47918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049; FRL–8881–8] 

RIN 2070–AJ57 

Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 

Requirements for the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: As part of a settlement of 

litigation over certain post-renovation 

cleaning requirements of the 2008 Lead 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program (RRP) rule, the EPA agreed to 

propose a number of revisions to the 

2008 RRP rule that established 

accreditation, training, certification, and 

recordkeeping requirements as well as 

work practice standards for persons 

performing renovations for 

compensation in most pre-1978 housing 

and child-occupied facilities and to 

subsequently take final action on the 

proposed rule by July 15, 2011. The 

proposed rule published on May 6, 

2010. EPA has decided not to 

promulgate dust wipe testing and 

clearance requirements as proposed. 

However, EPA is promulgating several 

other revisions to the RRP rule, 

including a provision allowing a 

certified renovator to collect a paint 

chip sample and send it to a recognized 

laboratory for analysis in lieu of using 

a lead test kit, minor changes to the 

training program accreditation 

application process, standards for elearning in accredited training 

programs, minimum enforcement 

provisions for authorized state and 

tribal renovation programs, and minor 

revisions to the training and 

certification requirements for 

renovators. EPA is also promulgating 

clarifications to the requirements for 

vertical containment on exterior 

renovation projects, the prohibited or 

restricted work practice provisions, and 

the requirements for high-efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. 

Today’s action is EPA’s final action on 

all aspects of the May 6, 2010 proposal. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2005–0049. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

in the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Hearing- or speech-impaired 

persons may reach the above telephone 

numbers through TTY by calling the 

toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1–800– 

877–8339. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Cindy 

Wheeler, National Program Chemicals 

Division (7404T), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (202) 566– 

0484; e-mail address: 

wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI–Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. Hearing- or speechimpaired persons may reach the above 

telephone number through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you perform renovations of 

target housing or child-occupied 

facilities for compensation, dust 

sampling, or dust testing. You may also 

be affected by this action if you perform 

lead-based paint inspections, lead 

hazard screens, risk assessments or 

abatements in target housing or childoccupied facilities or if you operate a 

training program for individuals who 

perform any of these activities. ‘‘Target 

housing’’ is defined in section 401 of 

TSCA as any housing constructed prior 

to 1978, except housing for the elderly 

or persons with disabilities (unless any 

child under age 6 resides or is expected 

to reside in such housing) or any 0- 

bedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a 

child-occupied facility is a building, or 

a portion of a building, constructed 

prior to 1978, visited regularly by the 

same child, under 6 years of age, on at 

least 2 different days within any week 

(Sunday through Saturday period), 

provided that each day’s visit lasts at 

least 3 hours and the combined weekly 

visits last at least 6 hours, and the 

combined annual visits last at least 

60 hours. 

Potentially-affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Building construction (NAICS code 

236), e.g., single family housing 

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and 

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., 

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

(NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary 

schools with kindergarten classrooms. 

• Other technical and trade schools 

(NAICS code 611519), e.g., training 

providers. 

• Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust 

sampling technicians. 

• Lead abatement professionals 

(NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and 

supervisors engaged in lead-based paint 

activities. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47919 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a 

number of revisions to the 2008 Lead 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program (RRP) rule that established 

accreditation, training, certification, and 

recordkeeping requirements as well as 

work practice standards for persons 

performing renovations for 

compensation in most pre-1978 housing 

and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 1). 

Specifically, EPA proposed 

requirements for dust wipe testing, 

clearance, allowing a certified renovator 

to collect a paint chip sample and send 

it to a recognized laboratory for analysis, 

minor changes to the training program 

accreditation application process, 

standards for e-learning in accredited 

training programs, minimum 

enforcement provisions for authorized 

state and tribal renovation programs, 

and minor revisions to the training and 

certification requirements for 

renovators. EPA has decided not to 

promulgate dust wipe testing and 

clearance requirements as proposed. 

However, EPA is promulgating several 

of the other proposed revisions to the 

RRP rule, including a provision 

allowing a certified renovator to collect 

a paint chip sample and send it to a 

recognized laboratory for analysis in 

lieu of using a lead test kit, minor 

changes to the training program 

accreditation application process, 

standards for e-learning in accredited 

training programs, minimum 

enforcement provisions for authorized 

state and tribal renovation programs, 

and minor revisions to the training and 

certification requirements for 

renovators. EPA is also promulgating 

clarifications to the requirements for 

vertical containment on exterior 

renovation projects, the prohibited or 

restricted work practice provisions, and 

the requirements for high-efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. 

Today’s action is EPA’s final action on 

all aspects of the May 6, 2010 proposal. 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

These work practice, training, 

certification and accreditation 

requirements, and the State, Territorial 

and Tribal authorization provisions are 

being promulgated under the authority 

of sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 

15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 

C. What are the specific provisions of 

this action? 

1. Clearance and dust wipe testing 

requirements for renovations. As 

discussed in this unit, EPA has decided 

not to promulgate clearance and dust 

wipe testing requirements as proposed 

in May 2010 for certain renovations 

covered by the 2008 Lead Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule (Ref. 2). 

a. Background. In promulgating the 

final 2008 RRP rule, EPA determined 

that renovation, repair, and painting 

activities, when performed in the 

presence of lead-based paint, create 

lead-based paint hazards. Section 

402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise 

its regulations governing lead-based 

paint inspections, risk assessments, and 

abatements (the Lead-based Paint 

Activities Regulations, or abatement 

regulations, Ref. 3) to apply to 

renovation and remodeling activities 

that create lead-based paint hazards. 

Accordingly, the 2008 RRP rule 

established accreditation, training, 

certification, and recordkeeping 

requirements as well as work practice 

standards for persons performing 

renovations for compensation in most 

pre-1978 housing and child-occupied 

facilities. Among other things, the work 

practice standards require renovation 

firms to follow specific requirements for 

containing the work area, refrain from 

using certain high-dust-generating work 

practices, and follow a specific cleaning 

protocol, including a step called 

‘‘cleaning verification,’’ after concluding 

the paint-disturbing tasks involved in a 

renovation. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

2010 proposal, EPA is particularly 

concerned about dust-lead hazards 

generated by renovations because of the 

well-documented toxicity of lead, 

especially to younger children. For a 

more detailed discussion of the health 

effects of lead exposure, refer to 

information in the 2010 proposal (Ref. 

1) and the 2008 RRP final rule (Ref. 2). 

One of the more difficult issues in the 

2008 RRP rulemaking was the issue of 

determining when a renovation work 

area has been properly cleaned and is 

ready for reoccupancy. After a leadbased paint abatement project, EPA’s 

Lead-Based Paint Activities Regulations 

require the abatement contractor to 

achieve clearance. This means that the 

contractor must demonstrate, through 

dust wipe testing, that dust lead levels 

remaining in the abatement work area 

are below the clearance levels 

established in the 2001 rulemaking 

entitled ‘‘Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead’’ under section 403 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (Ref. 4). 

Dust wipe samples for clearance 

purposes must be collected by a 

certified individual and analyzed by an 

entity recognized under the National 

Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NLLAP). 

When promulgating the 2008 RRP 

rule, EPA considered requiring a similar 

process after renovations, but for 

various reasons, did not do so. EPA did 

not interpret its statutory mandate 

under TSCA section 402(c)(3) as simply 

expanding the scope of the Lead-based 

Paint Activities Regulations to also 

cover renovation activities. Rather, EPA 

stated, in the final 2008 RRP rule, its 

belief that Congress intended for EPA to 

make revisions to those existing 

regulations to adapt them to a different 

set of activities and a very different 

regulated community. In establishing 

the cleaning element of the work 

practice requirements for renovations, 

EPA primarily relied on the results of 

two studies, the ‘‘Electrostatic Cloth and 

Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 

Housing’’ (Ref. 5) and the 

‘‘Characterization of Dust Lead Levels 

after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities’’ (the ‘‘Dust Study,’’ Ref. 6) to 

determine that the full suite of RRP 

work practice requirements, including 

containment, cleaning, and cleaning 

verification, was effective at minimizing 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created by renovation, repair, and 

painting activities. 

EPA also considered various other 

factors as well as issues raised by 

commenters. Among these were the 

differences between abatement and 

renovation, the costs of dust wipe 

testing and clearance, the potential 

delay in obtaining results, and the 

likelihood that renovation firms would 

become liable for pre-existing dust-lead 

hazards. Abatements have only one 

purpose, to permanently eliminate leadbased paint or lead-based paint hazards, 

while renovations are performed for 

many reasons that often have nothing to 

do with lead-based paint. Concerns 

about the costs of dust wipe testing and 

clearance were brought to EPA’s 

attention during stakeholder input 

opportunities provided by EPA before 

the proposed RRP rule was issued in 

2006 and echoed by commenters on the 

2006 proposed RRP rule. If EPA had 

required dust wipe testing and clearance 

after every renovation project, it would 

have made up a significant portion of 

the cost of smaller projects. In addition, 

dust wipe testing results may not be 

available for several days. If EPA had 

required traditional abatement-style 

clearance after renovations, the work 

area would not be able to be re-occupied 

while waiting for the laboratory results. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Commenters also noted that requiring 

clearance after renovation jobs could, in 

some instances, result in the renovation 

firm being held responsible for abating 

all dust-lead hazards, including such 

hazards that may have existed in the 

area before the renovation commenced. 

Other commenters on the 2006 

proposed RRP rule thought that 

renovation work areas ought to be tested 

and cleared for re-occupancy in the 

same way that abatement work areas are 

cleared through the clearance process, 

including dust wipe testing. Many 

commenters believed that renovation 

firms should be required to demonstrate 

that no dust-lead hazards had been left 

behind in the work area. These 

commenters contended that the only 

effective way to do this is through dust 

wipe testing and clearance. While EPA 

understood the issues raised by these 

commenters, and agreed with some of 

the points that they made, EPA 

remained convinced that the suite of 

RRP work practices would be practical 

for renovation firms to implement while 

effectively minimizing exposure to dustlead hazards created by renovations. 

The RRP work practices are, in essence, 

requirements to ensure that renovators 

undertake traditional renovation 

activities—e.g., removal or modification 

of existing surfaces, containment and 

cleanup of dust and debris, and 

ensuring the job site is cleaned up—in 

a lead-safe way. EPA believes the RRP 

rule effectively minimizes exposure to 

hazards generated by renovation 

activities without imposing practices 

and disciplines that are outside the 

scope of traditional renovation 

activities. More information on the 

comments received and EPA’s decisions 

can be found in the preamble to the 

final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 2). 

b. 2010 Proposal. Based on additional 

stakeholder input received after the 

final rule was issued, and an August 

2009 agreement entered into with 

several environmental and children’s 

health advocacy groups in settlement of 

their lawsuit challenging the final 2008 

RRP rule, EPA agreed to consider 

whether some of the decisions made in 

2008 with regard to dust wipe testing 

and clearance should be modified. 

Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, EPA 

proposed to require dust wipe testing 

after many renovations covered by the 

RRP rule (Ref. 1). Under the 2010 

proposal, dust wipe testing would have 

been required on uncarpeted floors, 

windowsills, and window troughs in the 

work area after the following types of 

interior renovations: 

• Use of a heat gun at temperatures 

below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

• Removal or replacement of window 

or door frames. 

• Scraping 60 ft2 or more of painted 

surfaces. 

• Removing more than 40 ft2 of trim, 

molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 

After these renovations, the 

renovation firm would have been 

required to collect dust wipe samples 

and have them analyzed for lead content 

by an entity recognized under NLLAP. 

The renovation firm would then have 

been required to provide these results to 

the owners and occupants of the 

renovated property. 

For another subset of jobs involving 

demolition or removal of plaster 

through destructive means or the 

disturbance of paint using machines 

designed to remove paint through highspeed operation, such as power sanders 

or abrasive blasters, EPA proposed to 

require the renovation firm to achieve 

clearance. This would have involved a 

demonstration, through dust wipe 

testing, that dust-lead levels remaining 

on uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and 

window troughs in the work area were 

below regulatory clearance levels. These 

clearance levels would have been 

identical to the clearance levels 

established for the lead-based paint 

abatement program, which are codified 

at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), i.e., 40 μg/ 

ft2 on floors, 250 μg/ft2 on interior 

windowsills, and 400 μg/ft2 on window 

troughs, based on wipe samples. These 

additional requirements in the 2010 

proposal were designed to ensure that 

lead-based paint hazards generated by 

renovation work are adequately cleaned 

after renovation work is finished and 

before the work areas are re-occupied. 

c. This final rule. Maintaining the 

distinction between abatement and 

renovation activities has been an 

important issue throughout the 

rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP 

rule. As discussed in the preamble to 

the 2008 RRP rule, abatements and 

renovations are performed by different 

contractors for different purposes, 

although similar activities, such as 

window replacements, may be involved. 

Typically, when an abatement is 

performed, the housing is either 

unoccupied or the occupants are 

temporarily relocated to lead-safe 

housing until the abatement has been 

demonstrated to have been properly 

completed through the clearance 

process. Carpet in the housing is usually 

removed as part of the abatement 

because it is difficult to demonstrate 

that it is free of lead-based paint 

hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not 

been replaced during the abatement may 

need to be refinished or sealed in order 

to achieve clearance. Abatements have 

only one purpose—to permanently 

eliminate lead-based paint and leadbased paint hazards. In contrast, 

renovations other than interim controls 

are performed for reasons unrelated to 

lead-based paint or lead-based paint 

hazards. Renovations may be performed 

while the property is occupied or 

unoccupied, but occupants do not 

typically relocate pending the 

completion of the project. 

EPA did not design or intend the RRP 

rule to address cleanup of pre-existing 

dust-lead hazards. While the cleaning 

requirements of the RRP rule will, in 

some cases, have the ancillary benefit of 

removing some pre-existing dust-lead 

hazards, the cleaning requirements were 

designed to effectively clean-up leadbased paint hazards created during 

renovation activities without changing 

the scope of the renovation activity 

itself. Accordingly, the RRP rule does 

not require cleaning of dust or any other 

possible lead sources in portions of 

target housing or child-occupied 

facilities beyond locations in and 

around the work area. Nor does the RRP 

rule require the replacement of carpets 

in the area of the renovation or the 

refinishing or sealing of uncarpeted 

floors. The approach in the RRP rule 

was designed to address the lead-based 

paint hazards created during the 

renovation while not requiring 

renovation firms to remediate or 

eliminate hazards beyond the scope of 

the work they were hired to do. 

In addition, EPA has interpreted 

practicality in implementation to be an 

element of the statutory directive to take 

into account effectiveness and 

reliability. As discussed in the preamble 

to the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA believes 

that, given the highly variable nature of 

the regulated community, the work 

practices required by the RRP rule 

should be simple to understand and 

easy to use. EPA is cognizant of the fact 

that the RRP rule applies to a range of 

individuals from day laborers to 

property maintenance staff to master 

craftsmen performing a range of 

activities from simple drywall repair to 

window replacement to complete 

kitchen and bath renovations to 

building additions and everything in 

between. Work practices that are easy 

and practical to use are more likely to 

be followed by all of the persons who 

perform renovations, and, therefore, 

more likely to be reliable and effective 

in minimizing exposure to lead-based 

paint hazards created by renovation 

activities. 

The 2010 proposal for this rule was 

EPA’s attempt to explore whether 

clearance and dust wipe testing 

requirements should be added to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47921 

RRP rule to provide additional 

protection for some renovations. EPA’s 

intention was to do this without 

generally holding renovation firms 

responsible for abating pre-existing 

dust-lead hazards or creating 

requirements that would impair the 

overall reliability and effectiveness of 

the work practice requirements. 

EPA received over 300 comments on 

its 2010 proposal. Members of the 

regulated community and other industry 

commenters were generally concerned 

that EPA had upset the balance it had 

struck in the 2008 RRP rule, arguing that 

a dust wipe testing or clearance 

requirement would have the effect of 

holding renovation firms responsible for 

pre-existing hazards, whether directly 

by regulation, in the case of the 

proposed clearance requirements, or 

indirectly by requiring firms to provide 

information on post-renovation dust 

lead levels to the property owner and 

occupant. While there was little support 

for dust wipe testing alone, commenters 

that supported the 2010 proposal 

generally thought that a clearance 

requirement should be imposed and 

expanded to most, if not all, 

renovations. 

After carefully weighing the issues at 

stake and considering the concerns 

raised by commenters, and as explained 

in greater detail below, EPA has 

concluded that, on balance, the 

information before the Agency does not 

support imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement on renovations. 

In particular, EPA is convinced that the 

work practices established in the 2008 

RRP rule are reliable, effective, and safe, 

and that imposing a dust wipe testing or 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

Almost all of the commenters were 

opposed to the proposed provisions 

requiring only dust wipe testing after 

certain renovations. Members of the 

regulated community and other industry 

commenters argued that a dust wipe 

testing requirement would have the 

effect of holding renovation firms 

responsible for pre-existing hazards, 

albeit indirectly, by requiring firms to 

provide information on post-renovation 

dust lead levels to the property owner 

and occupant. This requirement would 

also have the effect of adding an 

element that is not generally considered 

a renovation activity, i.e., taking 

samples for laboratory analysis, and 

indeed, would have to be performed by 

a third party or only after a renovator 

received training in a separate and 

distinct discipline—either as a dust 

wipe sample technician or a lead-based 

paint inspector. In addition, many 

argued that the Dust Study generally 

shows that the RRP work practices are 

effective at minimizing occupant 

exposure to dust-lead hazards created 

by renovations, so additional dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirements are 

unnecessary. These commenters noted 

that this is particularly true for the 

renovations for which EPA proposed to 

require only dust wipe testing, because 

those renovations were specifically 

tested in the Dust Study. In addition, 

commenters suggested that the 

categories of jobs for which dust wipe 

testing or clearance would be required 

were arbitrary and not based on 

sufficient evidence. 

Some commenters, including several 

states, also questioned the utility and 

value of dust wipe testing in the absence 

of a clearance requirement. Some were 

concerned that property owners and 

occupants would not understand the 

significance of the results of dust wipe 

samples that exceed the clearance 

standards or what steps they should 

take to protect themselves and their 

families. One argued that, in the absence 

of standards and required remedial 

actions, dust wipe testing would add 

expense and time to a renovation project 

without providing a concrete increase in 

protection for occupants. On the other 

hand, other commenters contended that 

the feedback provided by numerical 

dust wipe testing results would result in 

improved cleaning performance on the 

part of renovation firms. Some cited 

anecdotal evidence of poor contractor 

performance in other programs, such as 

the abatement program, in support of a 

contention that the RRP rule work 

practices would not be as effective at 

minimizing dust-lead hazards as they 

were in the Dust Study. 

Additionally, after considering 

previous interpretations of the statutory 

requirements and the comments 

received on this specific issue, EPA is 

not convinced that dust wipe testing in 

the absence of a clearance requirement 

would be a safe, reliable and effective 

work practice within the meaning of 

TSCA Section 402. As commenters 

noted, provision of dust wipe testing 

results in the absence of a clearance 

requirement does not by itself reduce 

the amount of dust generated during or 

left behind following a renovation. 

Furthermore, dust wipe testing results 

alone are not part of the information 

that must be provided at the prerenovation stage under Section 406(b) of 

TSCA, and providing this type of 

information is not typically considered 

a renovation work practice. Again, the 

dust wipe testing would either have to 

be done by a third party or by a 

renovator who has taken a course and 

been trained in a completely different 

discipline. 

EPA believes these commenters raise 

valid considerations. In particular, EPA 

agrees that the Dust Study demonstrates 

that with respect to these very activities, 

the suite of RRP work practices reliably 

addressed the hazards created by the 

renovation. In addition, although EPA 

attempted in its 2010 proposal to 

distinguish renovation activities that it 

thought warranted the addition of a dust 

wipe testing requirement from those 

that did not (and from those that 

warranted imposition of a clearance 

requirement), EPA acknowledges that its 

2010 proposal lacked a strong basis for 

drawing these lines—a point made by 

many commenters. While some 

commenters urged the point that dust 

wipe testing would encourage better 

cleanup, and provided anecdotal 

support for that view, EPA has no 

record basis to judge the likelihood or 

frequency of this potential impact. This 

logic could potentially lead to requiring 

dust wipe testing for all jobs—a 

significant change in the existing rule 

that EPA is not prepared to make 

without better supporting evidence. 

