New Resources for Complying with Lead Paint Rule

The National Association of Home Builders has developed two new documents to help members comply with the Environmental Protection Agency Lead; Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. The first document addresses inspections and the second tackles recertification.

RRP Inspections – What to Expect is based on a guidance document released in May for inspectors who conduct inspections or audits to monitor compliance with the RRP rule.

RRP Certification/Recertification Q&A is an updated resource compiling information on firm and individual renovator certification and training requirements, including recent Environmental Protection Agency action that modified the requirements of the refresher training which certified renovators must take to maintain their certifications.

EPA Makes Changes to Lead-Safe Re-certification Process

Remodelers who are certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work on homes that may contain lead paint under the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule now have the option to complete refresher training online, according to an EPA announcement.

However, EPA re-certifications obtained via an online refresher course will be valid for only three years – versus five years for hands-on training courses – and can only be exercised every other re-certification cycle.

“As a longtime advocate for a simplified re-certification process, National Association of Home Builders Remodelers Council appreciates that EPA’s changes provide some flexibility, but the limited and convoluted parameters of the online training option are unnecessarily complicated and could affect the number of renovators who opt to become re-certified,” said NAHB Remodelers Chair Tim Shigley, CGR, CAPS, CGP, GMB, GMR, a remodeler from Wichita, Kan.

“Whether they choose to refresh their training online or in person, with the March 31 re-certification deadline looming for over 100,000 remodelers, and thousands more later in 2016 and 2017, remodelers are left with precious little time to meet their re-certification obligations.”

Additionally, certified renovators who were grandfathered in under a HUD or EPA lead-based paint training course before the RRP rule was adopted must attend a refresher course with a hands-on component. The rule also made several streamlining and clarifying changes to RRP provisions that apply to training providers.

EPA’s changes only apply to those states where EPA administers the program. The 14 states that administer their own programs will have to take legislative or regulatory action to adopt the online refresher course option.

The White House Office of Management and Budget released the final rule to EPA on Jan. 21.

For online or in-person refresher training, remodelers should contact their Home Builders Association of Greenville, or they can find a course on EPA’s website. More information on how to determine specific deadlines can be found using “What You Need to Know about EPA Lead-Safe Re-certification.”

EPA Ramps Up Lead Paint Inspections

If you are a builder or remodeler, this information from NAHB regarding the EPA's crackdown on lead paint is crucial for your business.

Some regional offices of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are changing the way they approach lead-safe work practice inspections, which could be a factor in the rising number of companies fined for violating EPA regulations.

EPA’s approach to lead-safe work practice inspections varies by region. Region 7 (Midwest) is the latest to employ a more targeted approach, having recently increased its focus on the St. Louis, Mo., area.

The strategy mirrors what was done during the summer of 2014 in EPA Region 1 (New England), which concentrated its efforts primarily in New Haven, Conn. EPA says the strategy led to improved compliance and awareness of the Lead-based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) regulations. Out of the 65 inspections conducted in New Haven during that period, EPA issued enforcement actions against six companies.

“After seeing what was done in Region 1, we saw an opportunity for us to not only educate the remodeler community, but also the general public to help drive demand for the remodelers who are certified to do the job the right way,” said Jamie Green, chief of the toxics and pesticides branch for Region 7.

EPA issued a press release and conducted radio interviews when the initiative kicked off last August. Since then, 26 inspections have been conducted in St. Louis to evaluate lead-safe work practices.

Inspectors also began conducting “compliance assistance visits,” reaching approximately 200 remodelers throughout the city. The visits were done at times when regulated work was not being done, so rather than carry out an inspection, the inspectors would explain the RRP regulations, deliver information packets and answer questions.

Projects that receive full inspections are identified in a variety of ways, but primarily as a result of tips and complaints submitted by the general public, as well as from EPA-lead searches of publicly available information.

Still, many are conducted on an ad-hoc basis, according to Green, who says inspectors will often drop in on a project while traveling to and from predetermined inspections.

Next month, Region 7 will launch an advertising campaign to raise awareness among St. Louis-area consumers about the risks of lead exposure.

“The ultimate goal here is to protect children’s health,” Green said. “There are a lot of remodelers out there who are doing it right, so a large piece of this is to make sure we’re reaching out to consumers about the value of hiring those certified renovators.”

