Renovation firms commenters

It is difficult to determine with any amount of certainty whether this final rule will have unintended consequences. However, EPA agrees that it is important to minimize disincentives for using certified renovation firms who follow the work practices required by this rule. EPA also agrees that practicality is an important consideration. Given the relatively low estimated overall average per-job cost of this final rule, which is 35, and the relatively easy-to-use work practices required by this final rule, EPA does not expect the incremental costs associated with this rule to be a determinative factor for consumers. However, that relatively low cost has resulted in part from EPA s efforts to contain the costs of this rule to avoid creating disincentives to using certified renovation firms, and EPA has viewed the comments received with those considerations in mind. 

With respect to the comment regarding the standard of care for do-it-yourselfers, EPA also plans to conduct an outreach and education campaign aimed at encouraging homeowners and other building owners to follow work practices while performing renovations or to hire a certified renovation firm to do so. 

Some commenters expressed confusion over the mechanics of this exception. The certified inspector or risk assessor determines whether components contain lead-based paint, while the renovation firm is responsible for determining which components will be affected by the renovation. A renovation firm may rely on the report of a past inspection or risk assessment that addresses the components that will be disturbed by the renovation. 

EPA received a number of comments on this aspect of the 2006 Proposal. Several recognized the need for such an exception, but most of the commenters were concerned that the language of the proposal would make it possible for renovation firms to circumvent the training, certification, and work practice... 

EPA received no comments on this aspect of the 2007 Supplemental Proposal. Therefore, the final rule includes this requirement as proposed. Renovation firms performing renovations for... 

EPA received three comments on this aspect of the 2007 Supplemental Proposal. One commenter expressed support for this proposed requirement. The other two provided a number of reasons why the final rule should not include such a requirement. These commenters noted that renovation firms have no contractual connection with or contractual responsibility to the parents or guardians of children using a COE. They believe that the child-occupied facility owner bears primary responsibility for maintaining a safe environment for children. 

Consistent with the 2006 Proposal and the 2007 Supplemental Proposal, this final rule requires renovation firms to maintain this signed statement, which must include the address of the housing being renovated, for 3 years after the completion of the renovation. Again, although EPA received comments on the merits of this exception, no comments were directed specifically to the recordkeeping requirement. EPA has determined that the recordkeeping requirement is necessary to allow EPA to monitor compliance with the terms of this exception. 

However, EPA agrees with those commenters who felt that the recordkeeping requirements were vague, particularly in light of the draft recordkeeping checklist itself and the amount of time that EPA estimated it would take a renovation firm to complete... 

In the 2006 Proposal, EPA requested comment on, but did not propose, a requirement that renovation firms notify EPA before beginning a covered renovation project. Most commenters supported a notification requirement, arguing notifications would provide information to EPA about where renovation activities will be occurring, so EPA could inspect ongoing renovation projects for compliance with the requirements of this rule. These commenters stated that EPA would be unable to enforce the requirements of the rule without a notification provision. Some commenters also suggested that the act of informing EPA of their activities provides a powerful incentive for renovation firms to comply. 

EPA agrees with those commenters who believe that prior notification for every project is simply too burdensome for the regulated community and for the agency. If the streamlined, telephone-based system recommended by some of the commenters were implemented, it would reduce the initial burden on the renovation firms. However, EPA would still have to process millions of such notifications annually, and the collective bnrden on renovation firms and the government would be considerable. Rather than require millions of notifications annually, the great majority of which would never be reviewed, EPA prefers to nse other methods for targeting renovation projects for inspections. 

After consideration of these commenters concerns, EPA has concluded that OJT is sufficient for training some renovation employees. The work practice standards of this final rule are not complex or difficult to institute, and those activities critical to ensuring the lead-safe outcome of the project are either conducted by certified renovators or directed by certified renovators. The remainder of the project is often just the renovation itself, and EPA was careful when developing these final work practices to minimize the effect on the way typical renovations are conducted. With the exception of the prohibition of certain unsafe practices, renovation methods are unaffected by this rule. For example, the work practices of this final rule do not affect the method a firm would employ to replace a window. 

Some commenters questioned the need for firm certification, while others, including industry representatives, supported it. The agency believes that firm certification is necessary for several reasons. First, certification is an important tool for the agency s enforcement program. To become certified, a firm acknowledges its responsibility to use appropriately trained and certified employees and follow the work practice standards set forth in the final rule. This is especially important under this final rule, since the certified renovator is not required to perform or be present during all of the renovation activities. Under these circumstances, it is important for the firm to acknowledge... 

Several commenters thought that firms should not be required to be recertified because the firm s certification is not based on knowledge or technology, but rather on a promise to abide by the rules. The agency believes that firm recertification is an important element of the final regulation. Firm recertification provides a mechanism for EPA to keep its records current with respect to firms actively engaged in renovations. 

In addition, in this rule EPA has established minimum containment requirements for both interior and exterior renovation requirements. While the certified renovator has discretion regarding the specific components and extent of containment, the renovator and firm will be in violation of this final rule if dust or debris leaves the work area for both interior and exterior renovations. If dust or debris migrates beyond the work area, that migration constitutes a violation of the rule. Accordingly, EPA does not agree with the commenter that the rule is unenforceable. 

Two commenters offered an analysis of two sets of data collected by an environmental testing firm. One dataset consists of post-renovation dust samples collected in Maryland apartment... 

---