Accordingly, upon the information 

before it, the Agency does not believe 

that a dust testing requirement alone is 

warranted. EPA notes that homeowners 

can arrange to have dust wipe testing 

done as part of a renovation (or at any 

time) if they would like information 

about dust-lead levels in their homes. 

EPA also notes that property owners can 

contractually elect clearance testing at 

the completion of a project. EPA’s Web 

site has a page homeowners can use to 

locate certified lead inspection and 

abatement professionals and accredited 

training providers in their state (http:// 

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/locate.htm). 

EPA also proposed to require that 

renovation firms achieve clearance for a 

subset of jobs involving demolition or 

removal of plaster through destructive 

means or the disturbance of paint using 

machines designed to remove paint 

through high-speed operation, such as 

power sanders or abrasive blasters. 

Nonetheless, EPA remained concerned 

about promulgating a requirement that 

could make renovation firms 

responsible for pre-existing conditions 

and fundamentally change the scope of 

the renovation activity itself. Therefore, 

to avoid making renovation firms 

replace carpets or refinish floors when 

they were not hired to do so, EPA 

proposed to allow a renovation firm to 

stop after two failed dust wipe tests on 

a particular surface if the firm was not 

hired to refinish or replace that surface. 

EPA was particularly concerned about 

these types of jobs because it had 

evidence that the work practices were 

not effective when machines designed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

to remove paint through high speed 

operation were operated without HEPA 

shrouds and created large quantities of 

dust. EPA was concerned that even if 

such machines were equipped with 

HEPA shrouds, the RRP work practices 

may not be effective at minimizing 

exposure to lead hazards created by the 

renovation. Additionally, EPA stated its 

belief that dust created by the 

demolition or removal of plaster was 

similarly difficult to clean and therefore 

the RRP work practices might not be 

effective at minimizing exposure to lead 

hazards created by the renovation. 

With respect to the proposed 

clearance requirements, commenters 

generally fell into two camps. 

Commenters who were in ‘‘favor’’ of the 

2010 proposal nonetheless generally 

argued that the proposed clearance 

requirements should be expanded to 

cover most if not all renovation 

activities because clearance is the only 

method to ensure that no lead hazards 

remain upon the completion of a 

renovation job. Commenters who 

opposed any type of clearance 

requirement argued again that it erased 

the distinction between renovations and 

abatements and made renovation firms 

responsible for pre-existing conditions. 

These commenters also questioned the 

relevance of the studies EPA cited in 

support of its 2010 proposal to require 

clearance after renovations involving 

demolition or removal of plaster 

through destructive means or the 

disturbance of paint using machines 

designed to remove paint through highspeed operation. The cited studies 

include EPA’s Environmental Field 

Sampling Study (EFSS, Ref. 7) and 

studies examining the effectiveness of 

HEPA exhaust control on power tools 

(Ref. 8). Many of the HEPA exhaust 

control studies addressed dusts not 

typically created during renovations 

regulated by the RRP rule, such as 

crystalline silica dust resulting from the 

grinding of concrete. Others addressed 

surfaces and surface coatings not 

typically encountered during 

renovations covered by the RRP rule; 

one involved paint removal from 

automobiles. Notwithstanding EPA’s 

2010 proposal and requests for 

comment, EPA did not receive any 

additional information or data with 

respect to the dust or hazards created by 

these activities. Finally, on both sides of 

the issue, commenters did not favor the 

proposed provision allowing renovation 

firms to stop after two failed dust wipe 

tests, and, although some alternative 

suggestions were offered, none 

effectively addressed the competing 

considerations of occupant protection 

and not expanding the scope of the 

renovation work. 

EPA recognizes that imposing a 

clearance requirement would be a 

departure from the balance struck in the 

RRP rule with respect to the distinction 

between abatement and renovations. 

Accordingly, in EPA’s judgment, the 

Agency should be in a position to 

conclude with a fair amount of certainty 

that doing so was necessary in light of 

its obligation to promulgate work 

practices that take into account 

reliability, effectiveness, and safety. 

Here, EPA acknowledges that it does not 

have data to support its concern that 

dust created by destructive demolition 

of plaster may be similar in nature to 

dust generated by machines designed to 

remove paint through high speed 

operation, and thus would have the 

potential to overwhelm the RRP 

cleaning protocol. EPA also recognizes 

that the data on the efficiency of HEPA 

is only suggestive that there might be an 

issue concerning these practices. Again, 

the studies EPA reviewed suggested that 

HEPA exhaust control could reduce the 

airborne dust levels by 90–95%. As 

commenters pointed out, it is not clear 

the results of these studies are 

applicable to the home renovation 

setting, given the differences between 

the surfaces and paints in residential 

settings and the surfaces and paints 

involved in the studies. Even if the 

results were applicable, there is no 

direct evidence that the RRP lead safe 

work practices could not reliably 

address the dust hazards created by the 

use of such power tools. Having 

received no additional information in 

this regard, EPA has determined that, 

among other things, the available 

information does not support a 

clearance requirement. Nevertheless, as 

discussed further in Unit II.C.7. of this 

preamble, EPA is adding a requirement 

that power tools be operated so that no 

visible dust or release of air occurs 

outside of the shroud or containment 

system. This requirement will work to 

mitigate the concerns EPA had with 

respect to the efficiency of power tool 

dust collection systems and the 

possibility that such tools might 

overwhelm the containment and 

specialized cleaning protocols of the 

RRP work practices. 

In an effort to ensure that the 

proposed clearance requirement would 

not typically result in holding 

renovation firms responsible for abating 

pre-existing dust-lead hazards, EPA 

included a provision to allow firms to 

stop the clearance procedure after two 

failed clearance tests on a particular 

surface unless they had also contracted 

to refinish the surface. Upon further 

reflection, EPA is concerned about the 

potential ineffectiveness of this effort, 

because it would likely still result in 

some renovation firms having to clean 

up pre-existing dust-lead hazards. At 

the same time, the proposed provision 

would not result in the certainty 

regarding elimination of dust-lead 

hazards that is the defining 

characteristic of a clearance 

requirement. In addition, the practical 

effect of such a provision is that the 

proposed clearance requirement would, 

in fact, often result in a dust wipe 

testing requirement. As such, it raises 

many of the same issues and concerns 

that ultimately persuaded EPA not to 

promulgate just dust wipe testing 

requirements. 

Furthermore, as stated above, EPA 

does not believe the record before it 

strongly supports the line-drawing in its 

2010 proposal, which would have 

resulted in a clearance requirement for 

some renovations, a dust wipe testing 

requirement for others, and no testing 

for the rest of the renovations covered 

by the RRP rule. 

In revising the abatement regulations 

to apply to renovations, EPA has sought 

to keep the renovation requirements 

relatively simple and easy to apply, 

while attaining the overall objective of 

minimizing exposure to dust-lead 

hazards generated by renovation 

activities. EPA is concerned that the 

proposed three-tier system would add a 

level of complexity to the rule that is 

undesirable. While EPA could 

potentially draw different lines in this 

final rule, or promulgate a requirement 

that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does 

not believe it has a strong basis to do so. 

The combination of these factors has 

convinced EPA that imposing a 

clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

The best evidence that EPA has of the 

effectiveness of the work practice 

standards is the Dust Study, and it 

demonstrates that overall the full suite 

of RRP work practices is effective at 

minimizing exposure to dust-lead 

hazards created by renovations. Without 

more, EPA is unable to conclude that 

the RRP work practice promulgated in 

2008 should be significantly altered. 

Additionally, a variety of 

commenters, including industry 

representatives and some states, 

suggested that EPA had issued its 2010 

proposal to require dust wipe testing 

and clearance too soon after 

promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule. At 

the time that the 2010 proposal was 

issued, full implementation of the 2008 

RRP rule had only just begun. 

Commenters contended that renovation 

firms were still in the process of 

working through how to achieve 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47923 

compliance with the rule on a daily 

basis and that EPA should wait to add 

new requirements until firms were 

generally comfortable with the 

requirements promulgated in 2008. 

Commenters also argued that EPA 

should not make a determination that 

additional requirements are needed 

without first carefully assessing the 

status and impact of the existing RRP 

rule when fully implemented. EPA 

agrees with the general principle 

expressed by these commenters—that it 

is premature to impose significant 

additional work practice requirements 

for renovations already covered by the 

RRP rule, particularly given the 

information before the Agency. EPA also 

agrees that many renovation firms are 

still determining what the RRP rule 

requires from them on renovation 

projects. EPA also acknowledges that 

there are practical implementation 

issues with promulgating a significant 

change so soon after thousands of 

renovators have become certified 

renovators, and have taken the required 

training, which did not include 

information on the proposed dust wipe 

testing or clearance requirements. 

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

concentrate on RRP education and 

outreach at this time, rather than on 

additional requirements. EPA agrees 

that outreach and education on lead 

poisoning in general, and the link 

between renovations and increased 

blood lead levels in particular, 

continues to be important. As part of the 

RRP program’s Lead-Safe Certified 

media campaign, EPA developed and 

made available to the public outreach 

materials aimed at both contractors and 

consumers. The materials include a 

Public Service Advertising (PSA) 

advertisement aimed at contractors, 

banners for Web sites, sample articles 

for magazines, newsletters or other 

publications to help inform contractors 

about the rule, post cards and buck slips 

to stuff into mailers, as well as an 

informational brochure about the rule 

for building managers. EPA has also 

developed fact sheets about the RRP 

rule that hardware or paint supply 

stores can hand out to their customers 

to inform them of the regulatory 

requirements. All of this information is 

available to the public on EPA’s Web 

site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscppress-materials.htm. 

The Agency has also developed 

outreach materials for consumers in 

order to build demand for lead-safe 

certified firms among the public. The 

consumer outreach materials include 

consumer print advertisements, PSA 

radio advertisements in English and 

Spanish, and a fact sheet about the RRP 

rule that contractors can provide to 

consumers to inform them about the 

advantages of hiring lead-safe 

renovation firms. The consumer 

outreach materials are also 

downloadable from EPA’s Web site at 

http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscpconsumers.htm. 

Finally, in an effort to raise awareness 

of the consequences of lead poisoning 

among parents and pregnant women 

who live in homes built before 1978, the 

Coalition to End Childhood Lead 

Poisoning, EPA and HUD joined the Ad 

Council in April 2010 to launch a 

national multimedia PSA campaign. As 

stated in the PSA campaign press 

release, the most common pathways for 

lead poisoning are deteriorating leadbased paint (on older windows, doors 

and trim, or walls) or improperlyperformed renovation, repair and 

painting activities that cause paint to 

chip, peel, or flake. 

EPA will continue to evaluate and 

consider additional outreach and 

educational opportunities to improve 

property owner and occupant 

understanding of dust-lead hazards 

created by renovations. EPA also will 

continue to monitor implementation of 

the RRP rule. If future information, 

studies, or data indicate that the existing 

RRP rule work practices are not reliable, 

safe, and effective, EPA will consider 

whether additional requirements should 

be proposed. 

2. Elimination of provision allowing 

clearance in lieu of cleaning 

verification. In the 2010 proposal, EPA 

proposed to eliminate the existing 

provision that allows renovation firms 

to skip the cleaning verification part of 

the mandatory cleaning protocol if 

another Federal, State, or local law or 

regulation, or the contract between the 

renovation firm and the property owner 

requires the renovation firm to use 

qualified entities to perform dust wipe 

testing and requires the renovation firm 

to achieve clearance. The rationale for 

eliminating this provision was based on 

the fact that, as discussed in the 

preamble to the 2010 proposal and the 

preamble to the 2008 RRP final rule, 

cleaning verification is an integral part 

of the whole suite of RRP work 

practices. The Dust Study demonstrates 

that these practices, when observed as a 

whole, are effective at minimizing 

exposure to dust-lead hazards generated 

by renovations. 

EPA received only a handful of 

comments on this aspect of the 2010 

proposal. Commenters thought that 

removing this provision from the RRP 

rule would make the rule inconsistent 

with the HUD regulations or State or 

local laws. Some believed that requiring 

both cleaning verification and clearance 

was unnecessarily burdensome, and 

pointed out that persons trained in leadsafe work practices had been achieving 

clearance without cleaning verification 

for a number of years now. While EPA 

does not agree with all of these 

assertions, EPA does agree that it is 

unnecessary to require renovation firms 

who must achieve clearance to follow 

the specific cleaning verification 

protocol. After all, these firms must 

continue to clean until they achieve the 

clearance standards. As discussed in the 

preamble to the 2010 Proposal, and 

mentioned by some commenters 

specifically in reference to this 

provision, contractors who receive the 

regular feedback provided by a 

clearance requirement have learned how 

to clean so that they typically achieve 

clearance on the first attempt. 

Specifically, in its Evaluation of the 

HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control 

Grant Program (Ref. 10), HUD noted that 

the rate of passing initial clearance was 

associated with repetition of lead hazard 

control activities. Therefore, EPA is 

retaining the provision that allows the 

cleaning verification step to be skipped 

if the renovation firm must also achieve 

clearance. However, EPA believes that 

renovation firms whose projects are 

subject to clearance only as a result of 

contractual requirements are less likely 

to gain the repetitive experience of 

cleaning sufficiently so as to meet 

clearance with few cleaning cycles, so 

EPA encourages property owners who 

include clearance in their renovation 

contracts to also require renovation 

firms to perform cleaning verification. 

EPA also notes that States and Tribes 

are free to include both clearance and 

cleaning verification in their laws and 

regulations. 

3. Paint chip sample collection. In 

May 2010, EPA proposed to give 

certified renovators another option for 

determining whether lead-based paint is 

present on components to be affected by 

a renovation. This option would allow 

certified renovators to collect paint chip 

samples from components to be affected 

by a renovation instead of using test kits 

to test the paint on the components. The 

samples would be required to be sent to 

an entity recognized under the NLLAP 

for analysis. In issuing this 2010 

proposal, EPA reasoned that it would be 

easy to teach certified renovators to 

collect paint chip samples in the 

renovator course and this would 

provide maximum flexibility for 

certified renovators and renovation 

firms. 

EPA received a number of comments 

on this part of its 2010 proposal. Some 

commenters supported this option 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

because they felt that it is easy to 

properly collect a paint chip sample, 

and they agreed that this would provide 

additional needed flexibility for 

certified renovators and renovation 

firms. One commenter stated that, as a 

homeowner, he had been instructed by 

an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone 

on how to properly collect a paint chip 

sample and forward it to the laboratory 

for analysis. This experience led him to 

believe that it would be feasible to 

include in the renovator course 

instruction on how to collect a paint 

chip sample and forward it for analysis. 

Other commenters did not support this 

aspect of the 2010 proposal because 

they believe that only certified 

inspectors or risk assessors should be 

permitted to collect paint chip samples 

or make determinations about the 

presence or absence of lead-based paint. 

Several noted that this would conflict 

with State laws that prohibit anyone 

other than a certified inspector or risk 

assessor from sampling for lead-based 

paint. Some commenters expressed 

concern about the length of the 

renovator course, and the ability to add 

the additional information on paint chip 

collection, including information on 

chain-of-custody issues and laboratory 

submission procedures, without 

lengthening the course beyond 8 hours. 

Others noted that renovators are already 

being taught many of the necessary 

skills during instruction on how to 

properly use test kits. 

Because renovator training courses are 

already required to include training in 

how and where to use test kits, and the 

associated recordkeeping requirements, 

EPA agrees with those commenters who 

believed that it would take very little 

additional time to also provide 

renovators with specific training in how 

to collect a chip sample and submit it 

for analysis. The selection of locations 

to test and the recordkeeping 

requirements would be identical 

whether test kits or paint chip sampling 

is used, except that the laboratory report 

would also have to be maintained along 

with the records associated with the 

renovation. EPA also agrees with those 

commenters who thought that this 

option would provide additional 

important flexibility. EPA is 

promulgating the proposed option 

allowing certified renovators to collect 

paint chip samples from painted 

components that will be disturbed by a 

renovation and submit those samples to 

an NLLAP-recognized entity for 

analysis. EPA will modify the model 

certified renovator training course to 

add the necessary information on 

sample collection, chain-of-custody, and 

laboratory submission procedures. One 

commenter wondered how renovators 

who have already taken the training to 

become certified would learn about this 

option and how to use it. EPA will post 

the information developed for the 

renovator training course on its Web 

site. EPA will also e-mail this 

information to certified renovation firms 

that provided an e-mail address on their 

certification applications. As pointed 

out by several commenters, paint chip 

sample collection, by itself, is a 

relatively simple thing to learn and EPA 

believes that certified renovators who 

have already been trained in how to 

properly use a test kit will be able to 

learn how to properly collect a paint 

chip sample and submit it to an NLLAPrecognized entity from the material EPA 

posts on its Web site. 

At least one commenter pointed out 

that EPA would also have to modify the 

recordkeeping requirements to 

accommodate this option and include 

information specific to paint chip 

sample collection, such as component 

and location tested, identity of the 

NLLAP entity analyzing the samples, 

and the sample results. Accordingly, 

EPA is modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(1) to 

add a new subparagraph (iii) that 

requires records pertaining to paint chip 

sample collection and analysis, 

including a description of the 

components that were sampled, and the 

locations sampled, the name and 

address of the NLLAP-recognized entity 

performing the analysis, and the results 

for each sample. EPA is also modifying 

40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a 

certification by the certified renovator 

that, if paint chip samples were 

collected, that the samples were 

collected from the components in the 

locations specified, that the samples 

were submitted for analysis to the 

identified NLLAP-recognized entity, 

and that the sample results were as 

specified. 

This option does not make certified 

renovator the equivalent of a certified 

lead-based paint inspector. Certified 

renovators must still test each affected 

component, they are not permitted to 

exclude components based on similar 

painting histories or perform random 

paint sampling in multi-unit buildings. 

Just as with the current provisions for 

test kit use, in those states that do not 

permit persons other than certified 

inspectors or risk assessors to sample or 

test for lead-based paint, certified 

renovators will not be able to exercise 

this option. 

4. Training provider accreditation. In 

May 2010, EPA proposed a number of 

minor changes to the training provider 

accreditation provisions. EPA received 

very little public comment on these 

proposed amendments, and EPA is 

promulgating these amendments as 

proposed. 

a. Documentation of personnel 

qualifications. The first of these minor 

amendments involves submission of 

documentation of training program 

manager and principal instructor 

qualifications along with training 

provider applications for accreditation. 

Training providers who wish to provide 

renovator, dust sampling technician, or 

lead-based paint activities training for 

Federal certification purposes must 

apply for and receive accreditation from 

EPA. To become accredited, a provider 

must employ a training program 

manager as well as principal 

instructor(s) who meet certain 

education, training and work experience 

requirements. The training provider 

must indicate on its application for 

accreditation that the training program 

manager and principal instructor(s) 

meet these requirements; however, the 

2008 RRP rule did not require 

documentation (e.g., resumes) regarding 

the qualifications of these individuals to 

be submitted to EPA. The Agency 

believes it is important to review this 

information when determining whether 

to approve a training provider 

application. When EPA reviews 

applications for accreditation, it is 

common for the Agency to request this 

documentation from training providers 

in order to verify that the training 

program manager and principal 

instructor(s) have the proper 

qualifications. Requesting this 

information takes time and can delay 

the review of an application. Therefore, 

the Agency will now require training 

providers to submit documentation 

regarding the qualifications of the 

education, training and work experience 

of training managers and principal 

instructors with their applications for 

accreditation. Only one commenter 

commented on this provision, 

expressing general support for the 

change. 

b. Submission of training course 

materials. EPA is also promulgating 

other proposed changes to the required 

materials that must be submitted along 

with an accreditation application. EPA 

received only one comment expressing 

general support for this proposed 

change. Specifically, to become 

accredited, a training provider must 

submit a copy of its training course 

materials with its application for 

accreditation for review by the Agency. 

If a training provider chooses to use the 

model course developed by EPA or a 

course approved by an authorized State 

or Indian Tribe, then the provider is not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47925 

currently required to submit the course 

materials with its application. Instead, 

the training provider indicates on its 

application that it will use the EPA 

model course or a course approved by 

an authorized State or Indian Tribe. 

Authorized States and Indian Tribes can 

have renovation or abatement programs 

that are significantly different from the 

EPA-administered program which 

would be reflected in their approved 

course materials. In these instances, a 

training course approved by the State or 

Indian Tribe may not be sufficient for 

the purposes of training someone on the 

requirements of the Federal program. 

