                             RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
            Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for
                 the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
                               [RIN 2070 - AJ57]
                                 July 15, 2011
                                       
A number of commenters commented on aspects of the existing Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule.  In certain cases, as a courtesy, EPA has addressed the points made in those comments.  However, EPA's proposal did not re-open for comment any issues underlying the existing rule except where it did so explicitly, and EPA is not re-opening any of those issues here except where EPA has explicitly done so by modifying an existing rule provision.

General Support for Clearance and Testing Provisions:

Several commenters argued that clearance is necessary in order to determine objectively that an area is safe for re-occupancy.  They believe that clearance dust testing by disinterested parties remains the only objective method for determining the amount of lead dust that is present on a surface and for evaluating hazard potential.  Some thought that it should be required in as wide a range of situations as possible, given the proven reliability of the method and its association with blood lead levels.  

As noted in response to commenters on the original Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule, EPA agrees that having dust wipe samples collected by a qualified person and analyzed by a qualified laboratory is a very effective way to determine the quantity of lead in dust remaining after a renovation activity.  However, the Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovations.    

A number of commenters thought that clearance should be required because renovation firms are not motivated to perform the required specialized cleaning and cleaning verification properly.  One commenter observed that, on performing inspections or risk assessments in target housing, he found that 50% or more of the replacement windows he tested were positive for lead dust.  According to the commenter, there is no lead in the new windows, but dust from the old windows has settled back on them from the replacement process.  The commenter further observed that some contractors he works with barely clean even when he is doing clearance testing.   This commenter believes that, if these contractors are left on their own to do cleaning verification, proper cleaning will not be done and children will be at risk.  Another commenter stated that he has experienced a 10-15% failure rate of clearance after abatements, but some contractors are much better and some are much worse.  This commenter observed that, if this is the failure rate after cleaning performed by someone with 4 days of training and who knows that there will be sampling afterward, he anticipates that the failure rate for RRP contractors is or will be much worse.  Yet another commenter argued that clearance should be required because cleaning verification is subject to falsification in ways that clearance testing is not.  This commenter contended that, because EPA does not require any physical evidence to be retained to prove that cleaning verification was performed and achieved the required result, renovators can simply write in their records that they performed cleaning verification and make up a number for how many cloths were used.  This commenter noted that with clearance dust testing, a chain of custody form, lab analysis results and a report would be generated, thus providing evidence that the testing was actually done.  In contrast, one commenter believed, based on student comments in the RRP classes attended by company employees, that most renovators take their responsibilities seriously and that the proposed dust wipe testing requirements will actually make little improvement over the existing rule.     
  
While isolated incidents are certainly possible, EPA does not generally believe that renovators, either accidentally or on purpose, will fail to correctly perform the required RRP cleaning protocol.  EPA's experience with the Dust Study shows that the full suite of RRP work practices, including containment and specialized cleaning, is easy for renovation firms to learn and implement.  Furthermore, the Dust Study shows that these work practices are reliable, safe, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.  In addition, cleaning verification is easy for renovators to learn and easy for them to perform correctly in a variety of situations.  Finally, while some commenters urged the point that dust wipe testing would encourage better cleanup, and provided anecdotal support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the likelihood or frequency of this potential impact.  This logic could potentially lead to requiring dust wipe testing for all jobs  -  a significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared to make without better supporting evidence.  

The ability to falsify results is not specific to cleaning verification.  It could also occur if dust-wipe testing and clearance were required.  Sample locations could be falsified, or there could be collusion between the sampling professional and the renovation or abatement contractor.  EPA does not think it is appropriate to generally assume that contractors will falsely claim that cleaning cloths used in cleaning verification "passed" even when they have not.  Further, the cleaning verification protocol is neither onerous nor time-consuming. On average in the Dust Study, cleaning verification took 13 minutes.  Thus, there is little reason for renovators to skip the cleaning verification step, or to falsify results.      

Another commenter noted that, even following abatement procedures (including cleaning), the commenter's firm has still failed clearance testing after door/window removal projects.  This commenter did not believe that cleaning verification was the answer to this problem, and thought that clearance testing should be required.

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices, of which cleaning verification is an effective component, effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovations.  In addition, cleaning verification is not simply qualitative clearance.  Unlike the sampling for dust clearance testing, the cleaning verification involves a cleaning component.  The act of doing the cleaning verification has been shown to lower, often significantly, the dust lead levels.  Moreover, in the Disposable Cleaning Cloth Study, the disposable cleaning cloths actually were biased toward a false positive rather than a false negative result.  That is the cloths failed where they should have indicated that the dust had been sufficiently cleaned-up.  This adds an additional margin of safety when considering the variables in the use of the disposable cleaning cloths.     

One commenter believed that clearance testing would reduce liability for contractors and landlords and leave more secure feeling about the finished job.  Another argued that attempting to limit clearance to high-risk situations would cause increased litigation because cleaning verification doesn't work.  

EPA believes that the RRP regulation establishes a "standard of care" for the renovation industry.  The RRP rule makes it more difficult to argue that contractors who follow the requirements of the regulation are negligent with respect to those requirements.  As a result, EPA believes that the RRP regulation itself, even in the absence of a clearance testing requirement, lessens the potential liability of renovation contractors.  Of course, renovation firms and landlords are always free to conduct dust wipe testing to reassure themselves about dust lead levels.

EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that cleaning verification doesn't work.  The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices, of which cleaning verification is an effective component, effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by the renovation, both during and after the renovation.    

One commenter thought that it would be worth spending $400 to ensure that a home is safe.

While EPA agrees that the clearance process provides valuable assurance regarding potential dust-lead hazards, EPA continues to believe that the full suite of RRP work practices, including containment and specialized cleaning, is reliable, safe, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.  Building owners and occupants are always free to negotiate for dust wipe testing and clearance, either from the renovation firm or a third party.      
  
Clearance testing will cause more hygienist firms to get involved with renovations, which will result in increased compliance with EPA and OSHA lead regulations in general.  

EPA does not have sufficient information to determine whether clearance testing would cause more hygienist firms to get involved with renovations.  That being said, EPA believes that industrial hygiene professionals or certified lead-based paint evaluation firms could likely provide valuable assistance on regulatory compliance and worker and occupant protection.  However, the suite of RRP work practices consist of relatively simple, low-cost measures that are nevertheless reliable, safe, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.   

Some commenters agreed with EPA's statement in the proposed rule that dust wipe testing would provide valuable feedback to renovation firms on how well they are cleaning up after renovations.  Several stated their belief that there is no question that contractors improve their cleaning performance when they are quantitatively measured, and that the Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program demonstrates that firm success in achieving clearance was associated with firm experience in achieving it.  Others argued that the proposed requirements would protect children because clearance would be required for activities that generate more leaded dust.  These commenters wondered how contractors would learn to effectively control the higher lead dust levels that may result from these activities in the absence of dust wipe testing.  

EPA agrees that quantitative dust-lead measurements can provide valuable feedback to contractors on how well they are cleaning up after renovations, and that this feedback is likely to improve performance.  However, EPA also believes that cleaning verification provides feedback to the renovator on the cleanliness of the surface.  The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP work practices, of which cleaning verification is an important component, effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by a renovation, both during and after the renovation.  Moreover, the cleaning and feedback aspects of cleaning verification are important to its contribution to the effectiveness of the work practices.  Therefore, EPA disagrees that dust wipe testing is the only way to improve the cleaning effectiveness of renovation firms.  In addition, while some commenters urged the point that dust wipe testing would encourage better cleanup, and provided some support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the likelihood or frequency of this potential impact.  This logic could potentially lead to requiring dust wipe testing for all jobs  -  a significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared to make without better supporting evidence.    

One commenter argued that cleaning verification is subjective, speculative, convoluted, and confusing.

EPA disagrees that the cleaning verification is too complicated or confusing.  EPA field tested it in the Dust Study and found that the contractors were easily able to follow the protocol.  Indeed, EPA found that the contractors were able to conduct cleaning verification on average in 13 minutes.  In addition, renovators receive hands-on training in performing cleaning verification during the training course required for certified renovators.

Several commenters stated that cleaning verification doesn't work or is based on bad science.  One maintained that it is not sufficiently protective because it is a visual test.  Another argued that it doesn't work because lead dust is invisible and not everyone has perfect vision anyway.  Several commenters contended that the Dust Study shows that the RRP work practices do not ensure that dust lead levels remaining after renovations are below the dust-lead hazard standard.  These commenters observed that this problem will be more acute if EPA lowers the dust-lead hazard standard.  

EPA disagrees with these commenters.  If the Dust Study experiments involving the practices prohibited by the final RRP rule are removed, the average post-cleaning-verification dust-lead loading on the floors was below 40 μg/ft2 for 9 of the 10 experiments performed in accordance with the final RRP rule containment and cleaning requirements.  For the 10th experiment, the average dust-lead loadings were 42.3, which is within the plus-or-minus 20% range permitted for accredited laboratories under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP).  Thus, the Dust Study demonstrates that the work practices, of which cleaning verification is an effective component, effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by the renovation, both during and after the renovation.  EPA believes that because cleaning verification includes both a cleaning aspect and a feedback aspect, it cannot be equated with a simple visual test or visual inspection of a workspace.  

With respect to the dust-lead hazard standard, in October 2009, EPA granted a petition requesting a re-evaluation of EPA's dust-lead hazard standards and the regulatory definition of lead-based paint.  If that action results in lower dust-lead hazard standards, EPA also plans to re-evaluate the RRP rule work practices.     

Several commenters asserted that clearance testing would be consistent with HUD requirements for virtually all federally-assisted housing.

EPA disagrees that the RRP rule should require clearance simply because under HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule clearance is required.  As discussed in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP rule and the preamble to the final clearance rule, EPA believes that dust clearance testing and clearance are not necessary given that EPA has determined that the RRP work practices minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovations.  Specifically, the RRP work practices are expected to minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by a renovation by effectively cleaning dust hazards.

HUD's Lead Safe Housing Rule applies to all target housing that is federally owned and target housing receiving Federal assistance.  HUD's rule, among other things establishes procedures to eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards in a residential property that receives Federal rehabilitation assistance under a program administered by HUD, in residential property assisted under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 437 et seq. ), and in housing occupied by families receiving tenant-based rental assistance. Such assistance includes tenant-based rental assistance under the Section 8 certificate program, the Section 8 voucher program, the HOME program, the Shelter Plus Care program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program, and the Indian Housing Block Grant program. HUD's rule includes requirements that range from abatement to interim controls, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and paint stabilization.  As the purpose of the Lead-safe Housing Rule is to "eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards" its intent is different than the purpose of EPA's RRP rule which is to address lead-based paint hazards generated during renovation activities.  Thus, while HUD can require clearance and occupant relocation, which is appropriate under its rule, EPA does not believe that these requirements are appropriate for the RRP rule which has a more specific focus  -  to address lead-based paint dust generated from renovation activities.  
   
