Comment submitted by Paul Trautman, Housing Program Administrator, City of Spokane Community Development Department

The proposed regulation seems inconsistent with the HUD/EPA Title X regulation (24 CFR 35) and excessivly burdensome to small repair or renovation projects. Title X allows minor renovations to be performed by lead safe work practices trained workers. Although this proposed regulation allows on-the-job training, it requires extensive and expensive Certified Renovator training. For small construction companies, and particularly maintenance workers, it would require one-man operations to undertake this training burden to make even minor repairs. For example, repairing water damaged bathroom or drywall/plaster damage after tenant move-out. Failure to promptly affect repairs could result in other unhealthful conditions such as pest infestation or mold. It seems excessive to require all contractors who perform all but exteremely minor work on pre-1960 housing to be a certified firm. This becomes an ongoing administrative and financial burden. It seems little more than a revenue generator or source of prosecution for failure to certify or recertify. Such paperwork exercises are not a strongpoint of contractors. Much ill-will is generated by regulatory agencies visiting construction sites to verify or pursue failure to certify as a firm rather than performing safe renovation. Requiring certified firms to document compliance with this draft regulation shows little faith in Certified Renovator training or supervision. Again, such paperwork exercises are not a strongpoint for contractors. Rather, it is frequently a source of friction where regulatory agencies can pursue poor recordkeeping rather than unsafe renovation. Although the regulatory focus on housing units with small children targets households most vulnerable to lead poisoning, it may also impose an additional financial burden on families. It will likely cost more for a family with small children to affect a repair than a family without small children. This increased cost could result from a smaller pool of certified contractors, need to recover training/certification costs ($850 locally for Abatement Supervisor training plus 4 days lost wages), additional time/materials, and added insurance costs due to insurer recognition of a company's lead-based paint renovation services. I applaud your focus on pre-1960 housing units where a child under 6 is present. It seems reasonable to reasonable to maintain this threshold rather than require presumption of lead-based paint in units constructed between 1961 and 1978 - a vintage of considerably lower lead content. I also applaud a homeowner's apparent opportunity to waive, short notice requirements, the requirements of these regulations. This can keep repairs as inexpensive as possible for low- income homeowners and reduce the incidence of contractors dodging regulatory responsibilities. I appreciate EPA recognition of lead-based paint hazards. However, effective implementation of pre-renovation notice requirements empowers homeowners to protect themselves and their families. A less stringent but universally implemented program such as pre-renovation notice is more effective than a certification and expense heavy regulation that is avoided by most contractors.