“Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead from paint, paint chips, and dust can pose health hazards if not managed properly. Lead exposure is especially harmful to young children and pregnant women.”

💡 This is the exact warning statement that property managers must include in every lease for pre-1978 housing, which Copper Roof failed to provide to tenants.

“The records provided by Respondent to the inspector failed to demonstrate that prior to entering into the leases referenced in Paragraph 34, Respondent had: Included as an attachment or within the contracts to lease target housing the appropriate Lead Warning Statement, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 745.113(b)(1).”

💡 The EPA found no evidence the company provided any of the five required disclosure elements to tenants before they signed their leases.

“The records provided by Respondent showed that at the time that the renovation work was being performed at the Properties, Respondent had not obtained ‘firm certification’ as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 745.81(a)(2)(ii) and 745.89(a)(1).”

💡 The company performed lead-disturbing renovations without the legally required EPA certification to do such work safely.

“At the time of the EPA inspection on November 7, 2023, Respondent did not have any records to show that it had provided the owner of the Properties with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet as required by 40 C.F.R. § 745.84(a)(1).”

💡 Property owners were left uninformed about lead hazards before renovations began, preventing them from protecting their tenants or taking precautions.

“Lead exposure is especially harmful to young children and pregnant women. Before renting pre-1978 housing, lessors must disclose the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling. Lessees must also receive a federally approved pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention.”

💡 Federal law explicitly requires these protections because of the severe and permanent harm lead causes to vulnerable populations.

“The term ‘target housing’ is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 745.103, to mean any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less than six years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.”

💡 All seven properties leased by the company qualified as target housing requiring full lead paint disclosures.

“The term ‘renovation’ is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 745.83, to mean, in part, the modification of any existing structure or portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces, unless that activity is performed as part of an ‘abatement’.”

💡 The work performed at both properties qualified as renovations requiring EPA certification and lead-safe work practices.

“By executing this CAFO, certifies to the best of its knowledge that Respondent is currently in compliance with all relevant requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 745, Subparts E and F, and the Act, and that all violations alleged herein, which are neither admitted nor denied, have been corrected.”

💡 The company claims to have corrected violations but provides no details about what changed and neither admits nor denies the underlying conduct.

“Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($31,800) which shall be paid within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this CAFO.”

💡 The penalty amount represents the financial consequence for multiple violations across nine separate properties and incidents.

“For the purpose of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent: admits that the EPA has jurisdiction over the subject matter alleged in this CAFO; neither admits nor denies the factual allegations set forth in Section IV (Findings of Facts) of this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement allows the company to avoid any formal admission that it violated federal law or endangered tenant health.

“Acknowledges that this CAFO constitutes an enforcement action for purposes of considering Respondent’s compliance history in any subsequent enforcement actions.”

💡 This settlement will count against the company if EPA discovers future violations, potentially leading to higher penalties.

“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), Respondent’s full compliance with this CAFO shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations and facts specifically alleged above.”

💡 The settlement covers only these specific violations and does not protect the company from liability for other undiscovered violations or future misconduct.

“Nothing in this CAFO shall relieve Respondent of the duty to comply with all applicable provisions of the Act and other federal, state, or local laws or statutes, nor shall it restrict the EPA’s authority to seek compliance with any applicable laws or regulations.”

💡 Paying the penalty does not exempt the company from following lead paint laws going forward or from future enforcement.

“The provisions of this CAFO shall apply to and be binding upon Respondent and its officers, directors, employees, agents, trustees, authorized representatives, successors, and assigns.”

💡 The settlement obligations continue even if the company changes ownership or corporate structure.

“Penalties paid pursuant to this CAFO shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes.”

💡 The company cannot reduce the effective penalty amount by treating it as a business expense on tax returns.