Green says it’s too early to determine the impact of the new, targeted approach. However, the focus on St. Louis will continue through the end of the year, when Green will assess the initiative’s effectiveness and decide if similar measures would be worthwhile in other parts of the region.

Nationwide, the number of enforcement actions against businesses that violated the RRP regulation increased in 2015. Seventy-five companies received fines of $2,000 to more than $50,000, mostly for violating work practice standards and/or failing to obtain proper training and certification regarding lead-safe work practices.

For more information about how to comply with the RRP rule, visit nahb.org or visit the HBA of Greenville at hbaofgreenville.com.

Lead Paint Recertification Rule Change Aids 380,000 Remodelers Nationwide

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator has signed a final rule extending certain renovator certifications under the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) program.

EPA estimates that the rule, which went into effect the same day it was published in the Federal Register (April 16), will affect up to 380,000 certified renovators.

Under the final rule:

• Remodelers and other contractors who got their EPA Lead-Safe Certified Renovator certifications on or before March 31, 2010, now have until March 31, 2016, to get recertified.
• Remodelers who got their certifications between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, will have one year added to their five-year certification.
• Once they get re-certified, remodelers will have another five years before they have to re-up.

At your HBA’s urging, EPA extended these certifications because they would otherwise have expired before planned improvements to the RRP rule could be made. EPA proposed anamendment to remove the hands-on training requirement for the RRP refresher training course in January, but is unlikely to be finalized before November.

Without the certainty provided by the extension, almost half of all certified renovators would have been shut out of the opportunity to take advantage of the savings offered by this proposal.

• The EPA extension of certifications will not affect all certified renovators:
• The 5-year certification remains in effect for renovators who received their original certification after March 31, 2011.
• The extension does not apply to renovators operating under one of the 14 state authorized programs regardless of when they originally received certification. (See map)

Also, the rule only applies to individual, not firm certifications.

For more information, visit A Remodeler’s Guide to EPA Lead-Safe Certified Renovator Recertification. Learn more about the EPA Lead Paint rule at nahb.org/leadpaint

Lead Paint Rule Marches On, but Time Still an Issue

The National Association of Home Builders recently submitted comments supporting EPA’s plan to revise the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP) to eliminate a requirement that the EPA LeadSafe Certified Renovator re-certification course have a hands-on component.

The change would allow remodelers and other contractors to re-certify online, saving time and money for individuals and firms who have been certified for years. However, contractors obtaining certification for the first time would still need to complete the hands-on portion of the training course.

Given that a large number of certified renovators must complete a refresher training course by July 1, EPA has proposed providing a six-month extension for renovator certifications that expire by that date. Extending the deadline is a good first step in mitigating the concerns regarding the timing of this proposal and help ensure that as many renovators as possible can take advantage of the savings provided by the streamlined requirements of the proposed rule.

In its comments filed Feb. 13, your Home Builders Association supported EPA’s efforts to increase affordable access to the renovator refresher training courses, and to extend the completion deadline to ensure that those renovators who came into the RRP program when it launched in 2010 have access to online-only training options.

NAHB also urged EPA to expedite consideration of the extension to provide the industry with needed certainty.

To find out when your EPA LeadSafe Certified Renovator certification expires, visit the EPA firm locator page. Learn more about the EPA lead paint rule recertification process, get additional details on the EPA lead paint rule at nahb.org/leadpaint

Skirting Lead Paint Certification Doesn’t Pay

Recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions indicate that contractors who are operating without proper certification or training to remove lead-based paint will be held accountable for being non-compliant.

Last week, the EPA announced settlement agreements with nine California-based companies that failed to get certified before advertising, bidding on, or performing renovation and repair projects in older housing and schools. Each company was ordered to pay a $1,000 civil penalty and, in most cases, required to complete training and obtain certification.

Contractors and renovators who are not certified pose a potential health risk to consumers if they are working in pre-1978 homes and schools that may contain lead-based paint.

Under the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule remodelers and other contractors are required to be properly trained and certified by the EPA before working on these types of structures. The RRP program is designed to protect consumers, especially children, from exposure to hazardous lead dust caused by renovation and repair activities.