General Opposition:

Numerous commenters expressed opposition to the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements.  Commenters thought that dust wipe testing and clearance would be expensive, that it was a bad time, economically speaking, to increase the cost of renovations.  Commenters noted that the additional costs would be particularly bad for small businesses.  Some commenters cited a survey done for the National Association of Home Builders and argued that the survey demonstrates that most homeowners are unwilling to absorb significant costs for dust wipe testing and clearance.  Many commenters argued that a dust wipe testing and clearance requirement would also cause significant and unreasonable delays in scheduling and completing renovation projects, particularly in areas where lead testing services are not readily available.  Some thought that letting clients back into the work area before test results are received would not be advisable, due to liability concerns.  One commenter noted that some renovation projects will not be able to pass clearance the first time, causing further delays.

EPA agrees that dust wipe testing and clearance would increase the costs of renovations, and that such requirements could delay the scheduling and completion of projects.  EPA has disagreed with industry predictions of unintended consequences arising from the existing RRP rule in part because the Agency, in developing work practices that are reliable, effective, and safe, has striven to keep the work practices simple and easy to understand, and has been mindful of the compliance costs associated with the rule.  While EPA believes industry's predictions here are overstated, the Agency does acknowledge that significant increases in the cost and complexity of the RRP rule could increase the possibility of unintended consequences arising from additional requirements.  EPA is reluctant to add additional requirements without strong record support.  Here, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements primarily because EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement.    
 
Many commenters thought that dust wipe testing and clearance requirements were not appropriate for renovations, because renovation contractors are not in the business of abating lead hazards.  Some argued that abatements are performed to eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards, while renovations are not designed to do so.  Many thought that it would inappropriate and unfair to make renovation contractors responsible for cleaning up pre-existing hazards, one commenter specifically recommended that EPA retain the intent of the existing RRP rule, to make renovation contractors responsible for the dust they create while, for the most part, absolving them of responsibility for pre-existing dust-lead hazards.  Several commenters expressed concern that they would be responsible for dust created by homeowner activities occurring at the same time as the renovation.  Some stated that establishing dust wipe testing and clearance testing requirements is inconsistent with the intent of Congress because, at a fundamental level, it eliminates the distinction between abatement contractors on the one hand and renovators on the other.  At least one commenter noted that, even if the requirement is only for dust wipe testing and not clearance, the renovation firm will still be held responsible by the homeowner for dust lead levels above the clearance standards.  

EPA agrees that there are many differences between renovations and abatements. As discussed in the preamble to the final RRP rule, renovations are different from abatements in intent, implementation, type of workforce, funding, and goal.  One of the biggest challenges that faced EPA in revising the TSCA section 402(a) Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations was how to effectively bridge the differences between abatement and renovation and remodeling while acknowledging that many of the activities employed in both (e.g., window replacement) are the same and generate the same amount of dust.  Abatements are generally performed in three circumstances.  First, abatements may be performed in the residences of children who have been found to have elevated blood lead levels.  Second, abatements are performed in certain housing receiving financial assistance from HUD when required by HUD's Lead-Safe Housing Rule.  Third, state and local laws and regulations may require abatements in certain situations associated with rental housing, or when abatement orders have been issued when resident young children, typically under age 6, have blood lead levels at or above specified values.  Typically, when an abatement is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the occupants are temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement has been demonstrated to have been properly completed through dust clearance testing.  Abatements have only one purpose -- to permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards.  On the other hand, renovations are performed for myriad reasons that may have nothing to do with lead-based paint.  Renovations involve activities designed to update, maintain, or modify all or part of a building.  Renovations may be performed while the property is occupied or unoccupied.  If the renovation is performed while the property is occupied, the occupants do not typically relocate pending the completion of the project.

The difference between abatement and renovation is one of the reasons why EPA developed the specific containment requirements and cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, for the 2008 RRP rule.  In 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe testing and clearance for certain renovations that EPA felt had the potential to result in higher dust-lead levels than the clearance standards, even if the renovation firm followed all of the RRP rule requirements.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.      
      
Other commenters disagreed with the argument that clearance is not appropriate for renovations because they differ from abatements.  One argued that this objection misses the point that, because of the widespread presence of lead-based paint in the U.S. housing stock, both renovation contractors and abatement contractors create hazardous levels of invisible lead dust that can harm occupants and which cannot be cleaned up separately from any pre-existing lead dust.  At least one commenter asserted that there is no real difference between renovation and abatement because a new window, wall, or door generates the same amount of dust whether it was done with the purpose of abating lead-based paint or not.  Finally one commenter believed that the risk of residual lead dust being left behind in a standard RRP-oriented project is MUCH greater than in a lead abatement project.

While EPA agrees that renovations and abatements can share specific tasks, such as window or door replacement, EPA does not agree that it is appropriate to hold renovation firms responsible for cleaning up pre-existing lead-based paint hazards as a matter of course.  EPA believes that abatements and renovations are equally capable of generating hazardous levels of leaded dust.  However, the purpose of abatement is to eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards, so it is sensible to require abatement contractors to demonstrate that they have done so through dust wipe testing and clearance.  The Dust Study demonstrates that the RRP rule requirements, including containment and specialized cleaning, are effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.  

One commenter argued that cleaning to achieve cleaning verification addresses pre- and post-renovation lead dust in the same way that cleaning to achieve clearance would.  

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  While the requirements of the RRP rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary benefit of removing some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, the specialized cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, required by the RRP rule strikes the proper balance of addressing the lead-based paint hazards created during the renovation but at the same time not requiring renovation firms to remediate or eliminate hazards that are beyond the scope of the work they were hired to do.

One commenter wondered whether it was the intent of the RRP rule to turn renovation contractors into lead dust hazard control specialists or to change how renovation contractors conduct their current work so it can be done in a lead-safe manner.  The commenter asserted that, if it is the former, the training and work procedures are woefully inadequate.

As stated in the preamble to the 2008 final RRP rule, EPA's primary objective with the RRP rule is to ensure that persons who already know how to perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner.   

Several commenters contended that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements place greater economic and legal liabilities on renovators, and some of these liabilities should more appropriately be placed on target housing and child-occupied facility owners and managers.  One thought that EPA should require property owners to have testing done.  Another was concerned about additional requirements that insurers might place on companies, such as ensuring that the clearance standards are met by refinishing floors.  Still another commenter believed that the RRP cleaning protocol, while by no means perfect, at least establishes clear standards for performance and clear limits on contractor obligations.  

EPA understands the logic of placing a testing requirement on property owners.  However, EPA interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners.  EPA also understands the commenter's concern that insurance companies might require more of contractors than EPA does, should EPA promulgate dust wipe testing requirements.  EPA agrees with the commenter who supported the existing RRP cleaning protocol.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    
       
Commenters argued that the added cost and burden of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements would lead to a host of unintended consequences.  These included reduced availability of low-income rental housing, deferred maintenance contributing to the decline in urban core areas, refusal of trained or knowledgeable contractors to work on older homes, thus resulting in more renovations done by unskilled and uncertified contractors, more homeowners doing work themselves or hiring unskilled and uncertified contractors, thus resulting in increased likelihood of occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards, fewer energy-efficient home repairs and window replacements, bankruptcy for private property or management owners who have invested in pre-1978 rental property as part of their retirement portfolio and revenue stream, bankruptcy of small companies and consolidation of renovation services in larger contractors, lost jobs, reduced replacement of lead-based paint windows, which are more dangerous remaining in place than the dust generated by the removal, reduced market for pre-1978 housing, and further hindrance to recovery from natural disasters.

EPA agrees that dust wipe testing and clearance would increase the costs of renovations.   EPA has disagreed with industry predictions of unintended consequences arising from the existing RRP rule in part because the Agency, in developing work practices that are reliable, effective, and safe, has striven to keep the work practices simple and easy to understand, and has been mindful of the compliance costs associated with the rule.  While EPA believes industry's predictions here are overstated, the Agency does acknowledge that significant increases in the cost and complexity of the RRP rule could increase the possibility of unintended consequences arising from additional requirements.  EPA is reluctant to add additional requirements without strong record support.  Here, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    
            
One commenter argued that this requirement will bankrupt cities like Detroit, who is disposing of 10,000 homes this year with another 65,000 to tear down over the coming years.

EPA does not understand how this could be the case, because the RRP rule does not apply to complete demolitions.  Nevertheless, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    
 
Many commenters argued that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements were unnecessary.  Some based their argument on the premise that renovations do not create lead-based paint hazards.  Others specifically addressed the information presented in the 2010 proposal, and contended that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP work practices are protective.  Some thought that no new evidence had been presented showing that the added cost of clearance sampling was worthwhile from a public health perspective.

EPA is not reconsidering or reopening the issue of whether renovations create lead-based paint hazards.  With respect to this final rule, EPA does agree that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP rule work practices are safe, reliable, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    

One commenter asserted that there was no lead problem in his community, that lead is an inner-city, low-income problem.  

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  Lead-based paint can be found in all areas of the country, in urban areas, suburbs, and rural communities, anywhere there is pre-1978 housing.  Among the numerous studies EPA conducted and reviewed during the course of the rulemaking on RRP were several case studies that addressed lead poisoning in situations unlike those described by the commenter.  One detailed a case of childhood lead poisoning and documents the costs of decontamination after uncontained power sanding was used to remove paint down to bare wood from approximately 3,000 ft2 of exterior siding on a large, well-maintained 75-year-old house in a middle-income neighborhood.  After the uncontrolled removal of lead-based paint, interior dust lead levels ranged from 390 to 27,600 μg/ft2 (on floors and windowsills) and bare soil lead levels ranged from 360 ppm in the yard to 3,900 ppm along the foundation to 130,000 ppm in the child's play area.  The family's three children had blood lead levels ranging from 19 to 23 μg/dL.  The hard costs of decontamination were over $195,000.  (Jacobs (2003).  The High Cost of Improper Removal of Lead-Based Paint from Housing: A Case Report.)  Another described a series of four cases of childhood lead poisoning and two cases of adult lead toxicity in a professional family exposed to lead dust and fume during renovation of a rural farmhouse.  Initial blood lead levels in the children ranged from 56 to 87 μg/dL and all four required chelation therapy.  (Marino (1990). A Case Report of Lead Paint Poisoning during Renovation of a Victorian Farmhouse)    

Commenters argued that EPA's proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements were insufficiently supported by the science.  Some asserted that the proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious because EPA merely changed its mind on dust wipe testing without citing any new data or circumstances to justify its new direction.  Others contended that EPA's proposed requirements were unjustified because they were based solely on assumptions.  Several thought that EPA had ignored the results of the Dust Study in issuing its proposal.      

