 1,000 trade organizations, trade
magazines, unions, property management associations, and others,
encouraging them to get trained and certified.  EPA has presented and/or
exhibited information on the rule’s requirements at numerous major
trade conferences, reaching tens of thousands of attendees.  EPA is
working closely with major industry stakeholders to help them inform
their members and clients about the RRP rule.  These organizations have
in turn contracted with accredited trainers to present training during
major conferences, allowing for on-the-spot certification of large
numbers of renovators.

In addition, the Agency has begun an even larger campaign to ensure that
contractors know about the regulation and are equipped to comply, this
includes multi-media advertising.  At the same time, the Agency is
working on additional marketing efforts, including with the Ad Council,
to build demand for certified contractors among the general public.

Comment:	One commenter believes that the RRP requirements are not needed
when replacing windows.  Another commenter claims that installers of
hearth appliances should be exempted because do not create a reasonable
risk that would justify the RRP work practice requirements.

Response:	EPA is not reopening the RRP rule beyond the changes proposed.
 Nevertheless, the Agency disagrees with these comments.  EPA has
determined that renovation activities that disturb lead-based paint
create lead-based paint hazards in target housing and child-occupied
facilities.  The Dust Study showed that window replacement resulted in
lead-dust levels above the hazard standard.  While the Dust Study did
not include installing hearth appliances, EPA has determined that
activities that disturb surfaces with lead-based paint—regardless of
the purpose, create lead-based paint hazards.  The commenter did not
supply information showing that this activity does not disturb painted
surfaces or would not result lead-based paint hazards.

Comment:	One commenter stated that the RRP rule will be bad for the
environment because of all the disposable plastic material that will end
up in landfills.

Response:	The Agency believes that the rule will result in substantial
benefits due to reduced risk from lead-based paint hazards and that
these benefits will outweigh any drawbacks of disposing of plastic
materials.

Comment:	One commenter states that EPA should require renovation firms
to provide documentation of training and firm certification to owners
and occupants before renovation begins.  The commenter did not give a
reason why.

Response:	The Agency requires that certified renovators have a copy of
their course completion certificate at the work site.  Thus, occupants
will able to verify that renovators are certified.  Those who hire
renovation firms can always ask to see the firm’s certificate or they
can verify the firm’s certification by looking on EPA’s lead program
home page or by calling the National Lead Information Center.

 “Subs or Employees?  Both business models offer routes to
success,”, by Stacey Freed, Remodeling Magazine, March 2007.
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/subs-or-employees.aspx

 http://www.ncpalaska.com/

 “Second Look: Evelyn Yowell”, Remodeling magazine, September 2002,
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/remodeling/second-look-evelyn-yowell.aspx

   HYPERLINK "http://www.thompsonbuilding.com"  www.thompsonbuilding.com

 “Stop Wasting Time” by Jim Cory.  Remodeling magazine, December
2003.  http://www.remodeling.hw.net/associations/stop-wasting-time.aspx

 See Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-base
Painting; Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling
Requirements, March 3, 2000.

 Professional Remodeler:  “Blueprint for Success, Chapter 5: Job
Costing”, 6/1/2001,

http://www.housingzone.com/topics/pr/management/pr01ga019.asp

 EPA does not believe there will be complete employee turnover each year
at a typical firm.  This scenario is presented as an extreme example, to
demonstrate the situation under a worst-case scenario.

 http://www.allweathersystems.com/

 Note that the 8 hour certified renovator training is actually required
for one day out of 5 years, not one day out of one year, and that the
rule does not require all of the firm’s 34 field carpenters to become
trained as certified renovators.

 For example, for residential remodelers (NAICS code 236118), the cost
of materials, components, supplies and fuels is 40% of the net value of
construction work ($12.5 billion out of $30.6 billion).  2002 Economic
Census, Construction, Subject Series EC02-23SG-1, U.S. Census Bureau,
October 2005, http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0223sg1.pdf

 Professional Remodeler:  “Blueprint for Success, Chapter 5: Job
Costing”, 6/1/2001,

http://www.housingzone.com/topics/pr/management/pr01ga019.asp

 As an example, Ventana Construction based its cost claim of $1,760 on
what it terms a mid-size project costing $100 to $150k, with 5 days of
demolition.  Ventana’s web site (http://www.ventanabuild.com) states
that it specializes in major residential remodels, additions and custom
home construction.

 To the extent that commenters based their cost estimates on very large
job sizes, this also led to an upward bias in their cost estimates for
other materials (such as HEPA vacuum filters and tape), and for labor
costs (containment, cleaning, and post-cleaning verification).  This
issue is addressed in more detail in the responses to the comments on
those cost elements.

 Even if remodelers using baseline work practices leave job sites
cleaner than they were before the renovation, that does not mean that
the lead dust levels are below EPA’s hazard standard, or that the
baseline work practices are safe, reliable, and effective, as required
by the Toxic Substances Control Act.

 Not only do the commenters not discuss their baseline practices, but
they fail to mention any of the savings they would accrue by replacing
their baseline work practices with those required by the rule.  For
example, Robert Hanbury’s comments claim costs not only for the
purchase of a HEPA vacuum and shrouded tools, but also for depreciation,
maintenance, and repairs for this equipment.  But the cost claims ignore
the savings in avoided depreciation, maintenance, and repair for the
non-HEPA vacuum and un-shrouded tools – costs that would otherwise be
incurred in the baseline.  Similarly, his comments his comments claim
costs for purchasing buckets, sponges, and mops, and for replacing these
items as they wear out or break.  Yet he does not account for any
savings due to avoided costs to replace brooms and dustpans, or whatever
other cleaning equipment he was using in the baseline.  His comments
also claim costs for multiple rounds of cleaning, but he does not
mention how much cleaning he did in the baseline.   And none of the cost
claims made by the commenters mentioned that removing the opt-out
provision would save the paperwork and recordkeeping burden involved
with having the opt-out form signed by the customer.  Although these
paperwork savings are small compared to the cost of complying with the
LRRP work practice requirements, some commenters did include other
paperwork costs in their claims.  This highlights that they are not
considering the countervailing factors when making their cost claims.

 If these particular contractors never used plastic before the rule,
then they are not representative of baseline work practices, and the
incremental changes to their work practices are not representative of
the industry.  If their estimates are meant to represent the increment
over typical baseline practices, then the effective square footage of
the job sizes they are using for cost purposes is even larger than
calculated above and elsewhere in this response to comments document.
This would mean that their jobs are that much larger than the typical
renovation job, also yielding a significant overestimate of costs.

 For example, Jud Construction claimed a labor and materials cost of
$296.27 per day per job, yet the activities that went into its cost
claim (such as containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification) are not
required by the rule on a daily basis.  Similarly, Creative Construction
Co. estimated a daily cleanup cost for 5 days, but the rule does not
require daily cleanup.

 PAGE

 PAGE   58


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31060-31061]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14084]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0141; FRL-9962-66]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for March 2017

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its
findings after its review of TSCA section 5(a) notices when EPA makes a
finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs),
microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use
notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5. This document
presents statements of findings made by EPA on TSCA section 5(a)
notices during the period from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Greg Schweer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8469; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the
Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this
action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action
applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this
action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0141, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after
review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new
chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This
document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period
from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017.

III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a)
notice and make one of the following specific findings:
     The chemical substance or significant new use presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
     The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit
a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the
chemical substance or significant new use;
     The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit
a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the
chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment;
     The chemical substance is or will be produced in
substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may
reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial
quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human
exposure to the substance; or
     The chemical substance or significant new use is not
likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment.
    Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of
costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant
under the conditions of use. The term ``conditions of use'' is defined
in TSCA section 3 to mean ``the circumstances, as determined

by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended,
known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed,
distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.''
    EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the Federal
Register a statement of its findings after its review of a TSCA section
5(a) notice when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs,
MCANs, and SNUNs submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new
chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any
manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical
substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a
notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new
chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding
of ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or
manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding
any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