Contractors and renovators who are not certified undermine the intent of the RRP rule and the good work being done by those who are trying to comply with EPA’s home owner/tenant lead-based paint pre-work notification, lead-based paint safe work practices, post work cleaning practices, and reporting requirements under the RRP rule.

The agency said in a press release that it will continue to pursue enforcement against companies that are not certified, using public information to help identify violators.

Your Home Builders Association has been actively engaged in EPA’s lead-based paint program for the residential sector since its inception and has been an advocate and supporter of the required training completion for its members.

Lowe's Home Centers fined for not complying with the lead paint rule

Remodelers, take note:

Lowe’s Home Centers, one of the nation’s largest home improvement retailers, has agreed to implement a comprehensive, corporate-wide compliance program at its over 1,700 stores nationwide to ensure that the contractors it hires to perform work minimize lead dust from home renovation activities, as required by the Federal Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on April 14, 2014. The company will also pay a $500,000 civil penalty, which is the largest ever for violations of the RRP Rule.

The government complaint alleged that Lowe’s failed to provide documentation showing that the contractors it hired to perform renovation projects for Lowe’s customers had been certified by EPA, had been properly trained, had used lead-safe work practices, or had correctly used EPA-approved lead test kits at renovation sites. EPA’s investigation showed that at three homes located in Alton, IL, Trotwood, OH, and Kent OH, Lowe’s contractors failed to ensure that work areas had been properly contained during renovations and cleaned up after renovations.

EPA discovered the violations through a review of records initially prompted by tips and complaints submitted by the public.

Remodeler to EPA: Lead Paint Rule Infeasible in Multifamily Renovations

Mike Nagel, CGR, CAPS

In a recent meeting with EPA staff, NAHB State Representative and professional remodeler Mike Nagel, CGR, CAPS, spelled out for regulators why it is bad public policy to expand the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) rule from residential to commercial construction – including multifamily renovation projects -- particularly until that rule is amended to restore the opt-out provision for owners of homes not occupied by pregnant women or young children.

Noting that his company is an EPA-registered firm and that he is an EPA Lead Safe Certified remodeler with considerable experience on large-scale renovation projects in high-rise buildings, Mike provided the officials specific examples of how the rule is infeasible and counterproductive in certain projects. He told them how his company recently added $8,800 to its estimate to pay for what it thought it would cost to comply with the rule on a whole condo remodel. In the end, total compliance costs for the $360,000 project amounted to $16,000.

“The question is," he said, "how do I take scores of cubic yards of debris eight stories down in a 5-foot by 6-foot by 7-foot common elevator, down a 30-foot common hallway, down a ramp to the alley and up 90 feet to an enclosed truck without contaminating everything in sight along the way? The answer is that I don’t – at least not in a manner that is economically feasible."

Mike noted that the rule is already causing single-family remodeling companies to be priced out by “fly-by-nighters” who won’t obey the law – and the same thing is likely to happen if the rule is extended to commercial remodeling. He also emphasized that the lack of an effective, reliable test kit for measuring the presence of lead paint – and the Government Accounting Office’s own study criticizing the cost effectiveness of the rule -- are two important reasons to fix the existing problems before increasing the scope of the LRRP program to include commercial buildings.

CDC moves the goal post on lead paint

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently changed its standard on which it bases its efforts for reducing childhood lead exposure.

Previously, the CDC used 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood as its standard for a "level of concern" for lead poisoning,  The agency replaced that standard with a focus on the 2.5 percent of the population most exposed to lead.  This change sets up a scenario in which industries like Remodeling will suffer through ever more expensive measures to mitigate a continuously decreasing risk of exposure.

Craig Webb, Editor-In-Chief of Remodeling, presents an effective argument against the CDC's change in his "First Word" in this month's Remodeling.  Below is Webb's column, used with permission.

Add It Up
On the lead-paint rule, whose needs matter more?

Odd as it may seem, the debate over the lead-paint rule reminds me of the movie Saving Private Ryan. If you’ve seen the movie, no doubt you remember how director Steven Spielberg first shows in stomach-turning detail the carnage U.S. troops suffered on Normandy’s D-Day beaches and then juxtaposes that with a platoon’s search to find and safely bring home just one soldier.

