Environmental Defense Fund filed 2 comments on this docket between Aug 25, 2016 and Aug 30, 2016. 6 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 3611d ago.
This is an updated version of our August 25 comment to change the number of certified renovators from 134,000 to 304,000 on page 5 to reflect the updated EPA presentation from its Small Business Administration briefing.
Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.
This docket contains documents related to a review of the Renovation and Repair (RRP) Rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is initiating a review of the 2008 Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) (73 FR 21692) pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). The rule was amended in 2010 (75 FR 24802) and 2011 (76 FR 47918) to eliminate a provision for contractors to opt-out of prescribed work practices and to affirm the qualitative clearance of renovated or repaired spaces, respectively. Although the section 610 review only needs to address the 2008 RRP Rule, the EPA will exercise its discretion to consider relevant comments to the 2010 and 2011 amendments. The RRP rule is intended to reduce exposure to lead hazard created by renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb lead-based paint. The current rule establishes requirements for training renovators and dust sampling technicians; certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training; and for renovation work practices. This review will also serve as an additional opportunity to provide comment on lead test kits, field testing alternatives and other broader RRP rule concerns as referenced in 80 FR 79335 and 80 FR 27621. This new entry in the regulatory agenda announces that EPA will review this action pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). As part of this review, EPA will consider and solicit comments on the following factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules; and (5) the degree to which the technology, economic conditions or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
View on regulations.gov →