Accordingly, the Agency proposed to 

require training providers who apply to 

EPA for accreditation and wish to use a 

course approved by an authorized State 

or Indian Tribe to submit the course 

materials for EPA review. EPA reasoned 

that this will give the Agency the 

opportunity to identify and address any 

significant differences between the 

requirements of EPA and the authorized 

program that may appear in the course 

so the Agency can ensure that EPAaccredited training providers are using 

appropriate course materials. 

EPA is promulgating this provision as 

proposed. This provision only applies to 

those training providers who wish to 

use a training course approved by an 

authorized State or Indian Tribe that is 

different from the EPA model training 

course. Training providers wishing to 

use the EPA model courses need not 

submit those materials with their 

applications. 

c. Role of principal instructor. EPA is 

promulgating a proposed minor 

amendment involving a clarification of 

the role of principal instructors in 

teaching courses. The regulation, at 40 

CFR 745.225(c)(3), states that principal 

instructors are responsible for the 

organization of their courses and 

oversight of the teaching of all course 

material. The regulations also define 

‘‘principal instructor’’ as ‘‘the 

individual who has the primary 

responsibility for organizing and 

teaching a particular course.’’ 

Nonetheless, the rule also allows 

training program managers to designate 

experts in a particular field (e.g., doctors 

or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as 

needed basis, to teach discrete portions 

of the course. EPA interprets these 

provisions to require a principal 

instructor to be present and primarily 

responsible for teaching the course, 

although guest instructors may be used 

to teach some portion(s) of the course. 

Principal instructors are also 

responsible for the quality of the 

instruction delivered by the guest 

instructors. To ensure that the 

regulation is clear on this point, EPA 

proposed to amend 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(3) to state that principal 

instructor(s) are primarily responsible 

for teaching the course materials and 

must be present to provide instruction 

(or oversight of portions of the course 

taught by guest instructors) for the 

course for which he has been designated 

the principal instructor. EPA received 

two comments on this provision, both 

supported the change, and one 

specifically stated a belief that having 

principal instructors present while guest 

lecturers teach would improve the 

content of many courses. EPA agrees 

with these commenters and EPA is 

promulgating this provision as 

proposed. 

d. Application amendments. EPA is 

promulgating as proposed another 

minor amendment involving a specific 

provision requiring training providers to 

amend their accreditation application 

whenever there is a change to the 

information presented in their most 

recent accreditation or re-accreditation 

application. The RRP rule includes 

requirements for amending the 

certification of a renovation firm. Firms 

must submit an amendment within 90 

days of the date that a change occurs to 

information in its most recent 

application for certification or recertification. Examples of amendments 

include a change in the firm’s name 

without transfer of ownership, or a 

change of address or other contact 

information. To amend its certification, 

a firm must submit an application, 

noting on the form that it was submitted 

as an amendment. The firm must 

complete the sections of the application 

pertaining to the new information, and 

sign and date the form. EPA has 

interpreted the training provider 

accreditation regulations to require 

accredited training providers to submit 

amended applications whenever there is 

a change to the information provided in 

the training provider’s most recent 

application for accreditation or reaccreditation, including information 

regarding the training manager and any 

principal instructor(s) teaching courses 

offered by the training provider. 

However, the existing regulations do not 

specify a time limit for submitting an 

amendment, so EPA proposed to require 

training providers to submit 

amendments within 90 days of the date 

a change occurs to information in each 

provider’s most recent application. As 

proposed, if the training provider does 

not amend its most recent accreditation 

application within the 90-day time 

period, it must stop providing training 

until the accreditation application is 

amended. EPA also proposed to approve 

or disapprove amendments for a new 

training manager, any new or additional 

principal instructors, or any new 

permanent training location within 30 

days of the date EPA receives the 

amendment. This 30-day time period 

will give EPA time to check the 

qualifications of the training manager(s) 

or principal instructor(s) before the 

training manager begins managing or the 

principal instructor begins teaching a 

course. This 30-day time period also 

gives EPA time to verify the suitability 

of a new permanent training location by 

visiting the location. As proposed, the 

training provider would not be 

permitted to provide training under the 

new training manager or offer courses 

taught by any new principal 

instructor(s) or at the new training 

location until EPA either approves the 

amendment or 30 days has passed. EPA 

also proposed to clarify that no fee will 

be charged for accreditation application 

or certification amendments. EPA 

received no comments on this proposed 

amendment. 

Because qualified training managers 

and principal instructors are critical to 

ensuring effective training, it is 

important for EPA to have the ability to 

review their qualifications before they 

begin to provide training. If unqualified 

individuals provide training, it could be 

very difficult to determine whether the 

trainees received adequate training and 

resolve any concerns over the quality of 

the training. Requiring retraining would 

not only inconvenience the training 

provider, it would also be burdensome 

for the trainees themselves. Therefore, 

EPA is promulgating the 30-day review 

period for new training managers and 

principal instructors as proposed, with 

several modifications. The first relates 

to the calculation of the 30-day review 

period. EPA is clarifying that the 30-day 

period begins upon submission of a 

complete application for amendment. 

Thus, if the amendment involves a new 

training manager or principal instructor, 

the training provider must fill out the 

section of the application that identifies 

the training provider and the sections 

that pertain to the new training manager 

or principal instructor, sign the 

application, and include the 

individual’s qualifications along with 

the application for amendment. If the 

application does not include these 

items, then the 30-day review period 

would not begin until the missing 

information is submitted. 

In addition, in further reviewing this 

proposed provision, EPA has decided 

that additional flexibility would be 

beneficial for training providers. If the 

training provider wishes to use a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

training manager or principal instructor 

who has already been reviewed by EPA 

as part of a successful application for 

training provider accreditation under 40 

CFR 745.225, whether for that training 

provider or another, the training 

provider may do so on an interim basis 

without delay. The training manager or 

principal instructor must still meet the 

qualifications for the position as 

described in 40 CFR 745.225(c)(1)–(2). 

If, within 30 days of the date that the 

training provider begins using such an 

individual as a new training manager or 

principal instructor, EPA determines 

that the individual should not be used 

in such a capacity, EPA will provide 

written notice to the training provider. 

The training provider must stop 

providing training under the new 

training manager or principal instructor 

upon receipt of written notice from 

EPA. 

With respect to new permanent 

training locations, EPA is also 

concerned that a poor choice of location 

could negatively affect the quality of 

training. For example, if a location is 

chosen that does not have a suitable 

surface for performing cleaning 

verification, trainees would be unable to 

experience actually doing, during the 

hands-on portion of the course, 

something that will be an important part 

of their responsibilities as certified 

renovators. However, EPA believes that 

the choice of training location does not, 

in most cases, have as big of an impact 

on the quality of training as the training 

manager or the principal instructor. 

During the accreditation process for new 

training providers, it has been EPA’s 

practice to review the qualifications for 

each and every training manager and 

principal instructor named on an 

application. In contrast, where a 

training provider has identified multiple 

permanent training locations in its 

application, EPA has chosen to visit a 

sample of locations, rather than each 

and every location. In addition, EPA has 

been approving traveling training 

providers based on the criteria that the 

providers will use to select a training 

location, a demonstration of the handson training, and an examination of the 

equipment the providers plan to use in 

training. Therefore, EPA will allow 

training providers to use new 

permanent training locations on an 

interim basis for 30 days. If, during that 

30 days, EPA determines that the 

location is not adequate, the training 

provider must stop using that location 

upon written notice from EPA. 

e. Hands-on training requirements. 

Another minor amendment involves the 

topics for which hands-on training is 

required in the renovator and dust 

sampling technician courses. The 

regulations at 40 CFR 745.225 includes 

requirements and procedures that 

training programs must follow to 

become accredited in order to provide 

instruction in lead-based paint courses. 

Minimum requirements for training 

curricula are found in this section, 

which lists course topics that must be 

included in the different training 

courses with an indication of the topics 

that require hands-on instruction. 

However, EPA inadvertently omitted 

indicating which course topics required 

hands-on training for the renovator and 

dust sampling technician disciplines. 

Accordingly, EPA proposed to identify 

in 40 CFR 745.225(d) which topics in 

the renovator and dust sampling 

technician courses require hands-on 

training. In further clarification, EPA 

also proposed to add a sentence to 40 

CFR 745.225(e)(2) stating that refresher 

courses for all disciplines except project 

designer must include a hands-on 

component. 

EPA received several comments on 

this aspect of the 2010 proposal. Two 

commenters supported the proposed 

topics for hands-on training for 

renovators and dust sampling 

technicians. Another commenter 

wondered why report preparation 

would be a required hands-on topic for 

dust sampling technicians when it has 

never been a hands-on topic for the 

other disciplines that must prepare 

reports. While it is true that hands-on 

training in report preparation is not 

required for most lead training 

disciplines, it is required for the 

inspector discipline. Thus, certified 

inspectors and certified risk assessors, 

who must successfully complete both 

the inspector course and the risk 

assessor course, receive hands-on 

training in report preparation. EPA 

believes that report preparation for dust 

sampling technicians is likewise 

important enough to warrant hands-on 

training in how to do it properly. 

Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the 

required hands-on training topics as 

proposed. Renovator trainees must 

receive hands-on training in using test 

kits, renovation methods that minimize 

creation of dust and lead-based paint 

hazards, containment and cleanup 

methods, and cleaning verification. Dust 

sampling technician trainees must 

receive hands-on training in dust 

sampling methodologies and report 

preparation. 

EPA received two comments 

specifically on the proposed addition of 

a statement that all refresher training 

courses, with the exception of the 

project designer refresher course, must 

include hands-on training. One 

commenter was an environmental 

advocacy group, the other an industry 

trade association. Neither commenter 

supported this aspect of the 2010 

proposal; they thought that requiring 

hands-on training for renovator 

refresher courses would limit the 

availability of refresher training and 

increase costs unnecessarily. Both 

commenters thought that enough 

information could probably be conveyed 

in a distance learning or e-learning 

setting to warrant dispensing with the 

hands-on requirement for renovator 

courses. The environmental advocacy 

group pointed out that EPA’s current 

model refresher training course for 

renovators contains two required handson skill sets—test kit usage and cleaning 

verification. This commenter felt that 

this was appropriate, given that 

previously-trained individuals are still 

taking advantage of the 

‘‘grandfathering’’ provision that allows 

them to successfully complete an 

accredited renovator refresher course to 

become certified renovators. Those 

individuals would not have had 

previous training in those two skills, so 

hands-on training would be necessary. 

However, once the grandfathering 

provision is no longer available, as 

discussed later in this section of the 

preamble, all certified renovators would 

have had hands-on training in these 

skills. While EPA agrees with this 

commenter that, for now, it is 

particularly important for renovator 

refresher courses to include hands-on 

training in test kit use and in cleaning 

verification, EPA disagrees that handson refresher training is unnecessary. A 

hands-on component for refresher 

courses will help ensure that certified 

renovators remain competent in the 

skills needed to comply with the RRP 

rule, including test kit use, containment, 

and cleaning (including cleaning 

verification). Therefore, EPA is 

finalizing the proposed amendment to 

40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) that specifically 

states that hands-on training is required 

for all refresher courses except project 

designer. EPA plans to re-evaluate the 

renovator refresher course after the 

grandfathering provision sunsets, but 

before the currently-certified renovators 

are due for refresher training. At that 

time, EPA will consider whether handson training is still necessary and 

appropriate for renovator refresher 

training. 

f. E-learning. As stated in the 2010 

proposal, Web-based training and other 

types of alternative training delivery are 

permitted under both the Lead-based 

Paint Activities Regulations and the 

RRP rule. An EPA model on-line 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47927 

renovator course that may be used to 

deliver the classroom portion of the 

renovator course is available. While 

such alternative training delivery 

options cannot be used to deliver 

required hands-on training, EPA 

encourages training providers to make 

use of such options where appropriate 

to increase access to training and make 

it more affordable. Web-based training 

courses are considered separate courses 

and a separate application fee is 

required for each. 

EPA’s model electronic training 

course contains certain basic 

administration and delivery 

requirements. These include assigning a 

unique identifier to each student, to 

allow the training provider to track 

student course progress and completion. 

In addition, there are knowledge checks 

for each chapter, which must be 

completed before the student can go on 

to the next chapter, and a final test for 

the electronic learning portion which 

consists of at least 20 questions. Finally, 

students must be able to save or print 

an uneditable copy of a record showing 

completion of the electronic learning 

portion of the course. In May 2010, EPA 

proposed to incorporate these 

requirements into 40 CFR 745.225 to 

ensure that all training providers 

wishing to use electronic learning for 

the classroom portions of lead-based 

paint courses are aware of these 

requirements and plan their course 

development accordingly. EPA 

requested comment on a variety of 

topics, including the number of 

questions in the course test and the 

score required to pass. 

EPA received several comments on 

this aspect of the 2010 proposal. Some 

commenters were concerned with 

verifying the identity of persons logging 

into e-learning courses. Several noted 

that, because it is impossible to verify 

with certainty the identity of persons 

completing online training, an in-person 

final course test is necessary to ensure 

that the trainee is adequately trained. In 

this final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require 

e-learning training providers to assign a 

unique identifier to each student in 

order to track the student’s progress 

through the course. EPA believes that 

this requirement, along with the existing 

requirement that the trainee participate 

in the hands-on training and take the 

final course test in person, will provide 

reasonable assurance that the same 

person has completed all of the portions 

of the course. In response to these 

commenters, EPA is modifying the 

regulations to specifically state that 

e-learning or other alternative delivery 

methods cannot be used for the handson training, the final course test, or the 

proficiency test, if one is given. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

that the EPA model online course could 

be completed in as little as one hour, 

which could mean that a person could 

become a certified renovator with only 

3 hours of training. EPA disagrees with 

these commenters. The current model 

course posted on the EPA Web site is 

not a functioning course and does not 

contain the background learning 

management system (LMS) which tracks 

the student’s progress and requires 

satisfactory completion of the 

knowledge checks and the final test. 

Therefore, the time it takes to page 

through the model course is not 

representative of the time it would take 

to successfully complete an accredited 

e-learning course. Assuming that 2 

training hours are spent on hands-on 

training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) 

requires a minimum of six 50 minute 

training hours or 5 hours of classroom 

time for renovators. This requirement 

applies equally to traditional classroom 

settings as well as to e-learning courses 

offered for accreditation. While EPA 

realizes that renovator trainees will not 

all proceed through an e-learning course 

at the same pace, an e-learning course 

offered for accreditation must be 

generally designed so that an average 

trainee takes approximately 5 hours to 

proceed through the course, including 

all of the knowledge checks and the 

course test. 

One commenter thought that EPA’s 

proposed requirement of an 80% 

minimum passing score on the course 

test for the online course was too 

restrictive. Another commenter 

disagreed, reasoning that an 80% 

minimum passing score was reasonable 

but that a 100% passing score would be 

too restrictive, because it would likely 

result in students being penalized for 

poorly-worded questions or alternate 

interpretations, regardless of the state of 

the student’s knowledge. This 

commenter thought that it was 

appropriate to have a higher passing 

score requirement for the e-learning 

portion of a training course, because the 

student would have an opportunity to 

review the material and retake the test. 

EPA agrees with the second commenter. 

The 80% minimum passing score is 

intended to demonstrate mastery of the 

subject and lower scores do not achieve 

this goal. If students do not pass the test, 

they must review the material and try 

again. To ensure that, just as in 

conventional testing, students using 

electronic means to take the test do not 

receive feedback on their answers until 

after they complete and submit the test, 

the electronic testing provision at 40 

CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(D) explicitly 

prohibits such interim feedback, a 

feature contained in some Web sites. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

consider separately accrediting entities 

that provide online training and entities 

that provide hands-on training. The 

commenter argued that developing an 

online course is a capital-intensive 

project that requires a large number of 

trainees to recover the costs, so 

relatively few entities are likely to 

undertake online course development. 

In contrast, the commenter stated that 

the delivery of hands-on training must 

be more local and mobile, it requires a 

smaller capital investment, and each 

entity may have relatively few trainees. 

EPA recognizes that this may be the 

case, at least for now, while EPA is 

administering the RRP program in most 

States. However, this may change as 

more States become authorized and 

impose requirements for training that 

may differ from the EPA requirements. 

In any event, as the commenter notes, 

EPA has developed a streamlined 

process to allow accredited training 

providers to add an e-learning 

component to their accreditation by 

using an already developed and 

accredited online course. This allows 

accredited training providers to offer 

online training without having to make 

a large capital outlay to develop a 

course. EPA continues to believe that 

the training provider who issues the 

final course completion certificate to a 

trainee, thus conferring certified 

renovator status on the trainee, must be 

responsible for ensuring that the student 

has completed all of the required 

training. EPA does not offer partial 

accreditations, or accreditation for a 

portion of a course. 

On a related topic, this commenter 

thought that it would be burdensome to 

require the hands-on training provider 

to maintain records of the specific times 

each student logged in to the online 

portion of the course, each student’s 

progress, and completion data. The 

commenter believed that, in the case 

where the online provider and the 

hands-on provider are separate entities, 

working under a contractual agreement 

to present an entire training course, it 

would be relatively easy for the online 

provider to maintain the records. In 

contrast, the commenter thought that it 

would be much more burdensome for 

EPA to require that the hands-on 

provider download or otherwise take 

possession of these records. EPA 

disagrees with this commenter, because 

EPA believes that the amount of data 

associated with this particular 

requirement for each trainee is not 

substantial. However, if a particular 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

accredited training provider felt 

otherwise, the provider could contract 

with the provider of the online training 

to store the records. Although the 

accredited training provider would 

remain ultimately responsible for being 

able to produce those records, as long as 

the training provider is able to produce 

them in response to a request from EPA, 

EPA would consider the training 

provider in compliance with the 

recordkeeping requirements. 

One commenter provided a number of 

specific comments on EPA’s proposed 

requirements for e-learning courses. 

First, the commenter thought that the 

requirement for knowledge checks for 

each module of the course was too 

inflexible, and that it could be difficult 

to determine what a module is for 

purposes of knowledge checks. The 

commenter suggested that EPA instead 

require periodic knowledge checks. EPA 

agrees with this comment and is 

promulgating a requirement for periodic 

knowledge checks equivalent to the 

number and content of the knowledge 

checks contained in EPA’s model 

course. This would be 16–24 knowledge 

checks over the entire course. This 

commenter also thought that the 

requirement that a student be able to 

generate an uneditable copy of an elearning course completion certificate 

too stringent. The commenter pointed 

out that almost anyone reasonably 

familiar with computers could alter a 

secure PDF, image, or word processing 

file through the print function. EPA will 

add language to the proposed provision 

at 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) to clarify 

that EPA merely meant that the 

certificate must not be susceptible to 

easy editing. A secure PDF file would 

comply with these requirements. 

Allowing students to generate and print 

the course completion certificate 

provides them with reasonable certainty 

that they have completed the e-learning 

portion of the course before attempting 

the hands-on portion. EPA recommends 

that accredited training providers verify 

through other means, such as the elearning progress records, that each 

student who completes the hands-on 

training has also completed the online 

portion of the course before training 

providers issue the final course 

completion certificate. 

g. Combined refresher courses. In the 

2010 proposal, EPA requested comment 

on whether training providers should be 

allowed to provide a combined 

Abatement Worker/Renovator refresher 

course or a combined Abatement 

Supervisor/Renovator refresher course 

or both. After the 2008 RRP rule was 

promulgated, EPA received input from 

the regulated community and others 

indicating that many abatement 

contractors are likely to also become 

certified renovation firms. If this is the 

case, it would be advantageous for such 

firms to be able to send their employees 

to combined refreshers so that the 

employees would more readily be able 

to keep up their dual certifications. EPA 

requested comment on the likelihood 

that this will be the case, and, if 

combined refreshers are desirable, 

whether the different certification time 

periods for individual abatement 

certification (3 years) and individual 

renovator certification (5 years) should 

be harmonized and, if so, how. EPA 

received two comments on this topic; 

both commenters supported the idea of 

combined refresher courses and thought 

they would provide increased flexibility 

for industry. One commenter thought 

that the certification time periods 

should be harmonized to 3 years for all 

disciplines because the commenter 

believed that 5 years was too long to go 

without a refresher. The other 

commenter did not think that 

harmonization was necessary, because 

the abatement worker or supervisor 

would just take the combined refresher 

every 3 years to meet the shorter 

certification periods in the Lead-based 

Paint Activities Rule. EPA agrees with 

these commenters that combined 

refresher courses may be beneficial. 

