WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today facilitated a meeting between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives from the Montana Building Industry Association (MBIA) in his Washington, D.C. office.  The MBIA, along with other construction organizations, are concerned about the April 22 deadline for the implementation of the EPA’s Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule.

“Now is not the time for rigid federal regulation deadlines on an industry that’s already impacted by the economic downturn,” said Rehberg.  “Everyone wants to make sure that lead-based products are handled safely, but this is a matter of fairness.  Rural contractors simply need more time to get the training certification that is required.”

The new EPA lead paint rule goes into effect this Thursday, April 22nd.  Under the rule, many renovations of facilities constructed before 1978 must follow new Lead Safe Work Practices that are supervised by an EPA certified renovator and performed by an EPA certified renovation firm.  Construction professionals have to receive training from an EPA-certified trainer which can cost as much as $250.  In addition to ensuring that their employees receive the training, firms have to register with the EPA and be “certified” that they do lead renovation work (at a cost of $300).

Rehberg, who has no problems with the regulation itself, has spearheaded a broad effort in the House to delay the implementation of the rule because of the lack of opportunity contractors have had to be trained by an EPA-certified trainer.  This is especially true in rural states like Montana where there is only one certified trainer, at MSU in Bozeman. 

“We really appreciate Denny for arranging this totally unique and valuable opportunity for us to meet directly with the people who created this rule,” said Dustin Stewart, the executive director of MBIA who also estimates that at least half of the people who need to be trained in Montana will not have been by Thursday’s deadline.  “We still have significant disagreements about the timing of this implementation, and concerns about what it will mean for our industry, but the opportunity to put our faces to those concerns directly with the EPA was invaluable.”