EPA agrees that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP rule work practices are safe, reliable, and effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    

Several commenters argued that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because the costs outweigh the benefits, particularly in light of EPA's conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the existing cleaning verification requirements.

While costs were considered in making the statutory finding of reliable, effective, and safe, EPA did not develop the work practices on a cost-benefit basis.  EPA does not agree that doing so is required under Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  With respect to this final rule, EPA agrees that the Dust Study shows that the existing RRP rule work practices are reliable, effective, and safe at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    

Many commenters believed that EPA should give consideration to the significant costs that will be passed along to the homeowner as a result of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements.  Because the EPA's Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing indicated that the cleaning verification cloths that reached the "white glove" test were approximately 91% to 97% likely to be below the regulatory hazard standard, some commenters contended that the proposal would improve cleaning efficiency by as little as 3% of the regulatory hazard standard.

While EPA agrees that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements would increase the cost of renovation for homeowners, EPA does not agree that the findings of the Electrostatic Cloth study are the best measure for determining the potential improved cleaning efficiency to be gained from dust wipe testing or clearance procedures.  Nevertheless, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    

Several commenters thought that the RRP rule was already too complex, and that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements would add so much complexity that renovators would not be able to understand what would be required.

EPA believes that, given the highly variable nature of the regulated community, the work practices required by the RRP rule should be simple to understand and easy to use.  EPA is cognizant of the fact that the RRP rule applies to a range of individuals from day laborers to property maintenance staff to master craftsmen performing a whole range of activities from simple drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to building additions and everything in between.  Work practices that are easy and practical to use are more likely to be followed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore, more likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation activities.  EPA believes that most certified renovators and certified renovation firms understand the basic requirements of the RRP rule--training, certification, containment, acceptable work practices, cleaning, and recordkeeping.  Moreover, EPA agrees that the proposed three-tier system of no additional requirements, additional dust wipe testing requirements, and additional clearance requirements would add a level of complexity to the rule that is undesirable.  While EPA could potentially draw different lines in this final rule, or promulgate a requirement that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe it has a strong basis to do so.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.    
     
Some commenters argued that it was inappropriate to add more requirements to the existing RRP rule because nobody was enforcing it as it was.  Several stated that more stringent requirements without adequate enforcement cause economic disadvantages for those who comply with the requirements.  They noted that enforcing the existing rules in the smaller half of the renovation industry already presents an extreme challenge.  

EPA agrees that a credible enforcement program is necessary to the successful implementation of the RRP rule.  EPA also agrees that, because of the scope of the rule and the industry sector that it regulates, it will be challenging to implement an effective enforcement program.  As discussed in Section J. of the Response-to-Comments document for the 2008 final RRP rule, EPA's plan was to undertake a program of compliance assistance to the regulated community, followed by a compliance monitoring and enforcement program for those who do not comply.  The RRP rule became fully effective in April 2010.  While EPA concentrated more on education and compliance assistance during the first year that the rule was fully in effect, EPA has been gearing up its compliance monitoring and enforcement program in recent months.  In any event, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.          

Some commenters were concerned about a potential lack of testing resources, including certified individuals and recognized laboratories.  Others expressed concern that there had already been shortages of training resources for RRP implementation and argued that the proposal, which would require significant retraining to effectively implement, would only make the situation worse.  

While EPA disagrees that there have been widespread shortages of certified renovator courses, EPA does agree that the proposed rule raised implementation concerns and EPA took these concerns into account as part of its decision not to promulgate the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements.  

One commenter believed that there would be no sensible way to bid for renovations with a clearance requirement, because it would be impossible to achieve clearance in all cases and every job involves new circumstances.

EPA agrees that a clearance requirement would add several new considerations to the bidding process.  In any event, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.            
  
A variety of commenters suggested that EPA had issued its proposal to require dust wipe testing and clearance too soon after promulgation of the RRP rule.  Several contended that renovation firms were still in the process of working through how to achieve compliance with the rule on a daily basis and that EPA should wait to add new requirements until firms were generally comfortable with the requirements promulgated in 2008.  Others argued that EPA should solve the underlying training capacity and outreach support problems of the RRP rule before adding new requirements.  Some commenters also asserted that EPA should not make a determination that additional requirements are needed without first carefully assessing the status and impact of the existing RRP rule when fully implemented.  

EPA agrees with the general principle expressed by these commenters; that it is too soon to impose additional work practice requirements for renovations already covered by the RRP rule.  EPA also agrees that many renovation contractors are still figuring out what the RRP rule requires from them on renovation projects.  EPA disagrees that there are widespread training capacity or outreach problems with the existing RRP rule.  As part of its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting program's Lead-Safe Certified media campaign, EPA developed and made available to the public outreach materials aimed at both contractors and consumers.  The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) advertisement aimed at contractors, banners for web sites, sample articles for magazines, newsletters or other publications to help inform contractors about the rule, post cards and buck slips to stuff into mailers, as well as an informational brochure about the rule for building managers.  EPA also developed fact sheets about the rules that hardware or paint supply stores can hand out to their customers to inform them of the rule's requirements.  All of this information is available to the public on EPA's web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press-materials.htm.  

The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build demand for lead-safe certified firms among the public.  The consumer outreach materials include consumer print advertisements, PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet about the rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them about the advantages of hiring lead-safe renovation firms.  The consumer outreach materials are also downloadable from EPA's web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-consumers.htm.

Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among parents and pregnant women who live in homes built before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a national multimedia PSA campaign.  As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common pathways for lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on older windows, doors and trim, or walls) or improperly-performed renovation, repair and painting activities that cause paint to chip, peel, or flake.  
    
Some commenters thought that EPA should emphasize educational campaigns rather than additional regulatory approaches at this time.  One thought that it was clear from the reaction to the current RRP rule and the proposed changes to the rule that contractors and much of the public remain unaware of the significant danger presented by lead-based paint and leaded dust.  Another contended that there is a lack of understanding and buy-in from homeowners.  This commenter thought that, by neglecting the demand side of the equation, consumers are left uninformed and will focus on the bottom line costs.  Several commenters suggested that EPA revise the Renovate Right brochure to better inform property owners about the benefits of dust wipe sampling and clearance.

EPA agrees that outreach and education on lead poisoning in general, and the link between renovations and increased blood lead levels in particular, continues to be important.  As part of its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting program's Lead-Safe Certified media campaign, EPA developed and made available to the public outreach materials aimed at both contractors and consumers.  The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) advertisement aimed at contractors, banners for web sites, sample articles for magazines, newsletters or other publications to help inform contractors about the rule, post cards and buck slips to stuff into mailers, as well as an informational brochure about the rule for building managers.  EPA also developed fact sheets about the rules that hardware or paint supply stores can hand out to their customers to inform them of the rule's requirements.  All of this information is available to the public on EPA's web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press-materials.htm.  

The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build demand for lead-safe certified firms among the public.  The consumer outreach materials include consumer print advertisements, PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet about the rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them about the advantages of hiring lead-safe renovation firms.  The consumer outreach materials are also downloadable from EPA's web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-consumers.htm.

Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among parents and pregnant women who live in homes built before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a national multimedia PSA campaign.  As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common pathways for lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on older windows, doors and trim, or walls) or improperly-performed renovation, repair and painting activities that cause paint to chip, peel, or flake.  

EPA will continue to evaluate and consider additional outreach and educational opportunities to improve homeowner understanding of dust-lead hazards that may be left behind after renovations.  EPA will also consider the commenters' suggestions regarding future editions of Renovate Right.  EPA agrees with the general principle expressed by commenters that the Agency should allow a period of time for the regulated community and public to understand the existing RRP rule, rather than to promulgate the proposed new requirements.
 
One commenter argued that the proposed rule fails to meet the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act because it imposes significant recordkeeping requirements on renovators, realtors, and others who perform maintenance on pre-1978 housing.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not prohibit recordkeeping requirements, but it does impose a requirement for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve information collection requests, including recordkeeping requirements.  The information collection requirements contained in the proposed rule were submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  

In any event, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.  EPA is making minor adjustments to the already-approved recordkeeping and reporting requirements for training course providers in this rule.  Accordingly, EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document to amend an existing approved ICR.  The ICR document, referred to as the Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program and identified under EPA ICR No. 2381.02 and OMB Control Number 2070 - NEW, has been placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 16).  The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.	
  
One commenter argues that both the proposed rule and existing RRP rule conflict with the Federalism Executive Order because, contrary to EPA's allegations, the rules do have an impact on states.  The commenter cites Tennessee's denied request to suspend the RRP regulations to address the May 2010 flooding event as an example.

EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue with respect to the 2008 RRP rule.  This final rule does not conflict with the Federalism Executive Order because it does not impose substantial compliance costs directly on states or local governments.  

One commenter argued that the proposed requirements conflict with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because these changes will be financially burdensome not only to the private sector, but also to state, local, and tribal governments.  For example, this will have significant effects on schools and on homeowner weatherization assistance programs.  

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) does not prohibit rules that impose burdens, the Act requires EPA to do additional analyses before promulgating such rules.  Although not dispositive, in deciding whether promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements was warranted, EPA nonetheless did take into consideration the costs of such requirements.  In sum, EPA determined that, among other things, the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.  For more information, including a summary of the written statement EPA prepared in response to the UMRA, please consult the preamble to the 2010 proposal.  

    
Several commenters argued that the failure to convene a new Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  

EPA disagrees with these comments.  Contrary to the assertions of these commenters, the Agency has fully complied with the requirements of the RFA.  

The RFA states that agencies "may consider a series of closely related rules as one rule for the purposes of [an IRFA]" in order to avoid "duplicative action." 5 U.S.C. § 605(c) (emphasis added).  This rule is closely related to the 2008 RRP rule.  Indeed, this rule addresses some of the issues considered during the promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule.  Accordingly, EPA was not required to complete an IRFA or FRFA for this rule.  Nonetheless, EPA exercised its discretion to complete an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) on this proposal.  The robust analysis contained in the IRFA considers the potential impacts of the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements on affected small entities.  EPA has not completed a FRFA for this final rule because EPA is not promulgating the dust wipe testing or clearance requirements.  EPA is certifying that the final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.     