While the current regulations permit 

training providers to offer refresher 

courses sequentially, e.g., a 4-hour 

renovator course on the afternoon of one 

day, followed by an 8-hour worker 

course the next day, taking the courses 

sequentially would result in some 

duplication of training topics for 

persons certified as both renovators and 

abatement workers. On the other hand, 

EPA is not certain that appropriate 

refresher topics for both disciplines 

could be covered in a single 8-hour day. 

EPA plans to evaluate the content of its 

supervisor, worker, and renovator 

refresher courses to determine what an 

appropriate combined course length 

might be. Depending on the results of 

this evaluation, EPA will consider 

amending these regulations to establish 

course length requirements for 

combined refresher courses. 

h. Recordkeeping. Another 

amendment proposed in May 2010 

involves recordkeeping requirements for 

training providers. Previously, training 

providers were required to keep training 

records for 3 years and 6 months. This 

length of time was chosen because of 

the length of individual certification 

periods for lead-based paint activities, 

which can be as long as 3 years and 6 

months including interim certification. 

However, the renovator and dust 

sampling technician certification 

periods are 5 years, with no interim 

certification. Therefore, in order to 

ensure that the training records from the 

previous training course are available 

for certified renovators and dust 

sampling technicians taking refresher 

courses, EPA proposed to increase the 

recordkeeping period applicable to 

these disciplines to 5 years. EPA 

received two comments on this aspect of 

the 2010 proposal, both commenters 

thought that the recordkeeping 

requirements for all disciplines should 

be increased to 5 years. These 

commenters thought it would be less 

confusing for training providers if there 

was one period applicable to all. One 

commenter pointed out that EPA had 

extended the certification period for 

renovators trained before April 22, 2010 

to July 1, 2015, so the training records 

for those trainees ought to be kept for as 

long as their certification lasts. This 

commenter suggested that EPA require 

training records to be kept for 5 years or 

until the expiration of certification 

resulting from the training, whichever is 

longer. While EPA agrees that it may be 

easier for training providers to keep 

records for the same length of time 

regardless of the discipline, EPA does 

not believe that it is necessary to make 

this a requirement. Training providers 

who prefer to have one single 

recordkeeping process can always 

choose to maintain their records for 

5 years across the board. Therefore, EPA 

is promulgating the increased 

recordkeeping requirement for providers 

of accredited renovator and dust 

sampling technician training as 

proposed. EPA also agrees with the 

commenter who suggested that there be 

a longer recordkeeping requirement for 

renovator training courses offered before 

April 22, 2010. Accordingly, EPA is also 

promulgating a requirement that records 

for renovator training courses completed 

before April 22, 2010 must be kept until 

July 1, 2015. 

i. Trainee photographs. EPA also 

proposed certain minimum standards 

for the trainee photographs that must 

appear on renovator and dust sampling 

technician course completion 

certificates. Accredited training 

programs are required to issue a course 

completion certificate for each person 

who passes a training course. A variety 

of information is required to be on the 

certificate including the name of the 

course, the name and address of the 

student, and contact information for the 

training program. Course certificates for 

renovators or dust sampling technicians 

must include a photograph of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47929 

student, but the regulation does not 

include size requirements or other 

specifications for the photograph. Since 

publishing the 2008 RRP rule, the 

Agency has been asked if there is a 

minimum size for the photograph. EPA 

believes that it would be beneficial to 

have minimum standards for the 

photograph in order to ensure that the 

person in the photograph is 

recognizable. EPA proposed to require 

that the photographs on course 

completion certificates be an accurate 

and recognizable image of the trainee 

and at least one square inch in size. EPA 

also requested comments on whether 

the image quality requirements should 

be more specific, e.g., more quantitative. 

EPA received several comments on this 

provision. Commenters generally 

supported the proposed requirements, 

but did not favor additional 

requirements, such as quantitative 

requirements for image quality, as they 

were concerned about the burden 

associated with such additional 

requirements. EPA agrees with these 

commenters that the proposed 

requirements are sufficient. Therefore, 

EPA is promulgating the image quality 

requirements as proposed. 

j. Clarifying changes to 40 CFR 

745.225. Finally, as stated previously, 

40 CFR 745.225 includes requirements 

and procedures that training programs 

must follow to become accredited in 

order to provide instruction in 

renovator, dust sampling technician, 

and lead-based paint activities courses. 

The final 2008 RRP rule amended 

§ 745.225 to cover persons who provide 

or wish to provide renovator or dust 

sampling technician training for the 

purposes of the RRP rule. There are 

some instances where the regulations do 

not specifically mention the renovator 

or dust sampling technician courses 

even though the regulations apply to 

those courses. For example, 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(14) explains the 

requirements which a training provider 

must follow when submitting 

notification to EPA after the completion 

of a training. However, the conforming 

changes, i.e., to replace ‘‘lead-based 

paint activities courses’’ with 

‘‘renovator, dust sampling technician, 

and lead-based paint activities courses,’’ 

were not made to every subparagraph 

even though all the requirements of that 

section apply to those courses. 

Consequently, EPA proposed to clarify 

that the requirements in 40 CFR 745.225 

apply to renovator and dust sampling 

technician courses in addition to leadbased paint activities courses. EPA 

received one comment offering general 

support for these proposed revisions. 

EPA is promulgating these revisions as 

proposed. 

5. State and Tribal program 

authorization. Under the RRP rule, 

interested States, Territories, and Indian 

Tribes may apply for, and receive 

authorization to administer and enforce 

all of the elements of the RRP program. 

In May 2010, EPA proposed several 

changes to the State and Tribal program 

authorization regulations. The first was 

a clarification that State and Tribal 

programs do not need to include 

requirements for the accreditation of 

dust sampling technicians if they 

require dust sampling to be performed 

only by a certified inspector or risk 

assessor. EPA received only one 

comment relating to this proposed 

revision, and that commenter thought 

that EPA should require States and 

Tribes to allow dust sampling 

technicians to collect samples. 

However, EPA does not have the 

authority to prohibit States and Tribes 

from having a more stringent program 

than the EPA’s, e.g., requiring more 

training for persons collecting dust wipe 

samples than EPA requires. It would not 

make sense for EPA to require States 

and Tribes to establish the dust 

sampling technician discipline if those 

trainees would not be allowed to 

perform any duties under State or Tribal 

law. Therefore, EPA is promulgating 

this change to the text of the regulation 

as proposed. 

Along these same lines, EPA proposed 

to add a provision requiring State or 

Tribal programs to have procedures and 

requirements for on-the-job training of 

renovation workers who do not receive 

accredited training. EPA neglected to 

include such a provision in the 2008 

RRP Rule. As with the dust sampling 

technician discipline, State and Tribal 

programs are only required to have 

these provisions if they permit on-thejob training for renovation workers. If, 

for example, a State or Tribal program 

only allows certified renovators to 

perform renovation activities within a 

regulated renovation work area, then no 

provisions for on-the-job training would 

be required for that State or Tribal 

program. EPA received one comment 

generally supporting this change. EPA is 

promulgating this revision as proposed. 

EPA also proposed to amend the State 

and Tribal program requirements to 

clarify that both individuals and firms 

must receive certification. Only one 

comment was received on this topic, 

pointing out that EPA’s proposed 

regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) 

did not accomplish that objective. EPA 

agrees with this commenter, and has 

revised the regulatory text throughout 

this section accordingly to ensure that 

EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA 

requires both renovators and renovation 

firms to be certified. A renovator 

becomes certified by successfully 

completing an accredited renovator 

training class. A renovation firm 

becomes certified by submitting an 

application to EPA, attesting that it and 

its employees will follow the work 

practice standards at 40 CFR 745.85 for 

conducting renovations, and paying a 

certification fee. EPA believes that, in 

order for a State or Tribal program to be 

at least as protective as EPA’s program, 

the State or Tribal program must, at a 

minimum, require formal certification 

for renovation firms. States and Tribes 

may, but are not required to, formally 

certify renovators. The certified 

renovation firm is responsible not only 

for the behavior of its certified 

renovators but also for the other workers 

that have been trained by the certified 

renovators. Thus, the renovation firm is 

ultimately responsible for the proper 

performance of the renovation. 

Requiring formal certification for 

renovation firms facilitates compliance 

monitoring and enforcement for EPA as 

well as for State and Tribal programs. A 

program that only required formal 

certification for individual renovators 

and not firms would not be as 

protective. 

In addition, as pointed out by several 

State commenters, EPA inadvertently 

included the wrong provisions in the 

proposed regulatory text for revising 

authorized State and Tribal programs to 

conform to revisions to the 2008 RRP 

rule. The existing provisions at 40 CFR 

745.326(f) give authorized State and 

Tribal programs 2 years from the 

effective date of any EPA revisions to 

the 2008 RRP rule to demonstrate that 

the State or Tribal program meets the 

requirements of the revised 2008 RRP 

rule. This 2 year period is also afforded 

to States and Tribes that submit 

applications for authorization before the 

effective date of any EPA revisions. EPA 

did not intend to make any changes to 

this provision and States and Tribes still 

have 2 years to make changes to their 

programs necessitated by revisions to 

the Federal RRP program. 

Finally, EPA proposed to require that, 

in order to be authorized for any of the 

lead-based paint programs, State or 

Tribal programs demonstrate that: (1) 

The State or Tribe is able to sue to 

obtain penalties, (2) civil and criminal 

penalties of at least $10,000 are 

assessable for each instance of violation, 

(3) if violations are continuous, the 

penalties are assessable up to the 

maximum amount for each day of 

violation, and (4) the burden of proof 

and degree of knowledge or intent of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

respondent is no greater than it is for 

EPA under TSCA. EPA also requested 

comment on what criteria States or 

Tribes should consider in assessing 

penalties and whether the $10,000 

minimum penalty authority level 

should be periodically adjusted for 

inflation. As discussed in the preamble 

to the proposed rule, in choosing the 

proposed minimum penalty authority of 

$10,000 per violation per day, EPA 

looked to other programs that States and 

Tribes may be authorized to administer. 

Some of these programs have minimum 

penalty authority requirements for State 

and Tribal programs and some do not. 

For example, under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 70.11(a)(3) and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

271.16(a)(3), State programs must have 

the authority to assess civil and criminal 

fines of at least $10,000 per day per 

violation. Other programs have 

established lower minimum penalty 

authority requirements. The 

implementing regulations for the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require 

State programs to have the authority to 

impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per 

day per violation on public water 

systems serving a population of more 

than 10,000 individuals. Some EPA 

programs have set no minimum penalty 

authority requirements for States and 

Tribes; these programs include the 

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response 

Act program and the State pesticide 

applicator certification program under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. 

EPA received a number of comments 

on this provision. Six State commenters 

opposed the proposed provisions. 

Several argued that their legislatures 

had already created the authority to 

establish an RRP program, but the 

maximum penalty amount was less than 

$10,000. Five States described their 

existing penalty authorities—one 

already has a minimum penalty 

authority of $10,000, one has $5,000, 

and the other three have $1,000. These 

States did not believe that they would 

be able to increase the maximum 

penalty authority, because it was 

comparable to other programs 

administered by the State, or that it 

would take several years to get an 

increase through the legislature, during 

which time EPA would have to 

administer the program in their 

jurisdictions. At least two alreadyauthorized State RRP programs pointed 

out that they had been authorized with 

maximum penalty authorities of less 

than $10,000. One State noted that it 

could assess penalties of up to $750 or 

$1,000 under its EPA-authorized RRP 

program, the other’s maximum RRP 

penalty authority ranged from $1,00 to 

$1,000. One of these States also noted 

that it had been effectively enforcing the 

Lead-based Paint Activities Program and 

the Pre-Renovation Education Program 

for years now, and the State did not 

believe that an increase in its maximum 

penalty authority would improve the 

effectiveness of its programs in any way. 

Another State commented that it has 

penalty authority of $10,000, but that 

limit is for each enforcement case, not 

per violation per day. Some of the State 

commenters also noted that most 

enforcement actions in an RRP program 

would be against very small companies 

or individuals, and penalties of less 

than $10,000 per violation per day 

would still be very effective deterrents 

for such entities. 

Two environmental advocacy groups 

supported EPA’s proposed minimum 

penalty authority of $10,000, arguing 

that substantial penalties are necessary 

to get the attention of the regulated 

community and meaningful 

enforcement is critical to the rule’s 

success at protecting individuals from 

exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 

EPA agrees with these commenters on 

the importance of an effective 

enforcement program. Strong 

enforcement of the lead-based paint 

regulations by authorized State and 

Tribal programs is critical to ensuring 

the safety of the occupants of target 

housing and child occupied facilities 

undergoing lead abatement, renovation, 

repair or painting. However, EPA also 

agrees with those States that argued that 

most of the enforcement actions in 

authorized lead-based paint programs 

would be against very small entities. 

Although small entities also violate the 

CAA and RCRA, it is likely that the 

regulated community in the lead-based 

paint programs consists of smaller 

entities than the other programs for 

which EPA has established minimum 

penalty authorities. Therefore, EPA is 

establishing a minimum penalty 

authority for State and Tribal programs 

of $5,000. Because it is especially 

important to deter multiple violations 

and continuing violations, this final rule 

retains the ‘‘per violation, per day’’ 

requirement. 

In response to the related requests for 

comment, State commenters did not 

favor adding a mechanism for adjusting 

these minimum penalty authorities for 

inflation. One environmental advocacy 

group supported the idea, but thought 

that it should not be a barrier to State 

and Tribal program authorization. EPA 

agrees with these commenters and no 

mechanism for adjusting these 

minimums for inflation is included in 

this final rule. 

Commenters suggested a number of 

factors that should be considered by 

States and Tribes when imposing 

penalties for violations of their 

authorized programs. Several favored 

enforcement history and risk, but not to 

the extent of treating first-time offenders 

too lightly. A handful of commenters 

argued that size of business, and ability 

to stay in business should not be 

considered, because small companies 

can cause as much harm as large 

companies. EPA believes that States and 

Tribes may legitimately consider any of 

the factors that EPA typically considers, 

such as nature, circumstances, and 

extent of the violation, the culpability of 

the violator, history of prior violations, 

ability to pay or continue in business, 

voluntary disclosure, and attitude of the 

violator. However, EPA will not require 

States and Tribes to consider any of 

these factors. 

Finally, EPA received no comments 

on the proposed addition of an explicit 

requirement that States and Tribes have 

the ability to sue violators to collect 

penalties and that the burden of proof 

for enforcement be no more rigorous 

than the EPA standard under TSCA. 

EPA believes that these two elements 

are important elements of an effective 

enforcement program. Therefore, EPA is 

promulgating these additional 

requirements as proposed. 

6. Vertical containment. EPA’s 2010 

proposal included more specific 

language on vertical containment 

requirements for exterior projects. As 

proposed, the rule would specifically 

state that vertical containment is 

required for exterior renovation projects 

that are covered by the rule and that 

affect painted surfaces within 10 feet of 

the property line. In such cases, vertical 

containment is necessary to ensure that 

adjacent buildings or properties are not 

contaminated by leaded dust or debris 

generated by the renovation. EPA’s Dust 

Study demonstrates that leaded dust 

and debris from exterior renovations can 

be found 10 feet away from activities 

disturbing leaded paint, even if no 

prohibited or restricted practices are 

used. For example, in an experiment 

involving the dry scraping of paint from 

a single story garage, significant dustlead levels were detected on collection 

trays at distances from 9 to 11 feet from 

the scraping activity (Ref. 6, page 6–25). 

These levels ranged from 7,500 μg/ft2 to 

more than 16,500 μg/ft2. The RRP rule, 

at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2), requires 

renovation firms to isolate the work area 

so that no dust or debris leaves the work 

area while the renovation is being 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47931 

performed. The rule further states, at 40 

CFR 745.85(a)(2)(ii)(D), that, in certain 

situations, the renovation firm must take 

extra precautions in containing the work 

area to ensure that dust and debris from 

the renovation does not migrate to 

adjacent properties. EPA knows of no 

work practice other than a system of 

vertical containment or equivalent extra 

precautions in containing the work area 

that would universally and effectively 

prevent the migration of dust and debris 

from renovations performed within 10 

feet of the property line to adjacent 

properties. 

EPA also proposed to clarify, in the 

regulatory text itself, that windy 

conditions may also necessitate the use 

of vertical containment to prevent 

contamination of other buildings, other 

areas of the property, or adjacent 

buildings or properties. Specific 

mention of windy conditions was made 

in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP 

rule, although it was not included in the 

regulatory text. Nevertheless, EPA 

expects atmospheric conditions to be 

one of several factors that renovation 

firms consider when designing 

containment systems. Other factors 

would include the height of the building 

and the paint disturbance and the type 

of renovation activity planned. EPA 

thought that specifically including 

windy conditions as a factor to consider 

when designing an effective 

containment system would serve as an 

important reminder for renovation 

firms. Including the mention of windy 

conditions in the proposed regulatory 

text did not mean that vertical 

containment would be required for any 

particular renovations. The 2010 

proposal also included a definition of 

the term ‘‘containment’’ in order to 

clarify what is meant by the term. The 

proposed definition was based on the 

definition of ‘‘Worksite preparation 

level’’ from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s ‘‘Guidelines 

for the Evaluation and Control of LeadBased Paint Hazards in Housing’’ (HUD 

Guidelines, Ref. 11). The proposed 

definition included additional 

information on what constitutes vertical 

containment. 

Some commenters supported the 

proposed revisions to the vertical 

containment requirements. One thought 

that contamination of neighboring 

properties is a common and serious 

problem. Other commenters did not 

support the proposed revisions. These 

commenters thought that the proposed 

revisions were too inflexible and 

unnecessary. EPA disagrees with these 

commenters. As discussed, the Dust 

Study shows that dust and debris from 

exterior renovations travels at least 10 

feet from the activity. The RRP rule 

requires the ground to be covered with 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material extending 10 feet beyond the 

surfaces being renovated or a sufficient 

distance to collect falling paint debris, 

whichever is greater, unless prevented 

by the property line. In the absence of 

a system of vertical containment or 

equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area, EPA knows of 

no work practice that would universally 

and effectively ensure that adjacent 

properties are not contaminated when 

work disturbs lead-based paint within 

10 feet of the property line. One 

commenter thought that it should be 

sufficient to require the renovation firm 

to inform the neighbors to keep their 

windows and doors closed while the 

renovation is ongoing. While this might 

prevent leaded dust from drifting into 

the interiors of adjacent buildings, it 

does not address contamination of the 

neighboring porches, balconies, or 

yards. This does not meet the standard 

already present in the RRP rule, that 

dust and debris not be permitted to 

leave the work area while the 

renovation is ongoing. EPA is also 

concerned about the ability of 

renovation firms to affect the behavior 

of neighbors whose homes are not being 

renovated. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about the safety of workers and 

vertical containment. One argued that 

OSHA has said that vertical 

containment is not required in 

situations where worker safety would be 

compromised, such as in windy 

conditions. EPA agrees that erecting 

extensive scaffolding to support a large 

vertical containment system in some 

windy conditions may be unsafe for 

workers. If such a vertical containment 

system would be necessary to ensure 

containment of the dust generated by a 

particular renovation, EPA knows of no 

alternative but to reschedule the 

renovation for a more clement day. The 

HUD Guidelines state that exterior 

renovation work should not be 

conducted when the wind speed is 

greater than 20 miles per hour (Ref. 11). 

The Guidelines also state that work 

must cease and cleanup be completed 

before rain begins. EPA has not imposed 

these specific requirements, but 

renovation firms should consider this 

guidance when deciding how to 

proceed. 

Other commenters were concerned 

about the additional costs that the 

revisions to the vertical containment 

provisions would impose on 

renovations and the potential negative 

impact on affordable housing and 

weatherization programs. EPA agrees 

that it is more expensive to conduct 

exterior renovations with vertical 

containment than without. In EPA’s 

economic analysis for the 2008 RRP 

rule, EPA addressed those situations 

where the renovation firm must take 

extra precautions to effectively contain 

dust and debris, including work areas in 

close proximity to other buildings, work 

areas that abut a property line, and 

windy conditions. The 2008 economic 

analysis specifically notes that it is 

sometimes necessary to erect a system of 

vertical containment to prevent paint 

dust and debris from contaminating the 

ground or any object beyond the work 

area. To account for these situations, 

EPA estimated that approximately 2% 

of exterior jobs would use exterior 

containment, and the incremental cost 

of vertical containment varies from $330 

per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending 

on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has 

already accounted for the additional 

costs incurred for using vertical 

containment systems on renovations 

performed within 10 feet of the property 

line. 