Saving Private Ryan ostensibly is about the sacrifice by the many to make possible our concern for the one. The lead-paint fight echoes that notion, because at its heart lies this question: Is it worth spending millions of dollars and remodelers’ hours to protect a relatively small number of kids and pregnant women from lead exposure?

A recent letter to the editor illustrates this. In it, remodeler Mike Patterson of Gaithersburg, Md., takes issue with June’s First Word column in which I noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has decided to stop using 10 micrograms of lead in a deciliter of blood as its standard for a “level of concern” and instead will focus on the most exposed 2.5% of the population, no matter how low the number may be. I likened the CDC’s decision to what manufacturers do when they implement error-reduction programs to improve their assembly lines.

The CDC says it changed its tack because it can’t say how small an amount of lead in blood is safe. The problem, Patterson correctly points out, is that the CDC’s action removes the possibility that we’ll ever be able to declare victory on this issue, while simultaneously forcing us to commit ever-greater resources for an ever-smaller gain.

“The idea that nothing is ever good enough is a pervasive one, but it’s a pernicious and expensive one as well,” Patterson writes. “Pernicious in that it never allows one to feel that something worthy has been accomplished, and expensive, as it forces us all to shave our profit margins ever thinner, in the pursuit of ... what? A goal? How is that possible, when the goal posts are moved every time we approach?”

America has done amazing work combating lead exposure. In the late 1970s, studies found that an estimated 88% of children aged 1 to 5 had 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. When similar tests were conducted between 2007 and 2010, just 0.8% of the kids had the same level.

Note that this improvement came before the lead-paint rule took effect, and at a price (largely from getting lead out of gasoline) that our society could afford. Tens of millions of kids are out of danger, and now a relatively few remain.

I never liked the premise of Saving Private Ryan, and I don’t like what the CDC did here. The rule’s cost doesn’t justify the benefit.

Craig Webb is editor-in-chief of REMODELING. 

Value of Membership: $260 per room

We continue our series about how your HBA and its affiliate, NAHB, have logged significant victories advocating for members in the legal, legislative and regulatory arenas during 2012. 
Our advocacy efforts have saved the typical home builder about $7,250 per housing start in 2012, including both single-family and multifamily.

We saved Remodelers $260 per room on lead testing requirement. In a victory for NAHB Remodelers, the EPA rejected a proposal to add third-party clearance testing to the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, a requirement that would cost NAHB members $260 per professionally remodeled room (923,000 rooms in 2012). This issue concerns a requirement for a “swipe test” following professional remodeling in all pre-1978 houses. This rule was expected to cost $260 per professionally remodeled room and that, according to the EPA, would cost $400 million nationwide.

Thus, annual savings are: $260 x the number of rooms to be professionally remodeled in 2012 = Total 2012 savings. NAHB estimates that 60% of remodeling work was done professionally (2009 American Housing Survey) and that 1.5 million rooms were remodeled in 2012. That saved the industry $240 million in 2012.

Remodeling a Key Element in the Nation’s Economy

Like new construction, remodeling of both owner-occupied homes and rental properties contributes billions of dollars to the nation’s economy each year as property owners update and improve residential properties.

Every $10 million in remodeling expenditures yields the following economic benefits:

• 111 jobs
• $8.3 million in wage and business income
• $3 million in taxes and revenue for state, local and federal governments

Residential remodeling is one of the industry’s bright spots. The average amount spent on remodeling projects per household nationwide is $1,907.

Nationally, NAHB is forecasting a continued increase in the demand for residential repairs and improvements this year.

Legislation Would Improve Lead Paint Rule

One of the biggest threats to the residential remodeling industry is the EPA's Lead Paint Rule.  Your HBA is working aggressively to address this threat.

NAHB has worked with members of Congress to introduce legislation that is pending in both chambers of Congress that would make much-needed improvements to the EPA’s Lead: Repair, Renovation and Painting rule.

The Lead Exposure Reduction Amendment Act of 2012 (House bill H.R. 5911and Senate bill S. 2148) would help home owners and remodelers to better comply with the costly work practices and record keeping requirements of the rule without compromising safety standards.