Moreover, EPA did convene and conduct a SBAR panel (RRP Panel) in connection with
the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities in target housing. EPA relied upon the RRP Panel to inform its decisions on the 2008 RRP rule. The RRP Panel is equally applicable to this closely related amendment to the RRP rule, pursuant to which EPA has reconsidered some of the same work practice issues. The RRP Panel discussed all major aspects of the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, including issues related to ensuring that proper cleanup occurs after renovation activities.  As a part of the panel process, EPA "collect[ed] advice and recommendations" from several Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on the proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). In response to the comments from the SERs, EPA issued a report. See Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-based Paint; Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000).  The RRP Panel report expressly addressed dust wipe testing and clearance.  Thus, the primary issues considered in this rulemaking are wholly within the scope of the issues EPA considered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were within the scope of the issues considered by the RRP Panel.  EPA believes that reconvening the RRP Panel would be procedurally duplicative and is unnecessary given that the issues here were within the scope of those considered by the RRP Panel.

Specific Comments on Proposed Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance Provisions:

Many commenters opined on the inclusion or exclusion of specific renovation jobs in the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements.  Some commenters thought that the jobs for which dust wipe testing would have been required under the proposal were as likely to create high dust-lead levels as those for which clearance would have been required.  Others argued that specific renovation jobs did not create high levels of leaded dust, so they should not be included in the list of jobs covered by the proposed rule.  Still other commenters thought that dust wipe testing or clearance should only be required in older housing, such as that built before 1950, or in housing occupied by children under age 6 or pregnant women.  Some commenters thought that dust wipe testing or clearance should be required in other situations, such as after weatherization projects or when an area has failed cleaning verification twice.       

Although EPa attempted in its proposal to distinguish renovation activities that it thought warranted the addition of a dust wipe testing requirement from those that did not (and from those that warranted imposition of a clearance requirement), EPA acknowledges that its proposal lacked a strong basis for drawing these lines.  EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.        

Several commenters asked for additional clarification on some of the terms used in the proposed rule, including "destructive demolition," window replacement," and "poor condition."

EPA is not promulgating the dust wipe testing or clearance requirements of the proposed rule, so no additional clarification of these terms is necessary.    
   
Several commenters thought that EPA should wait to require dust wipe testing or clearance until alternative technologies that allow results to be obtained quickly on-site are widely available.  

EPA agrees that availability of alternative technologies is likely to make dust wipe testing and clearance more affordable and more practical in many instances.  However, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements.  

A number of commenters addressed the sampling requirements of the proposed rule, such as the requirement to sample outside of the contained work area, whether random sampling in multi-unit buildings should be permitted, and whether sampling should be required on carpeted floors.

EPA agrees that the proposed rule raised concerns regarding the appropriate testing protocol, including whether sampling outside the area should be required or whether random sampling in multi-unit buildings should be permitted.  EPA took these concerns into account as part of its decision not to promulgate the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements.  Because EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements, the issue of sampling protocols is moot.    

Some commenters argued that the information would be valuable to many property owners and occupants, and subsequent owners and occupants, who would receive the information under the Lead Disclosure Rule.  

EPA does not believe that providing information for the purpose of the Lead Disclosure Rule is a proper basis for a TSCA § 402(c)(3) work practice.  

Some commenters were concerned about the effect that the proposed dust wipe testing and clearance requirements would have on renovator training courses.  They argued that these changes would require additions to the existing RRP training course, which they claimed is already strained to cover necessary elements in one day.  Others questioned how already-trained renovators would be informed of these changes, and whether additional training would be required.  A related comment was that the proposed requirements were too complicated, that it would be difficult for renovators to figure out what would be required on any given project.  

EPA agrees that the proposed requirements would have required additional information in the renovator course, and that EPA would have had to design a plan to get this information out to already-trained renovators.  However, EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.     

Some commenters were concerned about occupant protection.  Some pointed out that renovations differ from abatements in that abatement contractors typically maintain control over abatement work areas and do not permit residents in until clearance has been confirmed, while renovation firms typically do not have the authority to keep residents out of areas being renovated.  Others suggested that occupant protection measures should be instituted when sample results exceed the hazard standards.  One commenter thought that, because building occupants are not required to vacate the premises until clearance is confirmed, their exposures do not change.  

EPA agrees that renovations and abatements are different, and that occupants typically vacate the premises when an abatement is being performed, but not during renovations.  This does present challenges for occupant protection.  However, the RRP work practices do include provisions designed to minimize exposure to occupants, including the requirement that the work area be isolated to contain dust and debris.  In sum, EPA has concluded that the existing work practices are reliable, effective, and safe and EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.     
  
Some commenters thought that clearance should be required in rental property, or in rental property where work is being performed to remedy existing code or other violations.  Other commenters thought that rental property should not be held to a different standard than other residential property.  

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.     

One commenter argued that foundation windows should be exempt from the proposed dust wipe clearance testing requirements entirely, or regulated only when basement meets definition of COF.  The commenter's reasoning was that foundation windows are not part of the habitable space of a home.   

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.  

Many commenters supported a requirement for dust wipe testing and clearance testing to be performed by an independent third party.  These commenters thought that such a requirement would provide more accurate results.  Others expressed concerns that a third-party testing requirement would increase costs and cause delays.    

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.     

Miscellaneous Comments on Proposed Dust Wipe Testing and Clearance Provisions:
   
One commenter recommended that EPA remove language on composite dust sampling from all of EPA's materials, because laboratories won't accept them.

EPA recognizes that many laboratories have concerns about composite dust samples.  EPa took this concern into account as part of its decision not to promulgate the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements.  If EPA revises the abatement clearance protocol in the future, EPA will consider this issue.         

Instead of a requirement for dust wipe testing or clearance, several commenters supported a requirement for renovation firms to offer dust wipe testing and clearance services.  One commenter thought that this should take the form of an additional, itemized charge, accompanied by educational materials about testing.  Another thought that it should be presented more as an opportunity for homeowners to opt out of testing or clearance.  One commenter believed that a requirement of this type would make it easier for low-income homeowners who are unable to afford testing services to continue to use certified contractors who will follow the RRP work practices.  

EPA is not promulgating the proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements, because, among other things, EPA has determined that the available information does not support a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement and that, on balance, imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement is unwarranted.  EPA notes that property owners and occupants can always choose to have dust wipe testing performed after a renovation, regardless of whether EPA regulations require such testing.  

One commenter thought that, instead of dust wipe testing or clearance, the rule should just require the homeowner to sign off on the cleaning verification procedure.

EPA addressed this issue in the 2008 RRP rule.  EPA is not reconsidering or reopening this issue as part of this rulemaking.  

Several commenters suggested different requirements for the renovation jobs for which dust wipe testing or clearance would have been required.  One commenter thought that EPA should consider additional containment requirements instead of testing or clearance for high dust generating jobs.  Another thought that the Dust Study supported a requirement for two cleaning verification procedures using a wet cloth.  A third commenter thought that EPA should develop procedures for the removal and disposal of contaminated components so as not to require clearance.  The commenter suggested that one procedure might be covering painted components with duct tape at the area where paint would be disturbed during removal.  The taped joint could be cut and the component removed with the tape holding the majority of the paint intact.

As stated elsewhere, with respect to this final rule, EPA has determined that the current RRP work practices are effective at minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by a wide range of renovation activities.        

Clearance in Lieu of Cleaning Verification
   
A number of commenters argued that cleaning verification should not be required before clearance, so the rule should continue to allow renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification step where clearance is required, either by another law or by the contract between the property owner and the renovation firm.  Several argued that removal of this provision would create more inconsistency with the HUD regulations.  Commenters noted that contractors performing abatements or interim controls had been meeting EPA and HUD clearance standards for more than a decade without performing cleaning verification.  Some thought that the contractor should have the option of using whatever cleaning methods it chooses.  In contrast, one commenter supported the elimination of the provision allowing the cleaning verification step to be skipped, because cleaning verification is an effective way to clean up leaded dust.     

While EPA does not agree with all of these assertions, EPA does agree that it is unnecessary to require renovation firms who must achieve clearance to follow the specific cleaning verification protocol.  Therefore, EPA is retaining the provision that allows the cleaning verification step to be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve clearance.  

One commenter thought that eliminating the option to do clearance in place of cleaning verification may undermine incentives for clearance testing.  

While EPA does not agree with this commenter, EPA is nevertheless retaining the provision that allows the cleaning verification step to be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve clearance.  
   
One commenter thought that cleaning verification and clearance are redundant, and that EPA should pick one method and stick to it.

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  Based on a careful consideration of the Disposable
Cleaning Cloth Study and the Dust Study, EPA concluded in the 2008 final RRP rule that cleaning verification should not be used as a substitute for dust wipe clearance testing.
   
Paint Chip Collection

A number of commenters supported EPA's proposal to allow certified renovators to collect paint chip samples and send them to a laboratory recognized under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP).  These commenters thought that this would provide valuable flexibility in testing components in the work area, although one observed that it should not be seen as a viable substitute or alternative for improved test kits because the lead-based paint determination must occur at the pre-bid stage of the job, and paint chip sampling would add a delay.  This commenter also noted that paint chip sampling is not inexpensive and it damages surfaces.     

EPA agrees that allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples provides additional important flexibility for renovation firms, but EPA recognizes that the option is not without disadvantages.    

At least one commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the recordkeeping requirements to include information specific to paint chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identity of the NLLAP entity analyzing the samples, and the sample results.  

EPA agrees with this commenter, so EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subsection (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint chip sample collection and analysis, including a description of the components that were sampled, and the locations sampled, the name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the analysis, and the results for each sample.  EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were submitted for analysis to the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results were as specified.      
 
Some commenters thought that it would take a lot of time to teach renovators how to collect paint chip samples.  Others thought it would be difficult to fit the additional training on sample collection, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission procedures into the 8-hour renovator class.  In contrast, some commenters believed that paint chip sampling is easy to learn, and thought it would be a simple add-on to the instruction on test kits.  In particular, one commenter stated that, as a homeowner, he had been instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to properly collect a paint chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis.  This experience led him to believe that it would be feasible to include in the renovator course instruction on how to collect a paint chip sample and forward it for analysis.      

The selection of locations to test and the recordkeeping requirements would be identical whether test kits or paint chip sampling is used.  Because renovator training courses are already required to include training in how and where to use test kits, EPA agrees with those commenters who believed that it would take very little additional time to also provide renovators with training in how to collect a chip sample and submit them for analysis.  