Because EPA does not know of any 

effective alternatives to the vertical 

containment requirement for exterior 

renovations performed within 10 feet of 

the property line, EPA is promulgating 

a requirement that vertical containment 

or equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area be used on 

exterior renovations performed within 

10 feet of the property line. This 

requirement is intended to provide 

flexibility for certified renovators to 

design effective containment systems 

based on the renovation activity and the 

work site. To ensure that renovation 

firms understand that the requirement 

refers to a wide variety of effective work 

area containment systems, EPA is 

including the phrase ‘‘or equivalent 

extra precautions in containing the work 

area’’ in this requirement. Effective 

work area containment can span a range 

from simple barriers to more extensive 

scaffolding, depending on the size of the 

job and other relevant factors. Complex 

vertical containment systems with 

extensive scaffolding are often not 

necessary to effectively contain the dust 

generated by a renovation. An example 

of a simple barrier system, on a job 

requiring hand scraping within a few 

feet of the ground and within a few feet 

of the property line, would be laying 

plastic or other impermeable material 

on the ground between the paintdisturbing activity and the property 

line, anchoring it to the house, and then 

extending the material up and over the 

fence at the property line. A slightly 

more extensive containment approach 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

could involve the use of a triangular 

eave/soffit ‘‘lean-to’’ system. In this 

system, plastic or other impermeable 

material could be spread out on the 

ground 5–10 feet out from the exterior 

side wall, depending upon the available 

space. The same impermeable material 

could be attached to the eave or soffit 

area at the roofline, and held away from 

the building by an extension ladder 

temporarily fastened to where the wall 

meets the eave or soffit. The material 

would then be fastened and sealed onto 

the ground cover. A variation of this 

system would involve draping the 

plastic or impermeable material over a 

frame consisting of commerciallyavailable tension rods or strong painter’s 

extension tubes. Effective containment 

could also consist of plastic or other 

impermeable material draped from 

outriggers, or framework secured to the 

roofline, taped to the sides of the 

building to surround the work area, and 

fastened and sealed to the ground cover. 

Yet another containment system could 

involve a rigid box-like framework, 

constructed out of commerciallyavailable tension rods or painter’s 

extension tubes, wrapped in 

impermeable sheeting and anchored to 

the ground cover and the sides of the 

building. EPA believes that these 

measures, in most cases, should be 

sufficient to contain dust and debris 

where extra containment measures are 

needed, such as work that creates large 

amounts of dust or work performed 

within 10 feet of the property line. 

EPA realizes that it may be costly or 

impracticable to deploy an elaborate 

vertical containment system, for 

example, in high rise multi-story 

buildings. The Agency, furthermore 

does not wish to create hazardous 

situations for workers that would 

outweigh the benefit of capturing the 

dust with scaffolding-based vertical 

containment systems. EPA believes that 

equally effective systems may exist. 

Thus, EPA added language indicating 

that ‘‘equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area’’ will also 

satisfy the requirement to contain dust 

on the worksite of exterior renovations 

performed within 10 feet of the property 

line. 

EPA continues to believe that it is 

important to remind renovation firms 

that there may be other situations where 

vertical containment or equivalent extra 

precautions in containing the work area 

would be required in order to prevent 

dust and debris from leaving the work 

area. However, because some 

commenters appeared to believe that 

EPA’s mention of windy conditions 

amounted to a requirement to use 

vertical containment in windy 

conditions, EPA is deleting the phrase 

‘‘such as in windy conditions.’’ The 

complete provision, as promulgated, 

reads: ‘‘If the renovation will affect 

surfaces within 10 feet of the property 

line, the renovation firm must erect 

vertical containment or equivalent extra 

precautions in containing the work area 

to ensure that dust and debris from the 

renovation does not contaminate 

adjacent buildings or migrate to adjacent 

properties. Vertical containment or 

equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area may also be 

necessary in other situations in order to 

prevent contamination of other 

buildings, other areas of the property, or 

adjacent buildings or properties.’’ EPA 

wishes to encourage innovation in 

designing effective containment systems 

or measures, so EPA will consider any 

information or data made available to it 

that could be used to determine the 

equivalence of extra containment 

precautions in containing the work area. 

For example, the Department of Energy 

(DOE) suggested that an equivalent 

containment system could involve the 

use of a trough-like system beneath the 

paint-disturbing work. The trough 

would consist of polyethylene and 

tubing fabricated in a U-shape 

configuration, extending 1 to 2 feet from 

the exterior side of the building. 

According to DOE, the bottom of the 

trough could be weighted down with 

scrap lumber and sprayed with water 

enabling it to capture the falling dust 

and debris. DOE suggested that this 

trough, especially if combined with dust 

minimization techniques such as wet 

methods, the use of dust-capturing 

shrouds, and HEPA vacuums, would be 

equally effective at containing dust and 

debris as vertical containment. EPA 

cannot determine that the trough, by 

itself, provides effective containment of 

dust and debris, but will be examining 

this in the future. Similarly, DOE 

suggested that another possible method 

for the dust that is generated during an 

exterior renovation to be captured could 

involve the use of a shroud attached to 

a power tool with a HEPA vacuum, also 

attached to the shroud, where the dust 

and debris is captured right at the 

source—thereby not allowing it to fall 

onto polyethylene, workers clothing, 

equipment, and tools. EPA seeks data or 

other information upon which to 

evaluate that the following are effective 

at containing dust and debris: the trough 

in combination with dust minimization 

techniques; the use of a shroud attached 

to a power tool with a HEPA vacuum; 

or other alternative methods. EPA will 

review and issue guidance as 

appropriate. EPA intends to work 

collaboratively with DOE and HUD and 

other agencies and stakeholders as 

appropriate to develop further guidance 

on equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area. 

In addition, since promulgation of the 

2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several 

inquiries from the regulated community 

on the rule’s containment provisions. In 

particular, EPA has been asked to 

address the problem of obstacles that 

prevent renovation firms from using 6 

feet of plastic sheeting or other 

impermeable material on interior floors 

or 10 feet of material on the ground. 

EPA believes that the proper use of 

vertical containment measures may be a 

more effective method for containing 

the work area than use of traditional 

floor or ground containment alone, 

especially where obstacles prevent or 

make it impractical to install floor or 

ground containment to the extent 

required by the RRP rule. Therefore, 

EPA is amending the containment 

provisions for both interior and exterior 

renovations to permit renovation firms 

to erect vertical containment closer to 

the renovation activity than the 

minimum floor or ground containment 

distance specified in the RRP rule to 

give renovation firms more flexibility in 

designing effective containment 

strategies for particular work sites. For 

exterior renovations, this amendment 

would allow a renovation firm to 

construct vertical containment less than 

10 feet from the renovation activity. If 

a renovation firm chooses to take 

advantage of this provision, the ground 

containment may extend less than 10 

feet, stopping just outside the edge of 

the vertical containment, as long as the 

distance is sufficient to contain all dust 

and debris during the renovation and 

post-renovation cleanup. For example, a 

renovation firm erects an exterior 

vertical containment system consisting 

of a rigid box-like framework wrapped 

in impermeable plastic sheeting and 

anchored to the ground and home. If 

this containment system is erected 5 feet 

from the side of the home, and placed 

on top of ground containment, such 

containment should effectively limit the 

travel of dust and debris to the interior 

of the enclosure. Under the amended 

containment provisions, the renovation 

firm would not be required to extend 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material another 5 feet beyond the 

vertical containment system in order to 

meet the 10 foot minimum ground 

containment requirement promulgated 

in the 2008 RRP rule. 

EPA is also providing increased 

flexibility for renovation firms by 

allowing firms the option to use vertical 

containment measures in combination 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47933 

with reduced floor containment on 

interior renovations. However, to 

qualify for reduced floor containment 

requirements, vertical containment 

systems for interior renovations must 

consist of impermeable barriers that 

extend from the floor to the ceiling and 

are tightly sealed at joints with the floor, 

ceiling and walls (e.g. through the use 

of tape, foam or other means which 

create tight seals), thus effectively 

creating a separate enclosure. This type 

of vertical containment acts as the 

functional equivalent of a wall for 

purposes of defining the work area and, 

if the vertical containment meets these 

criteria, the floor containment measures 

may stop at the edge of the vertical 

barrier. However, unlike permanent 

walls, vertical containment barriers are 

subject to all containment cleaning 

requirements including misting, inward 

folding, sealing, and proper disposal 

following the renovation. A firm must 

also thoroughly clean an additional two 

feet beyond the vertically-contained 

work area. Finally, during ingress or 

egress from the vertical enclosure, a firm 

must take precaution to ensure that dust 

and debris on personnel, tools, and 

other items do not escape the work area. 

Upon further consideration of the 

proposed definition of containment, 

particularly in light of the comments 

received on the proposed vertical 

containment requirements, EPA has 

determined that a broader definition of 

containment is unnecessary, and may 

even be confusing, but a definition of 

vertical containment would help to 

clarify the vertical containment 

requirements. In addition, EPA believes 

that there may be confusion among the 

regulated community and other 

stakeholders about what EPA means 

when it uses the term ‘‘vertical 

containment.’’ As previously discussed, 

vertical containment can span the range 

from simple barriers to box-like 

structures to more extensive scaffolding. 

Accordingly, EPA is promulgating a 

definition of ‘‘vertical containment’’ that 

is similar to the last sentence of the 

proposed definition of ‘‘containment.’’ 

Vertical containment is defined as a 

vertical barrier consisting of plastic 

sheeting or other impermeable material 

over scaffolding or a rigid frame, or an 

equivalent system of containing the 

work area. The definition further states 

that vertical containment is required for 

some exterior renovations but it may be 

used on any renovation. EPA 

encourages members of the regulated 

community, or other stakeholders, who 

have questions on the work area 

containment requirements or any other 

aspect of the RRP rule to consult the 

Frequent Question database accessible 

from EPA’s primary lead Web page at 

http://www.epa.gov/lead or contact the 

National Lead Information Center by 

calling 1(800) 424–LEAD [5323]. 

Hearing- or speech-impaired persons 

may reach the National Lead 

Information Center through TTY by 

calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

7. Prohibited or restricted practices. In 

May 2010, EPA proposed to make a 

number of minor revisions to clarify the 

prohibitions and restrictions on work 

practices in 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3). The 

first was a clarification that these 

prohibitions and restrictions, e.g., the 

prohibition on open flame burning or 

torching, apply to all painted surfaces, 

not just surfaces where the presence of 

lead-based paint has been confirmed. 

The term ‘‘lead-based paint’’ was 

incorrectly and inadvertently used in 

this subparagraph, making it 

inconsistent with the rest of the RRP 

rule, which applies in the presence of 

known lead-based paint as well as paint 

that has not been tested for lead content. 

Accordingly, EPA proposed to replace 

the term ‘‘lead-based paint’’ with 

‘‘painted surfaces’’ in this subparagraph. 

Of course, if the painted surface has 

been tested and found to be free of leadbased paint, the prohibitions and 

restrictions on work practices in the 

final RRP rule do not apply. 

Commenters generally supported this 

revision, although two commenters 

noted that EPA uses the term ‘‘painted 

surfaces’’ throughout the RRP rule and 

it is unclear whether this refers just to 

paint or to other surface coatings as 

well. These commenters noted that the 

definition of ‘‘lead-based paint’’ 

includes paint and other surface 

coatings but there is no definition of the 

term ‘‘painted surfaces.’’ These 

commenters observed that other surface 

coatings, such as varnish, can contain 

significant amounts of lead. The 

commenters suggested that EPA address 

this issue throughout the RRP rule. EPA 

agrees with these commenters. In using 

the term ‘‘painted surfaces,’’ EPA has 

always meant component surfaces that 

are covered in whole or in part with a 

coating that could be lead-based paint. 

The term was designed to encompass 

situations where the surface is covered 

with lead-based paint as defined by the 

regulation as well as situations where 

the lead content of the surface coating 

had not been determined. EPA never 

intended to exclude varnishes or other 

surface coatings from the coverage of the 

RRP rule. In fact, the applicability 

section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, 

limits the exclusions for testing to those 

situations where the components to be 

disturbed by a renovation have been 

demonstrated to be free of paint and 

other surface coatings that contain lead 

at levels equal to or exceeding the 

regulatory threshold. Therefore, EPA is 

promulgating this revision as proposed 

and EPA is also adding a clarifying 

definition of ‘‘painted surface’’ to 40 

CFR 745.83. This definition states that 

painted surface means a component 

surface covered in whole or in part with 

paint or other surface coatings. 

In addition, EPA proposed to clarify 

that the restriction in this section on the 

use of machines that remove paint 

through high speed operation applies 

anywhere painted surfaces are being 

disturbed by such machines; the 

restriction is not limited to situations 

where all of the paint is removed by 

such machines. EPA received no 

comments specifically on this proposed 

revision, although the comments on the 

general issue of paint including other 

surface coatings are also applicable 

here. EPA is promulgating this revision 

as proposed, with the addition of the 

phrase ‘‘or other surface coatings’’ after 

the term ‘‘paint,’’ because EPA never 

intended to create a loophole that would 

allow someone to remove some or most 

of the paint or other surface coating 

from a component without complying 

with the restriction. 

Finally, EPA proposed to clarify what 

was meant by HEPA exhaust control. In 

order to better express what is required 

when machines designed to remove 

paint through high speed operation are 

used, EPA consulted the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration’s 

Technical Manual (Ref. 12). The use of 

shrouded tools to remove lead-based 

paint is discussed in Chapter 3 of 

Section V, entitled ‘‘Controlling Lead 

Exposures in the Construction Industry: 

Engineering and Work Practice 

Controls.’’ Using language from this 

reference, EPA proposed to amend 40 

CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, ‘‘The use of 

machines designed to remove paint 

through high speed operation such as 

sanding, grinding, power planing, 

needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 

sandblasting, is prohibited on painted 

surfaces unless such machines are used 

shrouded and equipped with a HEPA 

vacuum attachment to collect dust and 

debris at the point of generation.’’ EPA 

received several comments on this 

topic. The commenters generally 

supported the change, but two thought 

that there should be a performance 

standard included in the provision, a 

visible standard that warns the workers 

that the shroud or containment system 

is not working properly. EPA agrees 

with these commenters. Another 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter thought that the term 

‘‘shrouded’’ in the proposed revision 

would make the RRP rule more stringent 

than the requirements applicable to 

abatement contractors. After consulting 

the abatement chapter of the HUD 

Guidelines, EPA has determined that 

the proposed language could potentially 

be read to exclude one of the two types 

of sanders described by HUD as 

appropriate for abatement work because 

they provide HEPA exhaust control. 

Accordingly, EPA is promulgating the 

revision as proposed, except that the 

regulatory language will read ‘‘* * * 

unless such machines have shrouds or 

containment systems and are equipped 

with a HEPA vacuum attachment to 

collect dust and debris at the point of 

generation. Machines must be operated 

so that no visible dust or release of air 

occurs outside the shroud or 

containment system.’’ 

8. HEPA vacuums. In May 2010, EPA 

proposed to clarify that vacuums 

qualifying as HEPA vacuums for the 

purposes of this rule must be operated 

and maintained in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions in order to 

continue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. 

This includes following the 

manufacturer’s filter change interval 

recommendations. EPA also proposed to 

clarify that the standard for HEPA 

filters, that they be capable of capturing 

particles of 0.3 microns with 99.97% 

efficiency, means that the filters must 

have a Minimum Efficiency Reporting 

Value (MERV) of 17 or greater. At the 

time, EPA also recommended that 

renovation firms have information from 

the manufacturer that the particular 

model of vacuum that the renovation 

firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s 

HEPA filter, has been tested in 

accordance with an applicable test 

method, such as ASTM F1471–09, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 

Performance of a High-Efficiency 

Particulate Air-Filter System,’’ and has 

been determined to meet this standard 

(Ref. 13). 

EPA received a number of comments 

on these proposed revisions. 

Commenters specifically addressing the 

requirement that vacuums be operated 

in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions, including filter change 

interval recommendations, were in 

general agreement with the requirement. 

Other commenters expressed a general 

concern that these revisions would 

prohibit the use of consumer-grade 

HEPA vacuums that renovation firms 

had recently purchased to comply with 

the RRP rule. Some argued that the 

proposed language regarding the MERV 

was too stringent, given industry 

practice for high-efficiency vacuums. 

One commenter cited research they had 

done on the efficiency of HEPA 

vacuums to argue that the HEPA 

vacuums used in EPA’s Dust Study 

would not have met the MERV standard 

proposed by EPA. However, the 

commenter did not provide sufficient 

information to support this assertion. 

Several commenters echoed comments 

EPA received during the rulemaking 

process for the 2008 RRP rule, arguing 

that HEPA vacuums are too expensive 

and are not necessary. Other 

commenters believed that additional 

requirements should be added, such as 

a requirement to field test the efficiency 

of the vacuums on a regular basis or 

after filter changes. 

EPA continues to believe that HEPA 

vacuums are a necessary part of the 

required RRP work practices. In 

addition, the OSHA Lead in 

Construction standard requires the use 

of HEPA vacuums whenever vacuums 

are used. However, EPA also 

understands the concerns of those 

commenters who had already purchased 

HEPA vacuums for purposes of the RRP 

rule as well as those others who thought 

that the proposed MERV value of 17 

would be too stringent. In balancing 

these concerns, EPA has decided to 

promulgate the requirement that HEPA 

vacuums be operated in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions, but 

not the requirement that compliant 

vacuums be rated at a MERV value of 17 

or higher. 

In addition, in response to EPA’s 

recommendation that renovation firms 

obtain information from the 

manufacturer that the efficiency of their 

particular model of HEPA vacuum or 

HEPA filter has been tested in 

accordance with an applicable test 

method, some commenters noted that 

this information may not be readily 

available to renovation firms. These 

commenters suggested that EPA 

maintain a list of HEPA vacuums that 

have been tested and found to meet the 

HEPA vacuum requirements. 

9. On-the-job training. EPA’s 2010 

proposal included a clarification 

regarding the required elements of onthe-job training provided by renovators. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to clarify 

that the RRP rule requires certified 

renovators to train other renovation 

workers in only the work practices 

required by the RRP rule that the 

workers will be using in performing 

their assigned tasks. As discussed in the 

2010 proposal, EPA did not intend to 

require training in any other subjects, 

such as how to paint or how to connect 

pipes. EPA is promulgating the 

clarification as proposed and amending 

40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4) to refer 

specifically to the work practice 

requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a). Two 

comments were received on this 

proposed clarification, both commenters 

expressed support for the change. 

10. Grandfathering. Under the final 

2008 RRP rule, individuals who 

successfully completed an accredited 

abatement worker or supervisor course, 

and individuals who successfully 

completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint 

EPA/HUD model renovation training 

courses may take an accredited refresher 

renovation training course in lieu of the 

initial renovation training to become a 

certified renovator. In addition, 

individuals who have successfully 

completed an accredited lead-based 

paint inspector or risk assessor course, 

but are not currently certified in the 

discipline, may take an accredited 

refresher dust sampling technician 

course in lieu of the initial training to 

become a certified dust sampling 

technician. As discussed in the 2010 

proposal, EPA inadvertently failed to 

include in the 2008 RRP rule a time 

limit for taking the refresher in lieu of 

the initial course. Many of the 

commenters who addressed the issue of 

grandfathering in the 2008 RRP 

rulemaking contended that there should 

be restrictions based on how much time 

elapsed since the training was taken. In 

addition, under the lead-based paint 

activities regulations at 40 CFR 745.226, 

EPA allowed a similar grandfathering 

provision but only for a limited time. 

Accordingly, EPA proposed to set a 

limit on when an individual can take 

advantage of the grandfathering 

provision under the RRP rule. The 

preamble to the 2010 proposal stated 

that the limit would be July 31, 2011, 

such that renovators and dust sampling 

technicians who take the appropriate 

prerequisite course before that date 

would be permitted to take an 

accredited refresher training course in 

lieu of the initial training. EPA received 

three comments on this provision. One 

commenter helpfully pointed out that, 

while the preamble said that the limit 

would be July 31, 2011, the proposed 

regulatory text said that it would be 

April 22, 2011. The three commenters 

supported the limit of July 31, 2011, one 

noting that EPA should not continue to 

encourage renovators to take lead-safe 

work practices courses that do not meet 

the requirements for certified renovator 

training. EPA generally agrees with 

these commenters and is promulgating a 

provision that allows renovators and 

dust sampling technicians who take the 

appropriate prerequisite course before 

the effective date of this rule to take an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47935 

accredited refresher training course in 

lieu of the initial training. 