Your HBA is urging its members to contact their lawmakers and urge them to co-sponsor these two lead paint bills pending in the House and Senate.

NAHB: Top 12 Accomplishments Summer 2012, Number 1; Lead Paint

As a member of the HBA of Greenville, you also are a member of the National Association of Home Builders. NAHB's 3,000 directors and 250 staff have been working hard on your behalf this Spring. In the series we will publish over the next 12 days we will highlight the Top 12 accomplishments during the Spring of 2012.

Accomplishment 1: Introduction of Lead Paint Legislation in the House

Responding to concerns expressed by NAHB Remodelers members and others during our Capitol Hill visits at the Spring Legislative Conference and on many other occasions, Reps. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) and a bipartisan group of original cosponsors introduced legislation to make much-needed improvements to the EPA’s Lead: Repair, Renovation and Painting (LRRP) rule.

H.R. 5911, the Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2012, is similar to NAHB-backed legislation (S. 2148) that was unveiled earlier this year in the Senate to help home owners and remodelers better comply with the costly work practices and recordkeeping requirements of the lead paint rule without compromising safety standards. This bill would provide families with greater flexibility to decide on their own remodeling activities while assuring them that sound safeguards remain in place to protect against lead hazards. Among other improvements, the bill seeks to restore the opt-out provision for homes that are not occupied by young children or a pregnant woman – a change that NAHB estimates would save approximately $336 million per year in compliance costs. Having led the effort to get this critical legislation introduced in the House, NAHB subsequently carried out intense lobbying and a federation-wide letter-writing campaign to secure additional cosponsors. We continue to build bipartisan support to bring it to fruition in the House and Senate. 

Federal court rules against NAHB, others on challenge to Lead Paint Rule

In November NAHB, the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, the Window & Door Manufacturers Association, and the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to remove an opt out provision from its controversial Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule.

They argued that EPA violated procedures contained in Federal law governing how it adopts its regulations.  The court found that EPA did not violate the law in adopting the Lead Paint Rule.

However, legislation is now pending in the U.S. Congress to amend the Lead Paint Rule legislatively to, among other things, require an opt out provision.

EPA is stepping up enforcement of lead-safe practices

Lead exposure in heavy doses can make you sick; so can the heavy fines by the EPA if your documentation is not correct.

The EPA has expanded its enforcement of its lead paint regulations which became effective in 2011. The regulations are intended to protect children from lead poisoning, which can cause major health problems including profound developmental and neurological impairment.

Reports to NAHB indicate that enforcement of the Lead Repair, Renovation, and Painting rule (LRRP) is in the area of paperwork. Specifically, EPA is focusing on proper documentation of compliance with the rule. Enforcement actions have involved failure to distributed the brochure informing consumers of the rule, distributing the brochure but failing to properly document its distribution, and other omissions and errors in documentation. Of course some contractors also have been cited for failing to complete required training and registration with the EPA. Fines of $37,000 per violation are common.

Don't put yourself and your company at risk; fully comply with the LRRP rule.

About Lead Repair, Renovation, and Painting rule
The LRRP rule, which took effect on April 22, 2010, requires that remodelers and contractors working in homes built before 1978 to be trained and certified by the EPA on lead-safe work practices before they can legally work on those homes. Enforcement commenced in 2011.

At the time the rule was initially proposed the owner of the home or building could opt out of the more expensive work practices only if there were no children under the age of 6 or pregnant women present. Before implementation the rule was revised and the opt out provision was removed. There is no opt out for the rule at present, which added more than $336 million annually in compliance cost to the remodeling community.

What your HBA is doing about it
However, House and Senate bills have been introduced to reinstate the opt-out provision, reduced fines for minor paperwork errors found during an inspection, and allow for an exemption to the regulation for emergency renovations. Click here to find out more about how the NAHB and Bipartisan efforts in Washington will help.

You can also visit the EPA's website to find out more about Lead hazards and Lead- Safe Practices. Click here for FAQs about EPA lead documentation standards.

Your HBA's Top 12 actions at the national level during the Spring

As a member of the HBA of Greenville, you also are a member of the National Association of Home Builders. NAHB's 3,000 directors and 250 staff have been working hard on your behalf this Spring.  In the series we will publish over the next 12 days we will highlight the Top 12 accomplishments during the Spring of 2012.