Some commenters argued that only certified inspectors and risk assessors should be permitted to collect paint chip samples.  Several thought that certified inspectors and risk assessors are better qualified to determine the presence or absence of lead-based paint.  One noted that improperly-taken samples are worse than no samples, because without samples, lead-based paint must be assumed.  Another thought that this would further blur the line between renovators and inspectors and cause problems in enforcing the regulations.  Several noted that State regulations may prohibit anyone other than certified inspectors or risk assessors from collecting paint chip samples.  On the other hand, one commenter thought that the renovator course should teach random sampling, so renovators could use random sampling in multi-unit buildings.    

EPA disagrees with these commenters.  Allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples does not turn them into inspectors or risk assessors.  Certified renovators must still collect paint chip samples from each and every painted or coated component that they will disturb during the renovation.  The renovator course does not teach sampling protocols or random sampling techniques, because that would take significantly more time than is available in an 8-hour class.  EPA is not sure how allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples will lead to enforcement problems.  Finally, just as with the current provisions for test kit use, in those states that do not permit persons other than certified inspectors or risk assessors to test for lead-based paint, certified renovators will not be able to exercise this option.       
           
One commenter wondered how already-trained renovators would learn how to collect paint chip samples.

EPA plans to revise the model renovator initial and refresher courses to include information on paint chip sample collection.  Because currently-trained renovators have already had training in how and where to use test kits, EPA believes that certified renovators do not need a significant amount of training to be able to collect paint chip samples properly.  EPA plans to develop a guidance document covering paint chip sample collection procedures, including recordkeeping and laboratory submission procedures, and post it on EPA's website.  The experience related by one commenter, that of being instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to properly collect a paint chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis, shows that renovators are able to easily understand what is required.  

One commenter wondered what would happen if a property owner wants the renovator to sample a component that isn't going to be affected by the renovator's work.  This commenter asked whether the renovator would include this information within his testing report.   

Certified renovators are not lead-based paint inspectors or risk assessors.  EPA regulations only permit certified renovators to sample components that are intended to be disturbed by a renovation.  Certified renovators are not permitted to perform whole or partial lead-based paint inspections.  

Several commenters thought that EPA should also allow dust sampling technicians to collect paint chip samples.  These commenters thought that there would be time available in the course, and similar activities, such as documentation, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission procedures, are already being taught there.  

EPA disagrees with these commenters.  The dust sampling technician course teaches how to collect and process dust wipe samples, it does not include information on testing for lead-based paint.  Since renovators are already permitted to test for lead-based paint using approved test kits, it makes more sense for renovators to make use of the paint chip sampling option.       

Vertical Containment

Several commenters supported the proposed changes to the vertical containment language in the RRP rule.  One noted that contamination of neighboring properties is a common and serious problem.

EPA agrees with these commenters and further agrees that contamination of neighboring properties can be a problem if containment, including vertical containment, is not used properly.    

Some commenters thought that the proposed changes to the vertical containment language in the RRP rule were too inflexible and unnecessary.  

EPA disagrees with these commenters.  The Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity.  In the absence of a system of vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of the property line.  The vertical containment requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified renovators to design effective containment systems based on the renovation activity and the work site.  Vertical containment systems can span a range from simple barriers to more extensive scaffolding, depending on the size of the job and other relevant factors.  Complex vertical containment systems with extensive scaffolding are often not necessary to effectively contain the dust generated by a renovation.  However, to ensure that renovation firms understand that the requirement refers to a wide variety of effective work area containment systems, EPA is including the phrase "or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area" in this requirement.  

One commenter thought that it should be sufficient to require the renovation firm to inform the neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while the renovation is ongoing.  

EPA does not agree that this would be effective or sufficiently address the identified concern.  Specifically, while this might prevent leaded dust from drifting into the interiors of adjacent buildings, it does not address contamination of the neighboring porches, balconies and yards.  This does not meet the standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not be permitted to leave the work area while the renovation is ongoing.  EPA is also concerned about the ability of renovation firms to affect the behavior of neighbors whose homes are not being renovated.

Several commenters expressed concern about the safety of workers and vertical containment.  One argued that OSHA has said that vertical containment is not required in situations where worker safety would be compromised, such as in windy conditions.  

EPA agrees that erecting certain types of vertical containment in some windy conditions may be unsafe for workers.  In these situations, EPA knows of no alternative but to reschedule renovations for more clement days.  The HUD Guidelines state that exterior renovation work should not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 miles per hour.  The Guidelines also state that work must cease and cleanup be completed before rain begins.  EPA has not imposed these specific requirements, but renovation firms should consider this guidance when deciding how to proceed.       

One commenter stated that EPA should partner with OSHA when developing strategies for vertical containment that are both safe and effective instead of working solely with HUD.  The commenter further states that EPA should reconsider the recommendations made in its model training course for exterior containment and work with OSHA to devise safe and effective means to contain dust and protect workers.

EPA consulted with OSHA when it developed the RRP model training courses which contain recommendations on setting up vertical containment.  OSHA reviewed the course materials and provided comments and suggestions to EPA on various aspects of the course.  Although the training materials contain recommendations for setting up vertical containment, the final rule does not require specific methods for constructing vertical containment.  Rather, the rule sets requirements for when vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area must be used.  At this time, the Agency does not intend to expand the recommendations for constructing vertical containment in the model training courses but may do so in the future.  EPA intends to work collaboratively with DOE and HUD and other agencies and stakeholders as appropriate to develop further guidance  on equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area.

Other commenters were concerned about the additional costs that the revisions to the vertical containment provisions would impose on renovations.  

EPA agrees that it is more expensive to conduct exterior renovations with vertical containment than without.  In EPA's economic analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and debris, including work areas in close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions.  The 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any object beyond the work area.  To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job.  Thus, EPA has already accounted for the additional costs incurred for using vertical containment systems or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area on renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line.   

One commenter thought that EPA should target the vertical containment requirements to what he considered actual trouble areas, such as buildings within the 20-foot "closed windows and doors" area that cannot be closed, or renovations involving hand scraping at a height greater than the distance to the property line.

The existing RRP rule requires work areas to be contained such that no dust or debris leaves the work area.  This means vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area when necessary, which could include those situations mentioned by the commenter.  However, because the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity, in the absence of some system of vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of the property line.  Therefore, EPA will require vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area when exterior renovations are conducted within 10 feet of the property line.    
 
One commenter thought that this requirement would result in unequal treatment for urban properties, which are frequently located within 10 feet of the property line.  Vertical containment would far exceed the value of the improvement in most cases.

EPA agrees that urban properties are more likely to be located close to the property line than rural properties.  However, because the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity.  In the absence of some system of vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no way to ensure that adjacent properties are not contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of the property line.  Therefore EPA will require vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area when exterior renovations are conducted within 10 feet of the property line.      

One commenter thought that the vertical containment revisions were unjustifiable, given that owners of neighboring properties are free to perform renovations without containment.  

Do-it-yourself renovations in and on owner-occupied property are not regulated under the RRP rule.  While do-it-yourself renovations may also create lead-based paint hazards, EPA interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners.  While the RRP rule does not prohibit do-it-yourself renovations without containment, there are likely to be other legal authorities that address contamination of neighboring properties.   

Prohibited or Restricted Practices

Two commenters noted that EPA uses the term "painted surfaces" throughout the RRP rule and it is unclear whether this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well.  These commenters noted that the definition of "lead-based paint" includes paint and other surface coatings but there is no definition of the term "painted surfaces."  These commenters observed that other surface coatings, such as varnish, can contain significant amounts of lead.  The commenters suggested that EPA address this issue throughout the RRP rule.  

EPA agrees with these commenters.  In using the term "painted surfaces," EPA meant component surfaces that contain a coating that could be lead-based paint.  The term was designed to encompass situations where the surface is covered with lead-based paint as defined by the regulation as well as situations where the lead content of the surface coating had not been determined.  EPA never intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from the coverage of the RRP rule.  In fact, the applicability section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, limits the exclusions for testing to those situations where the components to be disturbed by a renovation have been demonstrated to be free of paint and other surface coatings that contain lead at levels equal to or exceeding the regulatory threshold.  Therefore, EPA will replace the term "lead-based paint" with "painted surfaces" in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3) and EPA will also adding a clarifying definition of "painted surface" to 40 CFR 745.83.  This definition states that painted surface means a component surface that contains paint or other surface coatings.         

Two commenters thought that there should be a performance standard included in EPA's proposed clarification on what is meant by high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) exhaust control.  They recommended a visual standard that warns the workers that the shroud or containment system is not working properly.  One commenter suggested a requirement that the power-tool and shroud must neither generate nor release visible dust and must permit no air movement on the outside.  The other thought that the definition for power tool shroud should include a requirement that the HEPA shroud/vacuum be capable of collecting the air generated by the tool.  This commenter also asserted that a more sensitive dust measure would improve the definition further.  
  
EPA generally agrees with these commenters and will add a requirement that power tools be operated so that no visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud or containment system.  This requirement will also work to mitigate the concern EPA had with the efficiency of shrouded tools and the possibility that such tools might overwhelm the containment and specialized cleaning protocols of the lead safe work practices.  This requirement should also ensure that the shroud or containment system used is capable of collecting the air generated by the tool.  While a more sensitive dust measure might improve the performance of the dust collection system, EPA is concerned that any such measure would impose significant burdens on renovation firms, such as requiring them to purchase and learn to use particle counters.  EPA believes that the no visible dust or air release standard is sufficiently protective and represents an appropriate balance between accuracy and cost.          

Another commenter thought that the term "shrouded" in the proposed revision would make the RRP rule more stringent than the requirements applicable to abatement contractors.  

After consulting the abatement chapter of the HUD Guidelines, EPA has determined that the proposed language could potentially be read to exclude one of the two types of sanders described by HUD as appropriate for abatement work because they provide HEPA exhaust control.  Accordingly, EPA will revise the regulatory language to require either a shroud or a containment system for these power tools.   

HEPA Vacuums

Some commenters argued that the proposed clarification regarding a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) of 17 was too stringent.  One commenter noted that the performance of the filter and the performance of the vacuum containing the filter would be different.  This commenter referenced standard industry practice for high-efficiency vacuums used in lead dust clean-up.  This commenter cited Table E-1, entitled "Application Guidelines," from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2-2007, which suggests that a MERV 11 filter is appropriate for removing "lead dust."  This commenter nevertheless thought that the required performance ought to be higher than MERV 11.  Several commenters cited research done on the efficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that the HEPA vacuums used in EPA's Dust Study would not have met the MERV standard of 17 proposed by EPA.  However, these commenters did not provide sufficient information to support this assertion.  Other commenters expressed a general concern that the proposed clarifications to the HEPA vaccum requirements would result in contractors not being able to use the affordable consumer grade HEPA vacuums that they have just purchased in order to comply with the RRP rule.  

EPA is concerned about establishing a requirement for HEPA vacuums that would result in renovation firms having to replace vacuums they recently purchased with every indication that the vacuums would comply with the RRP rule requirements.  Therefore, EPA will not add a minimum MERV value to the HEPA vacuum definition at this time.  The definition already includes a standard for HEPA vacuums, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% efficiency.

Some commenters thought that EPA should have manufacturers test their vacuums to ensure compliance with the standards, and several thought that EPA should require HEPA vacuums to be tested in the field with a particle counter periodically, and whenever the main filter is replaced.  

EPA disagrees with these commenters.  Section 402(c) of TSCA and the RRP rule are primarily intended to address the behavior of contractors, persons who perform renovations for compensation, not vacuum manufacturers.  EPA continues to recommend that renovation firms have information from the manufacturer that the particular model of vacuum that the renovation firm intends to use, or the vacuum's HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with an applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, "Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System," and has been determined to meet the HEPA standard.  

With respect to field tests, EPA is concerned that any such measure would impose significant burdens on renovation firms, such as requiring them to purchase and learn to use particle counters.  EPA believes that the requirement that renovation firms operate and maintain their HEPA vacuums in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, including filter change intervals, is sufficiently protective and represents an appropriate balance between accuracy and cost.            
        
One commenter noted, that while EPA's recommendations on manufacturer documentation are reasonable, it can occasionally be difficult to consult the owner's manual before purchasing a vacuum to determine whether it would comply with the HEPA standard.  EPA should provide a regularly-updated list of HEPA vacuums that meet the standard.

EPA understands the commenter's concerns, and will consider providing such a list.  

One commenter thought that more information on vacuum maintenance should be added to the renovator curriculum.  The commenter noted that the State of Wisconsin has illustrated guide to HEPA vacuum maintenance that would be a good model.

EPA believes that HEPA vacuum operation and maintenance is, in general, relatively simple and that the owner's manual for the specific model, or other information provided by manufacturers, is the best source of information on maintenance for renovation firms.  However, EPA will consider developing a guidance document on the subject.  

One commenter thought that vacuums that the manufacturer warns are not suitable for use with hazardous substances or asbestos or lead cleanup should be prohibited from use.

EPA agrees that, if a manufacturer recommends that a particular vacuum not be used for leaded dust cleanup, the vacuum should not be used for RRP purposes.  EPA believes that the requirement that vacuums be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations will ensure that such vacuums are not used for RRP purposes.     

Several commenters thought that the use of HEPA vacuums is unnecessary and that they are too expensive.  

EPA did not propose to eliminate the requirement that HEPA vacuums be used and is not reopening or reconsidering this issue.  

 e-Learning

Some commenters were concerned with verifying the identity of persons logging into e-learning courses.  Several noted that, because it is impossible to verify with certainty the identity of persons completing online training, an in-person final course test is necessary to ensure that the trainee is adequately trained.  

EPA generally agrees that it is important to be able to verify that the trainee who completes the e-learning portion of the course is also the trainee who completes the hands-on training and the course test.  Accordingly, EPA is amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require e-learning training providers to assign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the student's progress through the course.  EPA believes that this requirement, along with the existing requirement that the trainee participate in the hands-on training and take the final course test in person, will provide reasonable assurance that the same person has completed all of the portions of the course.  In response to these commenters, EPA is modifying the regulations to specifically state that e-learning or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the hands-on training, the final course test, or the proficiency test, if one is given.  

One commenter was concerned about the possibility that trainees could complete EPA's model e-learning course for renovators in one hour.  Thus, according to this commenter, trainees could complete the entire renovator course in 3 hours (including the 2 hours for hands-on training), which does not meet the 8-hour regulatory requirement.  

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  The current model course posted on the EPA website is not a functioning course and does not contain the background learning management system (LMS) which tracks the student's progress and requires satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks and the final test.  Therefore, the time it takes to page through the model course is not representative of the time it would take to successfully complete an accredited e-learning course.  Assuming that 2 training hours are spent on hands-on training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) requires a minimum of six 50 minute training hours or 5 hours of classroom time for renovators.  This requirement applies equally to traditional classroom settings as well as to e-learning courses course offered for accreditation.  While EPA realizes that renovator trainees will not all proceed through an e-learning course at the same pace, an e-learning course offered for accreditation must be generally designed so that an average trainee takes approximately 5 hours to proceed through the course, including all of the knowledge checks and the course test.      

One commenter wondered about the duty of the training provider in evaluating the progress of the student, and whether they should be evaluating the time spent on the course to complete the training.  The commenter also questioned the meaning of "track each student's course log-in, launches, progress, and completion."  The commenter wondered whether the intent of this requirement was to provide overall documentation or whether it was to track progress while the student is taking the course so that the instructor can intervene and make corrections. 

The requirements to track a student's progress are in place to ensure that the student reviews all required portions of the course, completes the knowledge checks and passes the final exam.  The course was designed to be completed on the student's schedule which will often be outside of normal business hours.  The accredited training provider should maintain a database of frequently asked questions and/or respond within 24 hours to student e-mail and phone call questions regarding the course.  The training provider is required to track whether the student has completed the training including answering all the knowledge check questions and passing the electronic final exam.

One commenter thought that EPA's proposed requirement of an 80% minimum passing score on the course test for the online course was too restrictive.  Another commenter disagreed, reasoning that it was appropriate to have a higher passing score requirement for the e-learning portion of a training course, because the student would have an opportunity to review the material and retake the test.  However, this commenter also thought that a 100% passing score would be too restrictive, because it would likely results in students being penalized for poorly-worded questions or alternate interpretations, regardless of the state of the student's knowledge.  

EPA agrees with the second commenter.  The 80% minimum passing score is intended to demonstrate mastery of the subject and lower scores do not achieve this goal.  If students do not pass the test, they must review the material and try again.  EPA understands that some students may require significantly more than 6 training hours to complete the e-learning component.  

One commenter supported required knowledge checks for e-learning courses, but thought that EPA should use more flexible language, such as requiring the system to offer "periodic" knowledge checks or another tool to ensure the student is actively engaged and retaining information.

EPA agrees with this comment and will require periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA's model course.  This would be 16-24 knowledge checks over the entire course.  

One commenter suggested that EPA consider separately accrediting entities that provide online training and entities that provide hands-on training.  The commenter argued that developing an online course is a capital-intensive project that requires a large number of trainees to recover the costs, so relatively few entities are likely to undertake online course development.  In contrast, the commenter stated that the delivery of hands-on training must be more local and mobile, it requires a smaller capital investment, and each entity may have relatively few trainees.  

EPA recognizes that this may be the case, at least for now, while EPA is administering the RRP program in most States.  However, this may change as more States become authorized and impose requirements for training that may differ from the EPA requirements.  In any event, EPA has developed a streamlined process to allow accredited training providers to add an e-learning component to their accreditation by using an already developed and accredited online course.  This allows accredited training providers to offer online training without having to make a large capital outlay to develop a course.  EPA continues to believe that the training provider who issues the final course completion certificate to a trainee, thus conferring certified renovator status on the trainee, must be responsible for ensuring that the student has completed all of the required training.  EPA does not offer partial accreditations, or accreditation for a portion of a course.  

A commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the hands-on training provider to maintain records of the specific times each student logged in to the online portion of the course, each student's progress, and completion data.  The commenter believed that, in the case where the online provider and the hands-on provider are separate entities, working under a contractual agreement to present an entire training course, it would be relatively easy for the online provider to maintain the records.  In contrast, the commenter thought that it would be much more burdensome for EPA to require that the hands-on provider download or otherwise take possession of these records.  

EPA disagrees with this commenter, because EPA believes that the amount of data associated with this particular requirement for each trainee is not substantial.  However, if a particular accredited training provider felt otherwise, the provider could contract with the provider of the online training to store the records.  Although the accredited training provider would remain ultimately responsible for being able to produce those records, as long as the training provider is able to produce them in response to a request from EPA, EPA would consider the training provider in compliance with the recordkeeping requirements.  

One commenter thought that the requirement that a student be able to generate an uneditable copy of an e-learning course completion certificate was too stringent.  The commenter pointed out that almost anyone reasonably familiar with computers could alter a secure PDF, image, or word processing file through the print function.  

EPA agrees that this is a valid concern.  EPA will add language to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) to clarify that EPA merely meant that the certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy editing by students.  A secure PDF file would comply with these requirements.  Allowing students to generate and print the course completion certificate provides them with reasonable certainty that they have completed the e-learning portion of the course before attempting the hands-on portion.  EPA recommends that accredited training providers verify through other means, such as the e-learning progress records, that each student who completes the hands-on training has also completed the online portion of the course before training providers issue the final course completion certificate.    

Trainee Photographs

One commenter stated that trainee photographs on the course completion certificate for renovators and dust sampling technicians should be in color.  

Although EPA recommends that photographs be in color, this is not a requirement.  The rule requires that photos be recognizable.  As long as they meet this requirement, EPA does not see the need for a requirement that the photographs be in color.

One commenter stated that that the proposed requirements are adequate, and no further clarifications of the photograph requirements are needed.  

The Agency agrees with this comment and has finalized the requirement as proposed without adding any additional requirements.

One commenter stated that EPA should require photographs on course completion certificates for courses other than renovator or dust sampling technician in order to prevent fraud.  

The Agency does not require pictures on the course completion certificates for the risk assessor, inspector, supervisor, and worker courses because EPA issues a badge to each certified individual that contains the individual's picture.  EPA believes that the photo on the badge adequately addresses the issue raised by the commenter.

One commenter states that the recommendation that trainee photographs be 600 pixels high by 600 pixels wide is extremely burdensome to training providers.  The commenter claims that training providers must spend hours cropping photographs to meet this recommended size.  The commenter believes that the Agency should be less prescriptive with its photo recommendations.

EPA appreciates the information and will consider how it can change the recommended photograph dimensions to make it less time consuming to submit photographs in post-training notifications.

Hands-on

A commenter wondered why report preparation would be a required hands-on topic for dust sampling technicians when it has never been a hands-on topic for the other disciplines that must prepare reports.  

While it is true that hands-on training in report preparation is not required for most lead training disciplines, it is required for the inspector discipline.  Thus, certified inspectors and certified risk assessors, who must successfully complete both the inspector course and the risk assessor course, receive hands-on training in report preparation.  EPA believes that report preparation for dust sampling technicians is likewise important enough to warrant hands-on training in how to do it properly.  

Two commenters thought that requiring hands-on training for renovator refresher courses would limit the availability of refresher training and increase costs unnecessarily.  Both commenters thought that enough information could probably be conveyed in a distance learning or e-learning setting to warrant dispensing with the hands-on requirement for renovator courses.  One commenter pointed out that EPA's current model refresher training course for renovators contains two required hands-on skill sets -- test kit usage and cleaning verification.  This commenter felt that this was appropriate, given that previously-trained individuals are still taking advantage of the "grandfathering" provision that allows them to successfully complete an accredited renovator refresher course to become certified renovators.  Those individuals would not have had previous training in those two skills, so hands-on training would be necessary.  However, once the grandfathering provision is no longer available, as discussed later in this section of the preamble, all certified renovators would have had hands-on training in these skills.  

EPA agrees with the second commenter that, for now, renovator refresher courses must include hands-on training in test kit use and in cleaning verification.  Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands-on training is required for all refresher courses except project designer.  EPA plans to re-evaluate the renovator refresher course after the grandfathering provision sunsets, but before the currently-certified renovators are due for refresher training.  At that time, EPA will consider whether hands-on training is still necessary and appropriate for renovator refresher training.       

State Programs

Several commenters thought that it would be unrealistic to expect states to make changes within a year of EPA's promulgation of regulatory amendments.  These commenters thought that states should be given two years, which is consistent with the current rules.

EPA inadvertently included the wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising authorized State and Tribal programs to conform to revisions to the RRP rule.  The existing provisions at 40 CFR 745.326(f) give authorized State and Tribal programs two years from the effective date of any EPA revisions to the RRP rule to demonstrate that the State or Tribal program meets the requirements of the revised RRP rule.  This two year period is also afforded to States and Tribes that submit applications for authorization before the effective date of any EPA revisions.  EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States and Tribes will still have two years to make changes to their programs necessitated by revisions to the federal RRP program.

One commenter pointed out that EPA's proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did not accomplish EPA's stated objective of clarifying that both individuals and firms must receive certification.  

EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text throughout this section accordingly to ensure that EPA's requirements are clear.  EPA requires both renovators and renovation firms to be certified.  A renovator becomes certified by successfully completing an accredited renovator training class.  A renovation firm becomes certified by submitting an application to EPA, attesting that it and its employees will follow the work practice standards at  40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a certification fee.  EPA believes that, in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as protective as EPA's program, the State or Tribal program must, at a minimum, require formal certification for renovation firms.  States and Tribes may, but are not required to, formally certify renovators.  The certified renovation firm is responsible not only for the behavior of its certified renovators but also for the other workers that have been trained by the certified renovators.  Thus, the renovation firm is ultimately responsible for the proper performance of the renovation.  Requiring formal certification for renovation firms facilitates compliance monitoring and enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Tribal programs.  A program that only required formal certification for individual renovators and not firms would not be as protective.  

One commenter suggested that EPA consider requiring states to recognize the dust sampling technician discipline because it would make services more affordable nationwide.  

While nationwide dust sampling technician recognition might make services more affordable, EPA does not have the authority to prohibit States and Tribes from having a more stringent program than the EPA's, e.g., requiring more training for persons collecting dust wipe samples than EPA requires.  

Several state commenters argued that their legislatures had already created the authority to establish an RRP program, but the maximum penalty amount was less than $10,000 per violation per day.  These States did not believe that they would be able to increase the maximum penalty authority, because it was comparable to other programs administered by the State, or that it would take several years to get an increase through the legislature, during which time EPA would have to administer the program in their jurisdictions.  One commenter argued that States should be able to set fines based on the needs of the States not the implied need of the EPA.  

EPA believes that strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and Tribal programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting.  Therefore, EPA believes that it must establish a threshold for authorized State and Tribal enforcement programs.  However, EPA also agrees that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs would be against very small entities.  It is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000.  EPA agrees that it will be responsible for administering the program in those jurisdictions that do not meet these minimum enforcement program requirements.  

At least two already-authorized State programs pointed out that they had been authorized with maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000.  One of these States also noted that it had been effectively enforcing the Lead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre-Renovation Education Program for years now with a maximum penalty authority of $5,000 per violation, and the State did not believe that an increase in its maximum penalty authority would improve the effectiveness of its programs in any way.  

As discussed above, authorized State and Tribal programs will have two years from the effective date of this rule to revise their programs to conform to the minimum enforcement program requirements.  EPA agrees that a lower maximum penalty authority is appropriate for authorized State and Tribal lead-based paint programs and is establishing the threshold maximum penalty authority at $5,000 per violation per day.    

Some commenters also noted that most enforcement actions in an RRP program would be against very small companies or individuals, and penalties of less than $10,000 per violation per day would still be very effective deterrents for such entities.  

EPA agrees that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs would be against very small entities.  Although small entities also violate RCRA, it is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities.  Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000.  

Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA's proposed minimum penalty authority of $10,000, arguing that substantial penalties are necessary to get the attention of the regulated community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule's success at protecting individuals from exposures to dangerous levels of lead.  

EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement program.  Strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and Tribal programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting.  However, EPA also agrees with those States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint programs would be against very small entities.  Although small entities also violate RCRA, it is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty authorities.  Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal programs of $5,000.  

State commenters did not favor adding a mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty authorities for inflation.  One environmental advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that it should not be a barrier to State and Tribal program authorization.  

EPA agrees with these commenters and no mechanism for adjusting these minimums for inflation is included in this final rule.

Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be considered by States and Tribes when imposing penalties for violations of their authorized programs.  Several favored enforcement history and risk, but not to the extent of treating first-time offenders too lightly.  A handful of commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be considered, because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies.  

EPA believes that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA typically considers, such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation, the culpability of the violator, history of prior violations, ability to pay or continue in business, voluntary disclosure, and attitude of the violator.  However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to consider any of these factors.

Recordkeeping

Two commenters thought that the training provider recordkeeping requirements for all disciplines should be increased to 5 years.  These commenters thought it would be less confusing for training providers if there was one period applicable to all.  One commenter pointed out that EPA had extended the certification period for renovators trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 2015, so the training records for those trainees ought to be kept for as long as their certification lasts.  This commenter suggested that EPA require training records to be kept for 5 years or until the expiration of certification resulting from the training, whichever is longer.  

While EPA agrees that it may be easier for training providers to keep records for the same length of time regardless of the discipline, EPA does not believe that it is necessary make this a requirement.  Training providers who prefer to have one single recordkeeping process can always choose to maintain their records for 5 years across the board.  Therefore, EPA is promulgating the increased recordkeeping requirement for providers of accredited renovator and dust sampling technician training as proposed.  EPA also agrees with the commenter who suggested that there be a longer recordkeeping requirement for renovator training courses offered before April 22, 2010.  Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirement that records for renovator training courses completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015.            

One commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the recordkeeping requirements to accommodate the option of renovators collecting paint chip samples and include information specific to paint chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identity of the NLLAP entity analyzing the samples, and the sample results.  

EPA agrees with this commenter.  Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subsection (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint chip sample collection and analysis, including a description of the components that were sampled, and the locations sampled, the name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the analysis, and the results for each sample.  EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were submitted for analysis to the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results were as specified.      

Accreditation

Two commenters supported the idea of combined renovator-worker and renovator-supervisor refresher courses and thought they would provide increased flexibility for industry.  One thought that the certification time periods should be harmonized to 3 years for all disciplines because the commenter believed that 5 years was too long to go without a refresher.  The other commenter did not think that harmonization was necessary, because the abatement worker or supervisor would just take the combined refresher every three years to meet the shorter certification periods in the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule.  

EPA agrees with these commenters that combined refresher courses may be beneficial.  While the current regulations permit training providers to offer refresher courses sequentially, e.g., a 4-hour renovator course on the afternoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour worker course the next day, taking the courses sequentially would result in some duplication of training topics for persons certified as both renovators and abatement workers.  On the other hand, EPA is not certain that appropriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covered in a single 8-hour day.  EPA plans to evaluate the content of its supervisor, worker, and renovator refresher courses to determine what an appropriate combined course length might be.  Depending on the results of this evaluation, EPA will consider amending these regulations to establish course length requirements for combined refresher courses.        

One commenter stated that EPA should streamline its process for accrediting training providers.  The commenter claimed that the 180 days that EPA is allowed for processing applications for training provider accreditations is too long and that it should be shortened to 45 days if the application uses the EPA model course or 90 days if it develops its own course.  The commenter further claimed that EPA merely ensures the training provider applicants meet a checklist of requirements which should not take 180 days to review.

EPA disagrees with this comment. While the Agency is has 180 days to approve or deny applications for accreditation, it strives to complete this process as quickly as possible.  The time it takes to accredit an applicant depends on various factors including Agency resources, the number of applications EPA is reviewing at any given time, and how quickly the applicant responds to Agency questions about the application.  In addition, EPA does more than simply review a checklist of requirements.  Agency staff conduct site visits of training facilities and view demonstrations of the trainings.  They also review various parts of an application including the quality control plan, descriptions of activities and procedures for conducting the hands-on skills assessment, lists of equipment that will be used for the lecture and hands-on portions of a course, and course test blueprints, among other things.  If any of these pieces of the application are deficient, the Agency will work with the applicant to address the deficiencies.  Based on the amount of work that is involved in accrediting a training provider and the variability among applicants, EPA does not intend to shorten the 180 time limit at this time.

One commenter stated that EPA should be more consistent among its regional offices in accrediting training providers.  The commenter pointed out that the student to instructor ratios and the format of training demonstrations can vary among the different regional offices. 

The Agency understands that training provider reviews can be slightly different among the ten regional offices.  To address this, the Agency has developed policies for accrediting training providers that the regional offices follow.  In addition, EPA holds regular meetings among staff from the ten regional offices and headquarters to share information on the accreditation process.
   
Grandfathering

One commenter argued that the grandfathering provision should only apply to certified abatement workers or supervisors, not workers or supervisors who have only taken the course but are not currently certified.  This commenter asserts that certified individuals will receive updated information by taken the required refresher course every three years.  The commenter believes that those who do not receive the updated information because their certification has lapsed should have to take the 8-hour initial renovator course.  