EPA also proposed a clarification 

regarding the grandfathering provision 

as it applies to the dust sampling 

technician discipline. Individuals who 

successfully complete an accredited 

lead-based paint inspector or risk 

assessor course, but are not currently 

certified in the discipline, may take an 

accredited refresher dust sampling 

technician course in lieu of the initial 

training before the effective date of this 

rule to become a certified dust sampling 

technician. Inspectors and risk assessors 

who are certified by EPA or an 

authorized state program are qualified to 

perform dust sampling as part of lead 

hazard screens, risk assessments, or 

abatements as well as for other 

purposes, such as post-renovation dust 

sampling. Therefore, it would be 

unnecessary for a certified inspector or 

risk assessor to seek certification as a 

dust sampling technician. The 2008 RRP 

rule explains who is eligible to take the 

refresher dust sampling technician 

course in lieu of the initial training. 

However, the regulations as 

promulgated did not explicitly say that 

a certified inspector or risk assessor may 

perform dust sampling. In order to 

clarify the intent of the regulation, EPA 

proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.90(a)(3) 

to specifically state that a certified 

inspector or risk assessor may act as a 

dust sampling technician. EPA is 

promulgating this provision as 

proposed. One comment was received 

on this topic expressing general support 

for the amendment. 

III. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

rulemaking under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049. The 

following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this 

final rule. The docket includes these 

documents and other information 

considered by EPA, including 

documents that are referenced within 

the documents that are included in the 

docket, even if the referenced document 

is not physically located in the docket. 

For assistance in locating these other 

documents, please consult the technical 

contact listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Lead; Clearance and Clearance 

Testing Requirements for the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register (75 FR 25038, May 6, 2010) 

(FRL–8823–5). 

2. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) 

(FRL–8355–7). 

3. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based 

Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996) 

(FRL–5389–9). 

4. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous 

Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) 

(FRL–6763–5). 

5. EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth 

Field Study in Residential Housing 

(September 2005). 

6. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels 

After Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Activities. (November 13, 2007). 

7. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With 

Renovation and Remodeling Activities: 

Phase I, Environmental Field Sampling 

Study (EPA 747–R–96–007, May 1997). 

8. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to 

HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. (2009). 

9. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics (OPPT). ‘‘Economic Analysis for 

the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Final Rule for Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities’’ 

(March 2008). 

10. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). Evaluation of the 

HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control 

Grant Program: Final Report. May 1, 

2004. 

11. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and 

Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 

Housing (June 1995). 

12. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). Technical Manual TED 01–00– 

015 [TED 1–0.15A]. Revised June 24, 

2008. 

13. ASTM International. Standard Test 

Method for Air Cleaning Performance of 

a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter 

System (F1471–09). 

14. EPA. OPPT. ‘‘Discussion of Potential 

Costs and Benefits Associated with the 

Clearance and Clearance Testing 

Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program Final Rule’’ (July 

2011). 

15. EPA. OPPT. ‘‘Economic Analysis for the 

TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program Opt-out and 

Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target 

Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities’’ 

(April 2010). 

16. EPA. Final Clearance Rule ICR 

Addendum for the rulemaking entitled 

Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 

Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Final Rule. (July 

2011). 

17. EPA. Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on the Leadbased Paint Certification and Training; 

Renovation and Remodeling 

Requirements. (March 3, 2000). 

18. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program; Proposed Rule. 

Federal Register (71 FR 1588, January 

10, 2006) (FRL–7755–5). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, 

entitled Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared a 

document discussing the potential costs 

and benefits associated with this final 

rule. This document, entitled 

‘‘Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits Associated with the Clearance 

and Clearance Testing Requirements for 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program Final Rule’’ (Ref. 14), is 

available in the docket for this action 

and is briefly summarized here. 

For the most part, the amendments to 

the RRP rule contained in this final rule 

impose only minimal incremental costs. 

For example, the requirement for 

training course providers to submit 

copies of personnel qualifications along 

with their applications will result in 

providers making copies of and 

submitting with their application 2–4 

additional pieces of paper that they are 

already required to have in their 

possession before submitting the 

application. The requirement to submit 

copies of State training course materials, 

if used, could add significantly to the 

size of the training provider’s 

application. However, EPA believes that 

it will be a rare occurrence for training 

providers to use State-approved training 

course materials, when EPA model 

training course materials are readily 

available. Likewise, the provision 

allowing certified renovators to collect 

paint chip samples in lieu of using test 

kits adds no additional costs, because 

certified renovators are not required to 

take this step in addition to existing 

activities—it is an added option from 

which they may choose. Similarly, the 

minimum enforcement provisions and 

other requirements for State and Tribal 

programs imposes no costs because 

States and Tribes are not required to 

have authorized programs, nor are they 

required to revise their programs to 

incorporate EPA revisions. While EPA is 

requiring specific recordkeeping for 

training providers who wish to provide 

e-learning courses, e-learning courses 

are not required from any training 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

provider. In addition, EPA believes that 

the recordkeeping requirements for elearning courses are comparable to, and 

no more burdensome than, the ordinary 

recordkeeping already required for 

courses provided in traditional formats. 

Many of the amendments are merely 

clarifications of existing regulatory 

language and implementation of policy 

and impose no additional costs. 

Examples of these amendments include 

the clarifications on the role of the 

principal instructor in an accredited 

training program, the requirement that 

the trainee photograph on a course 

completion certificate be an accurate 

representation of the trainee and no 

smaller than one square inch, and the 

clarification that certified renovators are 

only required to provide on-the-job 

training in the RRP work practices to 

other renovation workers. 

With respect to the vertical 

containment requirements of this final 

rule, EPA has already accounted for the 

costs of those requirements. In EPA’s 

economic analysis for the 2008 RRP 

rule, EPA addressed those situations 

where the renovation firm must take 

extra precautions to effectively contain 

dust and debris, including work areas in 

close proximity to other buildings, work 

areas that abut a property line, and 

windy conditions. The 2008 economic 

analysis specifically notes that it is 

sometimes necessary to erect a system of 

vertical containment to prevent paint 

dust and debris from contaminating the 

ground or any object beyond the work 

area. To account for these situations, 

EPA estimated that approximately 2% 

of exterior jobs would use exterior 

containment, and the incremental cost 

of vertical containment varies from $330 

per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending 

on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has 

already accounted for the additional 

costs incurred for using vertical 

containment systems on renovations 

performed within 10 feet of the property 

line. 

This final rule extends the 

recordkeeping requirement for providers 

of certified renovator and certified dust 

sampling technician training from 3 

years and 6 months to 5 years in general 

and slightly more than 5 years for 

training providers who offered 

accredited courses in these disciplines 

before April 22, 2010. The 

recordkeeping extension does not affect 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with obtaining and maintaining 

accreditation. This extension only 

affects those records pertaining to 

training courses, specifically 

notifications. Pro-rating the 

recordkeeping cost estimates from EPA’s 

economic analysis for the Opt-Out and 

Recordkeeping Final Rule, also 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 6, 2010 (Ref. 15), shows that the 

recordkeeping burden for courses 

provided during the first year the rule 

was effective increases from $43.68 to 

$61.88 per training provider. For 

courses provided in subsequent years, 

the recordkeeping burden per training 

provider increases from $4.80 to $6.80. 

These estimates are for the entire 5 years 

that the records would have to be kept. 

For the 2008 RRP rule, EPA estimated 

that there would be approximately 1.4 

million children under the age of 6 and 

5.4 million adults who would be 

affected by having their exposure to lead 

dust minimized due to the rule. The 

analysis for the 2010 final Opt-Out rule 

estimated that an additional 5.2 million 

older children and adults would be 

affected by reduced lead exposure due 

to the rule. 

B. Paperwork Burdens 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA 

has prepared an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document to amend an 

existing ICR that is approved under 

OMB Control No. 2070–0155 (EPA ICR 

No. 1715). The ICR amendment, entitled 

‘‘ICR Addendum for Final Rule entitled 

‘‘Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 

Requirements for the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program; Final 

Rule (RIN 2070–AJ57)’’ and identified 

under EPA ICR No. 2381.02, has been 

placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 

16). 

This regulatory action contains only 

two amendments to the approved 

existing information collection: 

Amendments to the requirement for the 

training provider to submit 

documentation of training manager and 

principal instructor qualifications; and a 

requirement for providers of renovator 

and dust sampling technician training to 

maintain training records for these 

courses for 5 years, rather than 3 years 

and 6 months. These requirements add 

only negligible paperwork burden hours 

to the existing burden estimate. 

EPA previously estimated for the final 

2008 RRP rule (Ref. 9) and the final Optout rule (Ref. 15) that 170 training 

providers would be accredited to 

provide renovator training. These 

training providers will now have to 

submit an additional 2–4 photocopies 

along with their applications for 

accreditation. EPA estimates that each 

photocopy costs $0.09 to generate, for a 

maximum of $0.36 additional cost for 

training providers with one training 

manager and one principal instructor. 

Each of these 170 training providers is 

also required to provide training course 

notifications under the existing RRP 

rule. These notifications will now have 

to be kept for 5 years instead of 3 years 

and 6 months. EPA has also estimated 

that each of these training providers 

would offer on average a total of 86 

renovator or dust sampling technician 

courses in the first year, and 20 per year 

thereafter. This would require a total of 

182 single-page notifications in the first 

year, and 42 each year thereafter. 

Under PRA, burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b) and means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

disclose or provide information to or for 

a Federal agency. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations codified in 40 CFR chapter 

I, after appearing in the preamble of the 

final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 

are displayed either by publication in 

the Federal Register or by other 

appropriate means, such as on the 

related collection instrument or form, as 

applicable. 

C. Small Entity Impacts 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency hereby 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant adverse economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

final rule on small entities, small entity 

is defined in accordance with RFA 

section 601 as: 

1. A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

2. A small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

The small entities directly regulated 

by this final rule are providers of leadbased paint related training, renovation 

firms, individuals who perform 

renovations, and any small 

governmental jurisdictions or not-forprofit enterprises that provide leadbased paint training or renovation 

services. As discussed previously, EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47937 

has decided not to promulgate the 

clearance and clearance testing 

requirements, and is instead 

promulgating minor amendments to the 

requirements for lead-based paint 

training providers and renovation firms 

that will have only negligible adverse 

impacts on any small entities. 

In addition, RFA states that agencies 

‘‘may consider a series of closely related 

rules as one rule for the purposes of [an 

IRFA]’’ in order to avoid ‘‘duplicative 

action.’’ 5 U.S.C. 605(c). This 

rulemaking is closely related to the 2008 

RRP rule. Indeed, the proposed rule 

addressed one of the major issues in the 

2008 rulemaking and some of the 

provisions finalized in the 2008 RRP 

rule. Accordingly, EPA was not required 

to complete a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for this rulemaking. 

Nonetheless, EPA exercised its 

discretion to complete an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

for the 2010 proposal (see 75 FR 25038). 

The IRFA considered the potential 

adverse economic impacts of the 2010 

proposed rule on affected small entities, 

primarily those related to the proposed 

clearance and clearance testing 

requirements. The proposed provisions 

analyzed for purposes of the IRFA are 

not part of this final rule. 

Moreover, as discussed in the 2010 

proposed rule in more detail, the Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel that was conducted in connection 

with the 2006 RRP proposal is equally 

applicable to this closely related 

amendment to the 2008 RRP rule. The 

SBAR Panel discussed all major aspects 

of the 2006 proposal to regulate 

renovation and remodeling activities, 

including issues related to ensuring that 

proper cleanup occurs after renovation 

activities. As a part of the panel process, 

EPA ‘‘collect[ed] advice and 

recommendations’’ from several Small 

Entity Representatives (SERs) on the 

2006 proposal to regulate renovation 

and remodeling activities. 5 U.S.C. 

609(b). The SBAR Panel report, entitled 

Report of the Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel on The Lead-base 

Painting; Certification and Training; 

Renovation and Remodeling 

Requirements (March 3, 2000), 

expressly addressed containment and 

dust clearance testing requirements (Ref. 

18). Thus, the primary issues considered 

in this rulemaking are wholly within the 

scope of the issues EPA considered as 

part of the 2008 RRP rule and were 

within the scope of the issues 

considered by the SBAR Panel. 

Reconvening the RRP Panel for the 2010 

proposed rule would be procedurally 

duplicative and unnecessary. 

D. Unfunded Mandates 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

This rule includes only minor 

amendments to the requirements for 

providers of lead-based paint training 

and for renovation firms. Thus, this rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(2 U.S.C. 1531–1538). 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Small governments are only regulated 

by this action to the extent that they 

engage in providing lead-based paint 

training or renovation services. 

E. Federalism 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, 

entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), EPA has determined 

that this final rule does not have 

‘‘federalism implications,’’ because it 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this final rule. Nevertheless, in 

the spirit of the objectives of this 

Executive Order, and consistent with 

EPA policy to promote communications 

between the Agency and State and local 

governments, EPA consulted with 

representatives of State and local 

governments during the rulemaking 

process for the 2008 RRP rule. These 

consultations are as described in the 

preamble to the 2006 RRP proposed rule 

(Ref. 18). 

F. Indian Tribal Government 

Implications 

As required by Executive Order 

13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951, November 

9, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

final rule does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes, as specified in the Executive 

Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this final rule. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this final rule, EPA 

consulted with Tribal officials and 

others by discussing potential 

renovation regulatory options at several 

national lead program meetings hosted 

by EPA and other interested Federal 

agencies. 

G. Protection of Children 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does 

not apply to this final rule because it is 

not an ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. While the 

environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by the 2008 RRP rule does 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children, this final rule makes only 

minor changes in the administrative 

requirements for accredited training 

providers and includes minor 

amendments to the requirements for 

renovation firms. 

EPA has evaluated the environmental 

health or safety effects of renovation, 

repair, and painting projects on 

children. Various aspects of this 

evaluation are discussed in the 

preamble to the 2006 proposed RRP rule 

(Ref. 18). The primary purpose of the 

final 2008 RRP rule is to minimize 

exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

created during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in housing where 

children under age 6 reside and in 

housing or other buildings frequented 

by children under age 6. In the absence 

of the final 2008 RRP rule, adequate 

work practices are not likely to be 

employed during renovation, repair, and 

painting activities. EPA’s analysis 

indicates that there will be 

approximately 1.4 million children 

under age 6 affected by the RRP rule. 

These children are projected to receive 

considerable benefits due to the RRP 

rule. In addition, older children will 

also benefit from the protections 

afforded by the RRP rule. 

H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, 

or Use 

This final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

any adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47938 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

I. Technical Standards 

This regulatory action does not 

involve any technical standards that 

would require Agency consideration of 

voluntary consensus standards pursuant 

to section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 

note. Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA requires EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

While EPA has not assessed the 

potential impact of this final rule on 

minority and low-income populations, 

EPA did assess the potential impact of 

the final 2008 RRP rule as a whole. As 

a result of the final 2008 RRP rule 

assessment, contained in the economic 

analysis for the final 2008 RRP rule, 

EPA has determined that the RRP rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population (Ref. 9). 

V. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Childoccupied facility, Housing renovation, 

Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 15, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 745—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 745 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681– 

2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

■ 2. In § 745.82, add a new paragraph 

(a)(3) to read as follows. 

§ 745.82 Applicability. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Renovations in target housing or 

child-occupied facilities in which a 

certified renovator has collected a paint 

chip sample from each painted 

component affected by the renovation 

and a laboratory recognized by EPA 

pursuant to section 405(b) of TSCA as 

being capable of performing analyses for 

lead compounds in paint chip samples 

has determined that the samples are free 

of paint or other surface coatings that 

contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 

mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. If the 

components make up an integrated 

whole, such as the individual stair 

treads and risers of a single staircase, 

the renovator is required to test only one 

of the individual components, unless 

the individual components appear to 

have been repainted or refinished 

separately. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 745.83, revise the definition of 

‘‘HEPA vacuum’’ and add the definition 

‘‘Painted surface’’ and the definition 

‘‘Vertical containment’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 745.83 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

HEPA vacuum means a vacuum 

cleaner which has been designed with a 

high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 

filter as the last filtration stage. A HEPA 

filter is a filter that is capable of 

capturing particulates of 0.3 microns 

with 99.97% efficiency. The vacuum 

cleaner must be designed so that all the 

air drawn into the machine is expelled 

through the HEPA filter with none of 

the air leaking past it. HEPA vacuums 

must be operated and maintained in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

* * * * * 

Painted surface means a component 

surface covered in whole or in part with 

paint or other surface coatings. 

* * * * * 

Vertical containment means a vertical 

barrier consisting of plastic sheeting or 

other impermeable material over 

scaffolding or a rigid frame, or an 

equivalent system of containing the 

work area. Vertical containment is 

required for some exterior renovations 

but it may be used on any renovation. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 745.85 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(D) and 

(a)(2)(ii)(C) and (D); 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 745.85 Work practice standards. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) Cover the floor surface, including 

installed carpet, with taped-down 

plastic sheeting or other impermeable 

material in the work area 6 feet beyond 

the perimeter of surfaces undergoing 

renovation or a sufficient distance to 

contain the dust, whichever is greater. 

Floor containment measures may stop at 

the edge of the vertical barrier when 

using a vertical containment system 

consisting of impermeable barriers that 

extend from the floor to the ceiling and 

are tightly sealed at joints with the floor, 

ceiling and walls. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Cover the ground with plastic 

sheeting or other disposable 

impermeable material extending 10 feet 

beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

undergoing renovation or a sufficient 

distance to collect falling paint debris, 

whichever is greater, unless the 

property line prevents 10 feet of such 

ground covering. Ground containment 

measures may stop at the edge of the 

vertical barrier when using a vertical 

containment system. 

(D) If the renovation will affect 

surfaces within 10 feet of the property 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47939 

line, the renovation firm must erect 

vertical containment or equivalent extra 

precautions in containing the work area 

to ensure that dust and debris from the 

renovation does not contaminate 

adjacent buildings or migrate to adjacent 

properties. Vertical containment or 

equivalent extra precautions in 

containing the work area may also be 

necessary in other situations in order to 

prevent contamination of other 

buildings, other areas of the property, or 

adjacent buildings or properties. 

(3) Prohibited and restricted practices. 

The work practices listed below are 

prohibited or restricted during a 

renovation as follows: 

(i) Open-flame burning or torching of 

painted surfaces is prohibited. 

(ii) The use of machines designed to 

remove paint or other surface coatings 

through high speed operation such as 

sanding, grinding, power planing, 

needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 

sandblasting, is prohibited on painted 

surfaces unless such machines have 

shrouds or containment systems and are 

equipped with a HEPA vacuum 

attachment to collect dust and debris at 

the point of generation. Machines must 

be operated so that no visible dust or 

release of air occurs outside the shroud 

or containment system. 

(iii) Operating a heat gun on painted 

surfaces is permitted only at 

temperatures below 1,100 degrees 

Fahrenheit. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 745.86 is amended as 

follows: 

a. Add paragraph (b)(1)(iii). 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(6)(iv) 

through (vii) as paragraphs (b)(6)(v) 

through (viii), respectively. 

c. Add new paragraph (b)(6)(iv). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Records prepared by a certified 

renovator after collecting paint chip 

samples, including a description of the 

components that were tested including 

their locations, the name and address of 

the NLLAP-recognized entity 

performing the analysis, and the results 

for each sample. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iv) If paint chip samples were 

collected, that the samples were 

collected at the specified locations, that 

the specified NLLAP-recognized 

laboratory analyzed the samples, and 

that the results were as specified. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 745.90 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 

■ b. Revise paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and 

(b)(8). 

§ 745.90 Renovator certification and dust 

sampling technician certification. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Individuals who have successfully 

completed an accredited abatement 

worker or supervisor course, or 

individuals who successfully completed 

an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD model 

renovation training course before 

October 4, 2011 may take an accredited 

refresher renovator training course in 

lieu of the initial renovator training 

course to become a certified renovator. 

(3) Individuals who have successfully 

completed an accredited lead-based 

paint inspector or risk assessor course 

October 4, 2011 may take an accredited 

refresher dust sampling technician 

course in lieu of the initial training to 

become a certified dust sampling 

technician. Individuals who are 

currently certified as lead-based paint 

inspectors or risk assessors may act as 

certified dust sampling technicians 

without further training. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Must provide training to workers 

on the work practices required by 

§ 745.85(a) that they will be using in 

performing their assigned tasks. 