IV. Statements of Administrator Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent
that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this
period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the
new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
     EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
     Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is
claimed as CBI).
     Web site link to EPA's decision document describing the
basis of the ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk'' finding
made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
    EPA Case Number: P-16-0592; Chemical identity: Fatty acids, C8-10,
diesters with alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl); Web
site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-47.
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0008; Chemical identity: Modified 1,3-
isobenzofurandione, polymer with 1,2-ethanediol, 2-ethyl-2-
(alkoxyalkyl)-1,3-propanediol and 1,3-Isobenzofurandione, alkanoate
(generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-48.
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0014; Chemical identity: Fatty acids, C8-10,
mixed esters with C18-unsatd. fatty acid dimers and alpha.-
hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,4-butanediyl); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-49.
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0194; Chemical identity: Hydrogenated dihalo
dialkyl diindolotriphenodioxazine, dihydrodisubstituted isoindolyl
alkyl derivs (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-52.
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0214; Chemical identity: 2-Propenoic acid,
polymer with alkene and alkenyl acetate, alkyl 2-alkyl isoalkyl esters
(generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-50.
    EPA Case Number: P-17-0215; Chemical identity: Copolymer of alpha-
olefin and dibutyl maleate (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-51.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: May 30, 2017.
 Greg Schweer,
Chief, New Chemicals Management Branch, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2017-14084 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8042-8044]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013]

SolarPTL, LLC.: Request for Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of SolarPTL,
LLC. (PTL), requesting renewal of recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before February 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. OSHA's TTY number is (877)

889-5627. Please note: While OSHA's docket office is continuing to
accept and process submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public and not able to
receive submissions to the record by express delivery, hand delivery
and messenger service.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2010-0013). All comments, including any personal
information you provide, such as social security numbers and date of
birth, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact
Kevin Robinson, Director Office of Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities (OTPCA) at the below address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details the
scope of recognition available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications by a NRTL for renewal of recognition
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts
renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, Appendix
A, paragraph II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months or no more than one
year, before the expiration date of the current recognition. The
submission includes a request for renewal and any additional
information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate continued
compliance with the terms of the NRTL recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If
OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters
and key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the
necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the
NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as
necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces the preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicit comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    The current address of the PTL facility recognized by OSHA and
included as part of the renewal request is: SolarPTL, 1107 West
Fairmont Avenue, Tempe, Arizona 85252.
    PTL initially received OSHA recognition as a NRTL in a Federal
Register notice (76 FR 16452, March 23, 2011). PTL was previously
recognized by OSHA as TUV Rheinland PTL, whose name was changed
following a sale to SolarPTL in October 2018. PTL submitted a timely
request for renewal, dated April 2, 2015 (OSHA-2010-0013), and retains
their recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal
process. OSHA assessments of PTL during this recognition period
(February 18-22, 2016; November 14-15, 2017; and January 30-31, 2019)
identified nonconformities with 29 CFR 1910.7. Although PTL worked to
resolve these nonconformities, it took several years for PTL to
demonstrate compliance with 29 CFR 1910.7.
    As a result of the nonconformities identified during OSHA's
assessments of PTL during this recognition period, PTL must abide by
the conditions noted below in addition to those conditions already
required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
    1. PTL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of
    ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in
their operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
    2. PTL must agree to increased OSHA oversight of their operations
including:
    (a) More frequent on-site assessments of PTL facilities; and
    (b) PTL shall continue to provide OSHA with written notification of
any new or revised NRTL certificates that are issued on or after
December 14, 2017, within 7 days of issuing the certification. This
notification shall include:
    (a) Name and address of the applicant;
    (b) Model number(s) for the certified products;
    (c) PTL Certification number;
    (d) PTL Project number;
    (e) Name of PTL staff involved with the project; and
    (f) Location where the product evaluation and testing took place.
    3. Upon request, PTL must provide copies of the test data,
certification report or other related information for new or revised
certifications to OSHA.

II. Notice of Preliminary Findings

    OSHA is providing notice that PTL is applying for renewal of
recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers PTL's existing NRTL scope of
recognition. OSHA evaluated PTL's application for renewal and
preliminarily determined that PTL can continue to meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. This information includes
OSHA's audits of PTL's recognized NRTL site during this recognition
period, and the satisfactory resolution of nonconformities with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. This preliminary finding does not
constitute an interim or temporary approval of the request.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether PTL meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in PTL's application and

other pertinent documents (including exhibits), as well as all
submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, at the above address;
these materials also are available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2010-0013.
    The NRTL Program staff will review all comments to the docket
submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by
these comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary
on whether to grant PTL's application for renewal. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and,
in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.

III. Authority and Signature

    Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 28, 2021.
Amanda L. Edens,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-02209 Filed 2-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69759-69761]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0937]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Black River, La Crosse, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Canadian Pacific Railroad Drawbridge across the Black River
at Mile 1.0 near La Crosse, Wisconsin. The drawspan shall immediately
open upon demand once the vessel requiring an opening establishes
contact with the remote operator located in Minneapolis,

Minnesota, via radiotelephone on VHF-FM Channel 16, or by standard
telephone calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The remote drawbridge operator will
ensure the drawspan can safely be opened, immediate move it to the open
to navigation position, and then maintain constant contact with the
vessel until it has completely transited the bridge.

DATES: This rule is effective November 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0937 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0937 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On November 14, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Black River, La
Crosse, Wisconsin, in the Federal Register (76 FR 70384). We received
no comments on the rule. A public meeting was held on November 29,
2011, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, at which no objections were presented
against the rule. On June 15, 2012, through July 15, 2012, we
authorized a test deviation period to gauge the effects of the rule on
the waterway users. No objections were presented during or after the
test deviation period.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Black River is a navigable waterway of the United States from
its mouth at mile 698.2 of the Upper Mississippi River, to
approximately mile 3.0. Heavy recreational vessel traffic can be found
along the length of the river and commercial navigation primarily
operates up to mile 1.4. In this reach commercial barge operations
handle cement, chemical, and fuel products at various loading
terminals. A large recreational vessel manufacturer and marine repair
facility are also located within this stretch of river.
    In order to reduce wait time for requested drawbridge openings,
while also reducing operating costs, Canadian Pacific requested a
change to operation of this drawbridge. Canadian Pacific proposed that
the drawbridge be operated via a procedure where vessels contact a
remote drawbridge operator through VHF-FM Channel 16 or telephone (507)
895-6087 and request an opening. The remote operator would then ensure
that no trains are in the block and then open the drawspan as
appropriate. Once opened to navigation, the drawbridge would remain
raised until the remote operator verifies safe passage of the vessel by
means of radio or telephone confirmation with the passing vessel, video
monitoring, and boat detection equipment.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 60 days in which no
comments were received.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The impact of this regulatory action upon the current regulatory
text is that it communicates a change in the procedure to open the
drawbridge. Specifically, this action changes the regulatory text from
``The draw of the CP Rail railroad bridge, mile 1.0 at La Crosse, shall
open on signal if at least two hours notice is given'' to ``The
drawspan of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.0, at La
Crosse, Wisconsin is operated by a remote operator located at the
Canadian Pacific Railway Minneapolis Operations Center, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Drawspan shall open upon demand by contacting remote
operator via VHF-FM Channel 16 or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.''

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This action is based on the expected reduction in wait time for
drawspan openings and will not impact the local businesses,
organizations, or government entities in the community.
    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The Coast Guard
provided a comment period of 60 days in which no comments were
received.

12. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211. The Coast Guard provided a comment period
of 60 days in which no comments were received.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. The Coast Guard
provided a

comment period of 60 days in which no comments were received.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.1081 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1081  Black River.

    The drawspan of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 1.0, at
La Crosse, Wisconsin is operated by remote operator located at the
Canadian Pacific Railway Minneapolis Operations Center, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Drawspan shall open upon demand by contacting remote
operator via VHF-FM Channel 16 or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 31, 2012.
Roy A. Nash,
Rear Admiral, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-28285 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P