Even if individuals do not take the refresher abatement work or supervisor courses, these individuals have still received significant training in the required RRP work practices such as establishing containment and cleaning the area after the job is finished.  Thus, the Agency believes that someone who has not taken the refresher abatement worker or supervisor course should still qualify for the refresher training.  

One commenter states that EPA should continue grandfathering individuals who completed and EPA-accredited abatement worker or supervisor course until it can offer a combined course in abatement and renovations.

The Agency disagrees with this comment.  A combined refresher course would allow individuals to more readily be able to keep up their dual certifications. EPA does not believe that the availability of a combined abatement worker or supervisor refresher course is relevant to whether someone should be eligible for the refresher renovator course.  

One commenter pointed out that the grandfathering date in the preamble to the proposed rule did not match the date in the proposed regulations and that the two date should be consistent.  

The Agency agrees that the dates should have been consistent and will change the grandfathering date in the regulations to the effective date of the final rule.  

Other Proposed Amendments and Related Comments

One commenter thought that, before starting the course, the training provider should be required to supply a paper copy of the specific training manual to each student.

The commenter did not supply a reason for imposing such a requirement and EPA believes that training providers generally do this as a matter of course.  

One commenter thought EPA should update the abatement courses because the commenter believes that they are very out of date.

While EPA does not necessarily agree that the abatement courses are very out of date, in the future EPA will nonetheless consider whether the abatement course should be updated.  

One commenter thought that EPA should require the OSHA regulations to be taught in the course.  A certified firm was fined by OSHA for not knowing whether the HEPA respirators being worn were appropriate.

EPA does not believe that this is an appropriate requirement for EPA to impose, and OSHA already requires employees to be trained in its standards.   

One commenter noted 40 CFR 745.89(c) conflicts with the proposed change to 745.92(b)(3) regarding fees for certification amendments.  

EPA agrees with this commenter and will modify 40 CFR 745.89(c) to make it clear that no fee is required for a firm certification amendment.  

One commenter stated that EPA should require certified inspectors and risk assessors to received training specific to the RRP rule.  Such items would include dust sampling, clearance testing, paint testing, documentation, reporting and recordkeeping.

The Agency disagrees that inspectors and risk assessors need additional training specific to the RRP rule in the areas of dust sampling, clearance testing, paint testing, documentation, reporting and recordkeeping.  Inspectors and risk assessors currently receive training in dust sampling, clearance testing, and paint testing.  These skills can be used when doing the clearance testing that is optional under the RRP rule.  Furthermore, the RRP rule does not change the requirements for work performed by inspectors and risk assessors.  Consequently, EPA does not intend on changing the requirements for inspectors and risk assessor training courses. 

One commenter stated that EPA should keep the RRP rule consistent with other lead laws being implemented throughout the country.  The commenter pointed out that the many different laws with different standards create confusion resulting in less compliance, which will lead to more unsafe conditions.  The commenter specifically requested that EPA use a de minimis standard of 2 square feet or 10% when determining what work qualifies as minor repair and maintenance.  

While EPA agrees that consistency with other programs is an important consideration in promulgating regulations, consistency is not always the best approach.  For example, as discussed previously in this document, HUD's Lead-safe Housing Rule and EPA's RRP rule have very different purposes.  As such, consistency in all provisions is not necessarily desirable or appropriate.    

With respect to the minor maintenance standard EPA adopted for renovations in the 2008 RRP rule, EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue.  

Renovator course trainers should have to have at least the abatement worker class and attend a renovator course.  Persons taking the dust sampling tech course and attending the renovator course are not qualified to teach the renovator course.

In the final Opt-Out Rule, EPA reduced the prerequisite lead-based paint training requirement for principal instructors from 16 hours to 8 hours for several reasons, including available training capacity and subject matter relevance.  EPA is not reopening or reconsidering this issue.  

Several commenters supported lowering the dust-lead hazard standards and modifying the definition of lead-based paint.  One specifically noted that it is confusing for trainees to distinguish between EPA/HUD hazard levels and the OSHA threshold of "any detectable concentration of lead in paint."  

While not part of this rulemaking, in October 2009, EPA granted a petition requesting a re-evaluation of EPA's dust-lead hazard standards and the regulatory definition of lead-based paint.  

Miscellaneous Comments

Some contractors argued that EPA does not have the authority to promulgate work practice standards for RRP activities.  According to these commenters, in enacting Section 402(c) of TSCA, Congress was very careful to distinguish between lead-based paint activities and RRP activities, and the subsection does not explicitly authorize EPA to promulgate regulations affecting the work practice standards for RRP activities, e.g., requiring clearance testing.  The commenters mention TSCA Section 402(c)(1), which authorizes EPA to "promulgate guidelines for the conduct of such renovation and remodeling activities which may create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead."  The commenters further note that Section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to revise the regulations developed for abatement and other lead-based paint activities to apply to renovation and remodeling activities.  However, the commenters argue that Congress intended that EPA would apply appropriate certification requirements developed in connection with lead-based paint activities to RRP contractors but that work practice standards  -  including clearance testing requirements  -  would remain the subject of guidelines, not regulations.

EPa is not reopening or reconsidering this issue.  Nonetheless, EPA disagrees with these commenters.  EPA's interpretation of TSCA Section 402(c)(3) is that Congress intended EPA to revise the entire set of lead-based paint activities regulations to apply to renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards.  Indeed, one possible interpretation is that Congress directed EPA to simply revise the lead based paint regulations by expanding them to apply to renovation and remodeling activities.  Nonetheless, EPA has interpreted the directive to "revise" the lead-base paint activities regulations as allowing EPA to make common sense changes to the lead-based paint activities regulations to address a the differences between renovators and abatement contractors.  In addition, EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation that 403(c)(1) somehow precludes EPA from regulating renovation activities and establishing lead safe work practices.  Indeed, EPA believes that the commenters' interpretation of section 402(c) makes little sense.  Under section 402(a), Congress first directed EPA to promulgate, within 18 months, regulations concerning lead-based paint activities, i.e., activities designed to remove known lead-based paint hazards.  At the same time, under section 402(c), Congress expressed a concern about renovation activities generally and directed EPA to first issue guidelines (also within 18 months) for renovation activities that "may" create a risk of exposure to dangerous levels of lead.  In the context of section 402(c), these guidelines are best understood as an interim step because Congress then gave EPA more time (a total of 30 months) to study renovation activities to determine, among other things, the extent to which renovation activities create a lead-based paint hazard.  As a final step, Congress directed EPA to regulate renovation activities that EPA (after the studying the issue) has determined create lead-based paint hazards.  No reasonable reading of 402(c) suggests that Congress merely intended EPA to issue guidelines and thereafter to study the extent to which renovation activities create lead-based paint hazards but then  to revise the TSCA § 402(a) regulations to address activities that create lead-based paint hazards without regard to work practice standards governing those activities.  

Several commenters argued that EPA has not established that the activities regulated under the RRP rule create lead-based paint hazards. 

EPA addressed this issue in the underlying RRP rule and is not reopening or reconsidering this issue. 

Several commenters argue that EPA cannot regulate renovation, repair, and painting activities because the studies performed to determine whether such activities create lead-based paint hazards are flawed and do not establish a direct connection between renovation, repair, and painting activities and increased childhood or worker blood lead levels.  

EPA has already addressed this argument in the preamble to the 2008 final RRP rule and is not reopening or reconsidering the issue here.  
      
One commenter suggested that EPA focus its regulatory efforts on heavy metals in fish.

EPA agrees that there are many potential sources of lead that may contribute to the problem of childhood lead poisoning. However, this regulation is being issued pursuant to TSCA § 402(c)(3), and therefore only applies to renovation and remodeling activities. EPA notes, however that this regulation is only one piece of the Federal, State, and local efforts to reduce exposures to lead and eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

One commenter asked EPA to limit the amount that states can charge contractors for certification.

EPA does not have the authority to regulate state certification fees.    

One commenter suggested that EPA allow building supply retailers to sell the Cleaning Verification Cards.

While EPA will take this commenter's suggestion under consideration, EPA produces and distributes the cleaning verification cards through accredited training providers and the National Lead Information Center because EPA believes that exercising sufficient quality control during card production is critical to the success of the RRP cleaning protocol after renovations.  

One commenter requested that EPA clarify its interpretation of the test kit provisions, i.e., that EPA could approve kits before September 1, 2010 and allow their use until an improved kit is recognized.

The currently recognized test kits did not automatically lose their recognition on September 1, 2010.  As discussed in the 2008 RRP rule, prior to September 1, 2010, manufacturers seeking recognition of their test kit must meet only false negative response criterion, and that recognition of kits meeting this criterion will last until EPA publicizes its recognition of a kit that passes both the false negative and the false positive criteria.

One commenter argued that the model renovator training course spends too much time on the specifics of the rule and not enough on health effects, which would motivate workers to follow the lead-safe work practices.  

EPA appreciates this commenter's concern.  EPA continues to monitor and evaluate the content of the course.  Given the skills and tasks required by the rule that must be covered in the course, EPA believes that the appropriate weight is being given to the health effects of lead.  

One commenter thought training requirements should include more hands-on time, for example, the commenter noted that the Washington weatherization program requires 6 hours of hands-on training.

EPA disagrees with this commenter.  While hands-on training is beneficial, EPA believes that the hands-on skills required to be presented in the renovator course can adequately be covered in two hours.    

One commenter contended that regulatory policy shouldn't address pets.  

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is charged with protecting human health and the environment.  Unfortunately, the effects of lead-based paint hazards are not limited to children or even just humans.  Lead poisoning from renovations has been documented in both cats and dogs.  This is often the first indicator that families have of human exposure as well.  Moreover, in our society pets can be highly valued.  Thus, in assessing the impacts of the rule, EPA has chosen not to ignore the concern over lead poisoning in pets from renovation activities.  

Several commenters thought EPA should require homeowners to use contractors who follow RRP rules.  

As discussed, EPA interprets the statutory directive to regulate remodeling and renovation activities found in TSCA section 402(c)(3) as applying to contractors and not a broader category of persons, such as homeowners.  Thus, the RRP rule does not include provisions directly applicable to homeowners, with the exception of homeowners who renovate rental property.      

Replacement components for which documentation is available should be exempt from the rule.  
   
The RRP rule provides a mechanism for this, by allowing certified inspectors and risk assessors to make determinations based on property records.  See 40 CFR 745.227(b)(2).   EPA believes that it would be difficult to establish criteria for documentation of replacement components that could be applied by certified renovators.  Renovators do not have training in identifying painting histories and making other judgments of what to test.  