* * * * * 

(4) Must regularly direct work being 

performed by other individuals to 

ensure that the work practices required 

by § 745.85(a) are being followed, 

including maintaining the integrity of 

the containment barriers and ensuring 

that dust or debris does not spread 

beyond the work area. 

* * * * * 

(8) Must prepare the records required 

by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and (6). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 745.92, add paragraph (b)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of 

renovation and dust sampling technician 

training and the certification of renovation 

firms. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Accreditation or certification 

amendments. No fee will be charged for 

accreditation or certification 

amendments. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 745.225 to read as follows: 

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training 

programs: target housing and child 

occupied facilities. 

(a) Scope. (1) A training program may 

seek accreditation to offer courses in 

any of the following disciplines: 

Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, 

project designer, abatement worker, 

renovator, and dust sampling 

technician. A training program may also 

seek accreditation to offer refresher 

courses for each of the above listed 

disciplines. 

(2) Training programs may first apply 

to EPA for accreditation of their leadbased paint activities courses or 

refresher courses pursuant to this 

section on or after August 31, 1998. 

Training programs may first apply to 

EPA for accreditation of their renovator 

or dust sampling technician courses or 

refresher courses pursuant to this 

section on or after April 22, 2009. 

(3) A training program must not 

provide, offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited lead-based paint activities 

courses without applying for and 

receiving accreditation from EPA as 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section on or after March 1, 1999. A 

training program must not provide, 

offer, or claim to provide EPAaccredited renovator or dust sampling 

technician courses without applying for 

and receiving accreditation from EPA as 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section on or after June 23, 2008. 

(b) Application process. The 

following are procedures a training 

program must follow to receive EPA 

accreditation to offer lead-based paint 

activities courses, renovator courses, or 

dust sampling technician courses: 

(1) A training program seeking 

accreditation shall submit a written 

application to EPA containing the 

following information: 

(i) The training program’s name, 

address, and telephone number. 

(ii) A list of courses for which it is 

applying for accreditation. For the 

purposes of this section, courses taught 

in different languages and electronic 

learning courses are considered 

different courses, and each must 

independently meet the accreditation 

requirements. 

(iii) The name and documentation of 

the qualifications of the training 

program manager. 

(iv) The name(s) and documentation 

of qualifications of any principal 

instructor(s). 

(v) A statement signed by the training 

program manager certifying that the 

training program meets the 

requirements established in paragraph 

(c) of this section. If a training program 

uses EPA-recommended model training 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

materials, or training materials 

approved by a State or Indian Tribe that 

has been authorized by EPA under 

subpart Q of this part, the training 

program manager shall include a 

statement certifying that, as well. 

(vi) If a training program does not use 

EPA-recommended model training 

materials, its application for 

accreditation shall also include: 

(A) A copy of the student and 

instructor manuals, or other materials to 

be used for each course. 

(B) A copy of the course agenda for 

each course. 

(C) When applying for accreditation of 

a course in a language other than 

English, a signed statement from a 

qualified, independent translator that 

they had compared the course to the 

English language version and found the 

translation to be accurate. 

(vii) All training programs shall 

include in their application for 

accreditation the following: 

(A) A description of the facilities and 

equipment to be used for lecture and 

hands-on training. 

(B) A copy of the course test blueprint 

for each course. 

(C) A description of the activities and 

procedures that will be used for 

conducting the assessment of hands-on 

skills for each course. 

(D) A copy of the quality control plan 

as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 

section. 

(2) If a training program meets the 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section, then EPA shall approve the 

application for accreditation no more 

than 180 days after receiving a complete 

application from the training program. 

In the case of approval, a certificate of 

accreditation shall be sent to the 

applicant. In the case of disapproval, a 

letter describing the reasons for 

disapproval shall be sent to the 

applicant. Prior to disapproval, EPA 

may, at its discretion, work with the 

applicant to address inadequacies in the 

application for accreditation. EPA may 

also request additional materials 

retained by the training program under 

paragraph (i) of this section. If a training 

program’s application is disapproved, 

the program may reapply for 

accreditation at any time. 

(3) A training program may apply for 

accreditation to offer courses or 

refresher courses in as many disciplines 

as it chooses. A training program may 

seek accreditation for additional courses 

at any time as long as the program can 

demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements of this section. 

(4) A training program applying for 

accreditation must submit the 

appropriate fees in accordance with 

§ 745.238. 

(c) Requirements for the accreditation 

of training programs. For a training 

program to obtain accreditation from 

EPA to offer lead-based paint activities 

courses, renovator courses, or dust 

sampling technician courses, the 

program must meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) The training program shall employ 

a training manager who has: 

(i) At least 2 years of experience, 

education, or training in teaching 

workers or adults; or 

(ii) A bachelor’s or graduate degree in 

building construction technology, 

engineering, industrial hygiene, safety, 

public health, education, business 

administration or program management 

or a related field; or 

(iii) Two years of experience in 

managing a training program 

specializing in environmental hazards; 

and 

(iv) Demonstrated experience, 

education, or training in the 

construction industry including: Lead or 

asbestos abatement, painting, carpentry, 

renovation, remodeling, occupational 

safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 

(2) The training manager shall 

designate a qualified principal 

instructor for each course who has: 

(i) Demonstrated experience, 

education, or training in teaching 

workers or adults; and 

(ii) Successfully completed at least 16 

hours of any EPA-accredited or EPAauthorized State or Tribal-accredited 

lead-specific training for instructors of 

lead-based paint activities courses or 8 

hours of any EPA-accredited or EPAauthorized State or Tribal-accredited 

lead-specific training for instructors of 

renovator or dust sampling technician 

courses; and 

(iii) Demonstrated experience, 

education, or training in lead or asbestos 

abatement, painting, carpentry, 

renovation, remodeling, occupational 

safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 

(3) The principal instructor shall be 

responsible for the organization of the 

course, course delivery, and oversight of 

the teaching of all course material. The 

training manager may designate guest 

instructors as needed for a portion of the 

course to provide instruction specific to 

the lecture, hands-on activities, or work 

practice components of a course. 

However, the principal instructor is 

primarily responsible for teaching the 

course materials and must be present to 

provide instruction (or oversight of 

portions of the course taught by guest 

instructors) for the course for which he 

has been designated the principal 

instructor. 

(4) The following documents shall be 

recognized by EPA as evidence that 

training managers and principal 

instructors have the education, work 

experience, training requirements or 

demonstrated experience, specifically 

listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 

this section. This documentation must 

be submitted with the accreditation 

application and retained by the training 

program as required by the 

recordkeeping requirements contained 

in paragraph (i) of this section. Those 

documents include the following: 

(i) Official academic transcripts or 

diploma as evidence of meeting the 

education requirements. 

(ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or 

documentation of work experience, as 

evidence of meeting the work 

experience requirements. 

(iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer 

courses and lead-specific training 

courses, as evidence of meeting the 

training requirements. 

(5) The training program shall ensure 

the availability of, and provide adequate 

facilities for, the delivery of the lecture, 

course test, hands-on training, and 

assessment activities. This includes 

providing training equipment that 

reflects current work practices and 

maintaining or updating the equipment 

and facilities as needed. 

(6) To become accredited in the 

following disciplines, the training 

program shall provide training courses 

that meet the following training 

requirements: 

(i) The inspector course shall last a 

minimum of 24 training hours, with a 

minimum of 8 hours devoted to handson training activities. The minimum 

curriculum requirements for the 

inspector course are contained in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(ii) The risk assessor course shall last 

a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 

minimum of 4 hours devoted to handson training activities. The minimum 

curriculum requirements for the risk 

assessor course are contained in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

(iii) The supervisor course shall last a 

minimum of 32 training hours, with a 

minimum of 8 hours devoted to handson activities. The minimum curriculum 

requirements for the supervisor course 

are contained in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. 

(iv) The project designer course shall 

last a minimum of 8 training hours. The 

minimum curriculum requirements for 

the project designer course are 

contained in paragraph (d)(4) of this 

section. 

(v) The abatement worker course shall 

last a minimum of 16 training hours, 

with a minimum of 8 hours devoted to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47941 

hands-on training activities. The 

minimum curriculum requirements for 

the abatement worker course are 

contained in paragraph (d)(5) of this 

section. 

(vi) The renovator course must last a 

minimum of 8 training hours, with a 

minimum of 2 hours devoted to handson training activities. The minimum 

curriculum requirements for the 

renovator course are contained in 

paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 

(vii) The dust sampling technician 

course must last a minimum of 8 

training hours, with a minimum of 2 

hours devoted to hands-on training 

activities. The minimum curriculum 

requirements for the dust sampling 

technician course are contained in 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 

(viii) Electronic learning and other 

alternative course delivery methods are 

permitted for the classroom portion of 

renovator, dust sampling technician, or 

lead-based paint activities courses but 

not the hands-on portion of these 

courses, or for final course tests or 

proficiency tests described in paragraph 

(c)(7) of this section. Electronic learning 

courses must comply with the following 

requirements: 

(A) A unique identifier must be 

assigned to each student for them to use 

to launch and re-launch the course. 

(B) The training provider must track 

each student’s course log-ins, launches, 

progress, and completion, and maintain 

these records in accordance with 

paragraph (i) of this section. 

(C) The course must include periodic 

knowledge checks equivalent to the 

number and content of the knowledge 

checks contained in EPA’s model 

course, but at least 16 over the entire 

course. The knowledge checks must be 

successfully completed before the 

student can go on to the next module. 

(D) There must be a test of at least 20 

questions at the end of the electronic 

learning portion of the course, of which 

80% must be answered correctly by the 

student for successful completion of the 

electronic learning portion of the 

course. The test must be designed so 

that students to do not receive feedback 

on their test answers until after they 

have completed and submitted the test. 

(E) Each student must be able to save 

or print a copy of an electronic learning 

course completion certificate. The 

electronic certificate must not be 

susceptible to easy editing. 

(7) For each course offered, the 

training program shall conduct either a 

course test at the completion of the 

course, and if applicable, a hands-on 

skills assessment, or in the alternative, 

a proficiency test for that discipline. 

Each student must successfully 

complete the hands-on skills assessment 

and receive a passing score on the 

course test to pass any course, or 

successfully complete a proficiency test. 

(i) The training manager is 

responsible for maintaining the validity 

and integrity of the hands-on skills 

assessment or proficiency test to ensure 

that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ 

performance of the work practices and 

procedures associated with the course 

topics contained in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(ii) The training manager is 

responsible for maintaining the validity 

and integrity of the course test to ensure 

that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ 

knowledge and retention of the course 

topics. 

(iii) The course test shall be 

developed in accordance with the test 

blueprint submitted with the training 

accreditation application. 

(8) The training program shall issue 

unique course completion certificates to 

each individual who passes the training 

course. The course completion 

certificate shall include: 

(i) The name, a unique identification 

number, and address of the individual. 

(ii) The name of the particular course 

that the individual completed. 

(iii) Dates of course completion/test 

passage. 

(iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, 

project designer, supervisor, or 

abatement worker course completion 

certificates, the expiration date of 

interim certification, which is 6 months 

from the date of course completion. 

(v) The name, address, and telephone 

number of the training program. 

(vi) The language in which the course 

was taught. 

(vii) For renovator and dust sampling 

technician course completion 

certificates, a photograph of the 

individual. The photograph must be an 

accurate and recognizable image of the 

individual. As reproduced on the 

certificate, the photograph must not be 

smaller than 1 square inch. 

(9) The training manager shall 

develop and implement a quality 

control plan. The plan shall be used to 

maintain and improve the quality of the 

training program over time. This plan 

shall contain at least the following 

elements: 

(i) Procedures for periodic revision of 

training materials and the course test to 

reflect innovations in the field. 

(ii) Procedures for the training 

manager’s annual review of principal 

instructor competency. 

(10) Courses offered by the training 

program must teach the work practice 

standards contained in § 745.85 or 

§ 745.227, as applicable, in such a 

manner that trainees are provided with 

the knowledge needed to perform the 

renovations or lead-based paint 

activities they will be responsible for 

conducting. 

(11) The training manager shall be 

responsible for ensuring that the 

training program complies at all times 

with all of the requirements in this 

section. 

(12) The training manager shall allow 

EPA to audit the training program to 

verify the contents of the application for 

accreditation as described in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(13) The training manager must 

provide notification of renovator, dust 

sampling technician, or lead-based paint 

activities courses offered. 

(i) The training manager must provide 

EPA with notification of all renovator, 

dust sampling technician, or lead-based 

paint activities courses offered. The 

original notification must be received by 

EPA at least 7 business days prior to the 

start date of any renovator, dust 

sampling technician, or lead-based paint 

activities course. 

(ii) The training manager must 

provide EPA updated notification when 

renovator, dust sampling technician, or 

lead-based paint activities courses will 

begin on a date other than the start date 

specified in the original notification, as 

follows: 

(A) For renovator, dust sampling 

technician, or lead-based paint activities 

courses beginning prior to the start date 

provided to EPA, an updated 

notification must be received by EPA at 

least 7 business days before the new 

start date. 

(B) For renovator, dust sampling 

technician, or lead-based paint activities 

courses beginning after the start date 

provided to EPA, an updated 

notification must be received by EPA at 

least 2 business days before the start 

date provided to EPA. 

(iii) The training manager must 

update EPA of any change in location of 

renovator, dust sampling technician, or 

lead-based paint activities courses at 

least 7 business days prior to the start 

date provided to EPA. 

(iv) The training manager must update 

EPA regarding any course cancellations, 

or any other change to the original 

notification. Updated notifications must 

be received by EPA at least 2 business 

days prior to the start date provided to 

EPA. 

(v) Each notification, including 

updates, must include the following: 

(A) Notification type (original, update, 

cancellation). 

(B) Training program name, EPA 

accreditation number, address, and 

telephone number. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(C) Course discipline, type (initial/ 

refresher), and the language in which 

instruction will be given. 

(D) Date(s) and time(s) of training. 

(E) Training location(s) telephone 

number, and address. 

(F) Principal instructor’s name. 

(G) Training manager’s name and 

signature. 

(vi) Notification must be 

accomplished using any of the following 

methods: Written notification, or 

electronically using the Agency’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 

notification of lead-based paint 

activities course schedules can be 

accomplished by using either the 

sample form titled ‘‘Lead-Based Paint 

Training Notification’’ or a similar form 

containing the information required in 

paragraph (c)(13)(v) of this section. All 

written notifications must be delivered 

to EPA by U.S. Postal Service, fax, 

commercial delivery service, or hand 

delivery (persons submitting 

notification by U.S. Postal Service are 

reminded that they should allow 3 

additional business days for delivery in 

order to ensure that EPA receives the 

notification by the required date). 

Instructions and sample forms can be 

obtained from the NLIC at 1–800–424– 

LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/lead. Hearing- or 

speech-impaired persons may reach the 

above telephone number through TTY 

by calling the toll-free Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8339. 

(vii) Renovator, dust sampling 

technician, or lead-based paint activities 

courses must not begin on a date, or at 

a location other than that specified in 

the original notification unless an 

updated notification identifying a new 

start date or location is submitted, in 

which case the course must begin on the 

new start date and/or location specified 

in the updated notification. 

(viii) No training program shall 

provide renovator, dust sampling 

technician, or lead-based paint activities 

courses without first notifying EPA of 

such activities in accordance with the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(14) The training manager must 

provide notification following 

completion of renovator, dust sampling 

technician, or lead-based paint activities 

courses. 

(i) The training manager must provide 

EPA notification after the completion of 

any lead-based paint activities course. 

This notice must be received by EPA no 

later than 10 business days following 

course completion. 

(ii) The notification must include the 

following: 

(A) Training program name, EPA 

accreditation number, address, and 

telephone number. 

(B) Course discipline and type 

(initial/refresher). 

(C) Date(s) of training. 

(D) The following information for 

each student who took the course: 

(1) Name. 

(2) Address. 

(3) Date of birth. 

(4) Course completion certificate 

number. 

(5) Course test score. 

(6) For renovator or dust sampling 

technician courses, a digital photograph 

of the student. 

(E) Training manager’s name and 

signature. 

(iii) Notification must be 

accomplished using any of the following 

methods: Written notification, or 

electronically using the Agency’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 

notification following renovator, dust 

sampling technician, or lead-based paint 

activities training courses can be 

accomplished by using either the 

sample form titled ‘‘Lead-Based Paint 

Training Course Follow-up’’ or a similar 

form containing the information 

required in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) of this 

section. All written notifications must 

be delivered to EPA by U.S. Postal 

Service, fax, commercial delivery 

service, or hand delivery (persons 

submitting notification by U.S. Postal 

Service are reminded that they should 

allow 3 additional business days for 

delivery in order to ensure that EPA 

receives the notification by the required 

date). Instructions and sample forms can 

be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800– 

424–LEAD (5323), or on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/lead. 

(d) Minimum training curriculum 

requirements. To become accredited to 

offer lead-based paint courses in the 

specific disciplines listed in this 

paragraph, training programs must 

ensure that their courses of study 

include, at a minimum, the following 

course topics. 

(1) Inspector. Instruction in the topics 

described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv), (v), 

(vi), and (vii) of this section must be 

included in the hands-on portion of the 

course. 

(i) Role and responsibilities of an 

inspector. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on 

Federal, State, and local regulations and 

guidance that pertains to lead-based 

paint and lead- based paint activities. 

(iv) Lead-based paint inspection 

methods, including selection of rooms 

and components for sampling or testing. 

(v) Paint, dust, and soil sampling 

methodologies. 

(vi) Clearance standards and testing, 

including random sampling. 

(vii) Preparation of the final 

inspection report. 

(viii) Recordkeeping. 

(2) Risk assessor. Instruction in the 

topics described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), 

(vi), and (vii) of this section must be 

included in the hands-on portion of the 

course. 

(i) Role and responsibilities of a risk 

assessor. 

(ii) Collection of background 

information to perform a risk 

assessment. 

(iii) Sources of environmental lead 

contamination such as paint, surface 

dust and soil, water, air, packaging, and 

food. 

(iv) Visual inspection for the purposes 

of identifying potential sources of leadbased paint hazards. 

(v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 

(vi) Sampling for other sources of lead 

exposure. 

(vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint 

and other lead sampling results, 

including all applicable Federal or State 

guidance or regulations pertaining to 

lead-based paint hazards. 

(viii) Development of hazard control 

options, the role of interim controls, and 

operations and maintenance activities to 

reduce lead-based paint hazards. 

(ix) Preparation of a final risk 

assessment report. 

(3) Supervisor. Instruction in the 

topics described in paragraphs (d)(3)(v), 

(vii), (viii), (ix), and (x) of this section 

must be included in the hands-on 

portion of the course. 

(i) Role and responsibilities of a 

supervisor. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on 

Federal, State, and local regulations and 

guidance that pertain to lead-based 

paint abatement. 

(iv) Liability and insurance issues 

relating to lead-based paint abatement. 

(v) Risk assessment and inspection 

report interpretation. 

(vi) Development and implementation 

of an occupant protection plan and 

abatement report. 

(vii) Lead-based paint hazard 

recognition and control. 

(viii) Lead-based paint abatement and 

lead-based paint hazard reduction 

methods, including restricted practices. 

(ix) Interior dust abatement/cleanup 

or lead-based paint hazard control and 

reduction methods. 

(x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or 

lead-based paint hazard control and 

reduction methods. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47943 

(xi) Clearance standards and testing. 

(xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 

(xiii) Recordkeeping. 

(4) Project designer. (i) Role and 

responsibilities of a project designer. 

(ii) Development and implementation 

of an occupant protection plan for largescale abatement projects. 

(iii) Lead-based paint abatement and 

lead-based paint hazard reduction 

methods, including restricted practices 

for large-scale abatement projects. 

(iv) Interior dust abatement/cleanup 

or lead hazard control and reduction 

methods for large-scale abatement 

projects. 

(v) Clearance standards and testing for 

large scale abatement projects. 

(vi) Integration of lead-based paint 

abatement methods with modernization 

and rehabilitation projects for large 

scale abatement projects. 

(5) Abatement worker. Instruction in 

the topics described in paragraphs 

(d)(5)(iv), (v), (vi), and (vii) of this 

section must be included in the handson portion of the course. 

(i) Role and responsibilities of an 

abatement worker. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on 

Federal, State and local regulations and 

guidance that pertain to lead-based 

paint abatement. 