Accomplishment 1: introduction of three important pieces of legislation to improve conditions for home builders and remodelers

The Home Building Lending Improvement Act of 2012 (S.2078)

Because the difficulty of accessing and maintaining construction credit continues to be a major obstacle for home builders and the housing recovery in general, NAHB has been aggressively pushing for solutions to this crisis on both the regulatory and legislative fronts. NAHB worked with Senator Robert Mendendez (D-N.J.) to ensure introduction of this bill in early February. The legislation seeks to restore the flow of credit for new housing production in order to create jobs, meet rising housing demand and bolster the economic expansion. It has brought significant attention to the AD&C credit crunch in Congress, and has helped spur questions about credit availability in various congressional hearings, thereby exerting pressure on banks and regulators to help resolve the situation. Its introduction follows up on similar legislation that NAHB helped get introduced in the House last year -- H.R. 1755, the Home Construction Lending Regulatory Improvement Act -- which currently has 95 House cosponsors. For details on S. 2078 or H.R. 1755, contact Scott Meyer (800-368-5242 x8144).

The Lead Exposure Reduction Amendments Act of 2012 (S. 2148)

While NAHB supports measures to ensure that young children and pregnant women are protected from exposure to lead paint, the time and costs associated with the EPA’s flawed Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting rule (LRRP) effectively incentivize home owners to 1) hire an uncertified remodeler who doesn’t follow the rules 2) put off needed repairs or 3) do the work themselves – each of which subverts the intention of the rule in the first place. NAHB has led the charge in Congress and with regulators to try to make this rule more workable and effective, and in early March we made a major step forward when Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and five co-sponsors introduced legislation to improve the lead paint rule. This bill gives remodelers the opportunity to lobby their political representatives in Congress, who in turn can put pressure on the EPA to make specific necessary amendments to the rule. The bill itself would:

• Reinstate the opt-out provision for homes that are not occupied by children or pregnant women, thus focusing the rule on the protection of these specific groups.
• Suspend the LRRP if EPA does not approve a commercially available test kit that meets the regulation’s requirements.
• Allow remodelers the “right to cure” paperwork errors found during an inspection.
• Eliminate the “hands on” recertification training requirements.
• Prohibit EPA from expanding the LRRP to commercial and public buildings until at least one year after the agency conducts a study demonstrating the need for such action.
• Clarify the definition of “abatement” to exclude remodeling/renovation activities.
• Provide an exemption to the regulation for emergency renovations.

The introduction of this legislation is a significant step forward in raising the visibility of issues related to the current regulation, and was urgently advocated by NAHB. Looking ahead, we will rally our members to help build support for this measure in the U.S. Senate and continue our efforts to have companion legislation introduced in the House. For more information, please contact Courtney Flezzani (800-368-5242 x8459).

The Preserve Waters of the United States Act (S. 2245) and companion legislation in the House (H.R. 4965)
The EPA and Army Corps of engineers are getting ready to issue a guidance document that will evade the more transparent rule-making process to eliminate all reasonable limits on the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. As a result, the federal government’s reach would extend to essentially all waters, including storm sewers, retention basins and seasonal streams. This blatant regulatory overreach would lead to many more land development, road construction and residential projects requiring federal permits and would exacerbate permitting delays. In turn, it would increase construction costs, cause job losses, drive down housing affordability and hamper economic growth. NAHB is leading the charge against this possibility by building support for legislation that we successfully pushed to be introduced in both the House and Senate. This legislation has especially strong backing in the House after being introduced on April 27 by Transportation Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) along with ranking member Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Water Resources Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.). Contact: Courtney Flezzani (800-368-5242 x8459).

EPA reports enforcement actions on lead paint rule

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced its first known enforcement actions on remodelers following implementation of the Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP) on April 22, 2010. In the first of three cases, a rental property owner agreed this March to pay $10,000 to resolve rule violations tied to what the agency says was improper use of power equipment to remove paint from the exterior surface of an 1850s apartment building in Rockland, Maine. The complaint further alleged that workers had not been trained under the rule and that the property owner had failed to apply for firm certification with the EPA. Read more here...