“For the purpose of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent: (a) admits the jurisdictional allegations set forth herein; (b) neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations stated herein; (c) consents to the assessment of a civil penalty, as stated herein.”

💡 MP Painting surrendered without ever conceding wrongdoing, a legal maneuver that shields reputation while ending costly litigation.

“As a result of the EPA inspection and additional information obtained by the agency, Complainant has determined that violations of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 745, Subpart E, and Section 409 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689, occurred as a result of Respondent’s renovation activities at the Property.”

💡 The EPA’s determination is based on on-site inspection and photographic evidence, not rumor or complaint.

“The EPA inspection and subsequent investigation revealed that the Property was built in 1928.”

💡 Houses constructed before 1978 are presumed to contain lead-based paint, triggering mandatory federal safety rules.

“The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to apply for and obtain EPA certification prior to commencing the renovation for compensation on the Property.”

💡 Operating without certification is illegal and removes the first line of defense against lead exposure.

“The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to employ any certified renovators, and therefore, had not assigned any certified renovators to the renovation.”

💡 Without a trained supervisor, workers and occupants have no assurance that lead-safe practices are being followed.

“The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to obtain either an acknowledgement from the owners of the Properties that they had received the pamphlet or a certificate of mailing.”

💡 Homeowners never received federally mandated information about lead hazards, denying them informed consent.

“The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to post any protective signs warning occupants and other persons to remain outside the work area.”

💡 Unrestricted access to contaminated zones exposes neighbors, children, and pets to toxic dust.

“The EPA inspection revealed that the Respondent had not covered the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the exterior surfaces undergoing renovation.”

💡 Paint chips fell directly onto bare soil, contaminating the yard and allowing runoff into storm drains.

“The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 19, increased these statutory maximum penalties to $46,989 for violations that occur after November 2, 2015, and for which penalties are assessed on or after January 6, 2023.”

💡 Each of the five violations could have triggered a $46,989 per day penalty, yet the settlement was $905 total.

“Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a mitigated civil penalty of Nine Hundred and Five Dollars ($905.00).”

💡 The 99.6 percent discount transforms a potentially crippling penalty into a minor business expense.

“Respondent shall pay the penalty within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the Final Order.”

💡 A 30-day deadline with interest penalties for late payment is the only financial enforcement mechanism left.

“In such case, interest shall begin to accrue on a civil or stipulated penalty from the date of delinquency until such civil or stipulated penalty and any accrued interest are paid in full. 31 C.F.R. § 901.9.”

💡 The government can profit modestly from violations through interest fees, while communities absorb the true health costs.

“Respondent certifies by the signing of this Consent Agreement that it is presently in compliance with all requirements of TSCA and its implementing regulations.”

💡 EPA accepted the company’s word without requiring third-party verification or follow-up inspections.

“By signing this consent agreement, Respondent waives any rights or defenses that Respondent has or may have for this matter to be resolved in federal court, including but not limited to any right to a jury trial.”

💡 MP Painting avoided a public trial and the reputational damage of sworn testimony about unsafe practices.

“The penalty specified herein shall represent civil penalties assessed by EPA and shall not be deductible for purposes of Federal, State and local taxes.”

💡 The non-deductibility clause is a hollow consolation when the penalty itself is less than the cost of basic safety equipment.

“This CAFO constitutes a ‘prior such violation’ as that term is used in EPA’s Interim Final Consolidated Enforcement Response and Penalty Policy for the Pre-Renovation Education Rule; Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule; and Lead-Based Paint Activities Rule to determine Respondent’s ‘history of prior such violations’ under Section 16(a)(2)(B) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)(B).”

💡 The case creates a paper trail for penalty enhancement only if the company is caught violating lead-safety rules again.