(iv) Lead-based paint hazard 

recognition and control. 

(v) Lead-based paint abatement and 

lead-based paint hazard reduction 

methods, including restricted practices. 

(vi) Interior dust abatement methods/ 

cleanup or lead-based paint hazard 

reduction. 

(vii) Soil and exterior dust abatement 

methods or lead-based paint hazard 

reduction. 

(6) Renovator. Instruction in the 

topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv), 

(vi), (vii), and (viii) of this section must 

be included in the hands-on portion of 

the course. 

(i) Role and responsibility of a 

renovator. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on EPA, 

HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, 

and local regulations and guidance that 

pertains to lead-based paint and 

renovation activities. 

(iv) Procedures for using acceptable 

test kits to determine whether paint is 

lead-based paint. 

(v) Procedures for collecting a paint 

chip sample and sending it to a 

laboratory recognized by EPA under 

section 405(b) of TSCA. 

(vi) Renovation methods to minimize 

the creation of dust and lead-based 

paint hazards. 

(vii) Interior and exterior containment 

and cleanup methods. 

(viii) Methods to ensure that the 

renovation has been properly 

completed, including cleaning 

verification and clearance testing. 

(ix) Waste handling and disposal. 

(x) Providing on-the-job training to 

other workers. 

(xi) Record preparation. 

(7) Dust sampling technician. 

Instruction in the topics described in 

paragraphs (d)(6)(iv) and (vi) of this 

section must be included in the handson portion of the course. 

(i) Role and responsibility of a dust 

sampling technician. 

(ii) Background information on lead 

and its adverse health effects. 

(iii) Background information on 

Federal, State, and local regulations and 

guidance that pertains to lead-based 

paint and renovation activities. 

(iv) Dust sampling methodologies. 

(v) Clearance standards and testing. 

(vi) Report preparation. 

(e) Requirements for the accreditation 

of refresher training programs. A 

training program may seek accreditation 

to offer refresher training courses in any 

of the following disciplines: Inspector, 

risk assessor, supervisor, project 

designer, abatement worker, renovator, 

and dust sampling technician. To obtain 

EPA accreditation to offer refresher 

training, a training program must meet 

the following minimum requirements: 

(1) Each refresher course shall review 

the curriculum topics of the full-length 

courses listed under paragraph (d) of 

this section, as appropriate. In addition, 

to become accredited to offer refresher 

training courses, training programs shall 

ensure that their courses of study 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(i) An overview of current safety 

practices relating to lead-based paint in 

general, as well as specific information 

pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

(ii) Current laws and regulations 

relating to lead-based paint in general, 

as well as specific information 

pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

(iii) Current technologies relating to 

lead-based paint in general, as well as 

specific information pertaining to the 

appropriate discipline. 

(2) Refresher courses for inspector, 

risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement 

worker must last a minimum of 8 

training hours. Refresher courses for 

project designer, renovator, and dust 

sampling technician must last a 

minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher 

courses for all disciplines except project 

designer must include a hands-on 

component. 

(3) Except for project designer 

courses, for all other courses offered, the 

training program shall conduct a handson assessment, and at the completion of 

the course, a course test. 

(4) A training program may apply for 

accreditation of a refresher course 

concurrently with its application for 

accreditation of the corresponding 

training course as described in 

paragraph (b) of this section. If so, EPA 

shall use the approval procedure 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. In addition, the minimum 

requirements contained in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(5) and (c)(7) through 

(c)(14), and (e)(1),through (e)(3) of this 

section shall also apply. 

(5) A training program seeking 

accreditation to offer refresher training 

courses only shall submit a written 

application to EPA containing the 

following information: 

(i) The refresher training program’s 

name, address, and telephone number. 

(ii) A list of courses for which it is 

applying for accreditation. 

(iii) The name and documentation of 

the qualifications of the training 

program manager. 

(iv) The name(s) and documentation 

of the qualifications of the principal 

instructor(s). 

(v) A statement signed by the training 

program manager certifying that the 

refresher training program meets the 

minimum requirements established in 

paragraph (c) of this section, except for 

the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of 

this section. If a training program uses 

EPA-developed model training 

materials, or training materials 

approved by a State or Indian Tribe that 

has been authorized by EPA under 

§ 745.324 to develop its refresher 

training course materials, the training 

manager shall include a statement 

certifying that, as well. 

(vi) If the refresher training course 

materials are not based on EPAdeveloped model training materials, the 

training program’s application for 

accreditation shall include: 

(A) A copy of the student and 

instructor manuals to be used for each 

course. 

(B) A copy of the course agenda for 

each course. 

(vii) All refresher training programs 

shall include in their application for 

accreditation the following: 

(A) A description of the facilities and 

equipment to be used for lecture and 

hands-on training. 

(B) A copy of the course test blueprint 

for each course. 

(C) A description of the activities and 

procedures that will be used for 

conducting the assessment of hands-on 

skills for each course (if applicable). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47944 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(D) A copy of the quality control plan 

as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 

section. 

(viii) The requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(5), and (c)(7) through 

(c)(14) of this section apply to refresher 

training providers. 

(ix) If a refresher training program 

meets the requirements listed in this 

paragraph, then EPA shall approve the 

application for accreditation no more 

than 180 days after receiving a complete 

application from the refresher training 

program. In the case of approval, a 

certificate of accreditation shall be sent 

to the applicant. In the case of 

disapproval, a letter describing the 

reasons for disapproval shall be sent to 

the applicant. Prior to disapproval, EPA 

may, at its discretion, work with the 

applicant to address inadequacies in the 

application for accreditation. EPA may 

also request additional materials 

retained by the refresher training 

program under paragraph (i) of this 

section. If a refresher training program’s 

application is disapproved, the program 

may reapply for accreditation at any 

time. 

(f) Re-accreditation of training 

programs. (1) Unless re-accredited, a 

training program’s accreditation, 

including refresher training 

accreditation, shall expire 4 years after 

the date of issuance. If a training 

program meets the requirements of this 

section, the training program shall be 

reaccredited. 

(2) A training program seeking reaccreditation shall submit an 

application to EPA no later than 180 

days before its accreditation expires. If 

a training program does not submit its 

application for re-accreditation by that 

date, EPA cannot guarantee that the 

program will be re-accredited before the 

end of the accreditation period. 

(3) The training program’s application 

for re-accreditation shall contain: 

(i) The training program’s name, 

address, and telephone number. 

(ii) A list of courses for which it is 

applying for re-accreditation. 

(iii) The name and qualifications of 

the training program manager. 

(iv) The name(s) and qualifications of 

the principal instructor(s). 

(v) A description of any changes to 

the training facility, equipment or 

course materials since its last 

application was approved that adversely 

affects the students’ ability to learn. 

(vi) A statement signed by the 

program manager stating: 

(A) That the training program 

complies at all times with all 

requirements in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 

this section, as applicable; and 

(B) The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this 

section shall be followed. 

(vii) A payment of appropriate fees in 

accordance with § 745.238. 

(4) Upon request, the training program 

shall allow EPA to audit the training 

program to verify the contents of the 

application for re-accreditation as 

described in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section. 

(g) Suspension, revocation, and 

modification of accredited training 

programs. (1) EPA may, after notice and 

an opportunity for hearing, suspend, 

revoke, or modify training program 

accreditation, including refresher 

training accreditation, if a training 

program, training manager, or other 

person with supervisory authority over 

the training program has: 

(i) Misrepresented the contents of a 

training course to EPA and/or the 

student population. 

(ii) Failed to submit required 

information or notifications in a timely 

manner. 

(iii) Failed to maintain required 

records. 

(iv) Falsified accreditation records, 

instructor qualifications, or other 

accreditation-related information or 

documentation. 

(v) Failed to comply with the training 

standards and requirements in this 

section. 

(vi) Failed to comply with Federal, 

State, or local lead-based paint statutes 

or regulations. 

(vii) Made false or misleading 

statements to EPA in its application for 

accreditation or re-accreditation which 

EPA relied upon in approving the 

application. 

(2) In addition to an administrative or 

judicial finding of violation, execution 

of a consent agreement in settlement of 

an enforcement action constitutes, for 

purposes of this section, evidence of a 

failure to comply with relevant statutes 

or regulations. 

(h) Procedures for suspension, 

revocation or modification of training 

program accreditation. (1) Prior to 

taking action to suspend, revoke, or 

modify the accreditation of a training 

program, EPA shall notify the affected 

entity in writing of the following: 

(i) The legal and factual basis for the 

suspension, revocation, or modification. 

(ii) The anticipated commencement 

date and duration of the suspension, 

revocation, or modification. 

(iii) Actions, if any, which the 

affected entity may take to avoid 

suspension, revocation, or modification, 

or to receive accreditation in the future. 

(iv) The opportunity and method for 

requesting a hearing prior to final EPA 

action to suspend, revoke or modify 

accreditation. 

(v) Any additional information, as 

appropriate, which EPA may provide. 

(2) If a hearing is requested by the 

accredited training program, EPA shall: 

(i) Provide the affected entity an 

opportunity to offer written statements 

in response to EPA’s assertions of the 

legal and factual basis for its proposed 

action, and any other explanations, 

comments, and arguments it deems 

relevant to the proposed action. 

(ii) Provide the affected entity such 

other procedural opportunities as EPA 

may deem appropriate to ensure a fair 

and impartial hearing. 

(iii) Appoint an official of EPA as 

Presiding Officer to conduct the hearing. 

No person shall serve as Presiding 

Officer if he or she has had any prior 

connection with the specific matter. 

(3) The Presiding Officer appointed 

pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this 

section shall: 

(i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and 

impartial hearing within 90 days of the 

request for a hearing. 

(ii) Consider all relevant evidence, 

explanation, comment, and argument 

submitted. 

(iii) Notify the affected entity in 

writing within 90 days of completion of 

the hearing of his or her decision and 

order. Such an order is a final agency 

action which may be subject to judicial 

review. 

(4) If EPA determines that the public 

health, interest, or welfare warrants 

immediate action to suspend the 

accreditation of any training program 

prior to the opportunity for a hearing, it 

shall: 

(i) Notify the affected entity of its 

intent to immediately suspend training 

program accreditation for the reasons 

listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. 

If a suspension, revocation, or 

modification notice has not previously 

been issued pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) 

of this section, it shall be issued at the 

same time the emergency suspension 

notice is issued. 

(ii) Notify the affected entity in 

writing of the grounds for the immediate 

suspension and why it is necessary to 

suspend the entity’s accreditation before 

an opportunity for a suspension, 

revocation or modification hearing. 

(iii) Notify the affected entity of the 

anticipated commencement date and 

duration of the immediate suspension. 

(iv) Notify the affected entity of its 

right to request a hearing on the 

immediate suspension within 15 days of 

the suspension taking place and the 

procedures for the conduct of such a 

hearing. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47945 

(5) Any notice, decision, or order 

issued by EPA under this section, any 

transcripts or other verbatim record of 

oral testimony, and any documents filed 

by an accredited training program in a 

hearing under this section shall be 

available to the public, except as 

otherwise provided by section 14 of 

TSCA or by 40 CFR part 2. Any such 

hearing at which oral testimony is 

presented shall be open to the public, 

except that the Presiding Officer may 

exclude the public to the extent 

necessary to allow presentation of 

information which may be entitled to 

confidential treatment under section 14 

of TSCA or 40 CFR part 2. 

(6) The public shall be notified of the 

suspension, revocation, modification or 

reinstatement of a training program’s 

accreditation through appropriate 

mechanisms. 

(7) EPA shall maintain a list of parties 

whose accreditation has been 

suspended, revoked, modified or 

reinstated. 

(i) Training program recordkeeping 

requirements. (1) Accredited training 

programs shall maintain, and make 

available to EPA, upon request, the 

following records: 

(i) All documents specified in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section that 

demonstrate the qualifications listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 

section of the training manager and 

principal instructors. 

(ii) Current curriculum/course 

materials and documents reflecting any 

changes made to these materials. 

(iii) The course test blueprint. 

(iv) Information regarding how the 

hands-on assessment is conducted 

including, but not limited to: 

(A) Who conducts the assessment. 

(B) How the skills are graded. 

(C) What facilities are used. 

(D) The pass/fail rate. 

(v) The quality control plan as 

described in paragraph (c)(9) of this 

section. 

(vi) Results of the students’ hands-on 

skills assessments and course tests, and 

a record of each student’s course 

completion certificate. 

(vii) Any other material not listed in 

paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(vi) of 

this section that was submitted to EPA 

as part of the program’s application for 

accreditation. 

(viii) For renovator refresher and dust 

sampling technician refresher courses, a 

copy of each trainee’s prior course 

completion certificate showing that each 

trainee was eligible to take the refresher 

course. 

(ix) For course modules delivered in 

an electronic format, a record of each 

student’s log-ins, launches, progress, 

and completion, and a copy of the 

electronic learning completion 

certificate for each student. 

(2) The training program must retain 

records pertaining to renovator, dust 

sampling technician and lead-based 

paint activities courses at the address 

specified on the training program 

accreditation application (or as 

modified in accordance with paragraph 

(i)(3) of this section) for the following 

minimum periods: 

(i) Records pertaining to lead-based 

paint activities courses must be retained 

for a minimum of 3 years and 6 months. 

(ii) Records pertaining to renovator or 

dust sampling technician courses 

offered before April 22, 2010 must be 

retained until July 1, 2015. 

(iii) Records pertaining to renovator or 

dust sampling technician courses 

offered on or after April 22, 2010 must 

be retained for a minimum of 5 years. 

(3) The training program shall notify 

EPA in writing within 30 days of 

changing the address specified on its 

training program accreditation 

application or transferring the records 

from that address. 

(j) Amendment of accreditation. (1) A 

training program must amend its 

accreditation within 90 days of the date 

a change occurs to information included 

in the program’s most recent 

application. If the training program fails 

to amend its accreditation within 90 

days of the date the change occurs, the 

program may not provide renovator, 

dust sampling technician, or lead-based 

paint activities training until its 

accreditation is amended. 

(2) To amend an accreditation, a 

training program must submit a 

completed ‘‘Accreditation Application 

for Training Providers,’’ signed by an 

authorized agent of the training 

provider, noting on the form that it is 

submitted as an amendment and 

indicating the information that has 

changed. 

(3) Training managers, principal 

instructors, permanent training 

locations. If the amendment includes a 

new training program manager, any new 

or additional principal instructor(s), or 

any new permanent training location(s), 

the training provider is not permitted to 

provide training under the new training 

manager or offer courses taught by any 

new principal instructor(s) or at the new 

training location(s) until EPA either 

approves the amendment or 30 days 

have elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. 

Except: 

(i) If the amendment includes a new 

training program manager or new or 

additional principal instructor that was 

identified in a training provider 

accreditation application that EPA has 

already approved under this section, the 

training provider may begin to provide 

training under the new training manager 

or offer courses taught by the new 

principal instructor on an interim basis 

as soon as the provider submits the 

amendment to EPA. The training 

provider may continue to provide 

training under the new training manager 

or offer courses taught by the new 

principal instructor if EPA approves the 

amendment or if EPA does not 

disapprove the amendment within 30 

days. 

(ii) If the amendment includes a new 

permanent training location, the 

training provider may begin to provide 

training at the new permanent training 

location on an interim basis as soon as 

the provider submits the amendment to 

EPA. The training provider may 

continue to provide training at the new 

permanent training location if EPA 

approves the amendment or if EPA does 

not disapprove the amendment within 

30 days. 

■ 9. In § 745.238, add paragraph (c)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 745.238 Fees for accreditation and 

certification of lead-based paint activities. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) Accreditation amendment fees. No 

fee will be charged for accreditation 

amendments. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 745.326, revise paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal 

program requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Procedures and requirements for 

the accreditation of renovation and dust 

sampling technician training programs. 

A State and Tribal program is not 

required to include procedures and 

requirements for the dust sampling 

technician training discipline if the 

State or Tribal program requires dust 

sampling to be performed by a certified 

lead-based paint inspector or risk 

assessor. 

(ii) Procedures and requirements for 

accredited initial and refresher training 

for renovators and dust sampling 

technicians and on-the-job training for 

other individuals who perform 

renovations. 

* * * * * 

(d) Certification of individuals and/or 

renovation firms. To be considered at 

least as protective as the Federal 

program, the State or Tribal program 

must: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4

47946 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Establish procedures and 

requirements that ensure that 

individuals who perform or direct 

renovations are properly trained. These 

procedures and requirements must 

include: 

(i) A requirement that renovations be 

performed and directed by at least one 

individual who has been trained by an 

accredited training program. 

(ii) Procedures and requirements for 

accredited refresher training for these 

individuals. 

(iii) Procedures and requirements for 

individuals who have received 

accredited training to provide on-the-job 

training for those individuals who 

perform renovations but do not receive 

accredited training. A State and Tribal 

program is not required to include 

procedures and requirements for on-thejob training for renovation workers if the 

State or Tribal program requires 

accredited initial and refresher training 

for all persons who perform 

renovations. 

(2) Establish procedures and 

requirements for the formal certification 

and re-certification of renovation firms. 

(3) Establish procedures for the 

suspension, revocation, or modification 

of certifications. 

(e) * * * 

(1) Renovations must be conducted 

only by certified renovation firms, using 

trained individuals. 

* * * * * 

(3) Certified individuals and/or 

renovation firms must retain 

appropriate records. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In § 745.327, revise paragraphs 

(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based 

paint compliance and enforcement 

programs. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Lead-based paint activities or 

renovation requirements. State or Tribal 

lead-based paint compliance and 

enforcement programs will be 

considered adequate if the State or 

Indian Tribe demonstrates, in its 

application at § 745.324(b)(2), that it has 

established a lead-based paint program 

that contains all of the elements 

specified in § 745.325 or § 745.326, or 

both, as applicable. 

(2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal 

officials must be able to enter, through 

consent, warrant, or other authority, 

premises or facilities where lead-based 

paint violations may occur for purposes 

of conducting inspections. 

(i) State or Tribal officials must be 

able to enter premises or facilities where 

those engaged in training for lead-based 

paint activities or renovations conduct 

business. 

(ii) For the purposes of enforcing a 

renovation program, State or Tribal 

officials must be able to enter a firm’s 

place of business or work site. 

(iii) State or Tribal officials must have 

authority to take samples and review 

records as part of the lead-based paint 

inspection process. 

(3) Flexible remedies. A State or 

Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 

enforcement program must provide for a 

diverse and flexible array of 

enforcement statutory and regulatory 

authorities and remedies. At a 

minimum, these authorities and 

remedies, which must also be reflected 

in an enforcement response policy, must 

include the following: 

(i) The authority to issue warning 

letters, Notices of Noncompliance, 

Notices of Violation, or the equivalent; 

(ii) The authority to assess 

administrative or civil fines, including a 

maximum penalty authority for any 

violation in an amount no less than 

$5,000 per violation per day; 

(iii) The authority to assess the 

maximum penalties or fines for each 

instance of violation and, if the 

violation is continuous, the authority to 

assess penalties or fines up to the 

maximum amount for each day of 

violation, with all penalties assessed or 

collected being appropriate for the 

violation after consideration of factors 

as the State or Tribe determine to be 

relevant, including the size or viability 

of the business, enforcement history, 

risks to human health or the 

environment posed by the violation, and 

other similar factors; 

(iv) The authority to commence an 

administrative proceeding or to sue in 

courts of competent jurisdiction to 

recover penalties; 

(v) The authority to suspend, revoke, 

or modify the accreditation of any 

training provider or the certification of 

any individual or firm; 

(vi) The authority to commence an 

administrative proceeding or to sue in 

courts of competent jurisdiction to 

enjoin any threatened or continuing 

violation of any program requirement, 

without the necessity of a prior 

suspension or revocation of a trainer’s 

accreditation or a firm’s or individual’s 

certification; 

(vii) The authority to apply criminal 

sanctions, including recovering fines; 

and 

(viii) The authority to enforce its 

authorized program using a burden of 

proof standard, including the degree of 

knowledge or intent of the respondent 

that is no greater than it is for EPA 

under TSCA. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Compliance assistance. A State or 

Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 

enforcement program must provide 

compliance assistance to the public and 

the regulated community to facilitate 

awareness and understanding of and 

compliance with State or Tribal 

requirements governing the conduct of 

lead-based paint activities or 

renovations. The type and nature of this 

assistance can be defined by the State or 

Indian Tribe to achieve this goal. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–19417 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES4